- This topic has 22 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 6 months ago by temeculaguy.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 11, 2007 at 2:20 PM #58450June 11, 2007 at 2:20 PM #58477guitar187Participant
Clinton is responsible for increasing stock prices and he’s proud? Now that’s interesting!
June 11, 2007 at 2:24 PM #58454asragovParticipantI believe that it has already been covered here – “tax and spend” from Democrats is better than “borrow and spend” from the Republicans. It is not a partisan comment, just noting that paying now is more fiscally conservative.
However, the unprecedented run-up in housing prices is probably most connected to the easy money sloshing around the financial system. This is due to large structural issues of the financial system, not really any one politician in particular.
Goldman Sachs has provided Treasury secretaries for both Clinton and Bush – these sorts of monetary planning factors are much larger than any one political party.
There is likely to be no difference, since there is not much of a difference in this area between the parties.
That is, of course, unless a Republican like Ron Paul is elected – then all bets are off:
June 11, 2007 at 2:24 PM #58481asragovParticipantI believe that it has already been covered here – “tax and spend” from Democrats is better than “borrow and spend” from the Republicans. It is not a partisan comment, just noting that paying now is more fiscally conservative.
However, the unprecedented run-up in housing prices is probably most connected to the easy money sloshing around the financial system. This is due to large structural issues of the financial system, not really any one politician in particular.
Goldman Sachs has provided Treasury secretaries for both Clinton and Bush – these sorts of monetary planning factors are much larger than any one political party.
There is likely to be no difference, since there is not much of a difference in this area between the parties.
That is, of course, unless a Republican like Ron Paul is elected – then all bets are off:
June 11, 2007 at 6:02 PM #58484poorgradstudentParticipantHousing prices are going to fall considerably either way. Most people on this board view it as a good thing, or minimally a necessary thing.
I completely agree that Presidents get too much credit for the economy that falls during their reigns. The actual impact of policies, while not trivial, is modest compared to larger cycles that are impossible to control.
Democrats traditionally raise taxes on the rich and ultrarich and lower them on the middle class (40-150k annual household income). The tax rates during the Clinton years are arguably the stereotypical “Democrat” tax rates, those now more in line with “Republican” tax rates, specifically the lower capital gains tax. Overall the differences are pretty subtle, except for those at the top of the food chain (and I’ve gotten the impression a couple members of this board actually are up there). It’s hard to project the impact of such a reversion on the housing market; one might guess it would prop up the lower end market somewhat and slightly exacerbate the decline in high end homes.
Also, and not trivially, we’re still roughly 17 months away from the next election. A lot can change between now and then. Terrorist attacks, wars, natural disasters, to name a few major events, on top of natural market fluctuations. So feel free to speculate all you want, but right now, it is purely speculation.
June 11, 2007 at 6:02 PM #58511poorgradstudentParticipantHousing prices are going to fall considerably either way. Most people on this board view it as a good thing, or minimally a necessary thing.
I completely agree that Presidents get too much credit for the economy that falls during their reigns. The actual impact of policies, while not trivial, is modest compared to larger cycles that are impossible to control.
Democrats traditionally raise taxes on the rich and ultrarich and lower them on the middle class (40-150k annual household income). The tax rates during the Clinton years are arguably the stereotypical “Democrat” tax rates, those now more in line with “Republican” tax rates, specifically the lower capital gains tax. Overall the differences are pretty subtle, except for those at the top of the food chain (and I’ve gotten the impression a couple members of this board actually are up there). It’s hard to project the impact of such a reversion on the housing market; one might guess it would prop up the lower end market somewhat and slightly exacerbate the decline in high end homes.
Also, and not trivially, we’re still roughly 17 months away from the next election. A lot can change between now and then. Terrorist attacks, wars, natural disasters, to name a few major events, on top of natural market fluctuations. So feel free to speculate all you want, but right now, it is purely speculation.
June 11, 2007 at 8:16 PM #58540temeculaguyParticipantI think we are in some trouble either way. The current adminstration is fighting for amnesty and refusing to build a border fence, the other side seems to be no different, as a border comminuty that will affect us. The other issue is taxes, it is very easy to live here and feel middle class while compared to the rest of the country we are in the top tier and get the shaft in taxes, there is no cost of living clause in the tax code. 150k couple or 100k single in San Diego is not rich but the federal government sees it that way and takes away a number of tax credits at those levels because to them you are rich, a change at the top won’t change that.
June 11, 2007 at 8:16 PM #58567temeculaguyParticipantI think we are in some trouble either way. The current adminstration is fighting for amnesty and refusing to build a border fence, the other side seems to be no different, as a border comminuty that will affect us. The other issue is taxes, it is very easy to live here and feel middle class while compared to the rest of the country we are in the top tier and get the shaft in taxes, there is no cost of living clause in the tax code. 150k couple or 100k single in San Diego is not rich but the federal government sees it that way and takes away a number of tax credits at those levels because to them you are rich, a change at the top won’t change that.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.