It is all Clinton's fault
Clinton left a balanced budget and yet
It is all Clinton's fault
Bush has been in office for almost two terms and yet
It is all Clinton's fault
The minute that Bush was swore in, he stopped and changed Clinton policies that he did not like and yet,
It is all Clinton's fault
The Republicans have been in charge until 2007 and yet,
It is all Clinton's fault.
Keep this in mind, and keep repeating;
It is all Clinton's fault.
2007-09-15 14:28:27
·
answer #1
·
answered by Steve B 6
·
7⤊
1⤋
A bush_family_member never seizes to amaze me with his flip-flopping mentality, Greenspan is a professional. This article goes on to say that he liked Clinton's way of thinking.
Greenspan enjoyed a good relationship with Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, "a fellow information hound."
They also were on the same economic page. During the Clinton administration, budget deficits turned to surpluses.
Greenspan recalled a conflict with the White House when Bush's father was president. The elder Bush wanted lower interest rates and challenged Greenspan's inclination to raise them because of inflation risks.
For Bush's father, the economy was his "Achilles' heel, and as a result we ended up with a terrible relationship." The economy went into a recession in the summer of 1990 and emerged from it in the spring of 1991.
Many supporters of the elder Bush blamed Greenspan's tight-money policies for the recession that contributed to Bush's loss to Clinton.
Considering Greenspan is not only a Republican but a financial professional and was in office through 4 presidents I think he would know what is what.
2007-09-15 17:04:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by Twilight 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Since A. Greenspan was the Fed Reserve Chairman during Clinton presidency, it will ba argued (and the 30% who support Bush will believe it) it is all Clinton's fault. There will be a parade of "experts" who collectively know perhaps 10% of what Greenspan knows about fiscal policy, who will piss on him and tell the gullible he knew nothing. Please read Orwell's 1984, if you have not already done so. We are *living* it.
2007-09-16 02:18:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
"Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences," Greenspan writes of the Bush administration. That could be the Bush aministration's epitaph; we're suffering from the results of the first Attention Deficit Disorder Presidency. Too bad the President wasn't on Adderall; or perhaps we could have sent Tom Cruise over to "heal" him with Dianetics.
2007-09-15 12:10:50
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
0⤋
There are no limits to the kinds of distortion and lies the politicians (especially Republicans) will use to try to put a positive spin on this situation.
I suspect Greenspan is mostly correct, about that though he failed to mention the other important hidden agenda - boosting Israel's security by weakening other nations in the area.
2007-09-17 07:07:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by Zelda Hunter 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
You need to get the facts straight. First off we are not in a economic crisis. We have had growth over the last two quarters of 3%, the median income level has risen 20%, and the September consumer confidence ratings were high. So lets get off the myth that we are in a recession. Judging by your question you are taking about the mortgage crisis. Lets look at the facts: Jimmy Carter brought us the Community Redevelopment act which said that banks had to make a certain percentage of mortgage loans in poor areas. Then along came Clinton who basically put the Community Redevelopment act on steroids and made the banks give even more subprime loans. Janet Reno even gave a speech saying that any company who didn't comply would be prosecuted. Clinton appointed Jim Johnson a CEO of Fannie. Some time later Acorn (who has many Democrat politicians in their pocket) accused banks of redlining because they were racist. Acorn said that if the banks did not give out even more subprime loans then they would be branded as racist and they would make it impossible for them to do business. Because banks didn't want to have to deal with either Acorn or the government coming after them they basically relaxed the loan processess so that you didn't even have to show ID or prove what your income was. Several Clinton administration people found their way into Fannie such as Franklin Raines and Jamie Garelick. Franklin Raines cooked the books to give millions of dollars of bonuses to Fannie executives. Both Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson left Fannie amid scandal. Jim Johnson then went to CountryWide where he gave sweetheart loan deals to Democrat politicians including Obama. He served on Obama's VP selection team and is currently one of Obama's economic advisors. Chris Dodd (D) is the chairman of the committee that regulates Fannie and Freddie and was the top recepient of campaign funds from these companies. Obama received the second highest and John Kerry was third. The blame for this lies squarely on the Democrats who benifited with compaign contributions, money, and sweetheart loan deals. The Republicans bear some blame becasue they blew the whistle on this and then did nothing to change it even when they had control of Congress. This whole mess is because of greed, corruption, ill conceived government policy, and poor regulation. There should be no tax payer bailout of Fannie or Freddie they should declare bankruptcy, and either closed or sold to someone in the private sector. There needs to be investigations into at the very least Chris Dodd, Jim Johnson, Franklin Rains, Jamie Garelic, Acorn (who Obama has ties to) and Barney Frank with most of them being sent to jail!
2016-05-20 06:13:35
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
You bet.
Bill O'Reilly is already lining up a panel of experts to say that Greenspan is a "Fuzzy Headed Socialist Liberal With No Idea About How Markets and the Economy Work."
And regular Fox Watchers will believe them.
2007-09-15 11:53:39
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
As stated in the article the biggest issue for Greenspan was the spending and you wont find many rank and file republicans that supported the massive democrat style spending to begin with.
The article also correctly points to Greenspans failure that helped lead to the Dot Com and housing bubbles.\\
2007-09-15 11:59:51
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
4⤋
Greenspan and I have been on the same page about this neo-con run party with Bush at the helm.
2007-09-15 11:58:18
·
answer #9
·
answered by Chi Guy 5
·
5⤊
3⤋
The golden words that I liked were that Ford was the "Closest to normal" of the presidents he worked with.
2007-09-16 06:21:35
·
answer #10
·
answered by Gaspode 7
·
4⤊
0⤋