Hillary vs McCain --> 'Who Cares'?

[steve46]

I have mentioned it (tax consequences) a couple of times but no one picked up on it.

And yes I agree that this is one of the reasons why 95% of the folks (retail traders) don't make it in this business. Lack of attention to detail...

In addition to capital gains, those who trade futures profitably (again probably very few here) will find that their preferential tax treatment is long gone if Hillary gets into office...In here attempt to play "Robin Hood", she will latch onto that one and remove it from our grasp quickly.

And today, her handlers proposed a 60 day moritorium on Sub-Prime mortgages....Yeah babe, great idea....so what do we know about Hillary right off the bat....well first of all...we know finance wasn't her strong point in school, and second, we know that she is pandering to the middle class hoping to scavenge those votes because she KNOWS that Obama is catching up to her quickly. Even though she has taken millions, tens of millions from donors on Wall Street, she couldn't care less about turning right around and screwing them in the ass....

The only problem is that by doing that, she is going to piss off some of the most powerful and wealthy movers and shakers in this business, and THAT is going to cost her sooner or later...

I think Hillary and/or her handlers (Mr. Penn for instance) have miscalculated. I am guessing that this and other obvious gaffs are going to result in Obama catching and passing her in the next round of primaries and ultimately she is going to lose because of her greed and desperation...

Thats all

 

[powerfade]

Every Conservative talking head I have seen goes on and on about how they are praying for a Hillary win. It's going to be pretty funny if the Republicans (who must be stunned that they actually have a chance after 8 years of GWB, a disaster that should mean they get trounced no matter who they field), might now face two of the most unelectable candidates the Dems have ever fielded and still lose because McCain is not conservative enough.

In fact, I think the Republican theorists should be jumping up and down with glee that it is going to be McCain. They couldn't ask for a better candidate to face Hobama. He is a viable alternative to slightly right of centre Dems who can't see putting a black man or a woman in the White House.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

McCain might be slightly friendlier on taxes, but he is such a liar I don't know how anyone could rely on it. He has displayed an astonishing hostility to people who are successful. He voted against the modest Bush tax cuts because in his words they benefitted "the rich." He made disparaging comments about Romney's career in venture capital and private equity. He views himself as a deficit hawk, except of course where the military is concerned, so I can easily see him backstabbing us on taxes just like Bush "Read My Lips" did.

Clinton raised taxes when he had a democrat congress, but they didn't touch the futures 60/40. Too important to Chicago, an important democrat bastion. With Obama's base in Illinois, is it really reasonable to think they would go after it?

Don't forget also that Clinton and to a lesser extent Obama have a ton of hedge fund money behind them. They are not likely to bite the hand that feeds them. Surely they will try to raise the top marginal rate and keep the death tax. They might fiddle a little with cap gains. Tthe thing is, most of us generate short term cap gains, so we are not getting the 15% rate anyway. Even if you do, if you generate a lot of profit, you will be in the AMT and lose most of the benefit.

 

[LT701]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

McCain might be slightly friendlier on taxes, but he is such a liar I don't know how anyone could rely on it. He has displayed an astonishing hostility to people who are successful. He voted against the modest Bush tax cuts because in his words they benefitted "the rich." He made disparaging comments about Romney's career in venture capital and private equity. He views himself as a deficit hawk, except of course where the military is concerned, so I can easily see him backstabbing us on taxes just like Bush "Read My Lips" did.

Clinton raised taxes when he had a democrat congress, but they didn't touch the futures 60/40. Too important to Chicago, an important democrat bastion. With Obama's base in Illinois, is it really reasonable to think they would go after it?

Don't forget also that Clinton and to a lesser extent Obama have a ton of hedge fund money behind them. They are not likely to bite the hand that feeds them. Surely they will try to raise the top marginal rate and keep the death tax. They might fiddle a little with cap gains. Tthe thing is, most of us generate short term cap gains, so we are not getting the 15% rate anyway. Even if you do, if you generate a lot of profit, you will be in the AMT and lose most of the benefit.

and even more importantly, tax cuts mean little if a candidate creates GIANT spending liabilities, such as bomb, bomb, bombing iran, or a mccain/kennendy amnesty bill

tax cuts with big spending, just mean putting it on your uncle sam credit card (payable to people's bank of china)

 

[SDticks]

I'm voting, as always, for whoever gives the lowest taxes. That has usually meant a republican and I don't see that changing this time around either. To me lower taxes (especially capital gains tax) = better economy. I'm a pretty strong supporter of Austrian Alchemy/Economics. A good economy is pretty much the most important thing to me, all else within reason is pretty much secondary. In other words, abortion, gay marriage, etc etc, is all secondary to the economy.

