Post by: Elza on July 12, 2008, 11:05:14 AM
If my prediction of doom comes to pass and if BHO is our President, who is the MSM going to blame for it? There wont be a Republican upon whom they can blame it. What will the MSM do then?
Post by: El Tejon on July 12, 2008, 11:05:51 AM
Post by: taurusowner on July 12, 2008, 11:55:50 AM
Personally, I believe that all hell is going to break loose in this country in the next year. Our economy is going to tank (it isnt far from it now) and all of the losers now living on .gov handouts are going to be screaming and rioting. Toss in a few well placed terrorist acts and this country is going to come apart at the seams. And it wont matter who is warming the seat in the Oval Office.
If my prediction of doom comes to pass and if BHO is our President, who is the MSM going to blame for it? There wont be a Republican upon whom they can blame it. What will the MSM do then?
If my prediction of doom comes to pass and if BHO is our President, who is the MSM going to blame for it? There wont be a Republican upon whom they can blame it. What will the MSM do then?
Our economy is FAR from the bottom. Nintendo Wiis are still hard to keep on the shelves, Amusement parks are still full, new car lots still sell them same car with an 09 after the name instead of an 08. Americans are not going barefoot, standing in soup lines, and trying to stay warm or cool in houses with no electricity. They are earning money and spending it on toys are entertainment. In the past 20 years, the DOW average has gone from 2000 pts to 14000 pts, and now that it's drop to 10,000, all of a sudden people are freaking out.
This isn't the 20's. Not even close. We don't know how good we have it.
Post by: MechAg94 on July 12, 2008, 03:09:38 PM
I wouldn't fear a slump or downturn, I would fear the reaction taken by an Obama administration which would almost certainly come up with some sort of policy that included increasing taxes. When was the last time a Democrat actually suggested reducing taxes? JFK? I would ask the same question about cutting a govt program that wasn't law enforcement or military related, but I don't know about that one. Obama is really just a typical Democrat with a more polished image.
Post by: De Selby on July 12, 2008, 03:19:16 PM
They have been blaming Bush since almost before the 2000 election. I doubt they will stop for a couple more years at least.
I wouldn't fear a slump or downturn, I would fear the reaction taken by an Obama administration which would almost certainly come up with some sort of policy that included increasing taxes. When was the last time a Democrat actually suggested reducing taxes? JFK? I would ask the same question about cutting a govt program that wasn't law enforcement or military related, but I don't know about that one. Obama is really just a typical Democrat with a more polished image.
I wouldn't fear a slump or downturn, I would fear the reaction taken by an Obama administration which would almost certainly come up with some sort of policy that included increasing taxes. When was the last time a Democrat actually suggested reducing taxes? JFK? I would ask the same question about cutting a govt program that wasn't law enforcement or military related, but I don't know about that one. Obama is really just a typical Democrat with a more polished image.
Obama's plan is to decrease taxes for most individuals, while raising taxes for a smaller percentage of individuals to compensate.
So he's a tax cutter and a tax increaser-the vast majority of Americans will see a tax cut from an Obama administration, though.
Post by: taurusowner on July 12, 2008, 03:45:33 PM
Quote
Obama's plan is to decrease taxes for most individuals, while raising taxes for a smaller percentage of individuals to compensate.
Too bad it's the small percentage of individuals who own all the companies and provide all the jobs. I really hope Obama doesn't force them to move out of the US any faster than they already are.
Post by: De Selby on July 12, 2008, 03:48:05 PM
Quote
Obama's plan is to decrease taxes for most individuals, while raising taxes for a smaller percentage of individuals to compensate.
Too bad it's the small percentage of individuals who own all the companies and provide all the jobs. I really hope Obama doesn't force them to move out of the US any faster than they already are.
He's also planning to alter the tax code to favor companies that create jobs here, bringing them back from over seas.
That's using tax increases, I'm assuming.
I'm not really sure how the effects will shake out, but it definitely isn't true to call Obama a blanket tax increaser. Most people will see a decrease in their taxes under Obama. Whether that's overall good or bad is another matter.
Post by: RocketMan on July 12, 2008, 03:49:02 PM
Post by: seeker_two on July 12, 2008, 03:53:59 PM
Incidently, my pastor thinks that the United States probably won't exist by the time of the Tribulation or Armageddon......(not that this has anything to do with anything...but just points out that things aren't as bad as they're gonna be.....
)Post by: De Selby on July 12, 2008, 04:01:55 PM
I wonder where BHO's cutoff for the "rich" is? How does he define rich? Just where will this alleged tax cut kick in?
200,000 to 250,000 per year income.
The largest cuts are for those at 75,000 per year and under.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 12, 2008, 04:25:33 PM
I wonder where BHO's cutoff for the "rich" is? How does he define rich? Just where will this alleged tax cut kick in?
200,000 to 250,000 per year income.
The largest cuts are for those at 75,000 per year and under.
I hope you aren't a small business owner...
Post by: Dntsycnt on July 12, 2008, 04:37:21 PM
Unless one was to instigate some type of nuclear exchange.
Post by: De Selby on July 12, 2008, 04:47:39 PM
I wonder where BHO's cutoff for the "rich" is? How does he define rich? Just where will this alleged tax cut kick in?
200,000 to 250,000 per year income.
The largest cuts are for those at 75,000 per year and under.
I hope you aren't a small business owner...
I'm not-but that doesn't change the fact that Obama will be cutting income taxes for the vast majority of Americans.
Like I said-this isn't a good/bad judgment. We can argue till the cows come home about whether or not Bush/McCain tax policy actually improves the economy and makes more people better off, but there's no need to go there to know that Barack Obama is not a blanket tax increaser.
Post by: MechAg94 on July 12, 2008, 05:44:31 PM
I wonder where BHO's cutoff for the "rich" is? How does he define rich? Just where will this alleged tax cut kick in?
200,000 to 250,000 per year income.
The largest cuts are for those at 75,000 per year and under.
I hope you aren't a small business owner...
I'm not-but that doesn't change the fact that Obama will be cutting income taxes for the vast majority of Americans.
Like I said-this isn't a good/bad judgment. We can argue till the cows come home about whether or not Bush/McCain tax policy actually improves the economy and makes more people better off, but there's no need to go there to know that Barack Obama is not a blanket tax increaser.
Also, Obama has a said a lot of things. It is interesting that you wholeheartedly believe that one.
Post by: De Selby on July 12, 2008, 05:55:19 PM
I wonder where BHO's cutoff for the "rich" is? How does he define rich? Just where will this alleged tax cut kick in?
200,000 to 250,000 per year income.
The largest cuts are for those at 75,000 per year and under.
I hope you aren't a small business owner...
I'm not-but that doesn't change the fact that Obama will be cutting income taxes for the vast majority of Americans.
Like I said-this isn't a good/bad judgment. We can argue till the cows come home about whether or not Bush/McCain tax policy actually improves the economy and makes more people better off, but there's no need to go there to know that Barack Obama is not a blanket tax increaser.
Also, Obama has a said a lot of things. It is interesting that you wholeheartedly believe that one.
Again, going off of what he said-he's specifically said he will drop taxes as well as increase them for a smaller part of the population.
But if we don't believe anything the politicians say, it's pointless to post anything about their presidential campaigns at all. Certainly we will not be predicting anything good from McCain if this is the standard.
I do note that your first post talked about the last time a democrat "suggested reducing taxes." There is no question that Obama is suggesting a tax reduction-that's his campaign platform, even.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 12, 2008, 06:27:46 PM
Obama's plan is to decrease taxes for most individuals, while raising taxes for a smaller percentage of individuals to compensate.
If by "smaller percentage", you mean "all productive citizens who bothered to get a job", then yes. I think that's actually a larger percentage, though.
Remember, if you make more than 80K, you're RICH, and BAD. Unless you're one of the philosopher-kings, then you can have your palace and be completely beyond reproach. Like him!
Post by: De Selby on July 12, 2008, 07:13:58 PM
Obama's plan is to decrease taxes for most individuals, while raising taxes for a smaller percentage of individuals to compensate.
If by "smaller percentage", you mean "all productive citizens who bothered to get a job", then yes. I think that's actually a larger percentage, though.
Remember, if you make more than 80K, you're RICH, and BAD. Unless you're one of the philosopher-kings, then you can have your palace and be completely beyond reproach. Like him!
Again, this is in the category of good/bad tax policy; that does not change the fact that most of the population gets a tax cut if Obama implements his plan.
Maybe you don't think most people deserve one as much as those who make more than 250k a year, but it's still a cut he's proposing.
