Mitt Romney - Pieces are set for victory
Overall, I can honestly say that the pieces are set on the chessboard for a Romney win. I could be wrong but things seem to be playing themselves out for him to win. I've noticed that ever since June 3rd of this month, the mainstream media has started intensifying their anti-Obama discussions. The ever brilliant historian Webster Tarpley has openly stated that the Bilderberg group, or at least a contingent of their group does not want a second Obama term. The push for Romney is all the more evident as the "Fast and Furious," the immigration rule and Obamacare, which the Supreme Court will rule on this Thursday are snowballing into hot-button issues that may galvanize the Republicans to vote for Romney in droves. Kudlow has become an anti-Obama show.
Personally, as someone who hates this Finance job market, new blood in the White House is what this country needs. We need someone who understands Finance/business in office. From talking to people in Finance, the return to progress will take place with a new regime that will work with business and not against it. Pseudo-anger towards the "top 1 percent" will only serve to alienate those that people in the US depend on to get a job. Plus, there needs to be a greater incentive to hire in the US across all industries, especially in Finance. We need stronger tax incentives, less obnoxious regulation - (I can barely buy a client a card without compliance up my ass) and a pro-business regime that will be supportive of capitalism, not socialism.
Not to mention the fact that almost half of the country's GDP comes from Finance.
Where's ANT when you need him?
[quote] Not to mention the fact that almost half of the country's GDP comes from Finance.[quote]
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=5&step=1
More like 20%
Both Obama and Romney are extremely weak candidates, neither deserves to win. If you expect some kind of sudden economic recovery once Romney gets elected you're kidding yourself.
It's worth pointing out that it isn't always about what is being done or how well/bad it will eventually be done, it's about perception. I think that a Romney win will give the economy a boost simply because people will be less scared so they will investment more in the markets and start building their small businesses again, etc.
Regards
Schiff 2012.
The biggest problem we have is debt in the private sector... not much either candidate can do about that in the short term unless they want to totally revamp the bankruptcy/restructuring/refinancing laws.
I'll consider it a personal win if I don't have to see Nancy Pelosi as much on TV.
Debt in the public sector is a little bit of an issue as well.
Obviously. Sorry I guess I should have clarified. The majority of people voting view that as the single biggest issue.
I'm voting Gary Johnson, at least that way I can get high while watching the world burn
Also, to the OP, I think it will be a 6%+ margin of victory for Romney. At this point the economic signs don't favor Obama, his lackluster fund raising doesn't bode well either and his waning support among the demographics that voted for him last time are almost unquestionably lower. All that spells 'disaster'. Now, factor that stuff in with the probability that many of Obama's minority voters aren't very likely to actually vote and you have a wide margin of victory for Romney...not a landslide margin but a landslide decrease relative to the level of support for him this election vs. the first.
Regards
I also think that they are both weak candidates. I doubt either one will be able to accomplish much of anything in the next four years.
Also, I'm pretty sure that finance should not be capitalized.
As much as I'd love to believe that Obama will be defeated handily this fall, I'm still not convinced it is going to happen. If people were smart enough to understand even very basic economics and public finance this would be a landslide but most people don't have a clue what they're voting for. Sadly, the majority of Americans seem to vote for whoever will give them the most and Obama certainly has no problem giving.
That's not even kinda new.
6% would be a massive blowout. That is basically the margin that Obama beat McCain by, I don't think there is any way Romney wins by 6%. I don't see either side making any huge mistakes or gaffes so things should be very close.
I am interested to see what will happen if the SCOTUS throws out the mandate this Thursday. If they do it should have a big effect on how each side campaigns.
@cphbravo: I agree wholeheartedly with you. Thing is, most of Obama's original demographic was made up of people 30 and under who were out to make history. Facebook was heavily utilized as a new and hip device to mobilize thousands if not millions of young people to organize to vote for Obama. Also, the general disgust for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Halliburton, Bechtel, Cheney's energy task force, etc. were cause for people to abandon reason and vote for Obama. Obama does not have a similar catalyst for people voting for him this time. The original crowd that voted for him will not be nearly as motivated to vote for him a second time.
Also, in general, even people who are not wealthy but aspire to be are not comfortable with an environment where people do not value success, but instead envy it. This president has helped foster an environment of hatred of success, demonization of financial empowerment and a general disgust for any desire to go beyond being anything but middle class. This is especially disconcerting for someone like me who remembers not too long ago when America prided itself on the belief that everyone could be successful and success was heralded in the media and in our society as a whole. I bought stocks in high school and dreamed of becoming rich. During college, dot-coms were born and people were optimistic in re the economy as a whole. People in general could get jobs. Businesses were prosperous and were generally hopeful to be even more so. Much of what we need is someone who not only understands business, but is willing to negotiate with business. Obama is uncompromising and has proven to be so far to the extreme in his outlook on business in general that many who voted for him originally cannot bring themselves to do so again.
