Obama vs Romney - principal versus executive leadership

[Anonymous]

To start... please no polarization and vitriol. If you want to go there, start your own thread. I am looking for meaningful replies.

I am one of those undecided voters. I voted for Obama in 2008. I am disappointed - but I don't blame Obama. First, he inherited a HUGE mess (but he knew what he was inheriting... it was no secret). Second, the Republicans have blocked a lot of legislation to get the economy back on track (block and blame game). That said... if Obama is reelected, what will change? Will the Republicans stop the block and blame game? Part of me hopes they'll see the light and do what is right for all of us, but I know they are politicians and out to protect their party above representing their constituents.
So, there's Romney. He is not to responsible for or involved in the block and blame game (although Ryan is culpable). He has business acumen. He is an executive leader that knows how to make tough decisions that may be unpopular but the right thing to do. He knows how to get people to come to consensus in order to move forward.
I want to vote for Obama out of principal - he's been trying, and the economy would not be as bad if the Republicans had not played a political game with our future in the hopes of winning the White House this year. But....
I want to vote for Romney so this economy will turn around.
What matters more - principal, or the economic vitality of the U.S.?

Thoughts? Opinions?

[Anonymous]

I am not so sure about your characterization of Romney as knowing how to turn the economy around. He has a radically different view on this than Obama. It really depends on your theory of how government works. Romney claims he wants to lower taxes, cut programs, reduce regulations that costs small business owners money that they could spend on hiring, etc. Obama basically says he wants to do those things too but in a reasonable and balanced way so that we safeguard the most vulnerable, ensure that we are making long term investments that will pay off down the road, safeguarding the environment, etc.

I agree that Obama has been disappointing in many ways and has not shown great ability to forge consenses, but as you say the Republicans in Congress have made that damn near impossible. I fear, though, voucherizing Medicare, taking apart the health care reform bill, removing regulations on the financial industry, etc. I think you need to think about what policies you support, not just whether one man or the other seems to have better leadership skills. Even if Romney had great leadership skills (which I don't actually think he does, although I did think he did well at the debate) he carries with him a set of policies that you need to think about.

[Anonymous]

I think there is a world of difference between being a business executive (or, I would say, a corporate raider) and the executive branch of govt. What on earth is your evidence that Romney "knows how to get people to come to consensus in order to move forward." The whole point of being an executive is that you make a decision, you don't have to convince anyone that it's in their best interests, and frankly if makes you a buck and costs them $10 you still made the "right" decision.

Bottom line is that the president has very little he can do to affect the economy, and the things the govt can do they won't under either candidate because Obama is unwilling to do anything that might be "radical" and the R's wouldn't let him anyway.

[Anonymous]

P.S. on the one issue where the economic vitality of the midwest was at stake-- the auto bailout-- Obama got it right and Romney got it wrong.

[Anonymous]

You are assuming that Romney will do something that will revitalize the US economy LONGTERM (at least I hope you care more than short term - because a lot of short term stuff hasn't helped). I honestly do not see that Romney has any plan to do anything ... he is just talking about things ... and repeal of ObamaCare, even if it really is going to cost a lot of money, is not going to change anything going on now. Small businesses are not failing to thrive because of ObamaCare - that is a ridiculous idea. Large businesses already offered insurance. ObamaCare probably reduces their costs. Romney is all talk ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not so sure about your characterization of Romney as knowing how to turn the economy around. He has a radically different view on this than Obama. It really depends on your theory of how government works. Romney claims he wants to lower taxes, cut programs, reduce regulations that costs small business owners money that they could spend on hiring, etc. Obama basically says he wants to do those things too but in a reasonable and balanced way so that we safeguard the most vulnerable, ensure that we are making long term investments that will pay off down the road, safeguarding the environment, etc.

I agree that Obama has been disappointing in many ways and has not shown great ability to forge consenses, but as you say the Republicans in Congress have made that damn near impossible. I fear, though, voucherizing Medicare, taking apart the health care reform bill, removing regulations on the financial industry, etc. I think you need to think about what policies you support, not just whether one man or the other seems to have better leadership skills. Even if Romney had great leadership skills (which I don't actually think he does, although I did think he did well at the debate) he carries with him a set of policies that you need to think about.

I get what your saying. The problem is the Obama's plan will not make it to the light of day unless more Democrats are elcted into Congress. We'll be stuck in the same economic quagmire we've been in.
I don't love Romney's plan, but I don't think it's the embodiment of evil. PBS will survive without federal dollars. I don't think he'll be able to repeal Obamacare.
So, do we move forward with a plan that many of us don't exactly love, but will get the economy going, or do we play four more years of block and blame?

[Anonymous]

The answer to OPs question is the economic vitality of the US is more important. It is the most important thing and without it, we can have the best and most righteous principles in the world but no one will care. Romney noted Spain but there are others--tons of other countries with great principles but no strength either due to economic choices, their size or geography. The US is unique because of its size and geography--uniquely able to be self sufficient and immensely influential on both costs of the Eurasian land mass. However, if we continue to let our vitality erode, we will lost that stature and ability to influence the world and then our principles won't matter any more than the principles of France, Switzerland, or New Zealand matter to the Chinese.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there is a world of difference between being a business executive (or, I would say, a corporate raider) and the executive branch of govt. What on earth is your evidence that Romney "knows how to get people to come to consensus in order to move forward." The whole point of being an executive is that you make a decision, you don't have to convince anyone that it's in their best interests, and frankly if makes you a buck and costs them $10 you still made the "right" decision.

Bottom line is that the president has very little he can do to affect the economy, and the things the govt can do they won't under either candidate because Obama is unwilling to do anything that might be "radical" and the R's wouldn't let him anyway.

