美国总统大选辩论-392012美国总统大选辩论会中文版(血泪翻译版)

发布时间：2017-09-11 所属栏目：美国总统大选辩论

一 : 392012美国总统大选辩论会中文版(血泪翻译版)

（掌声）吉姆莱勒：三十秒，伙计。让我们有一个很棒的夜晚，为你，为我国。晚上好从麦格尼斯竞技场在丹佛丹佛大学，科罗拉多。我是吉姆莱勒的“公共广播新闻，“我欢迎你到2012第一场总统辩论之间的巴拉克总统奥巴马，民主党提名的候选人，和前马萨诸塞州州长米特·罗姆尼，共和党提名。

这次辩论和未来三——两国总统，副总统——是一个由总统辩论委员会主办。今晚的90分钟将国内问题，将由委员会设计的格式。大约15分钟会有六段两分钟回答第一个问题，然后公开讨论为余下的每一部分。成千上万的人们提供建议部分科目或问题，通过互联网和其他手段，但我作出最后的选择。并记录，他们没有提交批准委员会或候选人。这段我提前宣布将三的经济和一个卫生保健，政府的作用和管理，重点在不同，细节和选择。两位候选人也将有两分钟的最后陈述。大厅中的观众都已经承诺保持沉默——没有欢呼，掌声，嘘声，嘘声，在嘈杂的分心的事情，所以我们可能都集中在候选人都说。有一个声音异常现在，虽然，我们欢迎奥巴马总统和罗姆尼州长。（掌声）先生们，欢迎你们。让我们开始经济，段，并让我们开始工作。什么是主要的差异两国之间的你，你将如何去创造新的工作？

这次辩论和未来三——两国总统，副总统——是一个由总统辩论委员会主办。今晚的90分钟将国内问题，将由委员会设计的格式。大约15分钟会有六段两分钟回答第一个问题，然后公开讨论为余下的每一部分。你有2分钟。每一个你有2分钟开始。掷硬币决定，总统先生，你先去。

奥巴马总统：好的，谢谢你，吉姆，这个机会。我要感谢罗姆尼州长和丹佛大学的盛情款待。有很多分，我希望今晚能，但其中最重要的是，20年前我成为世上最幸运的人因为米歇尔奥巴马同意嫁给我。于是我只想祝福你，亲爱的，周年快乐，让你知道，从现在开始的一年我们将不庆祝它在40000000人面前。（笑声）你知道，四年前我们经历了大萧条以来最严重金融危机。成千上万的工作丢了，汽车行业正处于崩溃的边缘。金融系统已冻结。由于弹性和美国人民的决心，我们已经开始一路打回去。在过去的30个月中，我们看到5000000个工作在私营部门创造。汽车行业已卷土重来。房屋已开始上升。但我们都知道，我们还有很多工作要做。于是问题今晚在这里，不是我们曾经去过的地方，但我们要去的地方。罗姆尼州长有一个角度说，如果我们削减税收，偏向富人，并回滚规则，我们会更好。我有不同的看法。我认为我们必须投资在教育和训练。我认为重要的是我们开发新的能源来源，在美国这里，我们改变我们的税法，确保我们正在帮助小企业和公司，投资在美国，我们把一些钱，我们在拯救我们下两场战争和重建美国我们减少赤字，平衡的方式，使我们能够使这些关键投资。现在，它最终将由选民，你的路，我们应该采取。我们要连上自上而下的经济政策，帮助把我们搞成这样？还是我们拥抱新经济爱国主义，说美国的最好的时候，中产阶级做得最好？我很期待有这样的争论。

主持人：罗姆尼州长，2分钟。

州长米特·罗姆尼：谢谢你，吉姆。这是一个荣幸与你，我感谢有机会与总统。我很高兴为丹佛大学，欣赏他们的欢迎，也对这些辩论的总统委员会。祝贺你，主席先生，在你的周年纪念日。我确信这是最浪漫的地方，你可以想象这里——我在这里。所以我。（笑声）祝贺。这显然是一个很温柔的话题。我有机会在过去的几年会全国人民。我在代顿，俄亥俄州，和一个女人抓住我的胳膊，她说，“我已经失去工作以来。你能帮我吗。安昨天在丹佛的一个集会上，和一个女人来到她怀里抱着孩子，并说，“安妮，我的丈夫有四个工作三年，兼职工作。他失去了他最近期的工作。我们已经失去了我们的家。你能帮助我们吗？”我的回答是，是的，我们可以帮助，但它将采取不同的路径，而不是一个我们一直在，不是一个总统描述为一个自上而下，减税的丰富。那不是我要做什么。我的计划有五个基本部分。一，让我们能源独立，北美能源独立。创造约4000000个工作。第二，开放更多的贸易，特别是在美国，制裁中国，如果他们欺骗。三号，确保人民拥有成功所需的技能和世界上最好的学

校。我们是一个远离现在。四，我们的预算平衡。五号，冠军小企业。这是小企业创造的工作在美国。在过去的四年中，小企业已经决定，美国不可能的地方开一个新的业务，因为新的创业已经降到了30年低。我知道什么能使小企业再次增长，雇用的人。

罗姆尼：现在，我担心的道路，我们在刚刚成功。总统有一个非常类似的观点认为他当他跑了四年，一个更大的政府，更多的消费，增加税收，调节更——如果你，滴入政府——会工作。这是不正确的答案为美国。我会恢复活力，得到美国工作了。谢谢你.主持人：总统先生，请直接向总督说涓滴——他的trick-down方法，因为他说你是。奥巴马：好吧，让我说具体是什么，我认为我们需要做的。首先，我们必须改进我们的教育体系，我们已经取得了巨大的进展，在两个想法来自民主党和共和党人，已经开始出现在一些最严厉的处理学校。我们有一个名为比赛的顶部，促使改革在46个国家在该国，提高标准，提高我们如何培养教师。所以现在我想雇一1 00000个新的数学和科学教师，并创建2000000个插槽在我们的社区学院，使人们可以得到培训的工作，现在就在那里。我想确保我们保持学费低，我们的年轻人。当谈到我们的税法，罗姆尼州长和我都同意，我们的公司税率太高，所以我要低，特别是制造业，以降低到百分之25。但我还想接近那些漏洞，给予奖励的公司正在海外航运工作。我想提供税收优惠，公司正在投资在美国。能源，罗姆尼州长和我，我们都同意，我们必须提高美国的能源生产，而石油和天然气产量高，比他们已经在年。但我也相信，我们必须关注能源的未来，如风能、太阳能和生物燃料，并使这些投资。所以这一切都是可能的。现在，为了我们这样做，我们不得不关闭我们的赤字，一件事，我肯定我们会讨论今晚，我们如何处理我们的税法？我们如何确保我们减少开支以负责任的方式，但也有足够的收入，我们如何使这些投资？这是有区别的，因为罗姆尼州长的中央经济计划要求减税5000000000000美元——顶部的延伸，布希减税——这是另一个万亿美元——和2000000000000美元的额外军事开支的赤字，并作出投资，我们需要做的，没有倾销这些费用到中产阶级的美国人，我想是一个中心问题，这项运动。主持人：你都说了很多不同的事情，我们要设法让他们在具体的方式我们可以。但是，首先，罗姆尼州长，你有一个问题，你想问总统直接对他说的？罗姆尼：嗯，当然。我想弄清楚的记录，通过一块一块的。首先，我没有5000000000000美元的减税。我没有减税的规模，你说的是。我的观点是，我们应该提供减税的中产阶级的人。但我不想份额减少纳税的高收入的人。高收入的人正在做的很好，在这个经济。他们会做得很好，不管你是总统或我。谁的人有困难的时候，现在是中等收入的美国人。根据总统的政策，美国中产阶级已经被埋葬。他们只是被粉碎。中等收入美国人看到自己的收入下降了4300美元。这是一个——这是一个税收和本身。我会打电话给它的经济纳税。它已经破碎。同时，汽油价格已经翻了一倍，在总统。电力价格上涨。食品价格在上涨。卫生保健费用上涨了2500美元，一个家庭。中间的

罗姆尼：，问题是如何让他们去了。我描述它。它的能源和贸易，对类的培训计划，平衡预算，帮助小企业。是的基石——我的计划。但总统提到其他一些想法我会注意的。首先，教育。我同意：教育是关键，特别是我们未来的经济。但我们的培训课程，现在，我们有47人，安置在联邦政府，报告的八个不同的机构。开销是压倒性的。我们要把这些美元回美国去工人使他们能够创建他们自己的途径得到他们所需要的培训工作，将真正帮助他们。另一方面，税务，我们同意，我们应该把税率下降。和我，都为企业和个人。但是，我们不要失去收入，有政府的钱用完了，我也下扣除和信贷和豁免，使我们保持在同样的钱当你也占增长。第三个区域，能量。能源是至关重要的，而总统指出正确的石油和天然气生产在美国是。但由于他的政策。尽管他的政策。总统先生，所有的增加，天然气和石油发生在私人土地，不是政府土地。政府土地，你们的政府数目减少一半的许可证和执照。如果我是总统，我会增加一倍，并得到——从海洋石油和阿拉斯加。我会把管道从加拿大。而且，顺便说一下，我喜欢煤。我要确保我们能继续燃烧煤炭的清洁。人们在煤炭行业的感觉已经粉碎了你

的政策。我想得到美国和美国的能源独立，所以我们可以创造工作。最后，关于，减税，看，我并不想把大量的税收和减少——收入去政府。我——我的第一原则是，将不会有任何减税以增加赤字。我想强调的是：没有减税以增加赤字。但我想减轻负担被支付收入的美国人。我——也就是说，这也意味着我无法减轻负担的高收入的美国人。因此，任何语言——相反是不准确的。主持人：总统先生？奥巴马：嗯，我想——让我们谈谈，因为我觉得它的启发。现在，四年前，当我站在这个讲台上，我说我会为中产家庭减税。这正是我所做的。我们为中产家庭减税约3600美元。其原因是，因为我相信我们做的最好的时候，中产阶级是做好。并让他们那些减税，他们有更多的钱在他们的口袋，那么也许他们可以买一辆新车。他们当然是一个更好的位置，气象非凡，我们经历了经济衰退。他们可以给他们的孩子购买电脑谁去上大学，这意味着他们花更多的钱，有更多的客户，企业获得更多的利润，并雇用更多的工人。现在，罗姆尼州长的提议，他被提升为18个月要求减税5000000000000美元，顶部的2000000000000美元的额外支出为我军。他说，他将支付它关闭的漏洞和扣除。扣除的问题和漏洞，而且他还不能确定他们。但我要让这里重要的一点，吉姆。主持人：好。奥巴马：当你添加了所有的漏洞和扣除额，高收入的个人可以——目前正在利用，你把那些都扔掉，你不要接近支付5000000000000美元的减税和2000000000000美元的额外军事开支。

奥巴马：这就是为什么独立研究看这说，只有这样才能满足罗姆尼州长保证不降低赤字——或——或不增加赤字是中产阶级家庭的负担。平均中产阶级家庭的儿童将支付约2000元。现在，这不是我的分析。这是分析的经济学家谁看了这。和——和一顶——自上而下的经济，那里的乡亲在顶部做得很好，所以一般人3000000美元，是得到一个250000美元的减税，而中产阶级家庭的负担，那不是我所相信的是经济增长的处方。主持人：好。有什么区别？让我们呆在税。（串扰）

主持人：刚才——让我们呆在税（无声）。（串扰）

主持人：有什么区别…

罗姆尼：好，但——但是事实上——几乎所有他只是说我的税收计划是不准确的。

主持人：好。

罗姆尼：如果税的计划，他描述了一个税收计划我万亿美元的减税。我所说的是我不会把减税，增加的赤字。这是第一部分。所以没有经济学家可以说罗姆尼的税收计划增加5000000000000美元，如果我说我将不会增加赤字和税收计划。第二，我不会减少支付的高收入个人分享。我知道你和你的搭档保持说，我知道这是一个受欢迎的事，说的人很多，但它并不是这样。看，我有五个男孩。我习惯了人们说的东西不一定都是这样，只是继续重复，并最终希望我会相信。但是，——不是这样的。好的？我不会降低税收支付的收入的美国人。三号，在任何情况下我都不会提高税收收入的家庭。我将降低税收收入的家庭。现在，你引用的一项研究。有六个其他的研究，看你的研究描述说这是完全错误的。我看见一个研究出来的今天，说你要提高税收的3000到4000美元的中等收入家庭。所有这些研究都有。但让我们在底线。是，我想把率。我想使利率下降，同时降低减免和抵免等等，所以我们继续得到我们需要的收入。你会觉得，好吧，那为什么降低利率？罗姆尼：和的原因是因为小企业支付个人率；美国百分之54的工人工作在企业纳税不在企业的税率，但在个别税率。如果我们降低的话，他们可以雇用更多的人。对我来说，这是工作。这是对美国人民的工作。（相声）

主持人：这是我们开始的地方。是啊。你的挑战是什么，总督说他自己的计划？

奥巴马：好吧，18个月来他一直运行在这个税收计划。现在，选举前五个星期，他说他的大，大胆的想法是，“没关系。”事实是，如果你是降低利率的方式描述，调速器，它是

不可能拿出足够的减免和漏洞，只影响高收入个人避免提高赤字或负担的中产阶级。它——它是数学。它的算法。现在，罗姆尼州长和我分享的浓厚兴趣，鼓励小企业发展。同时我的税收计划已经降低税率为百分之98的家庭，我也降低税率为小企业的18倍。而我所要做的就是继续税率——减税，我们将实施小企业和家庭。但我要说，年收入在250000美元，我们应该回到率，我们当比尔克林顿是总统，当我们创造了23000000个新的工作，从剩余赤字，并创造了一大堆的百万富翁启动。而之所以重要，是因为这样做，我们不能只减少赤字，我们不能只鼓励就业增长通过小企业，但我们也能作出投资是必要的，教育或能量。

我们也有差别，但是，当涉及到定义的小生意。下——按照我的计划，百分之97的小企业将不会看到他们的所得税上。罗姆尼州长说，嗯，最上面的百分之3，他们工作的创造者，他们会成为负担。但在罗姆尼州长的定义，有一大堆的百万富翁和亿万富翁谁是小企业。唐纳德是一个小企业。现在，我知道唐纳德不喜欢把自己当成小的东西，但是——但这是你如何定义小企业如果你的营业收入。这种方法，我相信，不会发展我们的经济，因为唯一的支付方式没有任何负担的中产阶级或炸毁我们的赤字作出大幅度削减像教育，确保我们继续投资于基础科学和研究，所有有帮助的东西美国的成长。我认为这将是一个错误。主持人：好的。

罗姆尼先生：吉姆，我刚回来，在那——那一点，就是这些…

主持人：只为——只是为了记录…（相声）

罗姆尼先生：…小企业，我们谈论的是…

主持人：对不起。打扰您一下。所以大家都明白，我们在我们的第一个15分钟。罗姆尼：这很有趣，不是吗？主持人：好的，这是伟大的。没问题。好吧，你们都没有——你没有问题，我没有问题，因为我们仍对经济。我们要回到税。我想继续赤字和很多其他的东西，太。好的，但去吧，先生。

罗姆尼：你打赌。嗯，总统，你——主席先生，你是绝对正确的，即，关于百分之97的企业都没有——没有按照百分之35的税率，他们收入的征税率较低。但那些企业，在过去的百分之3的企业发生动用一半——一半的人谁在小企业工作。这些都是企业采用四分之一的工人在美国。你的计划是将税率从百分之35到百分之40。现在，和我交谈——和一个有一个很小的业务。他在电子商务——圣路易斯。他有四个员工。他说他和他的儿子计算多少他们所缴纳的税，联邦所得税，联邦所得税，所得税，销售税，物业税，汽油税。它加起来超过百分之50他们所赚取的。你的计划是以税率，成功的小企业从百分之35到百分之

40。全国独立企业联合会说，将耗资7 00000工作。我不想成本工作。我的重点是工作。而我所做的事情是降低税率，降低减免，同样的想法bowles-simpson，顺便说一句，得率下降，较低的减免，创造更多的工作，因为没有更好的事让我们预算平衡比有更多的工作，赚更多的钱，支付更多的税。这是目前最有效和高效率的方式得到这个预算平衡。

奥巴马：吉姆，我——你可以移动到另一个话题，但是我——我只想说给美国人民。如果你相信我们可以减税5000000000000美元，增加2000000000000美元的额外支出，军方没有要求，7000000000000美元——只是罗姆尼：我们没有建立一个委员会，可以告诉人们，最终他们会接受什么治疗。我们还没有做的事情，我觉得很多人在这个国家的承认，这是把——把人的位置，他们将失去他们的保险，他们想。现在，国会预算办公室称，多达20000000人将失去他们的保险，为奥巴马明年生效。同样，一个由美国企业研究麦肯锡公司说他们百分之30人预期下降从覆盖。从而针对这些原因，为税收，医疗保险，这一委员会，并为人失去他们的保险，这就是为什么美国人民不希望医疗保险——不希望奥巴马。这就是为什么

共和党人说，不这样做，和共和党人——有计划。他们提出一个计划。他们提出了一个计划，一个两党合作计划。它被扫地出门。我觉得这么大，这一重要的要有一个两党合作的基础。我们有一个总统，谁能跨越走道和时尚的重要立法与从输入方。奥巴马：罗姆尼州长说这是做在两党的基础。这是一个两党想法。事实上，它是一个共和思想。和罗姆尼州长在开始本次辩论写的和说我们在马萨诸塞州是一个新型的民族。我同意，在马萨诸塞州的民主党议员可能会提出一些意见，共和党在国会的关于如何配合，但事实是，我们使用相同的顾问，他们说这是相同的计划。它——当罗姆尼州长谈这个板，例如，未经选举产生的委员会，我们已经创造了，这是什么，是一组医疗专家，医生，等等，弄清楚，如何才能降低成本的照顾系统总体？因为——有2方式处理我们的医疗保健危机。一个是简单地把一大堆人保险，让他们自生自灭，让企业找出他们多久才能继续支付保费，直到最后他们放弃，和他们的工人已经不再被保险人，并在趋势线。或者，或者，我们可以计算出，我们如何使医疗费用更有效？还有更好的方法。所以在克利夫兰诊所，一个最好的卫生保健系统中的世界，他们实际上提供的价格比平均。而他们之所以这样做是因为他们做一些聪明的事。他们——他们说，如果一个病人来了，让我们把所有的医生一起在一次，做一个测试，而不是病人在10测试。让我们确保我们提供预防保健，所以我们要像糖尿病发病。让我们——我们支付供应商性能基础上，作为反对的基础上，有多少程序，他们——他们从事。现在，所以，这个委员会基本上是确定最佳做法和说，让我们使用的购买力，医疗保险和医疗补助帮助制度化，所有这些事情，我们做。而事实是，当奥巴马医改方案的全面实施，我们将表明，成本下降。在过去2年里，医疗保健费用上涨了——这是真的——但他们进入了比任何在过去50年的时间。所以我们已经开始看到了进步。同时，有人与保险，你已经获得回扣。让我最后一点。罗姆尼州长说，我们应该取代它，我只是要废除它，但——但是我们可以取代它与。但问题是，他没有说明究竟瓦特

罗姆尼先生：吉姆，总统开始了这段，所以我想我的最后的话。（相声）

主持人：好，你将得到的第一个词第二段。

罗姆尼：好。嗯，但是他得到了第一个词的部分。我说最后一句（无声）我希望。我只想让这个评论。（串扰）罗姆尼：我觉得首先，让我——让我重复——我重复我所说的。我不赞成减税5000000000000美元。那不是我的计划。我的计划是不进行任何减税将增加赤字。这是一个。所以你可以把它视为一个5000000000000美元的减税，但那不是我的计划。第二，让我们看看历史。我的计划是不喜欢任何东西已经尝试过。我的计划是降低利率，但也带来了减免和抵免的同时使收入留下，但我们降低利率获得更多人的工作。我的任务是让人民回到工作在美国。他们的痛苦在这个国家。我们讨论的证据。在过去四年的证据。这绝对是非凡的。我们已经有23000000人失去工作或停止寻找工作在这个国家。这是——是——我们已经有了——当总统就职，32000000人对食物的邮票；47000000对粮食邮票今天；今年经济增长将低于去年，去年比前年慢。未来的现状是不会削减它对美国人民谁是挣扎的今天。主持人：好。让我们——我们仍在经济。这是理论上的，现在，另一部分仍在经济，特别是做什么的联邦赤字，联邦债务。和问题，你有2分钟，和罗姆尼州长，你——你先去因为总统第一段。而问题是，这两者的区别是什么你，你将如何去应对赤字问题在这个国家？罗姆尼：好。我很高兴你提出的，它是一个——这是一个关键问题。我认为这不仅仅是一个经济问题，我认为这是一个道德问题。我认为这是不道德的，坦率地说，我这一代继续花费大量超过我们，知道这些负担将传递给下一代，他们将支付本金和利息，所有他们的生命。和债务数额增加，在一兆零一年，是不道德的。所以我们应该怎样处理它？嗯，数学上，有三种方法可以减少赤字。一个，当然，是提高税收。第二是削减开支。和数字经济的增长，因为越来越多的人工作在不断增长的经济，他们缴税，你可以做的工作。历任总统希望提高税收

392012美国总统大选辩论会中文版(血泪翻译版)_美国总统大选辩论

会—。我明白。这个问题与提高税率，放慢增长速度。你可以不做的工作。我想减少开支并鼓励经济增长的同时。什么事情我将支出？嗯，首先，我将消除所有程序的测试，如果他们不通过它：是程序至关重要，它的价值从中国借钱来吗？如果不是，我就把它扔了。奥巴马在我的名单。我很抱歉，总统先生。我使用该词与所有尊重，顺便。

奥巴马:我喜欢。

罗姆尼：好。好的，好的。所以我要去那。抱歉，吉姆，我将停止资助公共广播。我将停止其他东西。我喜欢的，我爱鸟。真的喜欢你，太。但我不想——我不打算继续花钱的东西从中国借的钱支付。这是第一。第二，我要计划，目前好的程序，但我认为可以运行更有效地在国家一级并把他们的国家。

三号，我会让政府更有效，减少员工的数量，结合一些机构和部门。我的削减将通过自然减员，顺便。这是我们的方法来获得美国预算平衡。总统说他会将财政赤字削减一半。不幸的是，他加倍。万亿美元的赤字在过去四年。总统把它作为公共债务——几乎一样多的公众持有的债务如前总统联合。主持人：总统先生，2分钟。奥巴马：当我走进办公室，我已经超过了1万亿美元的赤字问候我。我们知道它是从哪里来的：两场战争，支付信用卡；2减税，没有支付；和一大堆的程序，没有支付；和一个大规模的经济危机。尽管这样，我们所说的，是的，我们不得不采取一些初步的应急措施，确保我们不会陷入大萧条，但我们也说，让我们确保我们切出那些东西，不帮助我们成长。所以77个政府项目，从飞机的空军已下令但不是很好，18个政府——18政府计划用于教育是善意的，不会不帮助孩子学习，我们去后，医疗欺诈行为的医疗保险和医疗补助非常积极，更积极地比以往任何时候，和节省数百亿美元，50000000000美元的废料取出系统。我曾与民主党和共和党削减一兆美元的自由裁量的家庭预算。这是最大的削减在自由裁量的国内预算从德怀特艾森豪威尔。现在，我们都知道我们必须做更多。于是我提出具体的削减赤字4000000000000美元的计划。这是一个网站。你可以看看所有的数字，削减什么我们和收入提高。与我们的做法是每2.50美元削减，我们要求1美元的额外收入，支付的，正如我刚才指出，要求我们这些谁做得很好，在这个国家贡献一点点减少赤字。罗姆尼州长先前提到的bowles-simpson委员会。好，那如何委员会——跨党派委员会，谈到了我们应该怎样继续建议我们必须这样做，以平衡的方式与一些收入和支出削减。这是一个重大区别，罗姆尼州长和我。让——让我刚刚完成了他们的观点，因为你要找的对比。你知道，当罗姆尼州长站在舞台上与其他以10美元削减支出仅为1美元的收入？他说不。现在，如果你把这种不平衡的方法，这意味着你将要除去我们的投资在学校和教育。这意味着，罗姆尼州长…（串扰）

奥巴马。谈医疗和我们如何能够把它带回美国，但这一有效手段削减百分之30的主要程序我们帮助老年人在养老院，谁是孩子的残疾。

主持人：总统先生，我很抱歉。

奥巴马：和——这不是一个正确的战略，我们前进。

主持人：在2分钟。

奥巴马对不起。

主持人：总督，simpson-bowles呢？你支持simpson-bowles？

罗姆尼：simpson-bowles，总统应该抓住这。

主持人：不，我是说，你支持simpson-bowles？

罗姆尼先生：我有我自己的计划。这是不一样的辛普森-鲍尔斯。但在我看来，总统应该抓住它。如果你想做出一些调整，把它，去国会，为它而奋斗。

奥巴马：这就是我们所做的，做了一些调整它，并将它在国会的权利，一项4000000000000美元的计划…

罗姆尼：但是你已经——但是你被总统四年…（串扰）

罗姆尼：你是总统四年。你说你要削减一半赤字。这是四年后的现在。我们仍然有上万亿美元的赤字。国会预算办公室称，我们会有一万亿美元的赤字在未来四年。如果你当选，我们会得到一个万亿美元的债务。

罗姆尼：我的意思是，你说过你会削减一半赤字。这——我喜欢这种想法削减4000000000000美元。你找到了4000000000000美元的方式来减少或接近平衡预算，但我们仍然显示每年上万亿美元的赤字。不做工作。让我回来说，为什么我不想加税？为什么我不想加税的人？实际上，你说的2010回。你说，“看，我要扩大税收政策，我们现在；我不会对任何人增加税收，因为当经济增长缓慢，这样，当我们在经济衰退，你不应该对任何人增加税收。”好，经济仍在增长缓慢。事实上，它的增长非常缓慢，现在比当你说了那番话。所以如果你相信同样的事情，你只是不想加税的人。而现实是它不只是有钱人——你提到的唐纳德的王牌。这不只是唐纳德特朗普你征税。这都是那些企业聘请有四分之一的工人在美国；这些小企业，按个人纳税。你提高税收，你杀了工作。那就是为什么国家独立商业联盟说，你的计划会杀了7 00000工作。我不想杀工作在这样的环境中。我会多做一点。（相声）

主持人：（无声）回答税事一会儿。

罗姆尼：好。

主持人：总统先生？

奥巴马：好，我们已经讨论过这个之前。

主持人：对的思想，以减少赤字，已被收入除了削减。

奥巴马：这是除了削减税收。现在，罗姆尼州长已经排除了收入。他排除了收入。（串扰）

罗姆尼：绝对。（串扰）

罗姆尼：看，收入，我得到的是更多的人工作，获得更高的工资，支付更多的税。这就是我们如何成长，如何平衡预算。但这个想法的征税人，把更多的人失去工作，你永远不会到达那里。你永远不会平衡预算的税。西班牙——西班牙花费百分之42的总经济对政府。我们现在的经济对政府支出百分之42。我不想走的路去西班牙。我想下成长的道路上，把美国人的工作和更多的资金进来是因为他们的工作。

主持人：但是——但总统先生，你是说为了——把工作完成，它必须是平衡的。你必须有…（串扰）奥巴马：如果——如果我们是严肃认真的，我们必须采取平衡的，负责的态度。顺便说一句，这不只是谈到个人税。让我们谈谈企业税。现在，我已经确定的地方我们可以，马上，做出改变，我认为实际上帮助经济。石油工业得到4000000000美元的公司福利。

