Double Whammy for NYC on the Obama Tax Increases

all that tax revenue will allow for highly productive public employment, which is really bullish for nyc RE

yes... transit workers and postal workers will save us!

"Over $250k gets another 5% tax. OK, thats most of this town. Ouch."

The median household income in 2007 for New York county (Manhattan) was $63,704. That's total household income.

and what's the portion actually likely to buy RE south of 96th street?

prnyc - was that for New york STATE or New York county?

"and what's the portion actually likely to buy RE south of 96th street?"

What difference does that make?

It's an INCOME tax, not a property tax. It's for all $250K+ households, regardless of whether they rent or own.

Your point is made, but the city is made up of (and thrives on) more than just the richest 5 or 10%.

You can get the facts here:

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts

from cnn

"The budget would make permanent tax cuts passed during the Bush administration for all except high-income households making more than $250,000 a year."

"prnyc - was that for New york STATE or New York county?"

New York County, (Manhattan) for 2007. Estimate for 2008 is $66,525.
Median family income (persons related only by blood or marriage) is $76,740.
Per-capita income is $60,596

it's a beautiful thing

> What difference does that make?

Uh, because this is a real estate board. And we're talking about the effects on, well, Real Estate.

> It's an INCOME tax, not a property tax. It's for all $250K+ households, regardless of whether they
> rent or own.

And a reduction by 5% in their incomes won't have any affect on what they buy or rent, or what prices they will pay?

> Your point is made, but the city is made up of (and thrives on) more than just the richest 5 or 10%.

True, but again, we're talking about *real estate*. And the market for apartments that average *millions* will be defined by the people who can afford that.

This isn't a judgement about who matters, this is about the facts and how they will apply to the market.

and, if you do care about the non-RE part, a 5% reduction in NYC incomes is certainly not going to help the industries (and jobs) in this city that rely on consumption....

Over $250k gets another 5% tax.

May I assume that 5% tax is on all money "in excess" of $250K?

Doesn't that just mean we have added another breakpoint in marginal taxes?

Let's face it the families earning 7 figure salaries don't care. In reality the percentage of Americans earning seven figures is very small. What this will accomplish is the tax base leaving New York (those earning 250-500)

"True, but again, we're talking about *real estate*. And the market for apartments that average *millions* will be defined by the people who can afford that."

The median home price in Manhattan for Dec 2009 was $810,000.

No problem if you want to talk about only the super rich or the most expensive apartments, or the ones below 96th street or whatever, just say so. I just took umbrage at the assumption that "most of this town" makes $250,000+ which is clearly not true. (Also, most people also rely on the transit system and the mail.)

Anyway, good luck and all the best.

> The median home price in Manhattan for Dec 2009 was $810,000.

And the average price is... $1.3 mil, down from $1.8.

Its great that you want to play with semantics (though you aren't doing it too well), but you're completely missing the point.

> No problem if you want to talk about only the super rich or the most expensive apartments

Still missing the point.

Given that the rule of thumb is 3x your income for an apartment... about hitting folks who buy the AVERAGE apartment.

pretending that its this minor segment of folks being affected is just plain illogical and doesn't get the discussion anywhere.

$250k is not a lot in short supply in this town, particularly when you're talking about folks who can afford apartments that average several times that.

not to mention, Wall Street represents 30% of apartment buyers... and how many of those you think are making under?

> And the average price is... $1.3 mil, down from $1.8.

Correction, its actually down from $1.9 mil.

"not to mention, Wall Street represents 30% of apartment buyers... and how many of those you think are making under?"

Who cares?

That means 70% of apartment buyers AREN'T Wall Street.

And again I remind you ... the median household income for Manhattan is less than $77K.

"What this will accomplish is the tax base leaving New York (those earning 250-500)"

Agreed. I think this is going to hit those lawyer + working spouse families, those mid-range execs. Who realize that $300k just covered the apartment + expenses + private school for the kiddies, and might just not anymore. Hello suburbs!

> Who cares?

Uh, anyone in the market for an apartment. You're pretending that 30% of buyers (its really more, I'm just showing that as the minimum concerned) won't have an effect. Wow.

> That means 70% of apartment buyers AREN'T Wall Street.

Are you inferring that none of them are making over $250k.

WOW.

> And again I remind you ... the median household income for Manhattan is less than $77K.

Let me get this straight... you say "who cares" about the folks who ARE in the market segment, but then you keep talking about the people who aren't. WOW.

Why are you trying so hard to have people ignore quite a major factor in this market?

"Agreed. I think this is going to hit those lawyer + working spouse families, those mid-range execs. Who realize that $300k just covered the apartment + expenses + private school for the kiddies, and might just not anymore. Hello suburbs!"

Wait, is this a NYC-only tax, or is it a federal tax?

Yep, and when you tell the 250-300k families to leave NY you're ignoring the impact on business. The multiplier effect to you Keynsians.

If it's a FEDERAL tax, where are the "250-300k" families going to "leave" to avoid the tax? Canada? Mexico?

poorish, it's enough to make you weep.

matt, think more deeply. you can do it. they may not leave to avoid the tax, they may leave to find more affordable conditions. this, of course, depends on job payment. but you do realize that for the last 8 or so years attorneys made the same amount for the same company and it didn't matter if they were based in dallas, chicago, la or NYC? yes, quality of life matters. there has been a movement to create some differentiation, but not much. i know a couple of high-level investment bankers who have relocated to other cities when their children are older and who now work part remotely and part commuting.

just look at closed sales. the number of people who are selling who have already moved to florida is quite striking. and why not? if you're retiring, why not go to a state where there is no (as of yet) state income tax, and the market has already tanked. cash out of your manhattan apartment with still a lot of equity and move to the sun.

Matt: "If it's a FEDERAL tax, where are the "250-300k" families going to "leave" to avoid the tax? Canada? Mexico?"

Remember the cost of living adjustment example from another thread? The guy making $300K in NYC would be making around 120K in Houston doing the same job. The cities with higher cost of living always get screwed by the Federal income tax.

Its not that you save the tax by moving out of Manhattan, its that the income between $250k
and $500k that actually allows a 2 kid family to live okay in Manhattan is being taxed more
heavily, which will drive decision to move out at the margin to lower overall cost of living.

people, think of this in a larger sense. it's not just you and your children. it's the movement of the baby boomers out.

you have been forced to retire, you still have a fair to very large amount of equity, your maintenance is now quite huge. many of your friends have moved to florida, with its current no income tax status. prices have literally tanked there. you can buy in a building that sold out early for pennies.

what do you do?

rhino, your comment more accurately reflect what the effect would be for NYC.

My comment is actually an exageration of the cost of living adjustment for salaries since the Houston salary should probably be higher in my example adding to the benefit of living at a lower cost location.

The tax advantages of home ownership can become more valuable in a high tax environment.

Imagine you own a $2 M apartment free and clear. The "implied rent" you receive from owning the apartment is not taxed. If you rent the same apartment you'd have to pay the rent for it with after tax income. That hurts.

(Pls. ignore the fact that prices in this example may be too high in Manhattan. Just wanted to make note that there are pluses as well.)

If you have a mortgage, of course, the tax deduction becomes more valuable to you as well.

So we get screwed. People who do something they can do somewhere else should. I was in Houston the week before last. Yuck. I just think the bullseye is on $300-500k earners on the margin. This city could really go wrong....and it can't go up. I really cant get over the buyers on this board who talk about being sick of renting....Its just so dismissive of the risks.

Talk of capping that as well.

Rhino, never been in houston, is it livable?

we've been in dallas and it will take a little bit more convincing in the part of uncle sam and albany for us to move there (cause hubby doesn't like it one iota).

Dallas, maybe not, but there are nice, livable cities outside of NY (that obviously aren't NY, but still) that have good quality of living and are drastically less expensive -- Portland, Seattle, Denver, DC, etc...

Ironic that real estate partnerships were spared! Ha! America=keeping the dream to own alive...

Obama sucks

"Dallas, maybe not, but there are nice, livable cities outside of NY (that obviously aren't NY, but still) that have good quality of living and are drastically less expensive -- Portland, Seattle, Denver, DC, etc.."

Um, ew.

In any case,..taxes are only for the little people.

