卷福讲故事调侃美国大选(3)

因为失败而成功的例子
1. 你看那爱迪生，他在发明电灯前失败了多少次啊！但不正是那些失败才让他最终找到了合适的灯丝，让电灯照亮了全世界吗？这难道不是因为失败而成功的典型吗？
2. 想想拳王阿里，他在职业生涯中也遭遇了很多败仗呀，可那些失败没有打倒他，反而让他变得更强，成就了他拳王的辉煌，这不是很好地说明了失败也能走向成功吗？
3. 还记得乔布斯被自己创立的苹果公司赶出去吧！这是多大的失败呀，但后来呢，他又重回苹果，带领苹果走向新的巅峰，这不就是因为之前的失败才促成的成功吗？
4. 咱说那司马迁，遭受了那么残酷的刑罚，这可是巨大的失败与挫折呀！但他却写出了《史记》这样伟大的著作，这难道不是因祸得福，从失败中走向成功吗？
5. 再说那JK 罗琳，当初她可是穷得叮当响，书稿还多次被拒，可这些失败算什么呢？最终她的《哈利波特》系列风靡全球，这不就是失败孕育成功的例子吗？
6. 有谁不知道刘备呀，他早期那是连连失败，颠沛流离，但他没有放弃，最后不还是建立了蜀汉政权吗？这不是失败带来成功又是什么呢？
7. 提起华罗庚，大家都知道他年轻时学历不高，遇到了很多阻碍和失败，可他却成为了伟大的数学家，这难道不是从失败中崛起的吗？
8. 看看林肯吧，选举失败多次，人生充满坎坷，但他却成为了美国最伟大的总统之一，这不就是失败成就成功的有力证明吗？
我的观点结论：失败真的不可怕，只要我们能从失败中吸取教训，坚持不懈，就有可能在失败后迎来辉煌的成功，这些例子不都说明了这一点吗！。

Son, it's time for bed.⼉儿⼦子，该上床睡觉了了。

But dad, I'm having such a good game.但是爸爸，我正玩的开⼼心呢。

James, it's far too late for boys of your age to be up. It's 12:37 at night.James，已经半夜12:37了了，你不不该那么晚还没睡。

But I'm not even sleepy! Can't I have a story first?可是我⼀一点都不不困啊！不不可以先讲个故事给我听吗？Well, alright, just one though.好吧，但是只讲⼀一个哦。

Now, what would you like me to read you? Peter Rabbit? Mmmmm...那么，你想听什什么故事呢？彼得兔？嗯......Goldilocks and the Three Bears? Hmmm...⾦金金锁姑娘和三只⼩小熊？恩......How about The Story of the 2016 U.S.Presidential Election?2016美国总统⼤大选传奇怎么样？YES! That one! That one! That one! Yes! Alright.没错！就那个！就那个！就那个！耶！好。

Once upon a time, in a land called America.很久以前，有⼀一个叫美国的地⽅方。

Where there were states of blue to the North and states of red to the South and a beautiful White House in between.北北⽅方有蓝⾊色的州，南⽅方有红⾊色的州，中间有⼀一座美丽的⽩白宫。

