Do you think stocks will skyrocket if BUSH is elected?
- Thread starter oblivion2888
- Start date
nope, he will try to tax everything and bend over for the big corporations. bush winning = we are screwed.
The stock market always get volatile around election times, and even more so in close races (due to the uncertainty).
Noxipoo, have you been sitting too close to the microwave again? Seems your brain is fried. I believe it is the Republicans that want to get rid of the death and marraige taxes, and the Democrats that vetoed the bills to do so.
Noxipoo, have you been sitting too close to the microwave again? Seems your brain is fried. I believe it is the Republicans that want to get rid of the death and marraige taxes, and the Democrats that vetoed the bills to do so.
well there has been some speculation about the stock market and the elections, i really do think its impossible to predict what it would do. what do i think? i think that there might be a fat chance in hell that if bush wins stock go up, if not stocks my shake up some. but you never know.
dam()
dam()
noxipoo, That is confusing, care to elaborate?
I think the economy has a better chance of doing well with Gov. Bush as president. I don't think stocks will skyrocket but the economy will continue it's expansion and stocks will continue to rise.
Economists for Bush
Support in the economic field continues to grow for Governor Bush?s plan as an additional one hundred leading economists endorsed Governor Bush?s economic plan. A Bush ad released September 6 in USA Today highlighted 300 leading economists and Nobel Laureates who cited Governor Bush?s plan as "better for working families and continued prosperity." As of today, that number has risen to 503.
I think the economy has a better chance of doing well with Gov. Bush as president. I don't think stocks will skyrocket but the economy will continue it's expansion and stocks will continue to rise.
Economists for Bush
Support in the economic field continues to grow for Governor Bush?s plan as an additional one hundred leading economists endorsed Governor Bush?s economic plan. A Bush ad released September 6 in USA Today highlighted 300 leading economists and Nobel Laureates who cited Governor Bush?s plan as "better for working families and continued prosperity." As of today, that number has risen to 503.
<< i think that there might be a fat chance in hell that if bush wins stock go up, if not stocks my shake up some. but you never know. >>
I think there is a 100% chance stocks will go up... no matter who wins. It's only a matter of time. In four years, when the elections are upon us once again, stocks WILL be higher than they are now.
Directly following the election, there is a good chance that stocks will move up if Bush wins. Certainly a much better chance then 'a cold day in hell' or 'a fat chance in hell'. (What sort of chance is that anyway???)
a chance is a chance. however, you have to look at the other factos hackU, the problems in the middle east are scalating, and in this global economy, japan burps, singapore coughs and the US sneezes. so it is all quiet volatile, but one thing im pretty certain about, whatever does happen it will not be a HUGE rise or fall. The market has been good for a long while now, so it should continue it again.
the fall will come once greenspan goes poastal.
dam()
the fall will come once greenspan goes poastal.
dam()
The website endorses Bush.
Gore's plan will directly increase the GDP. It's a sure thing too, paying off twice the amount as Bush's in government debt. Bush's tax cuts may increase savings, then upping investment, but may not have the full effect Gore will have on the economy. You don't know whether people will save enough or buy a Sony WEGA.
Gore's plan will directly increase the GDP. It's a sure thing too, paying off twice the amount as Bush's in government debt. Bush's tax cuts may increase savings, then upping investment, but may not have the full effect Gore will have on the economy. You don't know whether people will save enough or buy a Sony WEGA.
What difference does it make? No matter what happens, the market will continue to fluctuate but generally grow as before.
Of course, the economy is gyrating now and some feel we're due for a recession. I expect a brief surge after the election followed shortly after by an inevitable recession.
Of course, the economy is gyrating now and some feel we're due for a recession. I expect a brief surge after the election followed shortly after by an inevitable recession.
As much power as the Federal Reserve Banking system has, and it's a lot, the economy's progress was/is/always will be primarily defined by the hard working, risk-taking innovators that make-up our capitalist system and their employees. Government can marginally improve things here and there, but that's all. On the downside, it doesn't take many stupid policies to cause an economic downturn. I say keep the Feds out, for the most part.
In an interview on Fox last night witjh that Neal falatio guy, Robert Ruben,former secratarry of the treasury and 2nd behind Greenspan in the federal reserve chairmanship and Greenspans most likely sucessor, stated the numbers Bush is using for his analysis are not correct and the Bush plan calls for paying down the debt by only 1 trillion (or less!) over the 10 year plan he touts as apposed to Gores more sound and realistic numbers showing his plan pays 3 trillion on the national debt in 10 years. Ruben thinks Gores plan is better for the economy than Bush plan and don't feed me this crap it is biased. He is an economist, not a politician. When you hear "503 economists endorse Bush" ,consider the source,and all it takes is for some head counter to say"do you support Bush--Yes --- and your occupation---economist" Yea right. Good credentials. Anyone can say they are an economist when the pollster calls.
