美国总统大选第一次辩论中英互译
奥巴马罗姆尼第一场电视辩论-中文稿
奥巴马罗姆尼第一场电视辩论-中文稿时间：2012年10月3日地点：科罗拉多州，丹佛市，丹佛大学玛格里斯运动场主持人：美国公共广播公司（PBS）“新闻时间”主持人吉姆·莱雷尔（Jim Lehrer）莱雷尔：晚上好。
这里是科罗拉多州丹佛市的丹佛大学玛格里斯运动场。
我是美国公共广播公司《新闻时间》节目主持人吉姆·莱雷尔。
欢迎大家来到2012年总统大选第一次辩论会。
今天辩论双方是民主党候选人、现任总统巴拉克·奥巴马和共和党候选人、前马萨诸塞州州长米特·罗姆尼。
本场以及后面的三场辩论--两场总统辩论和一场副总统辩论--是由总统辩论委员会资助的。
今天晚上的90分钟辩论将围绕国内议题、根据总统辩论委员会规划的形式进行。
辩论由六个部分组成，每个部分大约15分钟。
在每个部分里，辩论双方各花两分钟回答第一个问题，然后就该部分其余问题进行自由辩论。
很多人士通过互联网或其他途径就每部分要讨论的题目提出了各种建议，但是这些议题是由我来挑选的。
在此我声明，这些议题并未提交辩论委员会或候选人筛选。
提前声明，三个部分关于经济议题，其余三个分别是关于医疗服务、政府功能和社会治理议题的。
每个部分都会强调辩论双方的不同意见、具体想法和政策选择。
辩论双方还将各有两分钟的结辩。
现场观众已承诺保持安静。
辩论时不要有喝彩、掌声、嘘声以及其他分散注意力的噪声，确保大家能够把注意力集中到聆听候选人的发言上。
现在，整个辩论会只有现在才允许发出与辩论无关的声音：热烈欢迎奥巴马总统和罗姆尼州长。
（欢呼。
掌声）欢迎你们，两位先生！现在开始第一部分，辩论经济议题。
关于如何创造就业机会，两位主要有什么不同呢？你们都将有两分钟时间陈述观点。
根据抽签顺序，您先请，总统先生。
创造就业机会奥巴马：好的。
谢谢你给我这个机会，吉姆。
我还想感谢罗姆尼州长和丹佛大学的热情。
今晚我想说的很多，但其中最重要的一点，就是20年前米歇尔·奥巴马同意嫁给我，使我成为世界上最幸运的人。
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 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 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 46states 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 notwhat 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 andcredits 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 whowork 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 somemoney 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。
希拉里和特朗普第一次辩论全文（英文）（5篇）
希拉里和特朗普第一次辩论全文（英文）（5篇）第一篇：希拉里和特朗普第一次辩论全文(英文)Round One: Achieving Prosperity The question is about putting more money into the Americans’ pockets.First we have to build an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top.That means we need more jobs, good jobs with rising incomes.I want us to invest in you.I want us to invest in your future.That means jobs in infrastructure and in mass manufacturing, in innovation and technology, clean renewable energy and in small businesses because most of the jobs will come from small business.We also have to make the economy fairer.That starts with raising the national minimum wage and also guarantee finely equal pay for women‘’s work.I also wane see more companies do profit sharing.If you helped make the profit you should be able to share them, not just the executives at the top.And I want us to do more to support people who are struggling to balance family and work.I’ve heard from so many of you about the difficulties you face and the stresses you' re under.And let’s have paid family leave, earned sick days.Let’s make sure we have affordable childcare and debt-free college.How are we gone do it ? We' re gonna do it by making the wealthy pay their fair share, close the corporate loopholes.Our jobs are fleeing the country.They are going to Mexico.They are going to many other countries.You look at what China' s doing to our country in terms of making our product.They ' re devaluing their currency and there ody in’ours government to fight them.And we have a very good fight and we have a winning fight because they are using our country as a piggy bank to rebuild China and many other countries are doingthe same thing.So we are losing our good jobs, so many of them.When you look at what' s happening in Mexico, one of my friend built a plant said it' s the eighth wonder of the world.They're building the big estsome of plants, anywhere in the world, some of the most sophisticated, some of thebest plants.With the United States, as you said, not so much.So Ford is leaving.You see, that, their small cars division, leaving.Thousands of jobs, leaving Michigan, leaving Ohio.They ' re all leaving.And we cannot allow it to happen anymore as far as childcare is concerned and so many other things.I think Hillary and I agree on that and we probably disagree on numbers and amounts and what we're going to do but perhaps we'll talk about that later.But we have to stop our jobs from being stolen from us.We have to stop our companies from leaving the United States, and with it, firing all of their people.All you have to do is take a look at the Carrier air-conditioning in Indianapolis.They left fired 1,400 people.They are going to Mexico.So many, hundreds and hundreds companies are doing this.We cannot let it happen.Under my plan, I' ll be reducing taxes tremendously from 35% to 15% for companies, small and big businesses.That 's gonna be a job creator, like, we haven't seen since Ronald Regan.It going to be a beautiful thing to panies will come.They will build.They will expand.New companies will start.And I look very very much forward to doing it.We have to renegotiate our trade deals.We have to stop these countries from stealing our companies and our jobs.Round Two: Let's T alk About Race Race remains a significant challenge in our country.Unfortunately race still determines too much.Often determines where people live.Determines what kind of education in their public schools they can get.And, yes, it determines howthey’re treated in the criminal justice system.We’ve just seen those tragic examples in both Tulsa and Charlotte.A nd we’got to do several things at the same time.We have to restore trust between communities and the