HawkShack.com

A Biden victory looks mostly assured barring a surprise. What does that mean for your money?

1. Taxes are going up which will have the reverse effect of the Trump tax cuts causing a tax-fueled drop in corporate earnings, which will likely lead to a sharp but temporary stock market drop due to lower earnings and PE ratios.

2. Weed will be legalized nationally and likely push other nations to legalize globally. Might be a good time to pick up some quality weed stocks or a weed ETF.

3. Medical companies will likely be a mixed bag depending on how Biden implements modifications to healthcare. There may be additional downward pressure on medical stocks as price controls and nationalization will lead to a drop in profits and limits profiteering in medicine. We will have to see the effect of the final plan.

4. Alternative energy will be big. Biden seems intent on pushing alternative energy which will make alternative energy companies like Tesla or Next Era Energy more attractive as well as push big energy companies to push harder into sustainable energy.

5. There will likely be massive stimulus. This should provide some good tailwinds for economic growth.

6. Regulations will be big on business. The overall economic effect of regulations is hard to determine and will vary by industry.

7. Possible short-term trades if the Democrats take the Senate and the Presidency while maintaining the House involve gun stocks as people will load up on ammo and guns before the Democrats implement harder gun laws.

Hope you have some cash at the ready to take advantage of the change.

Aseahawkfan wrote:A Biden victory looks mostly assured barring a surprise. What does that mean for your money?

1. Taxes are going up which will have the reverse effect of the Trump tax cuts causing a tax-fueled drop in corporate earnings, which will likely lead to a sharp but temporary stock market drop due to lower earnings and PE ratios.

2. Weed will be legalized nationally and likely push other nations to legalize globally. Might be a good time to pick up some quality weed stocks or an weed ETF.

3. Medical companies will likely be a mixed bag depending on how Biden implements modifications to healthcare. There may be additional downward pressure on medical stocks as price controls and nationalization will lead to a drop in profits and limits profiteering in medicine. We will have to see the effect of the final plan.

4. Alternative energy will be big. Biden seems intent on pushing alternative energy which will make alternative energy companies like Tesla or Next Era Energy more attractive as well as push big energy companies to push harder into sustainable energy.

5. There will likely be massive stimulus. This should provide some good tailwinds for economic growth.

6. Regulations will be big on business. The overall economic effect of regulations is hard to determine and will vary by industry.

7. Possible short-term trades if the Democrats take the Senate and the Presidency while maintaining the House involve gun stocks as people will load up on ammo and guns before the Democrats implement harder gun laws.

Hope you have some cash at the ready to take advantage of the change.

I'm retired and on fixed income. I have most of my nest egg managed by a professional that I really trust.

However, I did come across an article on my newsfeed that you might find interesting:

https://www.kiplinger.com/investing/sto ... presidency

Some of the stocks they're recommending have to do with renewable energy sources like the manufacture of wind turbines and solar panels, Telsa and other electrical vehicles, health care insurers, and infrastructure construction.

One of the industries that has been booming during the pandemic has been motor homes. For the past 4 months, we've been in the market to buy a new one and have had an extremely difficult time finding the types we're interested in on any lot in the Northwest. It seems that since camping is one of the few things that people can do that people have been buying them like they're candy. Dealerships can't keep up with demand. We ended up ordering one from the factory and it won't be ready until mid March. But obviously it would have been better to buy stock back in March at the start of the pandemic.

Pandemic has had a strange effect on some stocks due to the changes. Work from home and crowded urban environments has pushed up homebuying in the suburbs and country. Obviously toilet paper and bleach sales have been huge. Exercise and weight equipment have been scarce and expensive.

I own Tesla. I am looking into Canopy Growth. I will probably make some weed stock purchases on Monday if nothing surprising happens over the weekend. Trump looks like a sure loss, but after the last election and the strange surge he got last election day, I would hate to suddenly hear something like, "We didn't know so many minority small business owners would vote for Trump" or something similar. Or some last minute bombshell drops on Sunday or Monday involving Biden like dropped on Hilary. Or a huge data dump by Wikileaks.

Just get here November 3rd, then I'll have more clarity on where to move money.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Pandemic has had a strange effect on some stocks due to the changes. Work from home and crowded urban environments has pushed up homebuying in the suburbs and country. Obviously toilet paper and bleach sales have been huge. Exercise and weight equipment have been scarce and expensive.

I own Tesla. I am looking into Canopy Growth. I will probably make some weed stock purchases on Monday if nothing surprising happens over the weekend. Trump looks like a sure loss, but after the last election and the strange surge he got last election day, I would hate to suddenly hear something like, "We didn't know so many minority small business owners would vote for Trump" or something similar. Or some last minute bombshell drops on Sunday or Monday involving Biden like dropped on Hilary. Or a huge data dump by Wikileaks.

Just get here November 3rd, then I'll have more clarity on where to move money.

Yeah this has been a very good year for my investments, I also own Tesla, it’s been good for me About the only stock I invested in heavenly that lost me money was NIKOLA. I’m actually holding onto to it too hoping it will somehow rebound. I bought it back in May when it was like $27 a share.

A lot might change here.

I bought some XOM and MJ ETF to try to cover both my bases.

Looks like Biden is going to win. So pick up them MJ stocks, green energy, and electric vehicles.

Also maybe an S&P or index fund. Stimulus will boost the market until tax increases provide you some buying opportunities.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Looks like Biden is going to win. So pick up them MJ stocks, green energy, and electric vehicles.

Also maybe an S&P or index fund. Stimulus will boost the market until tax increases provide you some buying opportunities.

Not sure of the stimulus. McConnell said it won't be as big as the previous one as the economy is in better shape than it was in spring. And who knows what's going through Trump's mind, if he'll sign it as a lame duck president.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/0 ... hip-434524
This is good news. I voted for Johnson last time and I've said for years america needs a third party, a center. I've had an epiphany recently. It isn't all I hoped for but Biden's the closest politician to the center absent maybe Joe Manchin in america. Certainly the closest in the oval office since Clinton who could get impeached on tuesday and go to lunch Wed with the guys who impeached him to talk business.
But IM hopeful. The markets had their best week since april. I truly think Biden means it when he says he wants the nation to come together. How successful he will be I dont know but he's about the only guy in politics saying it.

Biden's problem will probably be McConnell. If he holds up everything Biden wants to do for 4 years, then nothing will change and Biden
won't be able to implement his agenda.

NorthHawk wrote:Biden's problem will probably be McConnell. If he holds up everything Biden wants to do for 4 years, then nothing will change and Biden won't be able to implement his agenda.

Control of the Senate hasn't been decided yet and likely won't for awhile. It looks like Georgia is going to have special elections for both of their Senate seats as their law requires a majority rather than a plurality. If the Dems get a 50/50 split, they'll have control as the VP breaks ties. Georgia will hold their run off election on Jan. 5th.

The current split is 48-48 but Republicans lead in both Alaska and North Carolina. The Dems would have to win both the Georgia seats to win control.

Democrats win the Senate or the Republicans retain it, should be fine either way. The Libertarian Republicans will vote for legalization of weed, so that should be good. Government needs money.

Electric vehicles are the future.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Democrats win the Senate or the Republicans retain it, should be fine either way. The Libertarian Republicans will vote for legalization of weed, so that should be good. Government needs money.

Electric vehicles are the future.

Not sure how much effect a government legalization of weed will have on the cannabis industry. They've chosen not to enforce it in states that have legalized it. If they are to expand, they'll need to get more individual states to rescind their laws banning it.

RiverDog wrote:Not sure how much effect a government legalization of weed will have on the cannabis industry. They've chosen not to enforce it in states that have legalized it. If they are to expand, they'll need to get more individual states to rescind their laws banning it.

It will have a tremendous effect. One of the big issues holding back the cannabis industry is legalization nationally in America. Without Federal legalization, it limits where they can operate, how they can operate, and the ability to build national brands and chains in the cannabis industry. Federal legalization would open up the entire U.S. market to weed, which would create the large scale weed operations much like global tobacco where the big money will be made. I picked up an ETF. It's hard to pick individual winners in such a fractured market.

Aseahawkfan wrote:It will have a tremendous effect. One of the big issues holding back the cannabis industry is legalization nationally in America. Without Federal legalization, it limits where they can operate, how they can operate, and the ability to build national brands and chains in the cannabis industry. Federal legalization would open up the entire U.S. market to weed, which would create the large scale weed operations much like global tobacco where the big money will be made. I picked up an ETF. It's hard to pick individual winners in such a fractured market.

