PDA

View Full Version : Does Obama scare Wall Street?



moonman
07-14-2008, 06:50 PM
Jon Markman (linked below) writes an interesting piece for msn money today wherein he claims much of Wall street, with a couple of exceptions actually fear an Obama presidency. I agree with him, in part. When Markman writes FIRE industries, finance, insurance and real estate fear Obama I agree. It is these industries that have benefit most from favorable tax treatment and the economic bias that is permeating and corrupting our legal system.

When Markman suggests that our industrial based or real economy fear Obama, I disagree. Agriculture, represented by the food giants and corporate farmers haven't expressed any particular fear of Obama. Either has distributors such as retail giants, grocery chains, trucking and transportation, manufacturing and Silicon Valley shown any particular fear of Obama.

So why would the FIRE industries fear Obama. They have the most to lose from free and fair markets rather than the rigged markets created by the Reagan Revolution. Under Obama, banks, insurance companies and real estate developers might be allowed to fail rather than get a Fed subsidized bailout. In other words the corporate welfare bums on Wall Street fear Obama.

Those involved in the real economy who create real wealth have nothing to fear from an Obama administration. It's merely the paper money boys who are shivering in their boots.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/SuperModels/WhyWallStreetIsScaredOfObama.aspx

blenderboy5
07-14-2008, 08:06 PM
Wall Street should fear both candidates, as neither knows jack**** about economics and have little experience at it.

Raidaz4Life
07-14-2008, 10:26 PM
With good reason he should...

sboyajian
07-14-2008, 11:58 PM
I gotta be honest with you when I say..

I get very tired of hearing how the government is bailing out Airlines and Banks and Auto Manufacturers and Insurance Companies and blah blah ****ing blah..

it's our money that's bailing them out and they still gouge us for a round trip flight, they still make us pay $3000 for leather seats, they still increase our rates even if it was the ******* behind you who rear-ended you.

If you can't manage your funds and track history to see your next fiscal years potential future.. you deserve to be out of business.. to hell with bailing them out.

They'll muck it up again and they'll want another bail out.. just like the people who are banking on the government bailing them out of forclosure.. you bought more than you could afford.. you know what? Sucks to be you. Maybe next time you'll decide if you really need the sunroom, finished basement, designer kitchen and 12" slate tile in the bathroom on your $40,000 a year income just because you got a great deal on an 5/1 ARM.

moonman
07-15-2008, 12:38 PM
I hear ya soboyjian, it's socialism for the rich and pull yourself up by your own bootstraps for working men and women.

I heard a story on my drive in this morning about a woman in foreclosure. She had a house here in California and she also bought a condo in one of Donald Trump's Las Vegas developments for ONE MILLION DOLLARS. The lender required nothing down but took the condo in Las Vegas and her California home as security.

So what qualified her for the ONE MILLION DOLLAR, NO DOWN PAYMENT loan, you ask? Well she made $12.00 an hour at her job. Some lender loaned ONE MILLION DOLLARS to a person earning $12.00 per hour.

Frankly, not only should the bank be out of biz but everyone involved in such loans should be prevented from working in finance again. That won't happen, the same lo rent ho's who brought on this crisis will be back in biz with another scam.

And Wall street should fear Obama? That's the wrong question. The one that needs to be asked is should Americans fear Wall Street?

God of War
07-15-2008, 12:42 PM
Wall Street should fear both candidates, as neither knows jack**** about economics and have little experience at it.

If that's the case, why doesn't Obama select Vijay Vaitheeswaran as his running mate?

blenderboy5
07-15-2008, 01:09 PM
I hear ya soboyjian, it's socialism for the rich and pull yourself up by your own bootstraps for working men and women.

I heard a story on my drive in this morning about a woman in foreclosure. She had a house here in California and she also bought a condo in one of Donald Trump's Las Vegas developments for ONE MILLION DOLLARS. The lender required nothing down but took the condo in Las Vegas and her California home as security.

So what qualified her for the ONE MILLION DOLLAR, NO DOWN PAYMENT loan, you ask? Well she made $12.00 an hour at her job. Some lender loaned ONE MILLION DOLLARS to a person earning $12.00 per hour.

Frankly, not only should the bank be out of biz but everyone involved in such loans should be prevented from working in finance again. That won't happen, the same lo rent ho's who brought on this crisis will be back in biz with another scam.

And Wall street should fear Obama? That's the wrong question. The one that needs to be asked is should Americans fear Wall Street?

