"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Wow another ignorant of history.

Apparently, by "ignorant of history" what you really mean is
"unindoctrinated by extreme pro-Bush/Cheney propaganda."


Jeff Rigby wrote:
No, I was taught this in a Problem in American Democracy class in high
school 1969. This was a required course in Florida for several years.
I
am constantly amazed at how little leaning is taking place in public
schools
in the north.


Considering that I went to public school in the south, you are barking
up the wrong tree. Also no matter what school you attend, falsified
ideologically slanted malarkey is still falsified ideologically slanted
malarkey.

Do you genuinely believe that LBJ was the first leader who ever had
inflation?



.... President Johnson was the first president to institute the
second tax on Americans, called inflation. BY DESIGN

Wrong. Inflation has been a feature of all economies since the advent of
money sometime around 500 BC. Early rulers used to add base metal to
gold or silver being stamped into coins, this was called "debasement of
the coinage."


Of course I learned that in junor high school too.


Really? Then why do you post nonsense that you claim you already know is
wrong?

Johnson is the first President to not balance the budget by
intent.


Wrong again. The Continental Congress started us the deficit-go-round.
And considering how much you Bushies hate FDR, I'm really surprised you
don't realize that FDR embraced Keynesian fiscal theories ie deficit
spending to help with the Great Depression.

DSK

Your right of course. Keynesian policy when properly implemented is a way
of managing the economy, to prime the pump when the economy needs it by
deficit spending. If the money is properly spent and the economy recovers
the money is repaid by increased income to the federal government. In
Keynesian, the intent is NOT to create inflation but it's understood that
some inflation will be the result of deficit spending.

What I am talking about is NOT Keynesian policy but the purposeful spending
to support pet projects and to build a power base for political ends by
spending money you don't have. Knowing you are purposely going to cause
inflation to pay back the excess spending by way of inflation and the
progressive income tax schedule. President Johnson was the first president
to institute the
second tax on Americans, called inflation, BY DESIGN

Dave Hall wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 18:17:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote:




So the great market rise under Clinton can be credited to Bush1, Regan,
or Carter?


Actually, the market rises and falls predominately by its own
conditions, in spite of which guy is in the big office. Clinton did
nothing which could be directly related to the economic growth that we
experienced in the 90's (nor did Bush 1). It could be argued that
perception influences the market to some degree. The market ebbs and
flows in cycles. As high as the tech sector went in the late 90's, it
was not surprising (and in fact was predicted by many economists) that
a recession followed. Bush's tax cuts may have mitigated the recession
and lessened its impact to some degree. But the market is constantly
evolving. We have to learn to adapt if we want to continue to ride the
crest of any economic boons.

Dave



Might you agree that the market reflects to some degree the optimism (or
lack thereof) investors? Thus CURRENT policy is reflected by the
markets perception of the future?


That what I was referring to when I mentioned "perception" in my last
paragraph.

The problem is that public "perception" is often crafted by the
spinmeisters who try to establish a person's image before they even
take office.

It didn't help Bush or the easing of the recent recession, when
congressional democrats were constantly harping about how "bad" the
economy was getting (After all a bad economy is good for them
politically). Things like this influence people's perception and your
"degree of optimism".



This might explain both the dramatic rise under Clinton, and the
somewhat less dramatic fall under Bush2.


Yes, it might to some degree. Democrats have been historically better
at putting out spin in their favor. After all, they influence, or are
in sync with, most of the major news media outlets.

Dave


Which is why the present administration has to supply pre packaged news
(AKA propaganda) to their favorite news outlets?

So, if "tax cuts" (by which I assume you mean tax cuts for the
wealthiest 1%)


Dave Hall wrote:
No, I mean the tax cuts for EVERYBODY. Everybody got a tax cut,
Period. You need to stop reading the democratic playbook and stick to
facts.


When I post facts, you should stop accusing me of "following the
Democratic playbook." This of course is straight out of the Bush/Cheney
shill playbook... keep repeating the lie, endlessly, sooner or later
somebody will believe it...




are big part of why the economy did eventually revive
under Reagan, then why hasn't the economy revived significantly in 4
years of Bush tax cuts? Huh? Why is that, Dave?


It takes time.

More than 4 years?

... The full impact of Reagan's tax cuts didn't become
evident until Clinton took office.

Bull feathers. Take a look at the GDP and inflation indexes for the 1980s.

You're just miffed because it's getting harder & harder to blame Clinton.




Even Reagan cabinet members agree that "trickle down" or "voodoo"
economics never worked.


They most certainly worked. History will prove that out.


Really? Ask Greenspan. Of course, his opinions on the economy are only a
bunch of liberal ravings, but he's said the 'trickle-down' economics are
bunkum... in fact IIRC that is the exact word he used...


It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if you give money
to those who make jobs, that more jobs will result.

It's not "rocket science" Dave, it's economics.
Of course, you know a lot more about it than Alan Greenspan, especially
when Greenspan contradicts President Bush.



Let me put it this way... on matters of national fiscal policy &
economics, I take Alan Greenspan's opinion as much much closer to fact
that your opinion (which is pretty much an empty parroting of
right-wingnut propaganda).


Yet you are strangely silent when Greenspan upholds the principles of
Bush's tax cuts and the privatization of S.S.


Hello? Hello? Where have you been?

You should check out what Greenspan *actually* has said about the
deficit and about Bush's SS plan. He is quite critical of both.

But then, listening to a long dull speech containing facts is boring,
I'm sure you'd rather get your "facts" from hate-spew talk radio.

DSK

Jeff Rigby wrote:
Your right of course.

Of course

.... Keynesian policy when properly implemented is a way
of managing the economy, to prime the pump when the economy needs it by
deficit spending.

As a conservative, I tend to sneer at Keynes... some personal reasons
behind that too. I agree that his ideas "properly implemented" would be
a great way to stimultate the national economy, the problem is that no
gov't I've ever heard of managed to do it "properly."


What I am talking about is NOT Keynesian policy but the purposeful spending
to support pet projects and to build a power base for political ends by
spending money you don't have.

Well, I can assure youo that LBJ was not the first political leader...
nor even the first U.S. President... to do that. In this country, that
has been the game since the Continental Congress.


... Knowing you are purposely going to cause
inflation to pay back the excess spending by way of inflation and the
progressive income tax schedule. President Johnson was the first president
to institute the
second tax on Americans, called inflation, BY DESIGN


That may be, but if so, it's only because he was smart enough (or honest
enough, which I doubt) to realize what his policy entailed. Most
politicians who embark on inflationary policies deny it strenuously...
for example, Reagan & Bush... although right now, with interest rates as
low as they are, inflation doesn't seem too great a danger...

The problem with President Bush's deficit spending is that it is not
stimulating the economy. GDP has not risen at all proportionally with
the deficit... but that's a different argument...

DSK

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:40:58 -0500, DSK wrote:

So, if "tax cuts" (by which I assume you mean tax cuts for the
wealthiest 1%)


Dave Hall wrote:
No, I mean the tax cuts for EVERYBODY. Everybody got a tax cut,
Period. You need to stop reading the democratic playbook and stick to
facts.


When I post facts, you should stop accusing me of "following the
Democratic playbook." This of course is straight out of the Bush/Cheney
shill playbook... keep repeating the lie, endlessly, sooner or later
somebody will believe it...

Everyone got a tax cut. THAT is a fact. The fact that the people who
put more in, got more back is misleading. The bottom line is that you
are being disingenuous (as are the writers of the democratic playbook)
when you make comments such as "tax breaks for the rich".



are big part of why the economy did eventually revive
under Reagan, then why hasn't the economy revived significantly in 4
years of Bush tax cuts? Huh? Why is that, Dave?


It takes time.

More than 4 years?

Sure. Why would you think otherwise?


... The full impact of Reagan's tax cuts didn't become
evident until Clinton took office.

Bull feathers. Take a look at the GDP and inflation indexes for the 1980s.

You're just miffed because it's getting harder & harder to blame Clinton.

Miffed? I would think that you are the one who's miffed, as you have
abandoned your usual methods of quoting biased sources and have
resorted to simply parroting the DNC talking points. You're just one
step above Harry now.


Even Reagan cabinet members agree that "trickle down" or "voodoo"
economics never worked.


They most certainly worked. History will prove that out.


Really? Ask Greenspan. Of course, his opinions on the economy are only a
bunch of liberal ravings, but he's said the 'trickle-down' economics are
bunkum... in fact IIRC that is the exact word he used...


It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if you give money
to those who make jobs, that more jobs will result.

It's not "rocket science" Dave, it's economics.
Of course, you know a lot more about it than Alan Greenspan, especially
when Greenspan contradicts President Bush.

Greenspan has been in agreement with Bush more than not as of late.
But again, you fail to acknowledge that.

Let me put it this way... on matters of national fiscal policy &
economics, I take Alan Greenspan's opinion as much much closer to fact
that your opinion (which is pretty much an empty parroting of
right-wingnut propaganda).


Yet you are strangely silent when Greenspan upholds the principles of
Bush's tax cuts and the privatization of S.S.


Hello? Hello? Where have you been?

You should check out what Greenspan *actually* has said about the
deficit and about Bush's SS plan. He is quite critical of both.

He was very positive about the tax cut. He did warn about increasing
the deficit, but agreed that the tax cuts probably lessened the impact
of the recession.



But then, listening to a long dull speech containing facts is boring,
I'm sure you'd rather get your "facts" from hate-spew talk radio.

As opposed to your "hate-spew" left wing propaganda rags?

Dave

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:52:22 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 18:17:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote:




So the great market rise under Clinton can be credited to Bush1, Regan,
or Carter?


Actually, the market rises and falls predominately by its own
conditions, in spite of which guy is in the big office. Clinton did
nothing which could be directly related to the economic growth that we
experienced in the 90's (nor did Bush 1). It could be argued that
perception influences the market to some degree. The market ebbs and
flows in cycles. As high as the tech sector went in the late 90's, it
was not surprising (and in fact was predicted by many economists) that
a recession followed. Bush's tax cuts may have mitigated the recession
and lessened its impact to some degree. But the market is constantly
evolving. We have to learn to adapt if we want to continue to ride the
crest of any economic boons.

Dave



Might you agree that the market reflects to some degree the optimism (or
lack thereof) investors? Thus CURRENT policy is reflected by the
markets perception of the future?


That what I was referring to when I mentioned "perception" in my last
paragraph.

The problem is that public "perception" is often crafted by the
spinmeisters who try to establish a person's image before they even
take office.

It didn't help Bush or the easing of the recent recession, when
congressional democrats were constantly harping about how "bad" the
economy was getting (After all a bad economy is good for them
politically). Things like this influence people's perception and your
"degree of optimism".



This might explain both the dramatic rise under Clinton, and the
somewhat less dramatic fall under Bush2.


Yes, it might to some degree. Democrats have been historically better
at putting out spin in their favor. After all, they influence, or are
in sync with, most of the major news media outlets.

Dave


Which is why the present administration has to supply pre packaged news
(AKA propaganda) to their favorite news outlets?

If that is really true (and I have little reason to believe that it's
as bad as the biased mainstreamers have reported), then it is to
counter the bias that has existed in the mainstream media.

Some might call that "Fair and balanced"........

Dave

When I post facts, you should stop accusing me of "following the
Democratic playbook." This of course is straight out of the Bush/Cheney
shill playbook... keep repeating the lie, endlessly, sooner or later
somebody will believe it...


Dave Hall wrote:
Everyone got a tax cut. THAT is a fact. The fact that the people who
put more in, got more back is misleading.

No, it's a fact. As you just said yourself.

When one actually looks closely at the numbers, "the people who put more
in" got back such a disproportionate amount more that it is in no way
misleading to call President Bush's tax cuts "for the rich."



... The bottom line is that you
are being disingenuous (as are the writers of the democratic playbook)
when you make comments such as "tax breaks for the rich".


No, the bottom line is that you're afraid of the simple truth. You want
to say "tax cut for all" and ignore the factual details of who
benefitted the most.


... why hasn't the economy revived significantly in 4
years of Bush tax cuts? Huh? Why is that, Dave?


It takes time.

More than 4 years?


Sure. Why would you think otherwise?


Because in 1990 & 1991, we had a recession that was over & done with and
followed by the greatest peacetime economic boom in history. In 2000 &
2001, we had a recession which is only just now beginning to loosen up.



... The full impact of Reagan's tax cuts didn't become
evident until Clinton took office.

Bull feathers. Take a look at the GDP and inflation indexes for the 1980s.

You're just miffed because it's getting harder & harder to blame Clinton.


Miffed? I would think that you are the one who's miffed

Yeah yeah, I guess one gets miffed when the truth supports one's viewpoints.



... as you have
abandoned your usual methods of quoting biased sources and have
resorted to simply parroting the DNC talking points. You're just one
step above Harry now.


Sure sure... BTW where can I read these "DNC talking points"? I haven't
heard any.



Greenspan has been in agreement with Bush more than not as of late.
But again, you fail to acknowledge that.


Oh no, I acknowledge that. I also heard him tell Congress about the Bush
SS plan being likely to increase the deficit in the short run, and
unlikely to change the future imbalance between SS tax revenue &
payouts. He also talked a lot about the dollar needing support against
foreign currencies and the risks of a continued imbalace of trade... I
suspect rather few Bush-Cheney supporters listened to all that, it was
rather dry & full of detail. You'd probably have accused him of
following the DNC talking points.


You should check out what Greenspan *actually* has said about the
deficit and about Bush's SS plan. He is quite critical of both.


He was very positive about the tax cut.

Several years ago, yes. Most recently he condemned it and urged Congress
to address the revenue shortfall.

But who cares about details? Facts are so dull compared to the
propaganda you wallow in.

DSK

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:46:38 -0500, DSK wrote:

When I post facts, you should stop accusing me of "following the
Democratic playbook." This of course is straight out of the Bush/Cheney
shill playbook... keep repeating the lie, endlessly, sooner or later
somebody will believe it...


Dave Hall wrote:
Everyone got a tax cut. THAT is a fact. The fact that the people who
put more in, got more back is misleading.

No, it's a fact. As you just said yourself.

When one actually looks closely at the numbers, "the people who put more
in" got back such a disproportionate amount more that it is in no way
misleading to call President Bush's tax cuts "for the rich."

There's nothing disproportionate about it. It's simple math dealing
with percentages. If you paid in $1000 in tax and got back 1% of it,
your tax cut amounted to $10. If you put in $100,000 in taxes, that 1%
cut amounted to $1000. The RATE remains the same.

You also forgot to mention the increases in child credits. I guess you
could claim that these were "tax breaks for the kids".

... The bottom line is that you
are being disingenuous (as are the writers of the democratic playbook)
when you make comments such as "tax breaks for the rich".


No, the bottom line is that you're afraid of the simple truth. You want
to say "tax cut for all" and ignore the factual details of who
benefitted the most.

But it's all relative. If you put more in, shouldn't you get more
back? $1000 to someone who pays in $100,000 is not much different than
$10 is to someone who only paid in $1000.


... why hasn't the economy revived significantly in 4
years of Bush tax cuts? Huh? Why is that, Dave?


It takes time.

More than 4 years?


Sure. Why would you think otherwise?


Because in 1990 & 1991, we had a recession that was over & done with and
followed by the greatest peacetime economic boom in history. In 2000 &
2001, we had a recession which is only just now beginning to loosen up.

Yes, but in 1990, we didn't have the equivalent of 9/11, and the
resultant fervor surrounding it. The Gulf War was over quickly and the
price of fuel dropped dramatically afterward, spurring growth, and
stifling inflationary concerns.

Today, we have many different factors. The uncertainty of the Iraq War
and terrorism in general (the perception of which isn't being helped
by the left wing propagandists and their doom and gloom forecasts),
the sharp rise in fuel costs, and the threat of inflation that it
brings. Then there's the issue of an increasing global economy and the
outsourcing of jobs to places that bring a better return on the
investment dollar.

This recession has pretty much been over for well over a year now. We
are seeing growth in most of the critical numbers. The only factor
that seems to be lagging is employment. But you won't fix that until
the market either finds it favorable to manufacture here again, or we,
as a people adapt to different types of jobs.


... The full impact of Reagan's tax cuts didn't become
evident until Clinton took office.

Bull feathers. Take a look at the GDP and inflation indexes for the 1980s.

You're just miffed because it's getting harder & harder to blame Clinton.


Miffed? I would think that you are the one who's miffed

Yeah yeah, I guess one gets miffed when the truth supports one's viewpoints.

Your definition of "truth" has always been suspect.

A more accurate term would be "belief".


... as you have
abandoned your usual methods of quoting biased sources and have
resorted to simply parroting the DNC talking points. You're just one
step above Harry now.


Sure sure... BTW where can I read these "DNC talking points"? I haven't
heard any.

You sure regurgitate them with remarkable accuracy for one who "hasn't
heard any".


Greenspan has been in agreement with Bush more than not as of late.
But again, you fail to acknowledge that.


Oh no, I acknowledge that. I also heard him tell Congress about the Bush
SS plan being likely to increase the deficit in the short run, and
unlikely to change the future imbalance between SS tax revenue &
payouts.

Yes, it would hit the short term, but it would balance out in the
longer term, when the amount of payout starts to decline.


He also talked a lot about the dollar needing support against
foreign currencies and the risks of a continued imbalace of trade... I
suspect rather few Bush-Cheney supporters listened to all that, it was
rather dry & full of detail. You'd probably have accused him of
following the DNC talking points.

No one disputes the problem of the devaluation of the dollar. On the
one hand, it attracts foreign investors, which is good for short term
growth. On the other hand, it makes the prices of everything we buy
abroad (Which is almost everything) rise, which leads to inflation.

But it doesn't take anyone special to state the obvious. But it does
take some one with vision to find a solution.

Fact: Social security, if left alone will eventually collapse under
its own weight.

Fact: There have been no practical solutions offered by democratic
leaders other than simply raising the tax.

Fact: Bush's private account proposal is innovative, and shows an
ability to think outside the box. For that reason alone, it should be
allowed to be objectively considered, without applying scare tactics
such as "cutting off seniors", "making wall street rich(er)", "buying
off campaign contributors", etc.




You should check out what Greenspan *actually* has said about the
deficit and about Bush's SS plan. He is quite critical of both.


He was very positive about the tax cut.

Several years ago, yes. Most recently he condemned it and urged Congress
to address the revenue shortfall.

Hmmm.. A flip flop? Or could it simply be an inability to predict the
future? If so, anything anyone predicts can change in an instant if
certain conditions change, which makes their remarks not necessarily
accurate.


But who cares about details? Facts are so dull compared to the
propaganda you wallow in.

Pot, Kettle, Black.

Dave

Dave, I cannot believe the patience you've shown in this discussion with someone
who obviously cares nothing about truth, facts, etc.




On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 07:18:47 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:46:38 -0500, DSK wrote:

When I post facts, you should stop accusing me of "following the
Democratic playbook." This of course is straight out of the Bush/Cheney
shill playbook... keep repeating the lie, endlessly, sooner or later
somebody will believe it...


Dave Hall wrote:
Everyone got a tax cut. THAT is a fact. The fact that the people who
put more in, got more back is misleading.

No, it's a fact. As you just said yourself.

When one actually looks closely at the numbers, "the people who put more
in" got back such a disproportionate amount more that it is in no way
misleading to call President Bush's tax cuts "for the rich."

There's nothing disproportionate about it. It's simple math dealing
with percentages. If you paid in $1000 in tax and got back 1% of it,
your tax cut amounted to $10. If you put in $100,000 in taxes, that 1%
cut amounted to $1000. The RATE remains the same.

You also forgot to mention the increases in child credits. I guess you
could claim that these were "tax breaks for the kids".

... The bottom line is that you
are being disingenuous (as are the writers of the democratic playbook)
when you make comments such as "tax breaks for the rich".


No, the bottom line is that you're afraid of the simple truth. You want
to say "tax cut for all" and ignore the factual details of who
benefitted the most.

But it's all relative. If you put more in, shouldn't you get more
back? $1000 to someone who pays in $100,000 is not much different than
$10 is to someone who only paid in $1000.


... why hasn't the economy revived significantly in 4
years of Bush tax cuts? Huh? Why is that, Dave?


It takes time.

More than 4 years?


Sure. Why would you think otherwise?


Because in 1990 & 1991, we had a recession that was over & done with and
followed by the greatest peacetime economic boom in history. In 2000 &
2001, we had a recession which is only just now beginning to loosen up.

Yes, but in 1990, we didn't have the equivalent of 9/11, and the
resultant fervor surrounding it. The Gulf War was over quickly and the
price of fuel dropped dramatically afterward, spurring growth, and
stifling inflationary concerns.

Today, we have many different factors. The uncertainty of the Iraq War
and terrorism in general (the perception of which isn't being helped
by the left wing propagandists and their doom and gloom forecasts),
the sharp rise in fuel costs, and the threat of inflation that it
brings. Then there's the issue of an increasing global economy and the
outsourcing of jobs to places that bring a better return on the
investment dollar.

This recession has pretty much been over for well over a year now. We
are seeing growth in most of the critical numbers. The only factor
that seems to be lagging is employment. But you won't fix that until
the market either finds it favorable to manufacture here again, or we,
as a people adapt to different types of jobs.


... The full impact of Reagan's tax cuts didn't become
evident until Clinton took office.

Bull feathers. Take a look at the GDP and inflation indexes for the 1980s.

You're just miffed because it's getting harder & harder to blame Clinton.


Miffed? I would think that you are the one who's miffed

Yeah yeah, I guess one gets miffed when the truth supports one's viewpoints.

Your definition of "truth" has always been suspect.

A more accurate term would be "belief".


... as you have
abandoned your usual methods of quoting biased sources and have
resorted to simply parroting the DNC talking points. You're just one
step above Harry now.


Sure sure... BTW where can I read these "DNC talking points"? I haven't
heard any.

You sure regurgitate them with remarkable accuracy for one who "hasn't
heard any".


Greenspan has been in agreement with Bush more than not as of late.
But again, you fail to acknowledge that.


Oh no, I acknowledge that. I also heard him tell Congress about the Bush
SS plan being likely to increase the deficit in the short run, and
unlikely to change the future imbalance between SS tax revenue &
payouts.

Yes, it would hit the short term, but it would balance out in the
longer term, when the amount of payout starts to decline.


He also talked a lot about the dollar needing support against
foreign currencies and the risks of a continued imbalace of trade... I
suspect rather few Bush-Cheney supporters listened to all that, it was
rather dry & full of detail. You'd probably have accused him of
following the DNC talking points.

No one disputes the problem of the devaluation of the dollar. On the
one hand, it attracts foreign investors, which is good for short term
growth. On the other hand, it makes the prices of everything we buy
abroad (Which is almost everything) rise, which leads to inflation.

But it doesn't take anyone special to state the obvious. But it does
take some one with vision to find a solution.

Fact: Social security, if left alone will eventually collapse under
its own weight.

Fact: There have been no practical solutions offered by democratic
leaders other than simply raising the tax.

Fact: Bush's private account proposal is innovative, and shows an
ability to think outside the box. For that reason alone, it should be
allowed to be objectively considered, without applying scare tactics
such as "cutting off seniors", "making wall street rich(er)", "buying
off campaign contributors", etc.




You should check out what Greenspan *actually* has said about the
deficit and about Bush's SS plan. He is quite critical of both.


He was very positive about the tax cut.

Several years ago, yes. Most recently he condemned it and urged Congress
to address the revenue shortfall.

Hmmm.. A flip flop? Or could it simply be an inability to predict the
future? If so, anything anyone predicts can change in an instant if
certain conditions change, which makes their remarks not necessarily
accurate.


But who cares about details? Facts are so dull compared to the
propaganda you wallow in.

Pot, Kettle, Black.

Dave

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

When one actually looks closely at the numbers, "the people who put more
in" got back such a disproportionate amount more that it is in no way
misleading to call President Bush's tax cuts "for the rich."


Dave Hall wrote:
There's nothing disproportionate about it. It's simple math dealing
with percentages. If you paid in $1000 in tax and got back 1% of it,
your tax cut amounted to $10. If you put in $100,000 in taxes, that 1%
cut amounted to $1000. The RATE remains the same.

That's absurd.

Take a look at your tax rate booklet... preferably before April 15th...


You should check out what Greenspan *actually* has said about the
deficit and about Bush's SS plan. He is quite critical of both.


He was very positive about the tax cut.

Several years ago, yes. Most recently he condemned it and urged Congress
to address the revenue shortfall.


Hmmm.. A flip flop?

Yeah, that darn liberal Greenspan! He's probably a terrorist sympathizer!

...Or could it simply be an inability to predict the
future?

Or it could be that he's frustrated by the Bush Administration's
inability to carry out the positive aspects of their announced fiscal
plans. We all have to suffer from the negative aspects, no matter how
often Greenspan (and others) try to warn them.

DSK