Here it is...
http://www.beltwaytalk.com/showthre...s-of-Bush-Tax-Cuts&p=4998&viewfull=1#post4998
I'm more concerned that these guys are pessimistic on the economy and investment opportunities, which won't be good for the TSP accounts, and may explain why the volume is light and the "big money" is not jumping in the market.
I think, Tom, that they would be fighting for each other's wealth.
The market is cornered....
and the average folk know it, thus the run up in bonds.
I read somewhere, don't recall at the moment, but that financial deceptions such as our current situation take close to 10 years to fully recover.
I know you don't agree with Obama, but if you remember, one of his main goals was to minimize the boom & bust economic cycles and return to more of a healthy steady growth pattern.
OTW, the plethora of get rich quick schemes, investment bubbles, and rampant speculation are getting the frown.
I'd venture to say that would have an impact on O's popularity amongst those who got used to making a few billion a year, and can leverage communication to their benefit.
I personally find it hard to conceive what another 2, 3, 5 billion could do for an individual, but for the sport of it...
seems to distort the meaning of "a comfortable living".
m2c
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/15/concentration-of-wealth-in-hands-of-rich/
Concentration of wealth in hands of rich greatest on record
By Daniel Tencer
Published: August 15, 2009
Saez also broke the numbers down by administration, and found that while the wealthiest few saw their incomes rise as quickly during the Bush years as they did during the Clinton years, the same was not true for the rest of the population.
Saez suggests that the economic growth seen on paper during the Bush years was little more than an illusion for the vast majority of Americans, who saw their income grow much more slowly in the 2002-2007 period than they did during the Clinton years.
During both expansions, the incomes of the top 1 percent grew extremely quickly at an annual rate over 10.3 and 10.1 percent respectively. However, while the bottom 99 percent of incomes grew at a solid pace of 2.7 percent per year from 1993–2000, these incomes grew only 1.3 percent per year from 2002–2007. As a result, in the economic expansion of 2002-2007, the top 1 percent captured two thirds of income growth.
Those results may help explain the disconnect between the economic experiences of the public and the solid macroeconomic growth posted by the US economy since 2002. Those results may also help explain why the dramatic growth in top incomes during the Clinton administration did not generate much public outcry while there has been an extraordinary level of attention to top incomes in the press and in the public debate over the last two years.
Saez, who this spring won the prestigious John Bates Clark Medal for economists under 40, links this disparity to the Bush tax cuts, noting that “top income tax rates went up in 1993 during the Clinton administration (and hence a larger share of the gains made by top incomes was redistributed) while top income tax rates went down in 2001 during the Bush administration.”
Add that to loving what you do and it's a pretty good formula.
to manage their TSP. In that case the contoller of the Investment has a professional responsibility to ease investor choices but lets not forget that it is our money and if you limit the choices smart investors will contribute the minimum to get the match and take the rest of their dollars elsewhere.