Portland, Seattle, Denver, DC, etc...

sashae, i have the same taste.

just look at closed sales. the number of people who are selling who have already moved to florida is quite striking. and why not? if you're retiring, why not go to a state where there is no (as of yet) state income tax, and the market has already tanked. cash out of your manhattan apartment with still a lot of equity and move to the sun.
---------

AR, i even find myself considering going to FL. i barely survive nyc's winters, have friends there sending me pictures laying in the sun. i could buy a house for little bit of cash. ... compelling!

Ah, Florida... Only if work permitted.

Let's not forget that NY/NYC taxes are NOT marginal... You clear $500,000 and the 12.9% claws back to dollar $1 on up.

Does anyone know if the additional 5% tax is on households making $250K or more or does it apply to single people too? So if you are single and make under $240k lets say ( which I dont btw) would you be exempt from this tax increase?

I'd have to doubt that it would be punitive vs families and favorable to singles. Tax rates have never varied between joint earners and singles.

Good, we the people need to start paying for all the Halliburton services we use. No more passing the bills to our grandkids.

This is a federal tax, so moving out of NYC wouldn't help avoid it. Only way to avoid it is to take a pay cut or lower your household income by getting separated/divorced and filing separately.

Q&A in today's WSJ says that due to lower rates on lower brackets and paring back of the AMT may actually result in lower overall tax burdens for those making 200-350k. They are also pushing for limiting the mortgage deduction, which could have a bigger impact on real estate than any income tax rise. Bottom line is we are at the beginning of another ugly legislative process and won't know until we get there.

yes, but a_g, moving out of new york to florida would eliminate the state and local tax. if you're retired or can work remotely it could be tempting. and think how much you could lower your housing costs! you could probably rent a pretty nice place for what many units charge for maintenance.

"This is a federal tax, so moving out of NYC wouldn't help avoid it. "

moving from an expensive area towards a cheaper area (and to a city without income tax, even better to a state without income tax) will allow you to decrease your marginal tax by half without impacting your standard of living. remember, the higher cost of living you are in, the higher tax bracket you will fall into regardless of your standard of living.

filling separate imho doesn't help.

like AR says, super inflated housing costs, expensive private schools, expensive health care... all of this act as a tax too.

"Let's not forget that NY/NYC taxes are NOT marginal... You clear $500,000 and the 12.9% claws back to dollar $1 on up. "

great point. also, being a workaholic in NY/NYC is great for uncle sam and albany (and it might make sense on the beginning of your career). but do you have the time to enjoy the services? there's a point at which too much of your life goes to them without much to show for it.

granted, not many people would like to move towards cheaper areas. there's also the californication of colorado and utah. people move away from CA as it's expensive and bankrupt towards CO and UT only to begin demanding the same level of unsustainable services in CO and UT. no idea whether that's the case with FL, i guess not that much, given that mostly the elderly move there.

seattle doesn't currently have state or local income taxes. relatively high real estate taxes, but they'd look decent compared to here.

> you could probably rent a pretty nice place for what many units charge for maintenance.

and nyc wages outside from the few bright spots don't fully compensate for the much higher cost of living of nyc. they are higher. but after much higher taxes and the inflated main 3 basics (housing, health and education) if you are not in that bright spot, wouldn't it be better to live nicely in a cheaper area saving a ton and come each year to nyc with part of those savings to enjoy everything that the city provides?

imho it might not be the optimal thing financially to live in a touristic city. prices will be inflated cause of this alone.

"moving out of new york to florida would eliminate the state and local tax."

Don't kid yourself.

Florida so deep in the red it's turning purple. As more and more Boomers "retire" to Florida, that free lunch isn't going last forever.

Moving out of NY has always been a way to save on state and city taxes, but do you guys think an additional 4.6% tax will make people pull the trigger?

By the way the tax is $200k per individual, or $250k for a family. And isn't this mainly an expiration of an existing tax break. So technically the tax is returning to a level seen under Clinton.

How do you define wealthy in manhattan? I think 250k for manhattan (below 96th) isn't much at all especially for an average family with 2 kids. But I'm sure that's been discussed many times over.

Federal income tax rates should be flat or their should be a cost of living coefficient. A typical family in NYC (married husband/wife, 2 kids) earning 250-300 isn't living as well as the typical family living in Colorado Springs.

a_g, the problem is that costs have risen, partly due to the tax cuts. but incomes have been stagnant. so reducing incomes now will be painful to many, as it will take some time before certain costs are reduced or incomes rise again. i always thought the bush tax cuts were a disaster of an idea, but raising taxes right now seems deflationary to me, particularly for the high cost of living areas. for the high earner in nebraska this will just affect, most likely, extra money. for the family of 4 earning $250k in NYC this affects much more.

however, of course it will be painful. we're in a mess of hurt.

"How do you define wealthy in manhattan? I think 250k for manhattan (below 96th) isn't much at all especially for an average family with 2 kids. But I'm sure that's been discussed many times over."

depends on what their housing costs are (if they inherited or not, bought 10-15 years ago or now...). and also if they have a good public school nearby so that private school is not needed. it's a classic consequence of bubblilicious economies. your standard of living is not about "working hard" but about timing/luck of main purchases and entering in the labor mkt.

AR, I'm not for the increase. I think 4.6% or $11,500 on a $250k salary, is a steep increase in a recession. I was simply addressing whether there would be a mass exodus from NYC based on the repeal of the Bush tax cuts.

a_g, i don't think there will be a mass exodus as the result of any one thing, or a mass exodus necessarily at all. each person/family has its views on what compromises are tolerable. and mobility is hindered in many cases. but things are horribly expensive here, and they're (with the exception of rent, and to a lesser extent home purchasing) not getting much cheaper for the basic fixed costs. i've had the sense for a long time that many people are barely making it, or indeed not really making it at all. if you have the option, i'm not sure this one is that compelling right now, despite the restaurants, nightlife, etc.

there are only 8-13,000 sales here a year. a relatively small change in perceived desirability (or just lack of ability to afford) could have a fair amount of impact. do you realize that law firms, until recently, and often still do, paid their partners and associates the same amount whether they worked in the New York office or the Chicago or Denver offices? it's not THAT hard to study for a bar exam. i'm reconsidering whether NYC is worth the premium in costs.

> If you have a mortgage, of course, the tax deduction becomes more valuable to you as well.

Not so fast, you need to read the fine print...

The mortgage interest deduction gets CAPPED....

"Households paying income taxes at the 33% and 35% rates can currently claim deductions at those rates. Under the Obama proposal, they could deduct only 28% of the value of those payments…"

so the deduction actually becomes worth LESS....

"i've had the sense for a long time that many people are barely making it"

i haven't (but i've been a grad student for the 1st part of my stay in nyc... immersed in a cubicle environment). what i've noticed right away after going to the real world is how distorted things are due to the housing bubble, due to the amounts of debts students get in order to get a well paid job, who pays the taxes, who gets the services...

if your household earns say $170k and had lived in a rent stabilized for a while without student loans, they will live way much better than a household 10 years younger that just entered the labor force, earns $250k but with big student loans and rents market rate. even worse if they bought a house during the bubble. they have yet to have sth to show for that extra 50% of income.

Just thought I would mention. The elimination of capital gain treatment for carried interests (i.e. fund managers' take of the partnership profits) already passed through the House in early December 2009 as part of the Tax Extenders Act of 2009. The Senate has yet to act, but this isn't anything new. Obama alreadt stated over a month ago that he would sign the bill if it passes through the Senate.

"The elimination of capital gain treatment for carried interests"

great point!

"With this repeal, a hedge fund will have the same tax treatment as managed accounts, with full earned ordinary income subject to ordinary tax rates and self-employment taxes. The only way an investment manager can avoid ordinary income and receive a lower long-term capital gains benefit is to personally invest money in his own hedge fund. Even the manager’s investment is deemed ordinary earned income. The recent version of the bill includes real estate rental and investment funds but exempts real estate development and oil and gas funds. "

http://www.greencompany.com/blog/index.php?postid=49

but a whole lot of private equity funds required even junior staff to invest their own $ (regardless of whether they need to take a loan in order to be able to)

absolutely, this will hit that sector fairly hard. And if you look at who was buying at 15 CPW....

