Which President would be the best for Wall Street?

I thought Obama had the most donations from Wall Street?

I don't think the interests of the United States and Wall Street are entirely divergent. I think Barack Obama is the best person to lead this country in the long-term.

Ron Paul

Either you sling crack rock or you got a wicked jump shot

I think Obama would be the best choice since he has proposed raising capital gains taxes from 15% to anywhere between 22%-28%. I think he really has a great handle on spurring economic growth and would be terrific for Wall Street.

Forgive my inability to express heavy sarcasm over the internet.

i would vote mccain, but he seems to want to use tax money for iraq.

i want to vote billary because of bill, but you also have to take bill with hillary.

i want to vote obama, but he is just a muslim terrorist with policies as bad as hillary's.

I've liked Obama throughout the race, but I pretty much became a full-fledged Obama convert after reading this post: http://blog.pmarca.com/2008/03/an-hour-and-a-h.html

However, that's just my personal leaning. For Wall Street? Probably McCain.

Also, keep in mind that what's best for "Wall Street" isn't necessarily best for everyone on Wall Street. Specifically, the tax implications of one president or another are very different for an analyst making ~$150K (all cash) vs. an MD making millions or a HF/PE Manager making billions (with a significant component in carried interest, restricted stock, etc.).

I would think Obama.

But I think the effect will be minimal either way.

Ron Paul by a huge margin.

None of the current favorites have a clue about economics though, so who knows what hair-brained policies they'll come up with to try to win a few more votes.

Clinton thinks Wall Street is full of grubbers.

Seriously, these candidates do not have strong elements when it comes to the economy.

Whatever one of those assholes gets elected deserves it. The economy is going to shit all over them and they'll go down in history as worse than Bush. Why do you think Bill had such glory years other than the eocnomy was healthy and looking up? He was able to drop bombs on people without anyone batting an eye.

"None of the three remaining Presidential candidates has a significant background in economics. McCain’s bare graduation from the Naval Academy did not include much focus on finance, while Hillary Clinton’s rather more distinguished progress through Wellesley and Barack Obama’s through Columbia, both majoring in political science, contained just a smidgeon more."

At least Obama has the sense to criticize McCain/Clinton's proposed gas tax holiday. I almost always favor tax cuts, but a 'gas tax holiday' is an awful idea. Clinton wants to finance it through a windfall tax on oil firms. Crazy.

junkbondswap, why do you think raising capital gains taxes is a good thing? As for the topic, really tough for me to say. Hilary makes me cringe and reminds me way too much of Caroline Reynolds from prison break, but wall street seems to like clintons in office. Obama not sure, Mccain im fearing would be worse than Bush.

In summary Hilary - Dont trust Obama - promises waiting to be broken or ridiculous spending Mccain - more ridiculous spending

"Oh - the ladies ever tell you that you look like a fucking optical illusion?"

bloomberg. lets rally to make him run.

AltESV, who do you think would be the best for an analyst/associate?

Also, who would be likely to have the best long term impact on the street?

The president doesn't really have much direct control over the economy. Anything (from raising capital gains to revoking NAFTA) needs legislative support and most of the more extreme ideas (i.e. the NAFTA stuff) are non starters even with many polarizing politicians.

I personally will vote for whoever 'The Economist' recommends ;-)

Also, Ron Paul? Abolishing the Fed and going back to the gold standard would both be GREAT for the economy. The guy's a joke at this point.

I heard something on Bloomberg Radio yesterday about McCain looking in the eyes of Russia and seeing three letters KGB, and that Russia should not be allowed to participate in the G8 meetings

I think that would be a fabulous idea especially for our economy.........I guess we will have to rename BRIC to BIC

oasising - I'm really not following the details of their individual policies that closely (I'll wait for the general election to pay more attention), but I think probably Obama. He's talked a lot about empowering the middle class, which I think includes people making up to about $200K (?). He will raise capital gains, but as an analyst/associate you don't get much (if any) company stock and you are probably too busy/restricted to trade much stock personally. The raise in capital gains will likely be offset by a decline in ordinary income taxes, which would help you.

I also think he has the best chances of repairing a lot of foreign relations, withdrawing from Iraq, and just generally cleaning out the white house to get rid of all traces of Bush corruption/stupidity. All of these will help keep the economy moving forward in one way or another.

Also, none of the candidates are economists, but Obama has shown a strong ability during this campaign to surround himself with smart people whose advice he trusts (no Rev. Wright jokes, please), and respond to and accept constructive criticism in order to refine his policies. In contrast, Clinton makes up ridiculous ideas (gas tax) and pushes hard on them even if every economist in the country thinks its a bad idea.

the thought of a democratic congress and an obama presidency is downright scary. despite the rhetoric and the support from the liberal hollywood/NYC media, obama is a left-leaning socialist who will take this country back to the darkness of the 60's and 70's. thank god Ronald Reagan saved us in 1980 from slipping into full-fledged socialism.

Barack Hussein Obama will raise the taxes of hard-working Americans to finance the derelict behavior of poor lazy people in harlem and other inner city neighborhoods. he wants the government to take care of people rather than making them accountable for their own actions. in short, obama is a classic liberal in the mold of Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter, two presidents who did severe damage to the U.S.

Trade4size,

Re-read my post...Raising capital gains taxes is a terrible idea and Obama (insert Hillary also) is a terrible choice for WS.

I would choose McCain by default but only because he is the only other viable option at this point.

I agree with Transatlantic that socialism/liberalism is destroying the capitalistic/conservative foundation from which this country was built.

Nice SN reference to my main man Nas Esco ha.

Well, I was talking about below $200K, which would not include the bracket for $200-$250. And although I admittedly pulled that number out of my ass, I'm not the only one who considers it middle class. From a fairly recent msnbc article:

The researchers started by looking at income levels. Based on 2005 Census Bureau reports, some 40 percent of the nearly 115 million households in the U.S. earned less than $36,000 a year. That represented just 12 percent of all income. The 40 percent on the next rung up the economic ladder took in between $36,000 and $91,705 — or about 37.6 percent of all income. The top 20 percent, who made $91,705 or more, collected half of all income.

But those numbers don’t adequately reflect the state of mind of those who consider themselves middle class. Surveys have shown that, while people consider $40,000 a year to be the low end of what it takes to buy a middle-class life, some people who make as much as $200,000 a year still consider themselves middle class, the researchers said.

I did a little more poking around on the web, and it sounds like $80-$100K is more representative of what is generally considered the upper end of middle class. So I guess ultimately you are right that an analyst (after their first bonus, at least) would not commonly be considered middle class.

By default...McCain. However, I was pulling for Mitt Romney in the primaries.

I think we need a President that will cut spending and NOT raise taxes which precludes Obama and Hilary. Also, we need to stop borrowing from China. How much we borrow from them and the value of our dollar negatively correlate and I'm tired of US dollar plunging.

National Healthcare is also a concern (don't want to open up a new can of worms, but...) I'm tired of the peice of crap programs the gov't initiates. They all suck, I can't think of one that has been effecient or effective except the Military...and I guess Homeland Security has been okay as well (maybe a few more but not that many). The problem with gov't programs is that there is no financial incentives to do well, i.e. no shareholders, profit sharing, etc. You could say I'm a libiterian, but basically I'm just sick over all the wasteful spending.

The best case against democracy is a 5 minute conversation wiht the average voter. - Churchill

Think about it. The number one issue right now is the economy which means you have 3 power-hungry senators who don't know shit about the economy talking to millions of voters who also don't know shit about the economy. Sounds like some really informed decision making is about to take place.

I'm not voting, its a waste of an afternoon.

Never mind what the candidates say right now. While they're campaigning they'll say and/or do whatever they think will get them into office. The real indications of what sort of president they'll be lies in past voting history, who their friends ($$$) are, and who they've hired as staff. Also, it might not really matter how much specific economic knowledge the prez has. Granted, some basic knowledge is definitely required but s/he also has the wisdom and experience of the cabinet and other advisors.

I'm mining through voting history right now and it's an ugly task...

Anyone who suggests that Obama would be good for wall street is high.

Uhhh.I'd say McCain. The Dems have professed a love for higher taxes (bad for economy), stiffer SEC regulations (bad for Wall street), and generally have lax monetary policy (except Clinton b/c of Greenspan). McCain all the way (even though he's pretty liberal. Not Ron Paul because he won't be elected.

So what do you do? -I work for an investment banking firm. Oh okay; you are like my brother, he works for Edward Jones. -No, a college degree is required in my profession

I'd have to say McCain. Although there doesn't seem like a clear winner, Obama and Clinton seem like certain "NOs" while McCain seems less so then the others. Plus, there is always hope Bloomberg could be McCain's running mate. Think happy thoughts.

Warren Buffett is supporting Obama. I guess I;ll just defer to him.

McCain-makes it rain over soldiers ( not in that way) Obama-his plan to save America is to drown it in taxes, to save us from killing ourselves)

a lot of people are not supporting Obama because he is black. Clinton raised taxes and the economy was at his peak. Bush lowered taxes and got our economy into a recession twice, and our housing market into a sever depression. CRUDE OIL prices went up about 700%.The median income for families fell $1000 while the economy was rapidly grwoing from 2003 to 2006. If you want this situation to continue vote for Mccain, if you want a real change and an economy the works for everyone pick Obama.

Warren Buffet knows what is best for our country that's why he picked Obama even though he will pay more taxes.