Wednesday, August 6, 2008

Wall Street is investing heavily in Barack Obama.


Barack Obama has collected nearly twice as much money as John McCain
BY DAVID SALTONSTALL
DAILY NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT
Updated Tuesday, July 1st 2008, 4:23 AM

Zurga/Bloomberg
Wall Street firms have chipped in more than $9 million to Barack Obama.

Wall Street is investing heavily in Barack Obama.
Although the Democratic presidential hopeful has vowed to raise capital gains and corporate taxes, financial industry bigs have contributed almost twice as much to Obama as to GOP rival John McCain, a Daily News analysis of campaign records shows.
"Wall Street wants change and wants a curtailment in spending. It wants someone who focuses on the domestic economy," said Jim Cramer, the boisterous host of CNBC's "Mad Money."
Cramer also does not discount nostalgia for the go-go 1990s, when Bill Clinton led the largest economic expansion in history.
"It wants a Clinton like in 1992, but not a Hillary Clinton," he said. "That's Barack Obama."


In contrast to Mike's post I am not going to state that McCain's economic policy will be the end of the world; actually it is pro-business. But...


http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=mccains_delusional_tax_plan

He proposes cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, costing $100 billion a year, but fails to eliminate a single corporate tax break. A 25 percent rate would be below the average rate of other industrialized countries and the lowest among G-7 countries by a significant margin.

But McCain does not stop there. He would let companies immediately write off all investment in equipment and technology. Companies would get an immediate up-front deduction for their investments, rather than being forced to deduct their costs over time. The change is very valuable for companies because a $100 deduction today is worth a lot more than $10 a year for ten years. For the same reason, it is very expensive for the Treasury -- to the tune of about $75 billion a year.

McCain's top policy advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin claims that such a write-off has no long-term cost. In fact, when Holtz-Eakin headed the Congressional Budget Office, it concluded that a similar, smaller proposal cost $440 billion over a decade. Reagan tax official Ron Pearlman labeled Holtz-Eakin's claim "so intellectually dishonest it's outrageous."

Maverick McCain stated that payroll taxes might be necessary to fix social security until his campaign reminded him that he was the Republican nominee. Moreover, despite the fact that his website is still selling Obama Energy Plan Tire Gauges, he contradicted his campaign with “Obama said a couple of days ago says we all should inflate our tires. I don’t disagree with that. The American Automobile Association strongly recommends it." Unfortunately, he did not add that it would return more barrels of oil than new off-shore drilling he proposes. 



2 comments:

Mike Schmitt said...

"For both candidates, Wall Street's investment and banking sectors have become among their portliest cash cows, contributing $9.5 million to Obama and $5.3 million to McCain so far."

I'd say that both candidates are getting money, the only difference is that Obama is a safe bet. He's up in the polls and has always been a favorite.

Example: Amgen donates to Pelosi....

Mike Schmitt said...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/2007-03-23-cramer-usat_N.htm

Plus Jim Cramer is just a dishonest hack....