Now who's at fault? I see two people at fault here. I see an incredibly greedy business trying to make some money. But I also see an uneducated dolt who 1) felt the need to own two houses on $12/hour, 2) doesn't understand "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is," and 3) doesn't understand her basic finances.

And yes, I know, I know. Why isn't the government bailing her out? The government shouldn't bail out either *******, but this $12/hour woman isn't supplying jobs for other people. I suppose that's the only "good" reason to bail out businesses, as they provide jobs for thousands. Though I personally don't believe either should be bailed out, I guess that's the argument.

PHX-SOXFAN
07-15-2008, 06:20 PM
Now who's at fault? I see two people at fault here. I see an incredibly greedy business trying to make some money. But I also see an uneducated dolt who 1) felt the need to own two houses on $12/hour, 2) doesn't understand "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is," and 3) doesn't understand her basic finances.

And yes, I know, I know. Why isn't the government bailing her out? The government shouldn't bail out either *******, but this $12/hour woman isn't supplying jobs for other people. I suppose that's the only "good" reason to bail out businesses, as they provide jobs for thousands. Though I personally don't believe either should be bailed out, I guess that's the argument.

that $12/hour dolt is such a small percentage of the problem. the real problem is occuring to average families who were taken advantage of by predatory lending, depreciating value, and an unethical lending industry.

It's amusing how the conservatives are so anti-regulation, anti-subsidy, until a corporation needs help or a law written in their favor. The irony is endless with those who follow reaganomics. It's a wonder how anyone who still pushes this stuff can be respected by anyone.

blenderboy5
07-16-2008, 01:25 AM
I'm against bailing both of them out. So there, Mr. Generalizer.

sboyajian
07-16-2008, 07:49 AM
that $12/hour dolt is such a small percentage of the problem. the real problem is occuring to average families who were taken advantage of by predatory lending, depreciating value, and an unethical lending industry.

It's amusing how the conservatives are so anti-regulation, anti-subsidy, until a corporation needs help or a law written in their favor. The irony is endless with those who follow reaganomics. It's a wonder how anyone who still pushes this stuff can be respected by anyone.

Blenderboy is right.. the problem is both..

even average families are to blame, not just the predatory lenders.. some of the problems didn't happen from predatory lending. They tell you about these interest only and adjustable rates and families only see one thing "more house for less money".. they assume they'll be making more in 5 years so it's not a problem.

They don't plan for the future they planned for the current. They bought more than they could afford.

When we looked at our house I didn't look at what I could afford in 10 years, I looked at what I could afford right now and I refused to take anything but a 30 year fixed. I don't want my payment to change. I want to know and have the security in knowing that if in 10 years I am making 50% more than I make now, then it's 50% more in my pocket because my house is the same.

PHX-SOXFAN
07-16-2008, 10:47 AM
Blenderboy is right.. the problem is both..

even average families are to blame, not just the predatory lenders.. some of the problems didn't happen from predatory lending. They tell you about these interest only and adjustable rates and families only see one thing "more house for less money".. they assume they'll be making more in 5 years so it's not a problem.

They don't plan for the future they planned for the current. They bought more than they could afford.

When we looked at our house I didn't look at what I could afford in 10 years, I looked at what I could afford right now and I refused to take anything but a 30 year fixed. I don't want my payment to change. I want to know and have the security in knowing that if in 10 years I am making 50% more than I make now, then it's 50% more in my pocket because my house is the same.

actually the problem with the interest only and adjustable rates is not that they cannot afford them, it's that their property depreciated and now the banks won't let them alter their loan to a fixed rate. They could certainly afford a fixed rate, that's what they were prequalified for in the first place, however the banks won't budge since the loan value is more than the house is worth. Therefore, people are inclined to let the house go to foreclosure. Sounds pretty smart of the banks to not modify the loan to a fixed rate huh?:speechless:

blenderboy5
07-16-2008, 10:49 AM
^^^ They also don't sit down and think "what happens if my wife loses her job?" Instead it's "everything's gonna stay the same forever so we'll be fine."

ari1013
07-16-2008, 11:43 AM
Something that I'm sure the well-researched investors have noticed:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/democratic-presidencies-arent-always-bad/story.aspx?guid=%7BBEF92A1B-6F9C-4B5D-902C-FA6A4FC6C2A8%7D


Consider the data compiled by Ned Davis Research, an institutional research firm. In a communication to his clients Thursday morning, Davis reported that the Dow Jones Industrial Average produced an annualized return of 7.21% during Democratic presidents, in contrast to an average of 3.6% during Republican presidents -- or almost precisely half as much, in other words.

