Greenspan: 'GOP Deserved to Lose'

[disrupter]

Greenspan Book Criticizes Bush And Republicans
'They Deserved to Lose';
Former Fed Chief Defends
Pre-Bubble Rate Cuts
By GREG IP and EMILY STEEL
September 15, 2007; Page A1

In a withering critique of his fellow Republicans, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says in his memoir that the party to which he has belonged all his life deserved to lose power last year for forsaking its small-government principles.

In "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," published by Penguin Press, Mr. Greenspan criticizes both congressional Republicans and President George W. Bush for abandoning fiscal discipline.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118978549183327730.html?mod=djemalert

The GOP has been too busy with corporate welfare,
funneling Hundreds of billions in graft to Bechtel, Halliburton, Blackwater, & a litany of corporate vampires, sucking the blood out of the US treasury,

and robbing your children & the unborn of their economic prosperity with deficits,

NOT to invest in bridges, fiber-optics or other infrastructure,

BUT to TRASH in the Iraq desert for war profiteers & to CREATE global anti-american hatred.

In short the GOP is traitorous to America & Americans.

[Bill]

So far, what I've read about what Greenspan says in the new book sounds dead on accurate. A good description of how the republicans are incompetent at governance.

It reminded me of the principles in the famous "Why Conservatives Can't Govern" article from a few years back.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

He's such a moron. Even reducing troops by 30,000 we still end up with more troops in Iraq than presurge.
************************************************** ****


Bush warns against hasty Iraq withdrawal
5 hours ago
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j11QeWfmcqI6ra0Y__oHWaGWD4Gg

WASHINGTON (AFP) — US President George W. Bush cautioned Saturday that a hasty withdrawal from Iraq would damage US national security, as Senate Democrats reportedly reached a deal that would force soldiers to spend more time at home.

"If we were to be driven out of Iraq, extremists of all strains would be emboldened," said Bush in his weekly radio address. "Al-Qaeda could find new recruits and new sanctuaries," he added, naming the extremist network that he blames, along with Iran, for fueling violence in Iraq.

"By contrast, a free Iraq will deny Al-Qaeda a safe haven. It will counter the destructive ambitions of Iran. And it will serve as a partner in the fight against terrorism," he said.

Meanwhile, in a park outside the White House, thousands of protestors gathered Saturday, waving placards demanding an end to the war in Iraq, the return of US troops, and the impeachment of Bush.

The president spoke after announcing in a speech on Thursday that the size of the US force in Iraq would decrease by about 21,500 combat troops by mid-2008, with the first 5,700 soldiers leaving Iraq in December. Most of those soldiers had been scheduled to rotate back to the United States at that time.

Currently 169,000 US troops are in Iraq, up from 130,000 before Bush announced a "surge" of US forces in January.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, keenly aware that the all-volunteer US military has been stretched thin with repeated deployments, said Friday he hopes US forces in Iraq can be brought down to about 100,000 by the time the next president takes office in January 2009.

That figure could decrease faster if Senate Democrats have their way: a proposal by Democratic Senator Jim Webb of Virginia -- a Vietnam war veteran -- is under discussion that would require US troops to spend as much time at home as on their most recent tours overseas before being re-deployed.

The proposal is close to winning enough Republican support for approval, The New York Times reported Saturday.

If approved, the measure would force US military commanders to withdraw troops on a much faster timeline than the one the top US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, presented to Congress on September 10.

Gates called the proposal "well-intentioned," but said it might require extending tours of units already in Iraq, and calling up additional National Guard and Reserve troops.

For months US politicians have been searching for a way to end the unpopular war in Iraq without appearing unpatriotic by cutting funds for soldiers on the battle front.

In the US political system the president is the top military commander and sets foreign policy, but the US Congress approves the budget and can set conditions for funding.

In order to be approved, Webb's measure must gain support from at least some of Bush's Republicans, because opposition Democrats have a razor-thin majority in the Senate.

In his Saturday address Bush also said that Petraeus and the US ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, told him that security conditions in Iraq "are improving, that our forces are seizing the initiative from the enemy, and that the troop surge is working."

Petraeus and Crocker were in Washington for hearings on Capitol Hill on Monday and Tuesday.

"The more successful we are, the more troops can return home," said Bush.

Some 3,773 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq and some 27,850 wounded in action since the US-led 2003 invasion.

