Greenspan says Clinton BEST!

[Popeye]

And as to trusting experts, I don't think so. Greenspan has been doing some "revising" of history in his book that casts a shaddow of doubt over his credibility. For example, he suggests that he didn't make any mistakes in his tenure. He says that he didn't endorse the tax cuts of 2001. He says that he had nothing to do with the present housing bubble. He says that he did not ignore the stock market bubble that cost trillions when it burst.

So, you now are attempting to cast doubt on the credibility of Alan Greenspan. I remind you, this is a man of impeccable credentials. This indeed is a new low and speaks directly to the validity of your arguments.

 

[top gun]

The truth is that after listing pages, not just by me but by several others of Clinton accomplishments related to the economy the 8 great years he was President... and Alan Greenspan's praise of President Clinton's handling of our economy... by now it's been highly documented that Clinton did very well.

Anyone can play dumb I guess & just disregard everything. But the truth is President Clinton showed he cared about the economy not just because it was great his entire 8 years in office but because we know he worked on it... put forward his ideas... worked with Congress on it... lobbied for it... presented to the American people repeatedly as his economic game plan to invest in America and also reduce the deficit. Saying President Bill Clinton didn't handle the economy well as President is like the KKK saying Muhammad Ali wasn't a great boxer. It's so obviously not true, it's all just about being prejudice.

When there's such a HUGE preponderance of the evidence against someone who's obviously just trying in every way they can to "not listen" and just keep bashing a President not on the merits of his accomplishments, because they've been listed so many times now at such great length, you come to see what's really going on. Neo-cons have to lie, bash, do anything they can because the economic legacy of our President Clinton is not something that the fear mongers and deficit skyrocketers on the Right want in the minds of people when they are already losing ground hand over fist do to to all of their own watershed of public scandal.

They know they can't trick & deceive with their old moral high-ground speech anymore because people would just break out laughing right to their faces and start telling airport bathroom jokes.

People are starting to compare and look back at what happened to our economy under similar circumstances after Reagan's HUGE deficit run up. The economy tanked under Bush #1... that's the main reason why he couldn't win a second term. As President Clinton would say "IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID!"

To end by clearing up a couple other misrepresentations let me say this. A President (any President... Democrat... Republican) doesn't have to take the deficit to a place lower than when he took over to say he reduced the deficit. If the former President's economic plan called for a $900 Billion dollar debt in the next ten years and the newly elected President's plan is enacted and it changes the same baseline forecast to a $100 Billion dollar debt then that in itself is reducing the deficit by $800 Billion dollars. ALL DEFICIT/SURPLUS TALK IS PRESENTING A PLAN THAT FORECASTS WHAT AN OUTCOME SHOULD BE IF YOU FOLLOW A PARTICULAR COURSE. (sidebar: Alan Greenspan, a lifelong pubbie and Fed Chairman under 6 different Presidents liked and highly endorsed Clinton's approach... and it worked)

And to follow this out... had President "Stratergery" and Darth Cheney not decided that Monstrous Deficits are really a good thing to stick not only us with but our children as well... we would have seen an actual (not just projected but an actual cash on hand surplus).

The best thing that could happen is a change of Party in the White House and to get back into a Clinton economic strategy!

 

[Popeye]

Cheney to Treasury: "Deficits don't matter"
Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was told "deficits don't matter" when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis.

O'Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush's economic team in December 2002, raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from "the corporate crowd," a key constituency.

O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.


Source: [X-ref O'Neill] Adam Entous, Reuters, on AOL News Jan 11, 2004

 

[palerider]

So, you now are attempting to cast doubt on the credibility of Alan Greenspan. I remind you, this is a man of impeccable credentials. This indeed is a new low and speaks directly to the validity of your arguments.

The above statements are lies. Do you actually need to be told that when a man (or woman) lies, they are no longer worthy of being trusted simply on thier word?

 

[palerider]

The truth is that after listing pages, not just by me but by several others of Clinton accomplishments related to the economy

Pages of accomplishments and no one seems to be able to describe what he did to accomplish them other than mention the 93 budget plan which failed on its major points. How pathetic is that? It is a pitiful attempt to create a legacy for a man who just happened to be in the right place at the right time. And, he got out just as the good times were ending.

Are you arguing that the good economy was due to the failure of his plan?

 

[palerider]

Cheney to Treasury: "Deficits don't matter"
Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was told "deficits don't matter" when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis.

Strawmen? Perhaps to deflect attention from the fact that neither you, nor top gun seem to be able to name what it was that clinton did to "handle" the economy beyond just getting out of the way and letting it do its thing?

 

[top gun]

Cheney to Treasury: "Deficits don't matter"
Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was told "deficits don't matter" when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis.

O'Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush's economic team in December 2002, raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from "the corporate crowd," a key constituency.

O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.


Source: [X-ref O'Neill] Adam Entous, Reuters, on AOL News Jan 11, 2004

Good post my friend!

The REALLY SCARY THING is I believe this administration is telling a version of their truth (note: their truth being another lie ) being right in everyone's face saying deficits don't matter.

Don't matter to the time-line of a single administration maybe because the debt spending takes years to build up and create the crash... BUT HOW LAME IS THAT!!! Okaaay pubbies just come out and say screw your kids we'll be gone by then.

Now I see the big snake (The Republican Party) is even trying to eat their own by trying to say another Republican and probably the most highly regarded economist in the world is basically incompetent and a liar because he praises President Clinton's handling of the economy... don't think the big snake can get that one down. Greenspan's rep is just a little too huge for them to canabalize... LoL!

Popeye... you'll get a kick out of this story.

Bill: I've been training my dog Buddy to do some new tricks.

pubbie: He can't do tricks.

Bill: Sure he can watch. He can, sit, stay, shake hands, roll over, fetch...

pubbie: He's a dog. Dogs can always do all those things.

Bill: We'll sure but I trained him.

pubbie: No you didn't. That all comes from his bloodline, those things are all natural things for a dog to do. Did you teach him to read or write?

Bill: Well no... but he can do these things I helped teach him really, really well... and he couldn't do them before. I got advice from top dog trainers and kept working with him day & night until he got the idea of what I wanted him to do.

pubbie: Dog trainers are idiots. Why didn't you take him to church for some real spiritual counseling?

Bill: Well I don't know... I thought a dog expert would know best. And now he can do all these great tricks. His last owner beat him and the only thing that taught him was how to growl, bite & jump up on someone.

pubbie: AHA! So you admit Buddy was already partially trained when you got him. I knew it! Had you just left him alone everything would have turned out the exact same way.

Bill: Well... no... he'd still just be jumping on everyone and biting them. People get hurt and that costs us all a fortune.

pubbie: I'll ask you again... SHOW ME WHERE YOU TAUGHT BUDDY TO READ & WRITE!

Bill: I didn't... I did what I could do... and I think Buddy turned out really well.

pubbie: AHA! Like I said you did nothing but show up. You're and idiot that knows nothing about dogs... case closed.

sound familiar...

 

[palerider]

So you guys aren't going to say what clinton did to handle the economy huh?

Why not just admit that he just happened to be there during a good time and more or less had the good sense to stay out of the way.

 

[Popeye]

So you guys aren't going to say what clinton did to handle the economy huh?

Why not just admit that he just happened to be there during a good time and more or less had the good sense to stay out of the way.

The strength of your argument has steadily weakened in the face of the onslaught by myself, topgun, and Alan Greenspan. You can say Clinton, "happened to be there during a good time", but the facts have been presented and backed up by a world renowned economist. Palerider, cut your losses, accept defeat gracefully, nobody will think the lesser of you for it.

 

[palerider]

The strength of my argument stands because so far, none of you have been able to answer the simple question:

What exactly did he do to handle the economy?

Until you can provide answers for that simple question, you are on the losing end of this debate.

So tell me, what did clinton do to "handle" the economy? Do you have an answer?

 

[top gun]

Yeah Popeye...

Somebody's still askin'... AHA! So you admit Buddy was already partially trained when you got him. I knew it! Had you just left him alone everything would have turned out the exact same way.

SHOW ME WHERE YOU TAUGHT BUDDY TO READ & WRITE!

I guess to some not accepting an answer is the same as not getting one... or 30...

 

[palerider]

I hear you talking but don't see you answering some very simple questions. The answers you gave did not amount to "handling" the economy, because the budget plan of 93 failed on every level.

I guess you are stuck with the fact that clinton was just there and will continue chattering like a magpie about every subject under the sun rather than say what exactly it was that clinton did to "handle" the economy.

You are never going to be able to build a legacy for your tainted hero until you can answer simple questions like: "what did he do, specifically?" No answer, no legacy.

 

[Popeye]

I hear you talking but don't see you answering some very simple questions. The answers you gave did not amount to "handling" the economy, because the budget plan of 93 failed on every level.



You are never going to be able to build a legacy for your tainted hero until you can answer simple questions like: "what did he do, specifically?" No answer, no legacy.

We have submitted post after post, along with source after source, all praising Clinton and giving him credit for the strong economy of the nineties. We have world renowned economist Alan Greenspan saying that Clinton's budget reduction plan of 1993 was "an act of political courage", and crediting him with both the reduction of the deficit and the strong economy we enjoyed during his presidency. You have refused to acknowlege any of these points, in most cases not even addressing them, which itself is very telling. To quote a line in one of topgun's recent posts, "I guess to some not accepting an answer is the same as not getting one".

 

[palerider]

We have submitted post after post, along with source after source, all praising Clinton and giving him credit for the strong economy of the nineties. We have world renowned economist Alan Greenspan saying that Clinton's budget reduction plan of 1993 was "an act of political courage", and crediting him with both the reduction of the deficit and the strong economy we enjoyed during his presidency. You have refused to acknowlege any of these points, in most cases not even addressing them, which itself is very telling. To quote a line in one of topgun's recent posts, "I guess to some not accepting an answer is the same as not getting one".

Yes, you have submitted post after post and submitted numerous sources giving clinton credit for the economy. What neither you, nor your sources have done is say what clinton did to achieve the things he is being given credit for.

You keep talking about the 1993 budget plan but it failed in its stated goals. Clinton said that his plan (the 93 plan) would cause interest rated to go down and in turn, reduce the deficit and result in an expansion of the economy. Well, interest rates didn't go down so it failed there, and it didn't reduce the deficit so it failed. And yet, the economy was good. Was it good because clinton's plan failed?

He justified his tax increases claiming that by reducing the deficit it would cause interest rates to drop and that would stimulate the economy. He raised taxes, but the tax increase neither caused interest rates to drop nor reduced the deficit but the economy grew none the less. Did it grow because his plan for the tax increase failed?

I have addressed the 93 budget plan and pointed out that it failed in its stated goal, you have not provided any evidence that it succeeded in its stated goal so what, exactly, am I supposed to acknowledge.

It has become abundantly clear that you don't know what clinton did or didn't do and are completely unable to actually discuss the facts of the issue. You are depending upon what alan greenspan said with no knowledge of whether he is right or wrong. It has been established that he has lied in his book in an attempt to distance himself from some nasty economic realities of the clinton administration.

I have started a thread asking specifically how clinton achieved the results you give him credit for. Clearly you can't answer the question. Perhaps someone who actually posesses the knowledge to discuss the subject rather than just parrot what someone else says about the subject can answer for you.

 

[Popeye]

It has been established that he has lied in his book in an attempt to distance himself from some nasty economic realities of the clinton administration.

Alan Greenspan was first appointed Fed chairman by Ronald Reagan, he has served with distinction under the subsequent presidents, Clinton being the only Democrat, until his retirement in 2006. Given that, outside of your opinion, by what basis do you make such a character damning statement as "it has been established that he has lied in his book"?