Last night was the first Presidential debate. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama both shared their opinions and policies on various issues - taxation, the federal deficit, healthcare, and more. But one thing struck me in particular. What occurred in the first twenty minutes of the debate was something that I did not expect to hear. Obama and Romney bickered back and forth about Romney's tax policies.
Obama mentioned that Romney's tax policy would increase the deficit by at least 7 trillion dollars. It was something that the President iterated throughout the discussion of the economy. Romney, on the other hand, denied over and over that his policy would not increase the federal deficit. Both candidates cited studies which they said proved they were correct.
How can something that seems to have an objective truth be debated so heavily? Is this an indicator that we cannot trust what the candidates say during their campaigns? How do we know which statements are true and which are not?
I agree that this seems very unusual and odd. Statistics should be numbers that cannot be argued with, and when I saw this I was also very confused. This is the reason why it is so difficult to vote with confidence. Each candidate seems to be doing something that is proven to help our country, and it is very difficult to sift through what's accurate and what isn't. That is why, at least for myself, it is important to corroborate information with other sources regarding politics. Listening to NPR in the morning, watching Fox at night, and so on, helps me realize which facts are repeated most, and therefore understand the true statistics.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete