I heard this real snippet on NPR today.
Anchor: it (I missed the beginning so idk what 'it' is) shows that most people liked what Obama was saying when he was talking. But Romney won the debate. How is it that Romney won if most people like what Obama had to say?
Guest (whose credentials I don't know): Well, in a debate you have to also factor in stylistic points. And that is where Romney won. Obama was looking down at his podium more, while Romney was looking at his opponent and the moderator.
Really? Is that what this has come to? Romney won because he looked down the podium less? Here is a real (because obviously my thoughts are the most important :-) analysis of the debate:
First of all, neither guy really succeeded. I'm sorry, but in a debate, you should respect the moderator and not force him to let you have the last word or keep talking. Do not go over your time, do not be ridiculous. Do not get into a childish "yes you do" "no I don't" banter. Seriously, you are supposed to be the next (and/or) current president of the united states of america. You can't have a more intelligent debate than I had with my brother when I was 5 and he was 7 about whose fault it was that we were in trouble? That is ridiculous. Advantage: Nobody. Epic fail.
Second of all, obviously Mitt Romney was flailing. He was making stuff up, agreeing and simultaneously disagreeing with everything the president said. He was trying to court voters who are going with Obama, but still keep his opinions the same, while having opinions that people like. What? That sentence makes about as much sense as Romney did last night.
I'm going to cut taxes for everyone, but leave everyone's taxes the same and not increase revenue. And this will make the deficit go away. Look, usually I leave the economics to the experts. I'm not fond of economics, it's complicated and nuanced and I'd rather stick to issues that impact our everyday lives. But even I know basic math. Here is a hypothetical explanation of what Romney is saying.
Romney says, we have a deficit and to solve it we have to decrease income from section A (taxes) but NOT increase revenue from anywhere else. Negative number minus other number does NOT equal a positive number. -5 - 10 = -15 NOT +1500. He has said his plan is revenue neutral, which since he won't give details I have to assume means no extra or less revenue. I mean, I have a bank account. I can decrease spending and yes that helps, but I also HAVE to increase my revenue in order to quickly solve any problems. ESPECIALLY if I'm in the hole. If I'm at -$15 and I stop spending money I will remain at -$15 forever, unless I find someway to bring in money.
But Romney also wants to cut taxes across the board for everyone. Ok, so if I'm at -$15 and then I take less hours at work, how is that going to help? Answer: It's not. In order to decrease a debt you have to both decrease spending and increase revenue. As with any budget, you have to decide what is worth spending money on and what is not.
We all have some experience with budgets. Whether it be accidental or planned. We all have to figure out how to at least break even if not make money. And when we make our budgets we start with the basics. You HAVE to pay for the roof over your head, whether it's rent or mortgage. You have to pay for the food that you eat, whatever that may be. You have to pay for your utilities and your transportation to and from work. You have to pay your medical bills. After you've taken care of the essentials, you look at what else you want that you have money for. And make priorities: cable/internet, going out for entertainment, your hobby, your fun purchases etc. I feel like Romney doesn't get that, and maybe it's because he has never had a budget of his own before. Maybe he is worried about his own special interests more than getting rid of the debt. Who knows, but he doesn't seem to understand that to balance a budget you have to take ALL those things into consideration. Not just cut PBS, cut taxes, cut cut cut cut cut. Some things are worth spending money on. But you also have to figure out how to bring IN revenue to pay for the things worth paying for. This really bothers me. If Romney's economic plan is so non-sensical that 1) I understand how it won't work and 2) care than there is a serious problem.
This is not to say Obama's plan is perfect, but if these are my only two choices I will go with the guy that understands how a budget works. Advantage: by a hair...Obama.
Third, the most frustrating thing uttered all night was said by Mitt Romney. He quoted the declaration of independence and said that everyone is endowed by our creator with the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. Ah, something Mitt and I agree on. Oh, nope wrong. He means that we are all endowed by our creator with the unalienable right to pursue the happiness that the GOP decides is acceptable. We are not to pursue happiness if it conflicts with the morals of the GOP. (they like to call these "christian" morals, but I beg to differ, I think christianity is better than the GOP). I mean, I'm not pro-choice. But I mean, Mitt set himself up for the "what about women that want to pursue happiness via not going through with pregnancy?" argument. But a good point is, abortion aside, what about women that want to pursue happiness via quality health care, I mean there is more to women's health than abortions, and the GOP wants to effectively put women's health as a side issue. What about people that want to pursue happiness via getting married, or having a surogate mother for the their child, or want a child but have to do it via AI? What about all the minorities that want to pursue happiness by being allowed to actually do things, and not being purged from voter lists or forced to prove their citizenship every few weeks? Mitt is preventing happiness galore. Ah, but the 1% will be happy having more money than they had before. While the rest of us get poorer and poorer and pay more and more taxes. Will the 1% even notice an extra $40 in their bank accounts? A regular person would, a lot. I'm just saying, if Mitt really wanted to protect a persons right to pursue happiness I would vote for him in a second. But again, Obama is more likely to make sure the poor have food and shelter, and to protect minority groups. Advantage: Obama.
And lastly was the rock-star quote from Obama that somehow got over-looked. "Do you think he won't tell us because they [his policies] are too good? They will help the middle class too much?" Exactly. At least Bill and Obama kinda broke down their ideas. Mitt won't explain how without obamacare I will still be protected. No matter how you slice it, I will be negatively effected by a repeal of Obamacare. Pre-existing condition: check. Female: check. floating in some limbo between poor enough to get assistance and rich enough to be able to afford stuff: check. With Obamacare: my migraines are "cured" and I was able to acquire a $1000 medication for $25. Without Obamacare: I have to get insurance within 3 months of my 26th birthday or who knows what will happen. (disclaimer: because of my job, having insurance post 26 won't be difficult, but not every 20-something works for a company that can afford great benefits and before I was let back onto my dad's insurance, I had crappy insurance because I didn't have this job yet). I will not vote for someone who wants to repeal Obamacare unless they give a good reason why and an explanation of how to replace it so people don't lose everything. Advantage: Obama (except it's kinda arrogant how much he likes the term Obamacare, but who wouldn't like to have such a historic health care reform named after them?)
Romney won't explain his tax plan, will my taxes go up or stay the same? If the rich don't have a tax increase and poor don't have a tax increase where is your revenue coming from? Which loopholes are you closing? It is the home ownership tax deduction? Is the the educational tax deduction? Is the the child credit? It is something that Mitt doesn't want us to know.
Here is the list of things Mitt Romney doesn't want us to know:
That he got a tax return probably. And got it by donating to his OWN charitable organization.
How he is going to solve the debt problem.
His tax plan for the country. And his budget.
What he will put in to replace obamacare.
I say again, is it because those things are TOO good? Advantage: Obama
So yeah, style goes to Romney. And the ability to yell and be annoying until the other guy doesn't even wanna debate you goes to Romney. But actual presidential policies and worthiness of being the leader of America....Obama is the better choice. Winner...maybe if he hadn't been so rude to the moderator. But definitely the better choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment