You're kidding, right?
Barack and Michelle Obama went to prestigious schools? Um, no! Public school. Google the school records and the photos of their childhood homes. Their children go to private schools because of security issues - same as Amy Carter, Chelsea Clinton and other young children of prominent people. It's actually less expensive than sending 500 secret service agents to a public school. It was a difficult and reasoned choice. Both Obamas grew up in very modest circumstances and the photos of their childhood homes are all over the internet.
$15 million in the Caymans? Nope, you've got your candidates confused.
Obama's federal pension is based on federal offices held (Senate, Presidency). Romney has never held federal office so does not qualify for a federal pension. People who've served in Congress for longer have much larger pensions.
Obama worked in community jobs before becoming a professor of constitutional law. The top "business-oriented" presidents in the past were Bush 2 (oil, baseball), Hoover and Harding - they gave us Iraq War, the great recession, the great depression and Teapot Dome. So how does business experience necessarily give someone what is needed in Washington?
Romney's business experience is pretty much limited to liquidating businesses. He often mentions his father, Gov. George Romney, but his father's long-time chief of staff has recently submitted a detailed piece to the public about how the younger Romney's values are so different. He has been a speculator and a bankruptcy advocate. He touts his experience as Massachusetts Governor and "reaching across the aisle" but, if that is true, why is it that he has no hope of even a decent showing in his "home state"?? Almost all of his decisions were overridden, and he refused to meet with legislators (even declaring a State House elevator off limits to them so he could use it privately without engaging with them or the public.)
All those people who worked with him know what kind of condition he left this state in. Fees (another word for "taxes") were raised 3 and 4 and 10 times as much, and the state ranked 47th in job creation and education. He says he "reduced taxes" but neglects to say that he "raised fees" so that most people paid much more overall. In short, he created NO JOBS and the brain drain in Massachusetts was horrible until the current governor. Understand that Massachusetts has had many moderate Republican governors before (Bill Weld, Paul Cellucci) but the state was only left in dire straits by Romney.
Just look at Freeport IL and scores of other cities where Romney went in - they are all out of work. Really, what jobs has he created? All of the non-partisan evaluations have no idea what he's talking about in terms of his past, and the "12 million" he keeps harping on can't possibly happen for 10 years and that's counting what Obama has already done.
His "rescue" of the Olympics was largely based on federal money - for proof, watch the videos of Romney himself saying "Go to Washington, because that's where the money is." Now he says, "No federal, everything goes to the states." He supported Planned Parenthood, public broadcasting and women's rights in Massachusetts, but now has pandered to the right wing and is against it all. He says whatever he needs to say to get elected.
And you're right than an average person has a lot of trouble becoming president because the campaigns are so long and so expensive. The Citizens United decision opened it up to much more corporate and PAC money -you can tell based on how many commercials do NOT say "I'm X and I approved this message." Most candidates rely on big money, which means they pander to the people with the bucks. Obama's contributions (as federally reported) were largely under $250 each - the largest grass roots fundraising ever. Largely thanks to the internet and field offices. So yes, if we get the MONEY out of elections, it will be more fair on either side.
So, honestly, there is no "proven record" except in Romney's press releases. There are no jobs! Ask anyone in the entire state of Massachusetts if they have a job because of Romney's policies.
And you have no way of knowing what Romney gave to charity because he hasn't released his tax returns. But I'm sure he gave more (mostly to his church) because he MADE so much more!! And remember that most of his income is "unearned" coming from investments and off-shore shelters, rather than "earned" which is what Obama has declared on his returns.
Vote for Romney if you want, but remember that not one Massachusetts business owner is featured on a Romney commercial saying how much better life is since he was governor. All of the "Romney created businesses" hype is from Romney himself. He says "I know what it takes" but he does not put forth any details, other than cutting taxes for the rich in a scheme that not one economist says will work. There is no track record, except in his own mind and in his own ads. If there were, he'd be featuring it. But even he knows he has no one to stand up for him. He is just hoping that the electorate doesn't expect any proof.
And yes, business works on behalf of the investors. But that's not job creation, so don't confuse the two. THOSE are the people giving money to Romney, and threatening their staff if they don't follow suit. It's a nasty business. If you're an investor, you will do well under Romney. If you want a job, forget it.