Davis hastened to add that he is a political independent, and I should add that during my lifetime I have voted more often for Libertarian presidential candidates than for candidates of either of the major parties. So please don't accuse Davis of biasing his results, or my choosing to write a column on his research, for partisan political reasons.

To be sure, inflation is also higher on average during Democratic presidencies, so on an inflation-adjusted basis there is a smaller difference between the stock market's average returns during presidencies of the two parties. But the Democratic Party still comes out ahead: 2.5% annualized during Democratic presidencies, versus 1.7% during Republican presidencies.

When I mentioned Davis' results to several people on Thursday, the not-infrequent reaction was anger. This baffles me.

sboyajian
07-16-2008, 12:00 PM
^^^ They also don't sit down and think "what happens if my wife loses her job?" Instead it's "everything's gonna stay the same forever so we'll be fine."

exactly.. you and I don't agree on much.. but we do agree people are naive and stupid.. they did this to themselves. No bank can convince you to sign something.. people saw the cheaper price and jumped on it without thinking about what could happen.

moonman
07-16-2008, 12:30 PM
Some schlepp laborer making $12.00 an hour finds herself in an office and is being told, "You can have this ONE MILLION DOLLAR condominium built by DONALD TRUMP no less for nothing more than your signature on this piece of paper. Can't make the payments? Don't worry you can always sell it and put the profit in your purse and walk away."

This is a bank doing the talking of course. Those conservative, prudent money managers of utmost integrity. The one's she was taught to respect and trust. The one's who promised to make her rich beyond her wildest dreams. Yeah okay it's her fault.

Forget about fiduciary duty, like any of you have the slightest clue to what that means anyway. LMAO.

blenderboy5
07-16-2008, 12:38 PM
Yeah, it's a shame that business exploited it, but it's a fundamental weakness of many Americans:

I want what I want quickly. I don't want to work years for a nest egg, I want it now. Consequences? I'll worry about that later. Long term what?

blenderboy5
07-16-2008, 12:39 PM
Some schlepp laborer making $12.00 an hour finds herself in an office and is being told, "You can have this ONE MILLION DOLLAR condominium built by DONALD TRUMP no less for nothing more than your signature on this piece of paper. Can't make the payments? Don't worry you can always sell it and put the profit in your purse and walk away."

This is a bank doing the talking of course. Those conservative, prudent money managers of utmost integrity. The one's she was taught to respect and trust. The one's who promised to make her rich beyond her wildest dreams. Yeah okay it's her fault.

Forget about fiduciary duty, like any of you have the slightest clue to what that means anyway. LMAO.

I said both parties are at fault, but that would require basic readng comprehension for you to see that I guess.

moonman
07-16-2008, 12:46 PM
I said both parties are at fault, but that would require basic readng comprehension for you to see that I guess.

All you do is troll here. You haven't started a thread in weeks, maybe months because few read your drivel and fewer comment.

sboyajian
07-16-2008, 12:55 PM
Some schlepp laborer making $12.00 an hour finds herself in an office and is being told, "You can have this ONE MILLION DOLLAR condominium built by DONALD TRUMP no less for nothing more than your signature on this piece of paper. Can't make the payments? Don't worry you can always sell it and put the profit in your purse and walk away."

This is a bank doing the talking of course. Those conservative, prudent money managers of utmost integrity. The one's she was taught to respect and trust. The one's who promised to make her rich beyond her wildest dreams. Yeah okay it's her fault.

Forget about fiduciary duty, like any of you have the slightest clue to what that means anyway. LMAO.

I disagree. Because no matter how hard the mortgage broker tried.. if she already had a mortgage on her credit and only made $12.00 no underwriter (manual or automatic) would approve her for that loan. The broker would have to falsify her income and then create false documentation to support such claims.

moonman
07-16-2008, 01:10 PM
I disagree. Because no matter how hard the mortgage broker tried.. if she already had a mortgage on her credit and only made $12.00 no underwriter (manual or automatic) would approve her for that loan. The broker would have to falsify her income and then create false documentation to support such claims.

You never heard of no verification or liars loans?

blenderboy5
07-16-2008, 01:19 PM
All you do is troll here. You haven't started a thread in weeks, maybe months because few read your drivel and fewer comment.

I don't feel the need to start constant threads to spew venom about another candidate lol. And I certainly don't need to do it as often as you feel the need to.

But grea argument. Instead of saying "you're right, I read that wrong sorry I misunderstood your argument," you say "your a waste of a poster." Or is that spin too? Maybe I misunderstood, and "you're a troll who no one likes" actually means "you're great."