I'm not sure what you're getting at notadmin. Unless you can establish otherwise, just like the Tax Extenders Act, there's no indication that Obama proposes to tax returns on contributions at ordinary rates.

> I'm not sure what you're getting at notadmin.

i mean that much of the earnings within private equity are still not going to be taxed as earned income.

"but a whole lot of private equity funds required even junior staff to invest their own $ (regardless of whether they need to take a loan in order to be able to)"

"i mean that much of the earnings within private equity are still not going to be taxed as earned income"

Not even close. The gain on co-invest, whether levered or not, will be third (probably distant third) after carry and cash comp (or cash comp and carry) in terms of total income for the management team over the life of a PE fund. Cash comp is obviously already ordinary income and with the new proposal carry will be as well. Return on co-invest, which is still capital gain, is more tiny compared to the sum of the other two.

strike "more" in the last full line

> Not even close.

nice! uncle sam needs that revenue. i stand corrected then.

http://keithhennessey.com/2010/02/04/need-future-focus/

the democrats and republicans constantly blame the other for deficits etc. this is an interesting counter-argument. I'm sure it's partisan...

The fact is, 10 years ago, we had a budget surplus of more than $200 billion, with projected surpluses stretching out toward the horizon. Yet over the course of the past 10 years, the previous administration and previous Congresses created an expensive new drug program, passed massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and funded two wars without paying for any of it -– all of which was compounded by recession and by rising health care costs. As a result, when I first walked through the door, the deficit stood at $1.3 trillion, with projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade.

Argument: The previous administration and previous Congresses created an expensive new drug program … without paying for any of it.

•Response 1: Yes, we did. At the time, Congressional Democrats tried and failed to create an even more expensive new drug program without paying for it. (Mr. Obama was not in the Senate at the time.)
•Response 2: This Medicare drug program is ongoing. If the President thinks it is too expensive, then he should propose to make it less expensive. If instead he thinks it should be paid for, then he should propose other spending cuts or tax increases to offset the future costs. Pending health care legislation would instead expand this expensive benefit and pay for the expansion, but would do nothing about paying for the ongoing base costs to which the President is objecting. The past six years of deficit spending from this benefit is beyond President Obama’s control. The future spending is not. He could do this through reconciliation with 51 votes in the Senate.
Argument: The previous Administration and Congresses funded two wars without paying for it.

•Response 1: The Obama Administration is continuing these wars without paying for them, and expanding forces in Afghanistan without paying for that.
•Response 2: Two of those years were with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. There were legislative attempts to end the Iraq efforts, but none to end the Afghanistan efforts. I don’t remember anyone in the Democratic majority Congress (including then-Senator Obama) making a serious run at cutting other spending or raising other taxes to offset the war costs. Last year Rep. Obey proposed a war tax and was quickly silenced by his colleagues.
Argument: The previous Administration cut taxes for the wealthy without paying for it.

•Response 1: Setting aside the mischaracterization “for the wealthy,” President Obama proposes to extend a significant portion of that tax relief “without paying for it.”
•Response 2: If all the Bush tax cuts are left in place bracket creep will soon cause total federal taxes to once again climb above their historic average of just over 18% of GDP. Repealing these tax cuts would mean the government would be taking far more from the private sector in taxes than it has in the past. I believe taxes are not too low.
•Response 3: Our medium-term and long-term deficit problems are driven by the growth of entitlement spending: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Raising taxes will not slow this spending, it will just buy us a few years of delay and slow economic growth.
Argument: The Bush policies caused a $200 B annual surplus and “projected surpluses stretching out toward the horizon” to turn into deficits.

•Response 1: This argument always relies on one specific forecast which later turned out to be inaccurate. In January 2001 CBO projected a 2002 surplus of $313 B. One year later they projected a 2002 deficit of $21 B. Of the $334 B decline, CBO said 73% was from “economic and technical changes” beyond President Bush’s control. The other 27% was the result of legislation. The impact of policy over time was larger than in 2002 (about 60% over ten years), but it is still incorrect to attribute it all to policy, rather than to a combination of policy and incorrect forecasting.
Argument: As a result of these policies, when President Obama took office, the deficit stood at $1.3 trillion.

•Response 1: The 2009 deficit President Obama inherited was large (CBO says $1.2 trillion rather than $1.3 trillion), but this is principally the result of a drop in revenues resulting from the severe recession beginning in September 2008, and from more than $400 B of projected 2009 spending for bailouts of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the big banks, and other large financial institutions. Before the recession and financial collapse of 2008, annual budget deficits during the Bush Administration averaged 2.0% of GDP (which would be about $290 B in 2009), including the higher spending and lower revenues from the drug benefit, Iraq and Afghanistan, and tax cuts. President Obama is using one horrible year to mischaracterize the other seven.
•Response 2: President Obama does not point out that his first major policy effort was to propose and enact an $862 B stimulus law without paying for it. (CBO has upped their estimate from the previous $787 B figure.) He did inherit a huge deficit, in large part resulting from the recession and bailout costs, and he immediately made it much bigger.
•Response 3: There is nothing the President can do about the past accumulation of debt. He and a majority of the House and Senate can reduce or even eliminate future deficits if they are willing to make hard choices. Even a 41-vote Republican Senate minority lacks the procedural tools to block a deficit reduction reconciliation bill.
Argument: When President Obama took office, he faced projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade.

•Response: There is no delicate way for me to say this. The $8 trillion number is made up. In January 2009 CBO projected deficits for the next decade of $3.1 trillion. The President’s first budget played games by redefining the baseline to make the starting point look as bad as possible so that Team Obama could claim their policies would reduce the deficit. Don’t get me wrong — $3.1 trillion of projected deficits is still a huge bad number. At the same time, $4.9 trillion is a lot of gaming.

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

This debate about the past can continue ad nauseam. At some point I hope it ends, but the President and his team bring it up at every opportunity. It is strange for a President to complain repeatedly about ten-year old policies and then not propose to change them. More importantly, this debate is not relevant to the problems we face today.

Yes, President Obama faced some enormous economic challenges early in his term. His predecessor did as well, even before the crisis of 2008: a bursting tech bubble leading to a recession in 2001, an economic seizure caused by 9/11, corporate governance scandals in 2002, a recession in 2002-2003, the economic uncertainty triggered by invading Iraq (this one was a policy choice), and eventually oil spiking above $100 per barrel.

I think it’s OK for a President to talk about the challenges he and the Nation face. It helps to set reasonable expectations. I think a President should propose solutions to those challenges and describe a brighter future that he hopes to deliver. I think it’s tacky and tiresome for a President to keep bashing his predecessor, especially more than a year after taking office. I acknowledge that my perspective on this point is biased by my professional past.

I also think this refrain weakens President Obama. He is portraying himself as a victim of forces that are beyond his control. A President should want people to focus on him and what he’s going to do, not on a comparison of him with someone else (anyone else). President Obama should want people talking about the Obama Agenda rather than about what happened ten years ago. Ten years ago.

I suspect that many Americans are tired of the blame game, especially more than one year into a new Administration. Whatever your view of President Bush, his policies, and their results, America needs to look forward. We have big challenges ahead of us, and we need to propose, debate, vote on, and then implement solutions.

More than the blame game, this is what concerns me about the President’s economic agenda. The President’s own projections show that his policies will not fix the future problems he identifies. Based entirely on numbers from the President’s just released budget, America will see the following results if all of his policies are implemented as proposed and work as projected:

•an average unemployment rate this year of 10.0 percent;
•an average unemployment rate in 2012 of 8.2 percent;
•a budget deficit this year of 8.3% of GDP;
•a budget deficit that at no point in the next decade dips below 3.6% of GDP;
•debt/GDP increasing from 64% now to 77% in ten years;
•the size of government, measured by both spending and taxes, climbing to historically high shares of GDP;
•three problems identified by the President (I do not necessarily agree that each of these is a problem):
◦continuing the expensive Medicare drug program without paying for it;
◦continuing the efforts in Iraq and expanding them in Afghanistan without paying for it;
◦continuing much of the Bush tax relief without paying for it; and
•not measurably slowing the long-term growth of the major entitlement programs.
These are the results if the President’s policy program is successfully implemented.

I agree with the President that he inherited a tough situation, although I disagree with his explanation of the causes. Our fiscal car is driving toward a cliff. To avoid the cliff, the President might want to turn the wheel left, and I might want to turn right. At the same time, President Obama has the wheel. Complaining about the previous driver won’t prevent us from driving off the cliff. I hope the President will soon stop focusing on the last decade, and instead propose solutions for the next one.

Riversider says "Complaining about the previous driver won’t prevent us from driving off the cliff. I hope the President will soon stop focusing on the last decade, and instead propose solutions for the next one."

This is an AMAZING comment from someone who is in the political party that blamed Clinton for everything that happened under Bush for the last 8 years.

Basically you are saying - hey we fucked up immensely but dont blame us because the past is the past. Blame Obama for not fixing our huge mess ASAP. The same republican policies that caused this mess are the ones that will get us out of the mess! More tax cuts for the rich! F the gays and the mexicans.

No the point is: Stop reveling in the past. We get it... we screwed up in the past. Focus on fixing it and not pointing fingers.

It's easy to point fingers, much harder to have answers.

Bush lowered taxes and projected a ten year time frame with back ended benefits.
Obama seems to be doing the same thing. Forgive me if I fail to see the difference.

"This is an AMAZING comment from someone who is in the political party that blamed Clinton for everything that happened under Bush for the last 8 years."

This is an amazing comment from someone who just yesterday said the Republicans were responsible for everything that happened in Congress in the last 8 years.

Perfitz, if you support the Democratic party, your best move would be to move it immediately. You're about as much help to their cause as a hole in the head.

If you really hate the Republican Party so much, you should join it.

Unless you telecommute, you go where the jobs are. Where your job is. I guess people can move to the burbs outside of NYC or outer boros. Either way, there's got to be even a little downward pressure on the homes under $1MM. If people make $500k or $1mm or higher, they could afford the tax hike more than $250k families can. But who knows. Maybe these people have wealthy parents or something.

"people, think of this in a larger sense. it's not just you and your children. it's the movement of the baby boomers out."

In that case, this is the first tax increase I support! Let The Dumbest Generation finally stop sucking all the oxygen out of the room!

"If people make $500k or $1mm or higher, they could afford the tax hike more than $250k families can"

...in which case the following numbers sort of follow that principle: tax on the $250k income increases by $1,500 (3% of the $50k of income over $200,000 because the rate in that bracket goes from 33% to 36%), while tax on the $500k income increases by $13,000 (the $1,500 from the $250k earner plus 4.6% of the next $250k) and on the $1mm income by $36,000 ($1,500 plus 4.6% of the next $750k).

I guess Perfitz figured out that there are a couple of Democrats in congress.

i guess that somewhereelse is still ashamed of the outcomes of the REpublican policies because he continues to pass the buck. Take credit for what you have done. Be a man. Your policies fucked everything up. You guys screwed up 2 wars, the global economy and the American reputation globally.

Congrats!

widestance, I think you're delirious. "My" policies? Really?

I wasn't aware I was a republican, a member of congress, or even someone who voted for Republican (outside of Bloomberg).

What's funny is, you're just another example of a Democrat weenie who has nothing other to say than "bush!". Thats getting pretty tired, when you'll soon have Congress as long as Bush had the presidency (and have the presidency, too).

talk about passing the buck! Dems have had the power for years, and are still talking about everybody else..

btw, I'm ashamed of Republican and Democratic policies.

But I'm just more amazed that Democrats think everyone else is to blame.

somewhereelse please answer these questions as they will speak to your honesty:

1 - What party held the majority voting power in both Congress and the Senate over the 8 years of the Bush Administration? What party held the Presidency?

2 - What members of congress wrote the act the repealed the Glass Stiegal Act? What party's members was this Act named after?

$100 bet he wont answer the questions above. He will just spout some bile.......

The Republican party has gone down the toilet. Ronald Reagan is rowling over in his grave.

it was the dems that were pushing for more affordable housing and pushing fannie freddie to make more loans which is how this got started

"1 - What party held the majority voting power in both Congress and the Senate over the 8 years of the Bush Administration? What party held the Presidency?"

Republicans held the presidency, republicans then the democrats controlled both houses.

