Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on November 17, 2002, 12:57:34 PM
-
Heh, the guy is a republican. "Dear Diary, someone other than a Democrat actually wants to raise taxes..."
He billed himself as a CEO mayor and serenaded business leaders during his campaign with a comforting refrain: I'm on your side and I won't raise taxes.
Mayor Bloomberg has changed his tune. He's proposing harsh tax hikes, rattling the business establishment like a deejay cranking gangsta rap at a cozy cocktail party.
The mayor's approach to the city's budget crunch has left some business leaders bewildered. On the stump and behind closed doors, Bloomberg the candidate had courted them with assurances that he was not the taxing kind.
"Mayor Bloomberg himself, prior to getting elected, spoke adamantly about the negative impact tax increases have on business and the economy at large," said Nancy Ploeger, executive director of the Manhattan Chamber of Commerce.
The rallying point for real estate developers, giant Wall Street firms and large retailers is Bloomberg's plan to raise property taxes by 25%.
"Everyone understands conditions have changed and we have a $6 billion hole," said Douglas Durst, president of the Durst Organization, one of the city's largest development firms. "The disappointment is that we don't believe he is spreading the pain."
And the city's big employers aren't looking forward to Bloomberg's proposed commuter tax, which could make recruiting harder and force some companies to increase their payrolls.
'A disastrous effect'
"A [25%] property tax increase ... would have a disastrous effect," said Axel Stawski, head of Kipp-Stawksi Management, which owns several Manhattan office buildings. "We've got a new project which we've put on hold because of the property tax situation."
Business leaders are promising to fight Bloomberg's budget plan. So far, they're striking a firm but polite tone with the tycoon-turned-politician, who sailed to victory with strong backing from big business.
"The mayor's going to feel pretty lonely out there," said Robert Catell, CEO of KeySpan and chairman of the powerful New York City Partnership business group. "But while we may not be happy about some of the things he's recommending, it's time to pull together."
Still, resentment is brewing among Republicans toward the man who said, "You cannot raise taxes under any circumstances" a few months before his election.
"He changed his philosophy altogether," said lawyer Herman Badillo, who lost the Republican primary to Bloomberg. "What he's doing is increasing taxes far more than he's reducing services."
Bloomberg's budget plan calls for $1.78 billion in reduced spending and $4.4 billion in higher taxes during this fiscal year and the following one. All of this is to head off a $1.1 billion shortfall this fiscal year and a projected $6.4 billion gap next year.
The property tax hike faces City Council approval, and the commuter tax requires passage by the state Legislature.
The mayor has said residential property owners won't be hit too hard because of offsetting cuts in income taxes. That leaves businesses to suffer the brunt of the pain.
"We've obviously got a disagreement as to how to deal with this budget gap," said Steve Spinola, president of the Real Estate Board of New York. "Right now, we feel that the business community is feeling most of it."
The last option
The property tax increase would squeeze more than just building owners. Businesses that lease space are sure to get hit, because most commercial leases include a clause that lets landlords pass tax increases along to their tenants. In turn, the commercial tenants are prone to raise prices and cut staff - or even look for cheaper space outside the city.
"Tax increases should be the last option in fixing the budget gap," said Kathryn Wylde, president and CEO of the New York City Partnership. "Cuts in expenses and getting relief from federal mandates should be the first recourse."
In a budget speech Thursday, however, Bloomberg said the worst-case option would be laying off city workers. That surprised some budget watchdogs.
"This is not what you'd expect from someone with his background," said Edmund McMahon, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. "He sounds strikingly like a traditional New York City politician who was very defensive of the status quo."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/36174p-34159c.html
-
Bwahahahaha......like republicans don't lie too?
My heart bleeds for republicans living in a fantasy world.
-
How many years ago was that?
-
Always looking for a government handout.
"Tax increases should be the last option in fixing the budget gap," said Kathryn Wylde, president and CEO of the New York City Partnership. "Cuts in expenses and getting relief from federal mandates should be the first recourse."
-
Better business means more jobs, more jobs, more tax payers, unlike yourself. ;)
-
Ok, so explain to me how this is asking for a handout. Unless I read it wrong, Wylde is suggesting the partnership reduce expenses internally, and the government should relax cost-incurring mandates. Now these mandates may be public safety or environmental issues (I have no idea what to which mandates she was referring) but it doesn't sound like money she is asking for.
Is she Republican or Democrat?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Better business means more jobs, more jobs, more tax payers, unlike yourself. ;)
Bush Sr - Economy bad.
Clinton - Economy good.
Bush Jr - Economy bad.
Bush Sr - Crime bad.
Clinton - Crime good.
Bush Jr - Crime bad.
-
Thrawn, care to tell me how economics are directly related to one adminitration ? Thanks in advance.
-
I'm simply pointing out a correlation. :D
-
Both are lying swine.
Originally posted by Ripsnort
How many years ago was that?
Better business means more jobs, more jobs, more tax payers, unlike yourself.
I wonder if chimpy will get to continue purchasing your loyalty with new handouts this year rip?
-
Well, thinking locally with taxes, I pay $420 a month in property taxes alone. The tax bracket I'm in currently, only 10% of the US is in, and we pay 90% of the taxes. I'll certainly accept another tax break, especially if it will stimulate big business, which in turns employs more people, and generates more tax revenue.
-
Bloomberg is a life long Democrat. He only ran as a Republican because there were too many Democrats in the race. You can do those kinds of things in the Northeast.
ra
-
*Yes, my vote is for sale to the highest bidder.*
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Well, thinking locally with taxes, I pay $420 a month in property taxes alone. The tax bracket I'm in currently, only 10% of the US is in, and we pay 90% of the taxes. I'll certainly accept another tax break, especially if it will stimulate big business, which in turns employs more people, and generates more tax revenue.
-
C'mon Weazel, you don't think voting for people that want to socialize medicine and redistribute wealth aren't selling out just as badly? Why do blacks vote as a block nearly every election, hmm? Everybody looks out for their own interests.
-
so did you guys got rebate Bush promised to you?
-
If he was interested in Americas best interests he sure as hell wouldn't be bleating the repetative tune he's so fond of.
I believe that change is coming....and it won't result from so called "conservative" or "liberal" agendas....it will happen in spite of both.
Originally posted by Kieran
C'mon Weazel, you don't think voting for people that want to socialize medicine and redistribute wealth aren't selling out just as badly? Why do blacks vote as a block nearly every election, hmm? Everybody looks out for their own interests.
-
Who is "he"? What is there to throw in my face? I'm not taking sides, you understand, I'm stating a fundamental truth about people and American voters- they all vote for those that will do what they want, and the politicos pander to them. Some politicos are a bit more brazen about it than others.
We all want more money in our pockets, it is only a difference of opinion as to how that happens. I do believe there is something obviously true to the argument those paying the most taxes should see the most in return from a rebate. I think DMF has come closest to convincing me there is an argument to putting more money in the hands of those that don't pay much in taxes- but it doesn't overcome the fact it is merely a handout sponsored on the backs of those that pay more. The economy needs us to have money so that we can make those purchases that keeps us all in jobs. Will taxing us more give us that, or will taxing us less allow us to keep more and therefore invest/spend it? Let me see... ;)
Let me be more direct- who has more to benefit from a large poor class, Dems or Repubs? The power base of the Repubs is a successful economy where people and corporations are more affluent; the power base of the Dems is supporting disfranchised people that are abused by employers, and those that live below the state-defined "poverty level". Given this, the stereotypical Dem has more to gain today by a tanking economy that raises the hue and cry of the lower class, and grows the base of people willing to vote themselves entitlements. Blammo, you now have the noble Democratic voters selling themselves out to get what they want.
No big difference from where I sit.
-
Ah, sorry, "he" is Rip, and I agree. Sorry about the confusion, totally my bad.
-
"The power base of the Repubs is a successful economy where people and corporations are more affluent"
That common "people" don't do worth a damn under trickle down voodoo economics the so called " conservative" politicians ram down their throats everytime they take office?
The rich get richer, the less well off be damned....
Fable of the 20th Century:
George "Chimpy" Bush..... modern day Robin Hood.
The truth behind the fable:
My good fellows, it's really a very simple concept. We all know that there are hundreds of deer in the forest.
Which means that the King, and all his men, can kill all the deer they want, any day of the week they want, and there will always be more.
So you see, there is absolutely no reason why the game laws should apply to any of these gentle born men, just as long as we do our job and make sure that the peasants are never allowed to kill a single deer.
Anonymous Gamekeeper
Sherwood Forest
Washington
-
Do you really mean to tell me you think it was Clinton that spurred the economy of the 90's? Really? You don't think the technological explosion that created new industries had a tad to do with it? In addition, you don't think the economy was on its way down by the end of Clinton's second term, due to the near maturation of the technological market and diminishing growth? Now I am not an economist by any means, but it seems the booming economy went hand in hand with the explosion of the home computer/Internet markets, and the resultant startups. That Clinton was in office was a matter of sheer luck, and his success can be more attributed to a Republican mindset of leaving the businesses alone (except for Microsoft) and reap the benefits of high employment that occurred by industries created by forces he had nothing to do with.
So... where do I have this wrong?
