User blog comment:Nathan8039/Election Day! - Your Voice/Your Vote./@comment-3969224-20121105045518/@comment-3247345-20121105083913

You're conflating two different "debt" issues. The bad debt that caused the economic crisis (bad mortgage debt) and the fact that the government takes in more than it spends are two different things. I was talking about the fact that the government is spending more than it takes in. Bush's desert adventures and tax cuts for the rich (which didn't help the economy like he said they would) were the major causes of that, at least before the recession hit. The recession was caused by the bad mortgage debt and that caused the massive increase in the government deficit. The huge increase in the deficit actually started in 2007, right when the economy was starting to collapse. People started losing their jobs which reduced government revenue and they started using government programs which caused spending to increase. It was actually Bush that signed into law the biggest debt increase in history. All this really doesn't matter because besides Bush's tax cuts and wars it's the recession which is to blame for this. The economics of what happened are very complex but both parties are responsible. The Republicans were behind removing the legal barriers to letting the bankers gamble with people's savings and the Democrats mostly led the charge when it came to pressuring the banks to making home loans that wouldn't be repaid. It was really a mixture of removing good regulations and enacting bad ones. Making it an issue of regulation vs. deregulation just obsures the real issue. It makes for good politics but it's really a mixed bag as far as economics go depending what's being regulated or deregulated. We don't need someone who has business experience. Business experience just means you know how to make a profit. Government is actually supposed to be about things that aren't about profit like defense, education, and crime control. The thing about pursuing profit above all else is that you end up laying off workers if it's profitable. As you said, we need jobs to get back on track. Romney's plan will give the rich more money that could go towards creating jobs. But that's not where the money will go. It will go towards the rich gambling or otherwise lining their pockets. They will only create jobs if there's a demand for what's being sold. In other words the conditions need to be right. It needs to be profitable to create jobs. If those conditions exist then Romney's plan will help things along but the thing is those conditions don't exist and Romney's plan does nothing to create those conditions. Romney knows how to make profits for a business. What he doesn't know how to do is create conditions where creating jobs would lead to profits. Obam's plan gets people spending again which gives business the incentive to hire more workers. Of course that's all in the short term. In the long term Romney's proposed cuts to everything that makes an economy grow in the long term will become a problem that goes beyond getting out of our current mess. As for Obama's EPA, it's really just a boogyman to scare people. I agree with Romney that these environmental regulations should be removed because they're not helping. But in the end the costs of these are really marginal compared to the real problems. Romney's across the board deregulation without reviewing whether it helps or hurts is basically going back to the days where the banks do what they want. The very thing that got us into this mess.

Oh, and thank you taking race out of all of this. I've found that people that make accusations about Obama getting elected because he's black are the only ones injecting race into this. Kind of like how the real racists are the first to scream racism at something that has nothing to do with race.