Mitt Romney should be the next president

For the most part, I agree with your statement that "Our success has been based not on our military might, but our ability to gain great profit from very productive industries. Even our military might comes less from well-trained soldier and more from our ability to produce weapons, munitions, and tolls faster than any other nation. When it comes to all out war, the US wins because of its ability to overwhelm and outproduce and other nation. Today, however our economy is at serious risk. We are no longer able to compete with countries such as Japan and China. If we want to maintain stability and prolong our role as a superpower, we need to stay competitive" however, I disagree that we need to run our country like a business in order to fix the problem. Being a successful businessman would certainly qualify as a positive attribute for a candidate to have, and I applaud Romney for that. The problem with running a country like a business is that running a country is far more complex than running a business. A president has far more than economical considerations to take into account with every decision he or she makes for the people they are supposed to be representing. To give a good analogy to better illustrate my point, imagine a veteran goes to a VA hospital for treatment and they tell him they can't give him care because they've gone out of business due to mismanagement and unforeseen complications. The problem with running a country like a business is that businesses fail all the time. In fact, the majority of all businesses started do. A country / government cannot go out of business. Another problem with running a country like a business is that ethical considerations are not necessarily a top priority in business management. I study environmental management at the IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs, which is attached to the IU Kelly School of Business. We jokingly call them "the dark side", but in all seriousness, many professors at IU KSB and other business schools teach that ethics and business have nothing to do with one another, that they are two totally unrelated disciplines. This business philosophy is a general consensus among businesses across the US and the rest of the developed world alike. To a degree, there is some truth to what they're saying in terms of maximizing profits and running a business successfully, but incorporating this philosophy into politics has resulted in the domination of our government at every level by special interests. Companies from all over the world have the ability to buy off any politician that's for sale through lobbying tactics or through more lucrative means. They do so in order to favor their business endeavors without considering the broader picture of promoting the general welfare of ourselves and our posterities, a constitutional obligation that every politician swears to uphold. Lobbyists don't even bother with Ron Paul because of his constitutional stance on representing the people, and not special interests. I also disagree with the statement "Because of his ability to see things from new persepectives, he has what some people consider pretty radical ideas. Things such a reinstating the gold standard out income tax. I wont argue that they are all bad ideas, but the time for that kind of economical change is not now. Our economy is too unstable to expirement with moving onto the gold-standard or cutting income tax. Suppose the economy crashes while we are undergoing these changes...we would lose much more than a few billion dollars. OUr government would no longer have sufficient funding. The National standard of living will drop lower than it has in 100 years. Its to risky of a proposition." I would argue that the exact time for economical change is now, because if we don't change, our government will no longer have sufficient funding. In fact, I would argue that our government currently does not have sufficient funding, due to our overwhelming national debt, and the fact that we have to borrow so much from China and other countries in order to fund our wars. I would also argue that we are currently in recession, and therefore our economy is crashing. Switching to the gold standard would not be experimentation because our economy was gold-based prior to switching to "legal tender". The Federal Reserve was created by a handful of bankers in order to give stability and government control of otherwise free markets and lassies faire economics. Note, however, that the great depression happened after the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. [An interesting documentary on this subject called America; Freedom to Fascism" by Aaron Russo can be viewed free (streaming) on Google] One of the main reasons the original 13 colonies declared war against King George was because he refused to let us mint our own money, and demanded that we borrow our money from the central bank of England. He did so because he knew if he controlled our money supply, that he would have us by the balls, and would still possess tyrannical control over us even if we were more self-governed. The Federal Reserve is similar in the sense that, it matters not who makes the rules, but who controls the money. There are many who are unaware of the fact that, according to a US district court justice, the Federal Reserve is a privately owned entity. There's nothing federal about it (reference: Phoenix Journals). Ronald Reagan's Grace Commission, a commission started by the Reagan administration to find out exactly where our tax dollars go, found that 100% of federal income tax revenues go towards paying the interest on the amount we owe the Federal Reserve. That is, we are paying private interests a percentage of our income to pay on the interest, not the principle, of a large amount of counterfeit money that they print out of thin air to lend us. As a result, the Fed Res gained the ability to fluctuate the interest rate as they see fit, and have in turn inflated the dollar to the point that it's worth about .05% of its original value. Inflation is an invisible tax on middle and lower-class Americans. It's the very reason why a high school kid was able to get a job flipping burgers in the 1960's and afford to buy a sports car, but there's no chance of doing so today. The Fed Red Act of 1913 was the greatest heist of all time. If we cut the Fed Res out of the mix we can eliminate inflation, our national debt, and the need for the federal income tax. All of the sudden, Americans have more money that's worth WAY more than before (also worth more compared to foreign currency as well). This is exactly what our country needs to increase productivity and stay competitive on a global scale. Pulling our troops out of every other country and decreasing the size of government / military leave plenty of money for the government to provide the services that they are constitutionally obligated to provide. I argue that Romney is not the candidate with a firm grasp on our economic crisis, and that a businessman is not who we need to pull our country out of the situation we're in.