On the Obama-Romney Debates: $1 Trillion that Must Never Be Mentioned

One of the key events of the U.S. election campaign has been held — a publicly televised debate between presidential candidates. The winner will be fundamentally important to the future development of the global economic situation, and the gap between candidates is not so big as to prevent these debates from becoming the most important factor in predicting the situation.

I should note, by the way, that from my point of view, whether or not Romney replaces Obama will have practically no effect on the development of the global economy. However, it will fundamentally determine the speed of the process. The departure of Obama and arrival of Romney could speed up recovery after the economic crisis. However, I will not (yet) linger on this point.

And so, during the debate it became clear that the participants were concerned chiefly about the U.S.’ internal finances. This, of course, corresponded to the theme of the debate, but nevertheless it was clear that it was the economy which voters are most worried about. On this note, they each tried to make convenient points against their rival. The most striking moment:

O: Mitt Romney plans to cut taxes by $5 trillion and increase spending on defense by $2 trillion. I don’t understand how he can do this and still lower the budget deficit.*

R: I know that you’re telling everybody that I’m planning to cut taxes by $5 trillion. Listen, I have five sons, and they also think that if they talk constantly about something, then I’ll believe them. No. I will repeat: I do not plan to cut taxes by $5 trillion.**

Obama also tried to rely on his healthcare reform and accuse Romney of wanting to repeal it, but he did not do too well in this regard. Romney preferred to make his own points than to argue with Obama’s. It is possible that this was a specially prepared move, but in any case, Obama gained no victories in this respect.

It seems to me that it was Romney who was able to find the most convincing words for the voter. In part, he said: “My priority is putting people back to work in America. They’re suffering in this country. And we talk about evidence — look at the evidence of the last four years. It’s absolutely extraordinary. We’ve got 23 million people out of work …. When the president took office, 32 million people on food stamps; 47 million on food stamps today. Economic growth this year slower than last year, and last year slower than the year before.”

Romney also spoke about the budget deficit, which under Obama’s presidency grew by around $1 trillion a year.

This was a very strong move, especially given the fact that Obama is in no state to present his biggest trump card. The thing is that he didn’t just raise the budget deficit by $1 trillion; he directed this trillion to social programs, that is, to support the demands of the least affluent groups in society. This is a very strong argument, but were he to make it, then the natural question would arise: Didn’t the natural demand fall over this time by $1 trillion? That is, didn’t the U.S. gross domestic product fall under President Obama by 7 to 8 percent?

As it happens, it is becoming increasingly difficult for Obama to garner support from the poorer sections of society, as their standard of living is not increasing, and Obama cannot explain that he acted in order to stop these standards from dropping catastrophically. The conclusions to be drawn from this would be too scary. In this way, Obama has lost his greatest selling point — how much he thinks of the people — in the eyes of voters.

Note that I have said a fairly long time ago that the most important thing for Obama would be any demonstration of harsh relations towards the banking system. He once tried to go down this route, which his “fat cats” have remembered for a long time. But this turned out to be clearly not enough, and his activities in the area have recently greatly diminished. This, however, is not surprising, given that the Federal Reserve clearly took Obama’s side in the election debates.

The results of the debate are surprising. In previous years, the results have hovered around a norm of 54 to 46 or, at the worst, 40 to 60. But in this debate, according to CNN — which, we must note, is closer to Obama than to Romney — Romney was victorious with a count of 67 to 25, which isn’t a defeat, but rather a total destruction. Even though Obama is currently leading in the polls, this result could likely signify a strong turnaround.

We must note that this is only the first debate of three. It is possible that Obama will prevail on the topic of, say, foreign policy, although there is doubt. But if Romney wins at least one more debate from the remaining two, then we can say with a greater degree of certainty that his chances of winning will become excellent, and Obama will begin his rapid descent and turn into the biggest Democratic loser of the 20th century — Jimmy Carter.

We will find out what will happen soon, but for now it can be noted that the results of the election, which only a month ago seemed set in stone, are becoming more and more doubtful. And it is not simply for these reasons, but also as a result of geopolitical processes occurring in the world, which are connected — it seems to me — with the split in the world’s financial elite. It’s not just that Obama and Romney have different policies, but also that Obama is trying to save the old world order, which is already fading, whereas Romney, whether he knows it or not, is creating a new order.

If Romney should come to power, by the way, I do not rule out that he may carry out quite a lot of Obama’s policies – after all, the U.S. is not the USSR, and it is very unlikely that a man would come to power to deliberately destroy the foreign policy potential of his own country. But certainly, if negative processes have begun for the American empire, then it is unlikely that they will be stopped by one man. Therefore, regardless of who will become the U.S. president, relatively hard times await the country.

*Translator’s note: It appears the author may have manipulated the original quote. Obama’s statement was: “… Governor Romney’s proposal that he has been promoting for 18 months calls for a $5 trillion tax cut on top of $2 trillion of additional spending for our military …. The problem is that he’s been asked … over a hundred times how you would close those deductions and loopholes and he hasn’t been able to identify them.”

**Translator’s note: The author may have been paraphrasing Romney, who actually said: “I’m not looking for a $5 trillion tax cut …. Look, I got five boys. I’m used to people saying something that’s not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I’ll believe it …. I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans.”