And who was called petty again?

ari1013
07-17-2008, 12:01 AM
I don't feel the need to start constant threads to spew venom about another candidate lol. And I certainly don't need to do it as often as you feel the need to.

But grea argument. Instead of saying "you're right, I read that wrong sorry I misunderstood your argument," you say "your a waste of a poster." Or is that spin too? Maybe I misunderstood, and "you're a troll who no one likes" actually means "you're great."

And who was called petty again?
You two seriously need to cool it.

Moonman -- everyone's here to express their opinions. Attack the post, not the poster.

Blenderboy -- just because he's acting like an 8 year old, doesn't mean you should either.

Seriously, let's get this back on topic.

sboyajian
07-17-2008, 06:37 AM
You never heard of no verification or liars loans?

on a million dollar loan where a mortgage reports on one's credit already... No.

moonman
07-17-2008, 02:45 PM
on a million dollar loan where a mortgage reports on one's credit already... No.

Well now you have. She was a caller to Handel on the Law aired on KFI-AM Los Angeles Saturdays 6a-11a.

Maybe you work in the mortgage industry and maybe you are an honorable guy. I wouldn't question that. However, the FBI is investigating numerous cases of lender fraud and why not. Original lenders weren't keeping the loans anyway. They were bundled and sold.

The incentive to lenders was make as many loans as possible. Any kind of loan. Quality as it turns out, due diligence as we've now learned and fiduciary duty meant nothing.

And in typical fashion, Washington under a Republican Administration is doing the one thing Republicans have long wailed against; Republicans are bailing them out and rewarding failure.

snakey32
07-17-2008, 02:49 PM
Obama wants to increase the capital gains tax. As an investment advisor, that scares me.

sboyajian
07-17-2008, 03:03 PM
Obama wants to increase the capital gains tax. As an investment advisor, that scares me.

Obama wants to raise a lot of taxes that have been held the same or close to the same for a long time, which is much needed with how far in debt this country is.

snakey32
07-17-2008, 03:11 PM
Obama wants to raise a lot of taxes that have been held the same or close to the same for a long time, which is much needed with how far in debt this country is.

Raising taxes will slow our economy down, drop revenues and decrease total tax generated by the government. I don't have the exact stats, but total tax generated by the federal government under the Bush administration has increased due to his tax cuts and growth in our economy.

moonman
07-17-2008, 03:12 PM
Obama wants to increase the capital gains tax. As an investment advisor, that scares me.

McCain supports extending the current capital gains rate of 15%. However, as an investment adviser I'm surprised you aren't more scared of Republican proposals to abolish the capital gains tax entirely. The result, if we followed the Republicans, would be that capital gains would be treated as ordinary income and taxed at much higher rates than even Obama has proposed.

What do I know, eh. I'm not a sophisticated investment adviser. I'm just a lowly licensed and bonded tax preparer.

As you probably know, McCain doesn't have much support within his own party for his policies. Indeed, many are promising a floor fight over the party platform.

Given the alternative, a party divided and a President unable to sell his policies to his own party, this might be the best time to vote a straight Democrat ticket.

snakey32
07-17-2008, 03:30 PM
McCain supports extending the current capital gains rate of 15%. However, as an investment adviser I'm surprised you aren't more scared of Republican proposals to abolish the capital gains tax entirely. The result, if we followed the Republicans, would be that capital gains would be treated as ordinary income and taxed at much higher rates than even Obama has proposed.

That's news to me. Please provide a source so that I can get caught up on the GOPs efforts to eliminate capital gains tax and tax investments at ordinary income.


What do I know, eh. I'm not a sophisticated investment adviser. I'm just a lowly licensed and bonded tax preparer.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at there. The only assumption I can make is that you're mocking me. Was there some other point you were trying to make there?

sboyajian
07-17-2008, 03:33 PM
Dunno.. I work for one of the largest advisory firms .. granted I'm in IT.. but I don't see a lot of frantic people over it.

moonman
07-17-2008, 04:16 PM
No snakey32, I wasn't mocking you at all. IMO, the vast majority of investment advisers posses sophisticated minds and are adept at strategic thinking. I merely stated by contrast that I'm just a lowly licensed and bonded tax preparer.

As for some proof that Republicans seek to eliminate capital gains tax look no further than the Contract With America.

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B33FCDB36-79CD-4270-B0C9-4E07332796D4%7D&siteid=mktw

As to the capital gains being treated as ordinary income for tax purposes, should capital gains taxes be eliminated, I'm amazed that a so-called investment adviser fails to understand the definition of income for tax purposes, which is THE MOST rudimentary of all investment considerations; i.e. How is this investment treated for tax purposes?

moonman
07-17-2008, 04:39 PM
No I wasn't mocking you snakey32. Eliminating the capital gains tax has long been a goal of the Republicans. It was stated so in the Contract With America and advocated by many Republicans since.