You might be able to convince people that the tax cut isn't good for them; that the richest few percentage points of voters deserve the break more, or whatever you want to, but again....that doesn't mean the plan is to increase taxes.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 12, 2008, 08:14:58 PM
Anyhoo, regardless how many see tax cuts, any income tax increase on the upper echelons would be a Bad Thing. Would it not?
Post by: The Annoyed Man on July 12, 2008, 08:37:46 PM
I'd like us to get our country back. The 16th amendment gave the powers that be (well, some of them), freedom into our pockets pretty much denied by the constitution... by not being among the enumerated powers, that is.
There's a move afoot to actully do away with the IRS, and replace it with "The Fair Tax."
Sorry I don't have a link, it's Fairtax.org, and well worth checking out.
Income taxes started out as a temporary thing, and it's increas :laugh:ing tax rates for the "rich", then inflation puts more and more people in that category...
Oh, am I ranting again?
Post by: Racehorse on July 12, 2008, 09:09:46 PM
I believe we'll see some tough times, but I don't think all is lost. I don't think it's to the point that a year from now we'll all be living in caves caressing our assault rifles and coming out only at night to gather old Snickers bars off the corpses of the damned.
I guess that makes me some kind of optimist.
With regard to taxes, I'm of the opinion that everyone should bear some burden in contributing to government. I think the most equitable way to do this is through a flat tax with no deductions or exemptions at a low, constitutionally declared rate. I know it will not happen in my lifetime, but it would be great.
Post by: taurusowner on July 13, 2008, 11:10:09 AM
What more of a tax cut does that first half even need?
Post by: De Selby on July 13, 2008, 11:56:29 AM
SS, do you realize that HALF of the nation pays about 3% of income taxes? And that the other half pays 97%??
What more of a tax cut does that first half even need?
What more of a tax cut does that first half even need?
Again, this falls into the category of "they don't deserve a tax cut," not, "Obama is/is not going to cut most people's taxes."
Post by: taurusowner on July 13, 2008, 12:18:52 PM
Post by: De Selby on July 13, 2008, 12:35:50 PM
To have your taxes cut, first one must actually pay taxes. I thought you understood math.
I did-I think you misunderstood the math.
When you say the bottom half pays three percent of the taxes...they are still all paying taxes, just not in the amounts paid by the top 3 percent.
If you think that the country making under 200,000 isn't paying taxes, you need to talk to some folks.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 13, 2008, 12:58:16 PM
He'll talk a lot of talk now. If he gets elected, he may even reduce the tax rates for some of the population by a small, token amount. But I'm quite convinced that on balance the tax burden on the citizenry will be much higher after an Obama presidency than they were before. I'm also quite convinced that the burden will be greatest on those with the greatest economic impact and importance.
Post by: Werewolf on July 13, 2008, 01:01:22 PM
SS, do you realize that HALF of the nation pays about 3% of income taxes? And that the other half pays 97%??
What more of a tax cut does that first half even need?
What more of a tax cut does that first half even need?
Again, this falls into the category of "they don't deserve a tax cut," not, "Obama is/is not going to cut most people's taxes."
When obama lobbies congress to let Bush's tax cuts expire - that will be a tax increase.
When obama raises the top tax bracket to 53% that will be a tax increase
When obama raises the capital gains tax to 28% that will be a tax increase
When obama causes SSA to be increased that will be a tax increase
When obama demands we all perform public service that will be a tax increase
When thousands or millions lose their jobs as a result of the damage all that will do to the economy (which is doing just fine and is only perceived to be tanking by the mindless masses because the media tells them so) that will be worse than any tax increase.
obama is the 1st person running for president that has made me fear for the USA. he's the 1st that has created a knot of anger and frustration in my chest.
obama's socialism will destroy the USA if he gets his way. And the bleeding heart masses suckered by his BS will go to their graves blaming everyone but him and the fools that gave him the power to do it.
AND yes that's a lower case 'o' on purpose. That person, a product of the Chicago democratic machine, whose strings are pulled by Daley, deserves no more.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 13, 2008, 01:04:24 PM
When you say the bottom half pays three percent of the taxes...they are still all paying taxes, just not in the amounts paid by the top 3 percent.
