First of all this isn't a "conservative versus liberal versus Greenspan" argument. I’ve never cast it as that. This is a reality vs. opinion argument. You are flat denying a basic truth about the current US economy. You said that I am quoting articles that are dated -fair enough. Yet when I asked you to cite directly -you make vague references and then blame me for reading the paragraph directly below it.
You complain loudly when I use the term "kid" to describe you -yet have no problem throwing ad hominems towards me. (i.e. Telling me what my motives are for making a statement rather than addressing any point I'm making. It is insulting to argue with someone who deliberately twists your words and misrepresents your opinions.) Nevertheless, I apologize for calling you "kid". Perhaps we can both take it down a notch.
As far as my alleged 'blaming Bush for the slowed economy' goes...
You are way off. I agree that the economy runs at a separate pace than the presidency. "Virtually no effect on the economy" is an exaggeration and an overstatement. Bush can act and have a positive effect on the economy. The economy needs a stimulus and the republicans are in denial. You can argue that Greenspan
hasn’t asked for a stimulus but then Greenspan isn’t in a position where he can make bold public statements without having an effect on the current economy. The economy needs a stimulus.
Meanwhile Bush has mismanaged the national debt. His administration treats it a credit card for the next president to pay off. I cited the fact that he could’ve used foreign allies more efficiently in Afghanistan. If he bothered to do this perhaps they would’ve even been on board for an attack on Iraq; but then maybe not. That speculation is irrelevant but seeking outside help during wartime has always been an extremely good strategy, both militarily and
economically. So why didn’t Bush use some ally like NATO during the Afghan crisis?
Even though the CNN Money article was sufficient in talking about difficulties with the problems of Bush Deficit spending. I'd like to present two relatively more recent articles pointing to the problem with the deficit. The first article is three months old. Is that too old? –Well maybe except that it has some forecasts and some relevant quotes of the only top dog analyst that you seem to buy –Greenspan
Quote:
US slashes growth forecast
The sluggish US economy is taking longer to pick up than anticipated, according to the latest figures and comments from the Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan.
Mr Greenspan, in his twice-yearly testimony to Congress, said the central bank was cutting its forecast for US economic growth this year by three quarters of a percentage point to 2.5-2.75%.
The downgrade came on the day the Bush administration predicted that the federal deficit would surge to a record $455bn this year thanks to tax cuts, economic weakness, and the cost of war in Iraq and the fight against terrorism.
Cautious optimism 
Mr Greenspan described economic growth in the first half of 2003 as "sluggish".
He blamed the war in Iraq and ongoing caution by businesses, reluctant to invest or hire more workers.
But he said the Federal Reserve Bank expects economic activity to "accelerate in the second half of this year and to gather momentum in 2004".
"We believe that we are at a turning point," Mr Greenspan said, hinting that there are already some signs of an economic recovery.
A glimmer of hope for the economy came from figures for US retail sales, which rose by 0.5% in June, the biggest increase in three months.
Retail sales are seen as a reliable guide to the health of the economy in the US, where consumer spending accounts for two thirds of all economic activity.
Economists said last month's increase reflected lower interest rates, with homeowners taking advantage of cheaper borrowing costs to remortgage their properties.
Rate cuts 
US interest rates are now at a 45-year low, but Mr Greenspan said a further "substantial" cut was possible to guard against any destabilisation and help fuel a faster economic recovery.
On 25 June, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates by a quarter of a percentage point to 1% - their lowest level in 45 years.
The Fed chairman said interest rates would stay low for "as long as it takes".
He said the June meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) had concluded: "The available evidence did not yet compellingly demonstrate that a material step-up in economic growth was underway."
Mr Greenspan said the goal now was to get the US economy growing at a faster rate, and suggested companies will need more employees as productivity picks up.
""If, and as we strongly expect, the growth rate will be picking up in the months ahead and rising above the relevant rate of productivity, then clearly increased work forces will be required to meet the increased growth," he told the House of Representatives.
Deficit fears
But the US deficit continued to cause concern.
The US treasury secretary John Snow described it as "manageable" but "unwelcome".
Mr Snow said the report had prompted him to redouble efforts to cut government spending.
The White House revealed new forecasts for the ballooning budget deficit, suggesting it would reach $455bn this year and $475bn in the next financial year starting 1 October.
"We are drifting into bigger and bigger deficits and what I find alarming is that neither party is willing to give up its political priorities to do anything about it," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition.
Mr Greenspan said the deficit "mattered a great deal" and that he had long argued for "fiscal responsibility".
"I trust recent numbers will push government more and more to... a stable fiscal outlook," he said when questioned about the latest deficit figures.
The White House also projected a halving in the deficit to $226bn by 2008.
|
“Mr Greenspan said the deficit "mattered a great deal" and that he had long argued for "fiscal responsibility".
So do you think Bush is Fiscally responsible?