Obama also has allowed an environment to develop that is cancerous to Finance in general. Not surprisingly, when people who have no real knowledge of the financial system are allowed to take charge of it via Dodd-Frank, damage is done. I recently spoke to an MD who said that the Volcker Rule never should've been written. To forbid prop trading is not only stupid, it is counter to the very rationale of the Dodd-Frank Act. Isn't the Act designed to protect against loss? Well, from speaking to S&T professionals, it seems that it prevents hedging since a bank cannot invest its own capital. In many ways, that adds to the risk that the Act is designed to prevent in the first place.
Romney likely won't have a problem getting elected and when he does, many businesses, will feel better in general. He will work with a largely Republican House/Senate to restore favorable laws that seek to reward businesses for investing in American labor again. Most of this is not rocket science. But you have to have someone in office who is not disgusted by business and is not trying to play both sides against the middle. I recently saw where Wall Street has already pulled all funding from Obama's campaign as they should. It was a long time coming but it came nonetheless. Romney has over 1 billion at his disposal and counting. Shouldn't be a problem.
I'll vote for Mitt, but I still fail to see how big of a difference he his from Obama. He doesn't recognize the real problems in America.
It's a race between somebody who doesn't agree with capitalism, and somebody who doesn't fundamentally understand capitalism.
I think Romney understands capitalism much better. He comes from private equity. He understands Wall Street. Plus, I don't believe that this compliance party that has started since 2008 will stand with Romney because he will work to repeal Dodd-Frank. The Volcker Rule is a real pain in the ass and Romney will work to get rid of it.
Update: Romney has a new ally in winning this election. The will of Republican governors is strong. They have agreed to use a federal database to do a voter purge of those not eligible to vote and bar those people from voting.
Obviously Romney understands capitalism better. I don't think Obama knows what capitalism is. But, will his capitalism work??
Bush was a capitalist..
An understanding of capitalism does not necessarily translate into good politics.
An understanding of capitalism will at least translate into knowledge that historic economic growth happened in this country with federal spending kept under 20 percent of GDP. Under Obama, spending is at 24 percent of GDP. Romney has already discussed cost cutting at the federal level. From 1950-1999, the American economy grew at a 3.3 percent rate, rather than the current pathetic 1 percent rate. This is because spending was kept at a roughly 19 percent of GDP level.
Obama is a community organizer. Romney understands GDP. Which would you choose?
So let me get this right, just so I don't get accused of misquoting you - the reason that GDP is currently growing at 1%, down from 3.3%, is because government expenditures are UP?
Do you guys seriously think that the economy would be in better shape had McCain (or any other conservative candidate) won? If so, I believe you are seriously overestimating the amount of power the president has. There isn't anything Obama, or anyone else, could of done to mitigate the credit, mortgage, and eurozone crises.
Obama will print money, causing an artificial rise in the F500, making it look like economic recovery. He'll be reelected on that wave and then the US will tank, hard (as will europe). This'll expose China for the ponzi that it is and the world will be a fun place for another 5 years.
gl hf
T
Two comments:
1.) The idea that Obama is anti-success is lunacy. If you believe that, then you probably have really thin skin and got offended by the idea that he talked about eliminating the carried interest tax loophole (which is intellectually indefensible as it is)
2.) What is more likely?
a.) That we are still in a recession because businesses are too frightened by Obama to invest?
b.) Or that we are in a recession because: companies learned to operate leaner and more profitably during the crisis; technology displaced ~7 million jobs; our economy has become extraordinarily bifurcated between high-skilled labor / capital and low skilled labor; the cataclysmic effects of the housing bubble have hurt the flexibility of job seekers who are tied down by underwater mortgages (which are often not their fault, but rather due to the overall housing bust and the actions of their neighbors); the continuing crisis in Europe that has no real end in sight
If you answered a.) to number 2, then you are not a thinking person. Honestly, there isn't all that much that the President can do alone to fix these problems, in fact, some of these issues are structural in nature and will simply take time to be sorted out or may very well be the new normal.
If you answered a or b, then you are not a thinking person. Please see me after class.
Utter horse shit.
1.) Business prospered mightily under higher tax rates in the 1990s
2.) You always want to grow the pie. No one chooses to do less because of a potential 4% increase in the highest marginal tax rate. Stop growing and improving your business and you shall certainly be beaten by your competitors who chose not to wait it out.
3.) Actually having worked in PE, I can tell you that tax rates have never, ever, ever, ever, ever factored in to any discussions about how to grow and improve our portfolio companies. In fact, we've benefited from tax breaks this administration provided (with regards to depreciation of new capex equipment.)
"durr, but Obama creates uncertainty!" No, a bunch of inbred lunatics who want to bust the debt ceiling create uncertainty.
You hear so much yammering on about how poor people don't work hard and poor people need less so they can pick themselves up by their bootstraps. But, as soon as the super wealthy endure a perceived sleight, regardless of how absurd it may seem, they act like they can't do a damn thing and that the economy will fail because of that. What a fucking joke.
Frankly I think that our problems are such that whoever gets elected doesn't really matter. Romney is one of our own so I like him more than Obama but I doubt he would do much better. We will probably get QE3 at the September Fed meeting so that will cause a last minute spurt in the economy, I think it will be pretty close.
The president is less important to the economy than the Fed Chairman and the Federal Reserve Bank/Treasury. However, the president does affect business behavior. This president's class warfare does affect business's bottom line and hence their desire to want to hire people in this country. Granted, globalization, regulation and technology have adversely affected hiring and many jobs will not be coming back to the US. However, Obama wants to raise taxes on 3.5 percent of small businesses that create 53 percent of small business income. Jobs are definitely adversely affected here for example. Also, Romney will no doubt have much less tolerance for overregulation. I think a complete ban on prop trading for instance (Volcker rule) has been fairly disruptive. From speaking with people in S&T, I've come to be more convinced of that. This has killed profits at banks on the trading side and created a brain drain at banks. Many traders simply move to prop shops and hedge funds. Having Romney as president will make a huge difference in the economy because he will seek to give businesses tax and regulatory relief. He'll also make it more attractive to invest in this country again. If I had to choose between a community organizer and a PE guy to run things, I'd choose a PE guy hands down.
It's clear in reading this post and others that you:
1.) Listen to too much right wing talk radio / commentary that is unhinged from reality
2.) Have no real business experience or understanding of how taxes actually effect business in reality
3.) Have no understanding of the causes of the financial crisis
I will never vote for a party that is associated with/owes anything to the Tea Party. Although I hate the populist campaign Obama is running, I don't think he'll really be that bad during a second term. I do think it is important to keep loonies like Elizabeth Warren out of the Senate, though.
More importantly are the appointing of Supreme Court Judges that will be coming in the coming 4 years. I BY NO MEANS want Obama to have that chance!!!!
Interesting that you say that. I'm not sure why people are so terrified of potential future Obama appointees. I get much more worried that Romney would throw up a social conservative or two and we'd be knee deep in culture war bullshit.
Obama will appoint at least 1 if not 2 Judges if he gets another term. That will give a liberal majority and change our country as we know it. Last time they voted on gun rights, conservatives prevailed 5-4. This is just an example, there are many other examples for reference.
Personally, I'm not too concerned about hot button issues. I am more interested in the economy.
Obama maybe incompetent etc but he is not a Socialist . In many ways Obama is more dangerous than romney because liberals dont bother to hold Obama accountable and conservatives agree with him on NDAA etc . Alot of anti Obama stuff is extremist stuff like he is a marxist anti american etc just grow up. Both parties have near indentical policies and Obama is no a extreme left wing he is more conservative than Clinton
Republicans have an excellent media strategy its called issue of the day. Starts in blogosphere gets picked up in the house then goes on fox news the echo gets bigger and bigger then the mainstream media reports, all theese manufactured conterversial incidents.
I think the best candidate is gary johnson
I am not voting. I completely disagree with Mitt on social issues and completely disagree with Obama on fiscal issues which I'm sure is the case for a lot of people in my (WSO's) demographic.
Social issues??? What matters is fiscal policy and the economy. The rest is just noise.
Ut facilis consequatur illo pariatur. Quis eius consequatur vel totam accusantium. Dicta rerum ad eius aut cumque accusantium est dolor.
Dolorum alias ab consequatur eveniet consequatur voluptas. Sed eligendi laudantium perferendis ea ab. Ut nihil consequatur sunt recusandae. Odit quibusdam aperiam tenetur non quasi pariatur. Et et quia perferendis quis ratione.
Minus debitis eos tempora voluptate. Sed nesciunt dolor officiis autem omnis ratione. Occaecati dolorem vel rem et voluptatem. Et error non ducimus ex. Qui ipsa aut aperiam molestias voluptatum dolorem. Voluptatem porro et alias in quam est minus.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Ea possimus ducimus commodi quia. Aspernatur commodi itaque quis quo qui neque repudiandae. Sed in minus maiores sunt eligendi. Quidem qui et et debitis dolor facere et nesciunt. Tenetur corporis praesentium sed et et suscipit provident. Quis dolorem dolor non consequatur aut in dolorum voluptatibus. Aut sit adipisci qui nisi aut voluptates sequi sunt.
Beatae occaecati facere eum minima assumenda in voluptas. Aliquid sequi voluptatem doloribus illo dolorum vero rerum. Voluptatum necessitatibus officiis amet nihil exercitationem deserunt aspernatur velit.
Nulla velit ullam ea temporibus commodi et. Fugiat excepturi tenetur accusantium accusamus. Animi quam illum placeat cupiditate eaque laudantium ipsa. Sed impedit magnam deserunt doloremque. Vitae velit quia eum ipsa quia libero velit.
Id itaque rem sit autem iusto ad. Eveniet qui est aliquid tenetur eos qui. Sed maiores sunt id quis non sint commodi. Nihil quasi tempore qui qui.