What surprises me though is that an investment adviser would not understand the most rudimentary of all tax law. Eliminating the capital gains tax doesn't mean eliminating the reporting requirement. Thus investment banks and brokers still report capital gains on transactions, the gain is then ordinary income and taxed at the higher rate.

I'm also surprised an investment adviser would advocate lowering the capital gains tax given our experience, especially in 2000 and 1929. Lowering capital gains rates only leads to wild speculation and there is absolutely no evidence that reducing capital gains rates spurs economic growth.

Correct if I'm wrong but aren't investment advisers generally prudent people who advocate at best measured and acceptable risk?

Randy West
07-17-2008, 04:46 PM
I don't know if Obama scares wall street

I do know wall street is scaring the piss out of me right now

sboyajian
07-17-2008, 05:08 PM
I don't know if Obama scares wall street

I do know wall street is scaring the piss out of me right now
as long as crude keeps dropping, wall street can do whatever the **** it wants right now.. they are talking about huge price drops in the pumps in the coming days.. ranging anywhere from 20 - 40 cents a gallon.. apparently since we've been "overpaying" and the drop is in concern to the price having an effect on economy, it's going to balance out with the actual per barrel cost.

Hopefully tomorrow yields another $5 drop.

moonman
07-17-2008, 05:15 PM
I don't know if Obama scares wall street

I do know wall street is scaring the piss out of me right now

I was chatting with a friend yesterday who's net worth is well over two million and he never earned more than $15.00 an hour. In fact he was a custodian at his local school district. Ain't inflation amazin'? Well, my friend did better than the inflation rate. He showed real gains.

Anyway, as to your fear, he said, "Naw, I've seen it all before. In 2000 the market went down 50% and recovered. Same thing in 1987." He gave me a couple investment advisory letters and a recommendation.

moonman
07-17-2008, 05:18 PM
as long as crude keeps dropping, wall street can do whatever the **** it wants right now.. they are talking about huge price drops in the pumps in the coming days.. ranging anywhere from 20 - 40 cents a gallon.. apparently since we've been "overpaying" and the drop is in concern to the price having an effect on economy, it's going to balance out with the actual per barrel cost.

Hopefully tomorrow yields another $5 drop.

ah yes, the old feather up, feather down scam. why is it when the price feathers down it never seems to hit the old lows but always sets new records when it feathers up?

ari1013
07-17-2008, 08:27 PM
Raising taxes will slow our economy down, drop revenues and decrease total tax generated by the government. I don't have the exact stats, but total tax generated by the federal government under the Bush administration has increased due to his tax cuts and growth in our economy.
That's not exactly true. Tax revenue from corporations has increases along with their profits. That increase in tax revenue more than made up for the decrease in revenue from individual tax returns, but since those corporations were on pace for record profits anyway, it's very clear that tax receipts are actually lower now than they would have been had the tax cuts not happened.

In fact, the Bush Administration's projections for future tax revenues are made with a 100% repeal of his cuts after 2010. So the 2012 "Balanced Budget" requires a full move back to the Clinton-level of taxes.

As far as economic growth goes, there's a whole literature that disproves your point. Taxes are essentially irrelevant to economic growth. Interest rates are much more important.

ari1013
07-17-2008, 08:32 PM
as long as crude keeps dropping, wall street can do whatever the **** it wants right now.. they are talking about huge price drops in the pumps in the coming days.. ranging anywhere from 20 - 40 cents a gallon.. apparently since we've been "overpaying" and the drop is in concern to the price having an effect on economy, it's going to balance out with the actual per barrel cost.

Hopefully tomorrow yields another $5 drop.
Oil's dropping because the dollar is climbing in value. The dollar has appreciated about 10% in the last two weeks. At the same time, oil consumption hasn't changed. Therefore the price of oil should decrease around 10% as well (a net drop of about $14-$15). That should correspond to about a 22 cent drop in gas prices at the pump.

ari1013
07-17-2008, 08:33 PM
ah yes, the old feather up, feather down scam. why is it when the price feathers down it never seems to hit the old lows but always sets new records when it feathers up?
It's not a scam. When prices go up over time it's because demand grows over time along with global population.