-
But I remember how much of a struggle it was to make ends meet during the 12 years that the so called "conservatives" held office compared to the 8 years Clinton was in office.
There must have been something being done wrong/right during those 20 years...ya think?
What I think is the governments of the past are no longer viable, and that the current elected government is a mere illusion.....nothing more than the ghost of a sentimentalized reality.
Democracy is dead.....Long Live King Chimpy!
-
Hey, I was around in that time too. I don't deny that it was hard for some, but if you really want to get down to it, it was a recovery period by most economists' estimation... except for the recession during Bush Sr's term- and that on the heels of the (until then) longest peace time recovery in modern history.
In fact, if you really want to get down to it, the hard times you refer to had to be better than the hard times of the second half of the 70's- the Carter years. Yes, I remember those years, too. I remember "malaise". The Reagan/Bush Sr years don't even hold a candle to that, sorry to say. Am I to therefore say Carter screwed up the economy? Of course not. The oil crisis, the rise of OPEC, the insurgence of competitive foreign import economy cars... the reasons go on and on.
So... to be totally fair and in context, Reagan brought us out of the Carter years, right? And, if economic cycles are to be considered the norm, recessions are balancing actions that occur more-or-less in repeatable and predictable cycles. 8 relatively strong years and a short recession (I was around '88-'92) would be considered normal, even pretty good.
Now, push that all out of the way and get right to it- the economy has more to do with the interaction of our economy with foreign markets and domestic confidence than anything a president can do, correct? The president has the best chance to impact the market in the domestic arena of consumer confidence, or perhaps to suggest legislation for reform of some form or another, but that is about it. Carter- what'd he do? Reagan? Bush Sr? Clinton? And Bush Jr?
Please, Toad or DMF (or anyone else), correct my recollection as you will.
Democracy is dead.....Long Live King Chimpy!
I guess I don't see the impetus for this comment or viewpoint.
-
"the hard times of the second half of the 70's- the Carter years"
Gee....you dont suppose the mess he inherited from the criminal Nixon and retard Ford had anything to do with Americas "malaise" do you?
Keep grasping for straws, one of them *might* be strong enough to hold your argument up.
-
Nixon and Ford just inherited Johnson's Great Society, and Viet Nam, so it's Johnson's fault.... But he inherited SE Asia from Kennedy, but he inherited that from Eisenhower, who inherited the Truman doctorine..... it's all George Washington's fault!
:rolleyes:
-
I ran over a deer today. Does that count?
-
Originally posted by weazel
"the hard times of the second half of the 70's- the Carter years"
Gee....you dont suppose the mess he inherited from the criminal Nixon and retard Ford had anything to do with Americas "malaise" do you?
Keep grasping for straws, one of them *might* be strong enough to hold your argument up.
you know your argument just answered about the economic boom of the "clinton" years.... reaping the benefits of the past 12 yrs of republician administration... hmmmmmm :D
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Bush Sr - Economy bad.
Clinton - Economy good.
Bush Jr - Economy bad.
Bush Sr - Crime bad.
Clinton - Crime good.
Bush Jr - Crime bad.
Thrawn - full of shat as usual. Same old tired argument that completely overlooks economic trends.
-
Originally posted by weazel
"The power base of the Repubs is a successful economy where people and corporations are more affluent"
That common "people" don't do worth a damn under trickle down voodoo economics the so called " conservative" politicians ram down their throats everytime they take office?
nono... we all do better being taxed blind. (tax cut = handout )
The less well off be-damned? My vote is teach them to read... at least three letters.. J[/size] O[/size] B[/size]
-
Weazel, if that's the best you've got, you don't have much.
I doubt you even read my reply. I didn't blame any president for the economy, nor did I give credit to any of them for good times. Right or wrong I believe the president and the economy are largely two separate issues.
Now you *could* possibly attempt to rebut with an intelligent discussion. Or you could continue like the last post- the Internet equivalent of pouring your tongue out at your monitor.
-
Blah, blah, blah....It's all Jimmy Carters fault....
"the hard times of the second half of the 70's- the Carter years"
Gee....you dont suppose the mess he inherited from the criminal Nixon and retard Ford had anything to do with Americas "malaise" do you?
Keep grasping for straws, one of them *might* be strong enough to hold your argument up.
Sorry, can't pass posting the obvious...
Does it occur to you that you are attributing the economy of the late '70's to the administrations before, but you want to attribute the current economy to the current administration?
I don't think I am the one needing a bigger straw...
-
The credit for American prosperity goes entirely to the working class. The difference between conservatives and liberals is that the conservatives realize this. Government interference is justified only when it endeavors to ensure fair wages and safe working conditions. Anything else is intrusive.
Shuckins