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

1) I'm going to start out by bringing up good old-fashioned Keynesian economics. In an ecnomic crisis, it is necessary for the government to pump money into the economy to create jobs. This is pretty basic, highschool-level economics and so while it sounds really nice and convincing to promote "fiscal responsibility" it's realy much more prudent to spend money on the economy in order to create jobs, which would ultimately have a better long-term effect. Remember the auto bailout? It was a tremendous success! Nearly a quarter million people were employed by the "Big Three" autodearlerships prior to the bailout. It is fair to say that many of these people would have lost their jobs had the Big Three gone bankrupt, as well as their health benefits and a lot of their potential retirement money. The esimated value of all this is roughly $145,600 per year (before tax). Let's say that if the government had not stepped in, half of the workers at the Big Three would have been laid off, that's roughly 125,000. If this LOW BALL estimate is true, then that would mean that the auto bailout saved $18 Billion dollars from exiting the economy. That isn't considering the money investors would have lost on these copanies had they not received TARP's money. Despite the overwhelming evidence that this bailout was a tremendous success, Mitt Romney has come out against the auto bailout and rejects the idea of ANY government bailout of ANY KIND. 2) Obamacare is a law that many conseratives claim is fiscally irresponsible and uneffective. However, as I will show, the ACA is both an effective law and one that reduces the deficit. Here's Ezra kelin of the Washington Post "'CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012–2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated.'" http://www.washingtonpost.com.... Done. Obamacare, by the CBO's best estimates, saves about a trillion dollars over the next 9-10 years. Now let's look at what it does: It provides coverage for an etimated 30 million people, only 7 million of which wil ha to pay for it out of their own pocket. In addition, it gives people with existing coverage more benefits. For example, people can no longer be exempt from pre-existing condition coverage, young people can stay on their parents' plan until they're 26, allows free abortion coverage, and insured people can no longer "run out of coverage." Even though this was originally Mitt Romney's idea, he has since denounced and called it "the biggest tax in history." Whether or not he is panering is irrelevant. We must judge Mitt Romney by what he is saying NOW, by what he is campaigning on, and he has said that once he gets into office, he would "repel Obamacare the day I get into office." 3) Now let's look at the issue of income inequality. Obama has taken a strong stance on this issue while Mitt Romney has virtually rejected it as a problem. Make no mistake, ncome inequality is an issue. Here are periods in history that have been marked and defines by a large wealth gap: France 1789, Russia 1917, Rome 5-6th centuries AD, USA 1930s, Great Britain 19th century. ALL of these periods were marked by significant government corruption and major economic and social problems. All of these periods experienced massive uprisings because of corruption and economc problems. Mitt Romney would NOT RAISE TAXE SIGNIFICANTLY on the very wealthy, while Obama h pledged repeatedly that he would raise taxes on the top 10% essentially because of trickle-down economic theory (cutting taxes on job creators means more jobs). By this logic, we should see an inverse correlation across countries between employment rate and tax rate on millionaires. After having skimmed trough various jobless figures and tax rates. (http://en.wikipedia.org... and http://en.wikipedia.org...) it becomes easy to see that there is no correlation between employment numbers an tax rate. It is plain to see that Mitt Rmney has verylittle understanding of how the economy works, and for that reason alone, it becomes necessary to prevent Romney from entering the white house.