The Great Debate

Romney vs. Obama. It's like a sports match. Two teams, one ref, many watchers, and the opportunity to win.

Politicians are undoubtedly charismatic presenters and eloquent speakers especially in front of their own crowd. Though debating is another ball game. This is the first Presidential debate of 2012. The challenger had energy, was ready to battle, and utilized repetition as his main play. The champ kept is cool as he defended his title and track record.   They both seem to have continuously ran over the shot clock, sometimes overstepping the ref's toes, and were scattered with issues at times. Taking style points out of the equation, content should be the fight.

The economy. The two talked numbers, which may have been a bit of a disconnect with the audience since, it's safe to say, don't look at a the Nation's budget nor had time to wrap ones head around. Obama makes the case to be patient as it takes time to get the country, that was in scrambles before he took office, back on its feet. He says jobs were created, Dodd-Frank has been dissected and is still in progress, and Education is forward concern. If we can get be competitive with other countries in science, math, etc., perhaps that could put our country in a better position overall. To invest in the foundations and the entitlements that are backbone, investment is needed.  Raising taxes on someone (even if that someone is Exxon) is what he supports to balance the budget and over time, decrease the deficit.  Romney does not want to increase taxes on ANYONE because in a recession, he says it's not smart to do so, even on the millionaires and billionaires who were still able to fly their personal planes or fly first-class flights for vacay.  He agrees the deficit should decrease, yet did not provide a somewhat specific agenda as to how to do so. With no increase in taxes - then what? Kick people off of government funded programs (that he may or may not care about, take a looks at his infamous video)? Extracting from his implicit language regarding Healthcare, drop the government from Healthcare plans because private corporation will have the interests of beneficiaries in their hearts, over their profits. Oh yes, make sense. Speaking of...

Healthcare. The sides to choose from are give each person a voucher to spend on whatever they want or allow the Feds to bolster States. In the latter, the Federal government sets standards on what services a person can get so that doesn't allow room for "bare bones" benefits. In the former, vouchers seem nice if there were competition but the truth is, there are way more buyers than sellers. Also, how would sellers not take advantage of the elderly and other beneficiaries? Insurance companies already recruit certain people as it is. And how would vouchers address the rising costs? Every state, city, service, and prescription drug varies significantly. Hospitals and doctors already charge customers outrageously as it is. And also, leaving the States to its own funding - again, how is that going to happen without federal help? Last time I checked, States don't have parents to lend money. Repealing Obamacare would take away progress in providing medical coverage while reducing costs for everyone. If it is unclear how, it is posted on the web.

All in all, the candidates covered many topics which were really meant to support arguments over the economy - from the Energy to Income and Corporate Tax to Bipartisan efforts to Job creation.

It may not be a simple choice, but maybe this could help. Which scenario is best when ultimately determining how much a carton of milk costs?  If you trust corporations, vote Romney. If you trust the government, vote Obama. If you want a balance of both, perhaps move to Germany.