In 2010/2011 Obama and team were arguing that things might be bad, but they could be worse...and that didn't really fly. So now Romney is arguing, things might be better, but they could be even better...that also wont fly.
I guess some people are comparing Obama to Reagan's performance the last time we had 10% unemployment.
Romney's job was to fix companies and make them profitable. Does that translate at all to government - should a government be well run, efficient, and profitable?
Obama has always supported the lower class safety net. His landmark legislation is Universal Health care which will guarantee expensive benefits for every adult American. Obama is more interested in ensuring that lower class workers and lower class unemployed maintain a quality of life. That is not necessarily help improve government efficiency or the deficit. It does lead to more government beauracracy and spending.
This election will be a stark contrast between lower class union voters and upper-class business owners. With the middle-class voters deciding which candidate helps their lives.
We also have the 99% of occupy wall street voters who think that the economy is in shambles and that things are extremely bad now for them. They may have a point, especially if that point is to change lives, change government, and change the economy by being a homeless and unemployed camper in an urban park.