Actually, you do have to use consensus when merging companies. Otherwise the unions will block the merge with lawsuits or stage a walkout.

[Anonymous]

I really thought Obama would be able to work across the aisle to get things done in a bipartisan way. It was one of the reasons I voted for him. I've worked for politicians for years and have watched, up close and personal, how those types of bipartisan relations have completely degenerated.

But he hasn't been able to do it, for whatever reason. I was shocked when Romney said he'd do the same thing. Unless he's Superman, he's not going to be able to. This is an extremely polarized country.

I've been saying for a year now, this is a fight not between two individuals, but between two schools of thought on MACRO economics. Supply side or demand side. That's what people should vote. And just because Romney's been a businessman doesn't mean he knows macroeconomics at all. Most likely he will go with conservative supply side economist advisors. Just like Obama goes with liberal demand side economist advisors.

[Anonymous]

OP, your analysis is quite interesting and I can see why you're thinking the way you do. Here's my worry about Romney and Ryan - they keep talking about cutting taxes but they haven't explained how they're going to pay for it, except through vague generalities. I'm worried that the deficit will actually increase under them. Reagan got into office in part because he criticized the size of the deficits under Carter and then the deficit quadrupled under Reagan. My experience with the Republican tax cutters is that they think the economy will grow as a result and reduce the deficit but it doesn't.

I don't think Romney has the ability to get the spending cuts he is going to need to pay for his tax cuts so I think we will be worse off in the future. You seem have confidence that he can bring people to consensus on this. I don't have the same confidence that you do. I don't think he is capable enough to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really thought Obama would be able to work across the aisle to get things done in a bipartisan way. It was one of the reasons I voted for him. I've worked for politicians for years and have watched, up close and personal, how those types of bipartisan relations have completely degenerated.

But he hasn't been able to do it, for whatever reason. I was shocked when Romney said he'd do the same thing. Unless he's Superman, he's not going to be able to. This is an extremely polarized country.

I've been saying for a year now, this is a fight not between two individuals, but between two schools of thought on MACRO economics. Supply side or demand side. That's what people should vote. And just because Romney's been a businessman doesn't mean he knows macroeconomics at all. Most likely he will go with conservative supply side economist advisors. Just like Obama goes with liberal demand side economist advisors.

Me too. I think blaming the Republicans for not working together is a cop-out though. It takes two, and Obama hasn't tried that hard to work together - just enough to make a slight appearance that he tried.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, your analysis is quite interesting and I can see why you're thinking the way you do. Here's my worry about Romney and Ryan - they keep talking about cutting taxes but they haven't explained how they're going to pay for it, except through vague generalities. I'm worried that the deficit will actually increase under them. Reagan got into office in part because he criticized the size of the deficits under Carter and then the deficit quadrupled under Reagan. My experience with the Republican tax cutters is that they think the economy will grow as a result and reduce the deficit but it doesn't.

I don't think Romney has the ability to get the spending cuts he is going to need to pay for his tax cuts so I think we will be worse off in the future. You seem have confidence that he can bring people to consensus on this. I don't have the same confidence that you do. I don't think he is capable enough to do that.

I'm worried it will increase as well. I don't belive in trickle down economics. Keeping taxes low does not ensure businesses create more jobs. It buys the CEO a new jet, pays for kids to go to Ivy League schools, and have $50k birthday bashes. (I know the counterargument - buying the jet and throwing parties does put money in other people's pockets... but it does not create NEW jobs).

My worry is that if we keep Obama, nothing will change - no matter how hard Obama tries. The Republicans will continue to block all democratic efforts to stimulate the economy. And we will have another 4 wasted years that could have gone so much better - so much better IF the republicans worked with the democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To start... please no polarization and vitriol. If you want to go there, start your own thread. I am looking for meaningful replies.

I am one of those undecided voters. I voted for Obama in 2008. I am disappointed - but I don't blame Obama. First, he inherited a HUGE mess (but he knew what he was inheriting... it was no secret). Second, the Republicans have blocked a lot of legislation to get the economy back on track (block and blame game). That said... if Obama is reelected, what will change? Will the Republicans stop the block and blame game? Part of me hopes they'll see the light and do what is right for all of us, but I know they are politicians and out to protect their party above representing their constituents.
So, there's Romney. He is not to responsible for or involved in the block and blame game (although Ryan is culpable). He has business acumen. He is an executive leader that knows how to make tough decisions that may be unpopular but the right thing to do. He knows how to get people to come to consensus in order to move forward.
I want to vote for Obama out of principal - he's been trying, and the economy would not be as bad if the Republicans had not played a political game with our future in the hopes of winning the White House this year. But....
I want to vote for Romney so this economy will turn around.
What matters more - principal, or the economic vitality of the U.S.?

Thoughts? Opinions?

I think Romney's "business acumen" is to buy struggling companies, leverage them to the hilt, and pocket the profits. Is this what he has in mind for America?

The entire private equity business model is built on debt. Why should we give him the keys to our Treasury? I'm being serious.

[Anonymous]

I really don't understand the mindset that says "we'll reward the Republicans for refusing to work with the president by voting for the Republican nominee".

Also, I don't trust the republicans to reduce debt. Looking at their history both in Congress they drive up debt through tax cuts. If you think the country needs tax cuts then vote for Romney.

[Anonymous]

What makes you think Romney will be able to break through the gridlock? His own party doesn't agree with half of what he says (or 90% of what he said last night, since most of that was new).

Romney will try to be popular with his rich cronies, and propose policies that benefit them. He's running for Prom King, not president.

Obama sucked last night. Probably a tactical miscalculation because he was expecting Zinger Romney not "1,2,3" Romney. He was also blindsided by totally new Romney positions like "I'm not cutting for the rich, who said that?" But he was right.

The economy is already turning around. We are the right course.