Ron Paul does not have the most socially beneficial domestic policies in the 2012 presidential race.

There can be little doubt that the United States of America faces a number of issues, both in the short and long term. Over the last four years, we have witnessed the president of the United States implement a number of long-term solutions to some very immediate problems, while providing the framework for America to face the future. Note that Obama's 2012 campaign has barely launched, so expect to see even grander policies than these popping up soon. Still, from what we know already, Ron Paul's policies are inferior to Obama's. The Obama plan is to continue to push America, as they have done for the last four years, towards prosperity. So think back to four years ago. America's economy was dead. Obama created the National Export Initiative, which will double US exports by 2015. Obama also signed three trade agreements, creating tens of thousands of jobs. Obama created tax incentives for innovation, and cut taxes for small businesses 17 times (and he has said he will continue to do so) to help create jobs. He also passed legislation to end taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street. But the effects of the economic catastrophe are still being felt. Businesses are recovering, but if Obama's programmes end now, you can expect the recovery to end too. Unemployment is still a worry. That's why Obama proposes his American Jobs Act to keep Americans working, andincrease the pace of job creation. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is still in its infancy, and needs the protection of a supportive president to nurture their ability to protect ordinary folk from unfair practices. Creating jobs and exports, supporting small business and ending Wall Street bailouts are, as they always have been, Barack Obama's priorities. That's good for American society because it gets them working, it gets them profiting, it supports innovation and it keeps them from exploitation. American healthcare was the subject of international ridicule. Hospital waiting times were ridiculous. Few people could afford health insurance, and those that could not were sometimes denied treatment. The cost to the government of healthcare was at a historic high. Thanks to Obama's leadership and his Affordable Care Act, insurance is no longer the domain of an elite few. Millions of Americans are now able to get treatment for conditions. Small businesses were given tax credits to help them pay for the premiums. Obama introduced transparency to the health insurance industry, free preventative care, and ended discrimination against women. But healthcare is far from perfect. That's why Obama wants to extend free preventative care and continue to ensure his law is not repealed. He wants families to see the extra $2000 of health savings he has promised them by 2019. He wants the American budget to see the $217 billion in deficit reductions from healthcare alone that his law guarantees. That's great news for American society as it means that people will live richer, healthier, and ultimately happier lives. America wasn't secure. Under Barack Obama's leadership, more Al Quaeda figureheads were killed or captured than under all of the previous president's three terms combined. Obama ended the United States operations in Iraq and moved quickly to bring a decisive end to the war in Afghanistan. He signed an executive order ending most torture, and closed all secret CIA detention facilities. But the war in Afghanistan is not yet finished. America needs a president with a proven track record of ending war to end this war too. He wants to expand and improve veteran's benefits. He wants to broaden America's international relations, reaching out to foreign countries, for example, with more trade agreements. He wants to continue to work with countries around the world, as he has done with Russia, to abolish nuclear weapons. With these programmes, American society will be more secure, well-defended, and well-positioned to deal in a friendly fashion with other nations. There's a fine line between world-policing and isolationism, and Obama treads it very well. American schools were a C+ at best. Barack Obama doubled financial aid investment to help millions of kids from poor and middle class families attend university. He saved hundreds of thousands of jobs that teachers were on the brink of losing. Obama also invested $2 billion in competitive grants for community colleges and made student loans more student-friendly. But there is still not enough equality of opportunity in education. Support for schools and teachersneeds to be expanded, and Barack is the man to do it, with his ongoing "Race to the Top" programme. Helping all students get a good education has always been one of Barack's top priorities, so he wants to increase the availability of grants further. If American society is to be prosperous, every American child needs to have the education to compete with the rest of the world. Barack Obama delivers that. What we have seen over the last four years is just the beginning. There can be little doubt that all of these policies and priorities are socially beneficial. The question in this debate is whether Ron Paul's proposals are more beneficial than these. What you're about to hear from my opponent is a rejection of most of these programmes (with perhaps only one or two exceptions). My opponent needs to prove that these policies are more socially beneficial than those I have outlined already.