【笑话大全】美国大选段子,笑死偶们这些吃瓜群众了1. 美国大选期间，一个女士对着电视机说：“我要是特朗普我就会一边大喊‘我赢了’，一边把自己藏到墨西哥去。

”2. 特朗普在演讲中说，“如果我输了，我就会去旅游。

”某人问他去哪儿，他回答说：“去胜利之岛（Victory Island）。

”3. 有一个特朗普粉丝问：“为什么那么多人讨厌特朗普？” 我回答说：“我们对身边人产生的影响是基于他们所做的事情，而不是基于他们的长相。

”4. 希拉里说：“我相信女性能够改变世界。

” 特朗普说：“我相信男人也可以改变女性。

”5. 特朗普：我将建造一堵很高的墙来防止非法移民进入美国。

希拉里：你怎么知道这堵墙不是把人困在美国里？6. 希拉里和特朗普在辩论中互相攻击。

特朗普：“你的女儿用私人邮箱发送重要文件吗？” 希拉里：“我至少没有把Twitter当成外交政策。

”7. 一个小男孩问他的父亲：“特朗普是否真的会成为美国总统？” 父亲回答说：“不要担心，儿子，我们不在美国。

”8. 特朗普声称，他会把墨西哥人赶出美国并让墨西哥为建墙买单。

墨西哥总统回答，说他也要把美国的巨大草坪推到美国一边，让美国为建墙买单。

9. 特朗普和希拉里在一条绳上拉扯，两人都非常用力，但最后绳断了… 希拉里把绳子递回给特朗普，说：“让我们再玩一次吧。

” 特朗普捡起绳子，说：“等明年吧…我每年都会在金砖酒店玩藏独…”10. 特朗普和希拉里参加了一个反对气候变化的辩论会议，听众问：“你们是否认为全球变暖是真的？” 特朗普回答：“我不知道，我从来没去过那个星球。

” 希拉里回答：“我知道全球变暖是真的，因为我在看巴西丛林被砍伐。

”。

美国总统选举辩论趣事（精选3篇）美国总统选举辩论趣事篇11992年，美国总统候选人电视辩论首次引入“市民大会”的形式，先由盖洛普民调机构抽样选出一班“未决定将票投给谁的选民”做现场观众，再由他们直接向候选人提出问题，而电视辩论的舞台上，也移走了传统的讲坛，改为让候选人坐在高脚椅上辩论，并且可以随意走动，增加与观众的互动。

辩论开始后，一位女士向两位候选人提问：“知道不知道国债越来越多对于普通市民生活的影响?”老布什率先回答，但他的态度非常冷淡，言语间都是官话、套话，绕来绕去，较为空泛。