基本上，他们得到的推论，那些小型企业罗姆尼州长指的是，他们没有得到。现在，有人认为埃克森美孚公司需要一些额外的钱，当他们赚钱，每一次你去泵？为什么我们不愿意消除吗？为什么我们不能消除税收公司的飞机？我的态度是，如果你有一个公司的飞机，你可以支付全部运费，没有特别的打破它。当涉及到企业税，罗姆尼州长说，他想，在税收中性，堵塞漏洞，扣除——他还没有确定哪些是他们的——但是，从而降低企业率。嗯，我想做同样的事情，但我真的确定我们如何做。和一部分的办法是不给企业减税是航运工作海外。现在，你可以采取一个扣动植物海外。我认为大多数美国人都会说那没有意义。和所有的提高税收。所以如果我们采取平衡的方式，什么，然后允许我们做的也能帮助年轻人，我们已经在我的管理方式，确保他们能够负担得起去上大学。

这意味着，老师，我在拉斯维加斯，一个奇妙的年轻女子，谁介绍了我——她有42个孩子，在她的课上。头两个星期她有他们，他们中的一些人坐在地板上，直到最后他们得到重新分配。他们用文字的书籍，10岁。这不是一个成长的良方。这不是美国建。所以预算反映的选择。最终，我们要做出一些决定。如果我们不求有收入，那意味着我们已经摆脱了一大堆的东西。和规模的减税，你正在谈论的，州长，最终会造成严重的苦难的人民，但更重要的是，不愿意帮助我们成长。正如我之前说的，当你谈论改变医疗保险的国家，我们谈论的是一个潜在的30——百分之30削减医疗补助随着时间的推移。现在，你知道，这可能似乎不是一个大问题时，它只是，你知道，号码在一张纸上，但如果我们谈论的是一个家庭谁有自闭症的孩子，是根据医疗保险，这是个大问题。和总督的创意。那是毫无疑问的。但是他们没有足够的创造力来弥补收入的百分之30的东西一样，医疗补助。什么结束了发生的事情是有些人最终没有得到帮助。罗姆尼先生：吉姆，我们——我们已经在很多题目，所以要用一分钟的时间去从医疗到学校…主持人：回来…（相声）

罗姆尼：…石油，减税，然后去海外公司。所以让我们通过一个一个。首先，美国能源部说，减税是每年2800000000美元的石油公司。和它的实际会计处理，如你所知，这是在一百年发生了。现在。

奥巴马：是时候结束它。罗姆尼：又一年，你提供90000000000美元的优惠的绿色能源的世界。现在，我喜欢绿色能源为好，但那是50年的石油和天然气接收。你说埃克森和美孚。实际上，这2800000000美元在很大程度上的小公司，对钻井作业等等。

但是，你知道，如果我们得到的税率从百分之35降到百分之25，为什么2800000000美元在桌子上。当然，这是在桌子上。这可能不会存活得率降到百分之25。但不要忘记，你把90000000000元，50年的休息，到——在太阳能和风能，以索兰德尔和菲斯克和测试ener1。我的意思是，我有一个朋友谁说你不只是选择赢家和输家，你选择的失败者，对吗？这——这不是——这不是什么样的政策，你想如果你想得到美国能源安全。第二次的话题，这是你说你得到一个扣带海外工厂。看，我已经经营了25年。我不知道你在说什么。也许我需要一个新的会计。

主持人：我们。

罗姆尼：但——但是认为你得到休息航运工作海外是根本没有的情况。（相声）

罗姆尼：我们做什么，现在是一个建立在我想把钱从海外回国。和，最后，医疗补助的国家？我不是很确定了，除了这，这是，我想把医疗美元，去美国，说一个国家，你会得到

你所得到的最后一年，加上通货膨胀，再加上百分之1，然后你会管理你的照顾你的穷人你认为最好的方式。我还记得，作为总督，当这个想法被漂浮在汤米·汤普森，共和党和民主党的州长————说，请让我们这样做。我们可以照顾自己的穷人这么多更好的、更有效的方法比联邦政府告诉我们如何照顾我们的穷人。所以——让我们国家——的一个宏伟的东西是这个国家的整个想法，国家实验室民主。没有联邦政府告诉大家什么样的培训计划，他们有什么样的医疗他们有。让国家这样做。而且，顺便说一句，如果一个国家的麻烦了，嗯，我们可以一步，看看能否找到一个方法来帮助他们。主持人：让我们去。罗姆尼：但——但是正确的——正确的做法是一个依靠华晨我们人民和国家，而不是联邦政府。

主持人：（听不清），我们要——仍然在经济上，另一个——但它的另一部分…

奥巴马好的.主持人：好吗？好的。这是三段，经济。权利。第一——第一答案给你，2分钟，总统先生。你看到一个大的差异两国之间的你的社会安全？奥巴马：你知道，我怀疑，社会安全，我们有一个类似的情况。社会保障是结构良好。它必须被调整的方式是由罗纳德里根和议长——民主党议长奥尼尔。但它的基本结构是声—。但——但是我想谈谈价值背后的社会保障和医疗保险，并谈谈医疗保险，因为那是我们的赤字现在大司机。你知道，我的祖母——一些你知道——帮助提高我。我的祖父母了。我的祖父死了一回。我的祖母去世前三天我当选总统。她非常独立。她一路，只有高中教育，开始作为一个秘书，最终成为副总统的当地银行。和她结束了独自生活的选择。她可能是独立的原因是因为社会保障和医疗保险。她在她所有的生活，把这笔钱，并了解到有一个基本的保障，地板下，她不能去。这就是这个角度我当我想所谓的权利。你知道，这个名字本身就意味着某种意义上的依赖的一部分，这些人。这些人工作努力，喜欢我的祖母，还有数百万人有谁指望这个。所以我是说，我们如何加强系统的长期？在医疗保险，什么才是我们说的，我们必须要降低成本，如果要我们的长期赤字，但这样做，让我们看看一些钱去。716000000000美元，我们也能节省的医疗保健计划的不再支付保险公司通过确保我们不支付供应商。和使用金钱，我们实际上能够降低处方药的费用为老年人的平均600美元，而且我们也能够作出重大进展——为他们提供的预防保健，最终会省钱的——通过整个系统。所以我们的方式来处理医疗保险尤其是降低医疗费用。当涉及到社会保障，正如我说的，你不需要一个重大的结构性变化，以确保社会安全性是有未来。主持人：我们会跟进这个。首先，罗姆尼州长，你有2分钟，社会保障和权利。罗姆尼：嗯，吉姆，我们的前辈取决于这些节目，我知道在任何时候，我们谈论的权利，人们担心会发生什么样的事情，会改变他们的生活变得更加糟糕。而答案既不是总统和我提出的任何更改任何电流退休或即将退休的人，无论是社会或医疗保险。所以如果你在60或60以上，你不需要任何进一步的听。但年轻人，我们需要谈谈会发生变化。哦，我只是想一个人。这是，事实上，我错了，当我说总统不提出任何改变目前的退休人员。事实上，他是对医疗保险。社会保障他不。但在医疗保险，为退休的人员，他削减716000000000美元的计划。现在，他说不要过高，医院和供应商。其实只是对他们说，“我们将减少率得到支付的全国委员会，每个人都会得到较低的利率。”这不只是要经过的地方，那里的滥用。就是说我们削减率。大约百分之15的医院和疗养院说他们不会再接受医疗保险的病人，在这种情况下。我们也有百分之50的医生说他们不会采取更多的医疗保险的病人。这——我们有4000000人在地中海

主持人：总统先生？

奥巴马：首先，我认为这是非常重要的罗姆尼州长提出这一计划，他说只会影响人的未来。和计划的本质是你会变成为一个医疗保险凭证项目。它被称为技术支持，但它的理解是一个券计划。他的竞选搭档…

主持人：你不支持？奥巴马：我不知道，让我解释为什么。

罗姆尼：再次，这是未来…

奥巴马我明白。

罗姆尼：…人，不正确，现退休人员。

奥巴马：因为——所以如果你——如果你是54还是55，你可能要听，因为这——这会影响你。这个想法，原先是由国会议员瑞安，你的搭档，是我们给一个凭证的老人和他们出去在私人市场上购买他们自己的医疗保险。问题是，因为券不一定跟上保健通货膨胀，据估计，这将花费平均高约6000美元一年。现在，在公平，什么罗姆尼州长说他会保持传统的医疗保险在它旁边。但还有一个问题，因为发生了什么，那些保险公司相当聪明，找出谁是年轻和健康的老年人。他们聘请他们，让老，病情加重，老人医疗保险。和每一个卫生保健经济学家看说，随着时间的推移，会发生什么是传统的医疗保健系统将崩溃。

然后你所得到的是人们喜欢我的祖母在怜悯的私人保险系统精确的时候，他们最需要的是良好的医疗服务。所以，我不认为凭证是正确的方向。这不是我自己的——只有我的意见。美国退休人员协会认为——储蓄，我们从医疗支持系统，延长的医疗保险基金由八年。好处是丝毫不受影响。具有讽刺意味的是，如果你废除奥巴马，我已经喜欢这个词，”奥巴马，“如果你废除它，发生了什么，那些老年人就要多支付600美元的处方保健。他们现在要支付共付部分基本检查能够保持他们的健康。和主要的受益者，废除是保险公司的，估计获得数十亿美元回来时，他们没有任何健康的老人。我不认为这是正确的做法时，确保医疗保险是强大的长期。主持人：我们将谈论——具体的保健的一刻。可是——你支持教育券制度，州长？罗姆尼：我所支持的是没有改变目前的退休人员和近退休人员的医疗保险。和总统支持以716000000000美元的计划。

主持人：什么凭证？（串扰）

罗姆尼：这样的——这是第一。第二的人来，是年轻的，我确信我们能保持医疗保险的地方是他们让他们选择了目前的医疗程序或私人计划。他们的选择。他们选择了——他们至少会有两个计划，将完全没有成本，他们。所以他们不必付额外的钱，没有额外的6000美元。那是不可能的。他们至少会有两个计划。

罗姆尼：顺便说一下，如果政府可以作为有效的私营部门提供的保费是为私营部门，人们会很乐意让传统的医疗保险或他们就可以得到一个私人计划。我知道我自己的观点是我宁愿有一个私人计划。我只是假设，政府没有告诉我哪种保健我。我希望能有一个保险公司。如果我不喜欢他们，我可以摆脱他们发现不同的保险公司。但人们作出自己的选择。另一件事我们必须做拯救医疗保险？我们有效益高是那些低收入，但收入较高的人，我们必须要低一些好处。我们必须确保这一计划是在长期。这是我所提出的计划。而且，顺便想到的不是保罗瑞安或——或参议员维登，谁的作者之一——比尔与保罗瑞安在参议院，但也来自比尔——比尔·克林顿的幕僚长。这是一个想法已经存在很长时间，这是说，嘿，看看我们不能让比赛进入医疗保险的世界，人们可以选择不同的计划，以较低的成本，更好的质量。我相信竞争。奥巴马：吉姆，我如果——如果我能非常迅速地作出反应，首先，每一个研究表明，医疗保险已降低行政成本比私人保险，这就是为什么老年人一般都非常喜欢它。与私人保险公司获利。这没什么错。这是他们做了什么。等你有较高的行政费用，加上利润最大的。如果你要存任何钱，通过什么罗姆尼州长的建议，所发生的是，就是钱来自某处。当你移动到一个券制度，你把老人在怜悯那些保险公司。随着时间的推移，如果传统的医疗保险已经腐烂或分开，然后他们停留。这就是为什么美国退休人员协会说，你的计划会大大削弱医疗保

392012美国总统大选辩论会中文版(血泪翻译版)_美国总统大选辩论

险。这就是为什么他们支持的做法，我们采取了。最后一点我想做。我们必须降低成本的卫生保健，不仅在医疗保险和医疗补助…

主持人：谈谈在一分钟。

奥巴马。但——但是——但是总体。

主持人：好。

奥巴马：等…

罗姆尼：那——那是个很大的话题。我们——我们可以在医疗保险？

奥巴马：那是一个——是一个单独的话题？（串扰）

主持人：是的，我们将——是的，我想得到它。

奥巴马对不起。

主持人：但是我想要做的所有是很快…

罗姆尼：让我们回到医疗保险。

主持人：…我们离开前经济…

罗姆尼：让我们回到医疗保险。（串扰）

罗姆尼：总统说政府可以提供的服务，以较低的成本和利润。

主持人：好。罗姆尼：如果是这样的话，那么它将永远是最好的产品，人们可以购买。

主持人：等一下，长官。

罗姆尼：但我的经验——我的经验，私营部门通常能够提供更好的产品，以较低的成本。

主持人：好。我们可以——可你俩同意，选民选择——明确两者之间的选择…

罗姆尼：绝对。

主持人：…你的医疗保险？

罗姆尼：绝对。

奥巴马绝对.

主持人：好的。所以迅速完成，简单地说，在经济上，你的观点是什么水平的联邦监管

的现在的经济的？是不是太多了？在你的情况，总统先生，还有——应该有更多的呢？开始与你。这不是一个新的两分钟的部分开始。我们要走了几分钟，然后我们就去保健，好吗？

罗姆尼：调节是必不可少。你不能有一个自由市场的工作，如果你不规则。作为一个商人，我不得不——我需要知道规则。我需要他们。你不能打开银行的——在他们的车库和贷款。我的意思是，你必须有规定，这样你可以有一个经济工作。每一个自由经济具有良好的调节。同时，调节可以成为过度。

主持人：这是过度了，你认为呢？

罗姆尼：在一些地方，是的。其他的地方，不。

主持人：像在哪里？（相声）

罗姆尼：不，它可以成为过期。什么是发生的一些立法，是流传在总统的任期，你见过调节成为过度，和它的伤害——这是伤害经济。让我给你举一个例子.让我给你举一个例子.法案被通过了。它包括在它的一些规定，我认为有一些意想不到的后果是有害的经济。一个是指定一些银行太大而失败，和他们有效地保证由联邦政府。这是最大的吻，给予了——我见过的纽约银行。这是一个巨大的福音他们。已经有122个社区和小银行关闭以来，多德-法兰克。有一个例子。这里的另一个。在多德-弗兰克…主持人：你想废除法案？

罗姆尼：嗯，我想废除和取代它。我们不是要摆脱所有的规则。你必须调节。还有一些部分法案使世界上所有的感觉。你需要透明，你需要有杠杆限制…

主持人：好的，这是一个特定的…（相声）

罗姆尼：但我们——我们提到——让我提的另一个。让我们谈谈…（相声）

主持人：不，我们不是。让他作出了反应——让他应对这一具体的法案，州长说。奥巴马：我认为这是一个很好的例子。我们之所以一直在这样一个巨大的经济危机是促使鲁莽行为全国委员会。现在，它不只是在华尔街。你的贷款人员——被给予贷款和抵押贷款，真不应该得到，因为人们没有资格。有人借了钱买房子，他们负担不起。你有信用社，冲压这些1大投资时，他们没有。但你也有银行赚大钱，生产产品，银行家们甚至不明白，为了获得最大利润，但是知道它使整个系统变得脆弱。所以我们做了什么？我们走在了最艰难的改革在华尔街上世纪30年代以来。我们说你已经有了——银行，你必须提高你的资本要求。你不可能在一些危险的行为，这是危险的主要街。我们要确定你已经有一个生活会如此——那么我们可以知道怎样去风的东西如果你有一个糟糕的赌注，我们没有其他纳税人救助。奥巴马：同时，顺便说一下，我们也确信所有的帮助，我们提供这些银行收回的每一分钱，利息。现在，罗姆尼州长说他想废除法案。而且，你知道，我感谢和我们似乎有一些协议，市场已经有一定的监管。但在过去，罗姆尼州长说他只是想废除多德-坦率，滚回去。于是问题是：有谁认为最大的问题是我们已经有太多的监管和调控的华尔街？因为如果你这样做，那么你的候选人罗姆尼州长。但那不是我所相信的。罗姆尼：对不起，但那不是——那不是事实。看，我们有规定在华尔街。这就是为什么我会有规定。但我不会指定五银行太大而失败，给他们一张空白支票。这是一个意外后果的法案。它没有考虑过。我们需要摆脱，因为它毁灭提供区域和小银行。他们受到损害。让我提到另一个管制法案。你说我们给抵押贷款的人谁没有资格。这是完全正确的。这是原因之一，我们有伟大的金融灾难。于是多德-弗兰克正确的说我们需要有合格的抵押贷款，如果你给抵押，没有资格，有大的惩罚，除非他们从来不去定义什么是合格的抵押贷款和。已经两年了。我们不知道什么是合格的抵押贷款。所以银行不愿贷款，抵押贷款。尝试并获得抵押贷款，这些天。它受伤了住房市场因

为多德-弗兰克没有预料到在实施各种规则你必须有。这不，多德-弗兰克总是错了太多的规则。有时他们不拿出一个明确的规定。我将确保我们不伤害的运作我们的——我们的市场和我们的业务，因为我要把住房和获得好工作。主持人：好。我想我们有另一个明显的差异，两国之间的你。现在，让我们的移动医疗保健，我知道有一个明显的差别，这与负担得起的保健法，奥巴马。这两分钟的新的——新的部分，即每2分钟。你先走，罗姆尼州长。主持人：你想要废除。你要负担得起的保健法废止。为什么呢？罗姆尼：我肯定。嗯，部分，它来了，又来了，从我的经验。你知道，我在新罕布什尔。一个女人来到我和她说，看，我买不起保险，为自己或我的儿子。我遇见一对在阿普尔顿，威斯康星州，他们说，我们正在考虑放弃我们的保险，我们买不起。和一些小企业已经走了，他们说的是

主持人：总统先生的论点，反对废除？

奥巴马：好吧，四年前，当我跑到办公室，我到处旅行，有同样的对话，罗姆尼州长谈。它不只是小企业看到费用飞涨，他们无法获得负担得起的覆盖，即使他们想提供给他们的员工。它不只是说，这是最大的驱动器，我们的联邦赤字，我们的总体医疗费用，但它是家庭谁是担心破产，如果他们生病，数以百万计的家庭，全国各地。如果他们有一个预先存在的条件，他们可能无法获得覆盖在所有。如果他们有保险，保险公司可能会对一个任意的限制。所以，他们支付的保费，有人真的生病了，你瞧，他们没有足够的钱支付账单，因为保险公司说，他们已经达到极限。所以我们做的工作，在工作的工作，因为这是确保中产阶级家庭是安全的在这个国家。让我告诉你什么是奥巴马。第一，如果你已经有了医疗保险，这并不意味着政府接管。你把你自己的保险。你让你自己的医生。但它说保险公司不会对你指手划脚。他们不能把任意寿命的限制。他们要让你保持你的孩子在他们的保险——你的保险计划，直到你26岁。它还说，你必须要拿到退税如果保险公司都花更多行政成本和利润比在实际护理。第二，如果你没有健康保险，我们基本上是建立一个组的计划，让你受益群体利率通常低于百分之18如果你有想买保险的个别市场。现在，最后一点我以前…

主持人：两分钟——两分钟到了，先生。

奥巴马：不，我想——我有五秒之前，你打断了我的话，是…（笑声）…具有讽刺意味的是，我们已经看到这个模型的工作真的很好，在马萨诸塞州的州长，因为做了一件好事，与民主党人合作在国家建立实质上是相同的模式，因此人们都是。它没有销毁工作。而作为一个结果，我们现在有一个系统中，我们有机会开始降低成本，而不仅仅是数以百万计的人在寒冷的。主持人：你的五秒离开很久以前。好吧，总督。州长，告诉——告诉总统为什么你认为他所说的是错误的关于奥巴马的医改方案？罗姆尼先生：嗯，我和我的第一句话。（相声）

罗姆尼先生：首先，我喜欢我们在马萨诸塞州。我喜欢这一事实，我的国家，我们共和党人和民主党人一起努力的。你做了什么而不是被推通过一项计划，没有一个共和党人投票。事实上，当马萨诸塞州做了一件很了不起的——选出一位共和党参议员阻止奥巴马，你把它看完。完全在一个党派的基础上，而不是将与美国一起讨论关于这一重要议题，你推开一些你和南茜佩洛西和哈里·瑞德认为最好的答案，将通过。我们曾在立法机关百分之87民主党人，我们在一起工作；200立法者在我的立法机构，只有两个投票反对这个计划的时候，我们完了。有什么区别吗？我们不提高税收。你把他们1000000000000美元下Obamacare。我们不削减医疗保险。当然，我们没有医疗保险，但我们不削减医疗保险716000000000美元。

罗姆尼：我们没有建立一个委员会，可以告诉人们，最终他们会接受什么治疗。我们还没有做的事情，我觉得很多人在这个国家的承认，这是把——把人的位置，他们将失去他们的保险，他们想。现在，国会预算办公室称，多达20000000人将失去他们的保险，为奥巴马明年生效。同样，一个由美国企业研究麦肯锡公司说他们百分之30人预期下降从覆盖。

从而针对这些原因，为税收，医疗保险，这一委员会，并为人失去他们的保险，这就是为什么美国人民不希望医疗保险——不希望奥巴马。这就是为什么共和党人说，不这样做，和共和党人——有计划。他们提出一个计划。他们提出了一个计划，一个两党合作计划。它被扫地出门。我觉得这么大，这一重要的要有一个两党合作的基础。我们有一个总统，谁能跨越走道和时尚的重要立法与从输入方。奥巴马：罗姆尼州长说这是做在两党的基础。这是一个两党想法。事实上，它是一个共和思想。和罗姆尼州长在开始本次辩论写的和说我们在马萨诸塞州是一个新型的民族。我同意，在马萨诸塞州的民主党议员可能会提出一些意见，共和党在国会的关于如何配合，但事实是，我们使用相同的顾问，他们说这是相同的计划。它——当罗姆尼州长谈这个板，例如，未经选举产生的委员会，我们已经创造了，这是什么，是一组医疗专家，医生，等等，弄清楚，如何才能降低成本的照顾系统总体？因为——有2方式处理我们的医疗保健危机。一个是简单地把一大堆人保险，让他们自生自灭，让企业找出他们多久才能继续支付保费，直到最后他们放弃，和他们的工人已经不再被保险人，并在趋势线。或者，或者，我们可以计算出，我们如何使医疗费用更有效？还有更好的方法。所以在克利夫兰诊所，一个最好的卫生保健系统中的世界，他们实际上提供的价格比平均。而他们之所以这样做是因为他们做一些聪明的事。他们——他们说，如果一个病人来了，让我们把所有的医生一起在一次，做一个测试，而不是病人在10测试。让我们确保我们提供预防保健，所以我们要像糖尿病发病。让我们——我们支付供应商性能基础上，作为反对的基础上，有多少程序，他们——他们从事。现在，所以，这个委员会基本上是确定最佳做法和说，让我们使用的购买力，医疗保险和医疗补助帮助制度化，所有这些事情，我们做。而事实是，当奥巴马医改方案的全面实施，我们将表明，成本下降。在过去2年里，医疗保健费用上涨了——这是真的——但他们进入了比任何在过去50年的时间。所以我们已经开始看到了进步。同时，有人与保险，你已经获得回扣。让我最后一点。罗姆尼州长说，我们应该取代它，我只是要废除它，但——但是我们可以取代它与。但问题是，他没有说明究竟我们会取代它，而不是说我们要离开美国。

奥巴马：但事实是，一些处方，他提供了，想让你买保险，跨州，也没有迹象表明，将要帮助的人有一个预先存在的条件下能够最终买保险。事实上，据估计，废除奥巴马，你看着50000000人失去健康保险…

主持人：我们。”。

奥巴马。在当时，这是非常重要的。

主持人：我们让州长，你会做什么…

罗姆尼：井…

主持人：…如果奥巴马被废除。你会如何替换？（串扰）

罗姆尼：嗯，其实这是——是——它是一个漫长的描述。但是，第一，存在的条件是根据我的计划。第二，年轻人能够留在他们的家庭计划。这是已提供私人市场。你不需要有政府的任务，那发生。但让我们回到一些总统和我一致，这是关键的任务，我们在卫生保健得到成本降低，所以它更负担得起的家庭。然后他作为一个模型进行了董事会的人在政府，选举产生的董事会，任命的董事会，谁来决定什么样的治疗，你应该有。（串扰）

罗姆尼：在我看来，政府不能有效降低成本——在几乎任何东西。事实上，自由人民和

自由企业设法把事情做得更好，能更有效地降低成本比政府将永远。你的例子，克利夫兰诊所是我的例子，以及其他一些我能描述。这是私人市场。这些都是小——这些都是企业相互竞争，学习如何做的更好，更好的工作。我曾经咨询企业——对不起，医院和卫生保健提供者。我惊讶于创造力和创新中存在的美国人民。为了使医疗费用下降，我们不需要有一个董事会15人告诉我们什么类型的治疗，我们应该有。我们只需要把保险计划，供应商，医院，医生的目标，他们有一个激励，如你所说，绩效工资，做一个出色的工作，为降低成本，和发生的。innermountain医疗是否做好，梅奥诊所做得非常出色，克利夫兰诊所，其他。

罗姆尼：但正确的答案是不让政府接管医疗保健开始强制的供应商在美国，告诉病人和医生什么样的待遇，他们可以有。这是错误的路要走。私人市场和个人责任总是最好的。

奥巴马：让我指出首先这个板，我们谈论的是不能作出决定哪些治疗了。这是明确禁止的法律。但让我们回到罗姆尼州长表示，在他的计划，他将能够覆盖人存在的条件。嗯，其实州长，那不是你的计划。你的计划是什么去复制已经是法律，它说，如果你的健康保险三个月，然后你可以最终得到连续覆盖，保险公司不能拒绝你，——如果它已经在90天。但那已经是法律和不帮助数以百万计的人在与存在的条件。有一个原因，罗姆尼州长设立的计划，他在马萨诸塞州。这不是一个政府接管医疗保健。这是最大的扩大私营保险公司。但它说的是“保险公司，你必须把每个人。”现在，这也意味着你有更多的客户。但当——当州长说他将取代它的东西，但不能详细如何将实际上取代的原因和他建立系统，他在马萨诸塞州是因为没有更好的方法处理存在的条件问题。

奥巴马：这让我想起了我，你知道的，他说他要靠近扣除和漏洞，他的税收计划。这是它如何去支付，但我们不知道的细节。他说他要取代改革法案，华尔街，但我们不知道到底是哪些。他不告诉我们。他说他现在要取代奥巴马的医改方案，确保所有的好东西都是要在那里和你不用担心。在某些方面，我认为，美国人民必须要问自己，是原因，罗姆尼州长是保持所有这些计划更换秘密，因为他们太好？它是——是因为在某种程度上中产阶级家庭会造福他们太多？不，原因是，是因为，当我们改革的华尔街，当我们解决这个问题的预先存在的条件，然后，你知道，这些都是棘手的问题，我们得做出选择。选择和我们所做的就是那些最终受益的中产阶级家庭全国。

