He just wrote his book. Some highlights:


WASHINGTON, Sept. 14 — Alan Greenspan, who was chairman of the Federal Reserve for nearly two decades, in a long-awaited memoir, is harshly critical of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Republican-controlled Congress, as abandoning their party’s principles on spending and deficits.

In the 500-page book, “The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,” Mr. Greenspan describes the Bush administration as so captive to its own political operation that it paid little attention to fiscal discipline, and he described Mr. Bush’s first two Treasury secretaries, Paul H. O’Neill and John W. Snow, as essentially powerless.

Mr. Bush, he writes, was never willing to contain spending or veto bills that drove the country into deeper and deeper deficits, as Congress abandoned rules that required that the cost of tax cuts be offset by savings elsewhere. “The Republicans in Congress lost their way,” writes Mr. Greenspan, a self-described “libertarian Republican.”

“They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose” in the 2006 election, when they lost control of the House and Senate.
and


Of the presidents he worked with, Mr. Greenspan reserves his highest praise for Bill Clinton, whom he described in his book as a sponge for economic data who maintained “a consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth.”

It was a presidency marred by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, he writes, but he fondly describes his alliance with two of Mr. Clinton’s Treasury secretaries, Robert E. Rubin and Lawrence H. Summers, in battling financial crises in Latin America and then Asia.

By contrast, Mr. Greenspan paints a picture of Mr. Bush as a man driven more by ideology and the desire to fulfill campaign promises made in 2000, incurious about the effects of his economic policy, and an administration incapable of executing policy.
The entire article at

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/business/15greenspan.html?hp

Of course Greenspan is well known to be a Communist sympathizer.

some one once said
"economy stupid":D:D:D

some one once said
"economy stupid":D:D:D

They must have been talking to Bush:D

Pretty sad that the republicans lost their principles for soundbites on TV. I like that "taxcut and spend" is now shown to be worse than "tax and spend".

The strength of conservative politics is not pushing losing "Success in Iraq", it is maintaining the principles of small, effective government.

Until that happens, I'll take congressional gridlock over a pork-barrel majority and a non-stop rubber stamp for ridiculous spending bills.

I'm with toecheese on that.Gridlock =no spending increases hopefully.I knew Bush was an idiot when he let Kennedy in the White House,much less write an education bill.Medicare prescription plan should've got an ax too.Along with the pork like that ass from Alaska they are looking to get rid of.

Now if we can only get some spending cuts without reducing our military to the equivalent of France's and cutting their(veterans) WELL EARNED benefits.The medical treatment my father(Korea and Viet Nam) and uncles (South Pacific WW2) have received is treasonous.

The medical treatment my father(Korea and Viet Nam) and uncles (South Pacific WW2) have received is treasonous.

We can't afford to give your uncle and father good treatment. We are spending too much creating more injured vets that will need care, and of course cutting taxes at the same time. It wouldn't be fair to ask a CEO's kid to drive a Ford instead of a Mercedes just so we could afford to care for vets.

We can't afford to give your uncle and father good treatment. We are spending too much creating more injured vets that will need care, and of course cutting taxes at the same time. It wouldn't be fair to ask a CEO's kid to drive a Ford instead of a Mercedes just so we could afford to care for vets.

Bill,

It isn't tax cuts that are too blame for bad medical care for our vets.

If you feel your taxes aren't high enough, you can send in more money.

Bill,

It isn't tax cuts that are too blame for bad medical care for our vets.



This isn't rocket science Bret.

It would take more money to provide better care.

We are spending huge amounts of money in Iraq, and we have cut taxes on the wealthiest tiny portion of the population.

More spending for the war and less tax revenue means less money for other things, be they health care for vets, education, bridges, or whatever.

My taxes were not cut in the first place- it was just taxes for the rich that were cut. But even if I volunteered to send more money, it wouldn't really help would it. I want you to be forced to send more money too. Then it will be enough to make a difference.

Of course I'd really prefer that we just quit spending billions on a counterproductive war of choice. That would be a two-edged sword. We would have a lot more money to spend on care for vets, and a lot fewer wounded vets to care for. But your President wants to string it out and dump the problem on hs successor.

This isn't rocket science Bret.

It would take more money to provide better care.

We are spending huge amounts of money in Iraq, and we have cut taxes on the wealthiest tiny portion of the population.

More spending for the war and less tax revenue means less money for other things, be they health care for vets, education, bridges, or whatever.

My taxes were not cut in the first place- it was just taxes for the rich that were cut. But even if I volunteered to send more money, it wouldn't really help would it. I want you to be forced to send more money too. Then it will be enough to make a difference.

Of course I'd really prefer that we just quit spending billions on a counterproductive war of choice. That would be a two-edged sword. We would have a lot more money to spend on care for vets, and a lot fewer wounded vets to care for. But your President wants to string it out and dump the problem on hs successor.

Bill,

Even if we did not got to Iraq, there would still be people wanting free health care.

Funny you bring up bridges, I guess it is because of the recent bridge collapse, yet they have money to repair and or replace bridges, but I guess it is Bush's fault the bridge collapsed because he was authorized to go to war in Iraq.

Bush is just as much your President as he is mine, I am not fond of him, but I don't let my hatred for him cloud my view of reality.

When Reagen cut taxes Revenue actually increased, not sure if it has under Bush, that will take some research.

The people of the United States are taxed Too Much, not Too little, if people want health care, they should buy it and not expect me to pay for it.

Why should anyone be forced to pay for someone else's health care in the first place?

Bill,


The people of the United States are taxed Too Much, not Too little, if people want health care, they should buy it and not expect me to pay for it.

Why should anyone be forced to pay for someone else's health care in the first place?

'People' in this case(if you read the above threads) refers to wounded vets and the care they are/aren't getting due to a reduced budget,alot of federal agencies(mine included) that perform important functions.So,to make sure we're on the same page,and I believe we are;you're not saying that wounded vets and retired vets shouldn't get 'free' health care ?I would agree that nationalized healthcare as a whole isn't a great idea,but vets have earned their healthcare.

Bush is just as much your President as he is mine, I am not fond of him, but I don't let my hatred for him cloud my view of reality.


You voted for him- I didn't.

And as far as "my hatred" clouding my view- please note the title of this thread. Alan Greenspan is uber-Republican, but he also deals with reality.

He says Bush didn't want to know anythiing about economics, let political promises over ride good policy, and that Clinton was the best President he worked with on economics.

And BTW, Clinton raised taxes and balanced the budget.

And as far as medical care for vets goes- throughout my career I was told that if I hung in there until eligibility for retirement, I'd have medical care for life. As a practical matter, I had no medical care from the time I retired untll I turned 65. My wife added me to her group health plan, and of course I paid a premium.

Thank God I had few major problems before turning 65 and becoming eligible for Medicare, the kind of program that you don't like.

'People' in this case(if you read the above threads) refers to wounded vets and the care they are/aren't getting due to a reduced budget,alot of federal agencies(mine included) that perform important functions.So,to make sure we're on the same page,and I believe we are;you're not saying that wounded vets and retired vets shouldn't get 'free' health care ?I would agree that nationalized healthcare as a whole isn't a great idea,but vets have earned their healthcare.

Vets do not get free health care, they have earned it and it is despicable the treatment some of our war hero's are getting.

The Democrats tacked on a shitload of pet projects onto the continuing funding of the Military in Iraq, maybe if they kept their hands out of the till and didn't use every opportunity to waste money, there would be enough money to take care of our veterans the way they should be taken care of.

There is also a quite a bit of waste going on with the VA hospitals that are run by the United States Government, yet Billy Mac thinks the government should be in charge of all healthcare and we should model ourselves after Canad, Europe or even Cuba.

You voted for him- I didn't.

And as far as "my hatred" clouding my view- please note the title of this thread. Alan Greenspan is uber-Republican, but he also deals with reality.

He says Bush didn't want to know anythiing about economics, let political promises over ride good policy, and that Clinton was the best President he worked with on economics.

And BTW, Clinton raised taxes and balanced the budget.

How do you know if I voted for Bush or not?

I actually voted against Al Gore and then John Kerry, and although Bush has done his share to screw up the United States, Gore and or Kerry would have done a whole lot worse.

Greenspan is selling a book and bashing Bush is good for book sales, I guess Greenspan never made a mistake or missed anything either.

And as far as medical care for vets goes- throughout my career I was told that if I hung in there until eligibility for retirement, I'd have medical care for life. As a practical matter, I had no medical care from the time I retired untll I turned 65. My wife added me to her group health plan, and of course I paid a premium.

Thank God I had few major problems before turning 65 and becoming eligible for Medicare, the kind of program that you don't like.

:eek::eek::eek:

What do you mean ?Where were your retiree bennnies ?

How do you know if I voted for Bush or not?

I actually voted against Al Gore and then John Kerry, and although Bush has done his share to screw up the United States, Gore and or Kerry would have done a whole lot worse.

Greenspan is selling a book and bashing Bush is good for book sales, I guess Greenspan never made a mistake or missed anything either.

Bret, get your tounge out of GW's bunghole. :D

:eek::eek::eek:

What do you mean ?Where were your retiree bennnies ?

I'm embarrassed to say that I can't recall all of the details that made me think it was just better to pay premiums for private health insurance, but I'll do my best.

First, getting care at a military dispensary was a joke unless you could make it a full time job. The priorities were active duty personnel, their dependants, and then retirees. Those priorities are proper, but there wasn't enough left over for retirees. If you wanted to wait around for hours, you might have a chance of being seen, but of course by a different doctor every time.