Most states have laws against recreational marijuana use. Those laws are going to have to be repealed in order for the cannabis industry to operate within them. A federal legalization may motivate other states to follow suit, but the big issue for the industry will still be getting those state laws repealed.

RiverDog wrote:[Most states have laws against recreational marijuana use. Those laws are going to have to be repealed in order for the cannabis industry to operate within them. A federal legalization may motivate other states to follow suit, but the big issue for the industry will still be getting those state laws repealed.

And even that will far easier with Federal legalization.

Aseahawkfan wrote:And even that will far easier with Federal legalization.

I agree with that. If the federal government gets rid of their marijuana law, it will make it a lot easier for the states to repeal their laws. I voted against the law here in WA not because I thought it was anymore dangerous of a vice than alcohol or tobacco, but because it would cause confusion as federal law would still prohibit it, that employees would get the impression that using it would not affect their work status, and I didn't want to stake a sign in the middle of the state saying "we love pot heads!"

RiverDog wrote:I agree with that. If the federal government gets rid of their marijuana law, it will make it a lot easier for the states to repeal their laws. I voted against the law here in WA not because I thought it was anymore dangerous of a vice than alcohol or tobacco, but because it would cause confusion as federal law would still prohibit it, that employees would get the impression that using it would not affect their work status, and I didn't want to stake a sign in the middle of the state saying "we love pot heads!"

I don't touch pot myself, but know a ton of smokers. In my experience. potheads are way better than drunks. Thus smoking weed is better than drinking. Less dangerous and less problematic.

But that crap they did in Portland scares me. Pot is very tolerable. I could even live with cocaine legalization. But heroin, opiates, and meth are different animals. People on those drugs lose themselves completely. They could kill a baby while high and not even remember doing it. My friend got addicted to heroin, it was like trainspotting. He lost himself completely in a way he never had before with pot. Almost died. He debased himself in ways he had never done before. Heroin should not be legal or methamphetamine. It shouldn't even be decriminalized unless it is forced rehabilitation and isolation from regular society. Heroin and methamphetamine are terrible drugs.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I don't touch pot myself, but know a ton of smokers. In my experience. potheads are way better than drunks. Thus smoking weed is better than drinking. Less dangerous and less problematic.

I agree. At the time when we voted on it in WA, I was afraid that a lot of our employees would interpret it as being OK to toke up before coming to work then get nabbed on a drug test, random or otherwise. The drug law did not make it illegal for an employee to insist that their employees not be under the influence of it while on the job. I was also worried about two conflicting laws, one federal and one state. And just from an image standpoint, I would have rather CA had gone first in legalizing it.

As far as my own personal experience, the only time I've ever smoked it was in college. It had zero effect on me. I never smoked cigarettes so I'm not comfortable around any kind of smoke. I can walk into a hotel room and immediately tell if it's smoking or non smoking. As far as others that use it, I do have one friend whom is a reformed alcoholic that has traded that vice for pot, but most of the people that I know that use it, like my next door neighbor, can be characterized as law abiding, low income, lacking in motivation, bouncing from job-to-job, etc. They aren't nearly as much of a threat to others as an alcoholic is, but they do tend to live outside the mainstream of the rest of the world.

Aseahawkfan wrote:But that crap they did in Portland scares me. Pot is very tolerable. I could even live with cocaine legalization. But heroin, opiates, and meth are different animals. People on those drugs lose themselves completely. They could kill a baby while high and not even remember doing it. My friend got addicted to heroin, it was like trainspotting. He lost himself completely in a way he never had before with pot. Almost died. He debased himself in ways he had never done before. Heroin should not be legal or methamphetamine. It shouldn't even be decriminalized unless it is forced rehabilitation and isolation from regular society. Heroin and methamphetamine are terrible drugs.

I don't want to make heroin and meth legal, but I also don't want to be filling up our prisons with non violent drug offenders, so I am generally in favor of decriminalization.

RiverDog wrote:I don't want to make heroin and meth legal, but I also don't want to be filling up our prisons with non violent drug offenders, so I am generally in favor of decriminalization.

I never met a heroin that didn't eventually become a criminal on top of the severe health consequences unless we're talking super rich celebrities who can afford heroin and don't work 9 to 5 jobs.

I know two heroin addicts. One a close friend. He started selling all his house items. We went to his house after he was doing heroin as he hid it from us, house was wrecked, everything valuable sold, and shopping carts in the living room that the heroin addicts who went to his place used to go out and steal stuff with. They would take the shopping carts and steal things, put them in the cart, then take the carts to their dealers to trade items for heroin.

I have known this friend for almost 30 years. This happened about 5 to 8 years ago. He had smoked pot for a long time, occasionally dropped shrooms, had done meth when younger. He's done cocaine before too and acid. Nothing every happened to him like what happened when he did heroin. It took over his entire life, turned him into a debased criminal as all he could think about was getting more heroin to get high again. He couldn't work, couldn't function, and just did enough to get more heroin. He was fortunately living on state assistance at the time, so had his rent and utilities paid for the by state. That's why his place was the hangout for the heroin addicts.

Other guy I know who was a heroin addict did so with a girlfriend. He used to let his girlfriend prostitute herself to get money to buy more heroin. He lost his license. He sold more heroin and got more people hooked. He couldn't work while high. He finally got clean and hasn't gone back thankfully.

No, I do not agree with decriminalization of heroin and opiates unless it is forced rehab. Heroin addicts will literally do anything to get their high back. Morality out the window, just find a way to get high. It is irresponsible of our government to rely on science for things like a virus, but not for drug laws. Heroin should be a guaranteed trip to rehabilitation. Letting heroin addicts walk the street is bad for society, for human health, and humanity as a whole. Methamphetamine seems similar, but I don't know any meth addicts. Heroin and opiates are terrible.

Even met a woman at work who had sons addicted to oxycontin. One guy was high on oxy while taking care of his 3 year old daughter. He freaked out when someone knocked as his door, ran off with his daughter in car, got in an accident, ran off into the bushes to hide from the cops leaving his daughter in the car. He kept doing this. His brother did it too, almost burned the house down because he couldn't feel the cigarette burning his hand and the seat he was sitting on, Noticed when it caught on fire. One of her sons ODed before I left, the one with the daughter. I think the other eventually left to life on the streets.

I hear my nephew started heroin and disappeared somewhere in California. No one has seen him for years. He is likely dead, but who knows.

Humans who let people wander around doing heroin do not care about other humans. The science is clear: heroin is a slave drug. It will enslave you to it and cause you to completely lose any sense of morality or reason. It should not be legalized. It's irresponsible of the Oregon government to allow this. I do agree the sentence should not be jail as that is a waste of resources. But heroin addicts should be forced into rehabilitation, detoxed, and freed from that drug's hyper addictive nature.

I pretty much have adapted a Libertarian point of view when it comes to drug use. If a mentally sound person decides to use drugs, so long as it doesn't affect me or subject someone else to harm, I don't give a rip what someone else does to their body. The problem comes to what to do with them once they've destroyed themselves to where they can no longer function and become a burden to others or to society. Should I have to pay for their rehabilitation?

I don't see that there's a good solution to the drug use problem, at least not in our lifetime. It's one of those things where we have to contain it and mitigate the damages,

RiverDog wrote:I pretty much have adapted a Libertarian point of view when it comes to drug use. If a mentally sound person decides to use drugs, so long as it doesn't affect me or subject someone else to harm, I don't give a rip what someone else does to their body. The problem comes to what to do with them once they've destroyed themselves to where they can no longer function and become a burden to others or to society. Should I have to pay for their rehabilitation?

I don't see that there's a good solution to the drug use problem, at least not in our lifetime. It's one of those things where we have to contain it and mitigate the damages,

This why I could never be Libertarian. Heroin is clearly not a drug that should be legal or overlooked, most opiates are not. They are highly destructive to our society and should be treated like poison.

Containing and mitigating heroin damage means forced rehabilitation, detox, and removal of access as much as possible. People should not have to live around heroin zombies. It's not right to force responsible people to have to live around heroin zombies. Maybe you don't see many where you live, but they are plentiful in Seattle and Everett. They engage in all types of property crime. People should be able to feel safe walking in their neighborhoods and cities without fear of being robbed or harmed by some sick ass meth or heroin zombie.