主持人：我们要搬到…

罗姆尼：我——我必须作出回应。主持人：没有，但…

罗姆尼：这是——这是我的经验作为一个州长要是我进来——放下一块立法和说，“这是我的道路或高速公路，“我不明白很多事情。我所做的是同样的方式，奥尼尔和罗纳德里根一起工作，几年前。当罗纳德里根竞选办公室，他奠定了原则，他要养。他说他要低税率。他说他要扩大基地。你说的一样，你要简化税法，扩大基地。那些是我的原则。我想把税收负担在中等收入家庭。我要与国会说，好吧，什么——什么是各种方式我们可以把推论，例如？一个方法，例如，将有一个单一的号码。编一个号，25000美元，50000美元。任何人都可以扣除了金额。然后，一些高收入的人消失。这是一种能做的。人可以bowles-simpson作为一种模式和带扣扣，让不同的方式。也有其他的目标完成的我，这是降低利率，扩大了基地，简化代码，并创造了增长动力。与问候的卫生保健，你有显著的细节方面的预先存在的条件的计划。你显然研究了——我的计划。事实上，我有一个计划，涉及人与预先存在的条件。这是我的一部分保健计划。我们所做的在马萨诸塞州是一个模型的民族国家的国家。我说，那时候。联邦政府接管保健为整个国家和搅拌一边第十修正案，使国家的权利，这些类型的东西，不是课程，美国有一个更强大，更具活力的经济体。

主持人：这是一个了不起的，我们的下一个环节，是政府的作用。和——和我们看。政

392012美国总统大选辩论会中文版(血泪翻译版)_美国总统大选辩论

府作用。这是你第一次——这，总统先生。问题是，这。你相信吗，你们两个——但你有了第一个2分钟，总统先生——你相信有一个根本的差异，两国之间的你，你如何看待任务的联邦政府？

奥巴马：嗯，我想有差异。

主持人：和你——是的。

奥巴马：第一个联邦政府的作用是保证美国人民的安全。这是最基本的功能。作为总司令，这是我的工作和思想的每一个日子里，我一直在椭圆形办公室。但我也相信，政府有能力，联邦政府有能力帮助打开机会和创造机会阶梯和创建的框架，美国人民能够成功。看，美国天才是自由企业制度和自由的事实，人们可以去那里开始业务，工作对一个想法，自己做决定。

奥巴马：但亚伯拉罕林肯的理解，也有一些事情我们做的更好。所以，在南北战争中，亚伯拉罕·林肯说，让我们去帮助金融横贯大陆的铁路，让我们开始国家科学院，让我们开始土地赠与学院，因为我们想给这些网关的所有美国人的机会，因为如果所有的美国人都得到机会，我们都要是更好的。这并不限制人的自由。提高它。所以我一直试图做总统是适用相同的原则。当谈到教育我所说的是我们要改革学校是不工作。我们使用的东西被称为顶级赛事的。不是自上而下，总督。我们所说的是美国，我们会给你更多的钱，如果你开始的改革。作为一个后果，你有46美国全国各地的谁做了一个真正的区别。但我还说是我们雇1个00000的数学和科学教师让我们保持我们的技术领先，我们的人都能熟练地成功。和窘迫的国家现在不能做。事实上，我们已经看到了裁员成千上万的教师在过去的几年里，和总督罗姆尼认为我们不需要更多的教师。我做，因为我认为这是一种投资，联邦政府可以帮助。它不能做所有的事情，但它可以使差异。这样的结果是我们会有一个更好的培训的工作，将创建工作因为公司希望能够找到的地方，我们已经有了一个熟练的劳动力。

主持人：2分钟，调速器，对政府的作用。你的看法？

罗姆尼：嗯，首先，我爱大学校。马萨诸塞州，我们的学校排名第一的所有50个州。和关键的伟大，伟大的教师。所以我拒绝的想法，我不相信伟大的教师或教师。每一个学区，每个国家应作出决定自己。政府的作用：我们后面看。宪法和独立宣言。政府的作用是促进和保护原则的文件。

罗姆尼：第一，生命和自由。我们有责任保护生命和自由的人，也就是一次没有军事。我不相信我们的军队。我相信，在维护美国的军事实力。其次，在那，说我们是上帝赋予我们的权利，我相信，我们必须保持我们的承诺的宗教宽容和自由的在这个国家。声明还说，我们是上帝赋予追求幸福的权利，我们选择。我认为，一个，确保那些不幸的人，不能照顾自己——关心彼此。我们是一个国家认为，我们都是儿童相同的神，我们为那些有困难，那些是老年人和有问题和挑战，那些被禁用。我们关心他们。我们——我们发现和创新，所有这些都需要从美国心脏为追求幸福的公民。但我们也相信，在维护个人权利的追求自己的梦想，而不是让政府替代自己的自由权利的人。而我们现在所看到的是，在我看来，一个——一滴入政府的做法，其中有政府认为它可以做的更好的工作比自由人追求自己的梦想。它不工作。并证明了，23000000人失去工作。这些证据，是1的6人在贫困中。这些证据，我们已经从32000000食品券47000000食品券。这些证据，是百分之50，今年的大学毕业生找不到工作。

罗姆尼：我们知道，我们采取的路径是不工作。这是一个新的路径。主持人：好。让我们通过一些具体条款是什么——如何每个你政府的作用。如何——教育。在联邦政府有责任提高质量的公共教育在美国？罗姆尼：好，小学教育的责任——是的，当然，在国家和地方一级。但联邦政府也可以发挥非常重要的作用。我——我同意秘书阿恩邓肯，他是——他提出一些想法在比赛上，不是所有人，但有些我认同和追求，并祝贺他—。联邦政府可以得到局部——和州立学校的工作做的更好。我自己的看法，顺便说一下，我说。我相信，我想让孩子得到联邦美元的想法或我——这是残疾的孩子或——或——或贫困的孩子或孩子——或收入较低，相反，我希望他们能够进入自己选择的学校。所以所有的联邦资金，而要——给国家或地区学校，我会去，如果你将，跟随孩子，让家长和孩子决定把他们——他们——他们的学生。

主持人：你怎么看联邦政府的责任，正如我所说，提高公共教育质量在这个国家？

奥巴马：嗯，我已经指出，我认为它已经发挥重要作用。通过我们的比赛上，我们已与共和党和民主党州长发起重大改革，和他们有影响吗。

主持人：你觉得你有不同的看法和——和那些罗姆尼州长——关于教育和联邦政府？奥巴马：你知道，这是在预算问题，因为预算反映的选择。所以当州长罗姆尼表示他希望降低税收和受益的人喜欢我和他，并支付我们有开始大幅度削减联邦支持教育，与众不同。你知道，他——他的竞选搭档，国会议员瑞安，提出一个预算反映出许多原则，罗姆尼州长的谈论。这不是很详细。这似乎是一个趋势。但——但是它做的是——如果你推断出多少钱，我们说，你会看着削减教育预算高达百分之20。奥巴马：说到社区学院，我们所看到的好工作做了全国，因为我们有机会训练人们工作存在现在。一件事，我怀疑罗姆尼州长和我都是让企业与社会学院，他们建立自己的培训计划…

主持人：你——你同意吗，长官？

奥巴马：让我说完这一点。（串扰）

奥巴马：那——他们的合作使他们设计培训计划。和人民谁正在经历他们知道有工作等着他们如果他们完成它。这是截然不同的，但需要一些联邦支持。让我说最后一个例子。当谈到使学生，无论是两年制或四年，一件事，我作为总统，我们将价值60000000000美元的银行和贷款人作为中间人的学生贷款计划，即使贷款担保。所以没有风险的银行或贷款人，但它们正在数十亿出来的系统。我们说，“为什么不去掉中间？”因此，我们所能做的是提供数百万学生援助，降低或保持低利率对贷款学生。这是一个例子，我们的重点有所作为。罗姆尼州长，我相信真正关心教育，但是当他告诉学生说，你知道，“你要借的钱从你的父母去学院，“你知道，这表明在何种程度上，你知道，可能不会有太大的注意一个事实，像我这样的人，人们喜欢米歇尔，孩子可能参加丹佛大学，只是没有选择。和我们能够确保他们有机会，他们可以走出这个门，这是非常重要的，不仅仅是那些孩子。这是我们要长期经济增长。

主持人：我们没有时间了，先生们。（串扰）

罗姆尼：总统先生，总统先生，你有权作为总统自己的飞机，你自己的家，而不是你自己的事实。好了，我不打算削减教育经费。我没有任何计划削减教育经费和——和赠款，去的人上大学。我计划（无声）增长。所以我不打算做变化。但你做得很好，这是你的地方把你的钱只是一个很清楚地表明你的心在哪里。你把90000000000美元——绿色工作。我——看，我完全支持绿色能源。90000000000美元，这将——将雇佣2000000名老师。90000000000。这些企业，他们中的许多人已经停业，我认为他们中一半的人，已投资已经歇业。其中一些碰巧是所有人都贡献你的运动。看，对课程进行美国政府，我们谈论的是政府的作用，不能成为经济的球员，挑选赢家和输家，告诉人们什么样的健康治疗，他们可以接收，接管保健制度，在这个国家已经存在了很长时间，长有最好的健康记录在世界。正确的答案是说，我们如何使私营部门更有效和更有效？我们如何到达学校的竞争力呢？让他们的等级。我建议我们年级学校让父母知道这学校的成功和失败，使他们能够把他们的孩子——一个学校，他更成功。我不想把我们对教育的承诺。我想使它更有效和高效。顺便说一下，我有这样的经验。我不只是说说而已。我一直在那里。马萨诸塞州的学校排名全国第一。这不是因为我没有对教育的承诺。那是因为我关心教育我们所有的孩子。主持人：好，先生们…（串扰）

主持人：对不起（听不清）。劳驾。我们已经有了——我们有——几乎有三分钟了。我不打算级你们两个说你的回答太长或我做的不好。

奥巴马你干得不错。

主持人：哦，好的，不，但事实是政府——政府的作用和控制，我们已经失去了一个豆荚里的其他词。所以我们只有三——三分钟的——在辩论之前，我们去你的最后陈述。所以我想问最后这里，记住，我们还有三分钟的时间在这里——总的问题是这样的。许多立法职能的联邦政府现在正处于瘫痪状态由于党派僵局。如果当选，在你的情况下，如果再次当选，在你的情况，你会怎么做？州长？

罗姆尼先生：吉姆，我有很大的经验——它似乎不喜欢它的时间——当选了州立法机关是我百分之87的民主党人。这意味着我知道从第一天我曾经相处过，我不得不坐在我对面的去做任何事情。我们把我们的学校成为一个在全国。我们19次削减税收。

主持人：但你会怎么做总统吗？

罗姆尼：我们——作为总统，我将坐在那一天——事实上，以后的日子我当选了——我会坐下来与领导人——民主党领袖，以及共和党领导人，并继续——我们没有在我的国家——我们遇到的每星期一为几个小时，谈论的问题挑战——在——在我们的国家在这种情况下。我们必须工作在一个协作的基础，不是因为我们要妥协我们的原则，但因为有共同点。而现在美国面临的挑战——看，原因我在这场比赛是有人是真的伤害到今天在这个国家。我们的脸——这一赤字可能粉碎后代。什么是发生在中东的事态发展，有世界各地，是真正的关心。

主持人：好。罗姆尼：共和党人和民主党人都爱美国。但我们需要有领导——华盛顿领导，实际上会使人们一起去完成工作，不在乎如果——如果它是共和党还是民主党。我已经这么做过。我会再次这样做。

主持人：总统先生？奥巴马：嗯，首先，我认为罗姆尼州长将会有一个忙碌的第一天，因为他也打算废除奥巴马，这将不是很受欢迎，在民主党为你坐下来与他们。（笑声）但是，看，我的哲学是，我会把思想从人，民主党或共和党，只要他们事业的发展使中产阶级家庭越来越给予机会阶梯的中产阶级。这就是我们减税，中产阶级家庭和小型企业。这就是我们如何削减一兆美元的开支，不在推进事业。这就是我们签署了三项贸易协议法，是帮助我们双出口和出售更多的美国产品在世界各地。这就是我们如何废除“不要问，不要告诉。”这是我们结束伊拉克战争，正如我所承诺的，这就是我们要结束阿富汗战争。这就是我们如何去后，基地组织和本·拉丹。所以我们——我们看到的进展，甚至在共和党控制的众议院的代表。但是，最终，一部分是有原则的，一部分是一个领袖，一个，能够描述到底是什么，你打算这样做，不只是说，“我要坐下来，“但你必须有一个计划。第二，最重要的是你偶尔得说不，跟——人们都在自己的党和其他政党。而且，你知道，是的，我们有一些战斗我和共和党人当——当他们反抗我们在控制过度的华尔街？当然，因为这是一个斗争的需要了。当——当我们战斗，我们是否要让美国人更安全与健康保险和他们说，不，是的，那是一个战斗，我们需要有。

主持人：好

奥巴马：等部分领导和治理都说它是什么，你是愿意，但也没有说一些事情。我要告诉你，罗姆尼州长，当谈到他自己的党在竞选过程中，并没有表现出这种意愿没有说一些更极端的政党。

主持人：这给我们带来的最后陈述。这是掷硬币。罗姆尼州长，你就抛，你选上，所以你必须关闭2分钟，总统先生。

奥巴马：嗯，吉姆，我要感谢你，我要感谢罗姆尼州长，因为我觉得是一个了不起的争论，而我很欣赏它。我要感谢丹佛大学。你知道，四年前，我们正经历着重大危机。然而我的信仰和信心，在美国的未来是不受减损。其原因是因为它的人，因为女人我遇到了在北卡罗莱纳州谁决定在55回到学校去，因为她想让她的女儿，现在有一个工作，新的训练，她得到了；因为公司在明尼苏达谁愿意放弃的薪水和福利的管理人员确保他们没有解雇工人在衰退。汽车工人，满足你在托莱多和底特律采取这种自豪感在建设世界上最好的汽车，不只是因为钱，而是因为它给了他们的自豪感，他们帮助建立美国。而现在的问题是我们如何建立自己的力量。一切我所做的一切，我现在提出的下一个四年来改善我们的教育系统或开发美国能源或确保我们关闭的漏洞，航运公司工作的海外和专注于小企业和公司，创建工作在美国这里，或关闭赤字负责，平衡的方式，让我们投资于我们的未来。所有这些事情的目的是确保美国人民，他们的天才，他们的勇气，他们的决心，是——渠道和——和他们有一个成功的机会。每个人都得到公平的拍摄。每个人获得公平的份额——每个人都做一个公平分享，与大家打了相同的规则。你知道，四年前，我说，我不是一个完美的人，我不会是一个完美的总统。这可能是一个承诺，罗姆尼州长认为我留下。但我也答应我会战斗的每一天，代表美国人民，中产阶级，和所有那些谁是争取进入中产阶级。我一直保存着这个承诺，如果你会投票给我，我保证会一样，在下一个任期。

主持人：罗姆尼州长，你两分钟关闭。

罗姆尼：谢谢你，吉姆，总统先生。感谢你收听今天晚上。这是一个——这是一个重要的选举，我很担心美国。我关注的方向，美国已经采取了在过去的四年。我——我知道这是比选举我们的个人。它比我们各自的方。这是一个选举的过程中，美国。什么样的美国你想

为自己和自己的儿女。并有真的是非常不同的路径，我们开始谈论这个晚上，和过去的这个月我们将有更多的总统和副总统候选人辩论辩论。我们讨论这些路径。但他们会导致非常不同的方向。它不只是看的话，你必须采取的证据，他们去了哪里。你可以看看记录。毫无疑问，在我看来，如果总统连任的你会继续看到一个中产阶级的压榨收入下降，价格上升。我会把收入了。你会看到长期失业。我们已经连续43个月失业率百分之8以上。如果我是总统，我会创造——帮助创造12000000个新的工作在这个国家收入的增加。如果总统连任，奥巴马将全部安装。在我看来，这将意味着一个完全不同的生活方式的人谁依靠保险计划他们过去。许多人会失去它。你会看到健康保险费上的每个家庭2500美元。如果我当选为我们不会有奥巴马。我们要把这种原则，我把我自己的国家，使每个国家自己的工艺程序获得投保，我们会集中在获得卫生保健费用下来。如果总统连任的你会看到一个716000000000美元削减医疗保险。你会有4000000人将失去医疗保险的优势。你会有医院和供应商，将不再接受医疗保险的病人。我会恢复，716000000000美元的医疗保险。最后，军事。总统的再次当选，你会看到戏剧性的削减我们的军队。国防部长说这些将是毁灭性的。我不会把我们的承诺，我们的军队。我会让美国强，美国的中产阶级工作。谢谢你，吉姆。

主持人：谢谢你，长官。谢谢你，总统先生。下一次的辩论将成为副总统的事件星期四，十月十一日在中央大学在丹维尔，肯塔基。现在，来自丹佛大学，我是吉姆莱勒。谢谢！晚安！（掌声）

二 : 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

2012年美国总统大选电视辩论原文

__BY crazyboy

JIM LEHRER: Good evening from the Magness Arena at the University of Denver in Denver, Colorado. I'm Jim Lehrer of the PBS NewsHour, and I welcome you to the first of the 2012 presidential debates between President Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee.

This debate and the next three — two presidential, one vice- presidential — are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates.

Tonight's 90 minutes will be about domestic issues, and will follow a format designed by the commission. There will be six roughly 15-minute segments, with two-minute answers for the first question, then open discussion for the remainder of each segment.

Thousands of people offered suggestions on segment subjects of questions via the Internet and other means, but I made the final selections, and for the record, they were not submitted for approval to the commission or the candidates.

The segments, as I announced in advance, will be three on the economy and one each on health care, the role of government, and governing, with an emphasis throughout on differences, specifics and choices. Both candidates will also have two-minute closing statements.

The audience here in the hall has promised to remain silent. No cheers, applause, boos, hisses — among other noisy distracting things — so we may all concentrate on what the candidates have to say. There is a noise exception right now, though, as we welcome President Obama and Governor Romney. (Cheers, applause.)

Gentlemen, welcome to you both.

Let's start the economy, segment one. And let's begin with jobs. What are the major differences between the two of you about how you would go about creating new jobs? You have two minutes — each of you have two minutes to start. The coin toss has determined, Mr. President, you go first.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Well, thank you very much, Jim, for this opportunity. I want to thank Governor Romney and the University of Denver for your hospitality.

There are a lot of points that I want to make tonight, but the most important one is that 20 years ago I became the luckiest man on earth because Michelle Obama agreed to marry me. (Laughter.) And so I just want to wish, Sweetie, you happy anniversary and let you know that a year from now, we will not be celebrating it in front of 40 million people. (Laughter.)

You know, four years ago we went through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Millions of jobs were lost. The auto industry was on the brink of collapse. The financial system had frozen up. And because of the resilience and the determination of the American people, we've begun to fight our way back.

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.

Now, it ultimately is going to be up to the voters, to you, which path we should take. Are we going to double down on the top-down economic policies that helped to get us into this mess, or do we embrace a new economic patriotism that says, America does best when the middle class does best? And I'm looking forward to having that debate.

MR. LEHRER: Governor Romney, two minutes.

MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Jim. It's an honor to be here with you, and I appreciate the chance to be with the president. I am pleased to be at the University of Denver, appreciate their welcome and also the presidential commission on these debates.

And congratulations to you, Mr. President, on your anniversary. I'm sure this was the most romantic place you could imagine here — here with me, so I — (laughter) — congratulations.

This is obviously a very tender topic. I've had the occasion over the last couple of years of meeting people across the country. I was in Dayton, Ohio, and a woman grabbed my arm, and she said, I've been out of work since May. Can you help me?

Ann yesterday was a rally in Denver, and a woman came up to her with a baby in her arms and said, Ann, my husband has had four jobs in three years, part-time jobs. He's lost his most recent job, and we've now just lost our home. Can you help us?

And the answer is yes, we can help, but it's going to take a different path, not the one we've been on, not the one the president describes as a top-down, cut taxes for the rich. That's not what I'm going to do.

My plan has five basic parts. One, get us energy independent, North American energy independent. That creates about four million jobs. Number two, open up more trade, particularly in Latin America; crack down on China if and when they cheat. Number three, make sure our people have the skills they need to succeed and the best schools in the world. We're far away from that now. Number four, get us to a balanced budget. Number five, champion small business.

It's small business that creates the jobs in America. And over the last four years small-business people have decided that America may not be the place to open a new business, because new business startups are down to a 30-year low. I know what it takes to get small business growing again, to hire people.

Now, I'm concerned that the path that we're on has just been unsuccessful. The president has a view very similar to the view he had when he ran four years ago, that a bigger government, spending more, taxing more, regulating more — if you will, trickle-down government would work. That's not the right answer for America. I'll restore the vitality that gets America working again.

Thank you.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. President, please respond directly to what the governor just said about trickle-down — his trickle-down approach. He's — as he said yours is.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me talk specifically about what I think we need to do.

First, we've got to improve our education system. And we've made enormous progress drawing on ideas both from Democrats and Republicans that are already starting to show gains in some of the toughest-to- deal-with schools. We've got a program called Race to the Top that has prompted reforms in 46

states around the country, raising standards, improving how we train teachers. So now I want to hire another hundred thousand new math and science teachers and create 2 million more slots in our community colleges so that people can get trained for the jobs that are out there right now. And I want to make sure that we keep tuition low for our young people.

When it comes to our tax code, Governor Romney and I both agree that our corporate tax rate is too high. So I want to lower it, particularly for manufacturing, taking it down to 25 percent. But I also want to close those loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas. I want to provide tax breaks for companies that are investing here in the United States.

On energy, Governor Romney and I, we both agree that we've got to boost American energy production.

And oil and natural gas production are higher than they've been in years. But I also believe that we've got to look at the energy source of the future, like wind and solar and biofuels, and make those investments.

So, all of this is possible. Now, in order for us to do it, we do have to close our deficit, and one of the things I'm sure we'll be discussing tonight is, how do we deal with our tax code, and how do we make sure that we are reducing spending in a responsible way, but also how do we have enough revenue to make those investments? And this is where there's a difference because Governor Romney's central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut, on top of the extension of the Bush tax cuts, so that's another $2 trillion, and $2 trillion in additional military spending that the military hasn't asked for. That's $8 trillion. How we pay for that, reduce the deficit and make the investments that we need to make without dumping those costs on the middle-class Americans I think is one of the central questions of this campaign.

MR. LEHRER: Both of you have spoken about a lot of different things, and we're going to try to get through them in as specific a way as we possibly can.

But first, Governor Romney, do you have a question that you'd like to ask the president directly about something he just said?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, sure. I'd like to clear up the record and go through it piece by piece. First of all, I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don't have a tax cut of a scale that you're talking about. My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I'm not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high- income people. High-income people are doing just fine in this economy. They'll do fine whether you're president or I am.

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.

But the president mentioned a couple of other ideas, and I'll just note: first, education. I agree, education is key, particularly the future of our economy. But our training programs right now, we got 47 of them housed in the federal government, reporting to eight different agencies. Overhead is overwhelming. We got to get those dollars back to the states and go to the workers so they can create their own pathways to getting the training they need for jobs that will really help them.

The second area: taxation. We agree; we ought to bring the tax rates down, and I do, both for corporations and for individuals. But in order for us not to lose revenue, have the government run out of money, I also lower deductions and credits and exemptions so that we keep taking in the same money when you also account for growth.

The third area: energy. Energy is critical, and the president pointed out correctly that production of oil and gas in the U.S. is up. But not due to his policies. In spite of his policies. Mr. President, all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land. On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and license in half. If I'm president, I'll double them. And also get the — the oil from offshore and Alaska. And I'll bring that pipeline in from Canada.

And by the way, I like coal. I'm going to make sure we continue to burn clean coal. People in the coal industry feel like it's getting crushed by your policies. I want to get America and North America energy independent, so we can create those jobs.

And finally, with regards to that tax cut, look, I'm not looking to cut massive taxes and to reduce the — the revenues going to the government. My — my number one principle is there'll be no tax cut that adds to the deficit.

I want to underline that — no tax cut that adds to the deficit. But I do want to reduce the burden being paid by middle-income Americans. And I — and to do that that also means that I cannot reduce the burden paid by high-income Americans. So any — any language to the contrary is simply not accurate.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. President.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I think — let's talk about taxes because I think it's instructive. Now, four years ago when I stood on this stage I said that I would cut taxes for middle-class families. And that's exactly what I did. We cut taxes for middle-class families by about $3,600. And the reason is because I believe we do best when the middle class is doing well.

And by giving them those tax cuts, they had a little more money in their pocket and so maybe they can buy a new car. They are certainly in a better position to weather the extraordinary recession that we went through. They can buy a computer for their kid who's going off to college, which means they're spending more money, businesses have more customers, businesses make more profits and then hire more workers.

Now, Governor Romney's proposal that he has been promoting for 18 months calls for a $5 trillion tax cut on top of $2 trillion of additional spending for our military. And he is saying that he is going to pay for it by closing loopholes and deductions. The problem is that he's been asked a — over a hundred times how you would close those deductions and loopholes and he hasn't been able to identify them.

But I'm going to make an important point here, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: All right.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: When you add up all the loopholes and deductions that upper income individuals can — are currently taking advantage of — if you take those all away — you don't come close to paying for $5 trillion in tax cuts and $2 trillion in additional military spending. And that's why independent studies looking at this said the only way to meet Governor Romney's pledge of not reducing the deficit — or — or — or not adding to the deficit, is by burdening middle-class families.

The average middle-class family with children would pay about $2,000 more. Now, that's not my analysis; that's the analysis of economists who have looked at this. And — and that kind of top — top-down economics, where folks at the top are doing well so the average person making 3 million bucks is getting a $250,000 tax break while middle- class families are burdened further, that's not

what I believe is a recipe for economic growth.

MR. LEHRER: All right. What is the difference?

MR. ROMNEY: Well —

MR. LEHRER: Let's just stay on taxes for —

MR. ROMNEY: But I — but I — right, right.

MR. LEHRER: OK. Yeah, just — let's just stay on taxes for a moment.

MR. ROMNEY: Yeah. Well, but — but —

MR. LEHRER: What is the difference?

MR. ROMNEY: — virtually every — virtually everything he just said about my tax plan is inaccurate.

MR. LEHRER: All right, go —

MR. ROMNEY: So — so if — if the tax plan he described were a tax plan I was asked to support, I'd say absolutely not. I'm not looking for a $5 trillion tax cut. What I've said is I won't put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit. That's part one. So there's no economist can say Mitt Romney's tax plan adds 5 trillion (dollars) if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.

Number two, I will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals. I — I know that you and your running mate keep saying that, and I know it's a popular things to say with a lot of people, but it's just not the case. Look, I got five boys. I'm used to people saying something that's not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I'll believe it — (scattered laughter) — but that — that is not the case, all right? I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans.

And number three, I will not, under any circumstances, raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families. Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it's completely wrong. I saw a study that came out today that said you're going to raise taxes by 3(,000 dollars) to $4,000 on — on middle-income families. There are all these studies out there.

But let's get to the bottom line. That is, I want to bring down rates. I want to bring down the rates down, at the same time lower deductions and exemptions and

credits and so forth so we keep getting the revenue we need.

And you think, well, then why lower the rates? And the reason is because small business pays that individual rate. Fifty-four percent of America's workers work in businesses that are taxed not at the corporate tax rate but at the individual tax rate. And if we lower that rate, they will be able to hire more people.

For me, this is about jobs.

MR. LEHRER: All right. That's where we started.

MR. ROMNEY: This is about getting jobs for the American people.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah.

Do you challenge what the governor just said about his own plan?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, for 18 months he's been running on this tax plan. And now, five weeks before the election, he's saying that his big, bold idea is "never mind." And the fact is that if you are lowering the rates the way you describe, Governor, then it is not possible to come up with enough deductions and loopholes that only affect high-income individuals to avoid either raising the deficit or burdening the middle class. It's — it's math. It's arithmetic.

Now, Governor Romney and I do share a deep interest in encouraging small-business growth. So at the same time that my tax plan has already lowered taxes for 98 percent of families, I also lowered taxes for small businesses 18 times. And what I want to do is continue the tax rates — the tax cuts that we put into place for small businesses and families.

But I have said that for incomes over $250,000 a year that we should go back to the rates that we had when Bill Clinton was president, when we created 23 million new jobs, went from deficit to surplus and created a whole lot of millionaires to boot.

And the reason this is important is because by doing that, we can not only reduce the deficit, we can not only encourage job growth through small businesses, but we're also able to make the investments that are necessary in education or in energy.

And we do have a difference, though, when it comes to definitions of small business. Now, under — under my plan, 97 percent of small businesses would not see their income taxes go up. Governor Romney says, well, those top 3 percent, they're the job creators. They'd be burdened.

But under Governor Romney's definition, there are a whole bunch of millionaires and billionaires who are small businesses. Donald Trump is a small business. And I know Donald Trump doesn't like to think of himself as small anything, but — but that's how you define small businesses if you're getting business income. And that kind of approach, I believe, will not grow our economy because the only way to pay for it without either burdening the middle class or blowing up our deficit is to make drastic cuts in things like education, making sure that we are continuing to invest in basic science and research, all the things that are helping America grow. And I think that would be a mistake.

MR. LEHRER: All right.

MR. ROMNEY: Jim, let me just come back on that — on that point.

MR. LEHRER: Just for the — just for the record —

MR. ROMNEY: These small businesses we're talking about —

MR. LEHRER: Excuse me. Just so everybody understands —

MR. ROMNEY: Yeah.

MR. LEHRER: — we're way over our first 15 minutes.

MR. ROMNEY: It's fun, isn't it?

MR. LEHRER: It's OK. It's great.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: That's OK.

MR. LEHRER: No problem. No, you don't have — you don't have a problem, I don't have a problem, because we're still on the economy, but we're going to come back to taxes and we're going to move on to the deficit and a lot of other things, too.

OK, but go ahead, sir.

MR. ROMNEY: You bet.

Well, President, you're — Mr. President, you're absolutely right, which is that with regards to 97 percent of the businesses are not — not taxed at the 35 percent tax rate, they're taxed at a lower rate. But those businesses that are in the last 3 percent of businesses happen to employ half — half — of all of the people who

work in small business. Those are the businesses that employ one quarter of all the workers in America. And your plan is take their tax rate from 35 percent to 40 percent.

Now, I talked to a guy who has a very small business. He's in the electronics business in — in St. Louis. He has four employees.

He said he and his son calculated how much they pay in taxes. Federal income tax, federal payroll tax, state income tax, state sales tax, state property tax, gasoline tax — it added up to well over 50 percent of what they earned.

And your plan is to take the tax rate on successful small businesses from 35 percent to 40 percent. The National Federation of Independent Businesses has said that will cost 700,000 jobs. I don't want to cost jobs. My priority is jobs. And so what I do is I bring down the tax rates, lower deductions and exemptions — the same idea behind Bowles-Simpson, by the way. Get the rates down, lower deductions and exemptions to create more jobs, because there's nothing better for getting us to a balanced budget than having more people working, earning more money, paying — (chuckles) — more taxes. That's by far the most effective and efficient way to get this budget balanced.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Jim, I — you may want to move on to another topic, but I would just say this to the American people. If you believe that we can cut taxes by $5 trillion and add $2 trillion in additional spending that the military is not asking for — $7 trillion, just to give you a sense, over 10 years that's more than our entire defense budget — and you think that by closing loopholes and deductions for the well-to-do, somehow you will not end up picking up the tab, then Governor Romney's plan may work for you.

But I think math, common sense and our history shows us that's not a recipe for job growth.

Look, we've tried this — we've tried both approaches. The approach that Governor Romney's talking about is the same sales pitch that was made in 2001 and 2003. And we ended up with the slowest job growth in 50 years. We ended up moving from surplus to deficits. And it all culminated in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Bill Clinton tried the approach that I'm talking about. We created 23 million new jobs. We went from deficit to surplus, and businesses did very well.

So in some ways, we've got some data on which approach is more likely to create jobs and opportunity for Americans, and I believe that the economy works best when middle-class families are getting tax breaks so that they've got some

money in their pockets and those of us who have done extraordinarily well because of this magnificent country that we live in, that we can afford to do a little bit more to make sure we're not blowing up the deficit.

MR. LEHRER: OK. (Inaudible) —

MR. ROMNEY: Jim, the president began this segment, so I think I get the last word, so I'm going to take it. All right? (Chuckles.)

MR. LEHRER: Well, you're going to get the first word in the next segment.

MR. ROMNEY: Well, but — but he gets the first word of that segment. I get the last word of that segment, I hope. Let me just make this comment.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: (Chuckles.) He can — you can have it. He can —

MR. ROMNEY: First of all —

MR. LEHRER: That's not how it works.

MR. ROMNEY: Let me — let me repeat — let me repeat what I said — (inaudible). I'm not in favor of a $5 trillion tax cut. That's not my plan. My plan is not to put in place any tax cut that will add to the deficit. That's point one. So you may keep referring to it as a $5 trillion tax cut, but that's not my plan.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: OK.

MR. ROMNEY: Number two, let's look at history. My plan is not like anything that's been tried before. My plan is to bring down rates but also bring down deductions and exemptions and credits at the same time so the revenue stays in, but that we bring down rates to get more people working. My priority is putting people back to work in America. They're suffering in this country. And we talk about evidence — look at the evidence of the last four years. It's absolutely extraordinary. We've got 23 million people out of work or stop looking for work in this country.

MR. LEHRER: All right.

MR. ROMNEY: It's just — it's — we've got — we got — when the president took office, 32 million people on food stamps; 47 million on food stamps today. Economic growth this year slower than last year, and last year slower than the year before. Going forward with the status quo is not going to cut it for the American people who are struggling today.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Let's talk — we're still on the economy. This is, theoretically now, a second segment still on the economy, and specifically on what do about the federal deficit, the federal debt. And the question — you each have two minutes on this — and, Governor Romney you go first because the president went first on segment one. And the question is this: What are the differences between the two of you as to how you would go about tackling the deficit problem in this country?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, good. I'm glad you raised that. And it's a — it's a critical issue. I think it's not just an economic issue. I think it's a moral issue. I think it's, frankly, not moral for my generation to keep spending massively more than we take in, knowing those burdens are going to be passed on to the next generation. And they're going to be paying the interest and the principle all their lives. And the amount of debt we're adding, at a trillion a year, is simply not moral.

So how do we deal with it? Well, mathematically there are — there are three ways that you can cut a deficit. One, of course, is to raise taxes. Number two is to cut spending. And number three is to grow the economy because if more people work in a growing economy they're paying taxes and you can get the job done that way.

The presidents would — president would prefer raising taxes. I understand. The problem with raising taxes is that it slows down the rate of growth and you could never quite get the job done. I want to lower spending and encourage economic growth at the same time.

What things would I cut from spending? Well, first of all, I will eliminate all programs by this test — if they don't pass it: Is the program so critical it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And if not, I'll get rid of it. "Obamacare" is on my list. I apologize, Mr. President. I use that term with all respect.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I like it.

MR. ROMNEY: Good. OK, good. (Laughter.) So I'll get rid of that. I'm sorry, Jim. I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I'm going to stop other things. I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you too. But I'm not going to — I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it. That's number one.

Number two, I'll take programs that are currently good programs but I think could be run more efficiently at the state level and send them to state.

Number three, I'll make government more efficient, and to cut back the number

三 : 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

2012年美国总统大选电视辩论原文

__BY crazyboy

This debate and the next three — two presidential, one vice- presidential — are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates.

Gentlemen, welcome to you both.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Well, thank you very much, Jim, for this opportunity. I want to thank Governor Romney and the University of Denver for your hospitality.

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

MR. LEHRER: Governor Romney, two minutes.

And congratulations to you, Mr. President, on your anniversary. I'm sure this was the most romantic place you could imagine here — here with me, so I — (laughter) — congratulations.

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

Thank you.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. President, please respond directly to what the governor just said about trickle-down — his trickle-down approach. He's — as he said yours is.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me talk specifically about what I think we need to do.

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

On energy, Governor Romney and I, we both agree that we've got to boost American energy production.

MR. LEHRER: Both of you have spoken about a lot of different things, and we're going to try to get through them in as specific a way as we possibly can.

But first, Governor Romney, do you have a question that you'd like to ask the president directly about something he just said?

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

MR. LEHRER: Mr. President.

But I'm going to make an important point here, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: All right.

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

what I believe is a recipe for economic growth.

MR. LEHRER: All right. What is the difference?

MR. ROMNEY: Well —

MR. LEHRER: Let's just stay on taxes for —

MR. ROMNEY: But I — but I — right, right.

MR. LEHRER: OK. Yeah, just — let's just stay on taxes for a moment.

MR. ROMNEY: Yeah. Well, but — but —

MR. LEHRER: What is the difference?

MR. ROMNEY: — virtually every — virtually everything he just said about my tax plan is inaccurate.

MR. LEHRER: All right, go —

But let's get to the bottom line. That is, I want to bring down rates. I want to bring down the rates down, at the same time lower deductions and exemptions and

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

credits and so forth so we keep getting the revenue we need.

For me, this is about jobs.

MR. LEHRER: All right. That's where we started.

MR. ROMNEY: This is about getting jobs for the American people.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah.

Do you challenge what the governor just said about his own plan?

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

MR. LEHRER: All right.

MR. ROMNEY: Jim, let me just come back on that — on that point.

MR. LEHRER: Just for the — just for the record —

MR. ROMNEY: These small businesses we're talking about —

MR. LEHRER: Excuse me. Just so everybody understands —

MR. ROMNEY: Yeah.

MR. LEHRER: — we're way over our first 15 minutes.

MR. ROMNEY: It's fun, isn't it?

MR. LEHRER: It's OK. It's great.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: That's OK.

OK, but go ahead, sir.

MR. ROMNEY: You bet.

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

work in small business. Those are the businesses that employ one quarter of all the workers in America. And your plan is take their tax rate from 35 percent to 40 percent.

Now, I talked to a guy who has a very small business. He's in the electronics business in — in St. Louis. He has four employees.

But I think math, common sense and our history shows us that's not a recipe for job growth.

Bill Clinton tried the approach that I'm talking about. We created 23 million new jobs. We went from deficit to surplus, and businesses did very well.

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

MR. LEHRER: OK. (Inaudible) —

MR. ROMNEY: Jim, the president began this segment, so I think I get the last word, so I'm going to take it. All right? (Chuckles.)

MR. LEHRER: Well, you're going to get the first word in the next segment.

MR. ROMNEY: Well, but — but he gets the first word of that segment. I get the last word of that segment, I hope. Let me just make this comment.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: (Chuckles.) He can — you can have it. He can —

MR. ROMNEY: First of all —

MR. LEHRER: That's not how it works.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: OK.

MR. LEHRER: All right.

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I like it.

Number two, I'll take programs that are currently good programs but I think could be run more efficiently at the state level and send them to state.

Number three, I'll make government more efficient, and to cut back the number

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

of employees, combine some agencies and departments. My cutbacks will be done through attrition, by the way.

This is the approach we have to take to get America to a balanced budget. The president said he'd cut the deficit in half. Unfortunately, he doubled it. Trillion-dollar deficits for the last four years. The president's put it in place as much public debt — almost as much debt held by by the public as all prior presidents combined.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. President. two minutes.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: When I walked in the Oval Office, I had more than a trillion dollar deficit greeting me, and we know where it came from. Two wars that were paid for on a credit card. Two tax cuts that were not paid for, and a whole bunch of programs that were not paid for. And then a massive economic crisis.

And despite that, what we've said is, yes, we had to take some initial emergency measures to make sure we didn't slip into a Great Depression. But what we've also said is, let's make sure that we are cutting out those things that are not helping us grow.

So, 77 government programs — everything from aircrafts that the Air Force had ordered but weren't working very well. Eighteen government — 18 government programs for education that were well- intentioned but weren't helping kids learn. We went after medical fraud in Medicare and Medicaid very aggressively — more aggressively than ever before, and have saved tens of billions of dollars. Fifty billion dollars of waste taken out of the system.

And I worked with Democrats and Republicans to cut a trillion dollars out of our discretionary domestic budget. That's the largest cut in the discretionary domestic budget since Dwight Eisenhower.

Now, we all know that we've got to do more. And so I've put forward a specific $4 trillion deficit-reduction plan.

It's on a website. You can look at all the numbers, what cuts we make and what revenue we raise.

And the way we do it is $2.50 for every cut, we ask for a dollar of additional revenue, paid for, as I indicated earlier, by asking those of us who have done very well in this country to contribute a little bit more to reduce the deficit.

And Governor Romney earlier mentioned the Bowles-Simpson commission. Well, that's how the commission — bipartisan commission that talked about how we

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

should move forward suggested we have to do it — in a balanced way with some revenue and some spending cuts. And this is a major difference that Governor Romney and I have.

Let — let me just finish this point because you're looking for contrast. You know, when Governor Romney stood on a stage with other Republican candidates for the nomination, and he was asked, would you take $10 of spending cuts for just $1 of revenue, and he said no. Now, if you take such an unbalanced approach, then that means you are going to be gutting our investments in schools and education. It means that — Governor Romney talked about Medicaid and how we could send it back to the states, but effectively this means a 30 percent cut in the primary program we help for seniors who are in nursing homes, for kids who are with disabilities —

MR. LEHRER: Mr. President, I'm sorry —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: And that is not a right strategy for us to move forward.

MR. LEHRER: Way over the two minutes.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Sorry.

MR. LEHRER: Governor, what about Simpson-Bowles. Will you support Simpson-Bowles?

MR. ROMNEY: Simpson-Bowles, the president should have grabbed that.

MR. LEHRER: No, I mean do you support Simpson-Bowles?

MR. ROMNEY: I have my own plan. It's not the same as Simpson- Bowles. But in my view, the president should have grabbed it. If you wanted to make some adjustments to it, take it, go to Congress, fight for it.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: That's what we've done, made some adjustments to it; and we're putting it forward before Congress right now, a $4 trillion plan, (a balanced ?) —

MR. ROMNEY: But you've been — but you've been president four years. You've been president four years. You said you'd cut the deficit in half. It's now four years later. We still have trillion- dollar deficits.

The CBO says we'll have a trillion-dollar deficit each of the next four years. If you're re-elected, we'll get to a trillion-dollar debt. You have said before you'd cut the deficit in half. And this four — I love this idea of 4 trillion (dollars) in cuts.

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

You've found $4 trillion of ways to reduce or to get closer to a balanced budget, except we still show trillion dollar deficits every year. That doesn't get the job done.

Let me come back and say, why is that I don't want to raise taxes? Why don't I want to raise taxes on people? And actually, you said it back in 2010. You said, look, I'm going to extend the tax policies that we have. Now, I'm not going to raise taxes on anyone because when the economy's growing slow like this, when we're in recession you shouldn't raise taxes on anyone.

Well, the economy is still growing slow. As a matter of fact, it's growing much more slowly now than when you made that statement. And so if you believe the same thing, you just don't want to raise taxes on people. And the reality is it's not just wealthy people — you mentioned Donald Trump — it's not just Donald Trump you're taxing; it's all those businesses that employ one-quarter of the workers in America. These small businesses that are taxed as individuals. You raise taxes and you kill jobs. That's why the National Federation of Independent Businesses said your plan will kill 700,000 jobs. I don't want to kill jobs in this environment.

Let me make one more point. And that's — and that —

MR. LEHRER: Let's let him answer the taxes thing for a moment, OK?

MR. ROMNEY: OK.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. President.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, we've had this discussion before.

MR. LEHRER: No, about the idea that in order to reduce the deficit there has to be revenue in addition to cuts.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: There has to be revenue in addition to cuts. Now, Governor Romney has ruled out revenue. He's — he's ruled out revenue.

MR. LEHRER: That's true, right?

MR. ROMNEY: Absolutely.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: OK, so —

MR. LEHRER: Completely?

MR. ROMNEY: I — look, the revenue I get is by more people working, getting

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

higher pay, paying more taxes. That's how we get growth and how we balance the budget. But the idea of taxing people more, putting more people out of work — you'll never get there. You never balance the budget by raising taxes.

Spain — Spain spends 42 percent of their total economy on government. We're now spending 42 percent of our economy on government.

I don't want to go down the path to Spain. I want to go down the path of growth that puts Americans to work, with more money coming in because they're working.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah.

But Mr. President, you're saying in order to get it — the job done, it's got to be balanced. You've got to have —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: If we're serious, we've got to take a balanced, responsible approach. And by the way, this is not just when it comes to individual taxes.

Let's talk about corporate taxes. Now, I've identified areas where we can, right away, make a change that I believe would actually help the economy. The — the oil industry gets $4 billion a year in corporate welfare. Basically, they get deductions that those small businesses that Governor Romney refers to, they don't get. Now, does anybody think that ExxonMobil needs some extra money when they're making money every time you go to the pump? Why wouldn't we want to eliminate that?

Why wouldn't we eliminate tax breaks for corporate jets? My attitude is if you got a corporate jet, you can probably afford to pay full freight, not get a special break for it.

When it comes to corporate taxes, Governor Romney has said he wants to, in a revenue-neutral way, close loopholes, deductions — he hasn't identified which ones they are — but thereby bring down the corporate rate. Well, I want to do the same thing, but I've actually identified how we can do that.

And part of the way to do it is to not give tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas. Right now you can actually take a deduction for moving a plant overseas. I think most Americans would say that doesn't make sense. And all that raises revenue.

And so if we take a balanced approach, what that then allows us to do is also to help young people, the way we already have during my administration, make sure that they can afford to go to college. It means that the teacher that I met in

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

Las Vegas, wonderful young lady, who describes to me — she's got 42 kids in her class.

The first two weeks, she's got them — some of them sitting on the floor until finally they get reassigned. They're using textbooks that are 10 years old. That is not a recipe for growth; that's not how America was built.

And so budgets reflect choices. Ultimately we're going to have to make some decisions. And if we're asking for no revenue, then that means that we've got to get rid of a whole bunch of stuff, and the magnitude of the tax cuts that you're talking about, Governor, would end up resulting in severe hardship for people, but more importantly, would not help us grow.

As I indicated before, when you talk about shifting Medicaid to states, we're talking about potentially a — a 30 — a 30 percent cut in Medicaid over time. Now, you know, that may not seem like a big deal when it just is — you know, numbers on a sheet of paper, but if we're talking about a family who's got an autistic kid and is depending on that Medicaid, that's a big problem. And governors are creative. There's no doubt about it. But they're not creative enough to make up for 30 percent of revenue on something like Medicaid. What ends up happening is some people end up not getting help.

MR. ROMNEY: Jim, let's — we — we've gone on a lot of topics there, and — so I've got to take — it's going to take a minute to go from Medicaid to schools to —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: (Inaudible.)

MR. LEHRER: Come back to Medicaid, here, yeah, yeah, right.

MR. ROMNEY: — oil to tax breaks and companies overseas. So let's go through them one by one. First of all, the Department of Energy has said the tax break for oil companies is $2.8 billion a year. And it's actually an accounting treatment, as you know, that's been in place for a hundred years. Now —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: It's time to end it.

MR. ROMNEY: And — and in one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world. Now, I like green energy as well, but that's about 50 years' worth of what oil and gas receives, and you say Exxon and Mobil — actually, this $2.8 billion goes largely to small companies, to drilling operators and so forth.

But you know, if we get that tax rate from 35 percent down to 25 percent, why, that $2.8 billion is on the table. Of course it's on the table. That's probably not going to survive, you get that rate down to 25 percent.

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

But — but don't forget, you put $90 billion — like 50 years worth of breaks — into solar and wind, to — to Solyndra and Fisker and Tesla and Ener1. I mean, I — I had a friend who said, you don't just pick the winners and losers; you pick the losers. All right? So — so this is not — this is not the kind of policy you want to have if you want to get America energy-secure.

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.

MR. LEHRER: Let's —

MR. ROMNEY: But the — the idea that you get a break for shipping jobs overseas is simply not the case.

MR. LEHRER: Let's have —

MR. ROMNEY: What we do have right now is a setting —

MR. LEHRER: Excuse me.

MR. ROMNEY: — where I'd like to bring money from overseas back to this country.

And finally, Medicaid to states, I'm not quite sure where that came in, except this, which is, I would like to take the Medicaid dollars that go to states and say to a state, you're going to get what you got last year plus inflation — inflation — plus 1 percent. And then you're going to manage your care for your poor in the way you think best.

And I remember as a governor, when this idea was floated by Tommy Thompson, the governors, Republican and Democrats, said, please let us do that. We can care for our own poor in so much better and more effective a way than having the federal government tell us how to care for our poor.

So let states — one of the magnificent things about this country is the whole idea that states are the laboratories of democracy. Don't have the federal government tell everybody what kind of training programs they have to have and what kind of Medicaid they have to have. Let states do this.

And by the way, if a states get — gets in trouble, why, we could step in and see if we could find a way to help them. But —

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

MR. LEHRER: Let's go.

MR. ROMNEY: But — but the right — the right approach is one which relies on the brilliance —

MR. LEHRER: Two seconds.

MR. ROMNEY: — of our people and states, not the federal government.

MR. LEHRER: Two seconds and we're going on, still on the economy on another — but another part of it.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: OK.

MR. LEHRER: All right? All right, this is this is segment three, the economy, entitlements.

First answer goes to you. It's two minutes. Mr. President, do you see a major difference between the two of you on Social Security?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, I suspect that on Social Security, we've got a somewhat similar position. Social Security is structurally sound. It's going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Speaker — Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill. But it is — the basic structure is sound. But — but I want to talk about the values behind Social Security and Medicare and then talk about Medicare, because that's the big driver —

MR. LEHRER: Sure — it — you bet.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: — of our deficits right now.

You know, my grandmother, some of you know, helped to raise me. My grandparents did. My grandfather died awhile back. My grandmother died three days before I was elected president. And she was fiercely independent. She worked her way up, only had a high school education, started as a secretary, ended up being the vice president of a local bank. And she ended up living alone by choice. And the reason she could be independent was because of Social Security and Medicare. She had worked all her life, put in this money and understood that there was a basic guarantee, a floor under which she could not go.

And that's the perspective I bring when I think about what's called entitlements. You know, the name itself implies some sense of dependency on the part of these folks. These are folks who've worked hard, like my grandmother. And there

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

are millions of people out there who are counting on this.

So my approach is to say, how do we strengthen the system over the long term? And in Medicare, what we did was we said, we are going to have to bring down the costs if we're going to deal with our long- term deficits, but to do that, let's look where some of the money is going. Seven hundred and sixteen billion dollars we were able to save from the Medicare program by no longer overpaying insurance companies, by making sure that we weren't overpaying providers.

And using that money, we were actually able to lower prescription drug costs for seniors by an average of $600, and we were also able to make a — make a significant dent in providing them the kind of preventive care that will ultimately save money through the — throughout the system.

So the way for us to deal with Medicare in particular is to lower health care costs. But when it comes to Social Security, as I said, you don't need a major structural change in order to make sure that Social Security is there for the future.

MR. LEHRER: We'll follow up on this.

First, Governor Romney, you have two minutes on Social Security and entitlements.

MR. ROMNEY: Well, Jim, our seniors depend on these programs. And I know any time we talk about entitlements, people become concerned that something's going to happen that's going to change their life for the worst, and the answer is, neither the president nor I are proposing any changes for any current retirees or near retirees, either to Social Security or Medicare. So if you're 60 or around 60 or older, you don't need to listen any further.

But for younger people, we need to talk about what changes are going to be occurring.

Oh, I just thought about one, and that is in fact I was wrong when I said the president isn't proposing any changes for current retirees. In fact, he is on Medicare. On Social Security, he's not.

But on Medicare, for current retirees he's cutting $716 billion from the program. Now, he says by not overpaying hospitals and providers, actually just going to them and saying we're going to reduce the rates you get paid across the board, everybody's going to get a lower rate. That's not just going after places where there's abuse, that's saying we're cutting the rates. Some 15 percent of hospitals and nursing homes say they won't take anymore Medicare patients under that scenario.

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

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.

I want to take that $716 billion you've cut and put it back into Medicare. By the way, we can include a prescription program if we need to improve it, but the idea of cutting $716 billion from Medicare to be able to balance the additional cost of "Obamacare" is, in my opinion, a mistake. And with regards to young people coming along, I've got proposals to make sure Medicare and Social Security are there for them without any question.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. President.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: First of all, I think it's important for Governor Romney to present this plan that he says will only affect folks in the future. And the essence of the plan is that he would turn Medicare into a voucher program. It's called premium support, but it's understood to be a voucher program. His running mate —

MR. LEHRER: And you — and you don't support that?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I don't. And — and let me explain why.

MR. ROMNEY: Again, that's for future people —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I understand.

MR. ROMNEY: — right, not for current retirees.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: For — for — so if you're — if you — you're 54 or 55, you might want to listen, because this — this will affect you. The idea, which was originally presented by Congressman Ryan, your running mate, is that we would give a voucher to seniors, and they could go out in the private marketplace and buy their own health insurance. The problem is that because the voucher wouldn't necessarily keep up with health care inflation, it was estimated that this would cost the average senior about $6,000 a year.

Now, in fairness, what Governor Romney has now said is he'll maintain

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

traditional Medicare alongside it. But there's still a problem, because what happens is those insurance companies are pretty clever at figuring out who are the younger and healthier seniors.

They recruit them leaving the older, sicker seniors in Medicare. And every health care economist who looks at it says over time what'll happen is the traditional Medicare system will collapse. And then what you've got is folks like my grandmother at the mercy of the private insurance system, precisely at the time when they are most in need of decent health care.

So I don't think vouchers are the right way to go. And this is not my own — only my opinion. AARP thinks that the — the savings that we obtained from Medicare bolster the system, lengthen the Medicare trust fund by 8 years. Benefits were not affected at all and ironically if you repeal "Obamacare" — and I have become fond of this term, "Obamacare" — (laughter) — if you repeal it, what happens is those seniors right away are going to be paying $600 more in prescription care. They're now going to have to be paying copays for basic check-ups that can keep them healthier.

And the primary beneficiary of that repeal are insurance companies that are estimated to gain billions of dollars back when they aren't making seniors any healthier. And I — I don't think that's right approach when it comes to making sure that Medicare is stronger over the long term.

MR. LEHRER: We'll talk about — specifically about health care in a moment, but what is — do you support the voucher system, Governor?

MR. ROMNEY: What I support is no change for current retirees and near-retirees to Medicare and the president supports taking $716 billion out of that program.

MR. LEHRER: What about the vouchers?

MR. ROMNEY: So that's — that's number one.

MR. LEHRER: OK. All right.

MR. ROMNEY: Number two is for people coming along that are young. What I'd do to make sure that we can keep Medicare in place for them is to allow them either to choose the current Medicare program or a private plan — their choice. They get to — and they'll have at least two plans that will be entirely at no cost to them. So they don't have to pay additional money, no additional $6,000. That's not going to happen.

They'll have at least two plans.

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

And by the way, if the government can be as efficient as the private sector and offer premiums that are as low as the private sector, people will be happy to get traditional Medicare, or they'll be able to get a private plan. I know my own view is I'd rather have a private plan. I — I'd just as soon not have the government telling me what kind of health care I get. I'd rather be able to have an insurance company. If I don't like them, I can get rid of them and find a different insurance company. But people will make their own choice.

