Obama-Romney Round 3 - Who won final debate?

President Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney spent their final debate Monday circling the globe’s hot spots as they clashed over the merits of diplomacy and brinkmanship in Libya, Israel, Iran, the Middle East and other volatile areas. But they also managed to get in digs at their opponents’ economic plans. Who would you say won this debate and why?

Barack Obama
25% (21 votes)
Mitt Romney
65% (55 votes)
Neither one
5% (4 votes)
I didn't watch it
5% (4 votes)
Total votes: 84



@betrump You should talk to a lender...They WERE forced...AND to add insult to injury, after the collapse the government made it more profitable for the banks NOT to work with people in danger of loosing their homes by insuring losses, giving the banks a higher return on investment by letting the public loose their homes.


@ betrump:

What's "redlining"?


betrump.....The FDIC gives banks a "rating"...and this rating is based on the amount of loans they hand out. Without going into a long drawn out message....The FDIC told the banks of our nation that they needed to have more "risky" loans...or in other words, hand out loans to people that otherwise wouldn't normally get a loan. For example a guy making 35K a year and wanting to buy a 300K house with nothing down....that is a risky loan. The Clinton Admin pushed for this right along with the FDIC and you have what you have today. BTW, yes it was forcing the banks hand, ask any bank president. The FDIC informed banks that if they didn't lend out more "risky" loans, that they would lose their "rating" and with a lower rating, guess what happens? The government will not give a bank as much money to loan out......so yes, it was FORCING either way you look at it. Now people buying things that were out of their reach, thats the other half of the problem, but you know how many people are...you tell them they can afford it, which is exactly what lenders were doing....because they wanted to keep their rating up to keep the cash coming in from the government.....and people bought into it and said...hey we can afford this AWESOME HOUSE and keep up with the Jones's. Then.....it all went BOOOOOOMMMM!!!!!

Dr. Information

@arnm, This is pretty spot on in Lehman's Terms. What you didn't mention is the back door betting that was going on by the top dogs knowing these "risky" loans were going to fail. So in other words, they bet that Johnny's loan was going to fail, and when it did, they made money on it. Sad and very crooked and nothing related to Obama and or Bush. Actually, Bush is on record several times warning our leaders that this ship was going to crash and burn one day, and one day soon.


That is, frankly, a load of crap. The lenders would have their ratings hurt if they used 'Predatory Lending.' The whole point was to provide mortgages to low income people. NOT for mortgages of $250,000 to someone making minimum wage, which is what the lenders did. They would then change the applicant's income to state, for instance, $7K per month. The banks have since admitted to this. Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, economist Luci Ellis (Bank for International Settlements), FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan and many more are on record stating the CRA did NOT cause the housing crisis, but rather, predatory lending, then the subsequent lying of the banks is what has caused it. Sorry: You're wrong again.


You are absolutely correct! It is funny how people can be so blind due to just a political affiliation!! Well said propman!

Dr. Information

@betrump.....Whats wrong with you? You can't even accept the facts. Do some research, it happened, or are you going to continue to close your eyes and plug your ears. Your response that this never happened just proves a couple things. First off, for someone like yourself who says they know so much, but didn't read, hear or get some information on one of the most historic crashes in our nation.....ehh....smells fishy. The more and more I read from your responses and post it seems as though all you do is cut into someone that doesn't agree with your opinion, and then when they provide the information, you say it isn't true, it didn't happen. My suggestion to everyone is to just ignore you. If you can't even accept things that happened, whether you like it or not, then again, there is no need to respond to your comments.


@ betrump:

Even liberal Sen. McGovern eventually saw that business was over regulated:



Again I call BS


Blaming Bush is the cowardly way out since Obama can't defend his administration on the economy. I was disappointed the Libya issue didn't get pushed forward. Would have liked to see Obama defending the cover-up and lies. But like Dr Information said up there, Mitt Romney represented himself well; composed and presidential. I sure noticed how Obama couldn't get his eyes off Romney. Contrary to the 1st debate when he avoided eye contact throughout the entire debate and seemed withdrawn!


Mr. Obama made himself look small by interrupting Mr. Romney and smirking during the topic of the Detroit auto bailout.

Remember: GM and Chrysler DID go bankrupt.

Read Mr. Romney's op-ed piece from '08:



But many independent analysts have concluded that taking the approach recommended by Romney would not have worked in 2008, simply because the credit markets were so frozen that a bankruptcy was not a viable option at the time. Even businesses in GOOD standing could not get credit. I know it hurts to say it, but try: The auto industry bailout worked.


@ betrump:

"Independent analysts" is a strawman argument. Who are they???

Did you read the op-ed?

Bridge-loans from the govt., ala Chrysler under Pres. Carter.

The debt holders got killed under Mr. Obama.

What's the price of GM stock now from it's IPO? No div'd. Lousy.