这位女士认为他的回答并没有解释清楚，锲而不舍地纠缠在这个问题上，对老布什咄咄相逼。

老布什却始终没有改变策略，不停将问题绕开。

轮到克林顿作答时，他则向前走了几步，来到这位女士跟前，用诚恳的语言，微笑着与她分享自己很多朋友的类似遭遇，克林顿与现场群众的互动，让现场气氛达到了高潮。

这时，老布什却做了一个动作：他悄悄地拉高了袖子，低头偷偷地看了看手表。

偏偏这个动作，被摄像机拍了下来，并向全国观众直播出去。

这场电视辩论结束后，美国一位著名记者说，打从老布什偷偷看表的这一刻开始，“总统竞选战提早谢幕”。

的确如此，老布什偷偷看表的小动作，让许多选民产生不满，导致其支持率大大下降，最终竞选失败。

俗话说：“伸手不打笑脸人。

”一边是老布什冷冰冰的态度，一边是克林顿热呵呵的笑脸，观众当然会喜欢克林顿。

可谁想到，老布什不仅表面冷静，心里也很自在，竟在直播中偷偷看起了表，这种做法既不尊重对手，也不尊重提问的现场观众和观看电视直播的选民，支持率下降也在所难免了。

美国总统选举辩论趣事篇21960年9月26日，美国举行了历史上第一次总统选举电视辩论，两位主角分别是肯尼迪和尼克松，全国有700万人收看了这场直播。

在此之前，两人的支持率旗鼓相当，但在电视辩论之后，尼克松的支持率却直线下降。

原来，电视台为了直播效果好，加强了舞台灯光;为了让候选人看起来精神抖擞，要求候选人站立辩论。

美国总统大选第三场辩论完整版（中文字幕）Transcript of the Third Presidential DebateBOB SCHIEFFER: Good evening from the campus of Lynn University here in Boca Raton, Florida. This is the fourth and last debate of the 2012 campaign, brought to you by the Commission on Presid ential Debates. This one’s on foreign policy. I’m Bob Schieffer of CBS News. The questions are mine, and I have not shared them with the candidates or their aides.The audience has taken a vow of silence — no applause, no reaction of any kind except right now when we welcome President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney. (Sustained cheers, applause.) Gentlemen, your campaigns have agreed to certain rules and they are simple. They have asked me to divide the evening into segments. I’ll pose a question at t he beginning of each segment. You will each have two minutes to respond, and then we will have a general discussion until we move to the next segment.Tonight’s debate, as both of your know, comes on the 50th anniversary of the night that President Kennedy told the world that the Soviet Union had installed nuclear missiles in Cuba —perhaps the closest we’ve ever come to nuclear war. And it is a sobering reminder that every president faces at some point an unexpected threat to our national security from abr oad. So let’s begin.The first segment is the challenge of a changing Middle East and the new face of terrorism. I’m going to put this into two segments, so you’ll have two topic questions within this one segment on that subject. The first question, and it concerns Libya, the controversy over what happened there continues. Four Americans are dead, including an American ambassador. Questions remain. What happened? What caused it? Was it spontaneous?Was it an intelligence failure? Was it a policy failure? Was there an attempt to mislead people about what really happened?Governor Romney, you said this was an example of an American policy in the Middle East that is unraveling before our very eye s. I’d like to hear each of you give your thoughts on that.Governor Romney, you won the toss. You go first.MITT ROMNEY: Thank you, Bob, and thank you for agreeing to moderate this debate this evening. Thank you to Lynn University for welcoming us here, and Mr. President, it’s good to be with you again. We were together at a humorous event a little earlier, and it’s nice to maybe be funny this time not on purpose. We’ll see what happens. (Laughter.)This is obviously an area of great concern to the entire world and to America in particular, which is to see a — a complete change in the — the — the structure and the — the environment in the Middle East. With the Arab Spring came a great deal of hope that there would be a change towards more moderation and opportunity for greater participation on the part of women and — and public life and in economic life in the Middle East. But instead we’ve seen in nation after nation a number of disturbing events. Of course, we see in Syria 30,000 civilians having been killed by the military there. We see in — in — in Libya an attack apparently by — well, I think we know now by terrorists of some kind against —against our people there, four people dead. Our hearts and minds go to them. Mali has been taken over, the northern part of Mali, by al-Qaida-type individuals. We have in — in Egypt a Muslim Brotherhood president.And so what we’re seeing is a — a — a pretty dramatic reversal in the kind of hopes we had for that region. Of course, the greatest threat of all is Iran, four years closer to a nuclear weapon. And —and we’re going to have to recognize that we have to do as the president has done. I congratulate him on — on taking out Osama bin Laden and going after the leadership in al-Qaida. But we can’t kill our way out of this mess. We’re —we’re going to have to put in place a very comprehensive and robust strategy to help the — the world of Islam and — and other parts of the world reject this radical violent extremism which is —it’s really not on the run. It’s certainly not hiding. This is a group that is nowinvolved in 10 or 12 countries, and it presents an enormous threat to our friends, to the world, to America long term, and we must have a comprehensive strategy to help reject this kind of extremism.MR. SCHIEFFER: Mr. President.PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, my first job as commander in chief, Bob, is to keep the American people safe, and that’s what we’ve done over the last four years. We ended the war in Iraq, refocused our attention on those who actually killed us on 9/11. And as a consequence, al-Qaida’s core leadership has been decimated.In addition, we’re now able to transition out of Afghanistan in a responsible way, making sure that Afghans take responsibility for their own security, and that allows us also to rebuild alliances and make friends around the world to combat future threats. Now, with respect to Libya, as I indicated in the last debate, when we received that phone call, I immediately made sure that, number one, we did everything we could to secure those Americans who were still in harm’s way; number two, that we would investigate exactly what happened; and number three, most importantly, that we would go after those who killed Americans, and we would bring them to justice, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do.But I think it’s important to step back and think about what happened in Libya. Now, keep in mind that I and Americans took leadership in organizing an international coalition that made sure that we were able to — without putting troops on the ground, at the cost of less than what we spent in two weeks in Iraq — liberate a country that had been under the yoke of dictatorship for 40 years, got rid of a despot who had killed Americans.And as a consequence, despite this tragedy, you had tens of thousands of Libyans after the events in Benghazi marching and saying, America’s our friend. We stand with them. Now that represents the opportunity we have to take advantage of. And you know, G overnor Romney, I’m glad that you agree thatwe have been successful in going after al-Qaida, but I have to tell you that, you know, your strategy previously has been one that has been all over the map and is not designed to keep Americans safe or to build on the opportunities that exist in the Middle East.MR. ROMNEY: Well, my strategy’s pretty straightforward, which is to go after the bad guys, to make sure we do our very best to interrupt them, to — to kill them, to take them out of the picture. But my strategy is broader than — than that. That’s —that’s important, of course, but the key that we’re going to have to pursue is a — is a pathway to — to get the Muslim world to be able to reject extremism on its own. We don’t want another Iraq. We don’t want another Afghanistan. That’s not the right course for us. The right course for us is to make sure that we go after the — the people who are leaders of these variousanti-American groups and these — these jihadists, but also help the Muslim world.And how we do that? A group of Arab scholars came together, organized by the U.N., to look at how we can help the — the world reject these — these terrorists. And the answer they came up was this.One, more economic development. We should key our foreign aid, our direct foreign investment and that of our friends — we should coordinate it to make sure that we — we push back and give them more economic development.Number two, better education.Number three, gender equality.Number four, the rule of law. We have to help these nations create civil societies.But what’s been happening over the last couple years as we watched this tumult in the Middle East, this rising tide of chaos occur, you see al-Qaida rushing in, you see other jihadist groups rushing in.And — and th ey’re throughout many nations of the Middle East.It’s wonderful that Libya seems to be making some progress, despite this terrible tragedy, but next door, of course, we have Egypt. Libya’s 6 million population, Egypt 80 million population. We want — we want to make sure that we’re seeing progress throughout the Middle East. With Mali now having North Mali taken over by al-Qaida, with Syria having Assad continuing to — or to kill —to murder his own people, this is a region in tumult. And of course Iran on the path to a nuclear weapon. We’ve got real gaps in the region.。

在美国，当总统一定要会搞笑，这是白宫主人的看家本领，否则很难选上，即便选上了日子也不好玩。

尼克松认真地提出美国总统竞选人在演讲时不应该使用低俗语言1960年美国大选期间，共和党候选人、时任副总统的尼克松(Richard Nixon)认真地提出美国总统竞选人在演讲时不应该使用低俗语言(profanity)。

在尼克松的一次演讲之后，一位共和党人对尼克松说：Mr President, that was a damn fine speech(总统先生，这可真TMD是精彩演讲)。

尼克松很得意，但是还是一本正经地回答说：I appreciate the compliment, but not the language(我欣赏您的恭维，但是对你的语言不敢恭维)。

那位共和党人接着说：Yes sir, I liked it so much that I contributed a thousand dollars for your campaign(是啊，我真是太喜欢您的演讲了，我捐出了1000美元助您竞选)。

尼克松情绪很High，马上回答说：The hell you say(你丫太过奖了)。

其实这段对话对尼克松来说也是稀松平常，没有什么可笑，但却是由另一位总统候选人肯尼迪(John Kennedy)在一次公开演讲中娓娓道来，对听众来说那就很搞笑了。

福特是公认比较拘谨甚至有点乏味的总统尼克松因水门事件辞职后，副总统福特(Gerald Ford)继任。

福特是公认比较拘谨甚至有点乏味的总统，但是也很有幽默感，特别喜欢讲golf jokes(高尔夫笑话)。

1998年已是85岁高龄的福特，在记者俱乐部演讲回顾自己的一生，讲到他曾任副总统，说没有什么比当副总统更让人卑微谦逊的事情了(There's nothing like Vice Presidency to keep a man humble)。

为了证明这个观点，福特讲了以美国历史上另一位曾任副总统的柯立芝(Calvin Coolidge)为例。

【笑话大全】美国大选段子,笑死偶们这些吃瓜群众了
1. 为了赢得他的支持者，特朗普宣称他会让美国再次伟大。

希拉里则表示，她会让
美国更好，因为它已经很伟大了。

2. 起初，我对特朗普当选总统感到不安。

但现在我认为，这只是一场政治噱头，他
不可能真的当选。

他只是为了推销自己和他的品牌。

3. 我想知道别的候选人是怎么做的，能让民众那么相信他们会用好一把枪，却不相
信他们能管理好一个医疗保险系统。

4. 特朗普是一个非常有趣的人，但我还是不会投票给他。

我相信总统的职责不仅仅
是娱乐我们。

5. 我在Facebook上看到一个称号：“希拉里的支持者”。

然后我去了看看这个群组，它有3,000,000个成员，但只有1000个人在群组里发帖。

6. 我们必须做出更好的选择。

四年后，我们不想再给人带来更多的滑稽表演。

7. 特朗普说他会使美国再次伟大，但如果他的女儿不能在任何大学里面学到一个真
正的历史课程，那么美国不可能再次伟大。

8. 美国总统的职务要求候选人肩负起很多责任，其中一部分就是要慷慨地听从最后
的裁决。

9. 特朗普宣称他是全球上最好的商人，但如果他在美国民间医疗保险计划中的决策
表现得像在他自己的公司那样，那不是什么可取的事情。

10. 希拉里是一个非常聪明的女士，但我认为她现在已经处于一种被谴责和受质疑的
状态。

这不是一个好的人际关系管理者应该有的品质。

美国大选的奇葩闹剧作者：来源：《新传奇》2020年第45期在美國一个小镇，一只名叫威尔伯的斗牛犬以13143张选票获胜，而且这也是此地镇长选举历史上获票最多的候选者。

除了威尔伯，猎犬“兔子杰克”和金毛犬“波比”分别获得二三名，它们将担任小镇大使。

一只狗当选镇长近日，美国肯塔基州一个小镇选出了新一任镇长，而当选者是一只斗牛犬。

据美国福克斯新闻报道，这座位于肯塔基州的小镇名叫拉比特哈什。

拉比特哈什曾因保存有19世纪的百货商店而得名，但这座历史建筑在2016年的一场大火中被毁，并在之后得到重建。

根据小镇历史学会发布的统计数据，一只名叫威尔伯的斗牛犬以13143张选票获胜，而且这也是此地镇长选举历史上获票最多的候选者。

威尔伯并不是此地第一只当上镇长的狗。

据了解，自1998年以来，这个小镇所有的镇长选举都只有狗参加，当选的狗并不参与小镇的立法工作。

选举本身也作为一场募捐会，用来筹款保护镇上的历史建筑，民众捐出的每1美元都可以算作1张选票。

威尔伯的主人艾米·诺兰德表示，非常感谢当地民众以及来自世界各地的支持。

“这是一场激动人心的旅程，也对于保护拉比特哈什具有重大意义。

”小镇的声明写道，“我们欢迎各地访客，会继续为大家提供有趣的体验，感受这里的魅力。

”除了威尔伯，猎犬“兔子杰克”和金毛犬“波比”分别获得二三名，它们将担任小镇大使。

而在当选镇长之后，威尔伯会在未来参加一些公众活动，任何对它感兴趣的人都可以在社交媒体上与它互动。

去世的候选人被选上了议员美国2020大选期间，除了总统大选之外，数百名国会议员及部分地方官员也会举行选举。

有一个叫大卫·安达尔的共和党候选人就成功当选了众议员。

然而，他已经因新冠肺炎去世一个月了。

据福克斯新闻11月4日报道，安达尔是北达科他州俾斯麦市的一名地产商和农场主，当地时间11月3日，该州第八区众议院议员选举开票，4名候选人中，安达尔和另一名共和党候选人戴夫·尼林以37%和41%的得票率，双双击败民主党对手当选。

2012年美国总统大选电视辩论原文__BY crazyboyJIM 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 notsubmitted 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 themost 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 todevelop 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 youcould 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 inthe 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'vebeen 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 thatyou'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. Ongovernment 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 Istood 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 paidby 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 Americanpeople.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 ofmillionaires 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 helpingAmerica 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 budgetthan 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 theyear 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. Andnumber 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。