Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Greenspan, speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations Tuesday, argues that companies sitting on stockpiles of cash are unwilling to make long-term capital investments because of increased government regulation and hundreds of billions of dollars in stimulus spending that have "crowded out" private investment opportunities. It's a situation he says closely models the trends during the Great Depression."
Obama sucks on his own quite well without Greenspan IMO.
Greenspan also said that de-regulation would be the best way to regulate the financial markets specifically OTC financial derivatives and that they could responsibly regulate themselves.
We've seen demonstrably how horrifically wrong Greenspan was on that alone. Mr. Greenspan's theory on "market self regulation" has indeed been tested. And has been found pathetically lacking.
Any further reliance upon Mr. Greenspan's "expertise" is, at best...speculative.
Agreed, Greenspan is the last person we need to be listening to.
And now we have questions on the constitutionality of that law.
And exactly how did we "spend" $4 trillion in tax cuts? If your personal income is reduced by x% this month, do you say "I spent x% more this month"?
The constitutionality will be upheld.
If you add debt instead of adding income, you've "spent" your economic opportunities. Therefore if you're personal income is increased by x% this month, and you don't pay off your principal debt, do you say "I have x% less debt this month?"
We spent $4 TRILLION on tax cuts for millionaires. Letting the tax cuts expire, would have paid for a big chunk of the new health care law and all of it's program start ups.
I'm not a millionaire. And those tax increases affect me. And they will affect the people who work for me. You are very short-sighted to think that everyone who this affects is some yacht-owning, Dom-sipping, caviar-popping, Armani-wearing dbag.
Name that movie, folks:
In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the... Anyone? Anyone?... the Great Depression, passed the... Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered?... raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression.
In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the... Anyone? Anyone?... the Great Depression, passed the... Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered?... raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression.
I'm not clear on how you can equate the effects of tariffs to the effects of income taxes.
The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act did raise revenue, but that wasn't it's main purpose. It's main purpose was protectionism, to (in theory) save existing domestic jobs by creating a barrier to imports.
In comparison, the income tax serves no protectionist function.
Greenspan, Alan Greenspan, Alan Greenspan former head of the Federal Reserve. Alan Greenspan who oversaw the enactment of the H-1B visa program. The Alan Greenspan who did more to promote the housing bubble and step up the financial crisis more than any single individual. That Alan Greenspan?
I'm not a millionaire. And those tax increases affect me. And they will affect the people who work for me. You are very short-sighted to think that everyone who this affects is some yacht-owning, Dom-sipping, caviar-popping, Armani-wearing dbag.
Name that movie, folks:
In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the... Anyone? Anyone?... the Great Depression, passed the... Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered?... raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression.
You do know what they say about assuming don't you? That $4 TRILLION dollar factor was not for those making between $250,000 (family) up to 925,000. Although those in that category like my family can certainly afford to pay the extra 4%.
You are extremely short-sided to think that everyone who disagrees must obviously be categorizing by extension those who were clearly not included.
However since we're now including you let's compare you in direct comparison to the rest of your fellow American's. If you and those who work for you are indeed affected by the tax increases in the upper income brackets, then quite possibly how did you put it...you might qualify for your own description of
Quote:
everyone who this affects is some yacht-owning, Dom-sipping, caviar-popping, Armani-wearing dbag.
Greenspan, Alan Greenspan, Alan Greenspan former head of the Federal Reserve. Alan Greenspan who oversaw the enactment of the H-1B visa program. The Alan Greenspan who did more to promote the housing bubble and step up the financial crisis more than any single individual. That Alan Greenspan?
Now only if he were in-charge, the economic debacle would have NEVER happened, much less the need to fix it.
I'm not clear on how you can equate the effects of tariffs to the effects of income taxes.
The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act did raise revenue, but that wasn't it's main purpose. It's main purpose was protectionism, to (in theory) save existing domestic jobs by creating a barrier to imports.
In comparison, the income tax serves no protectionist function.
I'm not equating anything.
This conversation just reminded me of the movie.
However, if the excuse is we need to tax more to increase government revenue so that the government can spend more to save the economy, then that's pretty artarded, as well.
Greenspan says Obama Administration's Activism is Hampering Economic Recovery
Greenspan is the world's leading expert on hampering the economy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Greenspan says Obama Administration's Activism is Hampering Economic Recovery
