Resolved: Mitt Romney would make a better, more effective president than Barack OBAMA

Here's how Romney stood on issues in Massachussetes: Pro gay rights Pro-choice Supports minimum wage increse Strict gun control Expand healthcare. http://web.archive.org...Now let's look where he is: Anti gay-rights Pro-life Against minimum wage increase More lenient gun control Let's not expand healthcare. Massachussetes Let's look at what he actually did: A soaring debt is not an economic indicator of financial collapse. A much better indicator is unemployment. Why? The only conceivable effect debt has on an entity is higher borrowing rates. http://www.doleta.gov.... When Romney took office in January 2003, the national unemployment rate was 5.8%. This puts MA just below the national unemployment rate, giving absolutely no reason to believe Romney had anything to do with creating jobs. In the year Mitt Romney left office, 2007, the national unemployment rate was 4.6%. This clearly illustrates that Mitt Romney had little to do with puting people back to work. So, this being said, Mitt Romney followed Keynesian economic theory to the letter. In a good economy, a debt is a BAD thing, and if he did achieve a debt suplus, good on him. That's Keynesian economics for you. However, he is NOT promoting that now. He has apparently completey abandonded that principle and has become a real right-winger intent on cutting the deficit (Which really isn't a big problem). I'm going to take two things directly from FactCheck.org: Massachusetts added more net jobs during Romney’s four years in office than during the four-year period of either his predecessor or successor. But — that ignores the national recessions before and after Romney’s time in office. If you look at how Massachusetts stacked up on job creation compared with other states, Romney actually fared worse than his predecessor and successor. And here's one about him not rising taxes "Yes — Romney never raised personal income taxes. But — in order to balance the budget, Romney increased government fees by hundreds of millions of dollars" The report goes on to say later that he ALSO closed corporatetax loopholes, something which he has come out against inthe presidentia campaign. http://www.factcheck.org... If FactCheck.org (a nonprofit) should be believed over Mitt Romney's campaign website (which has a HUGE incentive to put a spin on pretty much everything) then Mitt Romney deserves no credit for having practiced the principles he is now promoting. Now let's look at his incentives. Since you're bringing them up, the burden is on you to tell me what those incentives entailed. Were they across-the-board tax cuts? Like he's proposing now? Or where they tax cuts that kicked in only if the company started highering people? Or where they not tax cuts at all, but rather some sort of program that exempts small businesses from taxes for the first cuple years to encourage growth? The fact is, if it was anything BUT across-the-board tax cuts, it is NOT what he is promoting now. All three of these proposals are not "fiscally responsible." In fact, they are all throwing money away at businesses. Winter Olympics record. Running a country is slightly different from running a city's winter olympics. The main problem in 1999 was corruption, and he did a fantastic job at cleaning up corruption. This, however, doesn't exactly prepare you to be the next president of the US. I will admit Obama, prior to getting elected, did not have a lot of experience going into the race for president, however now that he's had four years of experience, he is MUCH BETTER SUITED to running a nation than Mitt Romney is. Mitt Romney may have successfully introduced fiscal conservatism to the games, but, as I have already proven, fiscal conservatism is exactly the wrong strategy to employ as president of the United States.In addition, you have not managed to refute a single one of my contentions.