Will the Americans be fooled by this evilizing of others (specifically Romney here) and being taken advantage of through misleading information (or the lack of showing the whole story)? (The Axelrod Tactics.)

They will escape this harm if they pay attention to and learn the basics of how prosperity is created and not created.  Quik Overview Of The Principles of Economic Growth.


“I’m in this race because I care about Americans,”

"We have a social safety net [to] take care of the very poor."  "If it needs repair, I'll fix it." "..but if it has holes in it, I will repair them."  And if there are people that are falling through the cracks I want to fix that."  He will handle that key objective, as he considers it mandatory that the very poor people are taken care of - and that we need to enable those who are capable to be productive. 

"I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."

"You can focus on the rich. That’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That’s not my focus. My focus is {'primarily"] on middle income Americans, retirees living on social security, people who cannot find work, folks who have kids that are getting ready to go to college."  [That is, clearly, I think, "Job 1".]

Economic bottomline for Americans:

Greater incentives to invest in business plus more money available to do that investing will increase and expand businesses - and add significantly to the jobs available, at a higher level of pay than low-pay service jobs. 


Romney is accused of favoring the rich, but is that true, a little false, or grossly false?

I would say it is grossly false.

Whenever a person is given a responsibility to manage for a particular result, he is expected to focus on that result. 

In business, the result is for the investors, whoever they are (such as pension funds, 401Ks, and union funds). And profits are the measure.

In the US Presidency, the sought after result is the well-being of the citizens.  And the financial condition of the economy plus the individual financial status of the citizens are the measures.  Of course, freedom and safety are mandatory and unquestioned.   


The basic principle is "all boats rise in a rising tide".   Romney is focused on making sure that happens.  And in doing so, it is fundamental to human nature to respond to proper incentives and to be discouraged by blocks and uncertainties.  (Or, in other terms, reduce the negatives and increase the positives.)

Removing the uncertainties that are rampant in the current administration plus the discouraging and costly regulations will help remove the blocks for business. 

But removing the blocks is not as effective as having effective incentives. 

One thing that gets in the way to having effective incentives is unthought out generalizations.  Some people will sensationalize the way humans are by accusing others of "greed", instead of "wanting to do well".

But who is to be the judge of all of this?  Stopping excesses that hurt others is the job of the government, so excess (causing abuse of others) is determined by law.  If they don't break the law, then no one, except a fascist state, can impose some vague morality that is determined to be "right" by the very people originating the moral criteria.    (Definition of greed:  Excessive desire for getting or having.)  

The current administration's politicking around these is damaging and dividing.  They refer to greed of [insert enemy here] and unfairness of the rich and of businesspeople and how some people have too much (as if they have the moral authority to judge so and have a clear criterion).  The idea is to redistribute wealth (a zero-sum game mentality) rather than for each person to create his own (where more people are contributing more productively).  That redistribution idea has failed in all instances where it was implemented in a country - in fact, the biggest economic train wrecks have been in those countries.


So, I would say that Romney is very much in favor of people taking the responsibility for their own financial well-being and their own lives and having more people contributing to increasing the size of the pie, rather than trying to slice it differently (and ending up reducing the size of the pie, or at least of its growth). 

We are growing excessively slow in this recovery and many people are being hurt by that

It isn't hard to determine the causes (or at least some of them!).  

Barriers/blocks:  regulation, anti-business sentiment and talk, failure to realize how business works [understandable, as Obama has no training or knowledge in that area], slow and/or restrictive permitting [Fed land oil drilling permits down by 40%, dramatically slow, not allow Keystone pipeline], higher costs for employee benefits [instead of personal responsibility; incentive is to use technology to reduce number of workers], uncertainty of costs in terms of taxes, etc. and etc.   Incentives:  Trying to take away tax incentives that were passed to achieve benefits for the economy and jobs [of course, get rid of the deductions that don't do so]; using penalties or punishment and government mandates reduces incentives.  The only incentives given out currently are "green" incentives, but those are uneconomic (not only now but for the long term) and impractical, in that they are not achieving even the long term goal. And the likely increased costs of electricity production in the US from barriers will significantly hurt Americans personally. 

Romney will work to get rid of the blocks and negative impacts and increase the effective incentives so that there are more jobs from the increased investment in and expansion of businesses (from agriculture, manufacturing, to the service industries). 


Don't buy into false assertions and characterizations, please!   Look at the facts and reasoning.

He is not favoring the rich, just trying to keep individuals and companies investing lots in the United States, instead of them continuing to go elsewhere plus have them investing more!.  Yes, a 28% corporate tax rate instead of a 35% rate seems like a "giveaway" favoring the rich, but the actual effect is to have more investment in the US and more jobs for Americans - and more of the well-paying jobs, rather than the superlow paying type of service jobs.


Obviously, it is not appropriate to be "against" a particular class doing better AND it is appropriate to be for everyone else to be better off (even if it includes those who invest). I think that any group evilizing another group and being "against" will cause harm and divisiveness and not lead to problem solutions. 

With proper incentives for productivity and for investing in business, the economy will grow faster and provide more jobs, and we will all be better off. 

This is not a zero-sum game (where for someone to win, someone else must lose), but a "growing the pie" game, where we all win. 

Here's a summary of the effect of his tax policies, which do no harm to any one class of citizen:

Effect of keeping the Bush-era tax rates.  The higher taxes for the rich will stay in place.  The top 1% get 22% of the income but pay 40% of the individual income taxes.  The bottom 47% don't pay any.

Effect of cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, total tax on investors 36+%:  Those who invest in businesses will of course benefit, but they will be incentivized to invest more and to invest in the US.  The net effect is that there will be more jobs and the country will be better off. (Note that the Democrats agree!)  The tax o the profits for anyone owning shares in a corporation would be 25% of the profits plus 15% on any distributed profits from the 75% of the profits remaining after corporate taxes.   They will pay north of 36% on profits.

Effect of eliminating income tax on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends for households with income under $200,000.   Encourages more investment in business, resulting in more jobs.  Helps the middle class taxwise.   The poor are only helped by having an economy that can afford to cover those who are unable and by having a job, to earn more money.  (Obviously, they have nothing to invest.) 

Effect of the repeal taxes imposed by the health reform legislation.  Of course, those taxes are on higher income people, as most of the 3.8% extra tax on investing will fall to the better off.  The question here is merely a "how much should the total taxes be?" and who do we want to squeeze them out of.

Repeal the estate tax.  $15 billion effect/year.  Takes investment money out of the investment pool and forces liquidation of some illiquid estates (like farms).  However, it increases capital gains taxes on the wealthy because they would no longer be forgiven upon death.

Bottomline:  More left for all Americans, even though the rich benefit (but still pay vastly more of the tax burden proportionately).   It is a plan for greater growth, via greater investment, where all boats rise in a rising tide, due to more dollars going into investing, which means more businesses and the expansion of existing businesses.