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.
When 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
Here is a little mind exercise for the Obama supporters here.
If the economy is getting better please tell me why QE3 is needed?
An open ended policy to buy 40 billion in mortgages a month and potentially increase that amount up to 100 billion until the unemployment drops below 7%. Estimates put the cost of QE3 conservatively up to 2 trillion dollars!
In 2008 at the beginning of the recession the feds monetary value was a little over 800 billion, QE 1 and 2 added 1.9 trillion to that amount increasing the balance sheet to 2.7 trillion dollars! Now the Fed and Obama are doubling down again and are going to add roughly 2 trillion dollars to the balance, which brings us to 4.7 trillion dollars.
That is an increase of 587% over the last 4 years! All this with supposedly no inflation? It is a band aid on a fatal wound and the sheep are to stupid to realize it. They will continue to buy into the farce. This is a recipe for not only inflation, but for hyper inflation. When there is nearly 600% more money floating around eventually things are going to cost that much more. How long before everyone wakes up!
HEY FOXNEWSNET . . . .
WHY DON'T YOU TELL US ABOUT THE CHARACTORS ON MSNBC???
WHY DON'T YOU START WITH SHARPTON. TELL ME ABOUT MR. SHARPTON
Sorry GOP, but it's not time for a Romney. Obama needs 4 more years to inflict damage, then someone like Romney can step in to turn us all over to Wall Street. Except for the unemployed (yes, children & retirees too) living in abject poverty, we'll all be made into wage slaves. The EPA will be closed, so our resources, even those we own through the federal government, will be looted. The economic disruption will require a national "manager", "majority Leader", "board chairman", etc. to run things until the emergency passes. Somehow the emergency will never pass.
It's worked in scores of third world countries. Why wouldn't it work here?
america is in debt. the president has no clue of where he took this country to. at his most recent tv appearance, said, he believed that our problem is temporary. Temporary? they are operating this country with borrowed money at 4BILLIONS $$$$ A DAY. we are 16 trillions in debts and counting and in his mind, it is a short term problem? he is so out of touch and you guys are going to re-elect him?
FACTS YOU'LL NEVER HEAR ON FOX
FACT: Roger Ailes is president of Fox News Channel, chairman of the Fox
Television Stations Group. Ailes was a media consultant for Republican
presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush.
JOBS -- Under Obama, 4.5 Million private sector jobs have been
created in just the past 3 years - this after Bush losing 750K per month at the
end of his term. Labor Force Statistics from the Current
Population Survey (Source: BLS Rpt. LNU02000000)
GOP MISLEAD WITH:
"LESS PEOPLE WORKING NOW THAN 2009" - These job losses occurred during Obama's
first year. It took time to turn things around after Bush's 750K jobs lost per
month. If you read the graph at bottom you can clearly see that under Obama job
losses were turned around.
DEBT - - per Congressional Budget
Office -- BUSH LEFT Obama $1.2 Trillion DEFICIT, and 3 Trillion in DEBT
projected into Obama's term. Add to this the worst economic crisis in 80
years. GOP 2006 Senate, 49/49/2. Who's to blame for our
STOCK MARKET- Under Bush, DOW closed at around 8000. Under
Obama, we're now at 13000! Obama's policies have benefited "ALL our retirements
and 401K" with stock market recovery!
ECONOMIC GROWTH - Positive Growth
now AFTER BEING HANDED Negative by Bush.
TARP - with the threat of
further regulation, most of TARP has been paid back w/ interest! Under Bush,
this $$$ was loaned unconditionally amounting to corporate
TAXES, taxes are lower for all but the richest, despite GOP
obstruction! GOP recently fought tooth-and-nail to increase the burden on the
middle class via the payroll tax. Thank You Mr. Obama. Furthermore, Tax Policy
Center -- taking a close look at Romney's proposed tax and economic plan ---
concluded that it would cut taxes for the richest Americans and actually raise
them on the poor.
OBAMACARE: Nixon, McCain, Romney and Gingrich, all FOR
mandate before they were against it! Romney implemented the ORIGINAL Obamacare
and mandate was originally a GOP idea!
TERRORISM - under Obama's
leadership and renewed focus he promised during the 2008 election - we got
AMERICAN LIVES - Egypt and Libya uprising - NO AMERICAN
*** All of these things and more with NOTHING but GOP
Obstruction and fingerprinting!
IN TRUTH, IT TAKES A
FAILED PERSON TO CALL OBAMA A FAILURE.
· 146 votes
- Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:25 PM EDT
HERE IS THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH!!!!!!!
"Obama is so in love with himself, he can't see past the mirror!!"
He should have been an actor!! He's great on stage and wants to be a star!!!
Copyright © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. 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 Morningstar Inc.
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
[BRIEFING.COM] There wasn't a lot of excitement in the stock market today and there is nothing wrong with that. After rallying in broad-based fashion on Friday, the major indices stood their ground (for the most part) amid a lack of conviction from buyers and sellers alike.
Today wasn't a case so much of the stock market going up as it was a case of some influential stocks going up to keep the major indices on a winning path. In fact, decliners were just about even with ... More
More Market News
|There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.|