Alan Greenspan, who served as Federal Reserve chairman for 18 years and was the leading Republican economist for the past three decades, levels unusually harsh criticism at President Bush and the Republican Party in his new book, arguing that Bush abandoned the central conservative principle of fiscal restraint. Full Story »
Posted by Melva Hackney
How would Greenspan sell books if he kissed Buhs's tush like he did when ensconced in the Federal Reserve? Greenspan activley encouraged the Bush tax cuts for the rich, which were the exemplar of fiscal lack of restraint. He is the thief who rats out his fellow thieves; an irresponsible republican who went along with the current fascists controlling the former republican party.
Telling us that the Iraq war is about oil is like saying the sky is blue. Tell us something we don't know. There used to be a movie of the week. With Cheney and Bush, it's now a scandal of the week.
I gotta go with Paul Krugman in today's New York Times (917/07) whose entire column was devoted to putting the lie to Greenspan's rosy rewriting of history of the Bush tax cuts, which he had numerous opportunities to contest. And what is so great about 'fiscal restraint'? As Clinton ruefully admitted, his policies (which of course favored Wall Street, with the help of Robert Rubin) made him a moderate Republican. (And here I had thought I voted for a Democrat.) Ayn Rand, and F. Hayek, Greenspan's inspiration, helped led the US toward an economy in which the middle class and below are always losing ground and the rich always gaining; needless to say, Europe in the same period did significantly better by its people (though not ... More »
It will be interesting to see how the world will accept this detailes story of behind the scenes. But it also leaves me feeling saddened that it takes a person of Greenspan's stature to pronounce that Iraq is about oil, to make people realize that that statement is the truth.
This is good journalism because it gives us a good look inside an incredibly important book. Every criteria I've marked is dependant on the information about the book. However, its accuracy can only be determined by reading the book. If the reader of this article does not read the book he should not consider the article accurate; and should not use it to make any conclusions.
Greenspan and Woodward quite a neat combination. These guys make the news,as in invent. I'm surprized span is not up on charges, more is hidden than is revealed. Woodward has little to say about the bailout of the predatory lending and....the illegal war making which was rubber stamped by Greenspan... he oblivious attitudes are very scary ....the reporter could not get an interview?
Pulling references out of a recently published books, the insights are interesting and in some cases surprising. I will need to read the book to know how well the articles characterization of his the book author's opinions are reported.
Calling Mr Greenspan the "leading Republican economist" of the past three decades reveals how little the author of this opinion piece knows about economics. Mr Greenspan was in a non-partisan position at the Ferderal Reserve for most of that time, and is more friendly to Clinton than to Bush. Thomas Sowell, though he is not a partisan, surely has been a far more influential economist for Republicans than Greenspan. And there are many other economists who could be named.
Retrieving Comments
