You are at least partly correct - a survey of CEO's had 74% saying that an Obama win would result in a crashed economy.

I've also heard a lot of folks who should know what they're talking about saying that voting for any Dem this cycle puts the economy at risk. While your particular CongressCritter may be a fine person, there's a good chance of the D's getting a Supermajority which would let them impose idiotic (and catastrophic) policy without fear of opposition.

As distasteful as it is, I actually have to (gag) support Sen. Ted Steven's re-election in Alaska. At least I don't have to vote him since I'm a Missouri resident and not a Democrat. ;)

Hi, Steve, I did read about that. I also heard somewhere that some economists say we are going into a 4 year recession. I am afraid that I'm going to have to vote against my good congresscritter because she is a Democrat, even if she is a blue dog one.

Yeah, I think so also. Look, Obama has promised more capital gains taxes..why not sell now if you can take a capital gain..hell, the market is falling anyway and you can always buy back in when it goes down some..

Although Republicans hate to see a Democrat in the White House, statistically, the markets, gdp, employment, interest rates and jobs have improved. That's historical fact. It seems a long time ago, but I was an institutional investor when Clinton was running for office. My Republican heavy, dominantly male office told me in unison, "shame on you" for voting for Clinton. Well, he won and the market went up. Incidentally, I am an Independent and vote on issues. The current economic environment is so messed up, that either candidate will inherit a mess - and the mess came from the top down.

Kathy - I agree that things were not bad during Clinton's first term in office, and actually was ok until the dot com crash.

However, Carter was a disaster for the economy.
I remember very well. Home Mortgages were up around 15 to 20 percent APR. No one could afford to buy a house.

And jobs were very difficult to find.

I will agree that JFK's tax cuts helped the economy, but Carter never, ever did anything good for the economy.

So, I don't think it is the political party that affects the economy, I think it is more the policies of the particular people in office.

I have a Democrat CongressCritter that I love, but I honestly do not believe that Obama understands economics.

Unfortunately (for you), you are categorically incorrect. You could do with a little primer on macroeconomics; the market is falling so quickly due to lax oversight policies and the belief that in a free-market system, those forces which dictate the free-market principles would work in their best interests in a self-preservational sense.

These companies invested heavily in sub-prime loans, and unto itself, this would be fine, but they in turn packaged these loans into CDOs, and disguised the junk loans behind good loans and convinced ratings agencies (Moody's, S&P) to give AAA or BBB ratings. These packages were in turn sold to unwitting local governments, and insurance options were put in place to protect these investments. Looking to get more action, companies packaged these insurance deals further into CDSs, which were in turn further packaged.

Basically, if you keep wrapping a box of sh**, it will stop smelling, but only temporarily, and the smell has finally begun to emerge. Everyone wants their original financial contribution back from these packages, but all of the value was paper-based, so basically nobody gets paid, and when nobody gets paid, there is no money. When there is no money, nobody gets a loan, and when nobody gets a loan, nobody can expand their business, hire more workers, or sometimes even pay their workers. Further, what loans you can get come with higher rates, so cities and states now have to pay more to fix your roads and sewers.

What happens when all of this transpires? People get scared and hold onto their money, pull it from markets and stuff it into the safest places they can find (not the markets).

So, while it is true that the NYSE generally likes Republicans over Democrats, this is due more to the fact that Republicans espouse free-market systems, and they leave companies to do what they want, such as pay CEO as much as they care to with little discussion concerning oversight. The fact that Wall Street fat-cats love the Republicans so much historically should be an indicator that the Republican party is NOT the party of the average American, but the Republicans are fantastic at pulling the classic bait-and-switch: stroke the hand that feeds them (fat cats) while pandering to their base about issues that really have no effect on your ability to pay the rent (abortion, gay marriage, etc.).

Interestingly enough, Wall Street is actually now becoming more Democratic, recognizing that they do need a modicum of oversight. Even the stock markets (nationally and internationally) dread the prospect of a McCain or Palin administration.

I would suggest that you read The Economist, a conservative financial magazine, which did in fact endorse Bush, but has since endorsed Obama, recognizing the sheer disaster that would result from a McCain win. Also, I would suggest you take Econ 101 at your local community college before spouting inaccurate views.

If McCain does win, good luck in your future "Hooverville"!

Actually, I took both Macro and Micro Economics in college. Did you take Marxist economics?

No, actually, high taxes on businesses chase jobs off to other countries. There are a few things I agree with Obama on in regards to the economy. We do need to stop subsidizing Corporations by allowing them to use H1B Visas to import foreign workers to take highly valuable positions in the technical field - when there are thousands of Americans who have the experience to perform those jobs. That program should end, now.

Actually, I took both Macro and Micro Economics in college. Did you take Marxist economics?

That's one of the stupidest comebacks I've ever heard.

Also, you contradict yourself in your second statement. You claim that high taxes chase companies away while subsidizing them to allow in cheaper labor. You can't have it both ways; if you want to end the subsidization, you have to raise their taxes.

Additionally, you claim there are plenty of technically capable people here in the US, but as someone who works in a scientific research field, I can tell you that Americans care little about studying or fostering science education. The Republican Party loves to rail against intellectual elites, but guess what? Those same intellectuals are the ones who invented cell phones, ipods, computers, the internet, modern medicine, MRI machines, cholesterol drugs, etc. etc.

In this country, we tell our kids to not be smart nerds, so we end up raising a bunch of idiots (see Sara Palin's children and Bristol's hockey "Redneck).

Further, the majority of new innovation in the 20th century was created and generated by immigrants and foreign nationals (Einstein, Salk, von Braun, Tesla, the list is endless), and the majority of the best science at our universities is being conducted by foreign nationals in residence in our country on the NSF's dime, mainly because there are not enough smart Americans to take their money.

So, while China and India are teaching their kids math and science, we're busy arguing about evolution vs. creationism, whether life begins at conception, and whether you have a right to shoot a squirrel with an AK-47.

Wake up, grow up, and go back to school and learn something.