jyamada;842488911 said:
What would it take to make you cross over to the other side? Social issues? Economic issues? You say you did well with Clinton....I assume you meant in the market and your net worth. Were you a bit nervous with your finances at the end of GWBush's reign? I was extremely nervous and worried that I might lose all my money that was sitting in the bank. How about under Obama? Have you made up all your losses and some? My mistaken belief for the past 20-30 years was that the republicans were better for the economy. I'm a social liberal but if I truly felt the economy would be so much better and for my own selfish reasons, my own finances would be better under a republican, I might consider voting for a republican. Personally, I've seen no signs of my own finances and the country as a whole, doing better under republican rule. Maybe it's just a coincidence. I don't know but sometimes it's better to be lucky than good.
I tell all my republican friends and acquaintances that they're probably better off financially with a democrat in the White House than a republican. They tell me no way....it's the republican congress that did this or the president is just a figure head and can't do much for the economy etc. Bottom line, democrats in the White House have historically done better that republicans, at least over the past 80-90 years. I was always under the impression that republicans were more into the finances and economy. Why wouldn't most republicans switch over if there was a pretty good chance that their financial situation would improve under a democrat?
On social issues I am a liberal. On international issues I am a realist (i.e. we need a strong military since there are a lot of people who would do us harm but a good realist will use the militiary only as a last resort. Cooperation is better where possible.)
On econmic issues I used to think that in certain areas the Dems were better and on other areas the Repubs were better.
So I saw it as a good thing on economic issues that control of the White House and Congress swung between the Dems and the Repubs.
At the time the Repubs as a group were a rational lot. Supported Social Security, Public education, public services, solid infrastructure, civil rights, and strong business.
But over time I began to conclude that the Country is better off overall when more people are better off ecomomically.
Better for the poor and Middle Class and better for the Rich whose wealth will grow faster if the Poor and Middle Class are better off.
Tax policy has an impact on making sure that the wealth does not get trapped at the top. The 1950's 1960's were the best time for the US population and that was a time of high prosperity and high standard of living for ALL and high taxes.
At the same time i saw the Repubs becoming more and more of a party of "Devil take the hindmost" "If you are poor, you deserve to be poor." "Who needs public education, all my kids went to private school." "If you want an abortion now, too bad you should have said 'No' then."
Then the Repubs (or a large segment") went crazy for ideological reasons: (i)shutting down the Congress if they did not get their way; (ii) freezing government credit (iii) refusing to increase taxes for any purpose even those they supported (all at a time when wealth disparity is highest it has been since the Gilded Age); (iv) attempting to seriously dismantle the safety net of social security and health care and unemployment insurance.
When the latest crash occurred who was bailed out: the Rich, stockholders and the banks.
In the late 1980's when the Savings and Loan crash hit, who took the brunt of the hit: the Rich, stockholders and the banks.
So at present the Dems are the party of the good economy and the Repubs are against it. For me the choice is clear. And you can count me as a person with an above average annual income.
