#eloquentrage

So ignoring that Romney basically abandoned half of his platform in a successful attempt to throw Obama off (I mean, who wouldn't be surprised in a debate when their opponent isn't saying anything he's been saying his entire campaign?), I have a few questions.

Why is it that health care/premiums continually increased even before Obamacare if the market and competition takes care of that issue more efficiently? The immediate spike in premiums was an expected anticipatory response (the same thing happens anytime any sot of insurance is further democratized), but that's beside the point since the key point behind Obamacare wasn't to necessarily increase competition (since that's historically pointless), but to increase availability of health care. I'm also curious how you can have faith in what Romney says on this topic since Obamacare is nearly identical in structure to the reforms Romneycare enacted in Mass. and were pushed at a national level by Republicans until it became unpopular for them to be pro-reform on anything. The key difference between Obamacare and Romneycare is that Obamacare has a stronger emphasis on preventative care (regular check ups and preemptive visits, etc), which in the long run is actually way more important in maintaining health than response after the fact. So a further question isn't just why is it that the market failed to keep costs in check before Obamacare, but also do you or do you not agree that more people should have access to regular healthcare and not just emergency coverage?

I realize you have a personal connection to the mortgage issue, but I'll ask this in a few different questions. First, you have to admit that there are a lot of larger forces that play into people not getting mortgages (such as the recession, but more on that later), but also that before the recession banks were (and really still are, imho) giving mortgages to people who really couldn't afford them, but wanted to take the plunge anyway. While I agree the main onus here should be on personal responsibility, most people are idiots, so do you not think it's justified for the government to place additional restraints on banks in the interest of "protecting" (preventing) people from entering into mortgages that they'll ultimately get forclosed on? Particularly, do you not think this is a fair safeguard to take in a tumultuous jobs market? Furthermore, considering the property bubble burst that played a major factor in all of this, do you not agree that some further restrictions needed to be put in place to ensure the stability of the market?

I think it's difficult to say investments in green energy have been wasted since most of the projects that were given funding haven't actually come online yet. There are a good number that fell through, but I think this is sort of a half-point since, again, there's a lot more that played into the various successes and failures than just who got government money or not. 

Both of them want to encourage small business through the same efforts, though I thought it was interesting that Romney's talking points tonight were wayyyyyyyy more centerist than he's been this entire campaign...

There's a difference between making people unable to access government aid and actually keeping them from being dependent on them. Cutting programs may achieve the same numbers, but I think you have to agree there is a difference between "We encouraged people to be self-sufficient, now we have less people applying for aid" and "We made aid unavailable, now we have less people applying for aid". Ultimately the issue of government "dependency" is not an issue that is going to be solved by addressing the programs themselves, but it's a larger economic issue just like the mortgage issue. Ultimately government dependency is decided by whether people are employed or not. Also, this really depends on your definition of dependency. Furthermore, it also depends on where you are willing to draw the line between what is and isn't "worthwhile" government aid. The largest portions of government aid programs get paid out to things like Medicare and Medicaid, which do a lot of people a tremendous amount of good. Are those worth cutting?

I think you have to admit, just by nature or how time only flows forward, that Obama's "robin hood" idea (which has barely been touched, let alone really gone into effect since most of the tax-cuts on the rich remain largely in effect, though congress is debating that still) really has very little to do with the recession. I mean, it started before he was even elected, was headed toward a depression, and whether or not you believe his stimulus helped stem that tide or not you have to acknowledge that historically larger recessions and depressions usually take a couple years to reach their worst effects, anyway. So what you're basically doing is judging Obama's success on a maximum of like one year, but really it could and has been argued that really this term of presidency, even if it wasn't Obama, was going to be a constant uphill battle given the magnitude of this slump. We got lucky in the great depression because we got to go to a war that paid off, unfortunately that is not an option currently (and wasn't for the previous 6 years before Obama), so really the best one could hope for from an economic plan is a softening of the blow, so to speak. What's more important that the current job GROWTH numbers is whether or not the groundwork is being laid out for more job STABILITY in the future. 

And just a note about the whole Ambassador thing... considering the revolutionary climate in that area of the world currently, it's understandably a HUGELY delicate situation overall. I think there's good questions to raise about whether his avoidance of meeting with the leaders at the UN was a good move or not (I'm willing to bet it was a matter "we can't get wrapped up or misquoted if everyone knows there wasn't a chance for it to happen anyway" moreso than a "This isn't important" decision), but (and not saying you're doing this, but I've seen it being said blatantly elsewhere) if people are going to imply that Ambassador Stevens' death was the result of Obama's oversight and try to make a thing out of it, they also by the exact same circumstantial logic (timeframe, climate, evidence, etc) have to also say that 9/11 was a result of Bush's oversight. It's a completely bogus and tenuous connection to make against either administration. What I think is the more worthwhile thing to consider here is whether or not it is really our country's place to play world police. Clearly Obama does not think so, and Bush/Romney think the exact opposite. It's really a question of how much investment can you put into a country before "fostering good will" becomes a tacit form of imperialism.