Hillary Clinton Is Bad for Stocks and the Economy

[Catholic Crusader]

During the first term of the Reagan administration (1981–1985), Larry Kudlow was associate director for economics and planning in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), a part of the Executive Office of the President. While he worked at the OMB, Kudlow was also an advisory committee member of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, more commonly known as Freddie Mac. Let's see if pinhead john w thinks he knows more than him too:

Larry Kudlow: Donald Trump Is the middle-class growth candidate
Kudlow: Donald Trump Is the middle-class growth candidate

......In general terms, he will pledge to lower marginal tax rates on both large and small businesses and on all income classes. He also will propose a hike in the standard deduction for families and special deductions for childcare and the elderly.

All of these polices will help the middle class. Trump's plan will generate substantial new investment, business formation, jobs, and growth – and, hence, higher wages.

Trump is the pro-growth candidate in this race. Hillary Clinton is the anti-growth candidate. Trump wants to expand national income and the economic pie. Clinton wants to redistribute income and shrink the pie.

In past columns, I have equated Trump's tax-reduction plan to the JFK and Ronald Reagan tax cuts, which generated economic booms of roughly 5 percent growth per year. President Barack Obama, by comparison, has raised taxes, spending, and regulations, producing the worst recovery since World War II. And Clinton intends to follow in Obama's footsteps with a Bernie Sanders-like, left-wing policy mix. She is the Democrats' anti-JFK. What a pity...........

 

[john w]

LOL! You're too stupid to even make a good joke. I knew the difference when the best part of you was a wet spot on the floor.

Go argue with the guy who wrote the article if you think you know so much:

Election-quite irrelevant, copy'npaste artist. Your economist MO: Let's assume I, CatholicShillCrusader, know anything about the economy, stock market....Of course, that joke is way over your comprehension level, as you've never had a course in econ, nor have you owned a stock, thinking that word is associated with being a stock boy at BBY(ticker symbol).

 

[ClimateSanity]

The money supply is inflated because of low interest for ages. Stocks are way over valued. Once rates start climbing again, the market will crash.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Baloney! Hillary has made promises to behave. Now, Donald Duck will not behave and he got no spending money. No one likes him because he is a dork and a duck.

If you include those that have shut themselves out from politics and the decline of the larger culture , you probably have 65% of the country that favors him over Clinton.

 

[john w]

The money supply is inflated because of low interest for ages. Stocks are way over valued. Once rates start climbing again, the market will crash.

That is the consensus now. Thus, the market will probably not crash. Check out history. I have. When most think stocks are not "way over valued," and the market will not crash, that is when it usually does. Check it out-Acts 17:11 KJV.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Those folks are called the Monster Vote BTW.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Hillary Clinton Is Bad for Stocks and the Economy
http://townhall.com/columnists/step...on-is-bad-for-stocks-and-the-economy-n2137320

In a supremely weird election season the latest weird twist is the consensus emerging on Wall Street that Hillary Clinton would be better for financial markets than Donald Trump.

The usually sensible Barrons magazine concluded in its cover story last week that Hillary-onomics are better for investors than Trump. Warren Buffett and other stock gurus have made the same case.

The argument for Clinton is that she's predictable and that Wall Street knows what she will do. Trump, by contrast, is the high beta candidate, and let's face it: No one knows exactly what you get with a President Trump. Clinton's the safer bet. Investors are also drooling for a return to the 1990s and the bull-market returns we saw under Bill Clinton -- when stocks tripled in value. I know I am.

Hillary Clinton is seen as less likely than Trump to spark a trade war that could send stocks tumbling.

But there's a problem with each of these arguments. It's true that Clinton brings far more certainty, but what this means is that we are absolutely certain to get bad ideas. I have never bought the argument that Wall Street wants the devil they know.

If you're walking down a dark street at night and there's a 100 percent chance that you will get mugged on the left side of the street and a 50 percent chance if you cross over to the right side of the street, what's the logical move?

Clinton is 100 percent predictable. She is going to raise tax rates; she is going to spend trillions more over the next decade; she is going to stop drilling for oil and gas and shut down our coal industry; she is going to double down on Obamacare; and she is going to wage war against the rich on Wall Street. Is that the certainty Wall Street is craving?

Let's take taxes. Trump wants a 20 percent capital gains tax. Clinton wants a 46 percent capital gains tax. These are direct taxes on investors. What is the difference between these two policy courses? A share of stock is worth the discounted present value of the returns after tax. So let us assume a stock earns $10 a share. Under Clinton the stock's after-tax return is $5.54 a share. Under Trump the after-tax return is $8.00. This is an over-simplification, because Hillary would tax longer held stocks at a rate of 23.8 percent. But the stocks have a much higher return under Trump.

But the corporate tax also has an effect on stock values. Clinton wants to keep the 35 percent rate. Trump wants a 15 percent rate. So under Clinton the government takes one-third of corporate profits, and under Trump the government takes one-sixth of the profits. It's true the effective tax rate is lower for many multinationals, but the broader point is obvious: Trump's tax plan is much, much better for stocks than Clinton's. By the way, Trump wants a lower estate tax -- another tax on stocks -- and Clinton wants a more confiscatory system.

But stocks did phenomenally well under Hillary's husband, you say. True, but this isn't Bill Clinton's party anymore. Hillary is running as Bernie-lite, not Bill-lite. The days of the centrist Democrats are long past. Bill balanced budgets, cut spending, cut the capital gains tax and signed welfare reform. Hillary stands on the other side on all these issues.

On trade -- Trump's black mark -- Hillary might be better, but not by much. She's against the Asia trade deal. She was against lifting the export ban on American oil and gas.

Will there be a Hillary Clinton bull market? I'd short that bet. And in some ways, Trump could be the most pro-investor president in decades. Most voters don't know this, because Republican super PACs keep pounding Trump. Yes, it is still the stupid party

How soon the lemmings have forgotten the real issues, like this one

 

[john w]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/y...est-of-times-to-be-a-stock-investor.html?_r=0

It is quite irrelevant whom gets elected,as the Presidential/US impact on world economies lessens.


Look at the same type of predictions, that you are spamming, that were the headlines in 2008-2009.

You won't. Ecclesiastes 1:9 KJV.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

....It is quite irrelevant whom gets elected.....

That was stupid the first time you posted it, and it still is.

 

[Nick M]

Gross domestic product expanded at a 1.1 percent annual rate, the Commerce Department said on Friday in its second estimate of GDP. That was slightly down from the 1.2 percent rate reported last month.

The revision also reflected more imports than previously estimated as well as weak spending by state and local governments. The economy grew at a 0.8 percent pace in the first quarter. It grew 1.0 percent in the first half of 2016.

In other words, we are still in a depression. It isn't a recovery when growth is less than inflation, which has been out of control since 2009.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

For the average American, the economy = JOBS.
Most jobs created under Obama have been part time and therefore worthless. Not only does a part time job not pay enough to support yourself, but it also does not pay enough to cause Federal Taxes to be paid in.

Why the part time jobs? Obamacare and Obama regulations and tax policies, the very things that john w says don't matter.

 

[john w]

That was stupid the first time you posted it, and it still is.

Another emotional "response," from one who would not know the difference, between a recession, and a receding hairline/gum line, and the stock market, and a stock boy at Home Depot/super market, and the job market, and Apple's Steve Jobs ............

You: What is Apple?

Sit.

 

[john w]

For the average American, the economy = JOBS.
Most jobs created under Obama have been part time and therefore worthless. Not only does a part time job not pay enough to support yourself, but it also does not pay enough to cause Federal Taxes to be paid in.

Why the part time jobs? Obamacare and Obama regulations and tax policies, the very things that this idiot john w says don't matter.

Who taught you that, Ellie Mae? Mere plagiarism, copy'npaste...


Elections are quite irrelevant, drone.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Who taught you that, Ellie Mae?.......

Everybody here knows what you ware saying is ignorant and ridiculous. OF COURSE taxes and regulation affect the growth or shrinking of the economy, which is why elections matter. For you to say they don't matter is just sheer fantasy.

 

[john w]

Everybody here knows what you ware saying is ignorant and ridiculous. OF COURSE taxes and regulation affect the growth or shrinking of the economy, which is why elections matter. For you to say they don't matter is just sheer fantasy.

Translated: That is what these articles say, so it must be true. And I, CC, will add "OF COURSE" in caps to "clinch" my argument(which is "OF COURSE" someone else's argument, as you merely spam what others are saying, not knowing the difference between a certificate of deposit, and a compact disc-CD).


You clown. Take your seat.


The election, as pertaining to the economy/stock market, is quite irrelevant.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The election, as pertaining to the economy/stock market, is quite irrelevant.

I heard Mayberry Power & Light was up a point, as is my golf score.

 

[john w]

Everybody here knows what you ware saying is ignorant and ridiculous. OF COURSE taxes and regulation affect the growth or shrinking of the economy, which is why elections matter. For you to say they don't matter is just sheer fantasy.

"Everybody"=sure sign that you have no argument, another version of "OF COURSE"

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

"Everybody"=sure sign that you have no argument, another version of "OF COURSE"

"To be honest....."

 

[john w]

I heard Mayberry Power & Light was up a point, as is my golf score.

"Everybody" knows, "OF COURSE," Mayor, that the election will have a dramatic affect on the need for electricity, and utility stocks!!!!

I see AT&T is off 17 cents, in moderate trading.

 

[john w]

"To be honest....."

"Obviously....Frankly....It is apparent...."