Why Obama and not Romney. Their Perspectives. 

In an article on God's Politics A blog by Jim Wallis and Friends Eugene Cho in his article Thou Shalt Follow These 10 Commandments for the Presidential Election, said "I’m not suggesting that the elections aren’t important. They are. They always are. There is much at stake. But in truth, they’re always advertised as the most important election in human history that will change the trajectory of all things for eternity."

If one looks at the country from a distance and as a whole this appears to be true. However if one looks at segments of the population or at individuals the story appears to be different. Extrapolating from what has been said on the campaign trail by the Romney organization much of the Social Safety net would be shreaded. The Affordable Care Act (Obama Care) would be repealed and replaced by a voucher system. The likely outcome of that would be that individuals with serious (read expensive) illnesses could easily eat through the voucher and then would be personally responsible for the balance (read this as bankrupt individuals, loss of homes,etc.) 

Another of the possible examples is tax policy. During the campaign Romney has indicated that taxes would be raised on middle income and working class families and lowered on the wealthy. Their theory is that the wealthy would then take that money that they don't pay in taxes and invest it in industry and therefor create jobs. It is a good theory except for one problem; in the real world it does not work. History tells us this is true. What has happened when it was tried? One example is the Koch  Brothers. As their tax rate decreased so did the number of people working in their various companies. Another example; investors took what they did not have to pay in taxes, invested it in companies, moved the companies over seas to places like China and, oh yes, created jobs there. Any other left over money that was not paid in taxes was sheltered in offshore tax havens such as the Bahamas or the Caiman Islands. 

Then there is the attitude of the upper 1% that has been on display during the campaign that inadvertently shows through. Governor Romney's comment that his wife had "several" Cadillacs or the need for him to have a car elivator in on of his homes illustrates this. Another illustration is his suggestion that children who want to go to college should borrow the money from their parents. That isn't realistic in my world and it is not realistic in the world of most people in this country.  The problem here is not that success is bad or envied. The problem is that Romney and many in his economic class have lost touch with the vast majority of the population in the US and what life is like for them; if indeed they ever knew. They have an attitude of entitlement. 

The idea that the US would not crumble into dust no matter who is elected president is probably true. What is also true however is that life for the vast majority of people in this country will be far more difficult and much less fulfilling with the election of Romney to the presidency. For the people at the bottom of our economic ladder the resulting Romney presidency would be devistating if not life threatening. If you think life threatening is to extreme an argument consider his assertion that FEMA should be broken up with the responsibilities turned over to state and local authorities. That would have worked well during our most recent natural disaster huricane Sandy wouldn't it.  

The re-election of President Obama however would be the exact opposite affect of what is described above. President Obama's life story is much different than Romney's. His background is that of a middle income working class family, His understands their struggles, both economic and personal. The programs he has managed to have passed, without the help of a reluctant Republican legislature, reflects that understanding. If the president of the United States is to represent the majority of the citizens of the US then the choice of President Obama is clear.