Maybe that would have been different near some base in North Dakota, but there are a hell of a lot of military retirees in Southern California.

So the alternative was CHAMPUS. If you were within a given number of miles from a base, you had to get a certificate from that base saying that no military care could be provided, and you needed that for every problem you had. Then the CHAMPUS paperwork was a nightmare, and most doctors wouldn't handle it themselves, so I had to pay the doctor's blll, flll out the paper work myself, and submit it to CHAMPUS, and there were stlll deductibles and co-pays that were my responsibility.

It was just a lot more efficient, and I believe cheaper, to pay the premium to be added to my wife's group plan through her employer.

Now that I'm over 65, its like a dream. I pay $93.50/month for Medicare Part B, and that entitles me to Tricare for Life, a program for military retirees. As long as a doctor accepts Medicare, and so far I haven't run into one that doesn't, he sends his bill to Medicare. Medicare pays 80% of the amount it allows for the procedure, and then forwards it to Tricare. Tricare pays the deductibles and copays that Medicare doesn't cover. The first and last paperwork I ever see is an EOB from Tricare that says what the doctor billed, what Medicare paid, what Tricare paid, and my remaining obligation, which is ZERO.

The only exception is chiropratic care. Medicare covers it, but Tricare doesn't, so I have to handle the co-pays. But chiropractic care didn't help my back anyway, so I went to a physical therapist, and Tricare does cover that.

I only wish everyone could have such coverage.

[QUOTE=Bill McIntyre;18901Now that I'm over 65, its like a dream. I pay $93.50/month for Medicare Part B, and that entitles me to Tricare for Life, a program for military retirees. As long as a doctor accepts Medicare, and so far I haven't run into one that doesn't, he sends his bill to Medicare. Medicare pays 80% of the amount it allows for the procedure, and then forwards it to Tricare. Tricare pays the deductibles and copays that Medicare doesn't cover. The first and last paperwork I ever see is an EOB from Tricare that says what the doctor billed, what Medicare paid, what Tricare paid, and my remaining obligation, which is ZERO.

The only exception is chiropratic care. Medicare covers it, but Tricare doesn't, so I have to handle the co-pays. But chiropractic care didn't help my back anyway, so I went to a physical therapist, and Tricare does cover that.

I only wish everyone could have such coverage.[/QUOTE]

Oh,ok....you scared the shit outta me for a minute.Thought you meant I had to wait until I was 65 to use my mil. health benefits,which is the major reason I keep re-upping,that and the cheap life insurance.I can retire in 8 years(I'll be able to get in 4 tours to Iraq by then.Yay me !!),but was gonna be pissed if I couldn't use health benefits for another 24 years.That's some fine print for ya...

But chiropractic care didn't help my back anyway, so I went to a physical therapist, and Tricare does cover that.


Bill,

Just a tip from someone with a moderate case of scoliosis and a massage therapist wife with plenty of experience with chiropractors and such...stop paying the physical therapist for something that you should be doing...stretching and exercising your back muscles...oh, and sit ups are great too. I know they've probably already told you this but it is better and much cheaper. I rarely have back pains because I exercise it. I never get massages from my massage therapist wife. You know, it's just that way...I've a carpenter friend that has his house half done, a plumber friend that has a toilet that leaks, an A/C guy whose filters are dirty....I'm just glad she's not a prostitute. :D

Marcus,

Most of the benefit of the physical therapist was that he gave me the right exercise program. I've been doing back exercises like dead lifts and back extensions and various abdominal exercises all my life, but he got me on a program more suited to my needs.

But then as soon as I graduated from the back program, I had shoulder surgery, and that is where he really earned his money. I would have been lost trying to recover my shoulders on my own.

But then as soon as I graduated from the back program, I had shoulder surgery, and that is where he really earned his money. I would have been lost trying to recover my shoulders on my own.

Understood...just tryin' to help you out, buddy.

Now back to Greenspan. They interviewed him on 60 Minutes tonight, and I found it very interesting.

I found it refreshing that when asked about the impact of sub-prime mortgages on the economy, he said that he just didn't see it coming. Of course he never had to run for office, so he didn't have to get in the habit of never admitting any faults.

I also thought it was funny how he wooded his bride, Andrea Mitchell. On the first date they had a nice dinner and then he asked her back to his apartment- to read his paper on the Sherman Anti-trust Act. But as he said- "hey it worked" even if it took 13 years before they finally married. He says he kept trying to ask, and she said it was sort of like the Fed-speak with which he baffled Congress in his testimony. She wasn't sure what the hell he was saying.

And then the next piece was on shark tourism in South Africa. They had some great shots of great whites getting airborne with seals in their mouths. The shark cage guys say it has no effect, but there is a movement of surfers and others who say that attacks have increased as a direct result of the chumming.

Whatever the truth is, it was fascinating to hear the interview with a guy who was diving for bugs when a great white took both forearms in its mouth and started swimming off with him.