police.We have to work to assure that our police are using the best training, the best technique, that they' re well prepared to use force only when necessary.Everyone should be respected by the law.And everyone should respect the law.Right now that’s not the case in a lot of our neighborhoods.So I have, ever since the first day of my campaign, called for criminal justice reform.I 've laid out a platform that I think will begin to remedy the problems we have in the criminal justice system.But we also have to recognize that in addition to the challenges we face with policing, there are so many brave, good police officers who equally want reform.So we have to bring communities together in order to work on that as a mutual goal.And we’ve got to get guns out of the hands of the people who should not have them.The gun epidemic is the leading cause of death of young African-American men, more than the next 9 causes put together.So we have to do 2 things as I said.We have to restore trust.We have to work with the police.We have to make sure they respect the communities and the communities respect them.And we have to tackle the plague of gun violence which is a contributor to a lot of problems we are seeing today.First of all, Secretary Clinton dosen law and order.We need law and order.We don't wanna use a couple of words.And that ' t have it.We are not gonna'twanna use a couple of words.And that' t have it.We are not gonna'twanna use a couple of words.And that’t have it.We are not gonna'have a country And when I look at what 's going on in Charlotte, the city I lovthe,city I have investments, when I look at what's going onthrough various parts of our country, whether it' s, I mean, I can just keep naming them all day long.We need law and order in our country.And I just got, today, the, eh you know, the endorsement, the fraternal order of police who just came in.We have endorsement from, I think, almost every police group, every, I mean, a lot percentage of them in the United States.We have a situation in which we have, eh, in the city, African-American, Hispanics are living in hell.Because it' s so dangerous.uYowalk down the street, you got shot.In Chicago, they' ve had thousands of shootings, thousands, since January 1st.Thousands of shootings.And I say: where is this? Is this a war-torn country.What are we doing? And we have to stop the violence.We have to bring back law and order in a place like Chicago where thousands of people have been killed, thousands, over the last number of years.In fact, almost 4,000 of people have been killed since Barack Obama became President.Over 4, almost 4,000 people have been killed in Chicago.We have to bring back law and order.Now, whether or not, in a place like Chicago, you do stop and frisk witch worked very well, Mary Julian is here, worked very well in New York.It brought the crime rate way down.But you take the gun away from criminals who shouldn't be having it.We have gangs roaming the street.And in many cases they' re illegally here, illegal immigrants.And they have guns.They shoot people.And we have to be very strong.We have to be very vigilant.We have to be, we have to know what we are doing.Right now our police, in many cases, are afraid to do anything.We have to protect our inner cities because African-American communities are being decimated by crime.Decimated!Round Three: Securing America Hillary：I think cyber security, cyber warfare will be one of the biggestchallenges facing the next president because clearly we are facing at this point 2 different kinds of ad versaries.There are the independent hacking groups that do, mostly, for commercial reasons to try to steal information that they can use to make money.But increasingly we are seeing cyber attacks coming from states, all kinds of states.The most recent and troubling of these are from Russia.There's no doubt now that Russia has used cyber attacks against all kinds of organizations in our country and I am deeply concerned about this.I know Donald' s, very, paise-worthy of Vladimir Putin.But Putin is playing a really tough long game here.And one of the things he's done is to let loose cyber attackers to hack into government files, to hack into personal files, hack into the Democratic National Committee.And we recently have learnt that, you know, this is one of their preferred methods of trying to wreak havoc and collect information.We need to make it very clear, whether it's Russia, China, Iran or anybody else.The United States has a much greater capacity and we are not gonna sit idly by and permit state actors to go after our information, our private sector information and our public sector information.And we are going to have to make it clear that we don' t want to use the kinds of tools that we have to engage in a different kind of warfare.But we will defend the citizens of this country.And the Russians need to understand that.I think they' ve been treating it as it is almost a probing.Howfar will we go? How much will we do? And that's why I was so, I was so shocked when Donald publicly invited