CNN POLL: 75% Of Financial Experts Say Romney Victory Would Improve Markets...

[NoNukes]

According to a National Geographic poll America would be safer during an alien attack with Obama as President than with Romney as President.

 

[pvsi.]

N POLL: 75% Of Financial Experts Say Romney Victory Would Improve Markets... Boy, this one should send all the CNN (Communist News Network/Clinton News Network) sicophants into a tizzy.

Likewise, independent reports show that government free from special interests, would send most "financial experts" to firing squads

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

According to a National Geographic poll America would be safer during an alien attack with Obama as President than with Romney as President.

That makes as much sense as attacking a privately held company functioning within the law.

 

[occupied]

Vetting is fine and necessary. Trying to twist someone's record because you can't tout the record of your own candidate is just slimy politics.

We've discussed Bain to death. Nothing new has come to light but we continue to discuss it and only it.

Tunnel vision leads to being side swiped.

Yes, let's only talk about how crappy Obama is, like every other day of the week, seriously, practice what you are preaching. If Romney is so great he should stand up to any amount of discussion or criticism.

Practice what I preach? You do indeed have tunnel vision. I've started countless threads ranging from our party has shitty candidates to thanking Obama for something he did. When I start threads about Obama being bad they always have a different topic. You idiots on the other hand only talk about how evil Bain is.

Apparently its all you got. Tunnel vision indeed.

I do not debate off-topic no matter the topic.

 

[NoNukes]

According to a National Geographic poll America would be safer during an alien attack with Obama as President than with Romney as President.

That makes as much sense as attacking a privately held company functioning within the law.

Hitting the bottle a little early today?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Boy, this one should send all the CNN (Communist News Network/Clinton News Network) sicophants into a tizzy.


A recent CNNMoney survey found that 75% of money managers and investment strategists believe a Mitt Romney victory would lift U.S. markets. The survey also found that "many are also hoping for the GOP to gain control of both the House and the Senate."

Leading up to the November elections, 80 percent of those surveyed agreed that the stock market will remain volatile and possibly get worse.

John Praveen, managing director and chief investment strategist for Prudential International Investments Advisers says investors are not sanguine about lawmakers' ability to keep America from driving off the fiscal cliff:

"In case investors are not sufficiently convinced that policy makers and politicians are up to the task of handling the fiscal cliff in a reasonably effective manner, financial markets are likely to again fall sharply, similar to the plunge around the debt ceiling debacle in 2011."

Chase Investment Counsel President Peter Tuz was more direct:

"At this point, I think markets would appreciate a clear Republican mandate. That provides the best chance for continued low tax rates. If investors see the likelihood of an Obama victory, coupled with Democrats retaining control of the Senate, they will react by taking advantage of the low tax rates that still exist, so a sell-off in markets would be a distinct possibility."

The sputtering U.S. economic recovery, the European debt crisis, the slowing of growth in China, the need to cut government spending, and the looming expiration of the Bush tax cuts were cited as troubling economic signs for America's financial future.

CNN POLL: 75% Of Financial Experts Say Romney Victory Would Improve Markets

Rich guys working for, with, and around other rich guys essentially campaigning for a Romney win.

Big surprise.

Hiding destructive ideologies, and policies of Obama by misguiding the public into thinking the main issue is about the division between rich and poor.
Big surprise.

With Romney planning a huge tax cut for himself and the rest of the rich, while paying for it with huge cuts to programs for the poor,

how can it not be about divisions between rich and poor.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Dow went from around 3,000 to around 10,000 from the time Clinton raised taxes on 'the rich' until he left office.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Yes, let's only talk about how crappy Obama is, like every other day of the week, seriously, practice what you are preaching. If Romney is so great he should stand up to any amount of discussion or criticism.

Practice what I preach? You do indeed have tunnel vision. I've started countless threads ranging from our party has shitty candidates to thanking Obama for something he did. When I start threads about Obama being bad they always have a different topic. You idiots on the other hand only talk about how evil Bain is.

