Published: September 18, 2007 6:00 a.m.
Bush camp rebuffs Greenspan
Associated Press
WASHINGTON – President Bush was surprised by the criticism leveled against him and his administration by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in his new book [NOT the "Media"], the White House said Monday.
The book was just released that day, the white house didn't have time to respond to the book, as the author here wants to imply. They were responding to the article.
Greenspan accused Bush of not responsibly handling the nation’s spending and racking up big budget deficits, saying he and Congress’ former GOP leaders abandoned the party’s conservative principles favoring small government.
“My biggest frustration remained the president’s unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending,” Greenspan wrote in “The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,” released Monday.
Most every conservative criticizes Bush on this one, and when Greenspan clarified his statements, he said he did. This has already been discussed in this thread.
At the same time, government revenues declined because of a string of tax cuts, which Greenspan also criticizes in his book.
This is an out and out
lie! Government revenues did decline when Bush first took office, but they are in know way due to the tax cuts. The cuts hadn't even taken effect yet!! You can't logically attach the decline to the cuts in anyway. This is just the reporters ignorance and bias showing through. He or she doesn't have any clue about the economy, or the fact that every time tax cuts are tried, government revenues increase as a result, as has turned out to be the case. The author at this point has no credibility, and you would be a fool to by any claim not backed up by a direct quote from the book.
Large projected surpluses were the basis for Bush’s $1.35 trillion, 10-year tax cut approved in the summer of 2001. Those surpluses never materialized, and have since turned into record deficits, so Greenspan wrote that the tax-cut goal was “no longer entirely appropriate.”
Those "projected surpluses" may have been used to sell the tax cut, but they weren't the basis for it. The surplused were a result of Clinton "cooking the books", and were never real anyway. This, again, shows the economic ignorance of the author and anyone buying their article here.
tax cuts don't decrease revenue! This is a proven fact! The revenue went up due to the tax cuts.
The author further goes to take 4 words of Greenspans out of context to support his claim. Greenspan is already on record approving the tax cuts, and a "conservative fiscal policy", part of which is tax cuts. Need to see where they took this quote from to put it in context. Either way, the quote doesn't rally against the cuts.
Greenspan gave a major boost to Bush’s tax-cut plan in testimony before Congress in 2001, arguing then that a tax cut could help the economy deal with sagging growth. A recession that began in March 2001 ended that November. In his book, he says that testimony had been a mistake.
Doubt that. No direct quote from Greenspan here. Most likely taken out of context, or flat out lie on the part of the author
Perino also disputed Greenspan’s line about the Iraq war: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”
Perino said Greenspan has since “acknowledged that oil was not the president’s motive for our engagement in Iraq.”
Yep. Greenspan tried to sell Bush on Iraq due to oil, and Bush rejected it. No one said the war wasn't
about oil. Any involvement in that part of the world is gonna be due to oil and/or Israel.
Bottom line: Greenspan was critical of BuSh AND the GOP-led congress IN HIS BOOK, and the little shrub didn't like it. The "MEDIA" had nothing to do about BuSh's perception of Greenspan's statements.
WRONG! As usual, Johnny, you refuse to see the forest thru the trees unless it fits your worldview. Bush is responding to the articles. The only criticizm of Bush that can be pinned on Greenspan is Bush allowing the spending. Everything else is distortion by the media.
WRT the "oil" argument, lets be real. There were many *reasons* to invade Iraq, some real, some fabricated. But to pretend that OIL was absolutely NOT a factor whatsoever is an excersize of denial, or BKAS (BuSh Kiss A$$ Syndrome).
You still can't prove that there were
any fabricated reasons for going into Iraq. The fact that we went there at all proves that the war is ultimatly about oil.