"The vast majority of Iraqi people want the US and other foreign forces out of the country," said Brian Becker with the ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War End Racism) coalition, the group organizing Saturday's protest in Washington.

"The vast majority of the people in the US want the war ended and the troops brought home now."

[Bill]

Non Sequiter, LadyMod?

"The ex-Fed chief writes that he laments the loss of fiscal discipline.

“Congress and the president viewed budgetary restraint as inhibiting the legislation they wanted,’ he wrote. “‘Deficits don’t matter,’ to my chagrin, became part of Republicans’ rhetoric.”

Greenspan long has argued that persistent budget deficits pose a danger to the economy over the long run.

At the Fed, he repeatedly urged Congress to put back in place a budget mechanism that requires any new spending increases or tax cuts to be offset by spending reductions or tax increases.

The large projected surpluses that were the basis for Bush’s $1.35 trillion, 10-year tax cut approved in the summer of 2001 “were gone six to nine months” after Bush took office that year, Greenspan wrote.

There were projections the government would run a whopping $5.6 trillion worth of surpluses over the subsequent decade after the cuts. Those surpluses, the basis for Bush’s campaign promises of a tax cut, never materialized.

“In the revised world of growing deficits, the goals were no longer entirely appropriate,” Greenspan noted. Bush, he said, “continued to pursue his presidential campaigns nonetheless. Most troubling to me was the readiness of both Congress and the administration to abandon fiscal discipline.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20781873/

[TheCenturion]

Non Sequiter, LadyMod?

"The ex-Fed chief writes that he laments the loss of fiscal discipline.

“Congress and the president viewed budgetary restraint as inhibiting the legislation they wanted,’ he wrote. “‘Deficits don’t matter,’ to my chagrin, became part of Republicans’ rhetoric.”

Greenspan long has argued that persistent budget deficits pose a danger to the economy over the long run.

At the Fed, he repeatedly urged Congress to put back in place a budget mechanism that requires any new spending increases or tax cuts to be offset by spending reductions or tax increases.

The large projected surpluses that were the basis for Bush’s $1.35 trillion, 10-year tax cut approved in the summer of 2001 “were gone six to nine months” after Bush took office that year, Greenspan wrote.

There were projections the government would run a whopping $5.6 trillion worth of surpluses over the subsequent decade after the cuts. Those surpluses, the basis for Bush’s campaign promises of a tax cut, never materialized.

“In the revised world of growing deficits, the goals were no longer entirely appropriate,” Greenspan noted. Bush, he said, “continued to pursue his presidential campaigns nonetheless. Most troubling to me was the readiness of both Congress and the administration to abandon fiscal discipline.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20781873/


LOL.. And here's the kicker.

After half a trillion dollars have been pissed down a rat hole, 4000 dead kids have come back in rubber bags and over half a million Iraqi citizens have been either tortured or murdered by the Bush Crime Gang, Petraeus was asked by Senator Warner at last week's Congressional dog and pony show if he thought America was safer. The answer: "Duh... I dunno, Senator" Ha! Only, in America folks.
Ya can't make this stuff up.

[moonman]

That we liberals will embrace Greenspan as an impecable source of economic intelligence is laughable and proves that politics makes strange bedfellows indeed.

Greenspan was a disaster as Fed Chief. His advocacy to six presidents has contributed greatly to the mess we find ourselves in. Unlike the far more honorable Kevin Philips, Greenspan fails to offer us a mea culpa for the indiscretions of his youth. That would be most his actions and advocacy prior to his newly found wisdom at the age of 81. Proof again it is never too late to wise up.

[Bill]

That we liberals will embrace Greenspan as an impecable source of economic intelligence is laughable and proves that politics makes strange bedfellows indeed.

I hadn't interpreted anyone except the media as "embracing Greenspan as economic authority".

I thought the comments were interesting in that they reflected a republican economist turning on the current republican administration.

And that Greenspan's comments invalidated the comedy routines we so often hear from the wacky right about Clinton - the most republican of all democrats.

[disrupter]

What is really sad, is this is being financed by robbing future generations of Americans of their economic prosperity,

NOT to invest in bridges, fiberoptics, education or infrastructure,

But to squander hundreds of billions in corporate welfare graft of war profiteering, making this nation LESS safe & LESS secure in the world.

Treasonous polices,

NeoCon policies.