Thoughts on the Presidential Candidates

Although the previous post did an excellent job at analyzing all the presidential candidates and the potential economics ruckus each of them can cause. Let's step back as to what CAN a President do in term of bolstering the economy:

Government spending (expansionary fiscal policy)- The Federal Government's budget has to be approved by the budget committee in Congress every year. Although the President can propose a lot of different types of spending, the final say lies on Congress. Most often or not, the President has to compromise his/her plans with the Congress's (ie: Bill Clinton only got his increase in minimum wage plan for signing NAFTA in return) . Another way to boost spending without the Congress approval is for the President to move/invade country with our Army- defense spending would sure to shoot up. The downside to all of this is, of course, increase in budget deficit- which would required the government take out MORE debt- causing only one sure thing- INFLATION.

I'm not saying the President has no influence on the economy, but more often or not, the real power to "manipulate" the economy lies on the Federal Reserve. Even then, the economic/business cycle would often take on its course, ignoring the action(s) taken by the Fed or the President. The presidential candidates, of course, will promise a lot of CRAPS to their voters in order to get them voted to the office. That is why the candidate with the most campaigning money would have the biggest advantage (advertising 101?). I certainly think that the Presidential election is an over hyped event. We didn't care about the economy, abortion, death penalty, healthcare for the last 4 years. And all of the sudden, WHAM, the Presidential election is happening. All these issues get brought up. While most of us just live our lives with whatever problems throw at us ignoring those problems every 4 years. Hey, its not like the new President really has the power to get things done his/her way.

Voting for your favorite candidate isn't going to change much like I mentioned previously (he/she has limited power). On top of that, the electoral system furthers limit YOUR ability to vote in your favorite candidate- if you are in New York or California and you are a Republican that always vote Republican, your vote almost doesn't count since NY and Cali always vote Democrat. The real election battleground is the "swing" states such as FL and Ohio, they are the one who really have the power to decide who's our next president is (since the majority of the country is split up pretty evenly). So my suggestion is, move to one of these swing states, register yourself as that State's resident and vote there. Only then, YOU can make a difference.

I know I'm a skeptic. Look who we voted for the last eight years? Can you still put faith in this election system after what happened?

Don't even get me started with the rigged/broken voting machines/papers.

To end in a positive note, I've found the most useful tool for technicians and fundamentalists alike- AND ITS FREEEEEEEEE (can you complain?):

http://online.barrons.com/mktlab?mod=b_hpp_tools_screener

On a side note, I noticed that my blog posts have couple of grammatical errors. So to fix that problem, we are officially hiring an editor:

"Editor for a blog
Starting Salary: $0/hour, month, year
Interested candidates should post their resumes in the comment section"

$0 salary....ummm we used to call that...SLAVERY

2008 Candidates

Now is the time to discuss the MAJOR 2008 candidates for both the Democratic and Republican party and particularly from a business sense. I will also rate on how well their presence in the White House would mean for the economy and for Wall Street on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being the best thing that would've occurred since the invention of the internet.

REPUBLICANS

John McCain - 2.0
Very mixed, often flip flops on his economic policies considering how as a Senator in Arizona he is open to illegal immigrants and disfavors the Bush tax cuts. Now as a candidate, he is leaving the immigration issue to the states ("we must first secure our borders") and is on the side of the Bush cuts. Flip-floppers are not to be trusted.

Mitt Romney - 4.5
The best among the major GOP candidates as he was the founder of Bain Capital, an infamous PE-buyout firm. He is so Wall Street oriented, I'm not even sure if some of the existing CEOs on the Street can be even better, although Henry Paulson may beat him at that if he ever runs. In summary, if he was the U.S. president, the economy would be heavily tilted towards the upper middle and upper class, especially the 1%. Also, the temporary Bush tax cuts would be permanent so goodbye (or at the very least a major reduction) to the inheritance and perhaps dividend and capital gains tax.

Rudy Giuliani - 4.0
Second best Wall Street type presidential candidate. His liberal business policies speak for themselves while was the mayor of NYC.

Mike Huckabee - 3.0
Very mixed as I still do not have total understanding on where to stands on the economy except for the tax issue. He is the foremost candidate on presenting a "Fair Tax" and abolishing the IRS. Doing such will GREATLY BENEFIT THE RICH and of course be very adverse to the middle and working class.

DEMOCRATS

Hilliary Clinton - 3.5
Opposed heavy tax cuts and definitely opposed the Bush cuts. Of course this could be political ploys as she vies for the favor of her party as a NY Senator. In reality though, Hilliary is the 2nd most favored candidate (aside from Romney) on donations from Wall Street and in particular the private equity firms. I'm sure that any donation from PE firms would expect some return so look for Hiliary to be just as as ease with the economy as her husband Bill.

Barack Obama - 3.0
I'm most mixed on Obama not only because he opposed tax cuts as the Illinois Senator but also because he is open to extending the child tax credits and scale back of capital gains. Amongst Wall Street, he is a close 3rd behind Romney and Clinton and is actually looked upon more favorably by the private equity community especially from the venture capitalists. He is truly a mystery one and his ranking could jump to the high 4s so 2.8 is just my opinion at the time of this post.

John Edwards - N/A
Won't win, no chance, who cares .......


Now as for the best presidential candidate from the pool, Romney would be the best for the economy and big businesses. Small businesses would hurt especially if he extends and allows for more outsourcing of American services. Huckabee is the most dangerous candidate and I'm not even speaking from a business perspective as this ex-Baptist minister could split this country in half. His religious zealousness and fervent believer in a Christian nation will work to undermind the fabric of the U.S. culture and further blemish the tolerance of the other cultures/religions. If so, Civil War 2 would well develop and thus bye-bye to the U.S. economy/Wall Street. May this day never occur.

From a personal perspective, Barack Obama is the best. He is a moderate on the tax issues and favors the middle class more so than the upper. Obama pledges to increase technological R&D on clean energy and do away with unnecessary corporate tax cuts. At the same time, he wishes to push down the capital gain tax as to encourage investments and savings. Overall, his policies would do the most to bolster the middle and working class because lord knows that the federal deficit isn't getting smaller and that people's savings are growing any larger.

OBAMA 2008 !!!!!