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

Attacking Romney and not even once promoting Obama is not the way to win this debate. I shall now attack Obama as brutally as you decided to attack Romney. If attacking the opposition, without promoting your own side of the debate is how you wish to go about this then I shall happily oblige. Definitions: - Inauguration: to commence officially or formally; initiate.[1] Progressive(noun): A person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.[2] Before I display the debate I shall give definitions of technical terms used in debate. It is not that I think you are too uneducated to know them but I want to be 100% clear to any voter who may not know the term exactly. Executives are judged by results. In terms of the economic results produced during the first 2.5 years of his first term, Obama is the worst president of the past 60 years. Ten presidents have been elected since 1952: Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama. Let's look at how each of them stacked up against the following five important measures of economic performance: 1) The average real GDP growth rate during the first 10 calendar quarters of his first term 2) The percentage point change in the CPI inflation rate between the December prior to his inauguration and July of the third year of his first term. 3) The percent change in the "Real Dow" (the Dow Jones Industrial Average divided by the price of gold in dollars per ounce) between the December prior to his inauguration and July of the third year of his first term 4) The percentage point change in the unemployment rate between the December prior to his inauguration and July of the third year of his first term 5)The percent change in total employment (BLS Household Survey) between the December prior to his inauguration and July of the third year of his first term If we rank the ten presidents listed above in numeric order in each of these categories based upon the results they produced, and then calculate the average of their five individual scores, we get the following overall presidential rankings, from best (1) to worst (10): 1. Clinton 2. Johnson 3. Eisenhower 4. Kennedy 5. Carter 6. Reagan 7. Bush 41 8. Nixon 9. Bush 43 10. Obama It may be surprising to see Jimmy Carter ranked ahead of Ronald Reagan. Remember, however, that the comparison is only between the economic results achieved during their first 2.5 years in office. As it happened, the economy went downhill fast during Carter's final 1.5 years in office, while the last 18 months of Reagan's first term was marked by rapid GDP growth and job creation. Obviously, Alter wants Obama to be reelected. Because Reagan won 49 states in November, 1984 despite his poor economic record through July, 1983, it is reasonable to believe that Obama could win in 2012 if he produced strong GDP and employment growth between now and the election. However, it is very unlikely that he will accomplish this. Obama's fundamental problem is his flawed mental model of how the economy works. His recent speeches suggest that he has not yet recognized his conceptual errors. Rather, all of the indications are that he will attempt to "double down" on the policies that have kept our economy mired in the worst recession/recovery since the Great Depression. First and foremost, Obama continues to believe that a weak, unstable, manipulated U.S. dollar is good for the economy. Bush 43 believed the same thing, and waited in vain for a surge in exports to boost the economy, even as the dollar lost 69% of its value against gold. Obama took up Bush's vain vigil, and stood idly by while value of the dollar in terms of gold fell by another 53% (for a total of 85% since Jan. 20, 2001). Obama remains firmly in the grip of the Keynesian Superstition, which is the belief that government deficits boost the economy. He didn't seem to notice that his $862 billion in "stimulus" vanished without a trace. Also, the fact that annualized GDP growth slowed from 2.33% (4Q2010) to 0.36% (1Q2011) at the moment that his second round of "stimulus" (the 2.0 percentage point cut in payroll taxes and yet another extension of unemployment benefits) took effect seems to have made no impression on him. It is this superstitious belief in Keynesianism that led White House Press Secretary Jay Carney to lecture a reporter from The Wall Street Journal that extending unemployment benefits would boost the economy. It is also what prompted Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to claim that every dollar spent on food stamps adds $1.84 to GDP. Obama is a Progressive, and Progressives believe that unelected, unaccountable "experts" can make better economic decisions than "We the People", expressing our preferences via free markets. They also seem to believe that regulation upon regulation can be piled upon the private sector at no cost to jobs or economic growth. Willard Mitt Romney is a man who has it all. A vast personal fortune, a successful private career, a perfect family life, a sharp mind, a charismatic personality, and he is very easy on the eyes (heck, even his name has a touch of stardust about it). So why does 64-year old Romney continue to struggle to capture the hearts and minds of the Republican heartland? His poll numbers have consistently hovered in the 23-25% region, and despite the short term hiccups caused by the mini-surges of Bachmann, Perry and now Cain, his support base seems to have held pretty solid over the past two years. His critics charged that his greatest strength, the ability to build a consensus from diverging factions, is also his biggest weakness. He appears to be intent on pleasing everyone, which lends an appearance of him being a flip-flop on his stances. This characteristic was used in devastating fashion in 2007/08 by Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson and John McCain to derail his campaign. Perhaps a better way to look at the quarter billion dollar man is through his own eyes, that of a financial investor. Mitt hedges his position across a broad portfolio, which, while preventing the chance of a mega payday, also drastically reduces the chances of a catastrophic loss. In other words, he doesn't believe in putting all of his eggs in a single basket. Instead, the grandfather of fourteen is intent on keeping hypothetical baskets of varying sizes to hypothetically fit as wide a spectrum as possible of the hypothetical egg demographics. Cognizant of this perceived vulnerability, Mitt has adopted a very organized and low-keyed strategy for this nomination cycle. He has chosen to skip all the straw polls and remain in the shadows of his rivals, and only making controlled media appearances. Mitt remembers very clearly how brightly his star shone in the 2008 race, and how quickly it faded as well. He has revealed his hand only several times the past year, and Rick Perry unfortunately, appears to bear the majority of those excursions. Former advisor to President George W. Bush, and 2008 Republican nominee John McCain, Mark McKinnon, concurs, stating, "Romney is playing things very methodically and deliberatively. I think he understands the physics of this game very well now and is carefully calibrating his approach to 2012." Sources: [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.google.co.uk... [3] http://2012.candidate-comparison.org... http://www.youtube.com...