Iraq war was about oil: Greenspan

[MB_722]

as if we didn't know 

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, in his new book, says the US went to war in Iraq motivated largely by oil.

Greenspan said: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

Greenspan's book also criticises President George W Bush for not responsibly handling the nation's spending and racking up big budget deficits.

A self-described "libertarian Republican," Greenspan takes his own party to task for forsaking conservative principles that favour small government.

"My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan wrote.

Bush took office in 2001, the last time the government produced a budget surplus. Every year after that, the government has been in the red. In 2004, the deficit swelled to a record $US413 billion ($A493.75 billion).

"The Republicans in Congress lost their way," Greenspan wrote. "They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."

...

Greenspan, 81, ran the Fed for 18 1/2 years and was the second-longest serving chief. He served under four presidents, starting with his initial nomination by former President Ronald Reagan.

He says he began to write the book on Feb. 1, 2006, the day his successor - Ben Bernanke - took over.

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

"'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.

Large projected surpluses were the basis for Bush's $US1.35 trillion, 10-year tax cut approved in the summer of 2001.

Budget experts projected the government would run a whopping $US5.6 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 materialised.

"In the revised world of growing deficits, the goals were no longer entirely appropriate," Greenspan noted. Bush, he said, stuck with his campaign promises anyway. "Most troubling to me was the readiness of both Congress and the administration to abandon fiscal discipline."

Greenspan, in testimony before Congress in 2001 gave a major boost to Bush's tax-cut plan, irking Democrats.

At that time, Greenspan argued a tax cut could help the economy deal with sagging growth. The economy slipped into a recession in March 2001. The downturn ended in November of that year.

Surpluses quickly turned to deficits after the bursting of the stock market bubble and the 2001 recession cut into government revenues.

Government spending increased to pay for the fight against terrorism and receipts declined because of a string of tax cuts.

The Bush White House defended its fiscal policies in light of the Greenspan book.

"Clearly those tax cuts proved to be the right medicine for an ailing economy," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. The 2001 recession was a mild one.

"Tax cuts contributed a portion to early deficits, but those tax cuts accelerated growth over time leading to increased business activity, increased job growth and increased tax receipts, which today has us at low historic deficit levels and on a path to a surplus," Fratto said.

As to the spending side, Fratto added: "We're not going to apologise for increased spending to protect our national security."

Greenspan said he was surprised by the political grip that Bush exerted over his administration.

The Bush administration turned out to be different from "the reincarnation" of the Ford administration that Greenspan said he had imagined. "Now the political operation was far more dominant." Greenspan was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Ford.
...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/iraq-war-was-about-oil-greenspan/2007/09/16/1189881318032.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

[Hedgehog]

Greenspan's book also criticises President George W Bush for not responsibly handling the nation's spending and racking up big budget deficits.

A self-described "libertarian Republican," Greenspan takes his own party to task for forsaking conservative principles that favour small government.

"My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan wrote.

Bush is fcuking up USA's economy. And the global economy will suffer as well.

[Camel Jockey]

This confirms one thing: Bush was never and never will be a conservative.

Neither is Mr. I.

[Purge_WTF]

  Greenspan will be on 60 Minutes tonight. Should be interesting.

[Hedgehog]

This confirms one thing: Bush was never and never will be a conservative.

Neither is Mr. I.

Greenspan calls himself a libertarian, which is a form of liberalism. Economical liberalism is all about minimal government, free trade, capitalism and minimal regulation.

Somehow, the word liberal has been abused in the USA.

Most people would agree that you can't lower the taxes unless you have made room for it in the budget.

And you should definitely not be running budget deficits when the economical cycle is high, that's when you need to save up money for the recession.

Something the Bush administration clearly hasn't done.

Tax cuts will have to be slashed, some taxes may even have to be raised, and a lot of budget posts, such as the military, will have to be significantly lowered to stop this running train.

It's about being fiscally responsible, cleaning up a mess created by Bush. USA should go to election on who is the best person to do that.

Here's my problem: Republicans are usually pretty good when it comes to trimming the government. But they absolutely suck at cutting the biggest cost - the military, and they have big problems with raising the taxes or slashing tax cuts.

Democrats: They can slash the military spending fairly well (eg Bill Clinton - big reason for his budget success), and can get the necessary tax raises done. But they usually spend money from tax raises in reform programs.


Out of the current candidates, I only see Giuliani and Clinton as feasible.

BTW, Clinton really has made one helluva campaign thus far, getting Wes Clark on board as well.

[MB_722]

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml

go to 60 Minutes

Greenspan interview