So to me it is more like do we want to become richer but more unequal, or do we want to become slightly less rich and slightly more equal....
I believe that is exactly the choice. My entire life, we have focused on supply side thinking. Increase the top earners opportunities, increase GDP, and show growth on the books. It's well known we can show growth by deregulating and reducing taxes. I don't really think that can be argued. The argument at hand is a little different: is the growth we've experienced healthy in the long run?
How much farther as a country do we wish to grow the divide?
Ignoring the fact that at the two highest points of wealth division we've seen the great depression followed by the great recession, it is completely illogical to continue a growth pattern that has done nothing for the majority of the population. Shouldn't we be focused on a growth pattern that is inclusive? Despite what you guys want to believe, the majority of the working poor work more hours per week than those in the middle class, and it's typically much more physically demanding.
The promise was increase the top end and the rest will follow up giving us an overall increase in GDP and individual wealth. What we've got over the last 30 or 40 years is quite a different story. The top earners have sky rocketed while the rest of us are lucky to keep pace with inflation.
The conservatives are on about a proven method of increasing GDP and decreasing debt. It works... no doubt about it.
The rest of us are looking at the numbers and saying wait a minute... we're growing and getting weaker at the same time. What good is a high GDP if most of the country's standard of living is unchanged or decreasing? Why do we wish to consolidate wealth and power? Where is the opportunity to come up from rags to riches, and how many of those opportunities will be left after all tax consuming programs are gutted? Are we willing to let the old, handicapped, sick, and destitute fend for themselves, and if so, how do we plan to keep them out of the public view so we don't have to explain to our children? Why aren't we willing to look at any ideas besides supply side economics which has proven to consolidate wealth and power thereby decreasing individual wealth and freedom.
Obama's got some serious problems, but at least he's saying the right things. And many of Obama's problems are arguably a disagreeable house. He probably spent too much capital on health care. Nobel and ambitious goal that fell short thanks to lack of a public option. By the time he was through that mess, Tea party took over the house and handcuffed him with the stated goal of ousting Obama. How can you respect a bunch that argued to let our nation default or declares war on the POTUS? Would you entertain an argument for you to default on your own loans or that your family should ignore your financial policies?
Romney is spewing the same babble I've heard my entire life, and it's these policies responsible for the top end increase in wealth along with the bottom end stagnation.
At this point, we can look at the numbers and plainly see that catering to the upper income earners is good for them, good for the books, and bad for the country as a whole. The problem is, most don't bother looking. It's much easier to go with a gut instinct of what's right than to start digging into trends and stats.
Of course, its wrong to take from one and give to another. It's also wrong to keep making it easier for the top earners while making harder on the rest. You'll show growth.... on your way to the cliff. Sometimes it's necessary to look deeper than right and wrong to make wise policy decisions. There might need to be decisions that go against your basic instinct of "MINE" to keep the wheels from falling off. That's a tough sell that most people won't buy unless their party leaders start leading them to such conclusions. The problem is the party leaders don't care for the country, but rather what they can get out of the deal. We've got a generation or three of screwing over the middle class still, right? Maybe!
Right now, all of our economic control mechanisms are maxed out. We basically have not control left over growth or depict without legislation. That's fine, but when the house has made the president public enemy #1, wtf are we supposed to do? Obviously we are not going to move forward while Obama sits and the white house and Tea Party controls the House. One has got to give. Supply side or something, anything new?
So our vote in this election is essentially what you said above. We can vote for supply side economics to help close the deficit, or we can vote to try and add some balance to our taxation to try and close up the deficit. Either method will help the biggest problem with America's economy, but which one promotes a healthier economy in the long run?
So in response to your question, I say his business experience has no effect at all. This decision is about how to correct our deficit.
The question we should be asking right now is which set of policies promotes a healthy growth - not growth by any means necessary. Top earners do not need to continue to sky rocket while the rest of the economy remains stagnant. That's why we are in this borrow spend mess in the first place. We need to be asking ourselves how do we allow lower and middle income earners to feel the effect of this vastly increased GDP. If we can figure out how to do that, we can grow healthier and faster than supply side by sheer numbers.