The problem comes to what to do with them once they've destroyed themselves to where they can no longer function and become a burden to others or to society. Should I have to pay for their rehabilitation?

I don't see that there's a good solution to the drug use problem, at least not in our lifetime.

Actually yes there is a solution but the republican (why should I have to pay for it?) in you can't see it. The solution is not even going to cost any new money over the current abomination of policies on the matter (in fact it would be a substantial net savings*). If you simply replace the moneys we spend on interdiction and incarceration with rehabilitation and education you not only wind up with fewer addicts and far fewer criminals but you essentially put the cartels out of business and take a huge burden off the law enforcement community.

* Savings would be huge reductions in court and policing costs as well as huge reductions in prison costs. Not to mention less burden on social services to junkies trying to raise families ... which in turn will have the long term cost savings of having fewer criminals in the future as these children that would have been raised by junkies with zero options in life are able to lead more productive lives themselves.

c_hawkbob wrote:Actually yes there is a solution but the republican (why should I have to pay for it?) in you can't see it. The solution is not even going to cost any new money over the current abomination of policies on the matter (in fact it would be a substantial net savings*). If you simply replace the moneys we spend on interdiction and incarceration with rehabilitation and education you not only wind up with fewer addicts and far fewer criminals but you essentially put the cartels out of business and take a huge burden off the law enforcement community.

* Savings would be huge reductions in court and policing costs as well as huge reductions in prison costs. Not to mention less burden on social services to junkies trying to raise families ... which in turn will have the long term cost savings of having fewer criminals in the future as these children that would have been raised by junkies with zero options in life are able to lead more productive lives themselves.

I agree that rehabilitation (and I'll toss in drug prevention education as well) is a more successful, cost effective response than interdiction and I am all for expanding that effort vs. the law enforcement method. But it's not a solution to the overall problem. As a matter of fact, the odds of successfully recovering from a substance abuse addiction, even after treatment, is well under 50%:

Recent drug relapse statistics show that more than 85% of individuals relapse and return to drug use within the year following treatment.

https://drugabuse.com/drug-relapse/

The reason I am for an expanded effort in drug rehab vs. interdiction is that it gives a person that has fallen victim to substance abuse an opportunity to recover rather than just throwing them in jail. Recovering 15 out of 100 lives is better than not recovering any of them. But I'm not so naïve to think that it's a solution to the overall problem.

I didn't say It would cure all current drug addicts, the net reduction in addicts will be down the road, but regardless of how the programs perform in that regard it is not only more humane but less expensive to treat current addicts as outpatients than as criminals. Especially when considering the burden it removes from law enforcement.

c_hawkbob wrote:I didn't say It would cure all current drug addicts, the net reduction in addicts will be down the road, but regardless of how the programs perform in that regard it is not only more humane but less expensive to treat current addicts as outpatients than as criminals. Especially when considering the burden it removes from law enforcement.

And I agree with that. But that wasn't my point. My point is that the problem will still be with us.

Well if the standard is complete eradication of addiction then you're right, there is no solution. But that's more than just a little unrealistic isn't it?

Aseahawkfan wrote:People should be able to feel safe walking in their neighborhoods and cities without fear of being robbed or harmed by some sick ass meth or heroin zombie.

If that threat of being robbed or harmed by some sick ass meth or heroin zombie is genuine, then yes, I agree with you. But that's not what I said. I said that so long as what a person does to their body doesn't affect me, then I don't give a rip what they do with their life. It only becomes an issue to me when it becomes a threat to my life or property.

c_hawkbob wrote:Well if the standard is complete eradication of addiction then you're right, there is no solution. But that's more than just a little unrealistic isn't it?

My standard is not complete eradication, but it is a little more than a 15% success rate.

RiverDog wrote:If that threat of being robbed or harmed by some sick ass meth or heroin zombie is genuine, then yes, I agree with you. But that's not what I said. I said that so long as what a person does to their body doesn't affect me, then I don't give a rip what they do with their life. It only becomes an issue to me when it becomes a threat to my life or property.

Improper handling of heroin and opiate addiction does affect you. It costs you more in insurance, medical costs, taxes, human life, and general negative impacts of allowing a substance like heroin and opiates to wreak such damage. It's very costly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug-related_crime

The vast majority of theft, prostitution, and the like is driven by addicts looking to get drug money. I'm not sure why we're debating that. It's not a bunch of addicted pot users robbing people to get their pot fix. It's mostly the harder, more addictive drugs like heroin and meth amphetamine. This is documented, not just in wikipedia but articles all over.

So what? You let these people get addicted, they commit a property crime, then toss them in jail for the property crime while we decriminalize the drug crime? Then we end up with a roundabout system to jail drug users.

Forced rehabilitation and laws that prevent distribution using tort law are our best option. Not interdiction and jail or straight up ignoring it thinking, "If they're only harming themselves, then it's ok."

You want heroin addicts driving? You want them operating heavy machinery? You want them doing court cases or nearly any job other than musician or actor? Heroin and meth addiction are terrible. Then about the child trafficking, child neglect, and general harm to children from those addicted to hard drugs like heroin, opiates, and meth? Just let those kids suffer as long as it's not affecting you?

It's bad idea after bad idea by the government in my opinion. I would be building rehab centers, forcing rehabilitation, and using tort law to attack distributors, taking their money and making them pay for the damages. There would be no shrugging or 100 dollar fines. It would be straight up you're using hyper-addictive opiates without a prescription, you are heading to rehab, and start an investigation into the distribution chain forcing the distributor to pay for the rehabilitation for distributing what is in essence a poison.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Improper handling of heroin and opiate addiction does affect you. It costs you more in insurance, medical costs, taxes, human life, and general negative impacts of allowing a substance like heroin and opiates to wreak such damage. It's very costly.

You can make the same argument about obesity and over eating. Do you want to force people into weight loss clinics if they have a BMI over 30? Or what about tobacco usage? How much does that cost taxpayers or raise insurance premiums?

Aseahawkfan wrote:So what? You let these people get addicted, they commit a property crime, then toss them in jail for the property crime while we decriminalize the drug crime? Then we end up with a roundabout system to jail drug users.

I don't know what the answer is. We know what it isn't: The war on drugs/interdiction/law enforcement angle doesn't work with a very high degree of success. Neither does education/rehabilitation. The best we can hope for is to rehab those that want to save themselves, give them a way out if they want it.

That's why I say that at this point, the problem is unsolvable.

That vaccine news sure helped my portfolio. Damn.

RiverDog wrote:You can make the same argument about obesity and over eating. Do you want to force people into weight loss clinics if they have a BMI over 30? Or what about tobacco usage? How much does that cost taxpayers or raise insurance premiums?

Are you saying overeating and tobacco are as scientifically bad as heroin and methamphetamine? Are you really making this argument? You've seen people robbing other people's houses or sleeping in front of buildings in Seattle waiting to get their tobacco or twinkie fix? You've seen their houses destroyed and laying around chasing the dragon because they didn't get a burger or a hit on the vape pen? Really? Are you that uneducated on heroin and methamphetamine?

Now I'm picturing Riverdog's comparison of a smoker ODed in his chair with several packs of cigarettes laying around his chair and a lit cigarette in his mouth. Overdosed from tobacco. Or a fat person with several boxes of twinkies and a half-eaten twinkie hanging out of his mouth as the paramedics bust in shouting, "We've got another twinkie overdose. Damn Hostess, damn them."

I don't know what the answer is. We know what it isn't: The war on drugs/interdiction/law enforcement angle doesn't work with a very high degree of success. Neither does education/rehabilitation. The best we can hope for is to rehab those that want to save themselves, give them a way out if they want it.

That's why I say that at this point, the problem is unsolvable.

Education and rehabilitation works better than letting them walk the street robbing people and hurting their close loved ones.

The problem is unsolvable for what percentage? It's not unsolvable for all people.

Why would you ok the distribution of a poison as dangerous as heroin? What do you plan to allow next? Bath salts? Do you not have any lines drawn on what you would allow a consumer to purchase?

RiverDog wrote:You can make the same argument about obesity and over eating. Do you want to force people into weight loss clinics if they have a BMI over 30? Or what about tobacco usage? How much does that cost taxpayers or raise insurance premiums?

Aseahawkfan wrote:Are you saying overeating and tobacco are as scientifically bad as heroin and methamphetamine?

Of course, not. I'm saying what I said (sounds like a Yogism). My point is that if you want to use an economic argument to justify taking away someone's freedom, we can very easily extend that same argument to other unhealthy activities. After all, far more people die from heart disease and lung cancer than die of illegal drug use.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Education and rehabilitation works better than letting them walk the street robbing people and hurting their close loved ones.

Agreed. I've already said that I support rehab/education vs. law enforcement/interdiction.

Aseahawkfan wrote:The problem is unsolvable for what percentage? It's not unsolvable for all people.

I can't put a number on it. All I can say that it will always be a major societal problem. And yes, it is solvable for some people, but not near enough for it not to be considered a major problem.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Why would you ok the distribution of a poison as dangerous as heroin? What do you plan to allow next? Bath salts? Do you not have any lines drawn on what you would allow a consumer to purchase?

Where was it that I said that I was OK with the distribution and/or sale of it? I'm talking about the end user, not the dealer/manufacturer. I do not want to fill up our jails with drug addicts unless they are a danger to our society.

Aseahawkfan wrote:That vaccine news sure helped my portfolio. Damn.

Yes, the vaccine news is wonderful! There's still some hurdles to clear as they need to confirm the efficacy rate, perhaps by early December, and subject their test results to a thorough peer review before they apply for emergency use authorization. But if it is as effective as they claim, 90%+, it would require fewer people to receive the vaccine in order to reach herd immunity. Fauci was hoping for 70% efficacy.

Aseahawkfan wrote:A Biden victory looks mostly assured barring a surprise. What does that mean for your money?

1. Taxes are going up which will have the reverse effect of the Trump tax cuts causing a tax-fueled drop in corporate earnings, which will likely lead to a sharp but temporary stock market drop due to lower earnings and PE ratios.

2. Weed will be legalized nationally and likely push other nations to legalize globally. Might be a good time to pick up some quality weed stocks or a weed ETF.

3. Medical companies will likely be a mixed bag depending on how Biden implements modifications to healthcare. There may be additional downward pressure on medical stocks as price controls and nationalization will lead to a drop in profits and limits profiteering in medicine. We will have to see the effect of the final plan.

4. Alternative energy will be big. Biden seems intent on pushing alternative energy which will make alternative energy companies like Tesla or Next Era Energy more attractive as well as push big energy companies to push harder into sustainable energy.

5. There will likely be massive stimulus. This should provide some good tailwinds for economic growth.

6. Regulations will be big on business. The overall economic effect of regulations is hard to determine and will vary by industry.

7. Possible short-term trades if the Democrats take the Senate and the Presidency while maintaining the House involve gun stocks as people will load up on ammo and guns before the Democrats implement harder gun laws.

Hope you have some cash at the ready to take advantage of the change.

The Dems have to play the R's game and can start with the Trump tax cuts.
It's been reported that 75% of those cuts went to the top earners (most wealthy) so Biden needs to announce early that they will keep the trillion dollar cuts, but change them
so the majority of wage earners get 75% of that trillion dollars. So for instance if those cuts saved someone $1000 per year, they will now save $3000 - or put it in monthly
numbers and say if someone was saving $100/month in tax under the Trump plan, they would now save $300. This would do the following:

Economically
More money will be spent in the economy when it begins to really recover after covid. People who have an extra $200 will probably spend it at their local store or buy a new fridge or stove
or car thus generating more economic activity and helping small and medium sized business. This would have a huge impact not unlike a stimulus package except it would be more impactful
on the economy but not as much on the stock market in the early days as people begin to pay off some debts along with purchases.

Politically
It would help the Dems in Georgia and also address the concerns people in trumpworld are worried about with the Dems raising taxes. This could help ease some tensions and maybe
limit some of the fringe support for DJT thus making their impact less. They could also start painting the R's as puppets of the very rich and not a party of the common people when
they oppose it.

Playing the Republicans game
When changing the tax code also add in an extra 1 or 1.5% tax on those making $480,000 or more and when the R's object, sell it to the people as them not caring about the workers
and are more concerned that someone making $41000 per month has to pay an extra $100 per month in taxes that would have otherwise gone to offshore bank accounts. It might just
swing the Georgia Senate runoff in favor of the Dems. That extra 1-1.5% tax revenue could be sold as paying down the debt and paying for infrastructure improvements/replacements along with some tax cuts for small
and medium sized business.

They've already said on day one Biden has a list of executive orders he will implement to undo most of Trumps executive orders.

I do like your idea though.

NorthHawk wrote:The Dems have to play the R's game and can start with the Trump tax cuts.

This one is going to be interesting. If Biden/Congress does nothing, we're all going to be in for a big surprise 5 years from now:

The ugly sunset I’m referring to is the automatic sunset of the Trump tax cuts, officially known as the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act”, which was passed on December 22, 2017. The Act did several things for individual taxpayers:

It reduced marginal tax rates. It increased the standard deduction. It reduced or eliminated some itemized deductions. It increased the child tax credit. It eliminated personal exemptions and exemptions for dependents.

If Congress does nothing to prevent the sunset that will occur on December 31st, 2025, we will revert to the regulations in effect prior to the passage of the Act.

Before picking a side on this issue, look at what will happen to three couples. The first couple is a young working couple with two children. They have combined gross income of $108,000. For this couple, and the next two examples, income will stay constant. By the year 2025 the standard deduction for this couple will be up to $28,000 based on a 2.5% inflation rate. Exemptions are no longer used in the Act, so no exemptions are used to reduce gross income. This couple’s gross federal taxes are $11,201; after the child tax credit for both the kids of $4,000 their net federal taxes are $7,201.

Now, assuming the Act expires, let’s look at the young couple’s tax situation in 2026. Their standard deduction is $15,600; their exemptions (that are now used again) are $20,000; and their child tax credits are $1,200. Even though their taxable income has dropped by $7,600, their total tax bill has increase by 54% to $11,501. This is because of us returning to the prior tax brackets and the reduced child credit.

Now let’s look at another couple. This couple retired in 2020. They have combined Social Security benefits of $60,000 ($2,500 per month for each) and are taking $48,000 in distributions from IRA’s. This gives them the same gross income as our previous couple. To keep things simple, we will hold their income constant as we did with the young couple. By 2025 their standard deduction will be up to $31,000. Because it does not tax some of their Social Security, they will pay less in taxes than the young couple. Their federal tax liability will be $5,782.

In 2026 this couple will also get an ugly surprise when they do their taxes. It will reduce their standard deduction to $18,700 but they will pick up $10,000 in personal exemptions. While their taxable income will only go up by $2,300, their federal tax liability will increase by $1,206 to $6,988 – a 21% increase.

https://presidentialwm.com/blog-2020/an ... t-expires/

That's what looms down the road for Biden and Congress. Those won't be increases just for the super rich as has been the Democratic Party's mantra for decades. If Biden/Congress does nothing, every single one of us will be seeing a significant tax increase. And to make matters worse, he's likely going to have to negotiate with a Republican Senate for at least his first two years.

Oh I'm quite certain that Biden will address the Trump tax bill as soon as possible. It won't be via his day one exec. orders bit there's just no way he "does nothing" in regards to the Trump tax bill.

And as far as that goes, starting in 2021 and every two years the Trump tax bill has taxes being raised even $75k and below earners.

c_hawkbob wrote:Oh I'm quite certain that Biden will address the Trump tax bill as soon as possible. It won't be via his day one exec. orders bit there's just no way he "does nothing" in regards to the Trump tax bill.

And as far as that goes, starting in 2021 and every two years the Trump tax bill has taxes being raised even $75k and below earners.

Ouch. That will hurt the recovery in a significant way.
What I was getting to was to announce it now so as to inform the Georgia voters of their intentions and not wait until taking office.

c_hawkbob wrote:And as far as that goes, starting in 2021 and every two years the Trump tax bill has taxes being raised even $75k and below earners.

Yep, that's true. For me, it means going from 12% to 15%, or roughly a 20% increase in my tax bill. But the Dems aren't going to be able to blame the boogey man Donald Trump by simply calling it the Trump tax bill and expect voters to let them off the hook. They're going to have to accept some responsibility and act to extend at least the provision that allows the lower income tax brackets to revert to their pre-tax bill rates or they'll hand the R's a potent campaign issue for the 2022 midterms.

Keep an eye on the two Senate run offs in Georgia. It the Dems don't sweep both, the R's will control the Senate, making a simple extension of the personal income tax rates problematic as the Republicans are certain to demand some type of concessions.

Like I said, it's going to be interesting.