Democratic Majority + Severe Recession = End of your Trading Career

Quote from aeliodon:

First off I have to say this thread is Career related. So please don't move it to Politics and Religion.

Lets face it:

* Obama is going to win the election.

* Democrats will pick up seats and will have a monopoly on government.

* Market is telegraphing a Severe Recession.


Bush, even with a Republican majority greatly expanded the size and power of government - and they were supposed to religiously support smaller government. Now that the Democrats will have a monopoly on government, I have no doubt that they will try to destroy the market.

Here is what I expect:

1 A huge increase in capital gains tax.

2 A transaction tax.

3 Outlawing many derivatives (they will call them weapons of mass destruction like Warren Buffet).


BTW I'm not partisan. Republicans created this mess and Democrats will make sure it gets worse.
More...

LOOK AT THE NAME OF THE THREAD, THEN YOU SAY LET'S NOT GET INTO POLITCS, STUPID PEOPLE LIKE YOU, THAT RUN THIS COUNTRY IS WHY WE ARE HEADED TO WHERE WE ARE AND I HOPE IT SCARES YOU EVEN MORE, WHERE WE ARE HEADED.

So now you made the thread, so let's get into politcs. You are aware that during the Great Depression that it has been noted, that like the Republican congress of the past decade, there was massive deregulation by Republicans during the roaring twenties. And like the Great Depression, it will be left up to the DEMOCRATS, to clean up the crap left dribbling from the butts of the greedy Republicans.

I HOPE MSNBC NEVER PROPOSES THE QUESTION AGAIN "WHAT PARTY IS BETTER FOR OUR MARKETS" BECAUES THROUGH MARKET UPS AND DOWNS, THROUGH DEFICITS AND BUILT UP SURPLUS'S. It was DEMOCRATS that have been in office through the ups of the markets and when surplus's have been built. Or the least the deficits werent NEAR what they are under Republican leadership.

Website is a democratic one, but one the first I saw, doubt you'll see any Republican websites with this chart anyways.

http://thegooddemocrat.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/deficit7-11-07.gif
 
problem is, he is going to raise taxes on those that create the jobs. Most small business employing over a few people make above 250k.

Also, raising cap gains will actually bring in less tax revenue, and drive billions in capital funding overseas. it makes no economic sense.

BTW, I'm not talking Laffer Curve here, that's income tax and debatable. it was proven during the last two cap gains changes that lowering brought in more revenue, and raising brought in less. The changes were immediate and dramatic. There are many articles and charts on this on the net if anyone does not believe it. Obama does not even dispute it. he just says its fair.
 
There are other ways to trade as a career, besides long-only equities.

You could trade options (you know, those "puts" and "calls" things) which allow you to bet on, and profit from, DECLINES as well as advances. Even when it is difficult or impossible to short the underlying.

You could trade currencies (you know, "Forex") which allow you to bet on, and profit from, declines as well as advances.

You could trade futures (you know, "commodities") which allow you to bet on, and profit from, declines as well as advances.

A stock market decline is a welcome environment for a large number of career traders, many of whom do not limit themselves to long-only equity trades.
 
Quote from arealpissedgoy:

If this passes, it will be the single most important piece of legislation in decades.

Republicans give a good talk, but they generally fuck over the little business guy. [/QUOTE

But raising taxes across the board (income and cap gains) on the largest job creator in the economy. Small biz making over 250k. Insanely fucking stupid.
More...
 
Quote from Jayford:

problem is, he is going to raise taxes on those that create the jobs. Most small business employing over a few people make above 250k.

Also, raising cap gains will actually bring in less tax revenue, and drive billions in capital funding overseas. it makes no economic sense.

BTW, I'm not talking Laffer Curve here, that's income tax and debatable. it was proven during the last two cap gains changes that lowering brought in more revenue, and raising brought in less. The changes were immediate and dramatic. There are many articles and charts on this on the net if anyone does not believe it. Obama does not even dispute it. he just says its fair.
More...

Obamas polices are very similar to Clinton's,and the US had one of the best economic periods in history under him,even with higher capital gains taxes

By the way,higher capital gains is part of the overall policy.People who pay their income taxes based on capital gains might have to pay their taxes as regular income,less in capital gains income for the government ,but more in income tax
 
Quote from insider trading:

Obamas polices are very similar to Clinton's,and the US had one of the best economic periods in history under him,even with higher capital gains taxes

By the way,higher capital gains is part of the overall policy.People who pay their income taxes based on capital gains might have to pay their taxes as regular income,less in capital gains income for the government ,but more in income tax
More...

Clinton came in just as the tech boom started, and left just as it ended. THAT was great timing, not policies.

but back to the point of cap gains. the rest of the world had much higher cap gains then. Most counties have significantly lowered cap gains since then for a reason. Plus, maybe you missed the part where i mentioned that last time cap gains were lowered, revenue immediately rose. the opposite happened last time they were raised. I've posted this several times along with the charts, but too lazy to search for them now. You can if you wish. Obama has also aknowledged that is an issue of being fair as well. Not a revenue issue.

leave taxes right where they are. brings in record revenues every year. cut spending!

http://www.oenb.at/isaweb/report.do?lang=EN&report=7.20
 
Quote from insider trading:

The 10 billion a month in Iraq (30 billion when you facter in the final cost) is a good start imo
More...

Absolutely agree. You can't just yank the troops out at this point however. Major progress now being made (many other threads on that). It'll take awhile.

My point was however that our current tax system is very effective, leave it be. We need to stop changing the tax system every few years anyway. Makes long term planning impossible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top