Apparently its all you got. Tunnel vision indeed.

I do not debate off-topic no matter the topic.

You're a damn liar.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

According to a National Geographic poll America would be safer during an alien attack with Obama as President than with Romney as President.

That makes as much sense as attacking a privately held company functioning within the law.

Hitting the bottle a little early today?

As a matter of fact I just got to Applebees and ordered a pinacolada. Been outside in the heat all day. Not sure how you figure its early.

 

[Toro]

I agree that a Romney victory would give a lift to the markets but it probably wouldn't last long. The markets generally don't like austerity, at least in the short run. It's good for the long run. But the markets will probably start running in the middle of the decade anyways, no matter who is the President, since that's when the excesses in housing and debt will be mortgage wiped out.

 

[Toro]

Pretty narrow group there, any mention of the ones he simply liquidated without a second thought? A president must have some sort of concern for those working people who suffer by his decisions and I do not see that in him.

Really?

I'm sure that the people working at companies like Staples, Toys R Us, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, etcetera, are all perfectly happy to be in that "narrow group".

Can you tell me that anything he has ever done has been primarily to create jobs? Of course not, his primary aim in business has always been to enrich himself, you want to apply that attitude to the presidency and expect beneficial results for the population at large? This guy would gauge his success by Wall Street and nothing else and it is glaringly obvious that their success does not trickle down nearly as much as republicans would like us to believe.

Romney's primary aim in business was to be successful. What businessman doesn't want to be successful? Romney is an industry that if you are very successful, you can become extraordinarily wealthy. He was very successful and became extraordinarily wealthy. But that's true not just in finance but in many other industries as well. The fastest way to become a billionaire today isn't on Wall Street, its in Silicon Valley.

The Left is getting all whiny and hysterical about what Romney did, but there is no evidence that private equity acts any worse than any other employer. This is an empirical fact. The rate of change of employment held by companies like Bain is no different than any other owner in the economy. Besides, what made Romney rich wasn't making money off companies like Ampad. It was finding and funding fast growing companies such as Staples. This is well known in the finance industry. During his tenure at Bain, the company did 270 deals. Less than 5% were liquidated.

The primary task of any business owner is not to create jobs. The primary task of a business owner is to create profits. If a business owner is successful, he will generally create jobs, but that is not why he exists. Creating jobs comes from successfully running a business. So understanding what a company needs to be profitable is the best way to create jobs over time. Creating an environment that fosters entrepreneurialism is the best way to create jobs over the long run. Romney understands this. Obama does not. This administration has been making it harder for companies, not easier.

The notion of counting how many jobs Bain created or asking what Romney did to create jobs is a silly one. The question is "Who knows best on what businesses need to grow and create jobs, Romney or Obama?" The answer should be obvious.

Democrats should remember that the closest thing to royalty this country has ever had are the Kennedys. How did the Kennedys make all their money so their kids could enter politics? Why, on Wall Street of course! Joe Kennedy was one of the big Wall Street operators of his time, and made money shorting stocks during the Great Depression.

That is really irrelevant until you remember one thing. In 1934, when FDR created the SEC, who did he first appoint as its Chairman? Joe Kennedy. Why? Because he knew Joe Kennedy knew how Wall Street thought. Kennedy had no experience regulating anything, but he knew what drove Wall Street, and he knew what was needed to fix the problems of the time.

Even if you buy into the false argument that Romney is nothing but a blood sucking corporate raider, because he comes from that world - just like the Wall Street operator Joe Kennedy - he still understands what drives business better than Obama.

 

[BDBoop]

I will be VERY surprised if he's still the nominee after the convention.

 

[Friends]

For most Americans the real economy is not the stock market, but the jobs market. I do not see any reason that would improve under the Republicans.

 

[occupied]

Really?

I'm sure that the people working at companies like Staples, Toys R Us, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, etcetera, are all perfectly happy to be in that "narrow group".

