And he respected Clinton.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/16/greenspan.book/

"Greenspan praised former President Clinton and his attitude toward economic policies, saying, "either Clinton shared many of my views on the way the economic system was evolving and on what should be done, or he was the cleverest chameleon I'd ever encountered."

"Clinton was often criticized for inconsistency and for a tendency to take all sides in a debate, but that was never true about his economic policy," he wrote. "A consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth became a hallmark of his presidency."

Greenspan said Clinton and former President Nixon were "by far the smartest presidents I've worked with."

I would have a small bit of respect for the man had he said ONE THING about this while he was @ the Fed. No, he sat back and approved every one of Bush's policies...or, if he didn't approve of them explicitly, he didn't come out against them.

I'm with Dave.

If he'd said something while sitting atop the Federal Reserve, somebody might have listened. Somebodies with influence.

Too little, too late.

Bad Alan.

C'mon, blame the messenger? This is a wise sage whose opinion should be respected. Of course it represents another criticism of
the Bush Administration. Among you die hard supporters Greenspan is now considered a subversive traitor.

"Clinton was often criticized for inconsistency and for a tendency to take all sides in a debate, but that was never true about his economic policy," he wrote. "A consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth became a hallmark of his presidency."

hmmm....did Greenspan simply forget the recession that Clinton's fiscal policies delivered to us at the end of his term?

Also, its funny that this will be jumped on by liberals when Greenspan is criticizing Bush for things such as the Rx drug entitlement that were really Bush's concessions to the Democrats.

Bush has been President for nearly seven years. To blame his failed economic policies on his predecessor is as laughable as bragging about his foreign policy "successes."

Jack...I was referring to the recession at the end of Clinton's term, not Bush's. I don't think Bush has any 'failed' economic policies....seems to me that my almost any objective measure, our economy is pretty darn good right now. I'm not 'blaming' Clinton for anything. If anything, I think the fact that Clinton handed George W. Bush, The President of the United States of America, a recession makes his economic accomplishments even more remarkable.

Yes, it's great.

Do you speak Chinese?

No. Did you speak Japanese in the 90's?

Seriously though....what is so dismal about our present economy? The deficit is the only thing that comes to mind, but I would hardly call that "dismal".....as a % of GDP, it is historically on the low end, and updated projections repeatedly show it shrinking. GDP is at a historical high, unemployment at near lows, inflation pretty much stagnant, Federal Tax Revenue recently hit a historical record, and the stock market recently hit a historical high - and there is a historically high % of the population invested in it. Home ownership is at all time highs (and will remain so even after this foreclosure blip), and my Beavs finally looked like they might not completely suck this year (had to throw that in):-)

Can you think of a Western country that wouldn't want to trade economies withe the United States right now? I'm just wondering why you think things are so bad.

PS - I tried the Rock n'Roll Cafe this weekend and thought the Yaw's burger was delicious and not overpriced.....and probably had the best $3.50 milkshake I've ever ordered...it was enough for four of us.

the guy who didn't figure subprime lending was a potential timebomb that would be exploited by business and foolish borrowers...now gives us his brilliant insights into the motivations for the iraq war?
lars

"I think the fact that Clinton handed George W. Bush... a recession"

Bush was inaugurated on January 20, 2001. The recession at the beginning of Bush's term began in March, 2001, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.

http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html

Jerry,

Even IF the recession started in March 2001 (many put its inception as being the last economic quarter of Clinton's term), how did Bush significantly alter Clinton's economic policies during his first six weeks in office?

Butch,

I'm sorry but you apparently don't know the truth. There is no "if" about it. The NBER is the body that determines when recessions start. The recession began in March, 2001, during the Bush administration. Bush campaigned on talking down the economy, so much so that it probably weakened the economy to some degree, to justify his tax cuts for the rich and that he should be elected President.

"Butchie" says the economy is humming along... hmmm... three dollar gas, record home foreclosures. soaring unemployment rate, stocks tanking, CEO's in prison...

If those are signs of success, welcome to PRAVDA, butch baby!!!

Salute!

Uh....Daphne....what country do you live in?

Jerry, like I said - even if you accept that the recession began in March 2001, tell me an economic policy that Bush changed in his first six weeks in office that caused the recession? Or did Bush simply "talk" all of those dot.com companies into bankruptcy during the 2000 campaign? Boy....and you folks say the man has not verbal skills?

Butch,

Bush's "policy" was to tell us the economy was in terrible shape, which he succeeded in doing. You bought it. That some internet companies failed was reasonable since the stock value of many of many of those companies made no sense. Their value was as investor playthings. You are again trying to convince us of what Bush convinced you of, that US economy depended on the inflated value of flash in the pan "dot bombs."

I live in The United States of Amnesia.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman (which means he went to college) Alan Greenspan says anyone who thinks the Iraq War is not about oil is an "eeediot".

You an eeediot?

Daphne, you'd best revisit what Greenspan said because *surprise* you are completely wrong.

He clarified his remarks stating, "I was not saying that that's (oil) the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."...."I have never heard them basically say, 'We've got to protect the oil supplies of the world,' but that would have been my motive."

Oh my goodness! Gee, Daphne, your newfound hero Alan Greenspan is actually the one saying we SHOULD HAVE taken out Saddam for 'oil'. He called the removal of Saddam "essential". Hmmm....me thinks you'll be catching to first flight you can get to the United States of Amnesia now. Good day.

hey Butch...
IF you can read,I suggest you read Paul Krugman's op ed piece in today's NYT.
You might learn something.
Lars and godfry have it right.

lady, lars and godfry may or may not "have it right". But one thing I can guarantee is that Krugman 99% of the time does not. The fact that you would cite him as a credible source says enough about what you know about Krugman.

Shooting off your mouth doesn't seem to say as much to us as the world economy blowing a hole in our wallet. Bush is a LOSER and his LOSER supporters so far cost us half of all our money, just sitting here listening to them LIARS. Remember them when we meet in the unemployment lines and soup lines, they're the ones driving the SUVs in the gas lines.

Report: Former Fed Boss Says Euro Could Replace U.S. Dollar As Favored Reserve Currency, AP, Monday September 17
FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) -- Former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said it is possible that the euro could replace the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency of choice.

According to an advance copy of an interview to be published in Thursday's edition of the German magazine Stern, Greenspan said that ...