Obama or Romney: Who's better for your finances?
One economist says it's pretty simple: Richer folks will likely benefit more from Romney's policies, while lower-income Americans will benefit more from Obama's.
By Kimberly PalmerWhen it comes to deciding which candidate is better for your financial life, the answer isn't entirely obvious. In fact, voters hold widely varying views on how the two candidates will likely influence the economy, often depending on their own income levels and financial situations.
Here's where Americans stand:
Voters believe presidents have a big impact on their money—to a degree.
"The economy is really on people's minds at this point, even more so than in past years just because it has been such a tough last couple years for Americans' finances," says Claes Bell, senior banking analyst at Bankrate.com, although he adds that "pocketbook issues" often play a major role in elections.
A Bankrate.com survey taken in June found that almost six in 10 Americans say their personal finance situation is either the most important factor or one of the most important factors in determining which candidate they'll vote for.
Still, Americans are skeptical that either candidate will actually be able to substantially improve their financial lives. Half of the survey respondents said that when it comes to affecting their own finances, it doesn't matter which president ends up getting elected. "It seems like people are thinking, 'We're stuck in the economic rut, and they doubt that specific policies will help us out,'" says Bell. Among those who thought that the president would impact their personal finances, they were equally divided on selecting the better candidate.
Americans are faced with two candidates who offer sharply different views on economic policy.
"The Romney crowd would say, 'If we have low taxes, and we get rid of regulation and reduce public spending, the economy will grow at a faster rate.' They're being guided by the (Paul) Ryan budget, (which includes) significant cuts in taxes and cutting back the size of the state," says resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute Desmond Lachman. Much of that is designed to stimulate business, he adds, "so you'd think it would be beneficial to people owning stocks, people in the upper-income brackets."
Lachman adds, though, that the Federal Reserve's policies under President Barack Obama have helped to buoy equity prices, and Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney would likely take a different approach. (Romney has said that he would replace Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.)
Obama, meanwhile, has focused more on economic policies that affect the middle and lower classes, including health insurance coverage, student loan support, social services, and extending the payroll tax cut. "At the high-end of the income scale, he'd be raising taxes, whereas the Ryan budget cuts taxes across the board," says Lachman. Obama has also supported the extension of benefits for the unemployed as well as other social services, from food stamps to Medicaid.
Of course, presidents don't make policies unilaterally, and each candidate would have to work with Congress to pass legislation. For Obama, that could mean working again with a Republican-dominated Congress. "Tea party members are not prepared to compromise, so I'd expect you'll get more of the same in terms of economic performance," Lachman says.
In general, Lachman says, people in the upper-income brackets will likely benefit more from Romney's policies, while lower-income Americans will benefit more from Obama's.
Republicans and Democrats feel differently about their own financial situations and the financial health of the country.
"Partisanship seems to be having a pretty intense effect on how people view their personal finances," says Bell. A recent Bankrate.com survey found that a third of Republicans feel "more comfortable with their debt now versus one year ago," while just one-quarter of Democrats said the same. Possible reasons include that Republicans might fall into the higher-income bracket and have lower debt levels, or that Republicans tend to be more fiscally conservative in both their private lives and political beliefs, says Bell.
Bell believes respondents who support Obama also tend to feel more optimistic about the economy, and to "feel things are going better than they are," while Romney supporters tend to "feel things are going worse than they actually are." The intense emotions surrounding the election, he says, appear to be affecting perceptions of the economy.
Age and income level have an influence on how voters perceive the election.
Age also has an impact on voters' views. Bankrate.com found that among voters under age 30, 10 percent said their personal financial situation will be better under Romney, while 29 percent said it will be better under Obama.
A recent Pew report found that 63 percent of Americans say Republicans "favor the rich over the middle class and poor," and seven in 10 "believe the policies of a President Mitt Romney would be good for wealthy people." Meanwhile, six in 10 respondents said Obama's policies will help the poor, and half said they will help the middle class. Pew concludes that among middle-class adults, "neither candidate has sealed the deal."
As both candidates make their case to voters in the final months leading up to the election, each will try to do just that.
More from US News & World Report
- American dream alive and well -- just not in America
- Who's better off under President Barack Obama
- Romney to Voters: You Can't Handle the Truth
More boohooo from the democratic gimme crowd.
You're so progressive that you have lapped us in time and you coming up from behind. That's why your pathetic King and Messiah OBUTTH0LE wants to use failed european socialist policies the likes of greece and spain.
You wont be progressive when you run out of other peoples money and the economy IS NOT going to get better if Obama stays in office. The rich have already decided to keep their money for themselves as long as he is in office. call it evil, unpatriotic, greedy blah blah blah. Call it your stupid enough to vote for him even though you know the rich still wont create jobs for another 4 years.
Do you really think they will care if Obama is reelected? It isn't going to hurt them but it is going to REALLY SCREW YOU AND ME! Elect Romney, lower our highest taxes in the world and watch jobs come back.
Oh and PS dumbfux, 4 outta 5 of the richest people in america are democrats.
Both Obama and Romney are socialists, so we can't get much out of either of them.
However, Mitt has yet to go to some foreign country and express his views that America needs to apologize for everything from past wars to present wealth.
So, although neither is perfect, I think I'll put my vote on Romney....Afterall, if you don't vote for the Republican, you're actually voting for the tanned liar-in-chief!
Obama is better for the economy than Mitt Romney, anyone who says differently are only listening to other people and not researching the facts. Look at both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama Websites and look at all there policies half the Republicans are pulling away from Romney even most of the women voters that are Republican don't trust him. So tell me whose worse almost every war we fought has been started by Republicans and it took a democrate to pull us out. And no president could of recovered the amount of jobs or revenue we lost in four years and it's unlikely that next four years will make much a difference no matter whose president will clear the debt and recover all the jobs lost. There won't be a full recover for at least for a decade or more. Everyone needs to do there research to make a clear choice, over half the country votes for the same person there friends or family does without even knowing there true policies. Bush started all this and left all of us with nearly a $11 trillion debt and most of it was done in his last term then add the tax cuts for the rich. I pay over 23% in taxes while the rich pay 13% or less and i make only 10 to 20 thousand a year without any government help Obama is the better choice for me.
Mitt Romney is OBVIOUSLY the best choice for our finances.
Obama plans to TAX us into oblivion.
By the way, what's up with this new trend by the Cult of Obama?
They are writing on their hands to show support.
Now Obama plans to fly HIS OWN FLAG!!!!!
This is exactly how the NAZI PARTY started.
Swastika symbols and a Nazi flag.
I always said Obama is a narcissistic, wannabe socialist dictator.
History repeats itself as we stand by and watch.
Obama is not Hitler you say????
I bet he will throw all of us in prision for speaking out againt him if he is re-elected.
This is already evident by the reaction of the hypocritical liberals who claim they believe in Freedom of Speech, as long as it is in support of their agenda.
All these politicians lie!! No matter who it is. Bush promised to put lockbox on SS but he didn't, he kept taking out. Also he is the one who had to go to war with Iraq to get even for his daddy. That's why the rich got tax breaks and now they won't give them up. Don't forget that!! Obama came into a big deficit. Where is all the surplus that Clinton had when he left office? Bush spent it all!! Also Obama can't get anything done when Republicans don't allow him to dothings unless they get what they want especially tax cuts for those rich A----! Also Mitt the Witt is so rich why does he have to run anyway? Hides his money in off shore accounts so he doesn't have to pay taxes. He should also stop using his wife's illness to get in!! I think we will be worse off with a republican running mthey are always for the rich!! Also just listen to what The Witt says about not caring about us. He's Mormon and thinks we should take care of ourselves, but we weren't born with a silverspoon!!!!
There are many with strong opinions, but don't know a thing about debt-financing. First of all that hog-wash about Obama adding trillions to the federal debt is pure bull. Here is where all the debt comes from. On Jan-09, the date Obama was sworn in, the National Debt according to BARRON's was $10.7 trillion...but…there was another $1.3 trillion deficit. By the way, the largest budget deficit in history. (It cost $3.6 trillion to run he government for a year, and only $2.3 trillion of tax revenues came in. ) Are you still with me? That adds up to $12 trillion. But hold on…At that time, it was also known that the budget deficit would repeat itself….it would be at least $1.3 trillion/year into the foreseeable future until such time as revenues = expenditures. That means for fiscal 2010 to 2013, the years that Obama would inherit these “hidden” costs. So add $1.3 trillion x 4 years = $4.2 trillion to the $12 trillion sub-total + $4.2 trillion = $16.2 trillion….and that is before President Obama spends as much as a dime! All of it is the Bush era debt legacy…..and by the way, that isn’t the end of it, because we have to pay interest on all of it. That’s right! Money borrowed through the sale of 30 yr treasuries sold in 2002, must continue to pay the semi-annual coupons for another 20 years….and that includes the last issue of Bonds at the time Bush left office. Tat last budget, with the deficit of $1.3 trillion, the biggest annual deficit in history, had to be borrowed by selling more bonds. So from early 2009 onward, in addition to debt already piled up, we have another $1.3 trillion to pay intererest on through 2039. Now lets talk about what Obama spent. Obama had to spend all $2.3 trillion a year that were collected in taxes + 1.3 trillion dollars a year in Bush’s deficit legacy costs. Remember it costs $3.6 trillion/year to run the government + the costs of two wars (yeah, money was borrowed off the books for that project), and the Bush tax cuts which guaranteed we would have to continue to borrow money….perpetuating the deficit. So Obama, by the time 4 years is up will have spent $3.6 trillion x 4 = $14.4 trillion. Now subtract the tax revenues, $2.3 trillion x 4 = $9.2 trillion. The difference between $14.4 trillion - $9.2 trillion = $5.2 trillion. Of this sub-total, 4 years of Bush legacy budget deficits = $1.3 trillion x 4 = $4.2 trillion. Subtract that expense that was imposed upon President Obama’s budget, $5.2-$4.2 = $1 trillion. So….that amount of added spending that can be justly attributed to Obama is $1 trillion over 4 years. Too bad many are a sucker for every negative piece of propaganda and bumper sticker. Pick up a copy of BARRON’s weekly and study it. When you get to the Market Watch section, you’ll see where they publish a running tally of the Statutory Debt Limit, and where we are as of today.
I for one am a lot worse off these last 4 years. I have been steadily employed but have watched my paycheck buy less and less. We have had no raises since 2007 and the cost of living ( the true cost not media spin) has gone up 16%. True gasoline was up during the summer of 2008 thanks in part to the Big Banks like Citi, BofA, Goldman -Suchs and JP Morgan all using shadow companies to trade up oil commodities, but over all gasoline stayed in the $2.29-$2.69 a gallon range.
Since Obama took office gasoline ranges slightly below $3.00 to nearly $4.00 a gallon, food prices for basic goods( bread, milk, ect) have jumped 16% and utiliies have sky rocketed because of regulations. My wife finally found a job last month after two years unemplyed making 35% LESS for doing the same work. Now looking at MSN Money's article from yesterday the CBO has said that over 6 Million middle class are going to pay higher taxes (penalties) next year because they aren't insured. Several of the Big Banks have gotten away with fraud, theft and forgery because of Obama's DOJ and SEC appointees. Obama renominated Bernanke as Fed Chairman and he was confirmed by a Democrat controlled Senate and House. Mr. Bernanke's monetary policies helped create the spike in commodity prices through money given to the banks that immediately take the money to the trading desks to make obscene profits.
I Hope enough Americans are tired of high unemployment racial polarization, apologizing to our enemies, uncontrolled government spending and out right criminal activity within this adminstration to make a BIG CHANGE in November. If not the USA that we know will never recover.
How much more time does he get? Should he be excused for doing nothing the first four years?
The excuses that people make for him are unbelievable, when will he take responsibility for anything.
Learning to really manage money will do waaaaaaaaaay more than any candidate although each candidate has some small pluses and minuses
1. GET AN EDUCATION if you are newly grad engineer you have your pick of high paying jobs, many fields have a strong growth future like this, even some that do not require college. whats your plan.
2. Save money, save money,save money most of the stuff you want you do not need.
3.Invest your savings wisely, if you understand investing do it yourself, if not get somehelp
4. Avoid paying taxes, you should be plannning a tax strategy for 2013 now Not just tossing reciepts in a box.
No president will do more for you than having a sound plan in these 4 areas,but each of these areas will be effected by who is elected
1. Many times President Obama has taken steps to lower the cost of education, new GI bIll, having government assume student loans and lower interest rates, increasing pell grants. Mr Romney want to cut this type of social support.
2. Saving is something you must do
3 Investing wisely is not really effected by either candidate both of them wish to support growth.
4. Both candidates have different plans to lower your taxes. Do you know both plans,if not you are not prepared for next year
RELATED ARTICLES
DATA PROVIDERS
Copyright © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE and AMEX. See delay times for other exchanges.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Thomson Reuters (click for restrictions). Real-time quotes provided by BATS Exchange. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Interactive Data Real-Time Services. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by SIX Financial Information.
Japanese stock price data provided by Nomura Research Institute Ltd.; quotes delayed 20 minutes. Canadian fund data provided by CANNEX Financial Exchanges Ltd.
LATEST POSTS
Breaking up big banks is an untested solution to the too big to fail problem that attempts to isolate and dismantle large, troubled institutions while protecting the rest of the economy.
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
RECENT QUOTES
WATCHLIST
MARKET UPDATE
| NAME | LAST | CHANGE | % CHANGE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later. | ||||
[BRIEFING.COM] The major averages ended modestly lower with the S&P 500 shedding 0.3%.
The benchmark average saw an opening loss of 1.2% after Japan's Nikkei tumbled 7.3%. Japanese stocks sold off amid continued volatility in Japanese Government Bond futures as the 10-yr yield spiked almost 16 basis points to 1.002 before the Bank of Japan's JPY2 trillion liquidity injection caused yields to retrace their gains.
Adding insult to injury was news out of China where the HSBC ... More
More Market News
Currencies
| NAME | LAST | CHANGE | % CHANGE |
|---|---|---|---|
| There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later. | |||
