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
EACH TIME REPUBLICAN'S ARE IN OFFICE WE LOSE SOMETHING ,REMEMBER WHEN WE USED INTEREST ON CREDIT CARDS AND NEW CAR'S AND RONALD TOOK THAT NOW ALL WE HAVE IS OUR HOME AND GUESS WHO WANTS TO TAKE THAT, IT IS NOT THE PRESIDENT.
AND FOR ALL OF YOU WHO DON'T WANT HIM BACK IN OFFICE THINK ABOUT WHO TOOK US TO WAR., AND WHO PUT US IN DEBT
Another wrong question by the media. If finances is all people care about, why don't they just sell drugs? Yes drugs? one of the most profitable enterprises. Society is more than that, create more minimun wage jobs? Is that what some people want? squeez every penny out of everything? turn our safety net for our golden years into a voucher program? cut funding for education? What is going on with these people? What happened to help thy neighbor through the strom? what happen to do right by your employees and prosper? or do right by your employer and prosper?
We are gearing towars a more third world like society where everyone is out to fend for themselves...Just not good!
REDISTRIBUTION BEGAN WITH PRESIDENT REAGAN AND HIS VOODOO TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS!
Yes that's right, very far right policy that began with Reagan. Bush Sr. named it voodoo economics. Taking from the middle class and poor and giving it up to the upper rich folks in tax breaks and in every policy decision repubs make. Bush Sr opposed this idea until he was offered V.P. job by Reagan. The money has flowed upward ever since with CEO's making incredible amounts of money while the actual workers pay remained stagnant. Now the middle class and poor say no more to republican trickle on economics. Trickle down republican economics did not work the last 30 years and the MIDDLE CLASS want their FAIR SHARE BACK!
Romney Ryan plan killls Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Post Office privatizing all the programs for more profit for the GREEDY RICH.
Romney and Ryan want even more tax breaks for the rich so Romney pays almost nothing and middle class pays up to $2000 more in taxes to make up what Romney does not want to pay. Redistribute the wealth back to a fair share for all Americans and not just to Romney Ryan greedy rich.
VOTE NO TO ROMNEY/RYAN REDISTRIBUTION TRICKLE ON ECONOMICS!
VOTE FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA/BIDEN AND DEMOCRATIC PARTY 2012!
We use to be a country that the world would look up to. The only country to step on the moon, now we don’t even have a space program. Want to go the space station that we headed the building of. Hitch hike up for 20 million with a with what’s left of the soviet union. Apparently, they still can manage to go to space without a country. We use to be the inventors of everything, the phone, the light bulb, airplane, car assembly line Velcro, and the list goes on forever. Now we are known only for our movies globally. And guess what we even premier them abroad first. We are not even good enough to see the movies first. So if this sounds like we are better today, answer me how…how????
I would never vote for Obama. He has lied...He hasn't a clue on how to lead...He has armed our enemies and spit on our allies. He is the epitomy of what a president is not...We do not need an "entertainer" in chief...we do not need a fear monger...
better late than never...
You know it is really difficult sometimes to pick through the heavy liberal spin you people put on your articles to find some nuggets of truth. I suggest you rename you website to FLNM, Flaming Liberal News Media.
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] S&P futures vs fair value: -13.10. Nasdaq futures vs fair value: -13.30. The S&P 500 futures trade lower by 1.0% as the pre-market weakness sets the stage for a sharply lower open to the cash session. The bulk of the decline occurred overnight as Japan's Nikkei fell 7.3% while 10-yr JGB yields spiked to 1.00% before a JPY2 trillion liquidity injection by the Bank of Japan helped pressure the 10-yr yield back down to 0.840%.
In addition, investors received a ... More
More Market News
|There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.|