Romney and his conservative colleagues have made it clear that they care more about bottom lines than investing in people's lives.

In last week’s presidential debate, Governor Romney said he will make a great president because he is a businessman and has run companies. He might know how to make a profit and possibly balance a budget like he promises. But running a country is not just about balancing the budget – which, by the way, he likely wouldn’t be able to do any better than President Obama – and it is definitely not about making a profit.

President Obama is not trying to run America like a company. He has a background in community organizing and is trying to run the country like a community, like a family, a household. A nation is not just a material system of capital, investment, and revenue. It directly affects the human lives of each and every American. Households are invested in every family member, as their shared living space, culture, history, and lineage binds them together for life. In companies, on the other hand, employers and employees are generally tied together by monetary relationships.

A few years ago, I met a member of the Pan-African Parliament at the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. We had a conversation about how to encourage women to participate in politics. She said she talks to women living in the villages in her country, and they typically respond that politics is not for them, as they “only” know how to run a household. The member of Parliament then told them that if they can run a household, they can run a country. Think about it: you have to work together and negotiate with your spouse or partner to make decisions and get things done (bi-partisanship), understand and respond to the needs of the various family members (constituencies), and do so strategically with limited resources (budgeting, redistribution, long-term investments).

This is President Obama's strength. Sure, he hasn’t been a perfect president – if such a thing exists. But I trust him as a leader. I believe he truly cares about all constituencies, especially those who have traditionally been disenfranchised. He understands the strategic, long-term social and economic benefits of investing in quality education, efficient universal healthcare, healthy lifestyles, fair distribution of resources, and respect and equal rights for every individual. He understands that a country is only as strong as its weakest link and that leveling the playing field for everyone facilitates equal opportunity and empowerment for individuals as well as for the entire country. He understands that creativity, innovation, and progress are promoted by leveraging our rich diversity. His commitments and policies regarding healthcare, gender equality, poverty, education, and immigration, for instance, give us the feeling that he is everyone’s president.

Governor Romney, on the other hand, recently made it very clear that it is not his job to be concerned about 47 percent of Americans. He implied that almost half of the country does not take responsibility for itself and that he won’t be able to convince it otherwise. But most people want nothing more than to be economically independent, and the fact that some are not is more a reflection of social inequalities than of their characters. As most parents know, to raise your children to be self-sufficient and productive members of society, they need to develop skills and gain knowledge. They need to be invested in; they need opportunities for personal and professional development.

David Brooks argues, "People are motivated when they feel competent. They are motivated when they have more opportunities. Ambition is fired by possibility, not by deprivation." Deprivation of opportunity -- an unleveled playing field -- does not create self-sufficiency and actually fosters dependency on others, including on the government. For all the conservative rhetoric about economic self-sufficiency and individual freedom, President Obama seems to get this logic better than his opponent, with a long-term plan to empower all Americans and with strategic budget decisions that will set us on the road to economic recovery, deficit reduction, and a more equitable society. Republicans say they so greatly value “the family as the cornerstone of society,” yet they disregard the factors that promote economically independent, educated, healthy, and thriving individuals and families.

By not raising taxes, cutting capital gains, and reducing the corporate income tax, Governor Romney is catering to big business and the wealthy and their interest in making a profit. Like companies, Republicans are focused on their own bottom line and the bottom lines of those they consider stakeholders in the conservative political ideology, rather than on the empowerment of all the American people. I’m sure Governor Romney is a wonderful husband and father. It just doesn’t seem like he would be a true family man when it comes to 100 percent of the American family.

Minjon Tholen is a Roosevelt Institute | Pipeline Fellow and the Training & Development Specialist at Cook Ross Inc.

After last night's debate performance, did any substantive policy solutions get through? Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network students didn't hear a lot to go on.

Lydia Austin, Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network Senior Fellow for Economic Development and Chapter Head at the University of Michigan:

It's unfortunate that political debates are primarily judged on the candidate's personalities, and not their policies. Much of the consensus regarding "who won" is based on who was perceived to be in charge, who didn't get rattled, and who made it through the night without a bemused look upon his face. President Obama won the personality debate, but what about the actual policy proposals? Some of the most outstanding moments from the policy debate came from Mitt Romney: he championed flexibility for working women in a way that indicated how much he truly valued their presence in the workplace, and he put forth an interesting capital gains tax proposal. As part of Governor Romney's tax proposal, he would eliminate capital gains taxes for individuals making under $200,000 a year. The implications of this proposal are interesting: while it would encourage people to invest in savings, it would also benefit those individuals who already earn much of their income from investments (up to a certain point). Democratization of capital holdings is essential for a thriving middle class, and while both candidates implicitly addressed this in the debate, Romney's tax plan was what caught my attention.