Drucifer
07-17-2008, 09:58 PM
They panic when anything changes, so yeah they are scare of Obama, who's biggest slogan has called for change.

sboyajian
07-17-2008, 10:20 PM
Oil's dropping because the dollar is climbing in value. The dollar has appreciated about 10% in the last two weeks. At the same time, oil consumption hasn't changed. Therefore the price of oil should decrease around 10% as well (a net drop of about $14-$15). That should correspond to about a 22 cent drop in gas prices at the pump.

It has already dropped $16 in the last 3 days. I say it drops another 3 - 4 tomorrow.. I know you like to hold the value of oil and the dollar as mutually exclusive, but like it or not, there are other factors. Concerns of price also can affect things.. otherwise everything would rise and drop at the price of the dollar, and there would be no need for the market at all. It would just be assumed and known that as the dollar goes up 10%, everything else drops 10%.

snakey32
07-17-2008, 10:24 PM
Dunno.. I work for one of the largest advisory firms .. granted I'm in IT.. but I don't see a lot of frantic people over it.

That's because he hasn't been elected yet. If he is, I will definatley make quick work in coming up with a plan to have clients take capital gains on their non-qualified accounts.


No snakey32, I wasn't mocking you at all. IMO, the vast majority of investment advisers posses sophisticated minds and are adept at strategic thinking. I merely stated by contrast that I'm just a lowly licensed and bonded tax preparer.

As for some proof that Republicans seek to eliminate capital gains tax look no further than the Contract With America.

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B33FCDB36-79CD-4270-B0C9-4E07332796D4%7D&siteid=mktw

As to the capital gains being treated as ordinary income for tax purposes, should capital gains taxes be eliminated, I'm amazed that a so-called investment adviser fails to understand the definition of income for tax purposes, which is THE MOST rudimentary of all investment considerations; i.e. How is this investment treated for tax purposes?


No I wasn't mocking you snakey32. Eliminating the capital gains tax has long been a goal of the Republicans. It was stated so in the Contract With America and advocated by many Republicans since.

What surprises me though is that an investment adviser would not understand the most rudimentary of all tax law. Eliminating the capital gains tax doesn't mean eliminating the reporting requirement. Thus investment banks and brokers still report capital gains on transactions, the gain is then ordinary income and taxed at the higher rate.

I'm also surprised an investment adviser would advocate lowering the capital gains tax given our experience, especially in 2000 and 1929. Lowering capital gains rates only leads to wild speculation and there is absolutely no evidence that reducing capital gains rates spurs economic growth.

Correct if I'm wrong but aren't investment advisers generally prudent people who advocate at best measured and acceptable risk?

That's quite a forked tongue you have. And yes, you are quite wrong in many ways. May I make a suggestion though? Please re-read your left-wing, editorial from 2003 so that you can abosrb the meaning behind it. It blasts the GOP for wanting to eliminate capital gains taxes all together because there would no longer be tax dollars generated.


The economic impact of cutting the tax is minimal because people are basically going to swap assets," Murphy said. "As people unlock capital gains, you could actually push stock prices downward."

The bait-and-switch might ultimately be far more sinister. After winning a capital-gains tax cut with the reduction in dividend taxes to 15 percent, the White House may well come back and argue that any dividend taxes are still unfair. In the end, it could win elimination of dividend taxes and a sharp cut in capital gains without any debate.

Maybe next time you should be less abrasive. It makes you look like less of a jerk when it turns out you make false assumptions in reading the article you referenced. The entire article you quoted bashes the GOP for wanting to lower taxes. I think it's a much safer assumption that there would no longer be reporting required on investment accounts for tax purposes, rather than the GOP has been attempting to lower capital gains taxes in order to jack them up to ordinary income rates. :rolleyes:

I know you're just a lowly tax preparer, but you need to work on your reading comprehension. Thanks for playing.

ari1013
07-17-2008, 11:59 PM
It has already dropped $16 in the last 3 days. I say it drops another 3 - 4 tomorrow.. I know you like to hold the value of oil and the dollar as mutually exclusive, but like it or not, there are other factors. Concerns of price also can affect things.. otherwise everything would rise and drop at the price of the dollar, and there would be no need for the market at all. It would just be assumed and known that as the dollar goes up 10%, everything else drops 10%.
I doubt it falls more than it has. But we'll see.

How have gas prices near you changed in the last week?

snakey32
07-18-2008, 07:29 AM
I doubt it falls more than it has. But we'll see.

How have gas prices near you changed in the last week?

They haven't fallen here as much as the price of oil has, It's funny though... when oil is going up they seem to adjust their gas prices quickly. :)

sboyajian
07-18-2008, 07:54 AM
I doubt it falls more than it has. But we'll see.

