Good zinger. I'm guessing you're one of the guys that helped Obama prep for the debate?

I guess nobody knows how to use Google....

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/romney-proposes-five-step-plan

"First, by 2020, North America will be energy independent by taking full advantage of our oil and coal and gas and nuclear and renewables.

"Second, we will give our fellow citizens the skills they need for the jobs of today and the careers of tomorrow. When it comes to the school your child will attend, every parent should have a choice, and every child should have a chance.

"Third, we will make trade work for America by forging new trade agreements. And when nations cheat in trade, there will be unmistakable consequences.

"Fourth, to assure every entrepreneur and every job creator that their investments in America will not vanish as have those in Greece, we will cut the deficit and put America on track to a balanced budget.

"And fifth, we will champion small businesses, America’s engine of job growth. That means reducing taxes on business, not raising them. It means simplifying and modernizing the regulations that hurt small business the most. And it means that we must rein in the skyrocketing cost of healthcare by repealing and replacing Obamacare."

I suppose you could argue that voters want specifics on how he'll implement the various parts if you'd like but I think voters want to know the direction you'll take things, not details and fine tuning which gets mixed up in the political process anyway. History I don't think will match up with the side that gets out their inner policy wonk and really go into fine tuned details. Things like if you'll just get more school choice via vouchers or just a choice on where the bus takes you or whatever the intricate details would be. Voters want to know the direction you'll take things, not details and fine tuning which gets mixed up in the political process anyway. The only things specifics are good for is ignorant "OMG, he'll kill Big Bird!" strawmen arguments.

I'm sure I'd be fascinated with the details of whether he wants us to be energy independent with X% or Y% nuclear but it's not going to win elections or convince voters so why spend the time and money detailing everything even if were possible to do without the assets of someone in office. It's not like a candidate has resources available to order reviews of spending and regulations to see what can happen and what can't.

My question is where he plans on paying for that from. That's sort of the 15 trillion dollar question, isn't it?

A valid question if it's assumed they'll cost more than they'd gain. Most of those just require regulation changes and quite a few would probably save money. We already spend an enormous amount on schools, giving people a choice as to which school it's spent on would be relatively neutral.

I would like at least the barest minimum of how he plans to achieve these goals. They're nice goals, but that's all they are. I want to hear how he plans to achieve those goals, and on that front there is very little.

Less a zinger, more the truth according to Factcheck.org & Politifact. There was more than enough spin (not to mention outright falsehoods) in Romney's arguments to make any fact conscious person dizzy, and then some.

His tax plan specifically is wishful thinking at best, dangerous misdirection at worst; the supply side assertion that you can always tax cut your way to economic/tax base growth (growth it is reliant on according to Romney) such that you become revenue neutral or positive has been repeatedly proven false and ridiculous. Abolishing the estate tax clearly favours the rich/ultra-rich and is one of the most egregious, anti-progressive, wealth consolidating propositions I've ever heard. Further, the plan as a whole is almost guaranteed to shift a substantial tax burden to the middle class if an increase to the deficit is to be avoided. In otherwords, his economic revival + deficit plan is a probable sham from a tax vantage.

His assertion that Obamacare increases health care costs in that excerpt of yours is likewise baseless and contrary to the facts and his own vilification of its +$700 billion in savings as 'cuts' (which Romney's campaign even means to keep!).

It's out there, I've heard them talk plenty about it on the campaign trail. You might disagree with the plan but it's folly to say there isn't one. All the carping from Obama about details is because he wants specifics to attack Romney over. What's he's given out is far more specific than "change we can believe in." or whatever Obama's was in 2008. Now it's "Forward!" which reminds me of The Charge of the Light Brigade as the whole country follows his ruinous policies another 4 years.

Hmmm, let me dissect these claims for a second, shall I?

"First, by 2020, North America will be energy independent by taking full advantage of our oil and coal and gas and nuclear and renewables."

So America will abandon the plan they have followed for decades of using foreign oil and gas in order to retain the local gas and oil reserves as intact as possible for the future, when prices will have risen dramatically?

"Second, we will give our fellow citizens the skills they need for the jobs of today and the careers of tomorrow. When it comes to the school your child will attend, every parent should have a choice, and every child should have a chance."

Sounds great. What does it mean? Some specifics here would be nice. How can you give citizens the skills they need while simultaneously cutting education funding? How do parents get this choice of schools, and what are the consequences for the schools that get more students than they can accommodate, or for schools that lose students to the point where they either cut their staff or else close down? How does that help the children for whom the local school is the only practicable one they can attend - but it is being closed down?

"Third, we will make trade work for America by forging new trade agreements. And when nations cheat in trade, there will be unmistakable consequences."

Define "cheat in trade". Does it mean "not roll over to our demands", as Biden and his owners would have it? (Yes, I know he's a Democrat, but the MPAA/RIAA ownership of politicians is a non-partisan issue). Does it mean "hold to the letter of the agreement even when that's no longer good for us"? It's a nice idea, but I've seen how definitions can be abused.

"Fourth, to assure every entrepreneur and every job creator that their investments in America will not vanish as have those in Greece, we will cut the deficit and put America on track to a balanced budget."

Again, how? This is *exactly* where details are needed, or else it's only posturing.

"And fifth, we will champion small businesses, America’s engine of job growth. That means reducing taxes on business, not raising them. It means simplifying and modernizing the regulations that hurt small business the most. And it means that we must rein in the skyrocketing cost of healthcare by repealing and replacing Obamacare."

Championing small businesses. Good. Reducing taxes on business - not, you note, small business. And, as anyone who's ever seen Walmart open in a town near them, big businesses *destroy* small businesses in the area. Reducing taxes on business helps big business more than small. Unless he provides more details, it looks more likely to hurt small business.

The skyrocketing cost of healthcare, however, has nothing to do with Obamacare. It's due to compliance costs, research costs and safety rules for drug testing that have raised the cost of a single new drug to the billion dollar level, requiring them to massively increase the cost of the drugs to get a return on their R&D investment, increased patent durations on these drugs and monopoly control on the part of insurance companies which has enabled them to keep their profits high at the expense of their customers. Obamacare doesn't even qualify as a blip on the chart compared to those.

In all fairness, you would be tired, too, if you were running a country and a campaign.

This has a net effect of absolutely 0 on the US Economy. It just means the money being paid to Venezuela and the Persian Gulf will instead be sent to Canada (hello Keystone Pipeline). Not that I'm complaining, I'm Canadian.

Romney blasted Obama for saying he would cut "Big Oil" subsidies - this is $41 billion a year. These companies made appox $120 billion in 2011. Why the hell is the government giving these people money?

Romney blasted Obama for investing $90 billion in renewable energy. How does Romney expect to "take full advantage of... renewables" without investing in R&D and infrastructure? Steal underpants?

So, he is somehow going to give people skills, while cutting education spending. More school... less money. I need to know how this is possible in any environment, let alone Romney's.

The cheating is probably trade imbalances - we buy (as an example) $1 trillion in products from China, but they only buy $500 billion from us. So the US is in effect losing money. The problem with this is that the US consumes more than it produces, and other countries make good cheaper - and people buy cheaper stuff to save money. The only way to fix a trade imbalance really is to have Americans buy American made products more than foreign imports. Won't happen.

Cut the deficit how? You've just cut umpteen billion in tax revenue. Your mystical "more jobs for Americans means more tax revenue" isn't gonna work, because you have no way to create jobs. And American loses more jobs as companies outsource to other countries.

Romney himself said that small business are taxed the same as people, not companies. So, to lower taxes on small business, he will lower tax on everyone. And less tax = more deficit.

And I don't even want to get into Romney replacing Obamacare with Obamacare. That's just stupidity on his part.

The following day Obama was bright, energetic, and soaking up the adulation of the crowd in Madison during a speech. The difference in Obama's performance was the venue, not fatigue. He wasn't used to being pressed so hard in an actual debate but livened up considerably in a friendly crowd.

It will be interesting to see if Obama takes this loss to heart and prepares better for Romney next time.