Tripleshot,
"When you hear "503 economists endorse Bush" ,consider the source,and all it takes is for some head counter to say"do you support Bush--Yes --- and your occupation---economist" Yea right. Good credentials. Anyone can say they are an economist when the pollster calls."
Lets take a closer look at some of these "so-called" economists.
Friedman named Nobel Prize Winner in Economics
"... He is a well-known economist and one of the select elite in our Virtual economy who has won a Nobel Prize in economics. He was awarded this in 1976."
JAMES M. BUCHANAN, JR.-1986 Nobel Laureate in Economics
"for his development of the contractual and constitutional bases for the theory of economic and political decision-making. "
GARY S. BECKER -1992 Nobel Laureate in Economics
"for having extended the domain of microeconomic analysis to a wide range of human behaviour and interaction, including nonmarket behaviour"
Should I continue? There are a few more Nobel Laureates in the group and each "economist" also has their professional or collegiate affiliation listed by their name.
Economist supporting Gov. Bush
Robert E. Lucas, Jr. Myron S. Scholes Robert A. Mundell Nobel Laureate, 1995 Nobel Laureate, 1997 Nobel Laureate, 1999 University of Chicago Stanford University Columbia University
Tripleshot- if you are going to bash one of my sources you really should at least look at it first.
"When you hear "503 economists endorse Bush" ,consider the source,and all it takes is for some head counter to say"do you support Bush--Yes --- and your occupation---economist" Yea right. Good credentials. Anyone can say they are an economist when the pollster calls."
Lets take a closer look at some of these "so-called" economists.
Friedman named Nobel Prize Winner in Economics
"... He is a well-known economist and one of the select elite in our Virtual economy who has won a Nobel Prize in economics. He was awarded this in 1976."
JAMES M. BUCHANAN, JR.-1986 Nobel Laureate in Economics
"for his development of the contractual and constitutional bases for the theory of economic and political decision-making. "
GARY S. BECKER -1992 Nobel Laureate in Economics
"for having extended the domain of microeconomic analysis to a wide range of human behaviour and interaction, including nonmarket behaviour"
Should I continue? There are a few more Nobel Laureates in the group and each "economist" also has their professional or collegiate affiliation listed by their name.
Economist supporting Gov. Bush
Robert E. Lucas, Jr. Myron S. Scholes Robert A. Mundell Nobel Laureate, 1995 Nobel Laureate, 1997 Nobel Laureate, 1999 University of Chicago Stanford University Columbia University
Tripleshot- if you are going to bash one of my sources you really should at least look at it first.
Correct me but I read that Greenspan thought the Bush plan was the better one. He is the guy I would listen to.
<< the fall will come once greenspan goes poastal. >>
LOL! I'd like to see GreenSPAM loss it some time!
<< He is the guy I would listen to >>
Funny how so many things in this world are centered around this little guy.
We should not base the progress of our nation on the DOw Jones numbers. We are electing a president to run the contry, not the Wall Street!
<< Funny how so many things in this world are centered around this little guy. >>
If you had a ton of money in the stock market right now, you'd be listening to that little guy, too.
If you had a ton of money in the stock market right now, you'd be listening to that little guy, too.
<< I think the economy has a better chance of doing well with Gov. Bush as president.>>
Red
"Like any of us have a clue hahaha. "
What part of "I think" do you not understand?
It is in part based on the belief that tax cuts are better for the economy then new and large spending plans.
National Taxpayers Union Foundation
<<In addition, like CBO and OMB, NTUF does not define tax cuts as spending programs, unless they would literally more than "zero out" some Americans' tax bills. History has shown, most recently in the 1960s with President Kennedy and in the 1980s with President Reagan, that large, across-the-board tax cuts have actually resulted in substantial revenue feedback for the government and booming economies. As Cato Institute's Bruce Bartlett points out in his analysis of tax rates, after Kennedy's tax cut plan passed Congress in 1964 "Subsequent analysis strongly indicates that, as Kennedy believed it would, the tax cut led to an increase in federal revenue, especially from the rich, and a significant increase in economic growth."2 William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore of Cato further expounded on how large tax cuts are good for the economy in their analysis of Reaganomics. They found that Ronald Reagan's 25 percent across-the-board tax cut led to "years of economic progress, not decline. Real GDP grew by about one-third in the 1980s. The economic gains were widely distributed among income groups, with every income quintile, from the richest fifth to the poorest fifth, gaining ground in the Reagan years. The Reagan tax cuts were not a primary cause of the eruption of the deficit in the 1980s. The main two causes were an unexpectedly sharp reduction in inflation in the early 1980s that led to large real increases in federal spending, and a nearly $1 trillion military build-up during the last phase of the cold war."3 It is only when huge increases in spending are introduced that recessions occurred.
