re-update) I would say, Obama is much closer to Bush in its keen compassion to protect Americans&the world of peace as a form of caring/protecting people's quality life and human rights.

What Bush provided the Americans were the stable governance for the ordinary people's everyday life by strengthening job programs for youth who can not find their doors to start carriers, the broaden the application of medicare for the elderly in relation to gain medicine prescriptions from doctors with less time and less cost. Bush also attempted, and unfortunately failed, to provide minimum pension for everyone no matter how short period s/he could have been working and paying the pension fees by reducing pension money to be paid to the middle class or upper class people. Bush also attempted, and again unfortunately failed though, to allow many peaceful, appropriate illegal immigrants to apply for American citizen. Bush had been honestly equal or trying to equally provide his governance to anyone no matter how his/her colour of skin,religion, race or educational backgrounds. What he failed in cutting and public education services in each region is party the consequences from what certain people intended to make the quality and level of education to be fairly even in each region. But is was not proper way of governance. The quality and level of education should be raised by each region/school where each student and parents are being long familiar with. The number of schools cannot be reduced but the quality and level should be raised by putting more endevours with better teaching skills/teaching materials, not reducing the number of schools. The Bush tax incentives for the riches were functioned only at the era when people could have been using their money to buy the products in the normal markets where the money spent are to be circulated back into the jobs, tax revenues from companies, and into the public budget for social security/welfare/education to increase stable dispensable income for the power of consumption to be circulated by everyone's ordinal everyday consumption for goods. But such stimulation would not work anymore. Now, even if the incentives for the richest will be continued, those can not be circulated from the richest to the poorest via the markets, the taxation and the proper governance because the money would be highly probably only circulating within certain circle of consumption of minerals, water resources, or some other valuable property rights related things but ordinary goods/products. And, that is why, it is apparent for anyone that the Romney 20% tax cut for everyone including for the richest would end up another way of tax incentives for the richest,increase the gaps along with the favored tax rates for the richest, and would not have any effective impact or stimuli to boost economy and jobs. About what Romney "tax cuts" means, there's a youtube where Clinton gave convincing and simple explanation. Please see this. Bush cares for, equally, every veterans not only for the welfare but also for raising/caring each veteran's and for employing of the spirit of the national security. Bush, all in all, cares for Americans' quality of life and human rights, quality of economy, quality of security, and quality of the peace and human rights of the world as the president of united states of America. The reason why Bush could have created jobs more is because Bush could have increased dispensable income of many not only via taxation but also small changes in medicare system. Not because of the tax incentives for the richest. In this context, Obama has continued carrying out the medicare/medicaid system which definitely reduce the medical cost for the people in need which definitely increase their dispensable income to buy the milk, bread, vegetables and books to learn skills for jobs more. Many have been misunderstood about the "compulsory" factor in Obama medicare/medicaid which is, however, normally seen in Japan. Everyone takes responsibility to pay the compulsory medicare fee for all to run the medicare/medicaid system. It is fair and secure for everyone to run such system protecting everyone's rights to go and have the best medical therapies for their health. Anyone could be the one who cannot be afford to buy expensive medical insurance by himself/herself. That is just a system of caring each other with the cost each can pay at each stage. Caring others in medicare/medicaid would definitely build secure, stable, safe and equal society to allow anyone/any family to buy glossaries, stationary, clothes and etc. that would definitely circulate into market and small&big companies to hire more and pay more revenue depending on the amount such people in need to have chances to increase their dispensable income by the governance/medicare/medicaid, tax exemption or tax benefits. Obama Medicare/Medicaid with your medicare payments will bring more jobs in your cities, your towns, your families and relatives and more income in your hands. Obama cares veterans more than Romney, Obama cares everyone in the United States of America no matter how the colour of the skin, no matter how his/her belief and religion