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?

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.

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.

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.

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.