Newsmax TV & Webwww.newsmax.comFREE - In Google Play
Newsmax TV & Webwww.newsmax.comFREE - On the App Store
Tags: Debate | Obama | skill | set

Obama Wasn’t ‘Too Polite’ in First Debate

By    |   Friday, 12 October 2012 07:39 AM

I am NOT a political writer, nor do I want to be. I became financially independent because honestly most folks are economically illiterate.

I understand business and it, along with sports, is my passion.

I have made money with Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and I will continue to do so.

Editor's Note: Small-Town Ohio Accountant Uses Simple Forgotten Secret to Help Investors Pocket Millions

Earlier this week, Obama was on the Tom Joyner Morning Show and said he was to being "too polite" during the first presidential debate.

Obama also weighed in on the bigger picture, telling the host that "we've got a lead" in the presidential race, despite GOP nominee Mitt Romney gaining traction in recent polls.

Obama likened the presidential race to the baseball playoffs, saying he lost a game in the debate, but he still maintains the lead.

"You know, you have a seven-game series. We're up 2-0 and we lose one," he said.

Without getting too political, let me speak to the president, who supposedly thought he won the debate, and the 25 percent of Americans who thought the president won the debate, according to a CNN poll.

Sending jobs overseas does not give corporations a special tax deduction: it amazes me that the president and all his advisers who prepared him for the debate do not know that. This is akin to a professional baseball player and his team not knowing that a batter gets three strikes before he is out.

Obama said he wanted to lower the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. So while Obamacare and his economic stimulus package was passed, with his large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, why did he not cut the corporate rate? Because he clearly didn't want to or was just so incompetent he didn’t do it. He seemed to imply the Republicans stopped him. This is like saying it's the umpire's fault when a batter swings and misses at three pitches and is called out.

Obama also said that from 2001 to 2003, the United States had its slowest job growth in 50 years. That is because everyone was already working. In September 2001, the unemployment rate was 4.7 percent, and after the attacks on Sept. 11 that devastated our country both emotionally and financially, the unemployment rate rose to 6.3 percent in January 2002. But the fact is federal tax receipts from 2001 to 2003 were higher than any of the top three years under President Ronald Reagan or Clinton. So implying that the Bush tax cuts were responsible for a slowdown in employment is patently untrue. What person in America would not want the 5 percent average unemployment under Bush in 2001-03 compared with today’s rate? This is akin to a team that finishes with a 3-13 record in football saying to a team that finished 11-5, but failed to repeat as Super Bowl Champs, like the Green Bay Packers did, that the team with the dismal 3-13 record is better because they improved from 1-15, while the Packers regressed from the year before.

In fact, tax receipts after the Bush tax cuts and for the eight years of Bush’s term were higher than the tax receipts were under the eight years of Clinton and Reagan presidencies. The deficit went up under Bush because of the millions of senior citizens who qualified for Social Security and Medicare, which make up a large part of federal spending. Tax cuts during the presidential terms of John Kennedy and Reagan and the capital gains tax cuts under Clinton also yielded higher tax receipts in the four years after the tax cuts were phased in. So it is safe to assume tax receipts go up, not down, after tax cuts are phased in.

Editor's Note: Small-Town Ohio Accountant Uses Simple Forgotten Secret to Help Investors Pocket Millions

After watching the debate last week that focused on the economy, I was shocked that the president felt he just had a bad night. As a long-time sports fan and a person who has made millions for myself and my investors as a tax consultant, investor and small businessman, I am well-qualified to evaluate a debate based on taxes, the economy and creating jobs.

In the next part of my multi-week analysis of the debate, you will see how the president's analysis of the debate was even worse than his actual performance was, with more specific examples.

One column can't cover them all.

In a professional sporting event, an athlete who has a poor day can rebound the next day because of his or her skill set. The president's performance in the debate in Colorado showed that he didn’t just have a bad game, but it was akin to a 7th grade baseball player deciding he could play against professionals. A week or a year of training will not improve your skill set enough to share the stage with a skilled professional.

Next week, we will continue to analyze the debate from purely economic, not political, terms.

About the Author: Bill Spetrino Bill Spetrino is a member of the Moneynews Financial Brain Trust. Click Here to read more of his articles. He is also the editor of the Dividend Machine. Discover more by Clicking Here Now.

© 2021 Newsmax Finance. All rights reserved.

After watching the debate last week that focused on the economy, I was shocked that the president felt he just had a bad night.
Friday, 12 October 2012 07:39 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.
Join the Newsmax Community
Read and Post Comments
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved