A couple of good moments from the debate on specifics. First, President Obama:
Over the last 30 months, we've seen 5 million jobs in the private sector created. The auto industry has come roaring back and housing has begun to rise. But we all know that we've still got a lot of work to do. And so the question here tonight is not where we've been but where we're going. Governor Romney has a perspective that says if we cut taxes, skewed towards the wealthy, and roll back regulations that we'll be better off.
I've got a different view. I think we've got to invest in education and training. I think it's important for us to develop new sources of energy here in America, that we change our tax code to make sure that we're helping small businesses and companies that are investing here in the United States, that we take some of the money that we're saving as we wind down two wars to rebuild America and that we reduce our deficit in a balanced way that allows us to make these critical investments.
President Obama was correct on both the jobs created and the war savings issue according to the times.
But Mitt Romney did get some shots in on the economy too:
The people who are having the hard time right now are middle- income Americans. Under the president's policies, middle-income Americans have been buried. They're -- they're just being crushed. Middle-income Americans have seen their income come down by $4,300. This is a -- this is a tax in and of itself. I'll call it the economy tax. It's been crushing. The same time, gasoline prices have doubled under the president, electric rates are up, food prices are up, health care costs have gone up by $2,500 a family.
Middle-income families are being crushed. And so the question is how to get them going again, and I've described it. It's energy and trade, the right kind of training programs, balancing our budget and helping small business. Those are the -- the cornerstones of my plan.
The numbers, according to the Times, do add up here. How much of that is President Obama's fault is up to the voters.
But the Times called Romney out for this lie on Medicare:
We also have 50 percent of doctors who say they won't take more Medicare patients. This -- we have 4 million people on Medicare Advantage that will lose Medicare Advantage because of those $716 billion in cuts. I can't understand how you can cut Medicare $716 billion for current recipients of Medicare.
Now, you point out, well, we're putting some back; we're going to give a better prescription program. That's one -- that's $1 for every 15 (dollars) you've cut. They're smart enough to know that's not a good trade.
The NY Times called that "debunked" and points out Paul Ryan's plan includes "identical savings." Oops. Romney also got busted on repealing Obamacare and, yes, once again, DEATH PANELS.
And unfortunately, when -- when you look at "Obamacare," the Congressional Budget Office has said it will cost $2,500 a year more than traditional insurance. So it's adding to cost. And as a matter of fact, when the president ran for office, he said that by this year he would have brought down the cost of insurance for each family by $2,500 a family. Instead, it's gone up by that amount. So it's expensive. Expensive things hurt families. So that's one reason I don't want it.
Second reason, it cuts $716 billion from Medicare to pay for it. I want to put that money back in Medicare for our seniors.
Number three, it puts in place an unelected board that's going to tell people, ultimately, what kind of treatments they can have. I don't like that idea.
Which is of course, a complete fabrication. The board makes recommendations for spending and savings, not for treatment. Do you know who makes those decisions now? Unelected insurance company officials.
Overall, the Times did a really good job here. Do check out the entire transcript with video, as well as the fact checking highlights.