The first presidential debate between President Barack Obama and former Governor Mitt Romney will be held on October 3rd in Denver, Colorado. Citizens everywhere are looking forward to this debate because much is at stake in the outcome of this election.
A number of very important questions have been discussed in the public domain. The more prominent ones will be addressed here.
The first thing on the minds of voters concerns the direction which America and the world are headed. A related question is America's role in the world and the limits of Manifest Destiny. Do we carry a big stick or are we part of a coalition of countries with common goals and ways of implementing them? This related question is important because it gets to the heart of financial and military commitments which will be required over time. Our role in nation building is another key question to debate.
The next area is balancing the federal budget consistent with incremental growth in the GDP, as well as a more robust tax revenue base achieved from a thriving economy at some point. The debate needs to focus on how and when the federal budget will achieve balance, as well as strategies to stay that way. There are models for budget balancing in the years 1973 and again in 2000.
Health care delivery systems are another issue. The Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act is scheduled for full implementation by 2014. Voters need to know how the current Social Security System will be impacted by the act or the Ryan/Wyden plan. In addition, the candidates should opine on whether or not the overall goals of the public health care systems should promote disease management or health and wellness.
The debate should also focus on taxing junk food, soda, beer, cigarettes and potentially marijuana in order to obtain the revenues needed to preserve the existing public health systems and programs. A related question is reforming the tax code to raise additional revenues through a flat tax, applying consumption taxes to the underground economy or excess consumption taxes on non-nutritive foodstuffs.
Article comments
1 - Baronius
Doc - A word of advice. When I saw this article, I thought that it would be interesting, especially as it was about the issues "we" are interested in. The subject would have to keep you away from the topic of junk food taxes, since there's no way you could tie it into our current national debate. But there you went and did it. It's ok to have a favorite issue, but don't let it become a hobby horse. Otherwise, this was a good article.
2 - Dr. Joseph S. Maresca
Try to react to specifics like America's role in the world (and how we pay for it) ,
health care issues, balancing the federal budget, tax policies, the government's regulation
of the stock market and other things covered in this article. Margin requirements for
derivatives is probably the most important issue arising from the crash of '08.
Revenue sources is another huge area because excess consumption taxes can change
behavior, as well as bring in new revenues for the Medicaid and other programs.
3 - Baronius
As I said, it's a good article. You raised a lot of the right issues (although I would like to have seen them fleshed out a little). Just...it didn't need more cowbell. Not every song needs cowbell.
4 - The Visitor
If you are going to critique someone's writing, using a trite cliche like "cowbell" diminishes your opinion...so declares The Visitor
5 - Dr. Joseph S. Maresca
I'm hoping that the debate referees and the candidates themselves flesh out these
issues. Then, I can critique what they've said once more information is available.
A dissertation could be written on any one of these complex issues.
6 - DEMOCRAT VS REPUBLICAN
There will be little debate going on or interesting answers. Especially since these questions are all given to the candidates ahead of time.
7 - Dr. Joseph S. Maresca
It's doubtful that the candidates have a preview of the exact questions. At most,
they will know the general areas to be covered. The unknown is how candidates
will answer the questions and what examples they will use to set up rebuttals.
The dynamic will be different. Up to now, the presidential debates have been
between candidates of the same party. Now, the debates will focus more on
the differing philosophies and ways of governance between the two parties.
For the first time, the public will see a contrast between the two candidates
in a real live debate. Contrasts are important because they set up variable
approaches to handling questions under pressure, the use of humor to lower
the tension in the audience and the extemporaneous responses to questions
from the moderator.
Yes, the public will get a better glimpse of the candidates tonight and the debate
itself could influence previously uncommitted voters. Right now, there are approximately
5 to 10 million uncommitted voters.
8 - Igor
It's a sham debate. Everything has been decided and pre-planned and a contract between the two contestants signed. The terms are secret.
9 - Reggie Beauchamps
This country is looking at fiscal sanity in the rear view mirror and there's no R on the gearshift in the car we're driving. I guess it's like they say and the election is really a choice between the lesser of two evils. Vote for the guy who who will hasten the global apocalypse less and enjoy!
10 - John Lake
Igor, #8
I believe the only thing clandestine or pre-arranged is the detail of fees paid to the media corporations involved in bringing the debate to the air.
We hope the important issues can be discussed, and the people can make a choice.
There might be some question as to the format, which has been outlined on the news channels, and seems not the best possible way of getting to the major issues.
11 - Igor
I haven't heard Romney denounce his cohort Bush, yet, so I assume he'll bring back those Bush policies that caused the big mess. I don't think we can survive more Bush.
12 - Reggie Beauchamps
Nice logic there Igor.