Putin to hack into Americans.That is just unacceptable.That’s onereasonsofthewhy 15 national security officials who serve in Republican Information Administration have said that Donald is unfit to be the commander in chief.There’s comments like that really worrypeople who understand the threats that we face.Trump：Yeah, I do wanna say that I was just endorsed and more are coming the next week.It will be over 200 admirals, many of them are here, admirals and generals endorsed me to lead this country.That just happened and many more are coming.And I' m very proud of it.In addition I was just endorsed by ICE.They've never endorsed anybody before.On immigration I was just endorsed by ICE.I was just endorsed.7,500 patrol agents.So when Secretary Clinton talks about this I' ll take the admirals and I' ll t generals, any day over the political hacks that I see that has led our country so brilliantly over the last 10 years with their knowledge.Because look at the mess we' re in.Look at the mess we' re in.As long as there's the cyber, I agree to parts of what Secretary Clinton said.We should be better than anybody else and perhaps we’re not.I don't know if anybody knows that it's Russia that broke into the DNC.She saying Russia RussiaRussia.But I don't.Maybe it was.It could be Russia.But t could also be China.It could also be a lot of other people.Could also be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, OK? You don' t know who broke into DNC.But what do we learn with DNC? We learnt that Bernie Sanders was taken advantage of by your people, by Debbie Wasserman Schultz.Look at what happened to her.But Bernie Sanders was taken advantage of.That's what we learned.Now, whether that was Russia, whether that was China, whether it was another country, we don't know, because the truth is, under President Obama we've lost control of things that we used to have control over.We came in with the Internet, we came up with the Internet, and I think Secretary Clinton and myself would agree very much, when you look at what ISIS is doing with the Internet, they're beating us at our owngame.ISIS.So we have to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare.It is —it is a huge problem.I have a son.He's 10 years old.He has computers.He is so good with these computers, it's unbelievable.The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough.And maybe it's hardly doable.But I will say, we are not doing the job we should be doing.But that's true throughout our whole governmental society.第二篇：希拉里和特朗普第一次辩论(中英文)Round One: Achieving Prosperity 第一轮：实现繁荣主持人说：The question is about putting more money into the Americans’ pockets.问题是：如何让美国人的钱包鼓起来？首先发言的是希拉里：First we have to build an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top.首先，我们要建立一个能为所有人服务的经济体，而非一个只为最富有那群人服务的。
川普希拉里2016年美国大选首场辩论演讲稿中英对照版
Round One: Achieving Prosperity第一轮：实现繁荣主持人说：The question is about putting more money into the Americans’pockets.问题是：如何让美国人的钱包鼓起来？首先发言的是希拉里：First we have to build an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top.首先，我们要建立一个能为所有人服务的经济体，而非一个只为最富有那群人服务的。
That means we need more jobs, good jobs with rising incomes.这意味着跟多的工作岗位，那种有着更高收入的好工作。
I want us to invest in you. I want us to invest in your future.我眼中的投资对象是你们，是你们的未来。
That means jobs in infrastructure and in mass manufacturing, in innovation and technology, clean renewable energy and in small businesses bec ause most of the jobs will come from small business.而这意味着基础设施建设和大型制造业里的岗位、创新和科技领域的岗位、清洁可再生能源领域的岗位，以及小企业里的岗位，因为这些工作大部分会来自小企业。
We also have to make the economy fairer. That starts with raising the national minimum wage and also guarantee finely equal pay for women’s work.我们还得让经济环境更加公平。
2008美国总统竞选辩论中英文对照(可编辑)
2008美国总统竞选辩论中英文对照2008美国总统竞选辩论中英文对照fast lane 快车道快车道 Fast traffic lane慢车道 Slow traffic lane单行道 One way人行道 Pavement超车道 Exceed the lane硬路肩 Shoulder of hard way非机动车道 Non- flexible lane机动车道 Flexible laneslow lane. 慢车道One Way Streetroad 单行道sidewalk 人行道2008-10-12 10:32?LEHRER: Good evening from the Ford Center for the Performing Arts at the University of Mississippi in Oxford. I'm Jim Lehrer of the NewsHour on PBS, and I welcome you to the first of the 2008 presidential debates between the Republican nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, and the Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.主持人:晚上好,这里是牛津密西西比大学的表演艺术中心。
我是来自公共广播公司《新闻时间》的吉姆.拉勒尔。
我欢迎你们来到2008年首场总统竞选辩论。
两位总统候选人是来自亚利桑那州的共和党提名人??议员约翰.麦凯恩,和来自伊利诺斯州的民主党提名人??议员贝拉克.奥巴马。
注:牛津,密西西比南部一城市,位于田纳西州孟斐斯东南偏南。
是密西西比大学的所在地老密西,建于1844年,它是威廉姆?福克纳的家乡。
人口9,882 The Commission on Presidential Debates is the sponsor of this event and the three other presidential and vice presidential debates coming in October.总统竞选辩论委员会是这次辩论以及即将在10月份的另外三次总统竞选辩论和副总统竞选辩论的主办者。
2008年美国大选奥巴马胜选演讲全文(中文英文对照)
2008年美国大选奥巴马胜选演讲全文（中文英文对照演说）08年11.5大选美国总统奥巴马胜选演说《美国的变革》您好，芝加哥。
美国是否暗藏一切皆有可能的巨大潜力？美国是否已经实现开国者锻造的美国梦？民主信仰是否具有强大力量？如果还有人对此报以怀疑，那么今晚这里发生的一切就是答案。
学校旁、教堂边，无数人都在排队投票，这一情景我们已经多年未见；3个小时、4个小时，他们为此而等候良久，这是很多同胞有生以来的第一次。
因为他们相信，这一次，将不同以往；这一次，因为他们的呼声而有所不同。
无论老少贫富，无论共和党抑或民主党，不管是黑皮肤、白种人、拉丁后裔、亚裔子孙还是本土美国人；无论性向如何，不管健康抑或残疾，所有的美国人民都向全世界传递出这样一条信息：我们从来都不是红蓝阵营的政治堆砌，我们是，而且永远是，美利坚合众国。
长期以来，很多人缺乏信心，对自己所能取得的成就畏首畏尾、疑心重重。
如今，我们走在历史的长河里，挺起胸膛，勾勒出美好明天的光辉画卷。
此情此景，等待尤长。
然而，就在今晚，在这个大选的日子，在这个具有历史性意义的时刻，由于你们的付出，美国终于迎来了变革。
刚刚，我接到了麦凯恩参议员礼貌得体的祝贺电话。
为了此次竞选，他奋战良久、竭尽所能；为了他所深爱的美国，他曾作出了更长久、更努力的奉献。
麦凯恩参议员为美国所作出的牺牲是大部分人难以想象的，他这种英勇无私的奉献改善了我们的生活。
对于麦凯恩参议员和佩林州长所取得的成就，我对他们致以祝贺。
在接下来的几个月里，以重振美国为目标，我期待着与他们的合作。
在此，我想感谢一路陪伴我的竞选搭档，他就是我们即将上任的副总统，乔-拜登。
为了让美国广大的工人阶层发出自己的声音，他毫无私心地全身心投入竞选，因为他和那些宾夕法尼亚州斯克兰顿城街头的人们一样，出生平凡，一切白手起家。
如果没有米歇尔-奥巴马，这一准美国第一夫人的坚定支持，今晚，我就不会站在这儿了。
我们相伴走过了16个春秋，她是我们整个家庭的顶梁柱，我一生的挚爱。
林肯总统就职演讲中英文对照
林肯总统在1861年的第一次就职演说--英文版First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861Fellow-Citizens of the United States: In compliance with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President before he enters on the execution of this office." I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement. Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered.There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that-- I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read: Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause--as cheerfully to one section as to another. There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions: No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law.All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution--to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equalunanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath? There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"? I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional. It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success.Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted. I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself. Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as acontract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak--but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution.It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union." But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to thateffect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and Ishall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself. In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices. The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections. That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak? Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake? All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority?The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this. Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession? Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left. I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes. One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive- slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other. Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of ourcountry can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you. This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable. The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor. Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people. By the frame of the Government under which we live this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years. My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new Administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken thisfavored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty. In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it." I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.林肯总统第一次就职演说(1861年3月4日)林肯[学术交流网按：林肯是美国人民和政治家推崇的伟大人物之一，他的维护国家同意，反对分裂的主张，反对扩张奴隶制的主张尤其受到广泛赞扬。
2008年美国大选奥巴马胜选演讲全文(中文英文对照)
2008年美国大选奥巴马胜选演讲全文（中文英文对照演说）08年11.5大选美国总统奥巴马胜选演说《美国的变革》您好，芝加哥。
美国是否暗藏一切皆有可能的巨大潜力？美国是否已经实现开国者锻造的美国梦？民主信仰是否具有强大力量？如果还有人对此报以怀疑，那么今晚这里发生的一切就是答案。
学校旁、教堂边，无数人都在排队投票，这一情景我们已经多年未见；3个小时、4个小时，他们为此而等候良久，这是很多同胞有生以来的第一次。
因为他们相信，这一次，将不同以往；这一次，因为他们的呼声而有所不同。
无论老少贫富，无论共和党抑或民主党，不管是黑皮肤、白种人、拉丁后裔、亚裔子孙还是本土美国人；无论性向如何，不管健康抑或残疾，所有的美国人民都向全世界传递出这样一条信息：我们从来都不是红蓝阵营的政治堆砌，我们是，而且永远是，美利坚合众国。
长期以来，很多人缺乏信心，对自己所能取得的成就畏首畏尾、疑心重重。
如今，我们走在历史的长河里，挺起胸膛，勾勒出美好明天的光辉画卷。
此情此景，等待尤长。
然而，就在今晚，在这个大选的日子，在这个具有历史性意义的时刻，由于你们的付出，美国终于迎来了变革。
刚刚，我接到了麦凯恩参议员礼貌得体的祝贺电话。
为了此次竞选，他奋战良久、竭尽所能；为了他所深爱的美国，他曾作出了更长久、更努力的奉献。
麦凯恩参议员为美国所作出的牺牲是大部分人难以想象的，他这种英勇无私的奉献改善了我们的生活。
对于麦凯恩参议员和佩林州长所取得的成就，我对他们致以祝贺。
在接下来的几个月里，以重振美国为目标，我期待着与他们的合作。
在此，我想感谢一路陪伴我的竞选搭档，他就是我们即将上任的副总统，乔-拜登。
为了让美国广大的工人阶层发出自己的声音，他毫无私心地全身心投入竞选，因为他和那些宾夕法尼亚州斯克兰顿城街头的人们一样，出生平凡，一切白手起家。
如果没有米歇尔-奥巴马，这一准美国第一夫人的坚定支持，今晚，我就不会站在这儿了。
我们相伴走过了16个春秋，她是我们整个家庭的顶梁柱，我一生的挚爱。
2016年美国总统大学第一场总统辩论(中英对照)
Hilary：“The kind of plan that Donald is put forward would trickle down economy all over again. And that would be the most extreme version.”
“That is not how we grow the economy. ”
“I think we come out of it with somewhat different perspectives. I understand that. You know Donald was very fortunate in his life and that’s all to his benefit. He started his business with 14 million dollar borrowed from his father. And he really believes that the more you help wealthy people, the better off will be. I don’t buy that.”
“我们占全球5%的人口，我们必须跟剩下的95%进行贸易。”
“八年前，我们经历了最坏的金融危机，最大的衰退，自20世纪30年来以来最严重的。这最主要就是因为施加在富人身上的巨额税务，而不是为中产阶级进行投入。”
2012美国总统大选首场辩论
2012美国总统大选首场辩论（中文字幕完整版）美国大选首场辩论文本（转自CNN）(APPLAUSE) JIM LEHRER: Thirty seconds, folks. Let's have a terrific evening, for all of you and for our country. 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 or 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. (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. A coin toss has determined, Mr. President, you go first.PRESIDENT 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 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. 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 saysAmerica does best when the middle class does best? And I'm looking forward to having that debate.LEHRER: Governor Romney, two minutes.GOV. MITT ROMNEY: Thank you, Jim. It's an honor to be here with you, and I appreciate the chance to be with the president. I'm 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 at 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 4 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 a far way 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 toopen 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.ROMNEY: 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, 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. LEHRER: Mr. President, please respond directly to what the governor just said about trickle-down -- his trick-down approach, as he said yours is. 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 100,000 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 sources of the future, like wind and solar and biofuels, and make those investments. So all ofthis 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 -- that's another trillion dollars -- and $2 trillion in additional military spending that the military the deficit, and make the investments that we need to make, without dumping those costs onto middle-class Americans, I think is one of the central questions of this campaign. 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? 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 byhigh-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 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. At 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.ROMNEY: 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 I'll just note. First, education. I agree: Education is key, particularly the future of our economy. But our training programs right now, we've got 47 of them, housed in the federal government, reporting to eight different agencies. Overhead is overwhelming. We've got to get those dollars back to the states and go to the workers so they can create their own pathways to get in 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 licenses 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 can 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 principal is, there will 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 dothat, that also means I cannot reduce the burden paid by high-income Americans. So any -- any language to the contrary is simply not accurate. LEHRER: Mr. 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 that 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 deductions and loopholes, and he hasn't been able to identify them. But I'm going to make an important point here, Jim. LEHRER: All right. OBAMA: When you add up all the loopholes and deductions that upper-income individuals can -- are currently taking advantage of, 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.OBAMA: 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 deficitis 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 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. LEHRER: All right. What is the difference? Let's just stay on taxes. (CROSSTALK)LEHRER: Just -- let's just stay on taxes for (inaudible). (CROSSTALK)LEHRER: What is the difference...ROMNEY: Well, but -- but virtually -- virtually everything he just said about my tax plan is inaccurate.LEHRER: All right.ROMNEY: So if the tax plan he described were a tax plan I was 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 that can say Mitt Romney's tax plan adds $5 trillion 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 know that you and your running mate keep saying that and I know it's a popular thing to say with a lot of people, but it's just not the case. Look, I've 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. 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 to $4,000 on middle-income families. There are all these studies out there. But let's get at the bottom line. That is, I want to bring down rates. I want to bring the rates down, atthe same time lower deductions and exemptions and credits and so forth, so we keep getting the revenue we need. And you'd think, well, then why lower the rates? ROMNEY: And the reason is because small business pays that individual rate; 54 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. This is about getting jobs for the American people. (CROSSTALK)LEHRER: That's where we started. Yeah. Do you challenge what the governor just said about his own plan?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 described, 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 cannot only reduce the deficit, we cannot 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. 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. Now, 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. LEHRER: All right.ROMNEY: Jim, let me just come back on that -- on that point, which is these... LEHRER: Just for the -- just for record... (CROSSTALK)ROMNEY: ... the small businesses we're talking about...LEHRER: Excuse me. Excuse me. Just so everybody understands, we're way over our first 15 minutes.ROMNEY: It's fun, isn't it? LEHRER: It's OK, it's great. No problem. Well, you all don't have -- you don't have a problem, I don't have a problem, because we're still on the economy. We're going to come back to taxes. I want move on to the deficit and a lot of other things, too. OK, but go ahead, sir.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 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 to take their tax rate from 35 percent to 40 percent. Now, and -- and I've 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 more taxes. That's by far the most effective and efficient way to get this budget balanced. OBAMA: Jim, I -- you may want to move onto another topic, but I -- 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 ROMNEY: We didn't put in place a board that can tell people ultimately what treatments they're going to receive. 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 theirinsurance as Obamacare goes into effect next year. And likewise, a study by McKinsey and 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 insurance, this is why the American people don't want Medicare -- don't want Obamacare. It's why Republicans said, do not do this, and the Republicans had -- had the 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 on 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. 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 there -- 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 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'sget 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 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 -- 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. give you a sense, over 10 years, that's more than our entire defense ROMNEY: We didn't put in place a board that can tell people ultimately what treatments they're going to receive. 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 and 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 insurance, this is why the American people don't want Medicare -- don't want Obamacare. It's why Republicans said, do not do this, and the Republicans had -- had the plan. They put a plan out. They put out a plan, abipartisan plan. It was swept aside. I think something this big, this important has to be done on 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. 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 there -- 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 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。
美国大选首场辩论
美国大选首场辩论英文回答：The first presidential debate was held on September 29, 2020. The debate was moderated by Chris Wallace of Fox News. The two candidates were President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden.The debate was widely watched, with an estimated 73 million viewers. The debate was heated, with bothcandidates frequently interrupting each other. Trump in particular was criticized for his aggressive behavior.The debate covered a wide range of topics, includingthe economy, healthcare, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump and Biden had very different views on most of these issues.On the economy, Trump touted his record of low unemployment and rising wages. Biden argued that Trump's policies had benefited the wealthy at the expense of themiddle class.On healthcare, Trump said he would repeal and replacethe Affordable Care Act. Biden said he would expand the Affordable Care Act and create a public option.On the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump said he had done agreat job handling the crisis. Biden said Trump had downplayed the severity of the virus and failed to take the necessary steps to protect Americans.The debate was widely criticized for its lack of substance and civility. However, it did provide voters with a clear contrast between the two candidates.中文回答：总统大选的首场辩论于2020年9月29日举行。
1960年尼克松肯尼迪辩论英汉
1960年尼克松肯尼迪辩论英汉第一篇：1960年尼克松肯尼迪辩论英汉美国裹足不前（1960年总统辩论：肯尼迪—尼克松）肯尼迪：我说过，我已经为这个国家服务了14年，我在战时去保卫美国，我把我的一切奉献给我的祖国。
如果我在这次竞选中失败了，我要继续在参议院为建设一个强大的美国而奋斗。
我之所以要参加竞选，是因为我看到了美国在今年有很大的发展机会，有在国内和全世界大展宏图的机会，有重新把美国建设成一个朝气蓬勃、蒸蒸日上的社会的机会。
我认为，共和党在美国仍然裹足不前，在世界也裹足不前。
我们今天仅使用了美国50%的钢铁生产能力。
我在1958年出现了经济衰退，我在1954年出现了经济衰退。
如果我们仍然裹足不前，如果我们任命的大使和华盛顿的其他官员不能意识到现在处于革命性的阶段，那么美国就不会保持它的实力。
如果我们失败了，自由的事业也就失败了。
我认为下一任美国总统有责任让这个国家重新运转起来，发展我们的经济，向美国人民明确美国的目标和未完成的事业。
然后，在全世界尽可能任命最优秀的人才，大使要会讲驻在国的语言，不是看他的政治捐献，而看他会不会讲驻在国的语言。
我认为这个党——共和党——的25年的领导一直裹足不前，它反对罗斯福和其他总统提出的所有计划，如最低工资、住房、经济增长、开发美国自然资源和田纳西大峡谷等计划。
我认为，如果我们能有一个坚信运转、坚信发展的党，那么我们就能重新树立起我们在世界的地位——强大的国防、高速的经济增长、对我们人民的公正、确保宪法权利，让人民相信我们说到做到，然后，在全世界重新建立像富兰克林·罗斯福总统所创建的拉丁美洲那样的环境（译者注：当时的拉丁美洲是美国的势力范围，是美国的“后院”）。
罗斯福总统在拉丁美洲人的眼里是个好邻居，因为他在美国就是个好邻居，因为他们看到的我们是一个充满同情心、互相关爱、推动国家前进的社会。
我相信，作为民主党领袖的我有责任提醒美国人民，1960年是决定性的一年，我们不能再裹足不前了，我们不能再屈居第二了。
最新整理美国肯尼迪总统就职演说英文原稿及中文译文范文.docx
最新整理美国肯尼迪总统就职演说英文原稿及中文译文美国肯尼迪总统就职演说英文原稿及中文译文We observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom -- symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning-- signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three-quarters ago. 我们今天在这里，不是庆祝政党的胜利，而是共享自由的庆典――标志着一个结束，也是一个开始――彰显着更新，也彰显着改变。
因为我在你们面前许下我们的祖先近xxxx年前制定的相同的庄严誓言。
The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man e not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.当今的世界已经是今非昔比。
因为人类的血肉之手掌握着消除人类一切贫困和生命的魔力。
里根第一次就任美国总统时的演讲（中文翻译）
里根第一次就任美国总统时的演讲（中文翻译）1、对于今天在此的我们中的一些人，这是一个庄严的值得纪念的时刻。
然而在我国的历史上，这不过是个司空见惯的事件。
这个按宪法要求的有序的政权交替周而复始地进行了近二百年，而我们中很少有人停下来考虑一下我们到底有多么独特。
在世界上很多人的眼里，这个我们习以为常的四年一度的庆典不啻一个奇迹。
2、总统先生，我要让人民知道您为传承这一传统付出了多少心血。
在这个政权交替过程中，您的殷切合作向关注的世人展示了我们是一个统一的民族，决心维系一个比其他任何一个国家都更保证个人自由的政治体制。
我要感谢您和您的同僚在维护国策连续性上给予的倾力合作。
3、我国的事业继往开来。
我国的大多数州都经历着经济困境。
我们苦于历史上最严重、持续时间最长的通货膨胀之一。
它扭曲了我们的经济决策，惩罚了节俭，粉碎了奋斗的年轻人和固定收入的老人们等的梦想。
它威胁着要粉碎成千成万美国人的生活。
4、不景气的工业让工人们陷入失业、霉运和无尊严中。
很多人付出了辛劳却没有收获应得的回报，始作俑者就是惩罚成就和阻碍我们发挥最大生产力的税收体系。
5、但是尽管我们的税收负担很重，还是跟不上公共开销。
几十年来我们赤字不断累积，为了当前片刻的方便透支了我们的未来和我们子孙后代的未来。
纵容这种趋势就是放任无尽的社会、文化、政治和经济动荡。
6、你和我，作为个人，可以靠借贷，超前消费，但只能在有限的一段时间内。
那么为什么我们作为一个集体，即一个国家来考虑这个问题，我们就不被同一限制约束了呢？7、为了我们的明天，我们今天必须行动。
毋庸置疑，我们今天将开始一个新的开始。
8、我们遭遇的经济顽症已经持续几十年了。
它们不会在几天、几周或几个月内消失，但它们一定会消失。
之所以它们一定会消失，是因为我们美国人现在具备这个实力，如同我们过去一样，完成保卫这个自由世界最后的最伟大的堡垒所需要做的一切。
