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

[FinanceDude]

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.........

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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...

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...

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]

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.