Jessie Molloy, Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network member at DePaul University:

The selected voters had some interesting and insightful questions, but neither Governor Romney nor President Obama seemed particularly inclined to answer them. Instead, both candidates fell back into familiar side-step routines and parroted over and over again the same answers and points they have given a dozen times before at the conventions, at rallies, and at the first debate.

One particularly good example of this indirect approach to answers was on the issue of inequality in women’s pay. Obama talked about his mother “hitting the glass ceiling” and then spun the question into a tangent about education and creating opportunities for America’s youth. Romney discussed his experience as governor when he reportedly saw too many male cabinet candidates and sent out his staff to find “binders of women.” In the eight minutes or so the topic was on the table, neither candidate actually acknowledged how he would ensure women would be paid the same as their male counterparts. 

The debate was certainly heated, but did it offer any solutions to the next generation? Members and staff from the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network and Pipeline weigh in.

Grant Ferowich, Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network, Wake Forest

As Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney stated in consecutive debates, one message is clear: they stand for a strong(er) military. Indeed, Paul Ryan’s supposedly ruthless and draconian Budget Plan actually increases defense spending by 20 percent. The budget-minded Republicans apparently have a tainted perception of foreign policy. Since the end of the Cold War, the percentage of our national budget devoted to security has hardly changed. We are in an arms race with ourselves.

Despite attempts to reassure citizens with promises of security and protection, it seems that the Republican mindset fails to grasp that a bigger military means a bigger government. Furthermore, as the Simpson-Bowles Bipartisan Deficit Reduction plan notes, our nation cannot afford to be the world’s police. Currently, the U.S. spends more money on the military than the next 15 countries combined. This includes China, Russia, and the U.K., and the list goes on. It simply is not coherent for the Millennial Generation to accept a platform that promises to cut Pell Grants in half while increasing the size of a bloated military. And we of course must not forget the warning of General Dwight D. Eisenhower: “The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without.”

Dante Barry, Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network Chapter Services and Summer Academy Coordinator

We still got the standard talking points from both Vice President Joe Biden and from Congressman Paul Ryan, and we are still without answers to issues like education, immigration, money in politics, and so forth. I was disheartened to also not hear much for young people, despite Ryan's disconcerting remarks about Social Security. Politically, Vice President Biden did what President Obama should have done last week, though it was an unsuccessful appeal to undecided voters, similarly to last week's presidential debate with an aggressive Romney. I'm glad that we were able to see a well moderated debate that challenged both vice presidential candidates on their actions and their stances. 

David Weinberger, Roosevelt Institute | Pipeline, New York

While it was clear to me that Vice President Biden was able to give the more articulate, level-headed, and progressive vision for America's future last night, he could have been a bit stronger. It's great that both campaigns claim to be fighting for a "fair shot" for the middle class. Indeed, the Obama administration has made some valiant efforts to bring quality education, health care, and other social and economic services to the middle class. But the administration has also made significant progress in ensuring that all Americans, regardless of background or location, have access to the environmental services that underpin public health and economic opportunity. Low- and middle-income Americans don't have a fair shot without clean air, clean water, and access to clean and affordable energy resources. The Obama administration's environmental record is by no means an environmentalist's dream, but the air, water, and climate standards issued under it have been essential--and uncelebrated--components of the recovery. The American economy is nothing without the people who drive it, and that means that we must continue to invest in sustaining healthy communities. Environmental standards and green job investments are not points on the president's record to run away from. The Obama campaign should embrace these accomplishments as linchpins in his recovery effort. By separating the president's environmental record from his economic recovery agenda, the campaign is opening itself up to misguided accusations that the administration has sacrificed economic goals for investments in what Congressman Ryan claims is a failed green jobs program. I'll take a solar installation job and clean water over asthma and a Medicare voucher any day.

Naomi Ahsan, Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network, University of Rochester

My greatest disappointment last night was the lack of detail on Ryan's too-good-to-be-true budget. Twenty-seven days out from an election that everyone says is about the economy, we still don't have any specifics on the proposed tax cuts. Reducing potential revenues is the opposite of paying down a debt. We do know that austerity for our social insurance programs is going to materially increase Americans' suffering. Ryan confirmed tonight that he and Romney don't understand America's struggle. It's not just about saving money and having more to spend. It's also about having a healthy economy with jobs, mobility, and the nurturing of research, education, and entrepreneurship. I do applaud the attention to American foreign policy, which historically and regrettably lacks democratic character in representing American opinions and respecting global humanitarian needs. 

Mawish Raza, Roosevelt Institute | Pipeline, University of Maryland

Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan not only surprised viewers with a gripping, emotional debate, but one that was surprisingly stimulated by substance. Regardless of my personal views, both candidates presented the issues and represented their views through meaningful content. Unlike the enthusiasm, or lack thereof, during the first round of presidential debates last week, both exuded exhilaration throughout the course of the debate, from Vice President Biden’s sarcastic expressions to Congressman Ryan’s searing comebacks. Moderator Martha Raddatz also played the role of an actual moderator by pressing relevant, controversial issues, such as the war in Afghanistan, abortion, and the role of religion in policy. When discussing the tragic loss of Ambassador Stevens and the Obama administration’s reaction to the recent Middle East protests, Congressman Ryan indicated that the appropriate response to a tumultuous minority faction would have been to dismiss the film entirely and only deplore the violence that resulted. With all respect, Mr. Congressman, the glaring problem with this hard power approach -- which would apply to all international affairs -- is that it fails to create a relationship and dialogue with the resentful populations. Mr. Congressman, you probably didn’t notice, but during this misguided "Muslim rage," there were other protests going on in regions such as Cairo -- led by students occupying the American University of Cairo -- for high tuition rates. Following this was a protest by doctors, also in Cairo. This is what the Arab Spring seemed to have missed and what the Romney-Ryan campaign has blatantly ignored. By simply reducing an entire region to the heinous crimes committed by an extremely small, misrepresenting faction, we are encouraging the anti-western sentiment that caused the loss of Ambassador Stevens, continues to influence the ayatollah's negation, and triggers terrorist organizations to keep targeting American civilians. We should not defend these individuals and organizations that jeopardize and endanger our security and react aggressively. At the same time, rather than aggressively imposing our political standards and values on another culture through the presence of our military, we need to create dialogue and conversation that will stabilize a longer-lasting framework. When honoring the loss of a dearly departed diplomat, it is only just to continue the mission and values that he worked so hard to develop in Libya.

Tahsin Chowdhury, Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network, CCNY

The vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan was indeed entertaining, and it was pleasant to see my peers who are not usually politically active to engage in a political discussion through social media. Some people were tweeting/writing statuses about Joe Biden’s use of the word “malarkey” and his laughter, and others were focused on more substantive issues. I had some issues with both candidates and their performance in the debate.

While Joe Biden was substantively the stronger candidate, consistently disproving Paul Ryan’s statements and aggressively standing his ground, it should not go unnoticed that he presented a degree of unprofessionalism in the debate. While Paul Ryan was making his arguments, Vice President Biden consistently interrupted with an argument and trying to disprove his opponent. My “left wing New York" peers were the first to criticize Mitt Romney about interrupting President Obama, but were reluctant to disagree with Joe Biden’s same tendencies. The same happened with my Romney supporter peers except vice versa. This double standard and stubborn bias is unproductive for American “political growth” of the youth and it’s sad to see that people’s objective approaches to a political discussion are waning in numbers. Joe Biden was also inaccurate on one of his statements about the fact the U.S. Embassy that was attacked in Libya did not request more diplomatic security personnel. Many journalistic sources claim they have. While I do not believe Joe Biden bluntly lied, I believe he is inaccurate and this was most likely an internal management flaw within the intelligence community. It does take government a lot of clearance to get from one end to the other. Vice President Biden should have cleared this information with his staff before the debate.That was a lack of responsibility from his end.

Paul Ryan had difficulty criticizing the opposition on foreign policy. When asked about how he’ll increase spending on the defense budget, he denied he said that and made the attempt to justify/fabricate what he said. Biden justified reallocation of defense funds elsewhere in the government by saying that America is ending its wars abroad slowly and money may not be well spent if such funding remains. Paul Ryan attempted to justify adding more to the budget by saying “we need more security” when we clearly spend more money on defense than all the other countries combined. He stumbled on the question of “what’s our current national security threat” and displayed utter weakness of his grasp of the topic. With regards to Afghanistan, they both tended to agree. However, Paul Ryan made the attempt to disagree, which showed weakness. Vice President Biden did a powerful job maintaining the argument that U.S. military was successful in training Afghani security forces.

Democrats and Republicans switched places from the first debate in the sense that Vice President Biden was playing offense and Paul Ryan was playing defense with a weak offense. He maintained accuracy of substance -- for the most part, that is -- and that makes him the “winner” in common wisdom. I look forward to the debate on foreign policy. It will be difficult for Mitt Romney to criticize President Obama on the topic, because much was accomplished in Obama’s four-year term as president: Osama Bin Laden was assassinated, Muammar Gadhafi was murdered and Libya “liberated,” Egypt democratized, and American interests in Southeast Asia were reaffirmed. And Obama continued many Bush policies while affirming the Iraq and Afghanistan troop withdrawal.

Instead of establishing a fair baseline for rich taxpayers, House Republicans want to let the rich chip in whatever they want.

Last October, President Obama introduced the so-called “Buffett Rule,” a tax provision that would require multimillionaires to pay a minimum 30 percent effective tax rate. It was named for the Oracle of Omaha himself, Warren Buffett, who famously complained about paying a lower tax rate than his own secretary. The idea garnered a great deal of public support, with one CNN poll from April 2012 finding as many as 76 percent of Americans in favor. Last week, bowing to popular demand, House Republicans passed the Buffett Rule Act of 2012, which naturally has nothing to do with any of that. Instead of establishing a baseline of fairness, it encapsulates the conservative notion that wealthy Americans shouldn’t be asked to contribute any more to society than they’re willing to volunteer.

The Republicans’ version of the Buffett Rule, which is not actually a “rule” in the sense that you or I or Webster’s Dictionary might understand the word, would allow taxpayers to check a box on their tax forms if they want to contribute more than they owe in order to help pay down the deficit. But, you may ask, can’t taxpayers already choose to pay more than they owe? Why yes, they’re free to send a check to the Treasury Department. So what does this bill actually do? Well, it would add a box they can check to send it to the IRS instead! The Joint Committee on Taxation projects that this bold innovation would help raise $122 million in additional revenue over the next 10 years. That’s slightly less than the $47 billion that Barack Obama’s version of the Buffett Rule would raise, but combined with more tax cuts for the rich and corporations, it puts the hard-nosed deficit hawks in the GOP on track to balance the budget some time around the heat death of the universe.

There’s a fundamental ideological divide between progressives and the modern conservative movement, and it concerns how much they buy into the concept of the social contract. That divide is reflected in the GOP’s fallback response to President Obama’s Buffett Rule proposal: “If Warren Buffett thinks he doesn’t pay enough taxes, why doesn’t he just volunteer to pay more?” Mike Konczal effectively dismantles this pseudo-logic here, and on a rhetorical level, it’s on par with “If you love the government so much, why don’t you marry it?” On the other hand, it makes a certain amount of sense if you think of society as something we can choose to opt out of once it’s outlived its use to us instead of an ongoing support system that we’ve all bought into. If you see the rich as the people who have benefited the most from our tax-funded social structure, it only seems fair to ask them to give back more in tough times. But if you think the rich are noble martyrs who are doing the rest of us a favor by choosing not to “go Galt” and withdraw from society, it’s clearly unjust to ask any more of them unless they volunteer it out of the goodness of their hearts.

Unfortunately, the GOP approach presents an obvious collective action problem, which is why it’s expected to raise so much less money than Obama’s mandatory minimum rate. The reason we have a tax code in the first place is that we determined it was impossible to fund the essential functions of government by having the president busk for tips. We don’t set the federal budget by passing a basket around and adding up the loose change we’ve collected. Congress establishes tax rates, we pay our taxes, and in exchange we get schools, roads, police, firefighters, health care, clean air, safe food, and so on. That’s how it works – except for the wealthiest Americans. With Republicans’ help, they have a few extra steps, like hiding their money in tax shelters, benefiting from all those government services anyway, and then complaining vociferously about how unfairly they’re treated.

Case in point: during last week’s Friday news dump, Mitt Romney released his 2011 tax returns, which showed that he had overpaid his taxes to avoid dropping below a 13 percent effective rate. At first blush this might seem like an example of the Republican Buffett Rule in action: look at this guy, giving until it hurts! Never mind the fact that he once said anyone who did that was some kind of moron who didn’t deserve to be president. But this was pure campaign strategy, not altruism. Having made $13.7 million last year, he paid only a 14.1 percent effective tax rate even after fixing the numbers. The problem is, he’d previously said he’d never paid less than a 13 percent rate in the last 10 years, and if he had taken all the deductions he was entitled to this year, he might have wound up paying as little as 9 percent. To put it another way, if Romney had taken full advantage of the breaks offered to him by the current tax code, he would have paid so little as to embarrass himself. And he’s not alone. According to the Congressional Research Service, one quarter of millionaires pay an effective tax rate of less than 26.5 percent, while 10 million middle-class Americans pay a higher rate.

As former Reagan administration official Bruce Bartlett has noted, the ineffectual nature of the GOP’s Buffett Rule is a feature, not a bug. He writes, “The political reality is that Republicans don’t really support taxation at any level. Of course, none will go on the record saying that they favor abolition of all taxation; they just support every single tax cut and oppose every single tax increase.”

In the extreme Ayn Rand-inspired worldview that Republicans like vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan have embraced, non-voluntary taxation is essentially theft. In reality, it’s the only way to provide vital public goods. As I wrote in the wake of the Aurora shootings, an equitable society depends on a strong and reliable social safety net, not the kindness of strangers. The same holds true for other government functions. If we want the services we’ve determined government can most effectively provide, and if Republicans are serious about wanting to rein in the budget deficit, we need to set rules that establish a steady stream of revenue, not hope that Bill Gates is in an especially good mood when he fills out his 1040.

Tim Price is Deputy Editor of Next New Deal. Follow him on Twitter @txprice.

Tax forms image via Shutterstock.com.