9、在当前的危机中，政府不是我们的问题的解，政府本身就是问题。
2021美国总统大选辩论会中文版(血泪翻译版)
2021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2021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。
美国总统乔治华盛顿第一次就职演讲(英汉对照)
美国总统乔治华盛顿第一次就职演讲（英汉对照）乔治华盛顿，美国开国总统，由于他扮演了美国独立战争和建国中最重要的角色，华盛顿通常被称为美国国父。
学者们则将他和亚伯拉罕林肯并列为美国历史上最伟大的总统。
Nothing filled me with greater anxieties than that of which the notification was transmitted by your order, and received on the 14th day of the present month.On the one hand, I was summoned by my country, whose voice I can never hear but with veneration and love, from a retreat which I had chosen with the fondest predilection, and, in my flattering hopes, with an immutable decision, as the asylum of my declining years a retreat which was rendered every day more necessary as well as more dear to me by the addition of habit to inclination, and of frequent interruptions in my health to the gradual waste committed on it by time.在人生沉浮中，没有一件事能比你们于本月14日送达的通知更使我焦虑不安。
一方面，国家召唤我出任此职，对于她的召唤，我永远只能肃然敬从；而隐退是我以挚爱心情、满腔希望和坚定的决心选择的暮年归宿，由于爱好和习惯，时感体力不济，愈觉隐退之必要和可贵。
美国总统大选首场电视辩论 Language Points
美国总统大选首场电视辩论Language Points Domestic issues 国内事务Segment One: JobsTrickle-down government 滴入式政府（Double down on ）the top-down economic policies (强化)自上而下的经济政策A recipe for economic growth 经济增长处方(Embrace) a new economic patriotism （拥抱）一种新的经济爱国主义Auto industry 汽车工业Tax relief 税额减免Housing 房地产Bring back housing 把房地产带动起来Running mate 竞选伙伴On the brink of collapse 濒临崩溃边缘Get us into this mess 陷入这种困境Slip in to a Great Depression 滑入大萧条The financial system had frozen up. 金融系统处于冰冻期Weather the extraordinary recession 经受不寻常的衰退Financial calamity 金融灾难Resilience 顺应力Fight our way back 赢回昔日的繁荣Has come roaring back 恢复元气Restore the vitality 恢复活力Show gains in 显现成效Roll back regulations 把监管减少到最低水平Wind down two wars 缩减两场战争Reduce deficit (in a balanced way) （采用平衡的方式）减少赤字Close our deficit 减少赤字Get us to a balanced budget 做到平衡预算Discretionary domestic budget 弹性国内预算A tender topic 棘手的问题Toughest-to deal-with 最难管理的Tackle the problem 着手解决问题Take some initial emergency measures 采取一些起始紧急措施Take a different path 走一条不同的道路Right course for …正确的道路Go down the path to Spain 走上西班牙的道路Open up more trade 开放更多贸易Crack down on China 压制中国Champion small business 支持小企业New business startups are down to a x-year low. 新创建公司数降到x年来最低。
总统辩论(中英对照)
Presidential DebatesDebates among candidates are rare in most countries. But they have become a staple1 of American politics, particularly during the last 25 years. Americans like debates because the candidates can be compared in an unscripted, live performance. The candidates don't know what questions will be asked, nor what their opponent might say. History indicates that a bad performance, particularly a telling gaffe2, can badly damage a candidate in the polls. The debates are a “ key test” of the st rength and abilities of the candidates, says CNN analyst Jeff Greenfield. A candidate cannot package himself in debates the way he can in party advertisements but must be quick on his feet3 to respond to unanticipated4 questions and criticisms, he adds.The unforgettable debate quip5 that can deflate6 a candidacy is the worst nightmare of any presidential hopeful.“ There you go again” , Ronald Reagan's memorable retort7 to President Jimmy Carter, was a line8 that stuck with both viewers and commentators in the l980 presidential campaign. Carter went on to lose the election, polls showed mostly because of the economy. But Carter's debate performance didn't help. Another example was Vice President Walter Mondale's deadly question to Senator Gary Hart, his main competitor in the 1984 Democratic primaries, “ Where's the beef?” Mondale borrowed the line from a hamburger commercial that had used the phrase to suggest that competing products shortchanged9 the consumer. Mondale, in effect, suggested that Hart's ideas were short on substance.The potential of debates to damage a vulnerable presidential hopeful is one reason why some candidates, particularly frontrunners10, are reluctant to risk their chances in such an uncontrolled environment--and the fewer debate rules there are,the less control the candidates have.But broadcast presidential debates,both in the primaries and in the general election,are now routine and expected by the American people.It was not always so. Face-to-face presidential debates began their broadcast history in 1948 when Republicans Thomas Dewey and Harold Stassen faced each other in a radio debate during the Oregon Republican presidential primary. The first broadcast television debates between the two major party nominees were in 1960 when Senator John F. Kennedy faced Vice President Richard Nixon.The debates were considered crucial to Kennedy’ s narrow11 victory. Interestingly, Americans who heard the debate on radio thought Nixon had won. But the far larger television audience applauded Kennedy's performance, testimony to the importance--in the television age--of image as well as substance. The point is Americans are concerned not just with a leader's policies and ideology12, but also with his character and temperament13. In the contentious14 atmosphere of a debate, such personal attributes15 are easier for voters to judge than in pre-packaged campaign commercials or formal speeches. Because television debates were deemed so crucial to the outcome of the 1960 election--dooming Richard Nixon to a narrow loss in the opinion of manyanalysts--the presidential nominees in the subsequent three presidential elections shield16 away from debates, feeling the risks were too great. Not until 1976 when Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter confronted President Gerald Ford was there another presidential debate. Since then, there have been debates in each of the presiden tial election years. The American people now expect them and it is doubtful a candidate could refuse to participate, analysts say.Since 1987, the presidential debates have been organized by the bipartisan17 organization, the