Ron Paul's economic policies are superior to Barack Obama's economic policies.

I disagree with your definitions of Keynesian and Austrian economics, the ones you put are strict definitions. I will put my simpler definitions down:Austrian School Economics: Economic theory that is strongly opposed to government intervention in business affairs. Against all government intervention besides the core libertarian beliefs of property rights, free markets, national defense, and law enforcement. [1]Keynesian Economics: Economic theory that believes it is the government's job to smooth out the bumps in business cycles. Intervention would come in the form of government spending and tax breaks in order to stimulate the economy, and government spending cuts and tax hikes in good times, in order to curb inflation. [2]Plus, although Keynesian Economics may support warfare (warfarism is not a real word) and support corporate welfare, modern Keynesian supporters DO NOT support these policies, since their politics are progressive. Contention 1: Obama is pro-small business and job creation as wellObama has ordered a federal review of all government regulations. [3] This is to help small businesses grow with less a burden. Plus, Obama has passed tax cuts for small businesses to help spur job creation in this area, in fact 17 times. Obama has also passed as we know the Affordable Care Act, and helps small businesses give their employers health insurance with no change in costs since before the Act. The Act also gives small businesses tax credits for purchasing health insurance for their employers. [4] [5]Contention 2: Obama saved the Auto Industry, unlike Ron Paul's plan (wouldn't of)Obama supported the unpopular auto bailouts, which saved over 1.4 MILLION jobs. Doing nothing would've costed about 3 million jobs. [6] It also saved $97 billion in personal income in 2009 and 2010. Now, they have are creating many new jobs, an economic depression was averted, and the companies have paid back most of their debts, and are also becoming much more competitive, as well as for the first time in years, all companies that received the bailout -- are posting profits. [5] [6] None of this would've happened under a Ron Paul administration. Contention 3: Economic Stimulus was needed to avert a depressionThe stimulus saved about 224,000 jobs in 2010 alone, and increased GDP by 1.7-4.5%, increased total employment by about 1.4-3.3 million jobs, and compared to doing NOTHING increased employment by 2-4.8 million jobs. Also lowered unemployment rate by 0.7-3.8 percentage points, and gave 95% of working families tax cuts. [7] [5] Without the stimulus, history would again show us that the recession would last longer, and the Great Recession would of became a depression. [8] Job growth also began and a recovery was able to appear, although slowly, but you cannot expect much after an economy about reached a depression status. [8]Contention 4: Wall Street Reform was a good ideaThe Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act makes Wall Street now serve not just short term growth, but long term investments in growth, and gives Wall Street more accountability and regulates it in a way that is better for the economy. It ends Wall Street bailouts, "too big to fail" firms, and separates proprietary trading from the business of banking, making Wall Street accountable. Also set up a Consumer Protection Agency to protect consumers from illegal business practices, including Predatory lending. [9] In all, new rules were made to restore accountability and responsibility in corporate offices.Contention 5: Put the USA back on recoveryThe USA missed landing in a depression, but many tax incentives and credits helped the renewable energy in the USA to skyrocket. The USA went from producing 2% of lithium car batteries to 40%. [10] Also, renewable energy now provides 14% of total energy used (campaign promise was 10%). [11] Plus, because of green energy investments, 250,000 - 850,000 green jobs were created since Obama took office until the end of his first term. Renewable energy sources from the USA puts money back into the USA, being a common-sense economic benefit. [12] Plus, job growth, although is still not fully robust, is certain and is much better than it was during the last months of the Bush Administration. New jobs per month is now around 200,000, compared to negative 700,000 a month when Obama started his term. [13] Plus, the patent system has been reformed, and tourism is easier now in the USA, leading to massive potential for "mini-tourist" stimulus packages for the economy. [14] Contention 6: American Jobs Act is a great economic ideaObama's proposed Jobs Act would, according to some economists, "put a significant dent in unemployment" [15]. This Act gives 98% of small businesses tax cuts, tax holidays for new jobs, and cuts regulations for small businesses. The act modernizes about 35,000 schools, prevents up to 280,000+ teacher, firefighter, and police officer layoffs, strongly works on modernizing America's infrastructure, puts heavy investments in promoting businesses that re-hire long term unemployed workers, lets more American families refinance their mortgages, allowing more than $2000 for each family through savings, improves job training for low income youths and adults, and is FULLY PAID FOR. [16] It would also increase GDP growth per quarter by an estimated full percentage point."None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - GoetheSources: [1] http://www.investopedia.com... [2] http://www.investopedia.com... [3] http://www.cbsnews.com... [4] http://www.urban.org... [5] http://www.barackobama.com... [6] http://autos.aol.com... [7] http://cboblog.cbo.gov... [8] http://www.nytimes.com... [9] http://www.whitehouse.gov... [10] "Back to Work" by Bill Clinton. Nov. 2011 [11] http://en.wikipedia.org... [12] http://www.politifact.com... [13] http://www.facebook.com... [14] http://abcnews.go.com... [15] http://www.npr.org... [16] http://www.whitehouse.gov... [17] http://thinkprogress.org...