OBAMA versus ROMNEY.

Mitt Romney's win in the Iowa caucuses is a splendid thing for Republicans, who are interested in putting a man with Wall Street mentality in the White House.

Most people know his main agenda in advance, as he has portrayed himself as one championing the cause of capitalism on the campaign trail. His operatives have managed to get him to focus on "the upper echelon of society", meaning the rich, whose political contributions and support would keep their candidate moving forward.

The other candidates in the race for the Republican Party nomination have not been as eager or generous in devoting their time on those ready to bankroll their efforts as Romney was doing, but they all carried the notion that, if they were to be winning the nomination, they should do nothing to offend the extreme rightwing of the party, where the power brokers were predominantly stationed.

They have the funds ready to unseat President Barack Obama; but that should not be surprising at all, because that was what parties were for, to remove someone on the opposite side of the aisle and to replace him or her with one of their own.

However, in the present political environment, with tax increases being the focal point in many of the arguments coming from the Democratic side, that the high earning individuals and big corporations must be made to pay "their fair share in taxes,", and that has infuriated the private sector of society more than anything else.

Tax increase was an anathema to business, as the Republicans have always maintained; yet, to top that off with regulations that restricted the business world from making the extraordinary profits at year's end was going too far.

That was exactly what the Obama administration has been doing, but with a very good and practical intention, that salaries and wages should also rise at the same rate as corporate profits, whose dividends went to fill the bank accounts of the wealthy.

If the United States economy should start to grow, there should be parity between wages of workers and the revenues of those, who could afford to invest in the businesses that the working people were laboring for. Share, and share alike.

Such parity would only ensure a strong middle class, whose skills and know-how the nation has counted on since the end of WW1, and has continued through to the 1980s.

President Jimmy Carter wanted to bring it back, but he was saddled with the embassy seizure in Iraq; then came President Ronald Reagan, and the freedom to capitalize more on investment portfolios became rampant.

The Obama administration's effort to initiate a similar policy, by the introduction of Wall Street reforms, has antagonized the private sector even more so than anything before. They have accused Obama of starting a "class warfare", and that was harmful to the different world in which the wealthy lived. He was "anti-business", and on, and on.

"CNBC's Jim Cramer reported Friday morning on Squawk on the Street that he's hearing from business leaders off-camera that Obama is hated by business leaders. The ..." (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jim-cramer-president-obama-is-%E2%80%98hated-like-jimmy-carter-by-business-leaders/).

The Wall Street atmosphere was, and still is, what was being represented by most of the Republican candidates on the campaign trail, especially, Ron Paul; but who they thought was not electable, due to his extremism. However, who did you think would be more suitable for those, who were aiming at getting rid of Obama?

Yes, Romney.

American voters should realize that, if there would be a class warfare, it would be Romney dismantling the business regulations that have been put in place by Obama, to bring parity in the workplace and to move the middle class forward, in terms of income.

The middle class has been the real people building America, and has made its economy to become strong; and no other section of society could match that claim.