....
When the original study was released, it was Al Gore's promise at the Democratic Convention to double medical research costs that propelled him "over the top"in the race to consume the entire on-budget surplus.6 It appears since then that Gore's fiscal appetite has grown and he is now eyeing the Social Security surplus as well. As Table 2 illustrates Gore now proposes annual spending increases of 319.5 billion, almost four times the amount his opponent proposes. Gore's ten-year spending estimate now totals $3.195 trillion, over $1 trillion more than the CBO projected surplus of $2.173 trillion >>
It is much easier to increase or decrease tax revenue, once a Federal spending plan is in place, it's there forever.
Ok, c'mon guys, lets hear how biased this site is. That seems to be the only ammunition some of you have left anymore.
Red
"Like any of us have a clue hahaha. "
What part of "I think" do you not understand?
It is in part based on the belief that tax cuts are better for the economy then new and large spending plans.
National Taxpayers Union Foundation
<<In addition, like CBO and OMB, NTUF does not define tax cuts as spending programs, unless they would literally more than "zero out" some Americans' tax bills. History has shown, most recently in the 1960s with President Kennedy and in the 1980s with President Reagan, that large, across-the-board tax cuts have actually resulted in substantial revenue feedback for the government and booming economies. As Cato Institute's Bruce Bartlett points out in his analysis of tax rates, after Kennedy's tax cut plan passed Congress in 1964 "Subsequent analysis strongly indicates that, as Kennedy believed it would, the tax cut led to an increase in federal revenue, especially from the rich, and a significant increase in economic growth."2 William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore of Cato further expounded on how large tax cuts are good for the economy in their analysis of Reaganomics. They found that Ronald Reagan's 25 percent across-the-board tax cut led to "years of economic progress, not decline. Real GDP grew by about one-third in the 1980s. The economic gains were widely distributed among income groups, with every income quintile, from the richest fifth to the poorest fifth, gaining ground in the Reagan years. The Reagan tax cuts were not a primary cause of the eruption of the deficit in the 1980s. The main two causes were an unexpectedly sharp reduction in inflation in the early 1980s that led to large real increases in federal spending, and a nearly $1 trillion military build-up during the last phase of the cold war."3 It is only when huge increases in spending are introduced that recessions occurred.
....
When the original study was released, it was Al Gore's promise at the Democratic Convention to double medical research costs that propelled him "over the top"in the race to consume the entire on-budget surplus.6 It appears since then that Gore's fiscal appetite has grown and he is now eyeing the Social Security surplus as well. As Table 2 illustrates Gore now proposes annual spending increases of 319.5 billion, almost four times the amount his opponent proposes. Gore's ten-year spending estimate now totals $3.195 trillion, over $1 trillion more than the CBO projected surplus of $2.173 trillion >>
It is much easier to increase or decrease tax revenue, once a Federal spending plan is in place, it's there forever.
Ok, c'mon guys, lets hear how biased this site is. That seems to be the only ammunition some of you have left anymore.
Etech, you've lost your credibility from your CNB.com posts. SO just stop wasting our and your time
"Ok, c'mon guys, lets hear how biased this site is. That seems to be the only ammunition some of you have left anymore. "
Pennstate, thanks for proving my point.
Red, when I say "I think", it is based on some research and facts, otherwise I will say I don't know or not say anything at all. I try to admit when I am wrong and get stubborn as hell when I am right. In this case the presidetial race is still close and Gore scares the hell out of me. I fear he will drive the economy into recession and I don't want to go through that again.
Pennstate, thanks for proving my point.
Red, when I say "I think", it is based on some research and facts, otherwise I will say I don't know or not say anything at all. I try to admit when I am wrong and get stubborn as hell when I am right. In this case the presidetial race is still close and Gore scares the hell out of me. I fear he will drive the economy into recession and I don't want to go through that again.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter