This election, Obama is the wiser economic choice

October 29, 2012

Even as our politicians disagree on a great deal, most experts can agree on the objectives of economic policy. The next president will not have succeeded in the economic area unless he accomplishes three things:

  1. Reestablishing economic growth at a rate that makes real reductions in unemployment possible.
  2. Placing the nation’s finances on a stable foundation by putting in place measures to assure that U.S. sovereign debt is declining relative to America’s wealth.
  3. Renewing the economy’s foundation in a way that can support steady growth in middle-class incomes over the next generation, along with work for all who want it.

Where are the candidates on these three issues? President Obama has recognized that the inadequacy of demand is the principal barrier to growth and has sought to bolster both public- and private-sector demand since becoming president. Recent work by the IMF has confirmed the premise of his policies: namely, that at a time when short-term interest rates are at zero, fiscal policies are especially potent. The president has also respected the independence of the Federal Reserve as it has sought to respond creatively to the challenge of increasing demand even with short-term interest rates zeroed out. And he has put the economy on track to nearly doubling exports over five years through a series of measures, such as increasing government support for exporters. He has made clear his commitment to taking advantage of current low interest rates to finance public investment and protect public-sector jobs, and to continue to promote US exports.

In contrast, Governor Romney supports immediate efforts to sharply reduce government spending even as economic slack remains and Congress—at the president’s behest—has already legislated the most draconian domestic discretionary spending cuts in history. Through some set of intellectual gymnastics, Mitt Romney concludes that a government purchasing a new weapon systems or the recipient of a tax cut buying luxury goods creates jobs, but spending on fixing schools and highways does not. He also seems comfortable involving himself in monetary policy, favoring a reduction in the supply of credit relative to current Fed policy. And his insistence that he will name China a currency manipulator on his first day as president, even before his appointees have moved into their offices, surely increases uncertainty by making a trade war possible.

President Obama has embraced the principles, though not all the details, of the famous Simpson-Bowles commission report on budget deficits. Like the large group of CEOs who made a major statement on deficit reduction last week, he insists that achieving sustainable finance means both containing spending (especially on entitlements) and raising revenue. The budget that he has put forward has been thoroughly audited by the Congressional Budget Office, and puts the U.S. debt-GDP ratio on a declining path within this decade. And he has made clear that in negotiations with willing partners, he is prepared to go beyond his current budget proposals to assure that debt is contained.

Governor Romney, in contrast, has not suggested even a partial approach to the budget that has enough detail for independent experts to fully evaluate. He has however insisted on the need for over a trillion dollars more military spending than was recommended by George Bush’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, and for 20 percent across-the-board tax cuts that independent estimates suggest would cost close to $5 trillion over the next decade. To offset these measures that have no counterparts in the president’s proposals, he has spoken of “closing loopholes” without naming any specific items. And he’s done so in the face of repeated demonstrations that even the elimination of every tax benefit for those with income over $200 thousand would raise far less than the totality of his proposals would cost.

From the Lewis and Clark expedition to the land-grant colleges to the transcontinental railroad to the interstate highway system to the original research and development that led to the Internet, the federal government—with leadership from both political parties—has always sought to lay a foundation for future prosperity. President Obama has continued this tradition, recognizing that in an uncertain world some investments will work out better than others.

While audits have found many fewer problems with public investments than most expected over the last few years, much has been accomplished. Major efforts to measure and act on student achievement results are now in place in most states. Medical records are being systematically computerized. Domestic fossil fuels and renewable energy sources are meeting more and more of our energy needs. New financial protections are in place for consumers even as the capital reserves required of financial institutions have been substantially increased and student lending has been streamlined. These steps illustrate the kinds of progress that a second Obama administration would strive towards.

Governor Romney has made clear a preference for using any available resource to reduce tax rates below their current level—in the hope that there are great investments that firms are not making, even in the face of sub-2 percent interest rates and the lowest effective tax rates in generations. If this represents a foundation for prosperity, it will be very different than the one America has enjoyed historically.

PHOTO: U.S. President Barack Obama holds up a padlock alongside Master Lock’s Senior Vice President Bob Rice as Obama tours the factory in Milwaukee, Wisconsin February 15, 2012. Obama toured the business to highlight his ‘blueprint for an economy built to last’.    REUTERS/Jason Reed 


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

Summers and Geithner – when I see anything written or stated by either of them, my skepticism hits the high mark.

Posted by AZreb | Report as abusive

Oh I don’t know. Romney’s plan to take us back to the Bush years sounds pretty good too. So hard to decide :)

Posted by AlkalineState | Report as abusive

There will never be a time when the solution isn’t “containing spending (especially on entitlements) and raising revenue”. That’s all we hear at every election. Raising revenue means stealing more of the peoples money, up to the limit of financial collapse. Containing spending always means future spending over a term too long to deal with effectively. Nothing ever comes in under budget, if there ever is a budget that isn’t laughable and ignored anyway. People should wonder why competition is applauded when workers are competing for lower wages, but ridiculed when any suggestion of competition is suggested for government and its monopolies. Government exist to ensure that only a few succeed.

Posted by LysanderTucker | Report as abusive

LysanderTucker wrtites: “Raising revenue means stealing more of the peoples money, up to the limit of financial collapse.”

That’s only if you rule out tariffs as revenue generation. Tarrifs used to be the main way America generated its revenue. Our historic tariffs ranged anywhere from 20 – 40% on dutiable imports. Now it’s at 1.3%. China still charges us 20%. So, why don’t you ask Romney’s backers the (U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other multi-national business groups) if they support the current arrangement or seek to make it more equitable. Most of us already know the answer to that, but go ahead and check for yourself.

Posted by AlkalineState | Report as abusive

“…competition is applauded when workers are competing for lower wages….”? By whom, the 1%?

Posted by PCScipio | Report as abusive

LysanderTucker: “Raising revenue means stealing more of the peoples money, up to the limit of financial collapse.”

Apparently, this will come as a shock to you, but countries can’t exist for free. Even 3rd World governments that don’t do anything for the people have to have revenue to exist. And the best countries cost a lot to run. That’s just the way it is. So it boils down to whether you want low taxes in a crummy, 3rd World-like country or pay a little more and have a nice place to live.

Posted by flashrooster | Report as abusive

We did this in 2008 Mr. Summers and it didn’t work.
If this is all Democratic advocates have to offer it’s time for a change to Mitt Romney.

Posted by thesafesrufer | Report as abusive

We did this in 2008 Mr. Summers and it didn’t work.
If this is all Democratic advocates have to offer it’s time for a change to Mitt Romney.

Posted by thesafesrufer | Report as abusive

MR. Summer – you column is idiotic. You ignore the fact that government is a political cesspool. You obviously haven’t worked with or in real government. If you had you would know that when you place appointees throughout the system based on their party affiliation – you wind up with good employees being led by buffoons. It is sad that we waste the careers of hard working people in a governing system that is not accountable or production – it has turned into a system of cronyism. Strip the government down and pull out the cronyism. Put a private sector guy in there and you will get better results because he is used to accountability. Your socialist agenda is a recipe for a life of misery and mediocrity. You do not understand – and the “nuanced” academic answers and social tinkering needs to be replaced by simple hard work and accountability.

Posted by xit007 | Report as abusive

Government spend does trickle down to private defense contract companies, medical industry and to services. Accounting for efficiency is what resulted in over $800B savings in medical spending.

Accounting for unworthy tax-cuts that republicans guard so dearly, is what’s next.

That said, social programs do deserve change in pay-for-work and no-freebees except in a small percentage of cases where they are justified.

People with bad-vision in power at the top starting with Reagan over three decades ago and regrettable resolve to follow the same doomed path by Romney, is high-time for self-correction and it does take some time to revert the damage done to multiple systems.

Posted by Mott | Report as abusive


You stated “MR. Summer … You obviously haven’t worked with or in real government.”

Actually, Larry Summers has considerable government experience. Here is part of his profile on Wikipedia:

“Lawrence Henry Summers … served as the 71st United States Secretary of the Treasury from 1999 to 2001 under President Bill Clinton. He was Director of the White House United States National Economic Council for President Barack Obama until November 2010.”

Posted by DifferentOne | Report as abusive

Fact Check;
Assertion: Obama has sought to bolster both public- and private-sector demand since becoming president.
Fact: Disingenuous statement since it is the Fed that has been printing money and any Obama efforts are crony-capitalism based which is essentially theft from one to prop up another.

A summary of Summers argument; The withdrawal of an addict from drugs is too painful and drugs in increasing quantities are just what the quack doctor ordered.

If one views Goverments as Santa Claus for adults then Lawrence Summer is just one of Santa’s elves. Tis the season.

