Originally Posted by cnredd

Financial advisers' No. 1 worry: A Democrat in the White House

I thought this was common knowledge, but it's nice to hear investors themselves making it official...

Hate the economy now?...If a Democrat gets in, you'll be begging for the current situation...

Originally Posted by dabateman

There is a difference between fear and fact. Just because there is a fear that a Democrat might harm the economy doesn't mean it's so. I'd say the odds of a Democrat willfully hurting the economy are about the same at Bush removing all troops from foreign soil tonight.

Originally Posted by MountainMike

Excuse me for noticing, but Bush has been a complete DISASTER for our economy. Perhaps one should check out the number of "economic disasters" that Bush helped us to overcome. (Clinton's recession, Dot com collapse, corporate corruption from Clinton's era, 9/11 total collapse, two wars, overspending by congress even now under the dems, international collapses and much more) This so called study of financial pros is really Republican asking other Republicans what they think. What no democrats in the business world? You need to check out who WAS polled for this survey instead of accusing bias. So blame it on the Democrats. Check out the partisan mix of financial advisors and you will see a much higher percentage of Republicans than in the general population I did....." The survey also compared and contrasted the opinions of financial advisors who work for insurance companies with those of independent financial advisors, either sole practitioners or those who work for independent broker-dealers.".....and could not find ANY "political" labeling in any of the sources. Are you just assuming that "all good businesses" are run by republicans?

When the housing bubble predictably (DOT com again?)burst, Bush immediately acted to bail out the loan sharks that are directly responsible. That predictably goes over well with financial advisors. Thats the dem plan GW wants to stay out of it (political suicide for an already lame man?)and let it have a smaller impact now instead of a greater one later. On the other hand, anyone seeing the increase in unsecured loans could also could predict the collapse of the housing market. Caused by LAWS requiring lending companies to be "fairer" to applicants because of perceived racial inequalities.

Bush is on pace to have doubled the national debt and tripled the longterm unfunded fiscal committments by the end of his two terms in office. You're basing this on the original faulty predictions made by opponents instead of the actual figures that have been coming in showing that it is less than half as bad as predicted and was getting even better. It is no stretch of imagination to call this extremely reckless spending. I'm sure that over 400% increase has NOTHING to do with the dems in congress. I remember GW calling for a 2% decrease and being demagogued for it. The imbalance in the trade deficit has been typical through all of his years in office. So now the subject is the "trade deficit". These are 2 different topics you know but if you want to talk about it check out the history and you will find GW is "nothing new".

Originally Posted by MountainMike

Bush DID bail out the loan sharks. The president DOES NOT control the "pursestrings", congress does. If you want to be in denial go ahead, but it is in the news. Now he is going for rebates, and no one in DC that wants to get re-elected can complain about rebates. However, does it solve the underlying problem? Absolutely no. Absolutely correct! Speculation was a main cause of the Great Depression and housing speculation is one of the causes of the current recession. Although they may be a recession coming it has NOT arrived yet. Check the numbers It is otherwise known as predator loan sharks, and they need restriction and regulation if you are going to deal with underlying causes. Yes more regulations just like the ones imposed by congress that FORCED them to make those bad loans. Congress made laws telling them that it was "against civil rights" to NOT loan to unqualified "victims". Rebates are a band aid in comparison.

Inflation is the other driving force behind what is happening, and that is coming from the price of gasoline at the pump. A big part of that can be blamed on the billionaire agricorps pushing for corn ethanol. They got the law passed to eliminate MTBE with ethanol and got their subsidies, thanks to hundreds of their lobbyist in and around congress. Sounds like the normal politics. And everyone KNOWS that sugar makes better and cheaper ethanol. (Switch grass too) Now they have land the size equivalent of California under cultivation of corn for ethanol. This has jacked up prices across the whole spectrum of foos and livestock feed.

Bush came to office with a surplus left from Clinton. Again you need to check your "facts". That "surplus" was only in the minds and papers produced by the experts. IT NEVER EXISTED. It was a "projection" not a reality. He started with a 5 trillion dollar national debt. He started with 20 trillion dollars for longterm, unfunded fiscal commitments calculated by the GAO. See even you are saying it. By the way may I quote Clinton on "balancing the budget" that he VETOED 3 times before finally approving it. "We cannot balance the budget before 2005 without destroying our economy and those in need" Bush is on pace to DOUBLE the national debt Except your numbers are the "original estimate" and have been cut by MORE THAN HALF since the "estimate" was made.and TRIPLE the longterm unfunded fiscal commitments. Like social security that he attempted to make better but was demonized by the media and liberals resulting in the usual "nothing solved". That would mean a $10 trillion debt and $60 trillion unfunded fiscal commitment.

The conservative Heritage Foundation has been harshly critical of Bush, an alleged conservative, for the current reckless spending. Yup the spending that BOTH parties in congress actually DID.

You are welcome to believe your Republican propaganda if you want to, but it does not represent reality.

PS: I am an independent Libertarian, not a Democrat.

Originally Posted by MountainMike

Congress forced loan sharks every business that loans money is a "shark". One of those "sharks" has your mortgage too. to make predatory loans yea they went right into these peoples cardboard boxes and forced them to buy houses that they couldn't afford. to hook unsuspecting customers That came into that office with all kinds of paperwork and signed a whole bunch more paperwork with about 5 or 6 required by law "disclosures" statements..Damn idiots just can't read contracts and when they were tortured into putting their x on them it was in their own blood. into paying high interest loans The rates were LOW and the problem is that now they are approaching "normal" rates. adjustable rates duh back for most of their lives. Yes mortgages typically are for 20 or 30 years and recently some are even longer. Sorry, but that line of argument has no credibility at all. I just don't understand the lack of credibility in the simple statement of fact. Oh thats right liberals don't allow facts to disrupt false logic or a totally deceptive "sad tale".

In reference to Bush being innocent actually If you can use the word "all" then I MUST use the word innocent even though that was not the claim.in all of the current reckless spending, I agree with the conservative Heritage Foundation, Bush signs off on all bills and all of the pork on bills and is ultimately responsible personally. He could always do what Reagan did, refuse to sign, send it back to congress, and demand that the waste get removed.Yes....and he has...hasn't HE. But nonetheless does this "absolve" the people that actually DID it from ALL responsibility?

The Republicans in the white house initiate bill proposals and the Republicans in Congress follow through. The line of argument that Bush is not have any personal involvement in the current excessive spending has no credibility. I did not say that he had "no input" I simply said that the DEMOCRAT controlled congress did it.The Iraq War he quagmired I just laugh all over those worn out idiot phrases that liberals use too often and just never bother to "update" because that "quagmire" dried up and is beginning to turn into a "thriving metropolis" us into alone is estimated to have a longterm cost of over two trillion dollars (according to two independent studies, one involving a Nobel Prize winning Harvard Professor). Damn two disqualifications in one attempt at qualification. Nobel Prize(can you say Arafat or Carter or Gore) AND Harvard(can you say liberal antibush). And I have a nice little three word answer for you........What Cost Freedom?