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
In a nutshell:
Obama: We're in this together and have to work our way out together.
Romney: We've got ours and you're on your own.
P.S. I do not mind paying more taxes to help the less fortunate and pay down our debt.
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
“They’re being told they have two choices. Either follow their faith and pay the government half-a-billion dollars or give up their beliefs."
- Lori Windham, attorney for Hobby Lobby
.... hear that... that's the sound of our freedom of Speech and Religion slipping away... either it's his way or the highway... it's not a matter of who is the best candidate... it's a matter of who has our best interest at heart.... and if they paid the half a million.... well then there is that redistribution thing again... Romney 2012
Four years ago the voters said anyone but a G.W.B. now the repugs want to put a G.W.B. clone
right back in as POTUS...
God, what a simple bunch of idiots...
Vote for who will help you..........I am voting for OBAMA!
Does not matter who you put in office. Both of them will promise you the moon to get elected and once in office, they will turn around, drop their pants and show you the moon they promised.
If the media would stop suppressing information about the candidates we would be able to make an informed choice on who to vote for. But since the government controls the media we will never know the truth an end up with another Corporate Flunky in office
Romney only makes financial sense for the filthy rich. What is in the best interests of the vast majority of Americans is to have a broad based economic recovery that strengthens the middle class. When more of us are prosperous, more of us can afford to send our kids to college, to buy new cars, to buy new homes, to take vacations etc. Trickle down economics has NEVER worked. Only a fool would believe that the rich want to do anything except to get richer. Everyone deserves an opportunity, and that is what Obama stands for. I want a place at the table and something more than the crumbs that Romney and his cronies accidentally drop.
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
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.
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] The S&P 500 ended this week with a bang, roaring to a new all-time high on the back of stronger-than-expected economic data, influential leadership, and an ongoing appreciation for the Fed's monetary policy support.
The bullish bias was evident in premarket action as the S&P futures pointed to a higher start without the benefit of any definitive news catalyst. Stocks indeed benefited from a blast of buying interest at the opening bell on this ... More
More Market News
|There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.|