Posted by JP007 | Report as abusive

P.S. why not a photo of a sober Romney rather than Obama looking like a lost sole without his teleprompter?
(Sorry I forget I was at neo-Republican Bloomberg’s site.)

Posted by JP007 | Report as abusive

Obama is the wiser (wisest?) choice in almost EVERY respect. I just heard for example that Romney wants to abolish FEMA- just another in the disastrous road Romney would take us.

Posted by Caspary | Report as abusive

@AlkalineState: You can do better than that! Your comment is out of balance and lacks your usual humor. Perhaps the election is getting a little close for comfort?

Romney is NOT Bush III. He’s not planning to don a Santa Claus hat and start sabotaging the US economy with unsustainable tax cuts, while shutting his eyes to the consequences. (Even Bush I avoided thinking about the economy because he didn’t “enjoy” economic affairs as much as foreign policy!) Romney on the other hand, actually understands how to monitor the vital life signs of the economy! He’s the first presidential candidate for a little while to actually understand that (perhaps since Clinton, though Clinton’s methods might have been different — perhaps more to do with getting a sense of how the people are feeling, the personal, economic & political mood — Romney would apparently be more of a numbers & analysis man but could still be effective at this).

Romney SAYS he’s going to reduce deductions at the same time as reducing marginal tax rates, and corporate rates.
Contrary to what Obama’s team have suggested, there are some MASSIVE deductions for Romney to go at, after he gets in office. On Reuters, David Cay Johnston has been detailing some of the accounting shenanigans (deductions) that corporations have been using increasingly over the last 12–13 years, to play states off against each other and evade taxation (some companies receive a tax REBATE from the IRS despite posting massive profits for their shareholders).
I wish Romney would treat us as educated people and share more of the details on a more regular basis. But if Romney is going to go after THESE types of deductions and level the economic game again between large and small businesses, if he’s going to simplify IRS returns in a revenue-neutral way by eliminating some deductions (enabling small businesses to compete more fairly with corporations that employ legions of tax-evading accountants), then I believe that would do some wonderful things for the economy and for all Americans!

If Romney follows Reagan’s ACTUAL game-plan (rather than the distorted nonsense propaganda that masquerades as “Reaganomics”); Romney will:
• Reduce marginal tax rates,
• Remove deductions,
= Increase taxation “by stealth”, by “removing loopholes” (neatly skirts around that ugly Grover Norquist pledge thing, using the same political tactic that Reagan himself used to reverse course without admitting he got it wrong in the first place),
• Thereby (thus controlling revenue, making the economy run more fairly and efficiently, and controlling spending on programs that don’t boost useful economic activity sustainably), Romney will help boost the American economy.

Obama is a nice man and has done some very fine things, but has shown over the last three and a half years that he just doesn’t know how to use his influence to control unsustainable spending by Congress (Dem/Rep alike) on pork projects that add nothing to real economic growth. His pitch for another four years during the first debate was basically,
“Elect me, and I’ll implement a bunch more incalculably expensive programs with unlimited amounts of tax money/ borrowing from China.”
There’s no better candidate than Romney to fix THAT problem…

As others have noted, no-one knows more than Romney about why the IRS coffers are not being filled as they ought to be. Now if you don’t really trust Romney to stay the course he’s promised everyone, and you want to make sure Romney is held to his promises and doesn’t get carried away by the extremists in his party such as the “tax cut ad infinitum” people; you might consider getting him to work with a moderately Democratic Congress.

After looking long & hard at the numbers from “”, and after reading about his handling of the economic crisis caused by his predecessors; I concluded that on the economic side of things, Obama has been papering over the cracks rather than fundamentally fixing problems he appears not to understand! The current feeble blip of economic “growth” is mainly paid-for by more borrowing from China, and a synthetic response to slight fall in oil prices over the last nine to twelve months. These things cannot be sustainable for another four years!

People say Obama faced a Republican blockade of Congress — which is partly true — but Republicans could not blockade or filibuster EVERYTHING when Democrats had a majority in Congress! They can’t even have it 100% their way with a Republican Congress. So it came down to priorities. Obama’s priorities? The same as he explained himself in the first debate, and the same as he has shown us throughout his presidency: MORE SPENDING (preferentially directed to Democratic Party contributors and constituencies!) We have shown in practice (to no surprise) that this does nothing good for the American economy, in the long term.

So the choice is yours. Whose leadership and economic medicine do you believe in? I personally think you have two good candidates to choose from. Neither is a villain. They both have basic decency. But in the current crisis, I know whose hands I would prefer at the helm…

Posted by matthewslyman | Report as abusive

A briefer illustration of the size and shape of the current American economic conundrum:
• 15% federal taxation by GDP;
• 25% federal spending by GDP.
Plus some state budgets that are equally bad.

These numbers haven’t changed much during the last three and a half years.

Clearly, for the crisis to be solved (for business confidence, employment and salaries to be sustainably restored and improved); these two numbers must be permitted/helped/forced to move closer together.

Choose your medicine carefully…

Posted by matthewslyman | Report as abusive

Thanks Larry, we’ll keep it in mind.

Posted by rikfre | Report as abusive

If Romney follows Reagan’s ACTUAL game-plan (rather than the distorted rightwing propaganda that masquerades as “Reaganomics”); Romney will:
• Increase deficit spending,
• Further shrink the middle class,
• Reduce exports, increase the trade deficit.
• Allow the Savings and Loan scandal to occur under his watch.
• Give weapons and cash to Al Qaeda rebels,
• Sell long-range missiles to Iran,
• Have a difficult time remembering any of the above, once placed on trial.

So yeah, vote Romney! Margaret Thatcher too, while you’re at it :) Good times.

Posted by AlkalineState | Report as abusive

@AlkalineState: Good — we’re moving back toward the sharp “AlkalineState” wit that we all know and love! I think we need a bit more of your wit, with all the nastiness that usually comes out just before a big election.

You’re right, I’m no fan of Ronald Reagan’s or Margaret Thatcher’s trade or economic policies (ill-judged or overdone in some cases), or their messianic self-determination in pursuing policies to the bitter end without first properly considering opposing views (Margaret Thatcher more than Ronald Reagan). At least Ronald Reagan had a human side, and corrected his course (if only a little too subtly) when he learned that he had made a mistake!

I do worry about Romney drinking the “free trade” kool-aid a little too deeply, based on what I’ve heard him say about that — but OBAMA has been drinking that kool-aid too! With economic policy, Obama seems to have been carried along with the Zeitgeist, and bamboozled by all the Washington “experts” at his disposal, and too easily led into legislative quagmires by congressional Republicans. As in the first presidential debate, he came into office with a prepared script, and found himself parachuted into a totally different drama to the one he had anticipated. Without knowing economics back-to-front, Obama didn’t know how to adapt!

With half a dozen free trade agreements in place, ordinary US workers will never get a fair living wage again until foreign workers achieve some wages/rights parity with their American counterparts. I think this problem can only be fixed in three ways:
• Renegotiation of treaties e.g. WTO to ensure certain minimum standards worldwide (with stricter standards of wages/rights parity within free trade zones), or
• Abandonment of free trade agreements, or
• US Dollar devaluation (with unpredictable consequences for the system of world trade).

There are many other fundamental problems with US economics that NONE of your politicians appear to have a clue about. The US economy has been flat-lining over the last three and a half years, for a reason: Obama hasn’t fundamentally changed any of the actual things that got us into this mess in the first place! At least Romney has much more of a clue on business and economics. At least Romney understands clearly that despite friendly smiles and their almost Confucian policy of “quiet” ascendancy, the Chinese are deadly serious about out-competing their North American counterparts!

I think a President Romney would make at least his fair share of mistakes before quietly reversing course or “flip flopping” when he learned something new (he doesn’t seem too eager to talk about FEMA right now — perhaps he’s considering his position on that). I would like to think Obama can do better than the last four years. Obama’s next-term agenda from the first debate didn’t convince me that he had learned anything from the last four years, but I could be wrong. Either way, staying with the status quo would be a monumental mistake… America might have to take a chance on Romney, and balance him and Ryan off with a Democratic Congress…

Posted by matthewslyman | Report as abusive

One more economic problem… Peak oil… il-crisis/

North America, heavily dependent on oil imports and with GDP growth tightly coupled to oil prices, has gone from a crisis caused by Wall Street fraud almost directly into another crisis caused by “peak oil” conditions. The little fits and starts we’re seeing in the economy now may just be an oscillation due to America being boxed-in economically.

Obama predicted this problem (though he may not have thought it would come so soon), and he had big ideas for averting this second crisis (federal capital for environmental start-ups, especially renewable energy manufacturers). Only, without a more complete understanding of economics, he couldn’t make his vision work. The result was, his big spending programs only created an even bigger fiscal hole! Obama’s agenda was designed for better times.

