Alan Greenspan warns of coming recession:
By on Feb 26th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Alan Greenspan warns of coming recession:
“When you get this far away from a recession invariably forces build up for the next recession, and indeed we are beginning to see that sign.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
How come Greenspan didn’t warn about “getting too far away from a recession” in the 1990’s?
Because he knows that Chimpy’s policies are dooming America.
Can’t wait till China starts dumping t-bills.
-GSD
February 26th, 2007 at 3:26 pmYeah, it couldn’t have anything to do with the hundreds of billions of dollars being wasted on Iraq could it?
February 26th, 2007 at 3:27 pmGDS – yeah, China dumps t-bills, gas prices keep rising, cost of goods increase with the gas prices… WalMart needs to charge more and Americans keep losing good paying jobs.
(sarc on)Wow, those compassionate convervatives really know what’s good for America (sarc off).
February 26th, 2007 at 3:31 pmSpudge – really, do you think so? Boy Bush really does destroy everything he touches. He has the non-Midas touch.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:33 pmThis is the corporate shill that said having a huge surplus of cash was bad for the economy.
He also said worker insecurity is “desireable”.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:33 pmWell let’s raise taxes IMMEDIATELY to stave off the demands of increased unemployment. Oh…wait… that wouldn’t be so good for the economy, would it?
February 26th, 2007 at 3:34 pmHow much ya wanna bet…
…It’s Clinton’s fault?
February 26th, 2007 at 3:34 pmThe AP article cites a 2006Q4 growth of 3.5%. I thought that was the initial estimate and that it was later revised to 2.2%.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:36 pmNo sh*t, Greenspan. The house of cards will tumble.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:37 pmIf anyone doubts, this is when Shrubby Should be saying “Mission Accomplished”
February 26th, 2007 at 3:37 pm#7. Wait for it…
February 26th, 2007 at 3:38 pm…It’s Clinton’s fault?
Comment by big papa
I’ve got $1 on that one, big papa. If it hadn’t been for that surplus Clinton had, none of this would have happened. :P
February 26th, 2007 at 3:38 pmUh, doesn’t that mean that the economy is currently healthy? And isn’t it true that the economy goes through a normal heating up period followed by a cooling down period? You know, like the earth’s climate!
February 26th, 2007 at 3:40 pmYou mean we haven’t been in a recession in the last 7 years? All the high paying jobs are being shipped to India, most consumer goods are being made in China, the cost of health care is astonomical and the federal deficit is in the trillions of dollars… and no big profits from Wall Street… hey Alan, wtf have you been these last 7 years.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:41 pmUnfortunately, Alan Greenspan has almost never been right. Remember, he was also the one who encouraged Bush to blow the budget surplus because it was expected that surpluses would last into the foreseeable future. Nothing but a bastard, as far as I’m concerned.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:41 pmCorrect my last post. I should have said “fortunately” instead of “unfortunately”.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:43 pmChina, Japan and the other great lenders to our nation have already made arrangements. They will not dump out in one shot. That would hurt their economy as well. It wil be an orderly decline at first. They have been slowly moving to protect themselves from the disaster our economy is headed for.
I wish we had a leader that cared about our future.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:46 pmIt would be fine for the economy if the rich went back to paying their FAIR share, which is more than the poor should pay.
Oh yeah,
“Go fu*k yourself.”
February 26th, 2007 at 3:46 pm-Greetings form Dick Cheney
Personal savings are in the tank.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:00 pmForeclosures are going thru the ceiling.
Yeah, right around the corner is another coupla billion wasted on death and carnage in Iraq.
How bout taking some responsibility, NeoCon shills????
#18, if by ‘fair’, then you mean the ‘rich’ pay a greater percentage of their income than the ‘poor’, then yes, that would be ‘fair’.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:00 pmCoffins DWF,
February 26th, 2007 at 4:01 pmYou might say he has the reverse midas or the Sidam touch.
Hmmmm, almost too close for comfort!
RUC… thanks. I was searching for the proper prefix. I’m not familiar with the term “Sidam” touch. I’ll look it up.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:12 pmI said:
I didn’t mince words Dale. Yes, they should pay more. They have made their money off of other Americans sweat and tears. The least they could do was help relieve some of the pain felt at the bottom.
I do not believe or agree with the “I got mine, now you go get yours mentality of the rich.”
February 26th, 2007 at 4:15 pmCoffinsDrapedWithFlags,
Sidam touch is known as the reverse Midas touch. : )
February 26th, 2007 at 4:16 pmA little article about the “Sadim touch”.
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/10/the_sidam_touch.html
…. the touch that ruins everything. Yeah, you could say that applies to George W Bush.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:18 pmHe would be right if a leftist were President.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:19 pmPlease… I got to where I am (by no means rich, but I’m doing okay) not off the ’sweat and tears’ of anybody else, but from my own hard work. I’m in the computer industry, I don’t remember trampling anybody while I was writing code.