How have gas prices near you changed in the last week?

They haven't.. because as we've discussed before, the price at the pump is speculated based on risk.

Monday they buy oil at 130 a barrel
Tuesday oil goes to 140.
Wednesday you pay more for the oil they bought Monday.

But if it drops per barrel.. you won't see it for a week.. just a way they can gouge us.. fast to rise, slow to fall. Unless oil takes a massive leap up today, we should see a drop by Sunday or Monday.

ari1013
07-18-2008, 10:58 AM
They haven't.. because as we've discussed before, the price at the pump is speculated based on risk.

Monday they buy oil at 130 a barrel
Tuesday oil goes to 140.
Wednesday you pay more for the oil they bought Monday.

But if it drops per barrel.. you won't see it for a week.. just a way they can gouge us.. fast to rise, slow to fall. Unless oil takes a massive leap up today, we should see a drop by Sunday or Monday.
It's a little crazy. When the Saudi numbers (+800K/day) came out a few weeks ago, gas prices here dropped 12 cents in the middle of the day.

Similarly, when oil went from 138 to 146, gas prices went up 14 cents in the middle of the day.

We should be seeing a similar effect on the way down. For once I have to agree with the conspiracy theorists that gouging is occurring.

J-E-T-S
07-19-2008, 11:56 AM
I usually like to thank Ronald Reagan as the basic root where nearly alot of our problems have arisen from taxation and debt. Reagonomics is what they call it. Trully stupidity at its highest degree.

ari1013
07-19-2008, 02:21 PM
I usually like to thank Ronald Reagan as the basic root where nearly alot of our problems have arisen from taxation and debt. Reagonomics is what they call it. Trully stupidity at its highest degree.
Luckily, one of the main proponents of Reaganomics was just given the boot from the McCain campaign.

moonman
07-23-2008, 01:43 PM
That's because he hasn't been elected yet. If he is, I will definatley make quick work in coming up with a plan to have clients take capital gains on their non-qualified accounts.

Good for you. This is the first time you've posted anything that indicates you consider the tax implications in your investment advisory work.

That's quite a forked tongue you have. And yes, you are quite wrong in many ways. May I make a suggestion though? Please re-read your left-wing, editorial from 2003 so that you can abosrb the meaning behind it. It blasts the GOP for wanting to eliminate capital gains taxes all together because there would no longer be tax dollars generated.

Please refer to IRS Form 1040. Perhaps you have signed one or two during your lifetime. Lines 7 through 22 inclusive, describe income. In the event capital gain taxes are abolished, teh income received from an investment would be reported on line 14 or line 21 and be taxed as ordinary income. Even if the investment bank failed to report the income paid out, it is still the responsibility of the taxpayer to report all income.

Maybe next time you should be less abrasive. It makes you look like less of a jerk when it turns out you make false assumptions in reading the article you referenced. The entire article you quoted bashes the GOP for wanting to lower taxes. I think it's a much safer assumption that there would no longer be reporting required on investment accounts for tax purposes, rather than the GOP has been attempting to lower capital gains taxes in order to jack them up to ordinary income rates. :rolleyes:

I know you're just a lowly tax preparer, but you need to work on your reading comprehension. Thanks for playing.

Yippy skippy. I wasn't asked to endorse an editorial opinion in the article. I was asked to provide proof that Republicans were advocating eliminating the capital gain tax. Nanner nanner and a :moon:@you.

sboyajian
07-23-2008, 02:24 PM
It has already dropped $16 in the last 3 days. I say it drops another 3 - 4 tomorrow.. I know you like to hold the value of oil and the dollar as mutually exclusive, but like it or not, there are other factors. Concerns of price also can affect things.. otherwise everything would rise and drop at the price of the dollar, and there would be no need for the market at all. It would just be assumed and known that as the dollar goes up 10%, everything else drops 10%.

Well it looks like I was foiled by Dolly (and that is after all speculation.. the price went up on Friday I believe $1 based on fear Dolly would hit the refinary and then again on Monday by I think $2?)

However then it dropped again yesterday enough to drop it to 128 and another $1 so far today..

yet I still haven't seen a price at the pump change.. gouging pricks..

Lady's Man
07-23-2008, 02:44 PM
of course wall street will be scared if obama wins. The guy likes to raise taxes.

snakey32
07-23-2008, 05:30 PM
Yippy skippy. I wasn't asked to endorse an editorial opinion in the article. I was asked to provide proof that Republicans were advocating eliminating the capital gain tax. Nanner nanner and a :moon:@you.

