As you might imagine, I get a lot of questions from people wanting to know which candidate would be better for the economy, or which candidate will help the market go up. Obama is clearly ready, willing, and able to spend our money to kick the economy into action. Romney, on the other hand, has tons of business experience on his side, and we all know that businesses are the lifeblood of our economic engine. So, which approach is better?
My answer is simply this: maybe neither. Let me explain.
I’ll start with the fiscal position of our government, which you can find at www.usdebtclock.org. If you go to that website, towards the top left section you can see our national debt of $16 trillion plus. That works out to over $50,000 per citizen, or over $140,000 per taxpayer. But that’s just the small stuff.
If you go to the bottom of the page, you see the fiscal state of our primary entitlement programs social security, prescription drugs, and Medicare. Take a good look at the total unfunded obligations of these three entitlement programs. That’s right; it comes in at over $120 trillion ($120,000,000,000,000). Scarier than that, it’s the equivalent of over $1,000,000 per taxpayer!
Now, I don’t know about you, but I really don’t think the average taxpayer has the $140,000 to pay off the national debt. And if they don’t have the $140,000 for the national debt, what’s the likelihood that they’ll ever have the $1 million laying around for the entitlement programs?
You see, our government has promised us so much free stuff over the years that the proverbial snowball is already speeding down the mountain side. It really doesn’t matter who is elected, the snowball has now become an avalanche and will have its consequences.
Will the avalanche hit your house during the next four years? Nobody knows for sure, but according to David Walker (former comptroller for the United States), it’s not a question of if it will hit, but when. Like many other national experts, Walker believes these are three of the likely consequences.
1. Higher taxes (a lot higher).
2. Reduced entitlement benefits (younger people will pay dearly).
3. Inflation, inflation, inflation.
So, which candidate is better for our economy? This is a question that can’t be definitively answered today; only time will tell. The one thing that is known for sure today is that they have very different plans for the future.
So, you’ll have to choose. Have the last four years been the right course, or is there a better way? Who is better to handle the avalanche of problems coming our way, fast?
After watching all four of the recent debates, I find it interesting that the media always wants to tell you who won the debate; like that matters at all. The media, which can greatly influence the markets, seems to always want a winner and a loser. The media seemed to say that Romney won the first debate, and Obama won the second, and they can’t decide who won the third.
So, if the best debater is the right choice for President, why don’t we have some debating guru from an Ivy League school running for President? The talent for debating is definitely overrated. For example; I’m pretty sure I’ve won almost every debate my wife and I have ever had . . . I’m just better at it. But don’t think for one second that this has helped me in our marriage. It’s just an unrelated skill that doesn’t seem to matter all that much.
Likewise, I don’t need a good debater for a President. I only care about which candidate will lead our country back to prosperity. Debating won’t turn our economy around or lower our national debt.
I strongly suggest that you go out and vote for the best “Leader” for the next four years.
Oh, by the way, just as a side note; I don’t think Obama lost the first debate on purpose, but it’s probably a good idea to lose a few of those marital debates along the way.