Posted on 09/18/2007 9:25:46 PM PDT by RWR8189
In his new book, "The Age of Turbulence," my longtime friend Alan Greenspan argues that President Bush's economic and budget policies have been fiscally irresponsible. I've known and admired Alan for years, and I believe he was a great chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. But I think his assessment is off the mark.
Alan tells of his first meeting with then President-elect Bush on Dec. 18, 2000, at the Madison Hotel in Washington. I recall this breakfast meeting very well, especially Alan's comments on the state of the economy. The Fed chairman told the president-elect and our team that America faced the real possibility of a recession in the wake of the collapse of the late 1990s technology sector bubble. Alan's prediction proved correct: In the final months of the Clinton administration, the nation began an economic slowdown that turned into a recession.
Another crisis was looming, though none of us knew it at the time. Less than eight months into our administration the nation came under terrorist attack. The events of 9/11 are the defining moment of the era from the standpoint of national security; they were equally significant from an economic perspective. Aimed at our country's financial sector, the attacks were followed by the suspension of stock trading, the closing of stores and shopping malls and the cancellation of thousands of flights. In the three-and-a-half months between 9/11 and Christmas, nearly a million Americans lost their jobs.
The combined effects of recession and national emergency could have been devastating for America's economy. Yet President Bush's tax cuts--following through on a promise he had made to the voters--resulted in a shallower recession, a faster recovery, and a platform for growth that remains sturdy to this day. The fact is that in a time of unprecedented challenge, the United
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Touche’ Mr. Vice-President!
I wish Cheney could be our next President.
Ping!
“On the spending side of the ledger, I can’t dispute Alan’s general notion that the federal government is too big and spends too much money—we’ve agreed on that point since we both worked in the Ford administration more than 30 years ago. President Bush feels the same way, and that’s why he has steadily reduced the annual rate of growth in non-security discretionary spending.”
A flat out lie. What of the spending relating to the NCLB, the free pills for granny act or the billions in foreign aid for AIDS and on and on? The Vice President is either delusional or being disengenuous. Regardless his answer to Greenspan is disgusting. Big time.
...grumble grumble about time SOMEbody did it...
Cheers!
I love his mentioning the economic conditions Bush inherited, as well as the military draw down under Der Schlickmeister.
The “peace” dividend dontchya know.
Great seeing Cheney respond to Greenspan. We can be disappointed in Bush for going along with congress on all of the reckless spending, but it IS congress that writes the legislation. It would have been nice to see some leadership on holding back spending and even (gasp) cutting programs, but there was an absence of leadership. Leadership is the responsibility of the president, especially with his own party running congress. Bush could have easily opposed congress on Medicare prescription drugs, the farm bill, and all of the pork. It’s very disappointing how the president lobbied congress for amnesty for illegal aliens, after not vetoing a single bloated spending bill, or even failing to make an issue of spending.
Actually not a lie. Congress spends the money, not the President. Now, you can argue that he should have vetoed many of those bills, that’s fine but simply put, the President doesn’t spend the money.
The green-one has been a doddering old irrelevance for years and belongs in the same rest home with Sen Byrd.
Jimmy Carter too :)
The Vice President claimed that throughout the Bush Administration the rate of growth of non-discretionary spending has decreased. You call him a liar and then refer to some items of new spending, but Mr. Cheney did not say that there were no new budget items.
I just read a really interesting article that made the point that without integrity and trust consensual government is impossible. This article went on to criticize the false charges of lying that have so often been leveled at the current administration.
I don't think you should call Vice President Cheney a liar unless you can back it up. After seven plus years in office I have not seen him lie yet and I think it is important to respect that.
I meant to say “non-security discretionary spending”, not “non-discretionary spending”. Oops.
Aww... Facts just ruin a good self-righteous rant.
You say he has lied and cite spending related to NCLB, AIDS etc. You are cherry picking spending programs while he is speaking of non military spending as a whole and said the rate of increase has slowed, not that the spending has been cut.
Nice job Mr Cheney ...
Sent link to Drudge / Rush
I clearly remember the tax cuts being touted as a remedy for the recession. Oh wait, that didn’t actually happen.
The tax cuts were ideological and in no way a response to the recession. Bush was doing this regardless of the economic circumstances. It just so happens that it helped with the recession and was the right move. Still my memory is crystal clear. Of course I supported the tax cuts regardless.
By the way, Bush actually raised my taxes as he did for many American citizens abroad - I will never forgive the SOB for it.
Ping for later
LOL, that's such a small part of the budget, that claiming it as a victory is ridiculous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.