Politify is an eye-opening visualization tool for evaluating the economic impact of each US presidential candidate's policies by zipcode.  You'll see how Romney's proposals benefit rich zipcodes, Obama's benefit more middle class and poor zipcodes.

Now, many will question the math on the National page that shows a $273 billion positive impact on the deficit by 2015 from Obama's policies, while showing that Romney's policies will increase the deficit by $566 billion.

After all, haven't we all heard how much Obama added to the deficit, and how Romney wants to shrink the size of government?

The big difference is that Obama recognizes, just as we do in our personal lives, that there are two ways that we can keep from running up our credit card debt - we can spend less, or we can increase our income. Romney calls for spending less, but he also calls for decreasing the government's income.

Because after all, that's what taxes are - the government's income. The Republican notion that if you just cut tax rates, economic activity will increase so much that tax revenues will actually be higher, have been proven wrong again and again.  Reagan ran on that platform, but realized that the math didn't pencil out, and so he actually raised taxes once he was in office.  Ditto George Bush senior.  George Bush junior stuck to his guns, launched two wars that he put on Uncle Sam's credit card, and ran irresponsible policies that led us to the brink of a second Great Depression.

Whether or not you think Obama was right to continue the stimulus program that was launched in a Hail Mary move at the end of the Bush presidency, you've got to recognize that most of what led up to the massive deficits the country faces today was the very same policies that Mitt Romney has become the standard-bearer for, and which are reflected in these numbers.

I suspect that like all Republican presidents except GWB, Romney would quickly change his tune once in office, but I don't see why we should elect someone who has put forward a plan that makes no sense.

At the end of the day, I'd love my taxes to be lower too. But returning taxes to the level they were under Clinton - a period of great prosperity - makes good sense to me.  And if you look honestly at the historical record, you'll also see that the last time that the size of government was shrunk was during that same Clinton administration.

At any rate, ignore these comments.  Play with the visualization tools here, and think about what they say about what kind of country we want to become. These visualizations show how completely Romney's policies favor the rich.  I count myself among that number, but I'm public spirited enough to know that what's best for me isn't what's best for the country.
Shared publiclyView activity