The other thing we have to do to save Medicare, we have to have the benefits high for those that are low-income, but for higher-income people, we're going to have to lower some of the benefits. We have to make sure this program is there for the long term. That's the plan that I've put forward.

And by the way, the idea came not even from Paul Ryan or — or Senator Wyden, who's a co-author of the bill with — with Paul Ryan in the Senate, but also it came from Bill Clinton's — Bill Clinton's chief of staff. This is an idea that's been around a long time, which is saying, hey, let's see if we can't get competition into the Medicare world so that people can get the choice of different plans at lower cost, better quality. I believe in competition.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Jim, if I — if I can just respond very quickly, first of all, every study has shown that Medicare has lower administrative cost than private insurance does, which is why seniors are generally pretty happy with it. And private insurers have to make a profit. Nothing wrong with that; that's what they do. And so you've got higher administrative costs, plus profit on top of that, and if you are going to save any money through what Governor Romney's proposing, what has to happen is is that the money has to come from somewhere.

And when you move to a voucher system, you are putting seniors at the mercy of those insurance companies. And over time, if traditional Medicare has decayed or fallen apart, then they're stuck. And this is the reason why AARP has said that your plan would weaken Medicare substantially, and that's why they were supportive of the approach that we took.

One last point I want to make. We do have to lower the cost of health care. Not just in Medicare and —

MR. LEHRER: We'll talk about that in a minute.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: — but — but overall.

MR. LEHRER: Go. OK.

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

PRESIDENT OBAMA: And so —

MR. ROMNEY: That's — that's a big topic. Could we — could we stay on Medicare?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Is that a — is that a separate topic? I'm sorry.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah, we're going to — yeah. I want to get to it, but all I want to do is very quickly —

MR. ROMNEY: Let's get back to Medicare.

MR. LEHRER: — before we leave the economy —

MR. ROMNEY: Let's get back to Medicare.

MR. LEHRER: No, no, no, no —

MR. ROMNEY: The president said that the government can provide the service at lower —

MR. LEHRER: No.

MR. ROMNEY: — cost and without a profit.

MR. LEHRER: All right.

MR. ROMNEY: If that's the case, then it will always be the best product that people can purchase. But my experience —

MR. LEHRER: Wait a minute, Governor.

MR. ROMNEY: My experience is the private sector typically is able to provide a better product at a lower cost.

MR. LEHRER: Can we — can the two of you agree that the voters have a choice, a clear choice between the two of you —

MR. ROMNEY: Absolutely.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yes.

MR. LEHRER: — on Medicare?

MR. ROMNEY: Absolutely.

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

MR. LEHRER: All right. So, to finish quickly, briefly, on the economy, what is your view about the level of federal regulation of the economy right now? Is there too much, and in your case, Mr. President, is there — should there be more? Beginning with you — this is not a new two-minute segment — to start, and we'll go for a few minutes and then we're going to go to health care. OK?

MR. ROMNEY: Regulation is essential. You can't have a free market work if you don't have regulation. As a business person, I had to have — I needed to know the regulations. I needed them there. You couldn't have people opening up banks in their — in their garage and making loans. I mean, you have to have regulations so that you can have an economy work. Every free economy has good regulation.

At the same time, regulation can become excessive.

MR. LEHRER: Is it excessive now, do you think?

MR. ROMNEY: In some places, yes, in other places, no.

MR. LEHRER: Like where?

MR. ROMNEY: It can become out of date. And what's happened in — with some of the legislation that's been passed during the president's term, you've seen regulation become excessive and it's hurt the — it's hurt the economy. Let me give you an example. Dodd- Frank was passed, and it includes within it a number of provisions that I think have some unintended consequences that are harmful to the economy. One is it designates a number of banks as too big to fail, and they're effectively guaranteed by the federal government.

This is the biggest kiss that's been given to — to New York banks I've ever seen. This is an enormous boon for them. There's been — 122 community and small banks have closed since Dodd-Frank. So there's one example.

Here's another. In Dodd-Frank, it says that —

MR. LEHRER: You want to repeal Dodd-Frank?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, I would repeal it and replace it. You — we're not going to get rid of all regulation. You have to have regulation. And there's some parts of Dodd-Frank that make all the sense in the world. You need transparency, you need to have leverage limits for institutes —

MR. LEHRER: Well, here's a specific — let's — excuse me —

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

MR. ROMNEY: Let me mention the other one. Let's talk the —

MR. LEHRER: No, no, let's do — right now, let's not. Let's let him respond.

MR. ROMNEY: OK.

MR. LEHRER: Let's let him respond to this specific on Dodd-Frank and what the governor just said.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I think this is a great example. The reason we have been in such a enormous economic crisis was prompted by reckless behavior across the board. Now, it wasn't just on Wall Street. You had — loan officers were — they were giving loans and mortgages that really shouldn't have been given, because they're — the folks didn't qualify. You had people who were borrowing money to buy a house that they couldn't afford. You had credit agencies that were stamping these as A-1 (ph) great investments when they weren't. But you also had banks making money hand-over-fist, churning out products that the bankers themselves didn't even understand in order to make big profits, but knowing that it made the entire system vulnerable.

So what did we do? We stepped in and had the toughest reforms on Wall Street since the 1930s. We said you've got — banks, you've got to raise your capital requirements. You can't engage in some of this risky behavior that is putting Main Street at risk. We're going to make sure that you've got to have a living will, so — so we can know how you're going to wind things down if you make a bad bet so we don't have other taxpayer bailouts.

In the meantime, by the way, we also made sure that all the help that we provided those banks was paid back, every single dime, with interest.

Now, Governor Romney has said he wants to repeal Dodd-Frank, and, you know, I appreciate, and it appears we've got some agreement that a marketplace to work has to have some regulation, but in the past, Governor Romney has said he just wants to repeal Dodd-Frank, roll it back. And so the question is does anybody out there think that the big problem we had is that there was too much oversight and regulation of Wall Street? Because if you do, then Governor Romney is your candidate. But that's not what I believe.

MR. ROMNEY: (Inaudible) — sorry, Jim. That — that's just not — that's just not the facts. Look, we have to have regulation of Wall Street.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yeah.

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

MR. ROMNEY: That — that's why I'd have regulation. But I wouldn't designate five banks as too big to fail and give them a blank check. That's one of the unintended consequences of Dodd-Frank. It wasn't thought through properly. We need to get rid of that provision, because it's killing regional and small banks. They're getting hurt.

Let me mention another regulation of Dodd-Frank. You say we were giving mortgages to people who weren't qualified. That's exactly right. It's one of the reasons for the great financial calamity we had. And so Dodd-Frank correctly says we need to —

MR. LEHRER: All right.

MR. ROMNEY: — have qualified mortgages, and if you give a mortgage that's not qualified, there are big penalties. Except they didn't ever go on to define what a qualified mortgage was.

MR. LEHRER: All right.

MR. ROMNEY: It's been two years. We don't know what a qualified mortgage is yet. So banks are reluctant to make loans, mortgages. Try and get a mortgage these days. It's hurt the housing market —

MR. LEHRER: All right —

MR. ROMNEY: — because Dodd-Frank didn't anticipate putting in place the kinds of regulations you have to have. It's not that Dodd- Frank always was wrong with too much regulation. Sometimes they didn't come out with a clear regulation.

MR. LEHRER: OK.

MR. ROMNEY: I will make sure we don't hurt the functioning of our — of our marketplace and our businesses, because I want to bring back housing and get good jobs.

MR. LEHRER: All right, I think we have another clear difference between the two of you. Now let's move to health care, where I know there is a clear difference — (laughter) — and that has to do with the Affordable Care Act, "Obamacare."

And it's a two-minute new segment, and it's — that means two minutes each. And you go first, Governor Romney. You wanted repeal. You want the Affordable Care Act repealed. Why?

MR. ROMNEY: I sure do. Well, in part, it comes, again, from my experience. I was

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

in New Hampshire. A woman came to me, and she said, look, I can't afford insurance for myself or my son. I met a couple in Appleton, Wisconsin, and they said, we're thinking of dropping our insurance; we can't afford it. And the number of small businesses I've gone to that are saying they're dropping insurance because they can't afford it — the cost of health care is just prohibitive. And — and we've got to deal with cost.

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.

Fourth, there was a survey done of small businesses across the country. It said, what's been the effect of "Obamacare" on your hiring plans? And three-quarters of them said, it makes us less likely to hire people. I just don't know how the president could have come into office, facing 23 million people out of work, rising unemployment, an economic crisis at the — at the kitchen table and spent his energy and passion for two years fighting for "Obamacare" instead of fighting for jobs for the American people.

It has killed jobs. And the best course for health care is to do what we did in my state, craft a plan at the state level that fits the needs of the state. And then let's focus on getting the costs down for people rather than raising it with the $2,500 additional premium.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. President, the argument against repeal.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, four years ago when I was running for office I was traveling around and having those same conversations that Governor Romney talks about. And it wasn't just that small businesses were seeing costs skyrocket and they couldn't get affordable coverage even if they wanted to provide it to their employees; it wasn't just that this was the biggest driver of our federal deficit, our overall health care costs. But it was families who were worried about going bankrupt if they got sick — millions of families, all across the country.

If they had a pre-existing condition they might not be able to get coverage at all.

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

If they did have coverage, insurance companies might impose an arbitrary limit. And so as a consequence, they're paying their premiums, somebody gets really sick, lo and behold they don't have enough money to pay the bills because the insurance companies say that they've hit the limit. So we did work on this alongside working on jobs, because this is part of making sure that middle-class families are secure in this country.

And let me tell you exactly what "Obamacare" did. Number one, if you've got health insurance it doesn't mean a government take over. You keep your own insurance. You keep your own doctor. But it does say insurance companies can't jerk you around. They can't impose arbitrary lifetime limits. They have to let you keep your kid on their insurance — your insurance plan till you're 26 years old. And it also says that they're — you're going to have to get rebates if insurance companies are spending more on administrative costs and profits than they are on actual care.

Number two, if you don't have health insurance, we're essentially setting up a group plan that allows you to benefit from group rates that are typically 18 percent lower than if you're out there trying to get insurance on the individual market.

Now, the last point I'd make before —

MR. LEHRER: Two minutes —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: — before —

MR. LEHRER: Two minutes is up, sir.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, I — I think I've — I had five seconds before you interrupted me — was — (laughter) — that the irony is that we've seen this model work really well in Massachusetts, because Governor Romney did a good thing, working with Democrats in the state to set up what is essentially the identical model. And as a consequence, people are covered there. It hasn't destroyed jobs. And as a consequence, we now have a system in which we have the opportunity to start bringing down cost, as opposed to just —

MR. LEHRER: Your five —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: — leaving millions of people out in the cold.

MR. LEHRER: Your five seconds went away a long time ago. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: That —

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

MR. LEHRER: All right, Governor. Governor, tell the — tell the president directly why you think what he just said is wrong about "Obamacare."

MR. ROMNEY: Well, I did with my first statement.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You did.

MR. ROMNEY: But I'll go on.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please elaborate.

MR. ROMNEY: I'll elaborate.

Exactly right.

First of all, I like the way we did it in Massachusetts. I like the fact that in my state, we had Republicans and Democrats come together and work together. What you did instead was to push through a plan without a single Republican vote. As a matter of fact, when Massachusetts did something quite extraordinary, elected a Republican senator to stop "Obamacare," you pushed it through anyway. So entirely on a partisan basis, instead of bringing America together and having a discussion on this important topic, you pushed through something that you and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid thought was the best answer and drove it through.

What we did, in a legislature 87 percent Democrat, we worked together. Two hundred legislators in my legislature — only two voted against the plan by the time we were finished.

What were some differences?

We didn't raise taxes. You've raised them by a trillion dollars under "Obamacare." We didn't cut Medicare. Of course, we don't have Medicare, but we didn't cut Medicare by $716 billion. We didn't put in place a board that can tell people ultimately what treatments they're going to receive.

We didn't — we didn't also do something that I think a number of people across this country recognize, which is put — put people in a position where they're going to lose the insurance they had and they wanted. Right now, the CBO says up to 20 million people will lose their insurance as "Obamacare" goes into effect next year. And likewise, a study by McKinsey & Company of American businesses said 30 percent of them are anticipating dropping people from coverage. So for those reasons, for the tax, for Medicare, for this board and for people losing their

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

insurance, this is why the American people don't want — don't want "Obamacare." It's why Republicans said, do not do this.

And the Republicans had a — had a plan. They put a plan out. They put out a plan, a bipartisan plan. It was swept aside. I think something this big, this important has to be done in a bipartisan basis. And we have to have a president who can reach across the aisle and fashion important legislation with the input from both parties.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Governor Romney said this has to be done on a bipartisan basis. This was a bipartisan idea. In fact, it was a Republican idea.

And Governor Romney, at the beginning of this debate, wrote and said, what we did in Massachusetts could be a model for the nation. And I agree that the Democratic legislators in Massachusetts might have given some advice to Republicans in Congress about how to cooperate, but the fact of the matter is, we used the same advisers, and they say it's the same plan.

It — when Governor Romney talks about this board, for example — unelected board that we've created — what this is, is a group of health care experts, doctors, et cetera, to figure out how can we reduce the cost of care in the system overall, because the — there are two ways of dealing with our health care crisis.

One is to simply leave a whole bunch of people uninsured and let them fend for themselves, to let businesses figure out how long they can continue to pay premiums until finally they just give up and their workers are no longer getting insured, and that's been the trend line. Or, alternatively, we can figure out how do we make the cost of care more effective. And there are ways of doing it.

So at — at Cleveland Clinic, one of the best health care systems in the world, they actually provide great care cheaper than average. And the reason they do is because they do some smart things. They — they say, if a patient's coming in, let's get all the doctors together at once, do one test instead of having the patient run around with 10 tests. Let's make sure that we're providing preventive care so we're catching the onset of something like diabetes. Let's — let's pay providers on the basis of performance as opposed to on the basis of how many procedures they've — they've engaged in. Now, so what this board does is basically identifies best practices and says, let's use the purchasing power of Medicare and Medicaid to help to institutionalize all these good things that we do.

And the fact of the matter is that when "Obamacare" is fully implemented, we're going to be in a position to show that costs are going down. And over the last two years, health care premiums have gone up, it's true, but they've gone up slower

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

than any time in the last 50 years. So we're already beginning to see progress. In the meantime, folks out there with insurance, you're already getting a rebate.

Let me make one last point. Governor Romney says we should replace it. I'm just going to repeal it, but we can replace it with something. But the problem is he hasn't described what exactly we'd replace it with other than saying we're going to leave it to the states.

But the fact of the matter is that some of the prescriptions that he's offered, like letting you buy insurance across state lines, there's no indication that that somehow is going to help somebody who's got a pre-existing condition be able to finally buy insurance. In fact, it's estimated that by repealing "Obamacare," you're looking at 50 million people losing health insurance at a time when it's vitally important.

MR. LEHRER: Let's let the governor explain what you would do if "Obamacare" is repealed. How would you replace it? What do you have in mind?

MR. ROMNEY: Let — well, actually — actually it's — it's — it's a lengthy description, but number one, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan. Number two, young people are able to stay on their family plan. That's already offered in the private marketplace; you don't have — have the government mandate that for that to occur.

But let's come back to something the president — I agree on, which is the — the key task we have in health care is to get the costs down so it's more affordable for families, and — and then he has as a model for doing that a board of people at the government, an unelected board, appointed board, who are going to decide what kind of treatment you ought to have.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, it isn't.

MR. ROMNEY: In my opinion, the government is not effective in — in bringing down the cost of almost anything. As a matter of fact, free people and free enterprises trying to find ways to do things better are able to be more effective in bringing down the costs than the government will ever be. Your example of the Cleveland clinic is my case in point, along with several others I could describe. This is the private market. These are small — these are enterprises competing with each other, learning how to do better and better jobs.

I used to consult to businesses — excuse me, to hospitals and to health care providers. I was astonished at the creativity and innovation that exists in the American people. In order to bring the cost of health care down, we don't need to have a — an — a board of 15 people telling us what kinds of treatments we

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

should have. We instead need to put insurance plans, providers, hospitals, doctors on targets such that they have an incentive, as you say, performance pay, for doing an excellent job, for keeping costs down, and that's happening.

Intermountain Health Care does it superbly well.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: They do.

MR. ROMNEY: Mayo Clinic is doing it superbly well, Cleveland Clinic, others. But the right answer is not to have the federal government take over health care and start mandating to the providers across America, telling a patient and a doctor what kind of treatment they can have. That's the wrong way to go. The private market and individual responsibility always work best.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Let me just point out, first of all, this board that we're talking about can't make decisions about what treatments are given. That's explicitly prohibited in the law.

But let's go back to what Governor Romney indicated, that under his plan he would be able to cover people with pre-existing conditions. Well, actually, Governor, that isn't what your plan does. What your plan does is to duplicate what's already the law, which says if you are out of health insurance for three months then you can end up getting continuous coverage and an insurance company can't deny you if you've — if it's been under 90 days.

But that's already the law. And that doesn't help the millions of people out there with pre-existing conditions. There's a reason why Governor Romney set up the plan that he did in Massachusetts. It wasn't a government takeover of health care. It was the largest expansion of private insurance. But what it does say is that insurers, you've got to take everybody. Now, that also means that you've got more customers.

But when Governor Romney says that he'll replace it with something but can't detail how it will be in fact replaced, and the reason he set up the system he did in Massachusetts is because there isn't a better way of dealing with the pre-existing conditions problem, it — it just reminds me of — you know, he says that he's going to close deductions and loopholes for his tax plan.

That's how it's going to be paid for. But we don't know the details. He says that he's going to replace Dodd-Frank, Wall Street reform. But we don't know exactly which ones. He won't tell us. He now says he's going to replace "Obamacare" and assure that all the good things that are in it are going to be in there and you don't have to worry.

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

And at some point, I think the American people have to ask themselves, is the reason that Governor Romney is keeping all these plans to replace secret because they're too good? Is — is it because that somehow middle-class families are going to benefit too much from them? No, the — the reason is because when we reform Wall Street, when we tackle the problem of pre-existing conditions, then, you know, these are tough problems, and we've got to make choices. And the choices we've made have been ones that ultimately are benefiting middle-class families all across the country.

MR. LEHRER: All right, we're going to move to a —

MR. ROMNEY: No, I — I have to respond to that —

MR. LEHRER: No, but —

MR. ROMNEY: — which is — which is my experience as a governor is if I come in and — and lay down a piece of legislation and say it's my way or the highway, I don't get a lot done. What I do is the same way that Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan worked together some years ago. When Ronald Reagan ran for office, he laid out the principles that he was going to foster. He said he was going to lower tax rates. He said he was going to broaden the base. You've said the same thing: You're going to simplify the tax code, broaden the base. Those are my principles.

I want to bring down the tax burden on middle-income families. And I'm going to work together with Congress to say, OK, what are the various ways we could bring down deductions, for instance? One way, for instance, would be to have a single number. Make up a number — 25,000 (dollars), $50,000. Anybody can have deductions up to that amount. And then that number disappears for high-income people. That's one way one could do it. One could follow Bowles-Simpson as a model and take deduction by deduction and make differences that way.

There are alternatives to accomplish the objective I have, which is to bring down rates, broaden the base, simplify the code and create incentives for growth.

And with regards to health care, you had remarkable details with regards to my pre-existing condition plan. You obviously studied up on — on my plan. In fact, I do have a plan that deals with people with pre-existing conditions. That's part of my health care plan. And what we did in Massachusetts is a model for the nation, state by state. And I said that at that time. The federal government taking over health care for the entire nation and whisking aside the 10th Amendment, which gives states the rights for these kinds of things, is not the course for America to have a stronger, more vibrant economy.

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

MR. LEHRER: That is a terrific segue to our next segment, and is the role of government. And let's see, role of government and it is — you are first on this, Mr. President. The question is this. Do you believe — both of you — but you have the first two minutes on this, Mr. President — do you believe there's a fundamental difference between the two of you as to how you view the mission of the federal government?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I definitely think there are differences.

MR. LEHRER: And — yeah.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: The first role of the federal government is to keep the American people safe. That's its most basic function. And as commander in chief, that is something that I've worked on and thought about every single day that I've been in the Oval Office.

But I also believe that government has the capacity — the federal government has the capacity to help open up opportunity and create ladders of opportunity and to create frameworks where the American people can succeed. Look, the genius of America is the free enterprise system, and freedom, and the fact that people can go out there and start a business, work on an idea, make their own decisions.

But as Abraham Lincoln understood, there are also some things we do better together.

So in the middle of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln said, let's help to finance the Transcontinental Railroad. Let's start the National Academy of Sciences. Let's start land grant colleges, because we want to give these gateways of opportunity for all Americans, because if all Americans are getting opportunity, we're all going to be better off. That doesn't restrict people's freedom; that enhances it.

And so what I've tried to do as president is to apply those same principles. And when it comes to education, what I've said is we've got to reform schools that are not working. We use something called Race to the Top. Wasn't a top-down approach, Governor. What we've said is to states, we'll give you more money if you initiate reforms. And as a consequence, you had 46 states around the country who have made a real difference.

But what I've also said is let's hire another hundred thousand math and science teachers to make sure we maintain our technological lead and our people are skilled and able to succeed. And hard-pressed states right now can't all do that. In fact, we've seen layoffs of hundreds of thousands of teachers over the last

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

several years, and Governor Romney doesn't think we need more teachers. I do, because I think that that is the kind of investment where the federal government can help. It can't do it all, but it can make a difference, and as a consequence, we'll have a better-trained workforce, and that will create jobs, because companies want to locate in places where we've got a skilled workforce.

MR. LEHRER: Two minutes, Governor, on the role of government, your view.

MR. ROMNEY: Well, first, I love great schools. Massachusetts, our schools are ranked number one of all 50 states. And the key to great schools: great teachers. So I reject the idea that I don't believe in great teachers or more teachers. Every school district, every state should make that decision on their own.

The role of government — look behind us: the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The role of government is to promote and protect the principles of those documents. First, life and liberty. We have a responsibility to protect the lives and liberties of our people, and that means the military, second to none. I do not believe in cutting our military. I believe in maintaining the strength of America's military.

Second, in that line that says, we are endowed by our Creator with our rights — I believe we must maintain our commitment to religious tolerance and freedom in this country. That statement also says that we are endowed by our Creator with the right to pursue happiness as we choose. I interpret that as, one, making sure that those people who are less fortunate and can't care for themselves are cared by — by one another.

We're a nation that believes we're all children of the same God. And we care for those that have difficulties — those that are elderly and have problems and challenges, those that disabled, we care for them. And we look for discovery and innovation, all these thing desired out of the American heart to provide the pursuit of happiness for our citizens.

But we also believe in maintaining for individuals the right to pursue their dreams, and not to have the government substitute itself for the rights of free individuals. And what we're seeing right now is, in my view, a — a trickle-down government approach which has government thinking it can do a better job than free people pursuing their dreams. And it's not working.

And the proof of that is 23 million people out of work. The proof of that is one out of six people in poverty. The proof of that is we've gone from 32 million on food stamps to 47 million on food stamps. The proof of that is that 50 percent of

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

college graduates this year can't find work.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: (Inaudible) —

MR. ROMNEY: We know that the path we're taking is not working. It's time for a new path.

MR. LEHRER: All right, let's go through some specifics in terms of what — how each of you views the role of government. How do — education. Does the federal government have a responsibility to improve the quality of public education in America?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, the primary responsibility for education is — is of course at the state and local level. But the federal government also can play a very important role. And I — and I agree with Secretary Arne Duncan. He's — there's some ideas he's put forward on Race to the Top — not all of them but some of them I agree with, and congratulate him for pursuing that. The federal government can get local and — and state schools to do a better job.

My own view, by the way, is I've added to that. I happen to believe — I want the kids that are getting federal dollars from IDEA or — or Title I — these are disabled kids or — or poor kids or — or lower-income kids, rather. I want them to be able to go to the school of their choice. So all federal funds, instead of going to the — to the state or to the school district, I'd have go — if you will, follow the child and let the parent and the child decide where to send their — their — their student.

MR. LEHRER: How do you see the federal government's responsibility to — as I say, to improve the quality of public education in this country?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, as I've indicated, I think that it has a significant role to play. Through our Race to the Top program, we've worked with Republican and Democratic governors to initiate major reforms, and they're having an impact right now.

MR. LEHRER: Do you think you have a difference with your views and those of Governor Romney on — about education and the federal government?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, this is where budgets matter because budgets reflect choices. So when Governor Romney indicates that he wants to cut taxes and potentially benefit folks like me and him, and to pay for it, we're having to initiate significant cuts in federal support for education, that makes a difference.

You know, his running mate, Congressman Ryan, put forward a budget that reflects many of the principles that Governor Romney's talked about. And it

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

wasn't very detailed. This seems to be a trend. But — but what it did do is to — if you extrapolated how much money we're talking about, you'd look at cutting the education budget by up to 20 percent.

When it comes to community colleges, we are seeing great work done out there all over the country because we have the opportunity to train people for jobs that exist right now. And one of the things I suspect Governor Romney and I probably agree on is getting businesses to work with community colleges so that they're setting up their training programs —

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree, Governor?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Let — let — let me just finish the point.

MR. ROMNEY: Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I suspect it'll be a small agreement.

MR. ROMNEY: It's going over well in my state, by the way, yeah.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: The — where their partnering so that — they're designing training programs, and people who are going through them know that there's a job waiting for them if they complete them. That makes a big difference. But that requires some federal support.

Let me just say one final example. When it comes to making college affordable — whether it's two-year or four-year — one of the things that I did as president was we were sending $60 billion to banks and lenders as middle men for the student loan program, even though the loans were guaranteed. So there was no risk for the banks or the lenders but they were taking billions out of the system.

And we said, why not cut out the middle man? And as a consequence, what we've been able to do is to provide millions more students assistance, lower or keep low interest rates on student loans. And this is an example of where our priorities make a difference. Governor Romney, I genuinely believe, cares about education. But when he tells a student that, you know, you should borrow money from your parents to go to college, you know, that indicates the degree to which, you know, there may not be as much of a focus on the fact that folks like myself, folks like Michelle, kids probably who attend University of Denver just don't have that option.

And for us to be able to make sure that they've got that opportunity and they can walk through that door, that is vitally important — not just to those kids. It's how we're going to grow this economy over the long term.

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

MR. LEHRER: We're running out of time.

MR. ROMNEY: Jim, Jim —

MR. LEHRER: I'm certainly going give you a chance to respond to that. Yes, sir, Governor.

MR. ROMNEY: Mr. — Mr. President, you're entitled, as the president, to your own airplane and to your own house, but not to your own facts — (laughter) — all right? I'm — I'm not going to cut education funding. I don't have any plan to cut education funding and grants that go to people going to college. I'm planning on continuing to grow, so I'm not planning on making changes there.

But you make a very good point, which is that the — the place you put your money makes a pretty clear indication of where your heart is. You put $90 billion into — into green jobs. And — and I — look, I'm all in favor of green energy. Ninety billion (dollars) — that — that would have — that would have hired 2 million teachers. Ninety billion dollars. And these businesses — many of them have gone out of business. I think about half of them, of the ones have been invested in, they've gone out of business. A number of them happened to be owned by — by people who were contributors to your campaigns.

Look, the right course for — for America's government — we were talking about the role of government — is not to become the economic player picking winners and losers, telling people what kind of health treatment they can receive, taking over the health care system that — that has existed in this country for — for a long, long time and has produced the best health records in the world. The right answer for government is to say, how do we make the private sector become more efficient and more effective?

How do we get schools to be more competitive? Let's grade them. I propose we grade our schools so parents know which schools are succeeding and failing, so they can take their child to a — to a school that's being more successful. I don't — I don't want to cut our commitment to education; I wanted to make it more effective and efficient.

And by the way, I've had that experience. I don't just talk about it. I've been there. Massachusetts schools are ranked number one in the nation. This is not because I didn't have commitment to education. It's because I care about education for all of our kids.

MR. LEHRER: All right, gentlemen, look —

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Jim, I — (inaudible) —

MR. LEHRER: Excuse me, one sec — excuse, me sir. (Laughter.) We've got — we've got — barely have three minutes left. I'm not going to grade the two of you and say you've — your answers have been too long or I've done a poor job —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You've done a great job, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Oh, well, no. But the fact is, government — the role of government and governing, we've lost a (pod ?), in other words, so we only have three minutes left in the — in the debate before we go to your closing statements. And so I want to ask finally here — and remember, we've got three minutes total time here.

And the question is this: Many of the legislative functions of the federal government right now are in a state of paralysis as a result of partisan gridlock. If elected in your case, if re-elected in your case, what would you do about that?

Governor?

MR. ROMNEY: Jim, I had the great experience — it didn't seem like it at the time — of being elected in a state where my legislature was 87 percent Democrat, and that meant I figured out from day one I had to get along and I had to work across the aisle to get anything done. We drove our schools to be number one in the nation. We cut taxes 19 times.

MR. LEHRER: Well, what would you do as president?

MR. ROMNEY: We — as president, I will sit down on day one — actually the day after I get elected, I'll sit down with leaders — the Democratic leaders as well as Republican leaders and — as we did in my state. We met every Monday for a couple hours, talked about the issues and the challenges in the — in the — in our state, in that case. We have to work on a collaborative basis — not because we're going to compromise our principle(s), but because there's common ground.

And the challenges America faces right now — look, the reason I'm in this race is there are people that are really hurting today in this country, and we face — this deficit could crush the future generations. What's happening in the Middle East? There are developments around the world that are of real concern. And Republicans and Democrats both love America, but we need to have leadership — leadership in Washington that will actually bring people together and get the job done and could not care less if it's a Republican or a Democrat. I've done it before. I'll do it again.

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

MR. LEHRER: Mr. President.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think Governor Romney's going to have a busy first day, because he's also going to repeal "Obamacare," which will not be very popular among Democrats as you're sitting down with them.

(Laughter.)

But look, my philosophy has been I will take ideas from anybody, Democrat or Republican, as long as they're advancing the cause of making middle-class families stronger and giving ladders of opportunity into the middle class. That's how we cut taxes for middle-class families and small businesses. That's how we cut a trillion dollars of spending that wasn't advancing that cause. That's how we signed three trade deals into law that are helping us to double our exports and sell more American products around the world. That's how we repealed "don't ask, don't tell." That's how we ended the war in Iraq, as I promised, and that's how we're going to wind down the war in Afghanistan. That's how we went after al-Qaida and bin Laden.

So we've — we've seen progress even under Republican control of the House or Representatives. But ultimately, part of being principled, part of being a leader is, A, being able to describe exactly what it is that you intend to do, not just saying, I'll sit down, but you have to have a plan.

Number two, what's important is occasionally you've got to say now to — to — to folks both in your own party and in the other party. And you know, yes, have we had some fights between me and the Republicans when they fought back against us, reining in the excesses of Wall Street? Absolutely, because that was a fight that needed to be had. When — when we were fighting about whether or not we were going to make sure that Americans had more security with their health insurance and they said no, yes, that was a fight that we needed to have. And so part of leadership and governing is both saying what it is that you are for, but also being willing to say no to some things.

And I've got to tell you, Governor Romney, when it comes to his own party during the course of this campaign, has not displayed that willingness to say no to some of the more extreme parts of his party.

MR. LEHRER: That brings us to closing statements. There was a coin toss. Governor Romney, you won the toss, and you elected to go last.

So you have a closing two minutes, Mr. President.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, Jim, I want to thank you and I want to thank Governor

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

Romney, because I think this was a terrific debate and I very much appreciate it.

And I want to thank the University of Denver.

You know, four years ago we were going through a major crisis, and yet my faith and confidence in the American future is undiminished. And the reason is because of its people. Because of the woman I met in North Carolina who decided at 55 to go back to school because she wanted to inspire her daughter, and now has a new job from that new training that she's gotten. Because of the company in Minnesota who was willing to give up salaries and perks for their executives to make sure that they didn't lay off workers during a recession. The auto workers that you meet in Toledo or Detroit take such pride in building the best cars in the world — not just because of a paycheck, but because it gives them that sense of pride, that they're helping to build America.

And so the question now is, how do we build on those strengths? And everything that I've tried to do and everything that I'm now proposing for the next four years in terms of improving our education system, or developing American energy, or making sure that we're closing loopholes for companies that are shipping jobs overseas and focusing on small businesses and companies that are creating jobs here in the United States, or — or closing our deficit in a responsible, balanced way that allows us to invest in our future — all those things are designed to make sure that the American people, their genius, their grit, their determination is — is channeled, and — and — and they have an opportunity to succeed.

And everybody's getting a fair shot and everybody's getting a fair share. Everybody's doing a fair share and everybody's playing by the same rules.

You know, four years ago I said that I'm not a perfect man and I wouldn't be a perfect president. And that's probably a promise that Governor Romney thinks I've kept. But I also promised that I'd fight every single day on behalf of the American people and the middle class and all those who are striving to get in the middle class.

I've kept that promise and if you'll vote for me, then I promise I'll fight just as hard in a second term.

MR. LEHRER: Governor Romney, your two-minute closing.

MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Jim and Mr. President. And thank you for tuning in this evening. This is a — this is an important election. And I'm concerned about America. I'm concerned about the direction America has been taking over the last four years. I know this is bigger than election about the two of us as

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

individuals. It's bigger than our respective parties. It's an election about the course of America — what kind of America do you want to have for yourself and for your children.

And there really are two very different paths that we began speaking about this evening. And over the course of this month we're going to have two more presidential debates and vice presidential debate. We'll talk about those two paths. But they lead in very different directions. And it's not just looking to our words that you have to take in evidence of where they go; you can look at the record.

There's no question in my mind that if the president were to be re-elected you'll continue to see a middle-class squeeze with incomes going down and prices going up. I'll get incomes up again. You'll see chronic unemployment. We've had 43 straight months with unemployment above 8 percent. If I'm president, I will create — help create 12 million new jobs in this country with rising incomes.

If the president's re-elected, "Obamacare" will be fully installed. In my view, that's going to mean a whole different way of life for people who counted on the insurance plan they had in the past. Many will lose it. You're going to see health premiums go up by some $2,500 per — per family. If I'm elected, we won't have "Obamacare." We'll put in place the kind of principles that I put in place in my own state and allow each state to craft their own programs to get people insured. And we'll focus on getting the cost of health care down.

If the president were to be re-elected, you're going to see a $716 billion cut to Medicare. You'll have 4 million people who will lose Medicare advantage. You'll have hospitals and providers that'll no longer accept Medicare patients.

I'll restore that $716 billion to Medicare.

And finally, military. If the president's re-elected, you'll see dramatic cuts to our military. The secretary of defense has said these would be even devastating. I will not cut our commitment to our military. I will keep America strong and get America's middle class working again.

Thank you, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Thank you, Governor.

Thank you, Mr. President.

The next debate will be the vice presidential event on Thursday, October 11th at Center College in Danville, Kentucky. For now, from the University of Denver, I'm

美国总统辩论 2012年美国总统大选辩论原文

Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night. (Cheers, applause.)

四 : 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

视频连接地址:

2012美国总统电视辩论赛第一场-奥巴马罗姆尼

第一部分：就业 0到24分钟

主持人：晚上好，让我们有一个非常好的夜晚。（www.61k.com）对于你们所有人和我们的国家来说，从科罗拉多丹佛的丹佛大学马格尼斯体育馆向你道晚安。我是PBS新闻小时的吉姆—莱德，欢迎你们来到2012年第一场总统辩论，辩论双方为奥巴马总统，民主党提名人和前马赛诸撒州州长罗姆尼，共和党提名人。此次辩论和下面三场-两场总统辩论，一场副总统辩论-由总统辩论委员会主办。今晚的90分钟辩论讲探讨国内事务，将遵循委员会设计的程式，分为六部分，各约15分钟。第一个问题有2分钟回答时间，然后在每一部分的剩余时间公开讨论，数千人通过因特网和其他方式对每部分的问题的主题提出建议，但是我做出最终选择。正式问题，无需提交委员会或候选人确认。正如我预先公布的这六部分，三部分将探讨经济，一部分探讨医疗改革，一部分探讨政府角色，一部分探讨政府治理。强调不同、细节和选择，两位候选人还有两分钟结束陈词。本礼堂的观众答应保持安静，没有欢呼、鼓掌、嘘声、没有其它让人分心的动静，以便我们可以都把精力集中在候选人要说的话上。然而，噪音规则此刻例外，我们欢迎奥巴马总统和罗姆尼州长。

（鼓掌?? ）

先生们，欢迎二位。

我们先从经济开始，第一部分，我们从就业开始，你们二人在如何创造新的就业方面的主要区别是什么？你们有两分钟-每个人一开始都有两分钟，仍钢镚已经定下，总统先生，你先开始。

奥巴马：Jim，非常感谢你给予这个机会，我想感谢Romney州长和丹佛大学的盛情款待。今晚我有很多要点想说，但最重要的是20年前，我成为地球上最幸运的男人，因为Michelle Obama同意嫁给我。亲爱的，我只想要你周年纪念日快乐，想让你知道，一年后，我们就不会在4000万人面前庆祝了。

美国总统大选辩论 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

四年前，我经历了自大萧条以来最糟糕的金融危机，数百万工作消失了，汽车工业濒临崩溃边缘，金融系统处于冰冻期。（www.61k.com］因为美国人民的顺应力和毅力，我们的奋斗已经开始赢回昔日的繁荣，在过去30个月，我们见证了私营部门创造的500万个工作，汽车工业已经强劲恢复了元气，房地产已经开始上场，但是我们都知道我们依然还有很多工作要做，所以今晚的问题不是我们去过的地方，而是我们要去的地方。

罗姆尼州长的观点是如果我们减税，向富人倾斜，把监管减少到最低水平，我们的境况将会好起来。我持不同观点。我们认为我们应该投资在教育和培训。我认为我们在美国本土发展新的能源来源很重要。我们改变我们的免税代码以确信，我们正在帮助投资在美国本土的小商业和小公司，我们用缩减两场战争省下来的一些钱来重建美国，我们采用平衡的方式减少赤字。容许我们做这些关键性的投资，最终是选民，是你们决定我们应该走哪条道路。我们是强化这种让我们陷入这种困境的自上而下的经济政策呢？还是拥抱一种新的经济爱国主义，即当中产阶级状况最好时，美国状况最好？我期待着这个辩论。

主持人：罗姆尼，两分钟。

罗姆尼：谢谢你，Jim，很荣幸在这里和你在一起，我感谢有机会和总统在一起。我很高兴来到丹拂大学，感谢他们的欢迎，也感谢总统委员会主办这些辩论。总统先生，祝贺你们的周年纪念日。我肯定这是你能够想象到的最浪漫的地方——在这里和我在一起，所以我—祝贺。

这显然是一个非常棘手的话题，过去几年我有机会和全国各地的人们见面，我在俄亥俄州的Dayton时，一名妇女抓住我的胳膊说：“从5月份我就失业了，你能帮帮我吗？”Ann（他太太）昨天在丹佛的一个集会上，一名妇女怀里抱着一个婴儿走向她说：“Ann，我丈夫三年内做过四份工作，兼职工作，他丢掉了最近的工作，我们现在刚刚失去了我们的房子，你能帮帮我们吗？”答案是肯定的，我们能帮忙，但要走一条不同的道路，不是我们已经在走的道路，不是总统描述的自上而下经济，为富人减税的道路，那不是我想要做的事情。

我的计划有5个基本部分。第一，让我们能源独立，在北美范围内能源独立，那会创造大约400万工作。第二，开放更多贸易，特别是在拉丁美洲，如果中国

美国总统大选辩论 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

（贸易）欺诈就制裁他们，一欺诈就制裁。（www.61k.com］第三，确信我们的人民学到他们需要成功的技能，能够进入世界最好的学校，我们现在离那个目标很遥远。第四，做到平衡预算。第五，支持小企业，是小企业在美国创造就业，在过去四年，小业主已经决定美国可能不适合开创新企业，因为新创建的公司数量降到30年来的最低。我知道做什么才能让小企业再次增长，雇佣员工。

现在我很忧虑，我们所走的道路是不成功的，总统现在的观点和他四年前竞选时的观点非常相似。政府更庞大，开支更多，税收更多，条条框框更多—如果你愿意那样叫的话，滴入式政府会奏效，那不是美国的正确选择。我会恢复让美国再次有效运转的活力。谢谢你。

主持人：总统先生，请直接回应。州长刚说的关于滴入式——他的滴入式方法——他刚说你的（政策）是（滴入式）。

奥巴马：我来具体谈谈我们需要做什么。首先，我们必须改善我们的教育系统，我们汲取了民主党和共产党的想法，已经取得了巨大进步。在一些最难管理的学校已经开始显示成效。我们实施了一个项目叫做“力争上游”。该项目促进了全国46个州的改革，提高标准，改善培训教师的方法，我想招聘10万名数学和科学新教师，在我们的社区大学再创造200万个职位，以便人们能够获得培训，胜任现有的工作，我想要确定我们保持年轻人的低学费。当涉及到我们的免税代码时，罗姆尼州长和我都同意，我们的公司税率太高了，所以我想把它降下来，特别是对于制造业，要把税率降低到25%。我还要关闭漏洞，这些漏洞刺激公司把工作转移到海外，我想要给予那些在美国投资的公司减税优惠。在能源方面，罗姆尼州长和我都同意，我们要增加美国的能源产量，石油和天然气产量比过去这些年都高，但是我还相信我们必须顶住未来能源来源，比如风能、太阳能和生物燃料，在这些方面投资，所以所有这些都是可能的。为了开展这些工作，我们确实必须终止赤字，我肯定今晚我们会讨论的问题之一是我们如何处理免税代码，我们如何确信能够以一种负责任的方式削减开支，而且我们如何还要有足够的税收做这些投资，在这里我们产生了分歧，因为罗姆尼州长的中心经济计划是在布什扩大减税的基础上，要求5万亿美元减税，那就是再减税2万亿美元，再增加军费开支2万亿美元，这项开支军队都没有提出要求，那就是8万亿美元，我们

美国总统大选辩论 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

如何支付这些开支？还要减少赤字？在我们需要的领域投资而不把这些费用倾倒在美国中产阶级头上，我认为这是这次竞选的中心问题之一。［www.61k.com]

主持人：你们俩都谈到了很多不同的事情，我们要设法用一种尽可能详细的方式实现它们，但首先，罗姆尼州长，就总统刚才说的一些事情，你有没有想直接问他的问题？

罗姆尼：当然有，我想清理一些记录，逐条过一过。首先，我没有5万亿美元的减税计划，我没有你谈到的减税规模，我的观点是我们应该为中产阶级提供税额减免，但是我们不会减少高收入阶层纳税份额，高收入群体在这个经济体中表现良好。不管你当总统还是我当总统，他们都会表现良好。现在面临困境的是美国的中等收入群体在总统的政策下，中等收入的美国人已经被埋葬了，他们——他们实实在在被压碎了，美国中产阶级看见自己的收入下降了4300美元，这本身就是一种税收，我称之为经济税。它挤压着中产阶级，同时在总统的任期，汽油价格翻番、电费增加、食品价格上涨，每个家庭的医疗保险费用增加了2500美元，中等收入家庭被挤压着。所以问题是如何让他们再次前行。

我已经描述过，要通过能源、贸易、还有正确的培训项目、平衡预算、帮助小企业，这些是我的计划的基石。但是总统提到其他几个想法，我要评论一下。

首先是教育，我同意，教育是关键，特别是对于我们经济的未来，但是我们现在的培训项目，其中47个由联邦政府管辖，向8个不同的机构汇报，日常管理费用大的惊人，我们应该让这些钱重新回到各个州，给到劳动者手里，一般他们能够设计自己的路径，获得他们寻找工作需要的培训，真正会帮助他们。

第二个领域：税收。我们同意，我们应该把税率降下来，我确实这么认为，企业税和个税都应该降，但是为了我们不失去税收，让政府有钱运行，我也减少减税、抵税和免税，以便我们能进账相同数额的税金，同时也导致经济增长。

第三个领域：能源。能源至关重要，总统正确指出了美国的石油和天然气产量增加了。尽管他有政策，但不是因为他的政策。总统先生，所有天然气和石油产量的增加都发生在私有土地上，而不是在政府土地上。在政府土地上，你的政府砍掉了一半的许可和执照。如果我是总统，我会让其翻番，也从近海和阿拉斯

美国总统大选辩论 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

加开采石油，我会把输油管道从加拿大引进来。[www.61k.com）顺便说一下，我喜欢煤。我要确保我们继续燃烧洁净煤。煤炭产业的人们感觉这个行业被你的政策压垮了，我想要让美国和北美能源独立，以便我们能创造这些工作。最后，关于减税问题，我不指望大幅度减税，减少政府税收。我的首要原则是，不会有增加赤字的减税，我想要强调这一点——不会有增加赤字的减税，但是我确实想减轻中等收入美国人的负担。那么做也意味着我不能减轻高收入美国人的负担，所以任何相反的语言都是不准确的。

主持人：总统先生——

奥巴马：好吧，我想——我们就谈论税收，因为我认为它是有启发性的。四年前，当我站在这个舞台上，我说，我会为中产家庭减税，我确切那么做了，我们为中产家庭减税约3600美元。原因是因为我相信，当中产阶级日子过好了，我们的工作才算最好。给了他们这些减税，他们口袋里的钱多了点儿，可能他们能买一辆新车，他们肯定处于更好的位置来经受住我们经历的不寻常的衰退。他们能为要上大学的孩子买一台计算机，这就意味着他们花了更多的钱生意有了更多客户，赚到了更多利润，然后雇佣的更多工人，罗姆尼州长已经推销了18个月的提议，在额外2万亿美元军费开支的基础上，再要求5万亿美元减税。他说他将用关闭漏洞和税额扣减来支付，问题是他已经被要求过100多次了，你会怎样关闭这些税额扣减和漏洞？他一直没能够确认。我要在此指出很重要的一点，当你把所有的漏洞和扣减加起起来，高收入人群能——目前正从中获益——如果你把这些都拿走——也远远不能支付5万亿美元减税和2万亿美元附加军费开支。这就是为什么独立研究机构看着这个税实现罗姆尼州长不增加赤字许诺的唯一方法，是加重中产阶级家庭的负担，有小孩的中产阶级家庭平均会多支付2000美元，这不是我的分析，这是已经检查过他的方案的经济学家的分析。那种自上而下的经济顶端人群顺风顺水，年收入300万美元以上的人平均获得25万美元的减税优惠。中产阶级家庭负担进一步加重，我认为这不是经济增长的处方。

主持人：好吧，区别是什么？

奥巴马：但我——但我——好吧，好吧

主持人：我们暂时继续谈论税收——

美国总统大选辩论 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

罗姆尼：实际上，他刚才讲的关于我的税收计划的每一件事情都是不准确的。(www.61k.com)如果有人要我支持他描述的税收计划，我会说绝不不支持。我没有寻找5万亿美元的减税，我说的是我不会实施增加赤字的减税，这是其一，所以没有经济学家可以说罗姆尼的税收计划会增加5万亿美元。如果我说我的税收计划不会增加赤字。第二:我不会减少高收入个体的纳税份额，我知道你和你的竞争伙伴一直那么说，我知道那么说会受到很多人欢迎，但情况不是那样。我有5个儿子，我习惯了人们有时候说一些不真实的话，但是不停的重复，最终希望我会相信它——但——情况不是那样，清楚了吧？我不会减少高收入美国人缴纳的税金。第三，在任何情况下，我都不会提高中等收入家庭的税赋。我会减少中等收入家庭的税赋。你引用了一项研究，有六个其他的研究机构看着你描述的研究，说他完全错了。我今天看见一项研究说，你要提高中等收入家庭税赋3000到4000美元，这些研究满天飞。我来谈谈关键点，我想要降低税率，我想要把税率降下来，同时减少减税、免税和扣税等等。以便我们继续获得我们需要的税收。你会想，为什么要降低税率？原因是因为小企业在按照那个个人所得税税率纳税。美国在企业工作的54%的人员，不是按照企业税率纳税，而是按照个人所得税税率纳税。如果我们降低那个税率，他们将能雇佣更多的人，对我来说，这事关就业。好，这就是我们起始的地方。这涉及到美国人民创造就业。

主持人：好，你质疑州长刚才阐述的他自己的计划吗？

奥巴马：好，18个月来，他一直拿他的税收计划参加竞选，现在在大选5个星期前，他说他那个重大的、大胆的计划“别提了”。事实是如果你按照你描述的方法降低税率，州长，那么不可能找到足够的只影响高收入个体的减税和漏洞，避免增加赤字或者加重中产阶级的负担，这是数字？这是算术？罗姆尼州长和我在鼓励小企业增长方面确实兴趣高度一致。我的税收计划已经为98%的家庭减了税，同时我还为小企业减税18次。我想做的是继续实施为小企业和家庭减税。但是我已经说过对于年收入25万美元以上的家庭，我们应该回到克林顿当总统时的税率。那时我们创造了2300万个新工作，从赤字变成了盈余，创造了很多百万富翁。那么做重要的原因是我们不仅能够减少赤字，我们不仅能鼓励小企业创造就业，而且我们还能够在教育或能源上做必要的投资。然而，当涉及到小企业的定义时，我们确实有分歧。根据我的计划，97%的小企业不会看到他们的所得税增加。

美国总统大选辩论 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

罗姆尼州长说，顶端的3%他们是就业创造者，会加重他们负担。［www.61k.com)但是根据罗姆尼州长的定义，有很多百万富翁和亿万富翁都是小企业，Donald Trump就成了小企业，我知道Donald Trump在任何事情上都不喜欢认为自己小，但你就是这么定义小企业的，决定他们是否享受小企业所得税税率。我相信那种方法不会让我们的经济增长，因为为它买单的唯一方法。如果不加重中产阶层负担，或者激增我们的赤字，就会是大幅度削减在教育等方面的投资，就不能确保我们继续投资在基础科学研究和所有帮助美国发展的领域上面，我认为那会是一个错误。

罗姆尼：好的，Jim，我再回到那一点上，我们谈论的这些小企业

主持人：——必须明确声明—打扰一下，只是为了每个人都明白—— 罗姆尼：好的

主持人：——我们第一个15分钟远远超时了

罗姆尼：挺有乐趣的，是不是？

主持人：还行，还好。还好吧，没问题，你们没有——如果你们觉着没问题，我也没问题，因为我们还在讨论经济，但我们会再回到税收，我们也要进一步讨论赤字和很多其他问题。好了，继续吧，先生

罗姆尼：当然，总统你——总统先生，你绝对会是对的，说97%的企业没有按照35%的税率纳税，他们的税率要低一些，但是那3%的企业，碰巧雇佣的人数是在小企业工作的人数的一半，这些企业雇佣了美国所有劳动者的1/4,你的计划是把他们的税率从35%提高到40%。我和一个人谈过，他有一家非常小的企业，他在圣路易斯从事电子行业，他有四个员工，他说他和他儿子核算着他们要交多少税，联邦所得税、联邦工资税、州所得税、州消费税、州不动产税、汽油税，加起来大大超过了他们收入的50%。你的计划是把成功的小企业的税率从35%提高到40%，全美独立企业联盟说过，那会损失70万个工作，我不想让就业受损，我优先考虑的是就业，我要做的是降低税率，减少税额扣减和免税，——顺便说一下，和Bowles-Simpson的理念是一样的，通过降低税率，减少税额扣减和免税来创造更多就业，因为让我们实现平衡预算的最好方式，让更多的人工作，挣更多的钱，缴纳更多的税，这是到目前为止实现平衡预算最有效、最高效的方式。

美国总统大选辩论 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

奥巴马：Jim，我——你可能想进一步讨论别的话题，但我只想对美国人民这么说，如果你相信我们能减税5万亿美元，再加上军方没有要求的额外的2万亿美元的军费开支，——10年7万亿美元，你可以感觉一下，比我们全部国防预算还多。［www.61k.com)如果认为靠开关富裕阶层的（税法）漏洞和税额扣减，莫名其妙最后你就不用买单了，那么罗姆尼州长的计划可能适合你。但是我认为数学、常识和我们的历史都向我们显示，那不是增加就业的处方，我们尝试过这种方法——两种方法我们都尝试过。罗姆尼州长谈论的方法何在2001年和2003年采用的推销说辞是一样的，结果成了我们50年来就业增长最慢的时期，结果我们从盈余变成了赤字，它以大萧条以来最恶劣的金融危机而告终。克林顿尝试的是我谈论的方法，我们创造了2300万个新工作，我们从赤字转向盈余，企业表现得非常好。在某种程度上，我们有一些数据，表明哪种方法更可能为美国人创造就业和机会，我认为，当中产阶级家庭得到税赋减免，他们口袋里有了一些钱时经济运转最好，我们这些做的非常好的人，是因为我们生活在这个了不起的国家，我们能够多承担一些，确信我们不让赤字激增。

罗姆尼：Jim，这部分是总统开始的，所以我认为最后该我说，我要接过他的话，好吧？

主持人：你会在下一部分首先说

罗姆尼：但——但他在那部分首先说，我在那部分最后说，我这么希望，我来这么评价一下

主持人：他可以——你可以那么做，他可以——但程序不是这样的

罗姆尼：我来——我来重复——我来重复一下我说过的话——我不赞成5万亿美元减税，但那不是我的计划，我的计划是不实施任何会导致赤字的减税，这是第一点。所以你可以继续抱我的计划说成是5万亿美元减税，但那不是我的计划。第二，我们看一看历史，我的计划和任何以前尝试过的都不一样，我的计划是降低税率，同时也减少税额扣减、免税和抵税。这样政府税收留住了。而且我们降低了税率，让更多人工作，我优先做的事情是让人们再美国重新工作，他们在这个国家正在受苦。我们谈到证据——看看过去四年的证据，绝对让人惊奇，我们有2300万人丢掉了工作或者不再在这个国家寻找工作。

美国总统大选辩论 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

主持人：好了——

罗姆尼：它-它—我们——我们——当总统上任时，3200万人领食品卷，现在有4700万人领食品卷。［www.61k.com)今年的经济增。长比去年慢，去年比前年慢。维持现状向前走不会快速帮助正在挣扎的美国人民。

第二部分赤字 24分到37分27秒

主持人：好吧，我们开始讨论吧——我们依然讨论经济。理论上，这是第二部分，依然关于经济，问题是具体是针对联邦赤字，联邦债务做些什么？——你们各有两分钟时间回答问题。罗姆尼州长，你先回答，因为总统在第一部分先回答的。这是问题：你们两个之间的区别是什么？关于如何着手解决这个国家的赤字问题？

