It was fairly unanimous in the MSM that Romney won the debate. Comments were that he was forceful, engaged, animated, presidential, challenging, and on the offensive. The president seemed lackluster, dull, unresponsive, and tired. All this is true.
Unfortunately they both lied.
I wish to point out that I will vote for Romney and I was pleased that he is perceived to have won the debate. But I thought he won based on theatrical performance rather than content, which, to be honest, is how most of the great unwashed judge candidates.
Neither candidate made much sense. Saying words people want to hear won't make it so.
Look, President Obama is a left-wing liberal (Progressive, socialist, whatever). He is an ideologue and I respect him for at least letting us know what he stands for. I know exactly what to expect from him and I strongly disagree with most of his policies. There are two really good reasons to vote him out, beside the fact that his policies have failed.
I've written many times about the danger of Obamacare to the overall economy and the social fabric of America. It is not just another government program. It is a major entitlement that will end up like every form of regulated or nationalized health care system around the world—broke. Costs will skyrocket, more regulations will be imposed, people (you 47 percenters) will demand more services, taxes will go up to pay for it, health care prices and wages will be controlled in some form or another, the quality of health care will go down, the economy will remain moribund with the high cost burden to producers, and unemployment will remain high (see, Europe).
The other major issue is that Obama will appoint Progressive "living Constitution" Supreme Court justices who will turn the country seriously to the left similar to what FDR did back in the Thirties when he tried to nationalize the economy.
What is there to say about Romney? Those who claim he is an advocate of liberty and free markets are blind to the meaning of those words because his history as a governor and presidential aspirant belie those ideals. Here is the thing about Romney: he will say and do anything to get elected. He is not an ideologue. An ideologue![ext]()
is "A person who zealously advocates a particular idea, concept, theory or ideology." The words he uses, like "free markets", have no more meaning to him than "I love you, man." ("No, Mitt, you can't have my Bud Lite.") He also believes in “... an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that’s the America millions of Americans believe in. That’s the America I love.” (Thanks, Tim Price for that wonderful quote![ext]()
.)
He derides Obamacare but supported Romneycare. He didn't want to tax the rich, but now he does, at least as of last night's debate. He scapegoats China for our government's reckless spending yet professes he's for free trade. He may favor abortion or the right to life. He thinks he can balance the budget by creating a growing economy, which is true but not very feasible based on his Laffer Curve idea that tax cuts alone will grow the economy. Tax cuts can help, but it's the Fed that's driving this train. As the Fed continues to destroy capital with QE?, more private spending as a result of tax cuts will just destroy more capital (we need to save, not spend, to revive the economy). He supports a "strong military" which I assume means more U.S. intervention and new wars since we already have the most powerful military on the planet.
Romney has some good points if we can believe him. He will do his best to repeal Obamacare and, hopefully,not replace it with some similar, junior entitlement version. Yes, he does believe that "excessive" government regulation is harmful to business. I'm hopeful that he actually believes that (they all say this) but my guess is that he will take a "balanced" (i.e., weak-kneed) approach on this (he'll deal away regulatory cutbacks to get something else). He says he will try to semi-privatize Medicare for pre-retirees (Good luck! Ask W about that one). He says he will appoint "conservative" justices to the Supreme Court, which I applaud.
During the debate Romney lied about deficits, entitlements, and economic growth, but so did Obama. They are pandering to us dimwits, throwing out buzz words to gloss over the fact that their "reforms" have failed or can't work.
I do think however there is one major difference between the candidates. It is obvious that Obama has no faith in the private economy to pull us out of our continuing recession. I actually don't think he believes the economy will recover, based on his many policy failures. His entire campaign theme is for government programs, funded by higher taxes, to alleviate the continuing misery caused by the Obama recession. Romney does believe the private sector can lead us to recovery, but that will work only if he (a) leaves us alone and (b) replaces Ben Bernanke with a Paul Volcker. Those, my fellow citizens, are big ifs. But it will be better than another four years of Obama. Reported by Zero Hedge 39 minutes ago.
