Assuming the appeal of a Republican president is lower taxes, etc. I wonder how rich the Republican voters feel after 8 years with a Republican president. Since right-wing voters tend to be stockholders, they would feel at least some sting from the latest stock market dives and economic downturns. Or are they still trying to blame Clinton? Do they believe things would be even worse with Gore or Kerry?
Are you implying that left wing voters tend NOT to be stockholders? What about mutuals? 401’s? Roths? Or are you limiting your question to just those who own stock and not part of their retirement plans?
Former Republican, now independent, speaking here. Yeah, my portfolio has taken a hit. So I am buying more. I can piss and moan about the economy or try to put together a 10-20 year plan for when I will actually need my retirement account. Of course many who are seeing their portfolios tanking now will need that money much sooner than I. I would imagine they are a bit pissed.
I don’t know how things could have been much worse or better economically with Gore or Kerry in place assuming the dot com crash and 911 would still have occured. In my opinion, we are now seeing the repercussions of many decisions over the last 20-30 years, people living FAR beyond their means on credit, and simple greed. The last two are certainly not byproducts of either a R or a D administration. It’s just human, in the US anyway, nature.
Thanks for the response, it is enlightening. I’m a left-wing voter and own stocks, just as many others are. But right-wingers tend to be older folks. White conservatives tend to own stocks. I thought what I was asking was pretty clear. Put another way, when Republican voters vote for a Republican president, do they do so in the hopes of being personally richer? Is the promise of lower taxes a driving incentive, and after having a Republican president cut taxes, does that voter feel personally richer?
I’d be careful with the stereotypes first of all. Looking at the counts of those who actually got off their asses and voted this year, the country is still split 50/50 give or take a few. The reason I asked about stock compared to mutuals is that many people across the political spectrum have retirement accounts that are not tied to stocks, but rather mutual funds, money markets, bond funds, etc. These are the folks that I think are very difficult to pigeon hole as right or left wing voters. They are a good chunk of society who have the foresight to try and save something for the future.
Getting back to your question, yes, in my opinion, many Republicans vote for a candidate who will lower their taxes. Many Democrats do the exact same thing. Do you think it was by accident that Obama promised to lower taxes to 95% of the tax payers rather than promising to raise taxes on the other 5%? Nobody likes a tax hike, unless it is upon someone else who they feel is not paying their “fair share”.
Did I vote Republican in the hopes of being personally richer? I never expected to become “rich” by paying less taxes by any means. I did expect that tax cuts would be followed up by spending cuts thereby coming to some sort of balance within the Federal budget. I feel this would “enrichen” us all. But that never happened and please note that former Republican line in my first post. As far as feeling personally richer, looking at where I was financially in 2000 as compared today I have done quite well. I don’t give GW Bush a lick of credit for it however.
Being Republicans they are smart enough to know that the President is not in charge of the economy and that things are never so bad that the government can not make them worse.
Gee, I didn’t know 41 was old. :rolleyes:
I believe the mess of the economy right now stems from Democrats who refused to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Banks were underwriting mortgages to people who had no business trying to buy a house with their credit/lack of a job/etc. In the immortal words of Rev. Wright, the chickens are coming home to roost.
I believe Pres Bush and Sec Paulson are making it worse, by trying to artifically prop up these entities (and private investment firms) with bailouts. That said, these banks were forced to give these loans by law, so they can’t be held solely responsible. But there has to be a point where we as a country admit we fucked up, take our lumps with as good grace as possible, and try to get through this quickly. Giving money to someone who spends it all on hookers and blow instead of paying the electricity bill is stupid. But that’s what’s happening, albeit on a much larger scale.