Greenspan: Iraq war for oil, deficit spending bad

[downtown]

When did Greenspan become an economic quack?

 

[Stewbert 08]

Too little too late Greenspam.

This book strikes me as trying to take the credit for the good Clinton years and dismissing a "token involvement" in the disastrous Bush presidency.

Guess which prez conferred with Greenspan 3x more than the other?

Greenspam argued for a payroll tax hike in the early 80s to correct course on Social Security & be able to pay for the impending boomer retirement. Then in 2001 he said we should take the surplus and hand it to the rich in tax cuts... just like Bush wanted. In fact Greenspam championed the tax cut policy. Result, massive debt, increased ecnomic inequality, and we will probably have to raise taxes and cut benefits to keep Social Security afloat - that is, if future Greenspans don't do exactly as he did and smash the piggybank to keep Paris Hilton in booze.

WTH? Seriously, GREAT ECONOMIC LEADERSHIP THERE DUDE.

 

[RedWolf]

Thank you for supplying an additional conspiracy theory; your contributions are much appreciated.

Coming from a Bush Administration "Dead Ender" thats a compliment.

 

[skadistic]

Erroneously attributing statements to a person who didn't say them is not honest.

Where's my error? You said the below implying that the war for oil argument had no logic.





No more then you do to the Iraqis that are defending themselves from your occupation forces.

Actually the erronious claim was based on where you said I said, or rather implied by not saying but saying something else, that I knew more about economics then Greenspan. Hell if you can't even keep up or be honest don't try.

 

[skadistic]

When did Greenspan become an economic quack?

A while ago. Much of his underlings wanted him out 2-3 years ago. He did an interview earlier and said he didn't see the current problems coming. Yet those under him did. For an economic guru its pretty sad he didn't understand what the super low rates for such a long time under his watch would do in the long run.

 

[RedWolf]

Actually the erronious claim was based on where you said I said, or rather implied by not saying but saying something else, that I knew more about economics then Greenspan. Hell if you can't even keep up or be honest don't try.

*sigh*

I've no idea what you're talking about - I've been honest the entire time but you continue to dodge the question and instead throw insults my way.

Regardless - I'll ask again. Is the idea of the Iraq being about oil economic quackery or not? Not WAS it or WAS IT NOT about oil - I understand we have a difference of opinion here - but is the possibility economicly sound or unsound? Every other time this topic gets discussed the right laughs it off as "absurd" and "illogical" and thus avoids having to engage in honest debate.

 

[amadeus]

Coming from a Bush Administration "Dead Ender" thats a compliment.

When in doubt, ZOMG HE LOVES EVERYTHING GARGE BUSH DOES!!!!

 

[skadistic]

*sigh*

I've no idea what you're talking about - I've been honest the entire time but you continue to dodge the question and instead throw insults my way.

Regardless - I'll ask again. Is the idea of the Iraq being about oil economic quackery or not? Not WAS it or WAS IT NOT about oil - I understand we have a difference of opinion here - but is the possibility economicly sound or unsound? Every other time this topic gets discussed the right laughs it off as "absurd" and "illogical" and thus avoids having to engage in honest debate.

*Sigh* Maybe read back the tread one post at a time slowly. Here's a clue try post 18.

The "war for oil" is economically unsound. How much has the war cost? How much money has the average American lost to high gas prices? Who gets the oil money? What is OPEC and what is their roll? I don't expect you to understand all the complexity, you can't even figure out when you are being dishonest and erroneously attributing statements to some one who didn't make them.

Moderator Action: Redwolf and skadistic, the rest of us do not care about your little squabble. Drop it please. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[The Yankee]

Greenspan's assessment of using veto power is spot on. George W. has not endeared many of us because of this tendency. I also have questions about his leadership in many cases. There's nothing wrong with believing the man didn't do a good job versus his republican predecessors. B.L.-- he's not my kind of republican.

Agreed on all counts.

As for Greenspan's assertion that the war could have been for oil...well, whether it was or wasn't now doesn't matter. And it isn't like we did a good job in securing that oil in the end, anyway.

 

[JollyRoger]

It was a war for oil company profits, not cheaper prices for the American consumer.

 

[Stewbert 08]

When in doubt, ZOMG HE LOVES EVERYTHING GARGE BUSH DOES!!!!

Don't try to steal my style, foo.

 

[Stewbert 08]

It was a war for oil company profits, not cheaper prices for the American consumer.

Whether that's true or not, I don't for a moment think Greenspan believes it.

He's just saying whatever he has to say to distance himself from the Hindenbush legacy. Like I said, he was just fine with tax cuts in 2001... everyone ELSE knew what would happen to the budget, now he's pretending he had no idea.

It's CYA that's all.

 

[JollyRoger]

Whether that's true or not, I don't for a moment think Greenspan believes it.

He's just saying whatever he has to say to distance himself from the Hindenbush legacy. Like I said, he was just fine with tax cuts in 2001... everyone ELSE knew what would happen to the budget, now he's pretending he had no idea.

It's CYA that's all.

Greenspan spent too much time hanging around Ayn Rand to be taken seriously on anything.

 

[Stewbert 08]

He was at her funeral right?

*cue BohemianGrove-esque conspiracy theories!*

 

[JerichoHill]

Greenspan ruined the economy. Ask most economists. Highly respected? Since when?

Umm,

Guess Im not most economists then. It wasn't Greenspan who ruined the economy (which isn't ruined, just hurting because of easy credit and too much deficit spending).

And like I also had been saying, Clinton understood economics.

 

[JerichoHill]

Too little too late Greenspam.

This book strikes me as trying to take the credit for the good Clinton years and dismissing a "token involvement" in the disastrous Bush presidency.

Guess which prez conferred with Greenspan 3x more than the other?

Greenspam argued for a payroll tax hike in the early 80s to correct course on Social Security & be able to pay for the impending boomer retirement. Then in 2001 he said we should take the surplus and hand it to the rich in tax cuts... just like Bush wanted. In fact Greenspam championed the tax cut policy. Result, massive debt, increased ecnomic inequality, and we will probably have to raise taxes and cut benefits to keep Social Security afloat - that is, if future Greenspans don't do exactly as he did and smash the piggybank to keep Paris Hilton in booze.

WTH? Seriously, GREAT ECONOMIC LEADERSHIP THERE DUDE.

Kinda got it a little backward. Basically Bush didn't keep his part of the bargain, which meant continuing the Clintonian budget surplus. Greenie thought it would be okay to give some of the surplus back , but keep the surplus.

Ah economics.

 

[JerichoHill]

Greenspan spent too much time hanging around Ayn Rand to be taken seriously on anything.

Umm, Rand kicked Greenie out of her group because he wasn't whacko.

...

 

[skadistic]

Umm,

Guess Im not most economists then. It wasn't Greenspan who ruined the economy (which isn't ruined, just hurting because of easy credit and too much deficit spending).

And like I also had been saying, Clinton understood economics.

Easy credit allowed by Greenspan's low rates. Rates that were to low for to long. He even said he dropped the ball there. Ruin may be an overstatement.


But most people who have books coming out tend to say things controversial to get the name out there.

 

[Masquerouge]

It would be great if people stopped trying to turn Greenspan into some sort of nutcase who didn't know what he was doing, particularly after having praised him for 15+ years, just because he wrote something that they disagree with.

 

[bathsheba666]

Greenspan is clearly an islamofacist commie dupe.