Post by: De Selby on July 13, 2008, 02:08:14 PM
Quote
Members of the bottom half of the population (more or less) may get hit with small taxes here and there, but they receive more from the government in terms of services and handouts than they pay in taxes. On balance they don't pay a tax burden, they are net beneficiaries of public money.
Yeah, but Obama's plan covers people from 200,000 on down. There is no way you can sustain the argument that people who make between 25,000 and 200,000 are "net beneficiaries" of the tax system.
But in any case, this is all arguing that the middle class don't deserve tax cuts. If you want to argue that, be my guest, but I don't see anyone disputing here that Obama's plan is in fact to cut taxes for most individuals.
Post by: De Selby on July 13, 2008, 02:11:11 PM
SS, do you realize that HALF of the nation pays about 3% of income taxes? And that the other half pays 97%??
What more of a tax cut does that first half even need?
What more of a tax cut does that first half even need?
Again, this falls into the category of "they don't deserve a tax cut," not, "Obama is/is not going to cut most people's taxes."
When obama lobbies congress to let Bush's tax cuts expire - that will be a tax increase.
When obama raises the top tax bracket to 53% that will be a tax increase
When obama raises the capital gains tax to 28% that will be a tax increase
When obama causes SSA to be increased that will be a tax increase
When obama demands we all perform public service that will be a tax increase
When thousands or millions lose their jobs as a result of the damage all that will do to the economy (which is doing just fine and is only perceived to be tanking by the mindless masses because the media tells them so) that will be worse than any tax increase.
obama is the 1st person running for president that has made me fear for the USA. he's the 1st that has created a knot of anger and frustration in my chest.
obama's socialism will destroy the USA if he gets his way. And the bleeding heart masses suckered by his BS will go to their graves blaming everyone but him and the fools that gave him the power to do it.
AND yes that's a lower case 'o' on purpose. That person, a product of the Chicago democratic machine, whose strings are pulled by Daley, deserves no more.
Hey, like I said-this is all in the category of "Obama's tax cut plan isn't a good one."
Obama will raise taxes for a smaller percentage of the population-perhaps the effects will be disastrous, as you say.
But he'll also cut taxes for the majority of the population-no question about that, based on waht we know so far.
Personally, I think the idea that cutting taxes for 95 percent of the population and balancing the cut off the backs of those making 250,000 is...not going to lead to the end of the world. The hype that surrounds this so far is equivalent to the "global warming" hype-yeah, even if it's bad, we're not all going to choke and die within one week after the next car gets onto the road.
I also think that the Bush method of taxation and regulation speaks for itself-if you think the economy is doing just dandy right now, vote for more of it, by all means. But I suspect you will find that your arguments fall on deaf ears come November.
Post by: thebaldguy on July 13, 2008, 02:23:39 PM
I see more reasons for things to get worse than better. On the other hand, this could be the "buy low" part of "buy low, sell high" when it comes to investments. Retirement for me is 17 years away, and I'm ready to gamble that things will get somewhat better by then.
Post by: taurusowner on July 13, 2008, 02:35:26 PM
Post by: De Selby on July 13, 2008, 02:41:45 PM
SS, you appear not to have a leg to stand on. You keep coming back to a semantic wording argument about "the plan technically is kind of a tax cut" instead of addressing the real issue of it being a disaster for the nation and not really a tax cut for the people who actually pay taxes. Can you please stop harping on the wording and concentrate on addressing the real effect of Obama's socialist ideas?
Okay, so are you denying that he's actually proposing to cut taxes for most of the population?Or are you just saying that there are bigger issues at stake?
Pointing out that he's proposing a tax cut is not "harping on the wording"-that's not a technical matter. The plan either will reduce the amount of taxes paid to the government for people making under 200,000 per year, or it will not. That's an easy question to answer.
It looks to me like you're just saying that Obama's tax cuts will spell disaster, or that the people who will get tax cuts don't deserve them. Which is it, and how does this is any way contradict what I'm saying here?
I've said repeatedly that I do not know if this tax policy will be good-but it is a cut. Why can't we call a spade a spade when it comes to Obama's policies?
Post by: taurusowner on July 13, 2008, 02:47:31 PM
Obama is still raising the taxes of people who actually pay them: a tax increase.
Post by: De Selby on July 13, 2008, 02:57:58 PM
I'm not sure you can find any numbers or statistics or evidence of any kind to justify this claim.
