Editor's note: This post is part of the Overheard on CNN.com series, a regular feature that examines interesting comments and thought-provoking conversations posted by the community.
After Democrats talked up reports that Mitt Romney was listed as Bain Capital's CEO after 1999, when he has repeatedly said he left the private equity firm, CNN columnists and our readers are discussing the Republican presidential candidate's views about jobs in America. Romney's date of departure is significant because some of the companies acquired by Bain later shipped jobs overseas. Romney claims he left the company before those decisions were made. Here are some varying views on the presidential race for "job creation."
Who are the job creators?
bigdil: "Here's Romney's problem and, for that matter, the GOP's problem: Rich people aren't neccesarily job creators. Some are. Some aren't. Romney can't just say, 'I'm a rich guy. Therefore, I'll be better at creating jobs and fixing the economy than Barack Obama.' Why should anyone believe this argument? Nothing in his Bain experience would suggest any talent in that area. Likewise, there is no reason to think that giving tax breaks to 'job creators' (i.e. rich people) will help the economy. It won't."
eddiev5: "True. But the same problem exists for Obama and modern-day liberals. The government cannot create jobs indefinitely - its not sustainable. You also cant have 'the rich' pay for half a centuries worth of spending - the math just doesnt add up. So therefore, either you tax the middle or lower class more, or you create more debt (which creates more problems), or you get rid of or reform the pricey parts of the budget. These are all options the left wing will not pursue. Big government inevitably grows to the point to where it hinders its own progress by stepping over its own toes. You can actually see this right now with Obamacare and Wall Street Reform. Sure, the GOP has a problem but its really no different than the same hard ideologically stance liberals have taken. They are both not logical."
Many readers said they don't care so much about Romney's business record. But who spends taxpayers' money?
SickofDebt: "Apparently, I'm supposed to be more angry with what Mitt Romney does with his money, than what Obama does with mine."
drewsco: "Your shouldn't be angry with what Mitt did, but concerned, because if he is elected president, then it'll be your money that you may be concerned about."
smeat3: "Obama doesn't spend your money. Congress does. And, even if Obama wasn't president, they'd still be spending it. Probably even more of it if past Republican administration's practices have anything to do with how future ones would operate."
Kimw2012: "I don't care about how Romney spends his money. I care more about how Obama spends mine. Most importantly I care about who can spend my money better for the next four years. If he can not give me a straight answer about his finances he will not give me an answer about how he will spend my money. He wants my vote and I want information."
This reader said President Obama is going in the wrong direction.
Matt Sitler: "I cant believe Obama said basically the only difference between a deadbeat slacker on government assistance and the owner of a small business is basically the business owner got luckier than the ne'er-do-well. Amazing. Class warfare 101: pit the have-nots against the haves. Occupy, the misleading myth of the 99%. Tell the guy who is pissed off at this lame job the only reason his boss is going better than him is luck, not working harder, not working a full-time job while getting multiple degrees at night over years of sacrifice and effort. Just luck. Obama is a poison to democracy and capitalism. He is as socialist and communist as people say after all!"
This reader is baffled.
intoleranGOP: "I am really getting confused here. Romney is running on his success as a businessman at Bain, but not the outsourcing of jobs, loading them with debt and riding them into bankruptcy. But currently he didn't have ANYTHING to do with it, but was sole shareholder and signed off as CEO. I think it might be easier to document a UFO abduction than learn the truth from Romney. Maybe he better keep the returns hidden!"
Is it all one big board game?
DebofAmber: "I once read a comment that President Obama plays chess while his opponents play checkers. This seems to be the case here."
Michael Smith: "Both are pawns in a greater chess game. Mitt is meant to lose like McCain. Both parties are owned by bankers who make money betting against America. And it only gets easier as we bend over and give them all of our freedoms and liberties to 'protect us' from brown boogeymen. They keep us safe in the short term, but not in the long term. Go to the airport, submit and get a patdown so there's no mishaps on the plane if you don't want cancer from the x-ray machine. What is the point of a safe plane trip if you're still going to get cancer and die?"
Phange: "Mitt Romney's campaign strategies have historically been very conservative until the last minute, in which time he uses extensive saved resources to destroy the character and political image of his opposition. There's no reason to believe that he's not doing that now. Nothing else explains why he's sitting on so much money, and allowing his opponent to chip away. That is a very risky strategy to be sure, but it's also one that people like Newt Gingrich ignored - to their detriment.
George Cook: "Is that supposed to mean he is SMARTER? I'd doubt that he has even sat down with a CHESS BOARD or a CHECKER BOARD. He's been working too hard attending Rev. Wright's mean-spirited lectures and doing his community organizing. He gets an A+ for these activities, because that obviously QUALIFIES him for President and CEO of the Country. Right?"
What's your take on Obama and Romney? Share your opinion in the comments area below and in the latest stories on CNN.com. Or sound off on video via CNN iReport.
Compiled by the CNN.com moderation staff. Some comments edited for length or clarity.