Can you tell me that anything he has ever done has been primarily to create jobs? Of course not, his primary aim in business has always been to enrich himself, you want to apply that attitude to the presidency and expect beneficial results for the population at large? This guy would gauge his success by Wall Street and nothing else and it is glaringly obvious that their success does not trickle down nearly as much as republicans would like us to believe.

Romney's primary aim in business was to be successful. What businessman doesn't want to be successful? Romney is an industry that if you are very successful, you can become extraordinarily wealthy. He was very successful and became extraordinarily wealthy. But that's true not just in finance but in many other industries as well. The fastest way to become a billionaire today isn't on Wall Street, its in Silicon Valley.

The Left is getting all whiny and hysterical about what Romney did, but there is no evidence that private equity acts any worse than any other employer. This is an empirical fact. The rate of change of employment held by companies like Bain is no different than any other owner in the economy. Besides, what made Romney rich wasn't making money off companies like Ampad. It was finding and funding fast growing companies such as Staples. This is well known in the finance industry. During his tenure at Bain, the company did 270 deals. Less than 5% were liquidated.

The primary task of any business owner is not to create jobs. The primary task of a business owner is to create profits. If a business owner is successful, he will generally create jobs, but that is not why he exists. Creating jobs comes from successfully running a business. So understanding what a company needs to be profitable is the best way to create jobs over time. Creating an environment that fosters entrepreneurialism is the best way to create jobs over the long run. Romney understands this. Obama does not. This administration has been making it harder for companies, not easier.

The notion of counting how many jobs Bain created or asking what Romney did to create jobs is a silly one. The question is "Who knows best on what businesses need to grow and create jobs, Romney or Obama?" The answer should be obvious.

Democrats should remember that the closest thing to royalty this country has ever had are the Kennedys. How did the Kennedys make all their money so their kids could enter politics? Why, on Wall Street of course! Joe Kennedy was one of the big Wall Street operators of his time, and made money shorting stocks during the Great Depression.

That is really irrelevant until you remember one thing. In 1934, when FDR created the SEC, who did he first appoint as its Chairman? Joe Kennedy. Why? Because he knew Joe Kennedy knew how Wall Street thought. Kennedy had no experience regulating anything, but he knew what drove Wall Street, and he knew what was needed to fix the problems of the time.

Even if you buy into the false argument that Romney is nothing but a blood sucking corporate raider, because he comes from that world - just like the Wall Street operator Joe Kennedy - he still understands what drives business better than Obama.

Everyone knows what drives business, just not everyone sees 100% of business as 100% beneficial to society. Romney has become representative of the business practices that killed the golden goose. G+S used to have a saying that they were "long term greedy", that they were in investments to make money for the next 100 years. That generally wise model has been thrown in the trash. What we have now are companies willing to do anything, fair or foul, to avoid a minor drop in the stock price therefore sparking a major sell-off. I suppose we can blame that most fickle and heartless of groups, the stockholders, but every phenomena needs a symbol and Romney is it, like it or not.

 

[flacaltenn]

Can you tell me that anything he has ever done has been primarily to create jobs? Of course not, his primary aim in business has always been to enrich himself, you want to apply that attitude to the presidency and expect beneficial results for the population at large? This guy would gauge his success by Wall Street and nothing else and it is glaringly obvious that their success does not trickle down nearly as much as republicans would like us to believe.

Romney's primary aim in business was to be successful. What businessman doesn't want to be successful? Romney is an industry that if you are very successful, you can become extraordinarily wealthy. He was very successful and became extraordinarily wealthy. But that's true not just in finance but in many other industries as well. The fastest way to become a billionaire today isn't on Wall Street, its in Silicon Valley.

The Left is getting all whiny and hysterical about what Romney did, but there is no evidence that private equity acts any worse than any other employer. This is an empirical fact. The rate of change of employment held by companies like Bain is no different than any other owner in the economy. Besides, what made Romney rich wasn't making money off companies like Ampad. It was finding and funding fast growing companies such as Staples. This is well known in the finance industry. During his tenure at Bain, the company did 270 deals. Less than 5% were liquidated.

