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

[Texarkandy]

Since I've noted some have objected to political discussions becoming too partisan on here of late - how about an objective non-partisan discussion of my two favorite topics : Politics & "My Money!".

Predictions anyone? on the effects on the markets, business, investments, inflation, etc in Nov/Dec/Jan & beyond etc in the case of the election
A. Hillary
B. Obama
C. McCain

As ER's & prospective ER's (& generally financially responsible people), how should we start thinking of responding with our personal finance/investments in the event of the election of each of these?

Let's see if such a discussion can be held without interjecting personal moral, philosphical, partisan, & socio-political viewpoints & keep it strictly to how each prospective president's actions & policies might affect our pocketbooks.

 

[Notmuchlonger]

"Let's see if such a discussion can be held without interjecting personal moral, philosphical, partisan, & socio-political viewpoints & keep it strictly to how each prospective president's actions & policies might affect our pocketbooks."

 

[packrat44]

Since I've noted some have objected to political discussions becoming too partisan on here of late - how about an objective non-partisan discussion of my two favorite topics : Politics & "My Money!".

Predictions anyone? on the effects on the markets, business, investments, inflation, etc in Nov/Dec/Jan & beyond etc in the case of the election
A. Hillary
B. Obama
C. McCain

As ER's & prospective ER's (& generally financially responsible people), how should we start thinking of responding with our personal finance/investments in the event of the election of each of these?

Let's see if such a discussion can be held without interjecting personal moral, philosphical, partisan, & socio-political viewpoints & keep it strictly to how each prospective president's actions & policies might affect our pocketbooks.

Is this a sequel for "Mission Impossible"?

 

[A854321]

A. Tax rates go up, higher increase on higher incomes
B. Tax rates go up, higher increase on higher incomes
C. Tax rates go up, proportional across the board

 

[Texarkandy]

A. Tax rates go up, higher increase on higher incomes
B. Tax rates go up, higher increase on higher incomes
C. Tax rates go up, proportional across the board

I was thinking more of terms of where the best investment opportunities might lie in the case of A, B, & C.

Trying to think ahead as to what might be around the curve. Wouldn't want to be invested in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[samclem]

I don't think there's much to add to what most folks already know:
Clinton and Obama are largely indistinguishable on their policy prescriptions.
In style/execution, I'd say Clinton is a ruthless bare-knuckled brawler who will pull every political string needed to get policies enacted that will . . . benefit her and her legacy. Obama might do better than she in building public support for favored policies.
McCain: His reputation in the Senate (on both sides of the aisle) might help him get things through.

The policies themselves and impact on us:
Clinton/Obama policies will likely not favor those whose jobs are in the private sector or whose investments are in equities. Their anti-business rhetoric and the government-centric solutions they have offered indicate that government spending and taxes will be raised. There are some people who believe that government-provided health care would be good for US businesses--if this is right, then an Obama or Clinton presidency might give US companies a boost. People on this board will likely do a disproportionate amount of the paying for bigger government.


McCain hasn't made the growth of American industry a centerpiece of his campaign. Still, his long record of government fiscal restraint and his rhetoric indicating the need to restrain government borrowing indicate he'll at least attempt to put a brake on spending. It's not clear whether he'd eventually raise taxes to close the gap or perhaps be persuaded to try to let us grow our way out of the deficit (as we have done before).

There's a lot to be said for government inaction, especially once the alternatives are thoroughly explored.

 

[GoodSense]

All I know is that I should try to get my rental sold as a primary residence this year, instead of a non-primary rental next year, since capital gains tax may go up under Obama/Clinton.

 

[Texarkandy]

All I know is that I should try to get my rental sold as a primary residence this year, instead of a non-primary rental next year, since capital gains tax may go up under Obama/Clinton.

"may" ?

 

[GoodSense]

"may" ?

OK, I was being a bit optimistic!

 

[zoey]

McCain wants to stay in Iraq, so with McCain we would continue spending some insane amount of money on the war and the deficit will continue to grow out of sight. What other effect will the continuation of the war have?

Obama and Clinton will most likely get us out of Iraq quickly, so whatever was true in regard to McCain, then the opposite would apply. Since I'm not an expert, maybe someone else can explain the effect of war, or no war, on everything financial.

Obama and Clinton will probably make an attempt at creating some sort of universal healthcare. Again, I'm not an expert so don't know what effect that will have.

For those of us who need social security as part of our retirement, I think we'll do better with Obama or Clinton.

As far as the stock market and other investments, who knows. My guess based on a hunch and a little history is that things will get worse for the next 3-5 years and if that's the case, the next president will probably only last one term. How much damage can any of them do in four years? Dunno.

 

[chinaco]

It depends. Once GWB is out of office there will be a collective sigh of relief no matter who replaces him.

There could be a number of directional changes that could improve the economic outlook.

But there are some difficult problems that need to be solved also.

The big question is: Will the President elect actually try to tackle those problems.

 

[Texarkandy]

Just thinking out loud -

the financial, insurance, & health care sectors might not be good places for "my money" in the event of Clinton or Obama? (or on the other hand - if they are going to "mandate" the purchase of insurance & the govt is going to subsidize it some insurance companies may benefit) Pharmaceuticals might not be so good. Outfits that contract with the government may suffer as they scale back on the contracting out of government?

With the Dem held congress - Clinton/Obama are more likely to actually get more of the Dem agenda passed - at least the first year or two.

As for McCain - buy into military related companies? I haven't thought much as to what industries/sectors might suffer under a McCain agenda. I'd like to see/know who his financial guru is going to be - I would guess he has one already - anybody know?

No matter which of the 3 get elected, I think we'll see an immigration amnesty bill (cloaked as "earned citizenship" or some such nonsense) next year for 20 million or so illegals in the US - Hmmm, wonder how "my money" can benefit from that? Firms/industries that cater to Spanish speakers? (Tortilla factories )

 

[OAG]

Much of what does NOT get done in the Congress is the need for a (and inability to get one) "super-majority". BUT tax increases and/or revisions to the tax system require only a normal 51% "majority". It appears both democratic candidates would eliminate or roll-back tax rates to approximate the pre-2000 levels. Going to be a very interesting election and 2009 in America, at least politically.

 

[FinanceDude]

If McCain gets elected, ALL alcohol companies will benefit...he has NEVER introduced legislation to affect the booze industry in a bad way.........because Mr.McCain is heir to a large beer distributorship.............

 

[OAG]

I thought the wife was the booze benefactor? But that does not change the fact he probably would not do anything to negatively impact the industry and maybe not the wife.

 

[Rustic23]

Obama/Clinton will not 'get us out of Iraq'. It makes nice campaign rhetoric but the truth is they can't and won't do it. There will be an excuse circa Bill Clinton 'I did not know how bad it was..... the xxx administration hid the facts from us'

McCain will not hold down spending. Congress appropriates money i.e. spends. While the Executive department actually get the work done Congress holds the purse strings. They have yet to curtail pork, or show any real attempt to eliminate government programs.

Democratic win: The press will declare the Economy is on the mend, Employment is at an all time high, in fact close to what Economist call full employment. There will be little or no bad economic news.

The Democrats may allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, but will replace them with the Democrat tax cuts. Families with less than 100K income may benefit.

Very little will change in Washington. Our government is set up to move slowly. Within 6 months you will see the first exploratory committees set up for a presidential run of candidate X.

Wags will still be posting political threads..

 

[youbet]

For those of us who need social security as part of our retirement, I think we'll do better with Obama or Clinton.

If by "doing better" you mean that Obama or Clinton will quickly implement some sort of means testing for SS recipents, I agree. For those of us who have some resources beyond SS for retirement, I think we'll be better off with McCain who will probably leave things as-is and allow us to collect despite having retirement savings.

 

[youbet]

If McCain gets elected, ALL alcohol companies will benefit...he has NEVER introduced legislation to affect the booze industry in a bad way.........because Mr.McCain is heir to a large beer distributorship.............

To the best of my knowledge, Obama has never introduced legislation to affect the booze industry in a bad way. He must be an heir to a large beer distributorship too?

 

[youbet]

No matter which of the 3 get elected, I think we'll see an immigration amnesty bill (cloaked as "earned citizenship" or some such nonsense) next year for 20 million or so illegals in the US - Hmmm, wonder how "my money" can benefit from that? Firms/industries that cater to Spanish speakers? (Tortilla factories )

I know Obama's team is already working on a plan to get replacement illegals to take the place of the current illegals who will be legalized leaving a void. We'll have 20 mil or so new citizens and 20 mil or so replacement illegals taking their place. Sounds like a plan......... Probably calls for investing in bus companies.

 

[packrat44]

No matter which of the 3 get elected, I think we'll see an immigration amnesty bill (cloaked as "earned citizenship" or some such nonsense) next year for 20 million or so illegals in the US - Hmmm, wonder how "my money" can benefit from that? Firms/industries that cater to Spanish speakers? (Tortilla factories )

That may be the politicians secret fix to the SS funding problem - bring in more workers to pay for those who will soon be drawing SS. Okay, so the net costs outweighs the benefits in the long run. Politicians were never much good at being custodians of taxpayers money.

 

[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]

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]

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]

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.