No, you were not asked to provide an article that asserted that the GOP was attempting to abolish the capital gains tax. You were asked to provide an article that stated the GOP was attempting to eliminate capital gains rates in order to tax investment gains at ordinary income rates. Are you really that confused?

In any event, you fail. You fail at making your point, you fail at upholding your image by acting like a three-year-old in your post, and you probably fail in many other ways.

moonman
07-23-2008, 07:04 PM
No, you were not asked to provide an article that asserted that the GOP was attempting to abolish the capital gains tax. You were asked to provide an article that stated the GOP was attempting to eliminate capital gains rates in order to tax investment gains at ordinary income rates. Are you really that confused?

In any event, you fail. You fail at making your point, you fail at upholding your image by acting like a three-year-old in your post, and you probably fail in many other ways.

LMAO. From your own post, #29 on this thread I quote you snakey32, "Please provide a source so that I can get caught up on the GOPs efforts to eliminate capital gains tax and tax investments at ordinary income."

geez, guy you can't quote yourself correctly. You play change the facts to suit the moment. You originally asked for a "source." I gave you a "source." Now you say you want some "article" as if the article I gave you is some less than accurate source....and I'm accused of being juvenile and playing games? That's a double:moon::moon:@you.

Now before you get a big head about earning two moons, the max is four.

ari1013
07-23-2008, 07:58 PM
Well it looks like I was foiled by Dolly (and that is after all speculation.. the price went up on Friday I believe $1 based on fear Dolly would hit the refinary and then again on Monday by I think $2?)

However then it dropped again yesterday enough to drop it to 128 and another $1 so far today..

yet I still haven't seen a price at the pump change.. gouging pricks..
My predictions at the pump actually came close to true out here. Gas prices fell from 3.999 down to 3.799. That's a 5% decline in gas prices relative to the 13.6% decline in oil prices. So gas is falling, but gouging is still somewhat occuring (gas should have fallen by about 28 cents, not 20).

ari1013
07-23-2008, 07:59 PM
of course wall street will be scared if obama wins. The guy likes to raise taxes.
Clinton raised taxes and the market grew to unprecedented levels under him.

Reagan raised taxes and the market grew to unprecedented levels under him.

sboyajian
07-23-2008, 09:18 PM
My predictions at the pump actually came close to true out here. Gas prices fell from 3.999 down to 3.799. That's a 5% decline in gas prices relative to the 13.6% decline in oil prices. So gas is falling, but gouging is still somewhat occuring (gas should have fallen by about 28 cents, not 20).

When it was $148 a barrel I was paying $3.89 a gallon. Even after today's $4 drop, bringing to $124 a barrel, I just filled up today.. $3.89 a gallon.

(Well.. actually $3.69 a gallon, but that's only because I get 20 cents off a gallon at Safeway).

I would love for gas to fall 20 cents here, even if it should be closer to 30.. I would have paid under 3.50 tonight and likely would have passed out right at the pump.

blenderboy5
07-23-2008, 11:11 PM
Clinton raised taxes and the market grew to unprecedented levels under him.

Reagan raised taxes and the market grew to unprecedented levels under him.

There's a difference between a causality and a correlation.

For instance, Roosevelt won the presidency. Then, Hitler took control of Germany. A didn't cause B.

Clinton's raising taxes wasn't the sole contribution to the market growing.

ari1013
07-23-2008, 11:15 PM
There's a difference between a causality and a correlation.

For instance, Roosevelt won the presidency. Then, Hitler took control of Germany. A didn't cause B.

Clinton's raising taxes wasn't the sole contribution to the market growing.
No kidding. I was trying to point out how stupid his statement was.

Expectations are rarely met.

blenderboy5
07-23-2008, 11:32 PM
ah nevermind

snakey32
07-24-2008, 07:26 PM
LMAO. From your own post, #29 on this thread I quote you snakey32, "Please provide a source so that I can get caught up on the GOPs efforts to eliminate capital gains tax and tax investments at ordinary income."

geez, guy you can't quote yourself correctly. You play change the facts to suit the moment. You originally asked for a "source." I gave you a "source." Now you say you want some "article" as if the article I gave you is some less than accurate source....and I'm accused of being juvenile and playing games? That's a double:moon::moon:@you.

Now before you get a big head about earning two moons, the max is four.


For the last time, please provide an article- or even a biased editorial- that states that the GOP wants to tax investments at ordinary income rates!!!. And no, investment proceeds will not automatically be taxed at ordinary income rates should they eliminate capital gains.

You have proven that you have the worst reading comprehension at PSD. Congratulations. :clap: