Posted on 07/23/2008 1:49:05 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. stock market would fare better in the first year after a victory by Republican presidential candidate John McCain than by his Democratic rival Barack Obama, according to a majority of economists at U.S. banks and research groups polled by Reuters.
But the survey of 29 firms taken alongside a regular Reuters economic poll also found that economists had mixed views on the two candidates' economic plans.
On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "very good," 12 economists gave McCain's proposals higher marks, while nine rated the two candidates equally and eight preferred Obama's policies, according to the poll released on Wednesday.
The economy has supplanted the Iraq war as the main issue in the November presidential election between Arizona Sen. McCain and Illinois Sen. Obama.
The troubled housing market, tightening credit conditions and rising costs of food and energy have driven U.S. consumer confidence to a 28-year low.
The survey, conducted this week, found that 21 of the economists polled thought McCain would be better for the stock market in the first year after the election, while six chose Obama and two gave no response.
The sample includes a cross-section of U.S. financial institutions, large and small, including several prominent Wall Street names.
For investors, a key concern this election year is taxes on dividends and capital gains, which Obama has pledged to increase. He also favors allowing income tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush's administration to expire, while McCain wants them made permanent.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
not sure how they factor in supporting cap-and-trade and the GW hoax at this point..
Johnny Mac needs to trumpet this far, wide and often and couple it with the fact that most of the baby boomers are stock holders in one way or another.
Our current POTUS has trumpeted this for 8 years and......??
Something is wrong here!
The article bothers to tell us the scale (1 to 5, with 1 being ‘very good’ ) but only tells us that McCain fared better with ‘higher’ marks rather than giving us a score that would make knowing anything about the scale useful. Does the author mean ‘higher’ (worse) marks or ‘better’ (numerically lower) marks?
Where are the editors?
By what tortured logic, can ANY Democrat (let alone a class-warfare Marxist), be seen as being good for American businesses and thus the stock market?
Because....(please recite after me in zombie-like voice)..."The economy was great during the Clinton Years. Under Bill Clinton we had a surplus."
And it certainly doesn’t mean either one did well. They give 3 options: McCain better, equal, McCain worse (or Obama better). This means the 12 that went for McCain could have given him a 4 and Obama a 5, the ones that said they’re equal could have given them both 5’s, and the 8 that said Obama is better could have given him a 4 and McCain a 5. I doubt it was broken down like this, but the article leaves it open to speculation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.