The election & "My Money!" (non-partisan)

[Gumby]

I think the fact that we have automatically escalating entitlement programs (SS and Medicare), together with an incredibly expensive war that has been carried "off balance sheet," means that our taxes will increase regardless of who is elected. I'm not certain a Democrat could get Bush's tax cuts repealed or that McCain would want to do that, but I am sure the tax cuts will expire. To me, this calls for taking advantage of the low capital gains rates while we still can. It may also make the case stronger for converting a traditional IRA to a Roth.

To address another point, demographics is destiny. If not for continuing immigration, our population would be shrinking and aging, neither of which is good for the nation's economy. Blind nativism is economic suicide.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby I'm not certain a Democrat could get Bush's tax cuts repealed

I'm not "certain" of it either but I think you're greatly under-estimating either Dem candidates political ability, along with control of both houses, to do so promptly, possibly as part of their inauguration speech.

I agree with you and feel, perhaps even more so, that planning for large increases in both income and capital gain taxes would be prudent at this time.

[Gumby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet I'm not "certain" of it either but I think you're greatly under-estimating either Dem candidates political ability, along with control of both houses, to do so promptly, possibly as part of their inauguration speech. I agree with you and feel, perhaps even more so, that planning for large increases in both income and capital gain taxes would be prudent at this time.

I don't think the Democrats will capture 60 Senate seats. Absent that, the Republicans can filibuster and the Bush tax cuts are therefore safe until they sunset.

[OAG]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby I don't think the Democrats will capture 60 Senate seats. Absent that, the Republicans can filibuster and the Bush tax cuts are therefore safe until they sunset.

Tax changes do not take 60 votes, only "simple" majority. Look back at the time Al Gore as VP had to cast the deciding vote for the changes to SS tax percentages (when it went from 50% to 85% maximum).

[Gumby]

If it ever comes to a vote, they need only a majority. However, it takes 60 votes to invoke cloture (i.e. -- cut off the debate) and call the vote. The filibuster can be sustained by the minority to keep the vote from being called until the majority can muster the 60 votes. Or at least that's how I have always understood the situation. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about Senate procedures can weigh in. Perhaps you can't filibuster tax bills.

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet I'm not "certain" of it either but I think you're greatly under-estimating either Dem candidates political ability, along with control of both houses, to do so promptly, possibly as part of their inauguration speech.

Well, they haven't done a lot in the last 18 months since they got both Houses.........

Quote:

I agree with you and feel, perhaps even more so, that planning for large increases in both income and capital gain taxes would be prudent at this time.

I couldn't agree more.........

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude Well, they haven't done a lot in the last 18 months since they got both Houses.............

I too am somewhat amazed that the Dems have not been much, much more aggressive in pushing their agenda since gaining their majority status in the legislature. The constant excuse of "why should we try, the Republicans will stop us anyway" is getting a little lame. At first I assumed that this crop of Dems is just better and more comfortable at criticizing the opposition and less comfortable at assuming the leadership/in-the-spotlight role themselves. But as time goes on without the level of activity I had assumed they would take, I'm starting to think they are intentionally hanging back so as not to scare moderates and independents away while Dems are on the brink of also controlling the executive branch. With the presidential trophy on the shelf, they'll then truly have eliminated gridlock and be free to implement extensive changes quickly and without opposition.

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet I'm starting to think they are intentionally hanging back so as not to scare moderates and independents away while Dems are on the brink of also controlling the executive branch. With the presidential trophy on the shelf, they'll then truly have eliminated gridlock and be free to implement extensive changes quickly and without opposition.

It has been shown that MORE stuff gets done when you have an opposite of President and Congress. I believe Reagan had a Democratic-controlled Congress, and Clinton has a Republican-controlled one. GWB didn't get that much done even though he had a partyy-controlled Congress up until 2006.

I think a Dem president would find the same problems...........

[Rustic23]

Youbet.... don't hold you breath.... there are lots of Republicans out there that thought the same thing when Bill Clinton left and the Republicans controlled both houses and the Presidency. It did not happen. Remember the same lobbyist are there still.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude It has been shown that MORE stuff gets done when you have an opposite of President and Congress.

Maybe it's an issue of WHAT gets done, as opposed to how much?

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet Maybe it's an issue of WHAT gets done, as opposed to how much?

With Congress, quantity wins over quality every time..........

The new President, regardless of who wins:

1)Will not be able to get our troops our of Iraq for years.

2)Will have to raise taxes on SS and in general to make up the budget shortfall.

3)Will tell us that the "prior Administration" got them into the mess.

4)Will ask us to "work together" (meaning high taxes) to fix our problems domestically and abroad.........

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude With Congress, quantity wins over quality every time.......... The new President, regardless of who wins:

Quote:

1)Will not be able to get our troops our of Iraq for years.

One could argue ad nauseum about why we went to Iraq. But we are there, nonetheless, and just up and leaving doesn't sound like a good option, IMHO. One of the major blunders was the apparent lack of a realistic plan for getting Iraq's economy up-and-running, and returning things to normalcy, an admitted tough task. But based on accounts from folks in "The Green Zone", the "admistrator" was busy wanking or something rather than worrying about getting businesses and schools re-opened, getting utilities restored, etc.

Quote:

2)Will have to raise taxes on SS and in general to make up the budget shortfall.

Agreed, and if they'll show some fiscal responsibility on the spending side, I'll be ok with that. Medicare is the 800-lb gorilla though. SS pales...

Quote:

3)Will tell us that the "prior Administration" got them into the mess.

Unless McCain wins, in which case the prior prior administration. Afterall, it's Clinton's fault...

Quote:

4)Will ask us to "work together" (meaning high taxes) to fix our problems domestically and abroad.........

Let's hold hands, and sing...

[Texarkandy]

But, I ask again - what does anyone think the election of candidate A, B, or C mean for my investment decisions?

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texarkandy But, I ask again - what does anyone think the election of candidate A, B, or C mean for my investment decisions?

Well, if you believe in the efficient market theory, it is impossible to get any advantage by trying to anticipate and plan for the various outcomes. The impact and likelihood of all the outcomes are already priced into everything via thousands of individual decisions and calculations. Since nobody here is any smarter than the market (esp concerning something with as much available info as the upcoming elections) there's not much point in trying to get ahead by, say, investing in drug companies, distillers, etc.

That's if you believe the market is efficient and we are talking about issues that affect everyone the same. Concerning issues that DON'T affect everyone the same: Take advantage of the low cap gains rate now--it won't be around for more than 2 years no matter who wins the election.