Unfortunately they both lied.
I wish to point out that I will vote for Romney and I was pleased that he is perceived to have won the debate. But I thought he won based on theatrical performance rather than content, which, to be honest, is how most of the great unwashed judge candidates.
Neither candidate made much sense. Saying words people want to hear won't make it so.
Look, President Obama is a left-wing liberal (Progressive, socialist, whatever). He is an ideologue and I respect him for at least letting us know what he stands for. I know exactly what to expect from him and I strongly disagree with most of his policies. There are two really good reasons to vote him out, beside the fact that his policies have failed.
I've written many times about the danger of Obamacare to the overall economy and the social fabric of America. It is not just another government program. It is a major entitlement that will end up like every form of regulated or nationalized health care system around the world—broke. Costs will skyrocket, more regulations will be imposed, people (you 47 percenters) will demand more services, taxes will go up to pay for it, health care prices and wages will be controlled in some form or another, the quality of health care will go down, the economy will remain moribund with the high cost burden to producers, and unemployment will remain high (see, Europe).
The other major issue is that Obama will appoint Progressive "living Constitution" Supreme Court justices who will turn the country seriously to the left similar to what FDR did back in the Thirties when he tried to nationalize the economy.
What is there to say about Romney? Those who claim he is an advocate of liberty and free markets are blind to the meaning of those words because his history as a governor and presidential aspirant belie those ideals. Here is the thing about Romney: he will say and do anything to get elected. He is not an ideologue. An ideologue
is "A person who zealously advocates a particular idea, concept, theory or ideology." The words he uses, like "free markets", have no more meaning to him than "I love you, man." ("No, Mitt, you can't have my Bud Lite.") He also believes in “... an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that’s the America millions of Americans believe in. That’s the America I love.” (Thanks, Tim Price for that wonderful quote.)He derides Obamacare but supported Romneycare. He didn't want to tax the rich, but now he does, at least as of last night's debate. He scapegoats China for our government's reckless spending yet professes he's for free trade. He may favor abortion or the right to life. He thinks he can balance the budget by creating a growing economy, which is true but not very feasible based on his Laffer Curve idea that tax cuts alone will grow the economy. Tax cuts can help, but it's the Fed that's driving this train. As the Fed continues to destroy capital with QE?, more private spending as a result of tax cuts will just destroy more capital (we need to save, not spend, to revive the economy). He supports a "strong military" which I assume means more U.S. intervention and new wars since we already have the most powerful military on the planet.
Romney has some good points if we can believe him. He will do his best to repeal Obamacare and, hopefully,not replace it with some similar, junior entitlement version. Yes, he does believe that "excessive" government regulation is harmful to business. I'm hopeful that he actually believes that (they all say this) but my guess is that he will take a "balanced" (i.e., weak-kneed) approach on this (he'll deal away regulatory cutbacks to get something else). He says he will try to semi-privatize Medicare for pre-retirees (Good luck! Ask W about that one). He says he will appoint "conservative" justices to the Supreme Court, which I applaud.
During the debate Romney lied about deficits, entitlements, and economic growth, but so did Obama. They are pandering to us dimwits, throwing out buzz words to gloss over the fact that their "reforms" have failed or can't work.
I do think however there is one major difference between the candidates. It is obvious that Obama has no faith in the private economy to pull us out of our continuing recession. I actually don't think he believes the economy will recover, based on his many policy failures. His entire campaign theme is for government programs, funded by higher taxes, to alleviate the continuing misery caused by the Obama recession. Romney does believe the private sector can lead us to recovery, but that will work only if he (a) leaves us alone and (b) replaces Ben Bernanke with a Paul Volcker. Those, my fellow citizens, are big ifs. But it will be better than another four years of Obama. Reported by Zero Hedge 39 minutes ago.