2 - What members of congress wrote the act the repealed the Glass Stiegal Act? What party's members was this Act named after?

Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, signed by Clinton.

I want my $100, what does this have to do with you passing the buck for your party again?

1) What year is it NOW?

2) What is the name of the politician who fought hard against reforming Fannie and Freddie, saying they were fine.

3) Who is the president?

4) How long have the democrats controlled congress?

Talk about passing the buck.

WOW.

> The Republican party has gone down the toilet

I guess they just wanted to join the democrats.

widestance, do you get your Democratic party propaganda cheat sheet by e-mail or regular mail?

lol

Got a couple more...

5) The most completely disfunctional state government is? (don't have to look too far)

6) Both houses AND the governor are members of what party?

7) All of these and the other politicians in the party are owned by whom?

what year did the democrats take control of congress?

How anyone can believe that the country's problems are all the fault of one party is just partisan stupidity.

Both partiea are to blame, but the Republicans deserve more blame. After all, we did not come to the brink of a depression when Clinton was president. But, to be fair, not all Republicans are bad. Excluding Watergate, Nixon was a fantastic president... better than Reagan if you ask me.

LICC its the fault of the party that had pretty much unrestrained power over the last eight years. Do you remember that quote from your party "if you dont support the President in times of war you support the terrorists?

You guys had control and totally blew it. Now you are trying to pass the buck.

What party had the White House, Executive Branch, both houses of Congress on 9/11? HMMMMMMMMM

Widestance is petrfitz - he made the same spelling mistake when he ranted about "Glass Stiegal" a few weeks ago. Plus the ideology and style is frighteningly similar. There really can't be too many petrs running around, could there?

I've managed to summarize the Democratic attacks here on Republicans as follows:

Republicans are comprised of either racists and/or idiots, becuase if they were smart or not a bigot they would be Democrats.

>> it was the dems that were pushing for more affordable housing and pushing fannie freddie to make more loans which is how this got started

Marco, I'm disappointed that you are repeating this canard. Do you have any data to back this up?

Try working through the data:

Here's your short summary -- http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/06/the-cra-still-not-causing-the-meltdown.html
To sum them up -- the bad loans at the heart of the meltdown came overwhelmingly from unregulated, non-bank lenders who weren't even covered by the CRA. In addition, the CRA loans did very well.

Here's the MN Fed's Conclusion -- http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=4136
Two basic points emerge from our analysis of the available data. First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations is related to the CRA. Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, the available evidence seems to run counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis.

And here is the most comprehensive post on this - http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/a_community_reinvestment_act_r.php

Fannie Mae was a major enabler in subprime. They bought senior bonds in virtually every subprime securitization and remember these senior bonds are now in default or severely downgraded. For more on fannie mae and subprime look up Ed Pinto
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/business/10fannie.html

You can also look up Henry Cisneros and Barney Frank..

What party had the White House and Congress when the World Trade Center was attacked in 1993? Who was the commander in chief when our embassies were blown up and the USS Cole was bombed? Who has held power in Congress for almost four years now?

RS: Did you even bother to read the links? The article you cite talks about 2005-2007 activity within the GSEs, which isn't even relevant to Marco's original claim regarding political influence and policy. If anything, it makes the opposite claim. The entire point of the article you cite is to point out that they were operating outside of their charter.

I know who Cisneros and Frank are. What am I supposed to look up about them?

McClatchy does a long piece that directly examines the role of the GSEs, and they, too, aren't part of the problem until later on (well, after the crisis was created):
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

Man you republicans do everything you can to run from your record. History says that under democrats the economy does much better. History says that the biggest financial blunders that wiped out Americans life savings happened under Republicans - Great Recession, S&L Scandal, Great Depression.

The last decade that you guys held power was the worst decade in economic history!

Oh yeah 9/11 also happened on your watch.

If my party had that record I would run from it to!

History says that

Well that depends on the party affiliation of who wrote the history book.

A recent poll from Daily KOS found that 39% of Republicans think Obama should be impeached, 36% think he was not born in the U.S., 63% think he is a Socialist, 24% think he wants the terrorists to win, 21% think ACORN stole the election, 31% think Obama is a racist, and 23% think their state should secede frm the Union.