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

I'm going to quote you. "Attacking Romney and not even once promoting Obama is not the way to win this debate." Reread what you have written. It seems you did not heed your own advice. I have already defended Obama and you have STILL failed to successfully refute sound Keynesian economics. You have also failed to provide a link between the reduction in economic growth and the economic stimulus. Really, the only reason I haven't defended Obama so far is because you have not attacked him. You also seem to be under the illusion that the one person who should receive the blame for a bad economy is the president. In a market economy, like the one we have, then who should receive he blame when the economy doesn't function? The DRIVERS of the economy, the business man, the bankers. If you believe Obama SHOULD receive the blame for the economy, then you are conceding that the driver of the economy SHOULD be the government. As a final note, your list of the pesidents by economic performance is not groundbreaking a makes total sense. Because all of these presidents arepresidents since WWII, then it follows that the worst recession snce WWII would have the worst numbers since WWII. Essentially wh you are doing is restating that this has been the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. You are not proving why that is, OR that this recession is Obama' fault. You have also gone outside your definition of "progressive" by writing "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." Don't tell me what I believe. Responsible regulation and promoting the lower and middle classes is the way to increase CONSUMER SPENDING, which as well all know is what drives an economy. In response to your assertion that the annualized GDP has dropped b/c of the second round of stimulus. You have shown correlation w/ out causation. You have not controlled for any of variables. You have not given ANY evidence to indicate that this stimulus of $862 Billion slowed the economy by almost 2% (Which is an absolutely ridiculous notion). If the annual GDP is roughly $14 Trillion, then that is roughly 6% of the annual budget. Using similar reasoning, I shall now defend Obama's record on the value of the dollar. Inflation rate is not a relevant economic indicator in a recession. Once again, you have absolutely failed to refute Keynesian economics (which you have failed to grasp conceptually). I have already defined Keynesian economics, and it is, put simply, the belief that, IN ECONOMIC RECESSIONS, it is necessary for the government to spend to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Rather than the alternative which would be to cut spending, which would destroy lots and lots of jobs. In good times, however, it is necessary to pursue fiscal responsibility. THIS is the core of Keynesian economics, so the statement that Keynesianism says that a bigger deficit means a better economy is almost totally false. I'd also like for you to give more evidence to your assertion that the $862 Billion has "vanished with out a trace," because I have evidence to the contrary. From what source is this from? I'd also like you to clarify if you mean the auto stimulus or the bank stimulus. This is all in defense of Obama's economic stimulus. My opponent has completely neglected to refute the effectiveness of Obamacare and hasn't even touched the income inequality debate.