That is really what I think. I do think that most (not all) traders are as I described, and therefore fitting the mold of the typical conservative Republican. The one shining light of course who breaks the mold, is Don Bright. He has devoted his life to helping others. His Nobel Prize for Humanitarian efforts is in the mail.
Florida is a majority democrat state, they send in Clinton to rally the troops, and at least a third of all registered democrats voted Republican. Jeb actually jumped in the polls after Clinton's visit. If Clinton was such a great pres, and the dem. elite represent our society so well, that would have never happened in a million years.
Ok optional, you need to go get yourself a government job and some therapy. Don't waste any more time talking to us gangster capitalist running dog pigs.
That's the whole thing that I'm wondering - I know that most traders are self-centered and wanna ring the register. Me, too. That's why I posted this thread here on ET, so that a bunch of greedy conservatives can give me the reasons why their side is better for the economy and the markets...not the bond markets, of course... WITH THIS IN MIND, what I don't get is what exactly the republicans do that is supposed to be good for the economy. It seems that we all just assume they're better for it, but it doesn't seem to me that this is really the case. That's why I started this thread- I was just looking for some specific reasons why the conservative side is theoretically better for the economy and the markets... SO LET'S HAVE 'EM!!!
In theory, from their rhetoric one might say that republicans tend to favor wealth-creating policies - individuals retaining more income through lower taxes, and corporations. democrats favoring wealth-neutral or wealth-destructive policies - taxation, government spending, and redistribution to the 'poor'. i.e., a republican argument is that GE and MSFT and pharmaceutical research have contributed more to the 'economy' and to the resultant standard of living of Americans than have welfare programs, labor unions, the postal service monopoly, and NEA grants. of course one can substitute Enron, Texaco, sweatshops, and Ashcroft to argue the exact opposite - this can go on ad nauseum. In reality, I'd say you're right - there's little substantive difference.
O'kay, I cave in. I can't resist, I absolutely must put my worthless two penneys into the argu....ah...I mean discussion. Elephants and donkeys are far more similar than different. They eat, they, shit, and they sleep. They want to tell you and me what we can and can't do. How we must live, where we can travel, what we can eat, and have so many regulations about virtually every aspect of our lives that whenever THEY so choose, THEY can pick out something at random to use against us, because it's "against the law". There, I said it. Hmmm, don't feel any better. Oh well.