Steve Rattner, the Obama administration car czar at the time, said in his own New York Times op-ed piece that the administration tried to find private financing, but that "not one (would-be lender) had the slightest interest in financing those companies on any terms."
Bob Lutz, the vice chairman of GM at the time and an outspoken Republican himself, said the loan guarantees Romney talks about would not have made a difference due to the cash crunch at the time.
"The banks were even more broke than we were. Who had the money?" he told the Detroit Free Press in February. "Loan guarantees don't do any good if the banks don't have any money." "Why perpetuate the problem with $53 billion of new debt, at an annual interest cost of, say, $3 billion?," Lutz said. Private financing would have left GM with "enough debt to wreck the future of a recovering GM."

From The Economist: "Had the government not stepped in, GM might have restructured under normal bankruptcy procedures, without putting public money at risk", we said. But "given the panic that gripped private purse-strings...it is more likely that GM would have been liquidated, sending a cascade of destruction through the supply chain on which its rivals, too, depended." Even Ford, which avoided bankruptcy, feared the industry would collapse if GM went down. At the time that seemed like a real possibility. The credit markets were bone-dry, making the privately financed bankruptcy that Mr Romney favoured improbable. He conveniently ignores this bit of history in claiming to have been right all along.


The Federal Judge who handled Chrysler's Case: “One thing is clear, without government support in one fashion or another, there were no sources of funding.”


Sean McAlinden, chief economist at the Center for Automotive Research, or CAR, said there was one problem with that argument: a private bankruptcy for automakers would not have been possible during the 2008-2009 financial crisis because credit markets were frozen and GM and Chrysler were unable to get private financing to keep operating through bankruptcy.

Without federal help, the companies could have been forced to shut down, which would have devastated parts suppliers and threatened solvent carmakers such as Ford and Toyota, McAlinden said.

The intervention saved 1.3 million jobs in 2009, CAR estimates.

"It was the most successful peacetime industrial intervention in U.S. history," McAlinden said. [Reuters, 2/10/12]


What we know! We know that Obama has no record to run on( thats why sarcastic comments) We certaintly know Obama administration has not been transparent, in fact his term will end with the greatest unanswered cover up in American history. We know that he knows how to spend money and divide this country. We know that he has no plan if elected for the next 4 years. We know that neither he nor his vice-president is truthful with people of this country. We know that he has only his own interest at heart and not that of the United States. And we really know that Gov. Romney is a gentleman and didn't pursue the Lybia nightmare because of the family request from those murdered to stop using it as a political debate. I commend him for how he handled that temptation to slam Obama and his administration. Vote Romney for progress and the bringing the United States back together as a country to be respected by others


How does Romney plan to lower the deficit anymore than President Obama did, if he plans on purchasing all of this military artillery?


Romney is not interested in reducing the deficit or the debt. Neither has any effect on him or his cronies. His only agenda is preserving the incredible profits of the military/industrial complex.


With Obama's efforts to cut military spending and to repeal our Second Amendment right to bear arms, if he gets re-elected, we all might as well just fall on our knees and beg for peace!


Could you show me any proof that he's tried to repeal the second amendment? Oh, wait...it's windy here.


The first link does not mention repealing the second amendment in any way. The other two are just NRA crap. You've gotta do better than that.


I could have sworn testimony from the POTUS himself and you wouldn't believe it. I guess you're just afraid that Romney will take away your free Obamaphone? LOL


He can't repeal anything in the Constitution, just ignore it like he does every day.
The only way to remove the 2nd amendment is through another amendment.

the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.


Yeah, I know how it works. Perhaps you should tell Windbag.


@ betrump:

Admit it: Progressives hate guns for personal protection.

Chicago is talking about taxing bullets.

Progressives like to find ways to circumvent the law when it helps to advance their extremist authoritarian agenda.


I'm progressive. I love guns. I was an expert pistol and rifle marksman while in the military. Maybe you shouldn't stereotype. Oh, by the way...Romney tried to ban some guns, too, but he lied about it during the debate.

Gun Owners Action League: Romney Administration "Took A Major Shot At Lawful Gun Owners And Showed Their True Colors." A July 1, 2004 press release issued by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, titled, "Romney Signs Off On Permanent Assault Weapons Ban," leaves little doubt that the former Massachusetts governor was involved in restricting access to assault weapons. Indeed, at the bill's signing ceremony Romney stated that the "sole purpose" of assault weapons is "hunting down and killing people." In response to the new law, Massachusetts state gun rights group Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) stated that the Romney administration "took a major shot at lawful gun owners and showed their true colors."




Fast and Furious was to set up a pretext for more restrictive gun laws.
He and Colderone stood together in 2009 and Obama said the U.S. is responsible for the drug problem and 90% of the guns getting into Mexico.
In the Illinois senate Obama voted for a law that would have allowed prosecution of home owners who killed intruders in the defence of their lives to be charged with murder.