I would like to think that Obama’s spending programs will result in some long-term good (and I want to see many of his programs implemented), but I can’t yet think of any good reasons why a second Obama term wouldn’t be similar to the first one. We’ve got to get things done in the right order: fix the fundamental problems first, that are starving the American economy right now.

Near-term, the only way out of this crisis is to back out the way we came in: “surge” domestic oil production to increase revenues/employment & decrease spending, introduce a short-term oil price stabilization tariff, renegotiate and balance free trade agreements, use the oil revenues/ improving economic conditions to help get America off its addiction on foreign oil, rationalise the rules of the financial services industry, and then start the big spending programs…

Posted by matthewslyman | Report as abusive

Gee – Mr Summers was a political appointee under Clinton and OBAMA and we wonder why he writes this article. These are the tinkers at the top who stir the pot and leave the mess for others to clean up. It still doesn’t mean he has a clue as to how to clean up government ineptness – judging from the article he is part of the problem. His experience by holding a government position does not “knight him” or “imbue him” with genius. All he does is carry the party line trying to plead the case for his party and job in the party. yeah it’s pretty desperate. I like the rest of the posts here independently offering solution – in a non-partisan way.

Posted by xit007 | Report as abusive

Matthew, as always, your analysis is thorough, reasoned and enjoyable to read. Along the lines of your 3 suggstions above, I’ve been thinking recently about tariffs. What’s the downside to slapping a 20% tariff on manufactured goods from China? Our historic tariffs ranged anywhere from 20 -40% and in fact for much of America’s history, constituted her primary source of revenue (The constitution sets up two revenue streams: taxes and tariffs).

Now we’re tax-heavy and tariff-light. We’re at 1.3% overall on the import tariffs and anywhere from 14 – 35% on domestic taxes levied against the citizens. China still charges us 20% on tariffs overall for goods we send there. This arrangement does not appear to be serving our economy well within the U.S.. More tax burden placed on less and less domestic income. This is an arrangement that largely serves multi-national businesses. They receive virtually free access to one of the richest and most developed markets in the world. We are in a position to be charging more for access to that market.

I have to admit, Romney touched on this issue in the last debate, but after his earlier criticism Obama’s tire tariff as ‘protectionist,’ I’m not sure I trust Romney on what he says here. Neither candidate has been robust on tariffs, but here’s where it appears they stand:

Obama has begun 3 relatively small tariffs: tires, wind turbines, solar panels to protect from Chinese dumping here. Boring, token, but…. a start.

Romney says he would support tariffs against China (because we’re already in a trade war and losing it) but he has balked at even these small tariffs. His claim was that they run the risk of angering China.

So…. Unless new information emerges on their positions, I gotta go with the bible-burning, Christmas-banning, black nationalist, socialist, illegal alien candidate on that one :)

Posted by AlkalineState | Report as abusive

It is never right to do wrong to do right …

Posted by tomwinans | Report as abusive

Your headline should read Obama is the “lesser of two evils”. At least it would be the truth, which is an increasingly rare commodity in this nation today.

Posted by Gordon2352 | Report as abusive

Obama is the better man for the job…. unless you also consider his record. Every business venture that he invested tax payer money in has failed. Even his biggest claim to success – GM – has done nothing to improve the job situation (70% of GM cars built overseas). And the Volt? Ha!

But, ignoring his record… Well, that’s kind of like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football.

Posted by AttyJim | Report as abusive

I just think that this article is another PRO-Obama ad. I AM NOT Pro-Obama and will NOT even consider voting for this failure. His RECORD of the past 4 years gives me NO Confidence in Him for the Next 4 years. He has shown that HIS agendas are the only important ones, he broke many promises-some of which effected both economy and jobs, Never got immigration reform, never came up with a plan to save Medicare, has created MANY more taxes which cause a huge burden on small businesses, and on and on. This man is not the Lessor of 2 Evils-HE IS the EVIL. This country CANNOT handle 4 more years of this Celebrity seeking, hip-hop dancing, buffoon. VOTE Romney/Ryan 2012 For a REAL Change!

Posted by ColoKat | Report as abusive

ColoKat, it’s too late for you tea party folks. Romney is slipping in the polls again. His swing states are swinging away because he couldn’t hold them. The man generally lacked credibility I guess.

Posted by AlkalineState | Report as abusive

AlkalineState, we’ll let that be your little secret. I’ll want to see your surprise face when Obama is NOT re-elected. He’s toast.

ObamaCare is already causing us to lose hospitals, doctors, and health insurance cost spikes. In 2014 you can put all your personal identifiable health information on your Income Tax Return! Buh-Bye HIPPA! (Healthcare Information Privacy Protection Act)

The government is printing money and we are now $16 TRILLION in debt with no end in sight. That may not mean much to you, but we cannot afford 4 more years of Obama.

Dear Uncle Joe correctly said “…how they can justify raising taxes on the middle class that has been buried the last four years?” He also said, “We’re gonna raise your taxes by a Trillion Dollars!” Remember, he means everything he says!

Obama is FAR from the wiser economic choice, unless of course, you live off the government, or you are the government. The rest of us will be “put back in chains” according to Joe Gaffe Biden.

Posted by Seryusly | Report as abusive

HA, HA, HA, Mr. Summers you are to much. Oh yeah, the last 4 years have been great. Or do we just count these as the last 4 years of the 12 year Bush administration like Obama believes?

Posted by woopstime | Report as abusive

Romney lacks the electoral votes necessary to win the Presidency. The primary reason for that is his failure to articulate how liquidating assets equates to running a country. The government is not the asset, it’s just management. You can pare it down, sure. But Bain was in the business of selling off real assets. For America, those would mean things like…. Texas; Seattle; Our aircraft carriers. Is that the Romney economic plan. Sell our assets to China? Hide the money in a Dubai bank account? Countries are not businesses. We are stuck with Alabama whether she performs or not.

Posted by AlkalineState | Report as abusive

@AlkalineState: I read about that too: it’s odd (unless you consider the full cultural economic context) how far America came from one end of the spectrum (high tariffs, low income/property taxes) to almost the exact opposite! America would do well to reflect on its ideological journey w.r.t. trade and intellectual property policy, over the last two hundred years.

In my opinion, import tariffs should be reintroduced, although not at the 40% level (which was confiscatory, misguidedly protectionist, abusive and unfair). 20%–30% should be standard for countries that are not particularly for/against America, or for countries that clearly lack human rights parity. 5%–10% might be a reasonable standard for nations with reasonably similar human rights standards. Free trade should only be done under very strict parity of wages, rights, economic policies etc.; which are strategically allied with the USA.

One of the reasons why import tariffs are essential is because there’s no way to comprehensively prevent countries from cheating by finding some loophole in WTO rules that allows them to unfairly give anticompetitive support or strategic direction to their industries, or finding sneaky ways to erect artificial barriers preventing foreign companies from competing locally on equal terms. The USA cannot regulate what China does internally, or force China to apply their laws with equity; and China cannot force the USA to do this either. So import tariffs are required to stop competing economies from deliberately undermining each others businesses; and also, to stop accidental local differences from acting like an uncontrolled wrecking-ball for everyone. I believe that the tendency for problems in one part of the globe to snowball into a global crisis might be partially mitigated by a restoration of tariffs at modest levels.

You need to be careful with this though. For example, if you slap an tariff on imports of primary goods (minerals such as rare-Earth metals from China), this could put American high-tech manufacturers at a serious disadvantage in world trade. But this effect could be counterbalanced with a rebate on the import tax when the finished goods are exported. (This system could work administratively rather like the European taxes on business turnover, such as the British VAT.)

CAVEAT: I am an amateur w.r.t. economics. These are my current personal opinions (subject to change, but backed up with some reasoning as discussed above).

Posted by matthewslyman | Report as abusive

I hope that every veteran will remember that a vote for Mitt Romney is a slap in the face to everyone who has worn the uniform.

He promoted the Viet Nam War and then ran away to France to dodge the draft, leaving poorer Americans to fight and die in a war Romney pushed for.

If we later find that Obama was involved in a major coverup in Libya, I’ll be the first in line to vote to impeach him. However, we don’t know yet.

However, we DO know the full details about Romney and his draft dodging. There is nothing worse than a coward who helps start a war for others to die in. He does not deserve to be Commander in Chief. Do not dishonor our veterans!

Posted by truthrider | Report as abusive

@AlkalineState– Although the government is not an asset, it, together with the congress, controls the nation’s assets. My bet is, if elected, Romney will allow wild expansion oil/gas extraction and sell our natural resources to China, Japan, etc. in order to generate revenue and balance the budget. In the process, you may already know who made the most profit. The promise to plug loopholes to the wealthy would be forgotten, as it was never his intention. That’s why he did not present any details.

Posted by Freedom4A | Report as abusive