Post by: taurusowner on July 13, 2008, 03:01:03 PM
If the people who pay most of the taxes are getting theirs increased, it's not a tax cut. Period.
Post by: Werewolf on July 13, 2008, 03:14:02 PM
...I suspect you will find that your arguments fall on deaf ears come November.
I believe I already made that point...
Quote
...And the bleeding heart masses suckered by his (obama's) BS will go to their graves blaming everyone but him and the fools that gave him the power to do it.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 13, 2008, 03:39:21 PM
Post by: taurusowner on July 13, 2008, 04:16:41 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 13, 2008, 06:09:22 PM
Is there anyone here that would not like to see taxes reduced for all brackets?
If Riley were here I'm sure he'd have all sorts of reasons why some people should pay more in taxes.Shootinstudent also seems reluctant to speak out against raising the taxes on certain of his fellow citizens.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 13, 2008, 06:52:06 PM
My assumption is that most of us would like to see taxes reduced on all brackets that actually pay a tax (even if they get tax money in govt. bennies).
Post by: De Selby on July 13, 2008, 09:45:35 PM
Bother all of that. shootinstudent's comments, whether he intends it or not, might lead one to believe that you nasty conservative Republicans don't want to cut taxes for the middle class/working class. Is this so?
My assumption is that most of us would like to see taxes reduced on all brackets that actually pay a tax (even if they get tax money in govt. bennies).
My assumption is that most of us would like to see taxes reduced on all brackets that actually pay a tax (even if they get tax money in govt. bennies).
I don't believe this is a feature of Republicans, but it is obviously the belief of some posters on this thread. For example:
Quote
But the people who are getting "their taxes cut" don't pay enough taxes already for it to count as a cut.
Quote
But taurusowner is right. Members of the bottom half of the population (more or less) may get hit with small taxes here and there, but they receive more from the government in terms of services and handouts than they pay in taxes. On balance they don't pay a tax burden, they are net beneficiaries of public money.
In the context of what I'm saying here, that sure looks to me like they don't think the folks making under 250,000 are paying enough taxes.
Post by: taurusowner on July 13, 2008, 10:45:31 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 14, 2008, 02:44:10 AM
Quote
In the context of what I'm saying here, that sure looks to me like they don't think the folks making under 250,000 are paying enough taxes.
Paying enough taxes for a reduced tax rate to count as a cut, then. That's not what I'm asking. I'm simply interested in knowing whether anyone here WOULD NOT like to see a simple reduction in the rates for all brackets.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 14, 2008, 09:15:20 AM
In the context of what I'm saying here, that sure looks to me like they don't think the folks making under 250,000 are paying enough taxes.
You can't be serious...
Post by: roo_ster on July 14, 2008, 09:58:21 AM
Obama will raise taxes for a smaller percentage of the population-perhaps the effects will be disastrous, as you say.
Personally, I think the idea that cutting taxes for 95 percent of the population and balancing the cut off the backs of those making 250,000 is...not going to lead to the end of the world. The hype that surrounds this so far is equivalent to the "global warming" hype-yeah, even if it's bad, we're not all going to choke and die within one week after the next car gets onto the road.
Personally, I think the idea that cutting taxes for 95 percent of the population and balancing the cut off the backs of those making 250,000 is...not going to lead to the end of the world. The hype that surrounds this so far is equivalent to the "global warming" hype-yeah, even if it's bad, we're not all going to choke and die within one week after the next car gets onto the road.
Putting aside the semantic arguments, I would address something you brushed up against:
I think that not only will we feel the effects of Obamian policy sooner rather than later. I would also suggest that we are already seeing the effects of his policy.
Sooner vs Later
IME, events, causes, and effects happen more quickly, these days. I would attribute this to the broader and deeper amount of data available as well as the speed of its dissemination. This goes hand in hand with Hayek's model of the market as an information system.
A fine example of recent bad policy coming home to kick us in the jimmy is corn ethanol fuel additive.
Causes:
1. Congress mandates ethanol use as an oxygenate
2. Subsidize fuel ethanol by $0.51/gal
Effects:
1. Corn price goes apey through the roof
2. Acreage formerly devoted to other crops diverted to corn to cash in on the ethanol bubble
3. The substitution effect WRT corn & substitutes as well as less acreage for those substitutes causes other grains to take off
4. Difficulty in transporting that much ethanol around the country contributes to increasing fuel prices
That took what, one or two years? I think it took that long because of the nature of agriculture has some rather severe time constraints (growing season, etc.).