I'm also against taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, which is a very solcialistic concept. I think it's detrimental to everyone in the long run. The most productive people in society should have the most resources at their disposal. They need to be able to reinvest their resources where they see fit (not the government), to create more wealth, which in turn creates more wealth for this society as a whole. I watched Hillary speak on tv not to long ago and she basically said in a nutshell she was going to get rid of tax cuts for the rich and return the money to "the hard working people in america, the middle class and poor". I almost fell over at the stupidity of the comment. I guess she thinks rich people don't work hard.

 

[LT701]

Quote from SDticks:

I'm voting, as always, for whoever gives the lowest taxes. That has usually meant a republican and I don't see that changing this time around either. To me lower taxes (especially capital gains tax) = better economy. I'm a pretty strong supporter of Austrian Alchemy/Economics. A good economy is pretty much the most important thing to me, all else within reason is pretty much secondary. In other words, abortion, gay marriage, etc etc, is all secondary to the economy.

I'm also against taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, which is a very solcialistic concept. I think it's detrimental to everyone in the long run. The most productive people in society should have the most resources at their disposal. They need to be able to reinvest their resources where they see fit (not the government), to create more wealth, which in turn creates more wealth for this society as a whole. I watched Hillary speak on tv not to long ago and she basically said in a nutshell she was going to get rid of tax cuts for the rich and return the money to "the hard working people in america, the middle class and poor". I almost fell over at the stupidity of the comment. I guess she thinks rich people don't work hard.

how does taking from the middle class and giving to illegal aliens further your cause? that's what mccain wants to do with HIS mccain/kennedy amnesty bill.

you've got blinders on if you think lower spending isnt as important as lower taxes. yes, i believe in lower taxes, but it must not be with HIGHER spending. his amnesty would be radically higher spending, by extending social program obligations to people who arent even freaking citizens!!! iraq cost us about a trillion dollars, so that's what i'd ballpart his asinine iran ambitions to cost us., at least

and that's what you get with mccain

 

[SDticks]

Quote from LT701:

how does taking from the middle class and giving to illegal aliens further your cause? that's what mccain wants to do with HIS mccain/kennedy amnesty bill?

Yeah. That's not good. There's no perfect candidate, I wish there was. So, I go with lower taxes. If you think there's a solution to illegal immigration, by all means, share.

 

[LT701]

Quote from SDticks:

If you think there's a solution to illegal immigration, by all means, share.

three simple words

Enforce

Existing

Law

the problem is not 'can't', it's 'won't'

last summer, the week mccain was trying to shove this amnesty down our throats because 'we dont have the manpower to enforce the law', i was in a small town in the midwest, i was driving the speed limit, i came to a full stop at a stop sign, then proceeded properly in my licensed, insured, well maintained car

the cop behind me lights me up

reason? SEAT BELT!!!!!

that and nothing else, he said it was a national program that was paying overtime for locals

if they can detect law abiding citizens driving 25 mph without a seat belt, they can enforce the f---ing immigration laws

 

[SDticks]

Quote from LT701:



you've got blinders on if you think lower spending isnt as important as lower taxes. yes, i believe in lower taxes, but it must not be with HIGHER spending. his amnesty would be radically higher spending, by extending social program obligations to people who arent even freaking citizens!!! iraq cost us about a trillion dollars, so that's what i'd ballpart his asinine iran ambitions to cost us., at least

and that's what you get with mccain

Lower spending = great. But, I don't believe any politicians when it comes to spending, I believe they all love to spend my money where they see fit. Hence, I vote for lower taxes, less of my money for them to spend. Maybe I do have blinders on, but I'm keeping them on.

 

[LT701]

Quote from SDticks:

Lower spending = great. But, I don't believe any politicians when it comes to spending, I believe they all love to spend my money where they see fit. Hence, I vote for lower taxes, less of my money for them to spend. Maybe I do have blinders on, but I'm keeping them on.

problem with mccain is not that he wont lower spending, it's that he will blast it WAY HIGHER