Investors Fear a Democrat Victory

Indeed, Wall Street is worried about the upcoming elections. Though the article unfairly takes some swipes at Gov. Huckabee for being "a loose canon" and comparing him in some regards to, ugh, John Edwards (which is incredibly unfair to any human being), it underscores a point that most people with any level of economics already knows: Democrats will hurt the economy. Arguments will come from the left that the 90s saw unprecedented growth, which, indeed it did, under the supervision of a Republican Congress, who was able to overcome many of the shortcomings of Bill Clinton. The economy is taking a beating in the liberal media, as I suppose they figure that if they can't lie to the American public about Iraq anymore, the economy should be the next target. We are no where near a recession, we have not had a single quarter of negative GDP growth and will not have one this quarter either. It's a lie.

The Congressional Democrats are all protectionist, tax loving, economy killing Liberals who will most certainly cause a recession unlike anything seen before if a Democrat is election President. Yes, it will be worse than Jimmy Carter's time in office. This batch of Democrats don't even have morals, let alone any shame, and their policies will nearly cripple businesses as they scramble to readjust. I know the prospects for a Democratic Congress are very likely, which is why this presidential election is so immensely important. We need someone in their who can wield a veto pen like crazy, and I believe our batch of candidates will be willing and able to do so. As taxes increase, it is we, the electorate who will feel the burden, as the cost of the tax increases will be passed along to us. The bottom line in capitalism is profits and industries will not simply take a loss when Congress slaps them with taxes in addition to personal tax raises. The industries will in turn, reflect these tax increases in the prices that we pay for our goods, thus causing the inflation tax. Additionally, taking hostile steps against the world community by threatening tariffs and isolationism, will not bode well for American products or the strength of our dollar and reflect no confidence in American manufacturing products, skills, et al. Incredibly, the Democrats villanize companies and the profits they make and demand that their profits fall and that the revenues are shifted to the government, not individuals mind you, all in the name of helping the average person without actually helping the average person. It is outrageous that all the while ravaging the free market and corporations, that the Democrats are so horribly dishonest or stupid as to not realize that pensions are a dinosaur and that our retirement funding is only as dependable as our 401(k)s and not Social Security, which they have horribly mismanaged for decades. Indeed, when corporations do well, we ALL do well, since our retirement portfolios, at minimum, increase over time. The Liberal system promotes an economic slavery of sorts, one in which they boo-hoo the power of the individuals to keep their own money and grow it in the free market with security in the 401(k), and attempt to strip us all of the ability and opportunity to see a windfall in the free market. The Social Security system is horribly broken and will only be "fixed" by Democrats with yet another tax hike that will lower disposable income, which lowers consumer expenditure and lower the value of the market. I could write scores of volumes on these issues, but I suppose it's best to stop here for now.

I'll conclude this post with some samples from the article for your reading pleasure:

"None of the Democratic candidates would give me any confidence in the economy because we're talking protectionism, which is always, always extraordinarily bad. We're talking about tax hikes, redistribution and none of that is good," said Mark Coffelt, president of Empiric Funds in Austin, Texas.
...
Among Democrats, Edwards wants to increase the tax rate on long-term capital gains to 28 percent from 15 percent, and tax dividends as ordinary income. Obama favors a rate of between 20 percent and 28 percent on capital gains and dividends.

It should be duly noted there is no mention of Hillary Rodham Clinton in this article. I'm sure part of it has to do with her having no experience or achievements to speak of, nor any logical understanding of what an economy even is. Not even a peep of criticism. Being a MSM article though, you know who they are pulling for, so that's not hard to figure out why.

-Caomhin

Bush on the Verge of Doing Something Spectacular?

John Fund has an excellent article entitled "Hold the Pork" published in the Opinion Journal section of the Wall Street Journal. The synopsis of the article, if you don't feel like reading the entire piece (a mistake, by the way, if you don't), is that the Democrats, in order to fulfill their undying hunger for all things pork, stuffed a ton of earmarks into the omnibus spending bill that President Bush can simply ignore the earmarks and direct the funds towards more useful areas, such as, oh, I don't know, funding the war. Here's an excerpt:

What Mr. Bush knows, and Congress doesn't want the taxpayers to know, is that the vast majority of the offending earmarks--the ones that aren't part of the actual budget law and were instead "air-dropped" into the committee report--aren't legally binding. A Dec. 18 legal analysis by the Congressional Research Service found that most of the committee reports have not been formally passed by both houses and "presented" to the President for signing, and thus have not become law. "President Bush could ignore the 90% of earmarks that never make it to the floor of the House or Senate for a vote," says Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who has read the CRS report. "He doesn't need a line-item veto."

Federal agencies would still be obligated to spend the dollars appropriated by Congress. But they could use the money higher priorities that would benefit all taxpayers, rather than on favors for special interests or political donors. For example, the $700,000 for a bike trail in Minneapolis could be used to rebuild the collapsed bridge in that city and to strengthen others. In addition, under such an executive order, future earmarks would likely have to go through committee hearings and would receive much greater scrutiny and publicity than they do now.

Sure, this move would undoubtedly inflame the Libtards even more than ever, but President Bush needs to make this move for a few reasons. First, they will fight even harder during the next spending bill to stop funding the war that they have been trying to undermine for political reasons. Second, it would set an excellent precedent for Congress to stop earmarking everything imaginable. Third, it would help to undo some of the damage that was done by the increases in government under his watch. Of course, doing out of principal is reason all on its own. What will the Liberals do? How much crying could they possible do over this move? Even they wouldn't be stupid enough to go on TV to attack President Bush for putting a stop to a series of irresponsible and ethically questionable (at best) series of expenditures. Even assuming the Moonbats take full control of the party and try to use this as reason to pursue a failed impeachment proceeding, the effects would blow up in their face because the public wouldn't be so stupid as to not see the real underlying reason that they would only be pursuing this action because they were denied from gouging the taxpayers in outrageous spending provisions that serve as kickbacks to their donors. It should be a slam dunk and rank up there as one of the best moves that President Bush has done during his tenure.

-Caomhin