Republican = bad
Democrat = good
13 - Jet Gardner
Mitt Romney repeated a number of erroneous claims during Wednesday’s debate about President Obama’s healthcare law, including that it relies on a board that will decide "what kind of treatment” patients can get.
This is a myth advanced repeatedly by critics of the Affordable Care Act and debunked consistently by independent fact-checkers.
The board - known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board - was set up to recommend ways to reduce Medicare spending if it increases too rapidly.
The panel of independent experts is empowered to suggest cuts to how much the federal government pays healthcare providers. These cuts would go into effect unless Congress votes to overturn them.
But the panel is explicitly prohibited from cutting benefits for people on Medicare.
And there is no provision in the law that empowers the advisory board to make any decisions about what treatments doctors may provide for their patients.
Romney also said that his healthcare plan would cover those with preexisting conditions, embracing one of the most popular elements of Obama’s healthcare effort. He did not mention, however, that his plan would cover only those whose insurance had not already lapsed, in accordance with existing law.
Romney’s plan would not guarantee insurance access to those who had lost insurance.
14 - Dr. Joseph S. Maresca
There is no getting around taxing junk food, alcohol, tobacco, sodas and maybe even pot
to raise more money to fund the health care systems. That's it- plain and simple. There
should be a followup question to find out how Romney's health care plan covers everyone,
although in the first debate he explained the success of his programs for health care in Mass.
15 - Igor
@13-Jet: good post, Jet. Concise and to the point.
16 - Jet Gardner
Thanks Igor, also owrth noting is that all through the campaign, Romney has concentrated specifically on prioritizing oil above other forms of energy, openly consulting with oil executives and donors on his energy policy. With a team led by an oil billionaire and fossil fuel lobbyists and industry campaign donations totaling $2.2 million, it’s really surprising that Romney has been suspiciously quiet on oil subsidies. Romney’s energy plan to open more public lands, wilderness preserves, and national parks to drilling and gut safety regulations would only help Big Oil.
The world’s five largest oil corporations, which include Exxon, receive $2.4 billion in tax breaks annually, not the “small drillers” as Romney claims. Annual tax breaks for the entire oil and gas industry total $4 billion. The Center for American Progress details the specific deductions and tax breaks that oil companies receive at taxpayers’ cost.
The public overwhelmingly favors ending these permanent tax breaks, at the same time Republicans claim they don’t exist. While the five largest oil companies earned $137 billion profit last year, and $60 billion for the first half of 2012, they paid relatively low taxes, like ExxonMobil’s 13 percent federal effective tax rate.
If Republicans maintain the oil industry’s special tax breaks, Romney’s plan to lower corporate tax rates would provide the five largest oil companies with ANOTHER $2.3 billion subsidy annually!!!
Dumping funding for PBS was a joke and would not do anything towards the deficit. it was obviously a nod toward rabid social conservatives that think Big Bird is teaching kids to love homosexuals...
17 - Dr. Joseph S. Maresca
There is something called coal gasification which is supposed to be much cleaner. We should be talking about coal gasification, the Artificial Sun, wind, solar, solar and desalination plant combinations, ocean wave energy, geothermal, NG where environmentally feasible and many others. Some really top stocks like Juhl Wind are going absolutely nowhere. ( and they should be doing much better)
18 - Clav
@#15:
The Los Angeles Times gratefully accepts your compliment.
19 - Clav
it was obviously a nod toward rabid social conservatives that think Big Bird is teaching kids to love homosexuals...
Actually, the real concern is that BB and his buds are teaching kids to love socialism, as Saul Alinsky did for Barack.
Homosexuals are harmless; the Alinskys of the world are not.
20 - Dr. Joseph S. Maresca
My Reaction:
This panel of independent experts is appointed by the President and not by Congress or an independent
committee. In addition, recommending ways to reduce expenditures ultimately impacts patients. The
big thing that's left out in both candidates is taxing junk food to make up for shortfalls. This is about
the only way to get the money to pay for the public health care programs and no-one is really
addressing the issue. Mayor Bloomberg is touching upon a very close area by banning sodas over
16 ounces but even he has not called for taxing junk food yet. People like Dr. Gary Null speak
about the problems with junk food on a daily basis.
The idea that Romney's plan doesn't guarantee access to those who lost insurance must be responded
to by the candidate. Although, the Hill Burton Program (1946) provides free health care or
significantly reduced health costs to income levels up to $98,000/ year. We should be funding this
program more significantly and no-one is really talking about this except for myself. We really need
to address the Hill Burton Program in the formal Presidential Debates to be fair to millions of people
out there who know absolutely nothing about the program.