is. If you would like to see Bush-like Presidency again for everyone including veterans and small shop owners in the office, it could not be materialized by Romney who would work only for companies and spend more for arm industries not for solders themselves. Bush has had reduced spending in arm industries but maintained budget for the solders and veterans. Bush knows well about what is the core of the national security and what would damage the national budget most. Too much expanded arm industry would damage the national budget to the extend which requires to start conflicts or to have difficulties to exit from conflicts. Bush showed his ability not to expand arm industry and to finish the intervene as possible as quick and cheap. But problem was the terror attacks on allies which had not been expected to be occurred against the allies that liberated the nation Iraq from the dictator Saddam Hussein after almost 14 yrs of economic sanctions against the long violence dictatorship oriented governance Saddam Hussein where no election, including any type of elections or votes, was held for 50 yrs (utterly different situation to which the Syria and the Assad Syrian government that have been trapped and patient with condemnation and inner conflicts without specific reasons). Back to the topic what I am writing here. And I remember that Bush was the president to try not to make air planes and not to sell air planes to foreign countries in order to cut spending, to cut the risk of increases of the reason to start war or to extend unnecessary conflicts and, to avoid the risk any foreign nations start war/terrorism against US with arms and bombs US sold to the foreign nations. Bush is/was clever as Clinton is/was. About spending for security, it contrasts Obama and Romney. According to NYT,Romney plans to spend additional 2 trillion more. Romney planed to spednd more especially for building submarines while retaining the cutting of the number of solders.URL:NYTimes: Romney’s Proposal for More Military Ships Draws Skepticism http://nyti.ms/RRwTw0 It is simply enough to tell about which is cleverer in terms of national security and the nature of spending. Spending budget for arm industries are, I always write this in Japanese, is the most ineffective public spending because arm industries won't pay back to nation unless the arms cannot be sold, unless any conflicts are occurred, unless any situation where a nation needs to kill people raises, which are all to be avoided or not to be occurred. Arm industries are,therefore, the business not to be invested too much in the first place. Even public spending into arm industry may create jobs in a relatively short time but from a longer term point of view, spending budget to arm industries are not worth to put due to its unsustainable nature as business to produce/sell weapons, and its small impact on economy and on employment. Obama will continue supporting for public endeavours to widen the scope of the people who can buy the goods/products/services to the extent which sustains companies to run their business,to hire the people and to pay proper tax without loopholes or unreasonably politically "reduction" for the companies. Obama will reduce the burdens put on the middle class income tax. Obama also reduces the small shop owners' income tax with certain job incentives to hire the people. (Pls, see the following government paper: "Creating an Economy Built to Last", by National Economic Councile, May, 2012, URL:http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/small_business_report_05_16_12.pdf) Romney is the worst candidate in its interests setting on the property rights and land property based values to borrow more money for more "business" to buy out other valuable companies' land properties to keep such circulation of money. Romney is not, in the first place, an appropriate candidate for president who needs to worry about dispensable income and consumers ability to buy and the budgeting to sustain the dispensable income of every americans as possible as the president can. Romney is a "business man" but is the one who does not need to worry about dispensable income of every american, about real economy status of the united states of America. What Romney worry about is the means to reduce taxation on the businessmen/companies dealing with land/mineral property rights/assets values the companies, like those Romney owned ones, to sell and to borrow money to/from someone seeks to gain the control of such valuable mineral/oil related property rights every minute. If you are interested in Obama's promises to you, please check the following Obama pagesthose of Bush's or Clinton's . Obama's promises are much closer,compared with Romney, to Bush&Clinton in its honestly keen to the peace without arms&deaths, to quality of ppl's lives&protection of safety&quality of lives! about obama's policy and promises please see the following URLs: http://www.barackobama.com/plans/foreign-policy?source=socnet_20121022_BO_FB_FOREIGN_POLICY_PLANS_SIGNON&utm_medium=fb&utm_source=bo_fb&utm_campaign=socnet_20121022_BO_FB_FOREIGN_POLICY_PLANS_SIGNON http://www.facebook.com/barackobama?ref=stream