My twitter feed blew up tonight because of the
debate, and it became apparent very quickly that I follow a lot of people who are not particularly fond of Mitt Romney (or as I affectionately call him Mittens). They have good reason. He hasn't been the most eloquent participant in the previous parts of this election cycle and the media has practically dug him into the ground. But Mitt showed up tonight. Most of America probably wasn't expecting it, but he gave as good as he got. The President could have been a stronger force in my opinion, but I think everyone underestimated this debate.
Let me start off by saying that I have a lot of issues with both parties. Neither side has been as well rounded as I would like them to be. But let me also say that this election, as much as people want it to be, should not be about social issues.
Yes, they are an important part of the society we live in now and yes, it influences a lot of people's decisions on whom to vote for, but right now we need to be more concerned about finding the right person to fix our economy. As horrible as it is to say, they might have to take the back burner for a few years.
Back in January I was working on a post solely about the economy. Obviously I never published it, but I will put part of it here because I think it's still relevant.
The Federal Reserve released a statement about their plans for the next three years. Their new effort at transparency has prompted them to give a detailed idea of what they want the economy to do and how they want it to happen.
The Fed plans to wait until the end of 2014 to raise national interest rates, they don't see the economy recovering from the 2008 recession before then. Hopefully by keeping the interest rates at close to zero it will help speed up the recovery process, but "tight lending standards make it impossible for many people and businesses to get loans." Currently the reduced borrowing costs should help the international market as well, giving Europe a chance to fix their increasing problems.
Chairman Ben Bernanke would like the unemployment rate (currently at 8.5 percent) to drop below 6 percent. In the next three years "the Fed aims to increase prices and wages by about 2 percent each year."
The lower the interest rate, the more willing people are to borrow money. Many times with that money people are more inclined to make bigger purchases like houses or cars. Regardless an increase in spending helps the economy's production and turnover.
A similar event occured in 2001 and 2002, the Fed cut the federal funds rate to 1.25 percent which contributed to the 2003 recovery.
Since I wrote this in January the Fed has obviously readjusted what their plans are and if I remember correctly Bernanke has come under fire for his
recent comments about the economy.
I got a little sick of hearing about the 5 Trillion Dollar Tax Cut that was thrown around a lot at the beginning of the debate. Mittens and the President had a lot to say on the issue -- they both went over their allotted times.
"I won't put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit." -Mitt Romney
I think saying this kind of thing is a bit bold, and I personally wouldn't make promises like this. Candidates are expected to make promises during elections, but promises in word cannot always be promises in action. Point in case the last four years.
The numbers and economic back talk they used in the first 20 minutes of the debate was staggering. It's incredibly hard to follow, and the jargon was absolutely ridiculous.
I have issues with Mitt wanting to end funding to PBS, but at the same time I'm all for smaller government. I think one of the biggest problems that we've had with spending is inside of the government. It's just gotten bigger and bigger with more people spending and allotting money.
"Budgets reflect choices." -President Obama
Beyond true. The choices each administration makes and defines the country's budget. Regardless of what those decisions are. For a long time I was more than okay with the idea of the country becoming isolationist, fixing itself, and being the world power it should be; that it can be. No one in that debate was guilty free in promoting money to corporations. Regardless of party lines, corporations are how the world works and we as a competitive nation just need to find what works for us. In this instance, can we really pick a right or wrong answer. I think promoting any kind of economy can help. Be creative and look for ways for the world to provide the United States jobs and industry without losing our identity as a hard working country.
I know...it sounds all naive and optimistic, but we need a little optimism.
One of my biggest issues with the President is something he's stood behind since 2008 and that's the increase of the maths and sciences. I agree wholeheartedly that as a country we could be more advanced educationally in those areas, especially since the boom in the 60s and 70s and into post-Cold War eras (which I don't think we're out of yet). But only promoting those two educational values is a flaw in my opinion. Consistently though, the arts have never gotten enough funding. And personally I think the arts are a tool that we as a country cannot gain from by losing. The arts provide creative outlets for all walks of people. How can you have science without art? Look at Apple for example or studies that show students who play instruments have higher IQs or perform better in school. I don't see the point of showing preference of one over the other. Why is the President pushing this when his administration also allowed the end of our major space programs? If he wants the federal government to have responsibilities for schools, why can't we have a balanced and solid curriculum? Maybe that's just too much to ask for.
A big problem I have with the debate tonight was that Jim Lehrer wasn't a more prominent moderator. He definitely could have stood his ground. Romney did run all over him, but Romney shouldn't have been able to. I would have like to see the moderator more interactive in the actual correspondence of the debate and leading the conversation for Americans.
On healthcare... well I'm not even going to touch that can of worms tonight, but I think the President sums it up rather nicely.
"Leave a whole bunch of people uninsured and have them fend for themselves. Or figure out how to make the cost of care more effective." -President Obama
On the
role of the federal government, I think Romney nailed the answer to the question, "promote and protect the principles of those documents." The last twenty minutes of the debate were almost flawless for the man. Even his closing remarks shown out against the President's.
On the same question the president said that the federal government has the capacity to create frameworks for the american people to succeed. I adore the President as a person, but sometimes I think he panders to the people and hides behind is social issues platform. He could be the well rounded person we need, but I think his business ideas are flawed and I think Hillary has him completely trumped on
international relations. I don't think either candidate could be as good at what she does.
I'll leave you with clips of articles I've read on
RCP that float along similar wave lengths and I think provide some insight.