If someone is struggling to eat, heat their home and don't have health care, they should vote for Obama. Romney is going to have to make some very tough cuts (especially lowering the tax on the rich) . . . I wouldn't want to be in a position of relying on government assistance if Romeny is president. If you are looking at the big economic picture of the US, then I think Romney will be better than Obama in that department. But there is going to be some hurt if Romney decreases taxes and wants to balance the budget (impossible), and it will be the poor and lower middle class that will be hit the hardest.
Purely from a selfish standpoint, my tax situation would be better with Romney than Obama, but I disagree that the economy will be better under Romney over the long haul. I have pretty big concerns about a lack of regulation of Wall Street in general, but in particular big banks, hedge funds, and shorts manipulating the markets and a lack of regulation around derivative securities. I think ignoring those problems (likely with Romney) would help juice the economy in the short term, but lead us to a bigger financial melt down down the road. While I'm not certain Obama will address it either, I think he's much more likely to take it on.
You want less manipulation of the economy and you are pro-obama? Are you kidding me? We've had 3 rounds of QE already and monetary stimulus. Romney said he'd already replace Bernanke who is at the crux of most of this market manipulation.
Women voters don't care about reproductive rights. They care about Big Bird and Romnesia, which is why that is the focus of the Obama campaign.
QE is the most frontal, obvious and understandable manipulation you can have. Can't say I love it, but it's straightforward and we know when it happens. Totally a different ball game.
Not really when we've had 3 rounds of it and the last one is open ended. More Obama means more artificial pumping of the monetary supply. We'll feel it in a few years big time.
When QE happens, it's in the news and every knows it and understands the implication. On the other hand, the problems I'm pointing to are not obvious or generally understood. Obvious problems (like QE) are easier to adjust to than insidious one. I hope I'm wrong about it, but if I'm not, if/when the bubble finally does burst it'll be a huge drop in the markets coupled with a long term mistrust of the markets and the recovery will be slower than what we've seen from the financial crisis of 2008.
Obama now using diagnostic terms most commonly associated with cancer in his "Romnesia" bit. Floundering...
"Stages" is a descriptor used in oncology, but it's also used for other conditions. I've also seen it used for Alzheimer's, which would be relevant.
