Election 2012: First Debate


Obama flubbed the first debate. He is relying on what won him the election in 2008, but has changed because people know and have experience his failure in many areas.
He was also weak on his facts, repeatedly trying to say that RomneyCare was equal to ObamaCare at state level. In addition, Romney continually emphasized that much of the power that the federal government has taken upon itself requires delegation to state and local government levels in order to be more efficient – in more tune with the needs of the people of a specific state and region. In other words, Romney was emphasizing that the federal government has gone far beyond its constitutional limits of power and responsibility.

Federal government has the following main responsibilities, all of which it has failed in terms of success: (1) National security, which includes securing our borders and protecting US sovereignty; (2) Treasury of the US, handling money and ensuring that printed money is backed by gold/silver standards; (3) roads, bridges, et cetera, (4) US postal services, (5) taxation that is fair and efficient, (6) maintain the budget keeping national debt to a minimum; and (7) ensuring that state governments comply with the Constitution of the United States and its amendments.

Obama flubbed the truth when he stated that health insurance premiums were the slowest (least) in 50 years; however, Romney messed up when he stated that 23 million Americans are unemployed, according to Fact Check – but that number includes those that have given up and stopped looking. Fact Check is not always correct.
Do you think that the amount of people forced to work part time instead of full time because of lack of jobs shouldn’t be included in the unemployment figures? Fact Check excludes those figures, and so does Obama. There are 12.5 million people that are completely out of work, 2.6 million have quit looking for being discouraged and/or other reasons like early collection of Social Security retirement benefits. At the start of Obama’s presidency there were 12 million unemployed, which is now 12.5 million. So his claim that he improved through increased job opportunities is bunk. Probably due to the fact he spent so much of OUR funds to boost energy companies that ALL failed in producing jobs and one went bankrupt.
Romney was correct, despite what “Fact Check” stated – Why should Americans’ operation of personal healthcare be up to a board of 15 members in Washington, when it could be better handled locally and under control of each state according to its specific requirements. Not all states are the same as far as need, just as not all Americans require a one-size-fits-all government policy. Individualism has worked better in the American republic than collectivism – and other nations of the world.
Obama was living in a dream world when he stated that we take some of the money that we’re saving as we wind down two wars to rebuild America. Obama has used this malarkey before. Money used for Iraq and Afghanistan wars was borrowed funding – because of national debt.
Romney was correct that gasoline prices have increased; however fuel prices are set by financial exchanges (supply and demand. The failure here for Obama was his insistence that no more crude oil will be produced in the US, thereby reducing the supply and increasing requirement of purchasing foreign oil, subject to OPEC and foreign conglomerates to set the price. It is true that retail electric rates have risen on an average of just under 1% per year.
Romney proposes to reduce income tax rates by 20% and eliminate the estate tax (death tax) and the alternative minimum tax. The figures Obama presented against this plan do not work in real math. The Tax Policy Center stated that the Romney plan would reduce federal tax revenues by $465 billion in 2015, which would add up to $5 trillion over a period of ten years. However, Congress must also reduce federal government costs in order to get a handle on the rising national debt; and work out a viable budget that would solve the problem. Romney’s goal is to go to a simpler tax code by reducing or eliminating tax credits, deductions, and exemptions – a tax system more efficient and less complicated. Obama chimed in and stated that Romney hasn’t stated which tax deductions would be eliminated; which is not a fair question because that would have to be worked out in congressional committees with financial experts.
When asked about what he would cut from spending, Romney stated he would eliminate all programs that would not pass the test: Is the program so critical that it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?
China is the largest foreign holder of US debt, but only represents 8% of federal deficits. Obama retorted, as Democrats have done during entire campaign that Romney’s goals will burden the middle class.
Romney stated that his tax plan would not raise taxes on anyone. By stimulating growth through less tax burdens across the board, it will generate increased tax revenue without shifting to the middle class and result will be because of improved economy.
In the overall summation, Romney has been a successful business executive for decades. Obama knows only about community organizing and a lawyer that always looks for loopholes instead of complying with the Constitution. In order to meet the Romney plan and statements that would drastically reduce national debt, would require cutting the domestic budget by one-third in four years. But he has only mentioned a few examples, like PBS (should have been gone for decades) and Amtrak (government should not be in the railroad business).
Final Analysis: Romney won the first debate. Romney remained calm, while Obama didn’t and continually ran over his time repeating too much of what rhetoric he has been claiming during this campaign. While Obama appears to have the lead in regards to polls, which are only indications and not sure things, Romney can close that gap quickly if the debates go well. It helps obtain votes from the undecided voters, after seeing debates, listening, and checking for something out of order in the discussion.
Advertisements