Romney should be elected over Obama

Domestic PolicyEconomy"President Obama has fulfilled none of his promises, and GDP is growing at a snail's pace. Unemployment has not improved, and both deficits and household income are substantially worse"This is not true. Obama has kept 188 of his promises (http://samuel-warde.com...), GDP is growing a historical rates and is #1 in the world (http://www.therichest.org...), and unemployment has improved.If you're looking at raw numbers, you'll be mislead. Raw numbers will show that at the second Obama took office, his unemployment rate was lower than what it is now. That is true. However, what it doesn't show is that it was declining at a rate of 700,000 jobs/month when he took office. To counter my opponent's graphs in the previous round, I have the following graph. His graph was an attempt to show that stimulus isn't going as planned based on job numbers and unemployment rate. Here's a graph, by the bureau of labor statistics, showing that the stimulus program worked, followed by a graph of the unemployment rate demagnified so that you can see the actual effect. My opponent has stated that Obama has lost a total of 4,000,000 jobs and then says I have not refuted the point. Well, he is right that Obama has lost Jobs. However, as you can tell, he has not considered the fact that he was given a situation with 700,000 jobs being lost per month into the equation, and he has not entered the total number of jobs Obama has created to make a final job creation total. 4.5 million.My opponent then states, "Sure, GDP is increasing, but nowhere did Romney say the improvement was satisfactory." First off, my opponent is attempting to white wash what the GDP is, and what it means. The GDP (gross domestic product) is a primary indicators used to gauge the health of a country's economy (http://www.investopedia.com...). So if it is indeed improving (Like you've stated) it is obviously satisfactory when someone is making the argument that the economy is worse than it once was by stating debt, unemployment, and food stamps. RomneyIt is very important for voters to note that my opponent has spent nearly all of his time looking at Obama' s economic plan and then doing virtually nothing except state that Romney is a successful, "business man," when upholding Romney's. The reason is simple, Romney does not have a plan that adds up. My opponent said nothing about my statements (backed with valid evidence) that Romney's economic numbers do not add up, which I provided in the previous round. Nothing at all. He white washes it with the fact that Romney is a successful businessman, thus he can create jobs. Void of the fact that Romney was ranked 47th out of the 50 states when it came to job creation is Mass. In regards to his statements about the economist. com, it's important to note that the Economist applauds Obama' s efforts in reaction to his situation (http://www.economist.com...) and former vice presidential economic adviser Jared Bernstein and Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs examine a new report in The Economist that once again says the numbers for Mitt Romney’s tax cuts and Paul Ryan’s budget plan don’t add up.Foreign PolicyMy opponent has stated that, "The costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have totaled around $150 to $200 billion per year, and have continued under Obama." It is important that we make it clear that neither one of these wars were started by President Obama. Moreover, it is important to note that it was Obama that took the troops out of Iraq and set a date for troops to leave Afghanistan. Both things Romney opposed. (http://elections.americablog.com...). He also opposed the hunting for Osama Bin Laden. The fact of the matter, is that his fiscal conservative domestic policy does not match his aggressive spending foreign policy in a way that will lower our national deficit. More importantly, it should be noted that Romney would rather cut out programs for pre-existing conditions than stop spending on a military that has nearly 7x more in their annual budget than the next military budget in line. (http://www.buzzle.com...). It is also an important voter issue that we pay attention to Romney's foreign policy plans. In the last presidential debate, Romney agreed with nearly every single one of Obama' s military actions. Actions that he had been campaigning and making articles against. If a candidate cannot take a true side on an issue, he has no true stance. IntegrityMy opponent has not and cannot protect the flip flopping of his candidate in this debate. It is imperative that if you're running for office, that you have a true stance on something. As I provided evidence for before, Romney has been back and forth on health care, women's rights, abortion, equal pay for women, foreign policy, and many more. Romney has been on nearly every side of all of the main issues in this years election. His campaign doesn't even reflect his positions while he was running Mass. He was a moderate liberal there, and is attempting to run as a conservative republican now. All candidates have their dishonesty, almost as if it comes with the job. However, Romney doesn't have a solid stance on anything, that's a completely different story. No policy can be put forth that he has not wavered on. Debate Issues?+My opponent says that I have made wall of text arguments. Included, are statements such as, "If my opponent can make it clear that his minor debate has a realistic approach at the overall debate topic, I will be pleased to debate issue." I'd like to point out that this statement by me is essentially no different than his statement that says, "Liberals who think the job of government is to redistribute wealth are uncomfortable with claims of a growing economy." Not only have I not talked of redistributing wealth, my opponent assumed I was a liberal, and then he says I would not be comfortable with a growing economy.+I attest that I have made absolutely no new arguments in this round and have only used evidence to refute points that my opponent has brought forth in today's debate; I have no new evidence to support any new assertions. I'm not sure that my opponent is going to attempt to bar me from refuting his statements in my closing rounds with evidence or not, but I would like it noted that he also stated that, "No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Pro may rebut previous arguments using new evidence solely for that purpose," in round 1. He made up his own quote of “DR 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. ... Con may not present any new evidence in R4.” The previous quote is not what it says in round 1 under DR4. +My opponent has attempted to call the non-partisan (or maybe bipartisan) politifact, and fact check websites, "left-leaning." Being that they claim to be non-partisan and have evidence against claims by both candidates, it is only reasonable for me to assume he feels this way because their are more fact checked lies from Romney than there are for Obama. It is a baseless assertion to assume that because Romney lies more during his debate rounds and campaigns that the place that does the fact checking is left-leaning.+I would also like to clarify my closing statements of last round. When I quoted him saying he was the Great Roy Latham, I was not insulting my opponent. It was based on his reputation here on DDO of being a great debater and his winning record that was on par with the previous notion that led me to say this. I'd also like to add that had I been actually trying to be sarcastic, it would be no different than my opponent referring to the president as drunk/high/not sober.I have enjoyed debating this topic with Roy and look forward to the day we cross paths again! Good hunting.