Okay, I admit it. I didn't watch it. My reasons for not watching it: I didn't get home till 8 pm, when it started. My sons had important things to talk to me about. I was tired. I didn't want to raise my blood pressure listening to spin and things that didn't add up in my world.

Most people have a preconceived notion of who they're supporting. And the debate changes nothing. I have read numerous comments (and talked to a guy in person today) about how Romney kicked butt in this debate. I said, what did he say? (to the guy in person...) He was sort of like, well, what can they really say in the time frame they're given? I said, that's why I didn't watch. I want to know some specifics. You're going to reduce the deficit? How? What are you going to cut?

My friend today said that he liked the fact that Romney said that his litmus test for spending would be whether it was worth borrowing money from China to spend on it, then specifically mentioned public television.

I pointed out that if you cut every dime of funding from public television, you eliminate 0.0% of the debt. It's so small...it's a rounding error in the defense budget. I said that's the sort of thing that really bothers me. Penny-wise and pound foolish. You can cut EVERYTHING in government, but you aren't going to eliminate the deficit, as long as you don't touch Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Defense and Interest. Can't touch interest. It doesn't work that way. The only way to get rid of interest is to actually run a surplus. For like a hundred years.

Anyway, I was referred to an article on Huffington Post, which I don't read usually, by a Facebook friend. I thought there were some interesting points made in it. They sound right to me. Here's one:

Romney -- not the president -- made the biggest mistake of the night and almost everyone missed it. The president, in a very effective run, highlighted not only "corporate welfare" for oil companies but he also talked about how corporations receive tax breaks when they ship jobs overseas.

Romney's response to this tax break accusation?

"The second topic, which is you said you get a deduction for getting a plant overseas. Look, I've been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you're talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant." In other words, Why didn't I get that tax break when I shipped jobs overseas?

Neat, hmm? You can make that inference from the Romney answer, certainly. I'm sure he didn't intend to say it, maybe it isn't even accurate, because Mitt tends to be sort of flippant when he talks off the cuff. We've heard it before. Maybe he was just trying to be funny. I don't put much stock in the response, but I do think it bears investigation.

Here's another:

He also insisted that his tax cuts, which are the centerpiece of his economic plan, wouldn't cost $5 trillion. Of course they do. The Tax Policy Center agrees. This is the guy who fancies himself as the deficit hawk whose convention featured a real-time debt clock, and he's on deck to add another $5 trillion to the deficit. He also said the cuts won't result in tax hikes on the middle class. FactCheck.org wrote, "Experts say that's not possible."

This, to me, is far more telling. The math doesn't add up. The economy is recovering. It isn't the time for tax cuts, especially ones that will add 5 trillion to the deficit (not to the debt...to the deficit!)

And another:

Romney also accused the president of doubling the deficit. This is a super-colossal lie. The president was inaugurated into a $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009 generated by Bush spending requests. The highest the deficit has climbed was $1.4 trillion by the end of that year. In every year since then, the deficit has been cut -- contrary to the wishes of liberals like me.

Probably what he meant was "debt". I don't know if it's exactly doubled, but it has increased a lot. As long as there is deficit spending, which according to the facts has actually gone down each year in the Obama administration, debt will increase. But you tell a lie enough and it becomes truth.

Last, a partial quote:

or how tax cuts will magically create jobs even though businesses are enjoying the lowest taxes in history yet aren't spending the record $2 trillion in cash assets being mysteriously held in reserve.

This is important. It's why the stock markets are back to their pre-recession highs. Again, it doesn't add up.

Of course we can't continue to spend like drunken sailors. But the cuts need to come out of defense, something Romney has actually said he intends to increase funding for. They also need to come from some sort of reform of SS and Medicare. If it were me, I would raise the retirement age on SS by one year, then by another, to bring it up to 69 for the full retirement bennies. I would also bump up the cap on SS wages (now at around 107K of income) and I would actually bump up the tax, though not by much. Same on Medicare. I would like to see the tax rate go up a slight amount and have future retirees pay a premium for their care. I would cut the heck out of defense, and I would raise taxes on those who could afford it. I'd explore a one time sur-tax to pay for the war. Whether we wanted it or not, it's our responsibility.

That's just my ideas...

Here's the link to the article: Bob Cesca It's written by a self professed liberal so I suppose you have to factor in some degree of bias. But if you'd like to read it...there it is!
*****