罗姆尼：好，我很高兴你提出这个问题，这是个至关重要的问题，我认为这不只是一个经济问题，我认为它是一个道德问题。坦白说，我认为，我们这一代人继续不断入不敷出大量花费是不道德的，知道这些负担将传递到下一代身上，他们将要穷其一生支付利息和本金。我们增加的债务额，每年一万亿美元，这就是不道德，那么我们如何处理这个问题？从数学上有三种方法可以减少赤字，第一，当然是提高税收，第二是消减开支，第三是增长经济，因为如果更多的人在一个增长的经济中工作，他们纳税，你就能用那种方式减少赤字，总统会——总统更喜欢提高税率。我理解，提高税率的问题是它减慢了增长速度，你永远都不能完全解决赤字问题。我想要减少开支，同时鼓励经济增长。我会削减哪方面的开支？首先，如果任何项目通不过我的检验，我都会摒弃，这个项目不是这么至关重要，值得我们从中国借钱来做？如果不是，我会除去它。“奥巴马医改”就在我的清单上，我向你道歉，总统先生，我用这个术语，没有贬义，我喜欢这么叫，好，好吧，好，我会除去它。对不起，jim，我会停止给PBS补贴（这场辩论的主持人是PBS（公共广播公司）的主持人）。我也会停止其他项目。我喜欢PBS，我喜欢大鸟先生（大鸟先生是PBS里的卡通形象），实际上我也喜欢你。但我不会——不会继续从中国借钱去做事情，这是第一点。第二点，我会把目前的好项目，但我认为如果由各个州运作会更加高效，把这些项目给各个州。第三，我会让政府更加高效，削减职员数量，合并一些机构和部门。顺便说一下，我的裁员

美国总统大选辩论 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

会通过人员自然缩减来实施。［www.61k.com）这是我们让美国实现平衡预算必须采取的方法，总统说过他会消减一半的赤字，不幸的是，他让赤字翻番，过去四年带来了几万亿美元的赤字。总统发行的国债总额几乎和所有以前的总统都加起来发行的国债一样多。

主持人：总统先生，两分钟。

奥巴马：当我入驻白宫时，有一万多亿美元赤字迎接我，我们知道它来自何处，两场战争靠信用卡支付，两次许诺的减税没有支付，有很多项目的资金都没有到位，还有一个严重的经济危机。尽管有这些困难，我们说的是，好吧，我们必须采取一些起始紧急措施，确信我们不会滑入大萧条，但是我们也说，我们要确保砍掉那些没有帮助我们增长的项目。所以，砍掉了77个政府项目——范围很广，从空军已经订购的飞机，但飞机运行不是很好。18个政府——砍掉了18个政府教育项目，这些项目本意是好的，但没有帮助孩子们学习。我们强力打击老年医疗保险和医疗补助计划中的医疗欺诈事件——比以前任何时候力度都大，已经节约了数百元美元。减少了这个系统中500亿美元的浪费。我和民主党和共和党一起工作，从弹性国内预算中消减了一万亿美元，这是自埃森豪尔以来对弹性国内预算最大的消减。我们都知道我们应该做的更多，所以我提出一项具体的4万亿美元的减少赤字计划，都放在了网上，你们可以看到所有数字，我做了哪些削减，增加了什么税收，我们采取的方式是每削减2.5美元开支，我们要求一美元额外的收入，就像我以前指出的，要求我们这些在这个国家做的很好的人来支付，为减少赤字贡献更多一点儿，罗姆尼州长前面提到了Bowles-Simpson委员会，这是个委员会——这个两党都支持的委员会讨论我们应该如何向前发展，建议我们应该如何去做，用一种平和的方法，获得一些收入，消减一些开支，这是罗姆尼州长和我的主要区别。让我说完这一点，因为你正在寻找差别，当罗姆尼州长站在舞台上，和其它共和党候选人竞争提名时，有人问他，你是不是愿意消减10美元开支换取1美元税收？他回答不愿意。如果你采取用这种收支不平衡的方法，那就意味着你要摧毁我们在学校和教育上的投资。它意味着——罗姆尼州长谈到医疗补助计划，我们如何把它送回各个州，但实际上这意味着，要消减这些基本项目的30%，包括帮助在私人疗养院里的老年人的项目。和帮助残障儿童的项目，这不是我们向前发展的正确战略。

美国总统大选辩论 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

主持人：州长，Simpson-Bowles议案怎么样，你支持Simpson-Bowles议案吗？罗姆尼：Simpson-Bowles，总统应该已经抓住它不放手了，

主持人：不，我的意思是，你支持Simpson-Bowles吗？

罗姆尼：我有自己的计划，它和Simpson-Bowles不一样。［www.61k.com］但是我认为，总统应该已经紧紧抓着它了，如果你想做一些调整，就做吧。拿到国会，为它而奋斗。

奥巴马：我们已经那么做了，做了一些调整，我们现在把它呈给了国会，一个4万亿的计划

罗姆尼：但是你已经——但你当总统已经四年了，你当总统已经四年了。你说过你会消减一半的赤字。四年以后的今天，我们每年依然有万亿美元的赤字。国会预算局说，我们未来四年每年都会有一万亿美元的赤字。如果你连任，我们会达到万亿美元的债务。你以前说过你会减少一半的赤字，我喜欢这个4万亿美元的减少赤字计划，你发现4万亿美元的浪费可以减少，或者更接近平衡预算，只是我们每年依然显示万亿美元的赤字。那就是没有完成工作，我在返回来说，为什么我们不想提高税率？为什么我不想提高人们的税率？实际上，你在2010年说过这话，你说，我要继续我们已有的税收政策，我不会提高任何人的税率，以为当经济增长这么慢，当我们在衰退时，你不应该提高任何人的税率，经济增长依然缓慢，事实上，现在的经济增长比你发表那个声明时慢很多，所以如果你相信同样的事情，你就不想提高人们的税率，现实是不仅仅富人——你提到Donald Trump——你不仅仅加重了Donald Trump的税赋，它涉及到雇用了1/4美国劳动力的所有这些企业，这些小企业按照个人所得税税率缴税，你提高了税率，就是扼杀了就业。这就是为什么全美独立企业联盟说，你的计划会扼杀70万个工作，在这个环境下我们想扼杀就业，我再说一点，那就是——那——

主持人：让他现在先回答税收问题，好吗？

罗姆尼：好的。

主持人：总统先生

奥巴马：我们以前进行过这种讨论，

美国总统大选辩论 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

主持人：不是，是关于这个理念，为了减少赤字，除了削减开支，还必须保证税收。［www.61k.com]

奥巴马：除了削减开支，还必须保证税收，罗姆尼州长已经不考虑税收了。他已经不考虑税收了。

罗姆尼：我想要的税收是通过让更多的人工作，得到更高的报酬，从而缴纳更多的税，我们是这样获得增长，平和预算的。但是他这种理念是提高人们税率，让更多人失去工作，你就永远无法减少赤字，你永远无法通过提高税率来平衡预算。西班牙——西班牙把经济总量的42%花在了政府上，我们现在把我们经济总量的42%用在了政府上。我不想沿着这条道路去西班牙。我想要沿着增长的道路走，让美国人都工作。因为他们工作了，就会有更多的钱进来。

主持人：但是总统先生，你说为了完成这项工作就应该搞平衡。

奥巴马：如果我们认真的，我们就必须采取一种平衡的、负责人的方法。顺便说一下，这不仅是当涉及到个税时才这样做，我们来谈谈公司税，我已经确认了一些领域。我们能够马上做出改变，我相信那实际上会帮助经济。石油行业每年得到40亿美元的公司福利，基本上，他们获得了税额扣减，罗姆尼所指的这些小企业没有得到，有人认为埃克森美孚石油公司还需要额外的钱吗？每次你去加油，他们都挣钱了。为什么我们不想取消那种补贴？为什么我们不取消对公司飞机的减税优惠？我的态度是如果你有公司飞机，你可能就负担得起全价运费，不需要得到特殊的减税优惠。当涉及到公司税时，罗姆尼州长说他想要保持税收不变，通过关闭漏洞和税额扣减——他还没有确认他们是什么——把公司税率降下来，我想做同样的事情，但是我实际上已经确认了我们能够如何去做。部分方法是不给把工作转移到海外的公司税赋减免，现在你把工厂转移到海外实际上能够获得税额扣减，我想大部分美国人会说这样做不和逻辑，所有这些措施都能够增加税收，所以如果我们采取平衡的方法，就也能容许我们帮战年轻人，在我的政府我们已经采用了这种方法，确保他们能够上得起大学，这就意味着我在拉斯维加斯遇到的那个老师，一个出色的年轻女士，她想我描述——她班里与42个孩子，前两个星期，她上课时，一些孩子坐在地板上，直到最后他们才被重新分班，他们在用10年的老课本。那不是增长的处方，美国不是那样建造的。预算反应选择，

美国总统大选辩论 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

最终我们要必须做出一些决定，如果我们不要求税收，那就意味着我们要放弃很多东西。(www.61k.com]你在谈论的减税规模，州长，最后会导致人民陷入严重困境，而且更重要的是，它不会帮助我们增长，就像我以前指出的，当你谈论把医疗补助计划转移到州时，我们谈论的是最后可能会削减医疗补助计划的30%，当它只是纸上的数字时，好像没什么大不了的，但是如果我们谈到有自闭症孩子的家庭，他们依靠医疗补助计划，那就是大问题，州长们富有创造了，这点毫无疑问，但是他们的创造力，不足以弥补像医疗补助计划这样的项目需要的30%基金。最后的情况是一些人最后得不到帮助。

罗姆尼：Jim，我们谈论了很多话题。需要几分钟从医疗补助计划谈到学校。主持人：再回到医疗补助计划。

罗姆尼：从石油谈到减税优惠和公司转移到海外。我们一个一个讨论，首先，能源部说，对石油公司的减税优惠每年是28亿美元。他实际上是一种会计处理。我们知道，这种方法已经有100年了。你一年就给绿色能源行业提供了900亿美元的减税优惠，我也喜欢绿色能源，那是大约是石油和天然气行业50年获得的优惠额，你说埃克森和美孚——实际上，这28亿美元大部分都流向了小公司，流向了钻井经营者等，但是如果我们把税率从35%降到25%，为什么还公开讨论那28亿美元呢。当然还要讨论，如果你把税率降到25%，可能就没这个问题了，但是忘了，你把900亿美元——差不多相当于给石油公司50年的减税优惠，给了太阳能和风能公司。给了Solyndra、Fisker、Tesla和Ener1(都是新能源或者使用新能源的公司)。我有一个朋友说，你不仅挑选胜利者和失败者，你挑选失败者，对吧？所以这不是——如果你想要美国能源安全，你不想采用这样的政策。第二个话题，你说人们把工厂转移到海外获得了税额扣减，我做企业已经25年了，我根本不知道你在说什么，我可能需要找一个新会计，但是这个把工作转移到海外获得税额扣减的概念，根本不是那么回事，我们现在马上要建立的是一个环境——对不起，我想把资金从海外带回这个国家，最后，说把医疗补助计划交给各个州，我不是分清楚这种说法是从哪来的，可能是我想把医疗补助计划的资金交给州政府，对州政府说，你们会得到你们去年拿到的资金。加上通货膨胀，再加1%你们要用你们认为最好的办法设法照顾你们的穷人。我记得，我当州长时，当Tommy

美国总统大选辩论 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

Thompson把这个想法付诸实施时，共和党和民主党的州长都说，请让我们也这么做吧。(www.61k.com］我们能够用好得多的，更有效的方式照顾我们的穷人。所以让各个州——这个国家了不起的特性之一，是各个州是民主的试验田的整体概念，不要让联邦政府告诉每个人，他们必须有什么样的培训计划，他们必须要有什么样的医疗补助计划，让州政府做这事。顺便说一下，如果某个州陷入了困境，我们能够介入，看是否能否找到方法帮助他们，但?但是正确的方法是依靠我们的人民和各个州的才华，而不是联邦政府。

第三部分经济福利 37分27秒-53分26秒

主持人：我们继续，仍在谈经济，但是是另一个部分，这是第三个段落，经济，福利。首先，有个问题有你来提，两分钟，总统先生。你认为你们两人子啊社保议题上有何主要区别？

奥巴马：你知道，我对此表示怀疑，在社保议题上，我们有着相似的立场，社保在结构上是合理的，他需要像里根总统、民主党众议院议长奥尼尔进行微调，但是我想谈谈社保和医疗保险项目背后的价值观，随后再谈谈医疗保险。因为它是导致我们现在赤字的主要因素。你知道，我的祖母曾帮助抚养我，我的祖父去世已有很长一段时间了。我的祖母在我当选总统前三天去世，她非常独立，她靠自己的努力奋斗，只有中学教育程度的她从秘书作起，最终成为当地一家银行的副总裁，她最终选择独立生活。她之所以能如此独立，是因为社保和医疗保险项目，她一生都在工作，存入金钱，知道将会有基本的保障，她不会老无所依。当我想到福利时，我就想到这个想法。你知道，这个名字本身暗含是这些人有一些依赖性，这些人曾像我的祖母那样努力工作，有数百万人依赖它。所以我的方法是我们如何从远期强化这一制度，在医疗保险项目，我们做的是我们说的，如果我们应对我们的长期赤字，我们将降低开支，但为了做到这一点，让我们看看其中的一些钱去了哪里？我们从医疗保险项目中节省了170亿美元，因为确保我们没有向保险公司支付过高的费用，我们使用这笔钱把老年人的平均处方药费降低了600美元，我们也能够在向他们提供预防性护理反方面取得重大进展，从而最终达到节省经费的目标。所以对于我们来说，应对医疗保险项目的特别之处在于降低医疗护理的开支。在谈到社保时，正如我所说的，不需要进行中国大结构性

美国总统大选辩论 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

调整，以确保社保在未来也存在。(www.61k.com)

主持人：让我们继续深入地谈论这与议题。首先罗姆尼州长，你有两分钟发表对社保和福利的看法。

罗姆尼：吉姆：我们的老年人依赖这些项目，我知道每当我们讨论福利时，人们就会担心发生的一些事情会使他们的生活变得更差，答案是总统和我都没有提出针对目前退休人士或者接近退休人士的任何变动。不管是社保或者医疗保险项目。所以如果你已经60岁或者年龄更大，你不需要再听这样不部分了。但是对于年轻人士来说，我们需要谈谈将会发生什么变化。我只想到了一个，这个，事实上，当我说总统对目前的退休人士没有提出任何变动时，我犯错了，事实上，他对医疗保险作出了变动，他没有对社保作出变动。就医疗保险来说，就目前的退休人士来说，它减少这一项目7160亿美元的经费，他现在说不再向医院和提供商支付多付的款项，事实上，走向他们对他们说:我们将全面降低支付给你们的费用。所有人都将获得更低的收入，这不只是追究存在滥用的场所，这是说我们降低了费用，15%的医院和养老院称在这种情况下，他们将不再接受更多医疗保险项目的病人。我们的医疗保险优势计划有4百万人，由于7160亿美元的削减他们将失去这一计划。我无法理解你如何从目前的医疗保险用户那里减少7160亿美元。现在你指出我们已将一些钱放回医疗保险项目，我们将提供更好的处方药项目，这是1美元，1美元来交换你所削减的15美元？他们做够聪明，知道什么是不好的交易。我想将你削减的7160亿美元放回到医疗保险项目。如果我们需要改善处方药项目，我们可以把它列入其中。但是在我看来，从医疗保险项目削减7160亿美元，以平衡奥巴马医改带来的额外开支是一个错误。至于年轻人，我将提出建议，以确保他们将毫无疑问地获得医疗保险和社保。

主持人：总统——

奥巴马：首先，我认为罗姆尼州长提出他说的只会影响未来人群的计划是很重要的，这一计划的核心是你将医疗保险项目转换成一种凭卷项目，他被称作是保费支持模式，但他据信是一个凭卷，他的竞选伙伴，

主持人：你是否支持那个方案？

美国总统大选辩论 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

奥巴马：我不支持那个方案，让我解释为什么。（www.61k.com)

罗姆尼：再说一次，那就是将来的，将来的人们，对吧，不是目前的退休人士。

奥巴马：对于那些，如果你54或者55，你可能需要听一下了，因为这件影响你。这个主意最早上国会议员瑞安，你的竞选伙伴提出，我们应向老年人发凭证，他们可以拿着凭卷前往私营市场购买自己的医疗保险，问题是凭卷不一定能跟得上医疗护理费用的膨胀，这估计这将使老年人的年平均费用增加6000美元。现在，公正地说，罗姆尼州长现在说，除了评卷之外他将保留传统的医疗保险项目。但这里仍有一个问题。因为保险公司对于搞清楚谁是更年轻、更健康的老年人方面很精明，他们会吸收这些老年人，把那些年龄更大，身体更差的老年人留给医疗保险项目，所有的医疗护理经济学家都会称，这样作的后果是传统的医疗保险项目将会崩溃。这会让想我祖母这样的人任由私营保险制度发落，当他们最迫切需要体面的医疗护理的时候。所以，我不认为凭卷是正确的方法，这不只是我的看法。美国退休人员协会认为，我们从医疗保险项目节省的经费加强了制度，延长医疗保险项目托管金期八年时间，福利不受影响。具有讽刺性的是，如果你取消奥巴马医疗改革，我已变得喜欢这个措词，如果你取消奥巴马医疗改革，那些老年人的处方药药费会立刻增加600美元。他们现在讲不得不支付自费以进行能使他们更加健康的基本体检，废除奥巴马医疗改革的主要受益方将是保险公司。它们过去在未使老年人变得更加健康的时候赚取了数百亿美元，我不认为这是一个正确的方法。在确保医疗保险制度在长期变得更加强大方面。

主持人：2分38我们稍后将具体谈谈理疗护理，但是罗姆尼州长，你是否支持凭卷制度？

罗姆尼：我支持的是对目前的退休人员和接近退休人员不作调整，总统支持消减这一项目的7160亿费用。

主持人：你对凭卷有何看法？

罗姆尼：那是第一点，第二点是对于那些年轻人，我想确保他们能享受医疗保险项目，让他们自行选择目前的医疗保险项目或者私人计划，由他们自己做出

美国总统大选辩论 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

选择。[www.61k.com）他们要有选择，他们将有至少两个方案可选，这完全不会让他们支付任何费用。所以，他们不需要支持额外的费用，没有额外支付的6000美元，那种情况不会发生，他们将至少有两个方案。此外，如果政府能够像私营行业那么高效，支付跟私营行业同样低的保险费，人们将会很高兴获得传统的医疗保险项目，或者他们将能够获得了一个私营计划。我知道我自己的看法是我宁愿有一个私营计划，我将不愿意2让政府告诉我我应该获得何种医疗护理，我宁愿去找保险公司。如果我不喜欢它们，我可以不要它们，找另外一家保险公司，但人们可以做出自己的选择。我们要挽救医疗保险要作的另外一件事，我们的低收入人群有很高的福利，但是对于那些收入更高的人士，我们将降低一些福利，我们将确保这一制度将长期存在。这是我所提出的计划，顺便说一下这个想法，甚至不是来自瑞安或者参议员，威登参议员，而是来自比尔克林顿的办公厅主任。这是一个已流行了很长时间的想法，这种想法认为我们是否能将竞争引入医疗保险项目，以便让我们能够以低费用，更好的质量选择不同的计划，我相信竞争。

奥巴马：吉姆，如果我，如果我能够快速答复的话，首先，所有研究表明医疗保险的行政费用要比任何私营保险要低，这是为什么老年人基本对此感到高兴的原因。此外，私营保险商要赢利，这没用任何过错，这就是他们的业务。所有，当你有更高的行政支出，加上利润，如果你能从罗姆尼州长提出的方案节省任何金钱，那么那笔钱将不得不来自其它方面，当你走向评卷制度时，你把老年人交给保险公司掌控，随着时间的流逝，如果传统的医疗保险制度衰落或者解体，那些老年人将会处于尴尬境地。这就是美国退休人员协会称，你的计划将会大幅削弱医疗保险制度，这就是他们支持我们所采取方法的原因。我最后想说的一点是，我们需要降低医疗护理的开支，但是，但是，但总体上

罗姆尼：这是一个大议题好的，我们将，我想再谈一下，总统称政府可以以更低开支，在没有利润的情况下提供服务，如果那样的话，那么它将永远是人们可以购买的最好产品。

（48分12）主持人：等一分钟，州长。好的，我们可以，你们两人是否赞同选民有一个选择，在两者之间有一个明确的选择？好的，让我们快速结束这一点，简短的说，就经济而言，你对现在联邦政府对经济所实施的规则程度有何看法？

美国总统大选辩论 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

你看来，总统先生，是否应有更多规则，你先来说，每位有两分钟。［www.61k.com］我们将进行数分钟，我们随后再来谈医疗，好吗？

罗姆尼：规则是很重要的，你不能在没有规则的情况下建立一个自由市场，你必须要制定规则，以使经济运作起来。作为一个商人，我需要知道规则，我需要规则，你不能让人们在他们的车库里开设银行，进行贷款业务。我的意思是，你要制定规则以让经济运作，所有的自由经济都有好的规则。与此同时，规则有可能会变得过度。

主持人：你是否认为现在的规则过度，

罗姆尼：一些地方存在过度，另外一些地方不存在过度。不，规则也可以变得过时，在奥巴马任期内通过的一些法案，你可以看到规则变得过度，他伤害了经济。让我给你举个例子《多德-弗兰克华尔街改革与消费者保护法》获得了通过，我认为，它其中的一些条款产生了意想不到的后果。这对经济是有害的，其中一条是它确定数个银行是大而不倒。事实上得到了联邦政府的担保，这是我看到的送给纽约银行的大物。对它们来说，这是一个极大的利好。自法案通过后以后已有122家社区和小型银行关闭。这只是一个例子。我还有另一个例子，在《多德弗兰克华尔街改革与消费者保护法》

主持人：你想废除它？

罗姆尼：是的，我会废除它，并代之以其它法案。我们不打算取消所有规则，你必须要有管制。多德—弗兰克法案的一些内容有一些合理意义，你需要透明度，你需要有杠杆作用的限制，

主持人：好吧，这里有个具体的，

罗姆尼：但是，然我们，让我们提一下，让我提一下另外一个法案，让我们谈谈，

主持人:算了，让我们不要提了，让总统回答吧。我们让他回答一下关于多德—弗兰克法案的这一具体问题。

奥巴马:我认为这是一个很好的例子。我们深陷如此严重的经济危机的原因是

美国总统大选辩论 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

由于所有人的鲁莽行为导致的。[www.61k.com］就目前来看，这不仅仅是华尔街的人行为鲁莽。信贷员是干什么的呢，信贷员当时正在给一些人发放贷款和按揭。但是其实不应该给这些人发放，因为他们不具有资格，你们面对的是这样一些人，他们在借钱买他们买不起的房子，有这样一些评级机构，它们正在给这些投资贴上A1评级的标签，但实际上并非如此。也有这样一些银行，它们挣的钱节节攀升，为了获取高额利润，他们大量炮制金融产品，银行家自己甚至也搞不懂这些产品，但知道这将使整个体系易受攻击。那么，我们做了什么呢？我们介入，并在华尔街进行了自20世纪30年代以来最严厉的改革。我们说，银行，你们需要，你们需要提高了你们的资本金。我们不能从事一些会让普通人陷入危险的冒险行为，我们将确保你们立下生前遗嘱。这样，这样以来，我们就可以知道，如果你们打了一个糟糕的赌，顺便说一下，与此同时，我们也确保了我们给这些银行提供的帮助将连本带息一分不少的还回来。现在，罗姆尼州长说了，他想废除多德—弗兰克法案，不仅如此，你们知道，我对此表示感谢。我们在一个问题上取得了某种程度的一致，那就是，一个起作用的市场必须要有一些规则。但是过去，罗姆尼州长说，他想废除多德—弗兰克法案，推到重来。因此问题是，是否有人认为，我们面临的大问题，是对华尔街的监管和管制太多了，因为如果你真的这么认为，那么罗姆尼州长就是你的候选人。但是，我不这么认为，

罗姆尼：抱歉，那恰恰不是，那恰恰不是事实。注意，我们必须对华尔街实施管制，那正是我主张管制的原因。那正是我主张管制的原因，但是我不会指定五家银行，说它们太大，不能倒闭，然后给他们开一张空白支票。这是多德—弗兰克法案产生的一个令人意想不到的结果，那不是通过正确的思考产生的想法。我们需要取消那一条款，因为它正杀死地区银行和小银行，它们这在受伤。让我提一下多德—弗兰克法案的另一种规则，你说，我们正在给那些不具资格的人发放按揭，事实确实如此，这是我们遭受的那场金融大灾难的原因之一。正因为如此，多德—弗兰克说我们需要有合格的按揭，说的没错，不过，他们事实上根本没有这么做，并且也没有定义合格的按揭，不仅如此，如果你给一个不够资格的人发放贷款，就会遭受重惩。已经两年了，我们还不知道究竟什么是合格的按揭。这样以来，银行不愿意提供贷款、按揭。这些天不妨试着按揭一下，这正在伤害住房市场。因为多德—弗兰克法案没有提前将我们必须具有的规则部署到位。并

美国总统大选辩论 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

不是因为多德—弗兰克法案规则太多而总是错的，有时候，它们恰恰是缺乏清晰的规则。［www.61k.com）我将确保我们不会伤害我们的，我们的市场和我们的商业的功能，因为我想带回住房和好工作。

第四部分医疗改革（53分26秒到70分14秒）

主持人:好的，我想，我们又清楚地了解了你们两个另外一个不同之处。现在，我们转向医疗保健。我清楚，你们在这个问题上有着迥异的观点并且这个问题，现在是一个两分钟的新段落，就是说，每人两分钟，罗姆尼州长，你先来。你想废除它，你想废除《可负担医疗法案》，为什么?

罗姆尼：的确如此，好吧，这同样部分是源自我的经验，你知道，我在新罕布什尔州的时候，一个女人向我走来，注意了，她说，我担负不起我自己和我儿子的保险。我在威斯康星洲阿普尔顿认识了一对夫妇，他们说，我们考虑放弃我们的保险，我们负担不起它，我还去过一些小企业，它们说打算放弃保险。因为他们不但不起，医疗费真太高了。不仅如此，、、、他说，到今年，他将会让每个家庭的保险费降低2500美元，恰恰相反，现在费用增加了2500美元。因为它太昂贵，昂贵的东西会伤害到家庭。我所以想废除它，这是原因之一。原因之二，它削减了7160亿美元医疗保险来给它付款，我想把这笔钱交还给医疗保险，让我们的老人们使用。第三，它设置了一个未经选举的管理委员会，让它来最终告诉人们，他们可以获得何种治疗，我不喜欢这个主意。第四，有个对全国小企业的调查这样问道，奥巴马医疗改革对你们的雇用计划产生了何种影响。四分之三的小企业回答说，他让我们更不可能雇人。我只是不知道，总统就职以来，面对2300万丢掉工作的人，不断提高的失业率，面对摆在，摆在餐桌上的经济危机，在两年的时间里，他究竟怎样把他的精力和激情花在了为奥巴马医疗改革法案而战，而不是为美国人民的工作岗位而战，它已经丧送了工作，就医疗保健而言，最好的路线就是去做我们以前在我的州里做的事情。在州这一级上制定计划，使其符合州的需要。接下来，让我们花心思为人们降低费用，而不是另外给它增加2500美元费用。

主持人：总统先生，你反对废除奥巴马医疗保险改革法案的理由是?

美国总统大选辩论 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

奥巴马：哦，四年前，当我在竞选总统时，我在全国旅行，有着和罗姆尼州长所谈到的同样对话，并不只是小企业看到费用在猛增，即便它们想给员工提供医疗保险，它们也无力承担保险费用，它并不只是我们联邦赤字的最大增长因素，我们的整体医疗护理开支。［www.61k.com]但美国全国各地的数百万家庭担心，如果他们患病，家庭就会破产，如果他们在上保险之前就患病他们可能根本得不到医疗保险。他们因此支付自己的保费，如果有人真的得病，他们没有足够的钱支付账单。所以我们对此采取了措施，除了创造就业岗位，因为这是确保中产家庭在美国获得安全感工作的一部分。让我告诉你奥巴马医疗保险做了什么。

首先，如果你有医疗保险，这并不意味着政府接管，你可以保留自己的保险，保留自己的医生。但是确实说保险公司不能再随意发号施令。他们不能强制实施随意性的寿命限制，他们得让你把你的孩子列入你的保险计划，直至你到26岁。他还规定，如果保险公司花在行政和赢利的费用高于实际护理费用，你的部分款项将退回。第二，如果你没有医疗保险，我们基本上建立了一个团体计划，这将使你享受团体价，通常会比你一个人试图获得医疗保险的价格低18%。现在，我先前谈到的最后一点，

主持人：两分钟，两分钟已经到了，先生。

奥巴马：不，我认为，我在你打断我时还有5秒。具有讽刺性的是，我们看到这种模式在马萨塞州奏效，因为罗姆尼州长作了一件好事，他和马萨塞州的民主党人合作，建立了一个同奥巴马医疗保险相同的模式，马萨诸塞的民众因此得到了保险。这没毁掉工作岗位，因为奥巴马医疗保险法案。我们现在有一个能开始降低费用的机会，而不是将数百万人置于医疗保险之外，

主持人：你的五秒钟很早之前就到了。好的，州长，直接告诉总统你认为他所说的奥巴马医疗保险法案有何错误之处。

罗姆尼：好的，我的首句话就回答了这一问题。首先，我喜欢我们在马萨诸塞州的作法，我喜欢这一事实。在我们马萨诸塞州我们共和党人和民主党人做到一起，合作共事，你所做的却是推动一个没有获得一名共和党议员支持的计划。事实上，马萨诸塞州做了一件特别的事情，选举一位共和党人来制止奥巴马医疗保险改革，你仍是强行通过了奥巴马医疗保险改革，完全是靠民主党，而不是让

美国总统大选辩论 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

美国人走到一起来，对这一重要话题进行讨论。［www.61k.com）你强行通过了你，佩洛西和里德认为是最哈的方案，强行通过了方案，我们所在的则是，在一个87%的成员是民主党人的议会里，我们合作共事，200名州议员中只有两人反对我们推动的计划。有什么不同之处，我们没有提供税收，你在奥巴马护理方案下提高了1万亿美元的税收，我们没有削减医疗保险项目的经费。当然，我们没有医疗保险项目，但是我们也没削减医疗经费7160亿美元。我们也没成立一个委员会去告诉人们他们应受到何种治疗。我们也没让人们处在失去他们现有和想要保险的状态的事情。国会预算办公室称，在奥巴马护理方案明年生效时，将有2000万人失去保险。麦肯锡对美国商业进行的一项研究称，近三成的企业预计人们将失去医疗保险。所以出于这些原因，出于税收，出于医疗保险，出于委员会，出于人们失去保险，这就是为什么美国人民不需要奥巴马医疗改革法案。这就是为什么共和党人说不要这样做，共和党人曾提出了一个两党达成共识的计划。我认为一些像这么重大，重要的议题应当在两党合作的基础上进行，我们应当有一位能团结两党，从两党的建议上提出重要法案的总统。

奥巴马:罗姆尼州长称这应当在两党合成一致的基础上进行，这就是一个两党合作的想法，事实上它曾是共和党提出的。罗姆尼州长在辩论之初曾写文章称，我们在马萨诸塞州所作的事情可以成为全国的榜样。我同意，马萨诸塞州的民主党议员可能向国会的共和党人如何进行合作的建议。事实上，我们使用了同样的顾问，他们说这是同样的计划，当罗姆尼州长提及委员会的时候，我们组建的一个未经选举产生的委员会，它事实上是一个由医疗护理专家医生等组成的委员会，以确定我们如何降低这一制度的总体费用。因为有两种方法来应对我们的医疗处理危机，一种方法是让一大群人无法获得医保，让他们自生自灭，让商业机构来决定他们能够在多长时间坚持支付保金，直至他们最终放弃。他们的工作人员不再获得医保，这是一个趋势。或者，我们可以确定，我们如何使护理费用更加有效，有这么样的护理方式，在世界上最好的医疗护理系统之一的克利夫兰诊所，他们提供的医疗护理比平均费用更便宜。他们作到这一点是因为它们作聪明的事情。他们说，如果有一位病人进来，让所有的医生立刻作出一个检查而不是让病人作10个检查，确保提供预防性护理，来发现糖尿病等疾病的早期迹象。让我们以表现为基础而不是他们从事了多少程序来向医疗护理提供者支付费用，现

美国总统大选辩论 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

在，委员会所作的事情基本是确认最好的操作。（www.61k.com]称，让我们用医疗保险和医疗援助项目的经费来帮助实现我们的好做法机制化。这一事情的事实，当奥巴马医疗保险得到全面落实后，我们将能够向人们展示费用在降低。在过去两年里，医疗护理的保险费在上升，这是真的，他们上涨的速度不过去五十年的任何时候都要慢，所以我们已经开始看到进展。与此同时，那些有医疗保险的人们已开始收到退还的部分款项，让我说明最后一点，罗姆尼州长称，但我们能够用其它一些东西来取代它，但问题是，他没有向我们说明他用什么来代替。他只是说我们应当由州一级来处理此事。但事实上，他所开出的一些药方，例如允许你跨州买保险，没有任何迹象表明这将帮助那些已患病人士能够最终买到保险。事实上，据估算，废除奥巴马医疗保险将会使5千万人失去医保，让州长解释你所要作的。

主持人：如果奥巴马医疗保险法案被废除，你用什么来代替？

罗姆尼：事实上，这是一个非常长的描述。但是首先，我的计划包括已经患病人群。第二点，年轻人能够被列入他们的家庭保险计划，私营市场已提供了这种服务。你不需要让政府指示来使这一点发生，让我们回到总统和我达成共识的一些事情上来，就是医疗护理的关键任务是降低费用，是美国家庭能够负担得起。他的模式是政府组建一个委员会，一个未经选举的为委员会，他们将决定你应当获得何种治疗。在我看来，政府在降低几乎所有事情的费用方面都不是很有效。事实上试图把事情做好的自由人和自由企业比政府能够更好有效降低费用。你所举得克利夫兰诊所是我的例子，我还能举出其它数个例子。这是一个私营市场，他们是小型的，各个企业互相竞争，学会如何做更好的工作，我曾咨询企业，对不起，咨询医院和护理提供商，我对美国人民身上的创造力和创新能力感到震惊。为了降低医疗护理的费用，我们不需要让一个由15人组成的委员会，告诉我们应当接受何种治疗，我们应当让保险计划，提供者，医院，医生来完成目标。让他们有激动因素，如你所说的那样，因为做了很出色的工作，降低费用而获取表现工薪，这就是正在发生的事情。Innermountain 护理在这一点上作的非常好。梅奥诊所作得非常好，克利夫兰诊所和其它诊所也作的非常好。但正确的答案不是让联邦政府接管医疗护理，开始向全国各地的医疗护理下达指示。告诉病人和医生他们应当进行什么样的治疗。私营市场和个人负责任总是能取得最好的效果。

美国总统大选辩论 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

奥巴马：让我首先指出。(www.61k.com)我们所谈到的委员会无法就进行何种治疗作出决定，这是法律明文禁止的。但让我们回到罗姆尼州长提到的，按照他的计划，他将能够让那些已患病的人士获得医疗保险，事实上，州长，这不是你的计划所作的，你的计划是复制已被列入法律的东西。法律称如果你没有医疗保险三个月，你会获得连续的保险覆盖，一家保险公司无法拒绝你，如果你在90天之内。但这已被写入了法律，并不能帮助那些已患病的数百万人。这是罗姆尼州长为什么在马萨诸塞州建立这一计划的原因。这并不是政府接管医疗护理，这是私营保险公司最大规模的扩展，但是，它确实是保险公司，你要接受所有人，这也意味着你有更多的客户。但当罗姆尼州长称，他将用其它东西来替代它时，但却无法给出它将如何被替代。他为何在马萨诸塞州建立这一制度的答案是，这是因为没有应对已患病人群医保问题的更好方案。这提醒了我，你知道，他说他将为他的税收计划填补漏洞和抵扣，这是他的税收计划的资金来源，但我们不知道细节。他说他将取代《多德-弗兰克华尔街改革与消费者保护法》，但我们不知道取代它的是什么东西。他不告诉我们，他现在说他将取代奥巴马护理，确保所有的好事都在里面，你们不需要担心，我有时在想美国人民应当问问自己，应当问自己一个问题，罗姆尼州长对替代我的政策的计划保密，是不是因为它们太好了，或者是中产阶层家庭将从那里得到太多益处。答案是不，因为当我们在改革华尔街时，当我们应对已患病人群的医疗保险的时候。你知道有困难的问题我们要作到选择，我们所作的选择将最终使美国各地的中产家庭受益。

主持人：我们想转到下一话题，

罗姆尼：不，我要对此作出回应。这就是作为我任州长的经验。如果我走进来，放下一个法案说，我说了算，我说一不二，我说什么就是什么，我不能作很多事，我作的是:根据奥尼尔和里根总统当年合作的同样方式，当里根竞选总统时，他列出了他将培养的原则，他称他将降低税收，他说他将扩大税基，他说了同样的事情。你说要简化税法扩大税基，这是我的原则，我想降低中等收入美国家庭的税负，我将与国会合作。例如我们将如何降低抵扣，另一个方法就是制定一个简单的数字，说一个数字，25000美元，50000美元。所有人都可以达到这一数字的抵扣，但是对于高收入人群，这一数字就消失。这是人们可以做的方式之一。人们可以以鲍尔斯与辛普森方案为范例，已抵扣低抵扣，用那种方式作出区别，

美国总统大选辩论 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

有实现我的目标的不同方式，这就是降低税率扩大税基，为经济提供激励。[www.61k.com)在谈到医疗护理时，你相当了解对我应对已患病人群的医疗保险问题计划的细节，你显然对此进行了研究。事实上，我有一个应对已患病人群的医疗保险问题计划，这是我医疗护理计划的一部分，我们在马萨诸塞州所作的事情是各州的范例。我当时说过这样的话，不理会给各州作这些事情权利的第10修正案，不是美国走向更强大，更具活动经济的道路。

第五部分政府角色（70分14秒到90分结束）

主持人：这是我们下个段落的非常棒的继续。政府的角色，让我们看一下政府的角色。主持人：这是我们下个段落的非常棒的继续。政府的角色，让我们看一下政府的角色。总统先生你首先发言，你是否认为你们两人——你可以先发言两分钟总统先生——你是否认为你们两人在联邦政府任务方面存在重大差异？

奥巴马：我肯定认为存在差异。联邦政府的首个任务是确保美国人民安全，这是最基本的任务。作为总司令这是我就任以来一直从事的，而且每天都在想的事情。但我也认为政府有能力，联邦政府有能力帮助开辟机遇，创建机遇之梯创建美国人民可以成功的框架。看，美国的天才在于自由企业制度和自由，人们可以外出旅行创立企业，为一个想法而努力作出自己的决定，但正如林肯所理解的，有些事情我们团结一致才能做好。所以在内战中期，林肯说让我们帮助提供修建跨州铁路的资金，让我们创建国家科学院，让我们开始建立大陆法案大学，因为我们想向所有美国人开放机遇之门。因为如果所有美国人都能获得机会，我们的情况会更好。这并不限制人们的自由，它强化了人们的自由。所以我作为总统试图作的事情就是应用同样的原则，在谈到教育问题时，我说过我们应当改革那些没有效果的学校。我们使用了一种名叫冲向顶峰的方法，不是从上至下的方法。州长我们对各州说，如果你启动改革我们将提供更多资金，因此有46个州启动了改革，取得了真正不同的效果，但我也说过雇佣另外10万名教学和科学教师，以确保我们保持我们的技术领先，我们的人民是有技能的，能够取得成功。由于各州经费紧张我们现在无法全部做到这一点，事实上，我们看到在过去数年有数十万教师被解雇，罗姆尼州长不认为我们需要更多教师，我认为我们需要更多教师。因为我认为这是联邦政府可以提供帮助的投资，他无法全部做到，但这可以促成

美国总统大选辩论 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

国内变化。(www.61k.com］作为一个结果，我们有一个更加训练有素的劳动力，这将创造就业岗位，因为公司想把工厂迁往有熟练工人的地方。

主持人：两分钟，州长。政府的角色你的看法？

（73分11）罗姆尼：首先我爱伟大的学校，马萨诸塞州，我们的学校在所有50个州排名第一。伟大学校的关键是伟大的教师。我否认那种我不相信伟大教师或者更多教师的看法。每个学区每个州都应作出自己的决定。政府的角色，看看我们身后，宪法和独立宣言，政府的角色是促进和保护这些文件的原则。首先生命和自由。我们有责任保护我们所有人民的生命和自由，这意味着拥有世界第一的军事力量，我不认同削减军队。我相信维持美国军队的实力。第二点：我们被造物者赋予我们的权利，我认为我们必须保持我们对美国宗教宽容和自由的承诺。这一声明也说，我们被造物者赋予我们追求自己所选择幸福的权利，我将解读为确保那些不幸或者无力照顾自己的人们，得到关照互相关照。我们作为一个国家相信我们是同一个上帝的孩子。我们照顾那些面临困难的人们，那些老人有问题和挑战的人们、那些残障人士我们照顾他们。我们寻找发现和创新从美国心脏所寻找的东西。以为我们的公民提供追寻幸福，但我们也认为保持个人追求他们梦想的权利，不能用政府自身来取代自由个人的权利。我们现在看到的是一个涓滴式政府方式，政府认为它比追求梦想的自由人能够做得更好。这并没有奏效。证据是2300万人失业，证据是每6位美国人就有一人处于贫困，证据是领取食品卷的美国人数由3200万上升到4700万，证据是今年毕业的50%大学生未能找到工作。我们知道我们做得路没有奏效，现在是走一条新路的时候了。

主持人：好的，让我们就你们两人对政府角色的看法进行一些具体的讨论。如何看政府在教育方面的作用。联邦政府是否有责任改善美国公立教育的质量。

罗姆尼：教育的首要任务当然是州和地方政府，但是联邦政府可以发挥一个非常重要的作用。我赞成阿恩—邓恩的一些看法，他就冲向顶峰项目提出了一些看法，我并不赞同他的所有看法，但是认同一些看法，向他推行这些想法向他表示祝贺，联邦政府可以让当地和州学校作更好的工作。顺便说一下我的看法，我认为，我想看到那些从IDEA或者Title 获得联邦资金的孩子们，那些残疾儿童或者贫困儿童或者低收入儿童，我想他们能够去上他们想要的学校。所有联邦资

美国总统大选辩论 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

金与其交给州或者学区，我愿意，如果你愿意交给孩子，让父母和孩子来决定去哪里上学。[www.61k.com］

主持人：你如何看待联邦政府的责任？如我所说的，改善美国公立教育的质量。

奥巴马：正如我指出的，我认为联邦政府能发挥重大作用，通过我们冲向顶峰项目，我们与共和党和民主党州长共事，已启动重大改革，它们正在产生影响。

主持人：你是否认为你与罗姆尼州长在教育和联邦政府的看法存在差异？你知道这是预算事务。因为预算反应了选择，当罗姆尼州长表示他想减少税收，这可能使我和他这样的人受益，用大幅度削减联邦政府支持教育的费用，来提供减少税收的资金来源。这产生了差异，你知道他的竞选伙伴瑞安提出了一个预算，反映了罗姆尼州长所谈论的许多原则。它不是非常具体，但这看起来是一个趋势，但他确实是。如果你推断出我们在讨论金钱的数字，你将会看到教育预算会被削减20%。在谈论到社区大学，我们看到全国各地的社区大学作非常好的工作，因为我们有机会就目前所有的工作岗位对人们进行培训。我怀疑罗姆尼和我可能达成一致的一件事是，让企业与社区大学合作，所以他们将建立自己的培训项目。

主持人：你是否同意，州长？

罗姆尼：是的

奥巴马：让我完成这一点。他们在结合伙伴，所以它们设计培训项目，接受培训项目的人们知道，如果他们完成这些项目培训，将有工作等着他们，这将产生巨大的不同，但这需要一些联邦政府的帮助。让我来书最后一个例子，当谈及上得起大学的议题时，不管是两年制还是四年制，我作为总统所作的一件事是为学生贷款项目。向银行和借贷公司等中间人发放了600亿美元款项。虽然这些贷款获得了担保，所以银行和借贷方没有任何风险，但他们却从中取走数十亿美元。作为结果我们一直能作的是向学生提供更多的援助，降低或者保持学生贷款的低利率。这就是我们的优先项目使事情发生变化的一个例子。我真的认为罗姆尼州长关心教育，但他告诉学生你应当从你父母那里借钱上大学时，对于像我，米歇

美国总统大选辩论 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

尔，那些在丹佛上学的孩子来说，这样的言论不会引发多少关注，因为我们没有那种选项，对于我们来确保他们有这个机会，他们能够穿过那扇门，不只对于这些孩子来说士重要的，这是我们远期如何是经济增长的方法，

主持人：我们没有时间了先生们。(www.61k.com)州长，

罗姆尼：总统先生总统先生，你作为总统有自己的飞机和自己的房屋，但没有拥有事实。好的，我没有将削减教育经费，我没有削减教育经费和大学奖学金的任何计划，我想增加这些经费，我不计划在这些方面作出调整。但是你阐述了一个很好的点，那就是你把你的钱放在哪里，明确地说明了你的心在哪里。你将900亿美元资金投入绿色行业工作，我也赞成绿色能源。900亿美元这将能雇佣2百万教师。这些企业它们中的许多企业已停业，我认为半数接受投资的企业已停业。其中一些人碰巧是你竞选活动的资助者，看美国政府的正确路线。我们刚才在讨论政府的角色，不是成为经济参与者、挑选赢家和输家。告诉人们他们能接受什么样的治疗，接管已存在很长时间，创造了世界最佳纪录的医疗系统。我们如何使私营行业变得更有效率，更加有效？如何让我们的学校更有竞争性？让我们给它们打分，我建议给它们打平分。我提议给我们的学校评级，这样父母们就知道哪些学校在成功，哪些学校在失败。所以他们可以把孩子送往孩子可以更加成功的学校。我不想削减我们对教育的承诺，我想让它变得更加有效更加高效。顺便说一下我有这方面的经验，我曾从事过哪方面的工作。马萨诸塞州的学校在全国排名第一，这并不是因为我没有对教育的承诺，这是因为我关心我们所有孩子的教育。

主持人:好的，先生们，对不起，对不起先生们，我们只剩下三分钟，我不会给你们打分，说你们的回答太长了，或者我的表现很差，

奥巴马：你的表现非常好，

主持人:不好。事实是政府-政府的角色和执政，所以你有三分钟，所以我想在这里最后问一下——记住，我们最后还有三分钟——问题是这样的，由于党派争斗僵局，联邦政府的许多立法功能现在处于瘫痪状态。如果当选，就你的情况，如果获得连任你对此将采取什么措施，州长。

美国总统大选辩论 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

罗姆尼：在州议会议员的87%是民主党议员的州里当选州长，这意味着从上任第一天起我就要和民主党议员相处，共同合作以完成事情，我们使我们的学校在全国排名第一，我们19次减少了税收，

主持人：你作为总统会怎么做？

罗姆尼:我们作为总统我将在就任第一天，事实上，从我当选的第一天，我就会与领导人们坐下来，与民主党和共和党人坐下来，继续我们在马萨诸塞州的作法。[www.61k.com)我们每周一会举行数个小时的会谈，谈谈我们州的议题和挑战，我们将合作共事，不是因为我们将就原则作出妥协，而是因为我们有共同立场。美国目前面临的挑战，看我加入这一选战的原因，是因为人们在这个国家真的都受到伤害。我们面临这种赤字会压垮未来的几代人，在中东发生的事情，在全球各地发生的事情真的让我们感到担心。共和党人和民主党人都爱美国，但我们需要有领导力，华盛顿的领导力，这将使人们聚集子在一起完成工作，不管这是共和党或是民主党的，我在这之前做过这样的事情，我将再次这样做。

奥巴马:首先我认为罗姆尼州长将会有一个繁忙的就任首日，因为他将取消奥巴马医疗保险计划。当你和民主党人站在一起时，你的这一做法将不会非常受欢迎。但是请看我的哲学是，我将听取所有人的看法民主党人或者共和党人，只要他们是在推进让中产阶层美国家庭更加强大，和向迈入中产阶层提供梯子。这就是我们如何减少中产阶层家庭和小企业的税负。这就是我们如何削减未能推进这一路线的一万亿美元开支，这就是我们签署三个贸易协议为法律，这将帮助我们把出口提高一倍，向世界各地销售更多的美国产品；这就是我们如何废除不问也不说的政策，这就是我们如何结束在伊拉克的战争；正如我所承诺的那样，这就是我们如何结束在阿富汗的战争；这就是我们如何追杀基地组织和拉登的，所以我们甚至在共和党控制众议院的情况下取得进展。但是作为一个最终的有原则的领导人，就是能够描述你的意图，而不只是我将会坐下来。但你要有一个计划。第二点重要的是你偶尔要说不，对你自己的党政或者其它党政的人士，你知道是的，我和一些共和党人发生了争斗，当他们想在我们控制华尔街过度贪婪方面进行反击时，绝对是这样因为是一场需要进行的战斗。当我们就我们是否确保美国人应当拥有医疗保险，从而获得更多的安全感进行讨论时，当他们不时说这是我

美国总统大选辩论 2012美国总统大选辩论赛第一场(中文稿)

们需要进行的斗争，领导力和执政的部分内容是支持你赞成的事情，但是也要愿意对一些事情说不。(www.61k.com］

主持人：我得告诉你罗姆尼州长，这将使我们进行总结陈词，这是投币结果，总统先生你赢的了最后发言的机会，所以你有两分钟的总结陈词。总统先生——

奥巴马：吉姆，我想谢谢你，我想谢谢罗姆尼州长，因为我认为这是一场非常棒的辩论，我对此表示非常感谢。我想感谢丹佛大学，你知道，四年前，我们经历了一场重大危机，但我对美国未来的信仰和信心从未消退，原因是因为它的人民，因为我在北卡罗莱纳州遇到了一位女性，55岁的她决定从返学校，因为她想激励她的女儿。她现在已因为所参加的新培训项目而获得了一份工作。因为明尼苏达州的一家公司愿意放弃经理的工资和福利，你在托莱多或者底特律遇到的汽车业工人，为建造世界上最好的汽车而感到非常自豪。不只是因为领到了支票，而是因为帮助建设美国使他们获得了自豪感，现在的问题是我们如何利用这些力量。我所试图做的所有事情，改善我们的教育系统或者发展美国能源，确保我们填补那些将工作岗位输送往海外公司的税务漏洞，专注于创造就业岗位的小型企业和公司。用一种负责任，平衡的方式来减少赤字。允许我们投资于我们的未来。所有这些事情都是为了确保美国人民。他们的天才，他们的苦干，他们的决心得到利用。他们有成功的机会，所有人都有平等的机会，所有人都得到公正的一部分，所有人作自己的一份，所有人都遵守同样的规则。你知道四年之前，我说我不是一个完人。我不会是一个完美的总统。这可能是罗姆尼州长认为我遵守的一个承诺，但我也曾承诺我将为美国人民中产阶层，那些正努力进入中产阶层的人而每天奋斗。我遵守这一承诺，如果你投票给我，我承诺在第二个任期将以同样的干劲努力奋斗。

五 : 美国总统竞选人辩论：攀比“了解”普京

原标题：美国总统竞选人辩论：攀比“了解”普京

美国总统竞选辩论中，竞选人往往利用尽可能多的机会展示自己相比其他竞选人的优势。［www.61k.com］而在１１日晚举行的共和党总统竞选人第四轮党内辩论中，竞选人甚至比拼起了对俄罗斯总统弗拉基米尔·普京的熟识程度。地产大亨唐纳德·特朗普声称和普京是“同仁”，原因是两人接受过同一期节目采访；女性总统竞选人、惠普公司前首席执行官卡莉·菲奥里纳不甘示弱，声称曾在一个场合与普京“私聊”过。

不料，美国媒体“刨根问底”，最终戳穿这两人的“大话”。

【相隔千里的“同仁”】

当晚辩论中，其他共和党竞选人在一次有关外交政策的辩论中纷纷将矛头指向普京，认为俄罗斯应该从叙利亚撤出军队。

这时，特朗普重申他对普京在叙利亚打击极端组织“伊斯兰国”的支持，“顺便”提及了他与普京的一次“相遇”。

“我对他非常了解，因为我们都上过（哥伦比亚广播公司）《６０分钟》节目，我们是同仁，”特朗普说，“我们那天晚上表现得都很好…………你们应该知道。”

特朗普还说：“如果普京想去痛击‘伊斯兰国’，我完全支持，百分之百支持，我不能理解怎么会有人反对。”

事后，媒体查证特朗普和普京如何成为“同仁”，发现特朗普和普京确实在今年９月接受过同一期《６０分钟》节目采访。不过，当时特朗普身在纽约，而普京身在莫斯科，这次“相遇”可以说相隔千里。

【距离更近的“私下会晤”】

特朗普发言几分钟后，最近人气颇旺的女性总统竞选人菲奥里纳接过普京的这一话题，提及自己与普京曾经“私聊”，借机揶揄特朗普与普京未曾谋面的“相遇”。

“你们知道，特朗普先生经常把自己幻想成非常好的谈判者，我也承认他做过不少事情，因此，特朗普先生应该知道，我们不应该在身处弱势时与人对话，”菲奥里纳说，“我已经说过，我现在不会与弗拉基米尔·普京对话的原因之一…………就是我们与他对话时处于由本届政府带来的弱势地位。当然，我也见过普京，不是在节目休息室，而是在私下会面。”

美联社查证后发现，相比特朗普与普京远在千里之外的“相遇”，菲奥里纳的说法相对靠谱一点，至少她确实与普京见过面。２００１年，菲奥里纳出席在中国举行的２００１年亚太经济合作组织（ＡＰＥＣ）工商领导人峰会，曾经与普京身处同一个会场，等候发言。

今年９月，菲奥里纳接受美国媒体采访时曾说，她和普京“曾经像在节目休息室一样的场合一起待过…………我们每个人都准备在一次重要经济会议上发言”。

至于两人是否有过“私下会晤”，菲奥里纳的竞选团队发言人在辩论结束后澄清，菲奥里纳在等候发言期间确实与邻座的普京聊了４５分钟。（徐超）（特稿·新华国际客户端）

原文链接：

标签：美国总统竞选人辩论普京

61阅读提醒您本文地址：

本文标题：美国总统大选辩论-392012美国总统大选辩论会中文版(血泪翻译版)
本文地址： http://www.61k.com/1090952.html

61阅读

美国总统大选辩论-392012美国总统大选辩论会中文版(血泪翻译版)

军事政治

电子商务

你怎么看