What do you think of Alan Greenspan's quotes from his new book?

Question

"My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan wrote.

Bush took office in 2001, the last time the government produced a budget surplus. Every year after that, the government has been in the red. In 2004, the deficit swelled to a record $413 billion.

"The Republicans in Congress lost their way," Greenspan wrote. "They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."

And cons say dems are big spenders???????????

Answer 1

I agree. The only outcome of such runaway spending that I can see is inflation in the future and a steady and unrelenting decline in the American standard of living. The middle class is already pressed between being expected to support the poor and also support the Repub. war machine. How goes the American middle class -- How goes America.

Makes one yearn for the Clinton years, with balanced budgets and a harmless little affair on the side...

Answer 2

Dems big spender for internal social means.
Repukes are big spenders on WARS and on some foreign rogue middle est states.
Yes Greenspan was correct on that note.
No one is talking about the current US negative debt balance, wait and see when a Dem president will take office 2008 to expose the books... Bush has been borrowing money that can not be repaid for decades to come.He is robbing our children and our senior citizens!

Answer 3

Yeah, some of what Greenspan says may be true, but he supported every policy the Bushites wanted. This is a self serving whitewash with about as much credibility as the book former CIA director George Tenet recently published.

Answer 4

Greenspan, who wrote in his memoir that "the Iraq conflict is easily approximately oil," mentioned in a Washington placed up interview that on an analogous time as securing international oil aspects became "no longer the administration's reason," he had provided the White homestead in the previous the 2003 invasion with the case for why removing the then-Iraqi chief became significant for the international financial device. "i became no longer asserting that it is the administration's reason," Greenspan mentioned interior the interview performed on Saturday. "i'm merely asserting that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in putting off Saddam?' i could say it became needed."

Answer 5

I always thought Greenspan was some sort of rightie too - I guess he isn't a die hard far right weirdo like so many on here huh?

Answer 6

I haven't read them except for the above. Surely everyone knows that Bush signs the bills and that it's because of something in them that he supports. Republicans need to be watching to see if they agree with it, else they have no reason to blame just Democrats . Democrats need to do the same. We are supposed to be the government. If we are not, we need to get it back in our hands.

Answer 7

You're absolutely right. I may remind posters that Greenspan is considered to be nonpartisan.

Answer 8

This should come as a surprise to no one.

Answer 9

i wouldn't believe everything you read because not everything you read is true