I read the WSJ piece about Greenspan’s book. He basically criticizes the Republican Congress for spending like drunken sailors, and Bush for not following his advice of vetoing some of his pork-laden bills. He’s a libertarian who was disappointed in the Republicans.
Guess what, I agree with him 100%. And Bill Clinton’s economic legacy will be positive since his wife’s horrible socialized medicine plan failed.
Just because some of us like Bush on certain things, such as the tax cut and the great judges he nominated, doesn’t mean that he was good domesticly. His “compassionate conservative” saying should have been a warning...
Greenspan is a d**khead.There, I said it.
The guy who CAUSED the 2001 crash finally speaks.
If Greenspan is soooo smart, how come he married Andrea Mitchell?
“The Clinton administration was a pretty centrist party,” he said. “But they’re not governing again. The next administration may have the Clinton administration name but the Democratic Party...has moved...very significantly in the wrong direction,” he said, referring to the Democratic Party’s populist bent, especially its skepticism of free trade.
“I’m saddened by the whole political process, and it’s not an accident that Republicans deserved to lose in 2006 — it wasn’t that the Democrats deserved to win,” he said. “When it came time to rule, all of a sudden their ratings collapsed, and the reason they collapsed is they’re just as negative as the Republicans.” - Greenspan
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118999003209929296.html?mod=fpa_whatsnews
“I was brought up in the Republican Party of [Barry] Goldwater. He was for fiscal restraint and for deregulation, for open markets, for trade,” Mr. Greenspan said in the interview. “Social issues were not a critical factor. The Republican Party, which ruled the House, the Senate and the presidency, I no longer recognize. It’s fundamentally been focusing on how to maintain political power, and my question is, for what purpose?”
He also expresses puzzlement over Mr. Bush’s and Mr. Cheney’s continued advocacy of antiterrorism policies that have the effect of curtailing civil liberties. If there had been additional terrorist attacks in the U.S. after Sept. 11, 2001, he said, “Cheney’s and Bush’s view would be now far more prevalent” in the U.S. But “when events changed, they held the views that they previously held.” He adds that while he doesn’t like their stance, “I don’t know what should have been done otherwise” because he lacks the access to classified information that they have.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118999003209929296.html?mod=fpa_whatsnews
Greenspan was the “maestro” poster boy for central government planning. He gloated in the interview about his influence over Clinton economic policy.
He said that Ford was “not the smartest”, but that he had the “decency” to say to Greenspan, “Let’s forget facts, for a moment. What’s the ‘right’ thing to do for the economy?” That approach from a government official should make any rational human being shudder. Greenspan loved it, because the President gave him (Greenspan) the power to impose his view of “right” and “fairness”, irrespective of the facts.
Nixon brought Greenspan and several other Jews from private business into government service in his administration, e.g., Arthur Burns, Herb Stein, Ben Stein, Henry Kissinger, Leonard Garment, Bill Safire. In some instances, Nixon rescued them from an obscurity they richly deserved, e.g., Burns urged wage-and-price controls on Nixon.
As for Nixon and the Jews, all that need be said on this subject was concisely said by Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin: "Clinton's not the best friend Israel ever had. Bush was OK, Carter was God-awful, Reagan was wonderful to us, but Israel's life was endangered only once and the man who saved us was Richard Nixon. Thank God for Richard Nixon."
As for the relative intelligence of the U.S. Presidents of the 20th century, most objective analysts conclude that Nixon was likely the most intelligent of the group. If anything else need be said on this subject, it was said by another, more gifted economist than Greenspan, namely, Milton Friedman who, when asked his opinion of Nixon by Charlie Rose in a PBS interview, replied:
"Nixon was one of the most intelligent men I have ever known."
Amen.
Funny......NO ONE knew what this guy said when he had a JOB, but now everybody knows what he means!
No. He may have implied that Nixon was vulgar, etc, but he did not "infer" it.
The listener infers things from what is said. The speaker implies things with what he says.
Don’t forget that 60 minutes has a reputation for editing the hell out of interviews to the point that the person being interviewed appears to be giving an opinion 180 degrees off from what they said in totality.