What about a surgeon? I imagine surgeons make fairly good money, but I doubt whether they got the medical skills off the ’sweat and tears’ of somebody else.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:22 pmCoffins DWF — we used to call that “The ExLax Touch”. The Chimp’s got it, awright.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:24 pmThen you are NOT one of the rich and YOU are NOT one of the people I am talking about.
You don’t seem to understand what I am talking about by rich. I am not talking about small business owners and surgeons. The people I am talking about and the people that make up the 1-4% that got Bush’s tax cuts DON’T WORK FOR A LIVING.
Lawyers, doctors, lottery winners are NOT THE RICH. They are upper middle class.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:30 pmMust be time for another fleecing of the public.
Freaking THIEVES!!! Close the Federal Reserve Bank!
February 26th, 2007 at 4:32 pmOh, good, so I can pay the same percentage of my income as the middle class? Or lower middle class? Everybody gets the same tax rate except for the super-rich? /sarcasm
So where’s the cut-off? At what point do you consider someone THE RICH. How about a basketball player who’s making 15m/yr? He’s worked d**n hard to acquire/hone the skills he has, yet you want to soak him for xx percent extra? Just because he’s a heck of a basketball player?
February 26th, 2007 at 4:34 pmHillWillie ~
February 26th, 2007 at 4:36 pmAlso known as the Septic Tank Plunger Touch…
Should be “Sadim touch” (midas spelled backwards correctly).
I think the neocons have the “Titanic Touch” – make the lifeboats available to the super rich and send the lower classes into the hull to drown.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:40 pm#31. Yes. A person making $15m/year should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than a person earning $15,000 a year.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:41 pmHow about a basketball player who’s making 15m/yr? He’s worked d**n hard to acquire/hone the skills he has, yet you want to soak him for xx percent extra? Just because he’s a heck of a basketball player? Comment by Dale
Yes and yes. Our society gives athletes the opportunity to play a game that they love and make a phenomenal living at it. They acquired those skills with public supported coaching through high schools and colleges. Cities and states go out of their way to use tax funds to provide infastructure for their arenas. Take a nice chunk of that 15m/yr and put it toward uplifting the whole community. I think the super rich basketball player can do with one less gold chain per year or an off-the-rack vs customized sports car.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:47 pmNope, 15 million a year still doesn’t cut it. I am talking about oil execs who make 100 million a year. Nobody needs that kind of money. If you do, you have an addiction to money.
Some call that addiction Greed. Bill Gates is just now getting over his addiction. He has decided to drop Microsoft all together and to go fight disease in Africa full time.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:48 pmGood ol’ Greenspan. Ever since Bush took office he has done nothing but talk about how fantastic the economy is doing and how Bush’s brillirant policies are to credit.
Now that the days of Bush AND Republicans are coming to an end, Ol’ Greeny warns of a recession.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:56 pmI also earn a comfortable income in the tech sector for Wall St, which puts me (last time I looked) in the upper 5% of income earners nationwide. I did not do this on my own- I went to publically financed schools, a private college with the assistance of federal loans, grad school with the assistance of a federal grant. The police protect me and my family and belongings. Going back a generation, my parents also went to school and college with the aid of the state and federal government.
When I collect my paychecks, I pay a higher percentage than people who make less than me, and rightly so. I can afford to pay 40% of my income to the government that I benefit from.
Warren Buffet- a hero of mine actually- makes several orders of magnitude more money than I do. However, he pays significantly lower percentage of his income as tax- he pays capital gains taxes on his investment income, which to over simplify, comes out around 20%. Warren Buffet, in a TV spot on CSPAN I saw once, actually said that it wasnt right- him paying a lower percentage of taxes than his secretary.
If Warren can see the benefits of a progressive income tax, why cant the rest of the “pull-yourself-up-by-the-boot-straps” “no-free-lunch” fiscal conservatives?
February 26th, 2007 at 5:28 pmDale: “So where’s the cut-off? At what point do you consider someone THE RICH”
Gosh this is so confusing. We’ll never figure this out…. wait a minute! Why not just go back to Clintonomics – a 3.5% higher marginal rate on the wealthiest bracket. Worked in the 90’s! Rich still got richer! Budget got balanced! What’s not to like?
February 26th, 2007 at 5:35 pmJust great! Now, in addition to having to rebuild the armed forces, move toward a balanced budget, restore diplomacy, restore democracy, in 2008 the Democratic president will have to deal with aWol’s recession.
February 26th, 2007 at 5:39 pmBy the way, three years ago, Greenspan, who these conservatives like, was suggesting everyone pick up an ARM loan. Krugman, who conservatives don’t like, suggested everyone get a fixed rate loan. This year, as up to 20 million people default on these ARM’s, I hope people remember who could have steered them correctly.
February 26th, 2007 at 5:43 pmWhen did we ever come out of a recession?
Sure, the Dow is up. Big deal, it’s just numbers to me. However, my paycheck isn’t going up, everything is constantly costing more and more, and the overall decline of the US dollar.. Don’t get me started. All I know is that it’s much harder for me to go travel overseas than it used to be. Saving money has been painfully difficult under the Bush regime.
February 26th, 2007 at 5:49 pmA person making $15m/year should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than a person earning $15,000 a year. — And You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid
******************************************
And since many conservatives and neoconservatives claim to have Christian values, here’s a quotation from The Man Himself which seems to support that argument…
“For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required.” — Luke 12:48
“Noblesse oblige” was a phrase which used to describe the ethical obligations of the monarchy and nobility towards the people under their rule — the idea that the privileges of their high state should never be used against the people (although plenty unfortunately used it for such) but that their power should be used responsibly in order to benefit the people under their rule, not just themselves. The principle of noblesse oblige recognizes that very little in life comes without a price tag — for every gain, there is nearly always a cost of some kind.
We may not have an official monarchy or nobility in this country, but we do have an unofficial one in that the wealthiest people in this country are also frequently the most powerful. Rightly or wrongly, this country operates to at least some extent by the Golden Rule — “those who have the gold make the rules”. Why should the concept of noblesse oblige apply any less to these individuals — and particularly to those who inherited their money rather than earning it themselves — than it did to the nobles and sovereigns of old? After all, no man is an island and even most “self-made men” usually don’t become successful exclusively through their own efforts — they get there through a combination of their own efforts and those of people who work with them and for them. The “self-made man” may not want to give these people any credit or may not remember to do so, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they didn’t earn it or don’t deserve it.
In my opinion, one of the finest examples of modern-day noblesse oblige I’ve ever heard of was exemplified by the CEO of Malden Mills, the manufacturer of PolarFleece and PolarTech fabric. When a manufacturing plant was devastated by a fire and wiped out operations at their main base in Massachusetts, the CEO kept every employee on the payroll until the plant was rebuilt — and I’ve heard that he even took a voluntary cut in salary. Now there, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of a leader who understands that it’s not all about him and that he owes a good portion of his own livelihood to the efforts of others — but I ask you, how many people in the business world today would be willing to do the same or something similar? Not nearly as many as there should be, I’ll bet.
February 26th, 2007 at 5:50 pmAlan Greenspan–the seer of economics…HAH! Greenspan is RESPONSIBLE for the CURRENT PRECARIOUS STATE of the American Economy and THE SOONER THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA ALL REALIZE THAT THE BETTER OFF WE WILL ALL BE. Greenspan is NOT ALONE at FAULT, of course…CHIMPya Bush had a MONUMENTAL PART in this INIQUITY and PERNICIOUSNESS, being equally CULPABLE for blame. Greenspan and Bush’s LUDICROUS and CRIMINAL actions have BROUGHT US TO THE BRINK OF DISASTER, and these TWO CRIMINALS, one ECONOMIC and the other POLITICAL, MUST BE BOTH PUNISHED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW!!!!!
February 26th, 2007 at 7:05 pm#38 drtomaso
#43 bluestocking
Each excellent posts.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:18 pmWow…let the socialist’s be known!
Post #43…Maybe Jesus wants to judge our behavior based on the decisions we make, not what the government tells us what to do with our money.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:32 pmBTW…Since when is a surplus a good thing. Do you enjoy the government holding your money with 0% rate of return? Simple finance people. Figure it out.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:39 pmI wonder what would happen if we started taxing the rich and required the drug companies to market their drugs at reasonable prices, you know like what they charge everywhere else in the world. Maybe if we squeezed the rich like they are enjoying squeezing the middle class and cut cost in the health care area we would have fewer problems.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:17 pmWarren Buffet- a hero of mine actually- makes several orders of magnitude more money than I do. However, he pays significantly lower percentage of his income as tax- he pays capital gains taxes on his investment income, which to over simplify, comes out around 20%. Warren Buffet, in a TV spot on CSPAN I saw once, actually said that it wasnt right- him paying a lower percentage of taxes than his secretary.
If Warren can see the benefits of a progressive income tax, why cant the rest of the “pull-yourself-up-by-the-boot-straps†“no-free-lunch†fiscal conservatives? — drtomaso
*******************************************
*Applauds*…I didn’t actually get to read your post before sending mine (as I was probably composing it at the time), but I find it interesting that there seemed to be some common points between your post and mine. I’ve come to admire Mr. Buffett also after recently reading about his decision to give away the bulk of his fortune — amounting somewhere in the eleven figures — to charity. He’s definitely a man who understands the modern interpretation of noblesse oblige — as do you, it appears.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:41 pmOf course Alan knows when the recession is going to strike, he’s the person who created the conditions for it to occur.
Come November when the US housing market falls into a colossal nosedive, the penny might drop amongst the American people, given all they will have left is pennies, I guess thats fortunate.
In Australia they call the early 90’s “the recession we had to have”. Get ready to start hearing that from the Bush Administration.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:48 amwhen we talk about taxes, don’t forget social security. i pay almost as much in social security taxes, as bill gates and it’s all being spent to support the deficit. i’m not likely to see much of it, so as far as i’m concerned it’s just an extension of the income tax system and barely affects the wealthy.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:02 pm