If Obama does something stupid like raise the cap gains rate ad you can bet dollars to doughnuts that the Dow will adjust severely downward to show the lesser value of all equities. Fast.
Actually, RIGHT FREAKING NOW
The POTUS election market has Obama on top. I think part of the current instability and drive down in the major indices is in anticipation of Obama's victory and the smart money seeking shelter to weather Hurricane Obama and his maxrist economic policy.
Post by: Nick1911 on July 14, 2008, 10:11:28 AM
If Obama does something stupid like raise the cap gains rate ad you can bet dollars to doughnuts that the Dow will adjust severely downward to show the lesser value of all equities. Fast.
Actually, RIGHT FREAKING NOW
The POTUS election market has Obama on top. I think part of the current instability and drive down in the major indices is in anticipation of Obama's victory and the smart money seeking shelter to weather Hurricane Obama and his maxrist economic policy.
Actually, RIGHT FREAKING NOW
The POTUS election market has Obama on top. I think part of the current instability and drive down in the major indices is in anticipation of Obama's victory and the smart money seeking shelter to weather Hurricane Obama and his maxrist economic policy.
I don't know about the validity of it, but it's an interesting thought to ponder. But why pull cash out of the market now? Why not wait until this fall?
Post by: MechAg94 on July 14, 2008, 10:30:49 AM
To go back to my previous post, when was the last time a Democrat really proposed tax cuts. As said above, Obama's plan as stated is not a tax cut, just more tax-the-rich stuff.
To add to that, when was the last time a Democrat Congress actually cut taxes for real? I was thinking maybe in the 80's after Reagan came in.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 14, 2008, 10:50:31 AM
If Obama does something stupid like raise the cap gains rate ad you can bet dollars to doughnuts that the Dow will adjust severely downward to show the lesser value of all equities. Fast.
Actually, RIGHT FREAKING NOW
The POTUS election market has Obama on top. I think part of the current instability and drive down in the major indices is in anticipation of Obama's victory and the smart money seeking shelter to weather Hurricane Obama and his maxrist economic policy.
Actually, RIGHT FREAKING NOW
The POTUS election market has Obama on top. I think part of the current instability and drive down in the major indices is in anticipation of Obama's victory and the smart money seeking shelter to weather Hurricane Obama and his maxrist economic policy.
I don't know about the validity of it, but it's an interesting thought to ponder. But why pull cash out of the market now? Why not wait until this fall?
Business owners sense that new taxes, regulations, and restrictions are on the way. Nobody can get a sense for what kind of obligations they'll be able to meet in this uncertain future. Uncertain of their future means, many business owners are putting things on hold, afraid to take any risks with durations longer than half a year. That's not a recipe for a growing economy.
Likewise, many investors are slowing the pace of their trades, and many are withdrawing from the market completely. The general sentiment is that you can't play a game when the rules are constantly changing. Better to stay out of the game until after you get a look at the new rules.
Post by: roo_ster on July 14, 2008, 01:22:25 PM
If Obama does something stupid like raise the cap gains rate ad you can bet dollars to doughnuts that the Dow will adjust severely downward to show the lesser value of all equities. Fast.
Actually, RIGHT FREAKING NOW
The POTUS election market has Obama on top. I think part of the current instability and drive down in the major indices is in anticipation of Obama's victory and the smart money seeking shelter to weather Hurricane Obama and his maxrist economic policy.
Actually, RIGHT FREAKING NOW
The POTUS election market has Obama on top. I think part of the current instability and drive down in the major indices is in anticipation of Obama's victory and the smart money seeking shelter to weather Hurricane Obama and his maxrist economic policy.
I don't know about the validity of it, but it's an interesting thought to ponder. But why pull cash out of the market now? Why not wait until this fall?
You mean wait until EVERYBODY is CERTAIN what is in store?
When everyone & their brother, on the second Wednesday in November, has pulled their investments in equities and stuffed them in bonds/gold/mattresses and the stock market has tanked?
Hell, the question ought to be, "Why not dump now?" not "Why dump now?" Anyone expect a significant upturn between now & the second Tuesday in November?
Personally, I have not dumped stocks. But, I won't retire for another 30 years.