Wall Street Strategies
Hello! Sign in or Register


Question of the Week

Rick Santorum is out and just in time to avoid more embarrassment and maybe go back to being a nice guy with big ideas.

It's now a 2 man race in the run for the White House. If the election were today, who would win and why?

Post your answer below.

Morning Commentary

Taking Earned Money is Different than Earning Money

By Charles Payne, CEO & Principal Analyst
4/11/2012 7:57 AM

I'm your boogie man that's what I am
I'm here to do whatever I can
Be it early mornin' late afternoon
Or at midnight it's never too soon
—KC & Sunshine Band

"I'm Your Boogieman" was the 11th top hit of 1977, a year that saw massive tumult in America, especially in New York City, which experienced daily fears of violence, the Son of Sam, and the Blackout. There was a time when boogieman was the dark monster that lived under your bed or in your closet, but in the disco era, it became the guy that put that pep in your step and made life fun. For all the talk that the current period in America is worse than any since the Great Depression, I submit the 1970s, when misery was a million times greater. That said whenever there was a chance to get something for nothing most people did so.

I've told the story many times, but I have to mention it again because it points to notions of entitlement, greed, and mob behavior. The blackout in the summer of 1977 saw mass looting all over New York, and no neighborhood in Manhattan was hit harder than mine. Walking to the corner moments after the lights went out, I witnessed a group of guys tugging at a metal gate that covered a jewelry store. The cry went out, "everybody pull … everybody get something" and so there was a mass effort that did dislodge the gate. The store was given the bum's rush, and within minutes everything was gone.

Fast forward to the summer of 2012 and there is a cry going out that says "everybody pull the lever and everybody will get something." Instead of the corner jewelry store, the new targets are people earning more than one million dollars a year. In my neighborhood, people were poor, so taking from a "rich" jeweler didn't feel wrong on any level. Of course growing up poor and only hearing how all rich people got there through inheritance and theft, it just felt right to take things that fell off a truck or in this case from a broken storefront window. But, you grow up and you learn better. You grow up and learn to respect how 80% of millionaires are self-made in this nation. You want to preserve that for future generations including your own children.

By the way, my mother wouldn't let me join my friends in what was Christmas in July. I watched people getting things like watches and boom boxes from a window. I didn't see it as looting, just a great opportunity. I didn't see victims, just rich businesses that had so much money it didn't matter anyway. I didn't see those people that opened those gates before most people on the block got up in the morning and worked so late while most were going to bed at night. I didn't see where it would do any harm. Thank goodness my mother did.

Everybody Will Get Something

To wanna please you to wanna please you
To wanna do it all all for you
I wanna be your be your rubber ball
I wanna be the one ya love most of all - oh yeah

President Obama is saying I'm your boogieman, and if voters give him the power he'll make sure they all get something. That's what all the pressing for the so-called Buffett Rule is all about. When we hear about fair share and what could be done with money confiscated from millionaires, it sounds like that guy leading the looters on that fateful night. This money is not going to lower the deficit, curb spending (it actually will encourage more spending and more programs like TARP which exist now as the personal piggy bank of the White House) or magically create jobs.

The Buffett Rule would create up to $32 MILLION in tax revenue from just one millionaire. Find out exactly how that money could make a difference on issues that affect us all.

www.BarackObama.com

President Obama suggests on his website that taking money earned by millionaires will benefit a myriad of people/voting blocs:

> Students-aid
> Public Safety Employees-jobs and safety for communities
> Senior's Economic Security-savings for seniors
> Teachers-teachers in classrooms
> Reducing the Deficit-fiscal responsibility
> Veterans-support for veterans

There is no way the Buffett Tax will do anything meaningful for any of the above, but instead the money would go into money-losing solar projects or other rat holes that are sucking up billions of taxpayer dollars. The numbers have been crunched and the Buffett Rule might bring in $64.0 billion over a decade while the deficit increases another $7.0 trillion. Still, the lure of free money and assuaging jealousy will ring true for too many people. On Varney and Co yesterday we discussed advertising for Earned Income Tax Credit which essentially pays people earning less than $49,000 because they're earning less than $49,000.

How many people are going to put it in park? Why work late and actually jeopardize up to $5,300 a year when the government is forking over the money because "you deserve it." Just think, we punish hard workers, risk takers and innovators, but if you don't lift your financial station in life, you deserve a cut of the check of those people that did put in the overtime. The campaign says that being rich is bad and must be punishable through confiscation of earnings. To bring up how nuts this push for the federal government to snatch all the money earned through hard work and risk-taking, we should take a look at China.

In China, communist leaders are pushing back against a movement that would abandon recently capitalistic trends that have made the nation the hottest economy on the planet. It's crazy, but the leaders of China are fighting for the ability of people to become rich while in America there is a movement to limit upside economic opportunities and punish the rich. What the heck is going on?

I'm really wondering if, President Obama speaks about the rewards from this plan to confiscate more earnings from successful people, he doesn't toss into the list stuff we can get from robbing the earnings of the rich, things like a new car, plus all the Apple products, plus a shopping spree at the local mall, plus renovated kitchens.

What's truly amazing is while President Obama was pumping up the kids down in Boca, he was pitching a plan that has sunk Europe to the point it will never see its past glory. Italy's stock market was off 5% and Spain is beginning to teeter. Taking from productive citizens to reward those not living up to potential or who took shortcuts is nasty and mean. I know so many people with that mindset have never worked as hard as I do and even say they feel sorry for me. I'm fine with that, but they deserve no more bites at my paycheck.

Here's the real sin about all of these "fair" and "share the wealth" lies - they hurt the poor more than they help. It creates ghettos that are physical and mental. It sucks out desire to work and dashes dreams as out of reach. The rhetoric provides cover and enables excuses for not getting in the mix and trying to be productive.

The Economy

Yesterday cooper was smashed down 3% on record volume. Natural gas is near a record low, too. While volume was light in the stock market, commodities are acting like the Fed is out of the picture and the global economy is sitting in a barrel at the edge of Niagara Falls. While I think the Fed has to be in the mix to keep the rally going for now, I worry about the election and later a massive spike in taxes, regulation and the war on business; a lot of the current market action is Wall Street whining.

Alcoa posted earnings last night and beat! I typically hate AA at earnings time because of its abysmal track record. Last night the company posted $0.10 versus the consensus estimate of ($0.04) and beat on revenue, too. Revenue increased quarter to quarter in industrial, automotive, packaging and commercial transportation.

In addition, last night saw shares of Owens Illinois spike almost 10% after saying earnings per share would be $0.10 which seems to be in line. The company spoke glowingly about price increases and efficiency.


Comments
Obama would prpbably win. I think due to a splintered GOP field. Seems like the GOP candidates put themselves above the party with too much negative campaigning. Very self-centered group. It may hurt now.

Richard Foust on 4/11/2012 9:55:27 AM
Big fan of yours. Keep talking, I think people are listening. In answer to your question - Mitt Romney; hope and change has become hype and blame. Gas prices going up 6%.

Michael J. DeFelice on 4/11/2012 9:56:19 AM
Unfortunately, Obama will likely win - we have record numbers of recipients of gov't assistance (in one form or another), and they want more of the same. Obama's promises to "give" are well covered in the media and he gets a pass on critical questioning about these plans, growth of gov't programs, sustainability, deficits and debt. How can he lose?

Bob Wunderlich on 4/11/2012 10:06:19 AM
Regretfully Obama will be re-elected. Obama is Santa Claus to many people.

Larry Henson on 4/11/2012 10:19:50 AM
Obama, most likely. The biggest reason is that over 50% of people are either being paid by government (salary & entitlements)or too stupid to see the economic disaster that awaits us under Obama. I don't think Romney has any answers either. All I can hope is that he wins and has some very good advisers.

Bruce Beddoe on 4/11/2012 10:25:33 AM
This is the big question for America's future, because the same two sides in this election are the two sides of the wuestion whether American society moves ahead or falls apart.
Both candidates show a lack of moral compass, and what little insight either may have is suppressed as neither is wise enough to use it Both show more interest in taking the popular path than making tough decisions which are for the good of the people and the country. Neither has shown the wisdom to surround themselves with either people of great integrity/character or with insightful advisors. In short, this is a choice between 2 guys, either of whom is capable only of being a mediocre president at best, and competitive with Carter at worst.
But, back to who will win and what the real story is. The real question is which of the two segments of the electorate is larger or actually casts more votes. I say those 2 segments are:
1) Realists and thinkers - people who believe truth is not relative, that history does not change when someone lies about it, that outflow can not indefintiely exceed supply, and that the same input will produce the same results consistently. These people question what they hear, look for real data to back up analysis and conclusion, and believe that failure is just as possible as success.
2) UtopIans - people who believe truth is not true (but changes on a whim), that reality and history change to conform to what one believes or wishes them to be, that supply is not important in determining outflow, and that everything will work out happy if you just believe it will. These people are the optimists, believing every good story and promise given without ever straining a grey cell to figure out if it makes sense or could possibly work. They think that reality is driven by good hope rather than truth, because they don't believe truth itself exists.
Of course, the latter group are great people to be with at a party, and are the ones who voted for Obama last time. And they will vote for Obama this time, because the failure of every one of his policies has no bearing on their beliefs. And the thinking people cannot vote for Obama (unless they have profit in the game on the side and don't care about the country).
This is a repeat of the waterfall election of 2008, and will determine if we can recover or are lost. In prior elections, we were faced with candidates who espoused opposing philosophies which they argued with some moderate intelligence and a lot of annoying political crap. In 2008, we were presented with one candidate who argued philosophies and one who just promised Utopia. Obama was the first ever candidate whose only policy was that everyone would be happy and rich. He is still presenting himself that way. So, we are clearly divided between those who believe everyone can have everything and those who think and see and know the truth is otherwise. The winner will depend on which group casts more votes. I fear for the country, because if the Utopians win again, truth may be gone from our society until the repression of big government brings about another bloddy revolution and a new constitution. And if we look back at French history, even revolution did not bring improvement.

Bob G on 4/11/2012 10:30:50 AM
Obama would win. Romney is that evil rich guy
who represents Wall Street and he is not paying
his "fair share" and yada, yada, yada. Oh, and he is a Mormon and we know what those people are
all about. This rhetoric has already sunk into the
small brains of many Americans.


Diane on 4/11/2012 10:31:31 AM
Obama. He is in full "baffle them with bullshit" mode, Romney et. al. has failed to orchestrate a counter strategy. The public, which has been dumbed down buy the educational system for over fourth years, is too dense to see Obama's fallacies.

z on 4/11/2012 10:37:30 AM
Obama. Gallup has him in a significant lead. Romney needs a few months of damage control after primary battles. Newt needs to be told to drop out. Message now needs to turn solely on Obama.

Bill on 4/11/2012 10:48:20 AM
Obama will win because to many people think they will get some of that "Obama Money" if he is re elected plus the Republican right constantly talking about abortions , contraceptives etc....Nothing turns people off faster than hearing about religious matters during a presidential election.....

Thomas Wayne on 4/11/2012 10:54:47 AM
I can only hope Romney wins if for no other reason but to keep the supreme court somewhat conservative. Why will he win???? He'll win if the economy is having a "bad" day near election time, but the growing number of Entitled masses will push Obama over the winning edge if things are upswing close to decision time. I don't get the "You have more than me so you have to make it fair" metality but . . . . In the mean time I will continue to go to work, pay my bills and my taxes, which fund things I do not agree with but can't stop, and I will continue to hold on to a hope that common sense and the idea of self respect and hard work will NOT allow Obama to be re - elected.

cathy forrest on 4/11/2012 11:04:59 AM
Sorry, this is not in response to today's Q, but rather a comment on the column content.
It is interesting that you wrote about the Buffet Rule, which amounts to worthless politicizing about nothing. You point out that $64B over 10 years has no impact on the deficit. And you are pointing out that the real problem is the greed being fed by the massive Obama handouts. Let me add one unconfirmed data point. Last week, I saw a documentary on the IRS. While it is clear that the IRS has a warped viewpoint and often tramples on people's rights in their quest to take, the report claimed that ANNUAL fraud in filing taxes is $300B. And the return on money spent tracking down tax evaders is more than $700 for every dollar spent. That means that no tax hike is needed, that the problem is individual greed and those people who steal from the system. Add it up; put in another $300B since the 80s and we have NO national debt. If you combine the $300B with what we are paying in interest on the debt and even Obama has not been able to spend enough to be in deficit if there were not an existing debt. There is no need for ineffective tax hikes on the tax-paying rich if we would only collect from cheating low income, middle class, and rich folk.
BTW, is anyone really stupid enough to believe that the rich could not create foreign trusts to hide the earnings from the new Buffet Rule should it go into effect. I would guess that Warren Buffet already has his shelter set up just in case.

Bob G on 4/11/2012 11:05:43 AM
Obama if held now. Unless the polls tighten a lot Obama probably won't find much time to debate Romney so both campaigns will be mostly ads and speeches. Obama is better at speeches and he will get all the air time on the news channels unless Romney says something stupid, then he will get some airtime too.

By the way, Buffet pays his fair share, it's his secretary that is unfairly taxed. She needs to pay her fair share, which would be about 15%

johnny ray on 4/11/2012 11:15:54 AM
If the election were held today, it would be even tighter than Bush-Gore in 2,000. How ironic if it, too, ended up before the Supreme Court. I'd give the edge to Obama because he still has the mainstream media on his side and his block voting strategy is largely intact. Romney's "search and destroy" campaign against his GOP rivals has left the GOP divided. The only question is: Does the great American majority reject Obama's policies more than they trust Romney's? Because it will take more than 60% of the rest of the vote to beat Obama after his voting blocks are done.

Dennis Howard on 4/11/2012 11:15:58 AM
Charles, I can’t believe that someone who follows you believes that Mitt Romney shows a lack of moral compass. I guess being a great husband, father and friend, is not important and being a really smart, honest, hard-working, businessman (one percenter) is immoral…
I mentioned great friend due to Mitt’ s rescuing the drowning Morrissey family and shutting down Bain Capital(his cut throat, immoral company) in order to save the life of his employee, Robert Gay’s, 14-year-old daughter’s life.
Google it


Joe Stockman on 4/11/2012 1:13:28 PM
Romney will win because Good (GOD) always overcomes Evil and Obama is the epitome of the Devil.

Judy Morgan on 4/11/2012 1:45:13 PM
I'll still vote for Ron Paul, the others are fools to the banksters. Anybody but the fool that's in the WH now.

Sam Sage on 4/11/2012 2:21:11 PM
Please get a speech coach for Mitt Romney. He really is not a bad person but has trouble articulating his positions. He either talks too fast or there are too many "ums" and "ahs" in his speech pattern. To debate Obama, he needs to sharpen those skills.

Luan on 4/11/2012 5:17:17 PM
If the election were today, who would win and why?

I think the more relevant question is who loses if the election were held today and the answer the country. Either candidate, whether Romney or Obama, is recommending the same type of programs which involve more spending, more TBTF and more military involvement around the world. There are no new solutions to old problems; just tired rhetoric. The whole legislative process is corrupted by money from lobbyists and corporations. I was told when I was in grade/high school that this was a great country. A fog of corruption has permeated this whole culture today which I wouldn't have believed when I was young. Maybe I was lied to. Just maybe.

David on 4/11/2012 7:14:31 PM
Gingrich would be a much more effective and brilliant, even historical, leader - like Reagan, and he'd KILL Obama in the debates.

Unfortunately, Romney will win, and there will be no windfall of change, nor renewed passion.

Both Romney and Gingrich would beat Obama.

Suzanne Ianni on 4/11/2012 10:21:11 PM
I am afraid that obama would win at this point.
Why? Because the media is behind him and there is an ethics, integrity, accountability, and work ethic vacuum in our country that is out of control.
Supported by the 47% that do not pay taxes and the fact that they and leadership are willing to sit back and let the remaining 53% do all of the heavy lifting and complain about it not being enough or not their fair share.

Tim Abbott

Tim Abbott on 4/12/2012 12:56:23 AM
 

Log In To Add Your Comment


Home | Products & Services | Education | In The Media | Help | About Us |
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use |
All Rights Reserved.

 

×