The primary task of any business owner is not to create jobs. The primary task of a business owner is to create profits. If a business owner is successful, he will generally create jobs, but that is not why he exists. Creating jobs comes from successfully running a business. So understanding what a company needs to be profitable is the best way to create jobs over time. Creating an environment that fosters entrepreneurialism is the best way to create jobs over the long run. Romney understands this. Obama does not. This administration has been making it harder for companies, not easier.

The notion of counting how many jobs Bain created or asking what Romney did to create jobs is a silly one. The question is "Who knows best on what businesses need to grow and create jobs, Romney or Obama?" The answer should be obvious.

Democrats should remember that the closest thing to royalty this country has ever had are the Kennedys. How did the Kennedys make all their money so their kids could enter politics? Why, on Wall Street of course! Joe Kennedy was one of the big Wall Street operators of his time, and made money shorting stocks during the Great Depression.

That is really irrelevant until you remember one thing. In 1934, when FDR created the SEC, who did he first appoint as its Chairman? Joe Kennedy. Why? Because he knew Joe Kennedy knew how Wall Street thought. Kennedy had no experience regulating anything, but he knew what drove Wall Street, and he knew what was needed to fix the problems of the time.

Even if you buy into the false argument that Romney is nothing but a blood sucking corporate raider, because he comes from that world - just like the Wall Street operator Joe Kennedy - he still understands what drives business better than Obama.

Everyone knows what drives business, just not everyone sees 100% of business as 100% beneficial to society. Romney has become representative of the business practices that killed the golden goose. G+S used to have a saying that they were "long term greedy", that they were in investments to make money for the next 100 years. That generally wise model has been thrown in the trash. What we have now are companies willing to do anything, fair or foul, to avoid a minor drop in the stock price therefore sparking a major sell-off. I suppose we can blame that most fickle and heartless of groups, the stockholders, but every phenomena needs a symbol and Romney is it, like it or not.

THe whole world moves a lot faster than it used to. Consumer product life cycles are now measured in MONTHS not years. You want investors to lock into what? For how long?

Bain and Venture Capital is the solution to our Flat-Lined IPO situation.. Do yourself a favor and find a graph of Initial Public Offerings over the last 20 years. THERE is the problem. THe GIANTS are reigning supreme because regulation has made them untouchable. And it's the GOAL and vision of every Venture Group to knock those giants down.

The left is barking up the wrong tree and don't even stop to learn who's working to create NEW jobs. You know those nebulas where new stars form? That's what's missing right now. And sometimes that star chamber is a messy deal. But if that doesn't get fired again -- you're looking at a major decline of the US economy relative to the world. You better HOPE that Bain and others save your sorry asses from more of the same..

 

[bripat9643]

Quick question...have financial experts ever been wrong before?

Quick Question: What have Obama and his apologists ever been right about?

 

[bripat9643]

That depends on the definition of "improve". If they feel free to inflate another empty bubble based on worthless paper that is hardly an improvement.

Only government can inflate credit and create a bubble. Only economic ignoramuses don't understand that.

 

[bripat9643]

That depends on the definition of "improve". If they feel free to inflate another empty bubble based on worthless paper that is hardly an improvement.

What the hell do you think has been going on the last 3+ years?

Sheeeesh!

And Romney will be different how?

He doesn't believe that printing money is a good way to finance government social programs.

 

[bripat9643]

the same guys who gave us the mess were in

Nimrods like you are the ones who gave us this mess.

 

[bripat9643]

Romney will go along with whatever the Fed tells him to do like every other president. He will appoint a bunch of G+S alumni to regulatory positions like every other president. He will know who rules the economy like every other, he is no cure for any of that shit.

The idea that the President takes orders from the Fed is too stupid for words to describe.