Obama, Edwards Craft Tax Hike Plan to Destroy Wealth and Savings

except he didnt, which youd know if you bothered to read anything beyond times-not-so-select

 

It's exactly what he said.

 

What does Greenspan know about economics?

 

oh no he dident!

 

Quotes from ``The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,'' By Alan Greenspan.

On Clinton

Greenspan, who calls himself a "libertarian Republican" but had an eight-year alliance with Clinton and Democratic Treasury secretaries in the 1990s, praises Clinton's mind and his tough anti-deficit policies, calling the former president's 1993 economic plan "an act of political courage."

But he expresses deep disappointment with Bush. "My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan writes.

--------

He calls Clinton a "risk taker" who had shown a "preference for dealing in facts," and presents Clinton and himself almost as soul mates. "Here was a fellow information hound. ... We both read books and were curious and thoughtful about the world."

During Clinton's first weeks as president, Greenspan went to the Oval Office and explained the danger of not confronting the federal deficit. Unless deficits were cut, there could be "a financial crisis," Greenspan told Clinton.

"The hard truth was that Reagan had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back. I was impressed that he did not seem to be trying to fudge reality to the extent politicians ordinarily do."

Dealing with a budget surplus in his second term, Clinton proposed devoting the extra money to "save Social Security first."

"I played no role in finding the answer," Greenspan writes, "but I had to admire the one Clinton and his policymakers came up with."


Iraq War and Oil

``I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil,'' Greenspan wrote in a chapter titled ``The Long-Term Energy Squeeze.''

------------

I'll accept your apology now.

 

A $100K isn't that much anymore. You really have to look at $200K+.

For someone making between $100-$200K in nyc, you pay 40% in taxes and massive rent and expenses. It's not right to increase the tax burden on urban dwellers who are really middle class.

 

Two educated college students that recently graduate and are married can easily make over $100K in a couple years. So just because they worked their asses off to get educated and excel in good jobs and makde 45-55K each, all of a sudden their household is considered "rich" and they now have to foot tax bill for the people that chose not to get educated or excel...all the while they are trying to save for a house, pay off school loans, raise children, etc.

People need to be very careful about what they consider "rich." If you have a couple hundred thousand banked, and make six figures, you are considered "rich." A tax increase really hurts that lifestyle as a few percentage points of tax increase is still real money to those folks.

If you have millions in the bank, etc. it doesn't hurt as bad and a few percentage points actually doesn't affect your lifestyle.

I am usually against fiscal policy that actually hurts those who excel or are sucessful. Shouldn't the people that generate the economy be helped by the government, not hurt? If I'm an evil corporation, but pay 100 salaries to a 100 people that all buy homes, put their kids through college, etc, why am I being targeted to pay even MORE. My successful business has already raised 100 people up and given a jump to the economy.

When my tax bill jumps, who gets hurt more? Me, or the 5 people I have to lay off. So now the government has collected more taxes from me, but no taxes from 5 unemployed people...who in fact the goverment may have to fiscally support now. All because I was "rich" or successful and the government tried to get me to support more than I could support.

 

uh, read the article

 

[rquoter]"I was not saying that that's 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."[/rquoter]

next. oh, and who gives a **** about clinton...

 

basso really, you're embarrassing yourself.

The man said it, it's in print for all the world to see. I'm sorry that he felt the need to back away from his own words after Conservatives howled like a bunch of whiny babies. It's understandable though. Greenspan pretty much said what we all knew and blew a hole in conservative talking points.

And as far as Clinton is concerned, it must really chap conservatives ass that he's so much better liked here and around the world. In the words of TJ, let's move on.

 

Bush crafts 8 year plan to destroy american foreign policy, weaken american military power, and send america's economy into the toilet.

Yesterday's headline today

 

Let us be perfectly clear, for the dumbasses on the right and on the left, who take the "war about oil" thing largely out of context

The reason why the ME is at all of strategic interest (as opposed to say, central africa) is because it has oil.

Accordingly any american policy move in the ME over the last 100 years can indirectly be ascribed oil as at least a partial motive.

Quite honestly, sitting around and chanting "all about the oil" is idiotic - yes, I understand oil security is a big factor in any ME policy - but if you think President Cheney is going to rig up a huge siphon and store the oil back in Crawford in a big warehouse, that's just plain silly.

Greenspan knows this too. What is also silly is ascribing "about the oil" lunatic sentiment to him, like basso just did, when he is clearly speaking in the context mentioned above.

Context. Stupid people can use it too!

 

1) The tax change really doesn't hurt you until arond $140K according to the article. And even if $100K is not really that much anymore (though that thought is kinda hard to imagine), it's still a very small percentage of the population.

2) Most company's HR department do analysis on competitive pay, so if the tax cut goes through, you be there will be adjustments to the market down the line to continue to attract people to live in high cost areas. Besides, as workplace begins to get increasingly more flexible around where you can work with technological advances (i.e. working more from home, tele-conference, etc), I can see Urban dwelling becoming more as a life style choice and I have no problem with a price premium on that.

3) Those people probably should've taken a $80K job in Texas instead of going to NY with them Yankees.

 

The biggest misconception is that if wealthy people are taxed more, they have less incentive to work hard.

I can guarantee you (from personal experience working with upper management everyday for a Fortune 100 company) that if an executive had to pay an extra $5k, 10k, 20k, 50k in taxes, it wouldn't affect them a bit.

Stock options, restricted stock, shadow accounts, deferred comp, bonuses, blah blah blah. Their pensions are huge, and their buyouts are enormous.

The people who need it the most are the middle class making $50k. They typically work their ass off while executives just sit around and attend worthless meetings.

 

Are you saying if we tax someone an extra $20k, they'll sacrifice their $800k/year compensation package so they can spend an extra month on the beach?

Yeah.

 

Diminish the effort? Are you serious? If you have a sweet gig jumping from meeting to meeting, delegating responsibilities (and if you do get fired - have a huge buyout), nobody is going to turn that down just because they have to pay some more tax. If you had to pay an extra $2k in taxes, would that make you work less hard? Ridiculous.

The people we should give tax breaks to are the middle income earners who can truly benefit from an extra $300/month in their pocket. That's an extra dinner out a week, an extra semi-annual vacation, an extra Roth IRA contribution. It matters to them.

 

Urban dwellers already pay a premium.

And I think it's very unfair to tax urban dwellers at the same rate as country folks - who have a lower cost of living and therefore a higher real income.

And as others have pointed out - those who obtain a higher salary usually do through because of working harder and for greater talent - it's not right to penalize them for that.

I can understand taxing someone more after 200K, but you can't even buy property at that level anymore.

Also, federal taxes should be lowered if you live in zones of high prices, or that have high state/local taxes.