Commission on Presidential Debates. Its purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the presidential and vice presidential candidates of the two major parties. In Election 2000, the commission set a threshold18 for the participation of third party candidates in the debates. They must show they have the support--as evidenced in a number of opinion polls--of at least 15 percent of the population.Whatever the quality of the debates in Election 2000, they are unlikely to equal the most famous political debates in American history which occurred long before the invention of radio and television. In 1858, Stephen Douglas debated Abraham Lincoln for a U.S. Senate seat. The debates were held at seven sites throughout Illinois, onefor each of the seven congressional districts. Douglas, a pro-slavery Democrat,was the incumbent19.Lincoln was anti-slavery. “ Honest Abe,” as he was endearingly called, lost the Senate race, but two years later was elected the first Republican president of the United States. The Lincoln Douglas debates are still heralded20 for the quality of the discourse at a crucial time in the nation's history.总统辩论候选人之间的辩论在大多数国家都很稀奇，但它们在美国政治生活中已司空见惯，特别是在过去的25年里。
【VIP专享】2013年美国总统奥巴马就职演说中英文对照文稿(全)
Read the inaugural speech and compare it with JFK‘s Speech to find any commonalities and differences in lexis, syntax, rhetoric, emotions and style. You may need to take different historical era of their presidency into consideration.Write a 300-word report and submit next week.2013年美国总统奥巴马就职演说中英文对照文稿（全）北京时间1月22日凌晨，贝拉克·侯赛因·奥巴马宣誓就职第四十四任美利坚合众国总统并发表就职演说。
奥巴马在演讲中追溯美国民主传统和宪法精神，强调了民众的力量。
演讲中涉及了包括就业、医保、移民和同性恋等多项议题，以下为奥巴马就职演说全文：MR. OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you so much. Vice President Biden, Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the United States Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:谢谢，非常感谢大家。
拜登副总统、首席大法官先生、国会议员们、尊敬的各位嘉宾、亲爱的公民们。
Each time we gather to inaugurate a president, we bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution. We affirm the promise of our democracy. We recall that what binds this nation together is not the colors of our skin or the tenets of our faith or the origins of our names. What makes us exceptional –what makes us American –is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:当我们每次聚集在一起为总统举行就职典礼时，我们都是在见证美国宪法的不朽力量。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
美国总统大选第一场辩论中英翻译LEHRER: Gentlemen, at this very moment tonight, where do you stand on the financial recovery plan?First response to you, Senator Obama. You have two minutes.主持：先生们，在今晚此刻，你们所支持的金融复兴的计划如何？首先是议员奥巴马，你有两分钟演说时间。
OBAMA: Well, thank you very much, Jim, and thanks to the commission and the University of Mississippi, "Ole Miss," for hosting us tonight. I can't think of a more important time for us to talk about the future of the country.奥巴马：谢谢，JIM，也感谢密西西比大学为我们今晚举办的辩会，我想这是我们谈谈关于美国的将来的最好时机了。
You know, we are at a defining moment in our history. Our nation is involved in two wars, and we are going through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.你知道，我们正处于历史的决定性的时刻。
我们国家卷入了两场战争，我们经历大萧条以来最严重的金融危机。
And although we've heard a lot about Wall Street, those of you on Main Street I think have been struggling for a while, and you recognize that this could have an impact on all sectors of the economy.尽管我们听到很多关于华尔街的，我一直苦苦地沉思，而你也意识到了，这可能影响到经济的所有部门。
And you're wondering, how's it going to affect me? How's it going to affect my job? How's it going to affect my house? How's it going to affect my retirement savings or my ability to send my children to college?你是否知道，它如何在影响我？如何影响我的工作？如何影响我的房子？如何影响我的退休金以及影响孩子上大学了？So we have to move swiftly, and we have to move wisely. And I've put forward a series of proposals that make sure that we protect taxpayers as we engage in this important rescue effort.因此，我们必须迅速采取行动，而且要明智。
我已经提出了一系列建议，以确保我们在从事救市工作同时保护纳税人的利益。
No. 1, we've got to make sure that we've got oversight over this whole process; $700 billion, potentially, is a lot of money.首先，我们确保我们监督整个过程，7000亿美元，可能是很多的钱。
No. 2, we've got to make sure that taxpayers, when they are putting their money at risk, have the possibility of getting that money back and gains, if the market -- and when the market returns.其次，我们必须确保，当他们把自己的钱处于风险之中的纳税人，如果在市场回报的时候有可能获得资金支持和收益。
No. 3, we've got to make sure that none of that money is going to pad CEO bank accounts or to promote golden parachutes.第三，我们必须确保没有钱是要垫在首席执行官银行账户中或以提高那黄金保险器。
And, No. 4, we've got to make sure that we're helping homeowners, because the root problem here has to do with the foreclosures that are taking place all across the country.第四，我们必须确保我们能够帮助房子拥有者，因为问题的根源与正在全国发生的取消抵押品赎回权有关。
Now, we also have to recognize that this is a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by George Bush, supported by Senator McCain, a theory that basically says that we can shred regulations and consumer protections and give more and more to the most, and somehow prosperity will trickle down.现在，我们也认识到，这是乔治布什推动的、麦凯恩支持的八年失败的经济政策的一个最后的判决,这个理论政策就是我们可以撕碎规章和消费者保护，并给予更多的最，以将露出某种繁荣。
It hasn't worked. And I think that the fundamentals of the economy have to be measured by whether or not the middle class is getting a fair shake. That's why I'm running for president, and that's what I hope we're going to be talking about tonight.它是行不通的。
我想，经济基础必须衡量的是，中产阶级的利益是否合理的动摇。
这就是我为什么参选总统的原因，也就是我希望今晚我们将谈及的东西。
LEHRER: Senator McCain, two minutes.主持：麦凯恩议员，你有两分钟。
MCCAIN: Well, thank you, Jim. And thanks to everybody.And I do have a sad note tonight. Senator Kennedy is in the hospital. He's a dear and beloved friend to all of us. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the lion of the Senate.谢谢，JIM，还有所有的人。
我今晚感到不愉快，因为肯尼迪议员在医院，他是我们亲爱的朋友，我们的思念和祈祷去到了参议院以外。
I also want to thank the University of Mississippi for hosting us tonight.And, Jim, I -- I've been not feeling too great about a lot of things lately. So have a lot of Americans who are facing challenges. But I'm feeling a little better tonight, and I'll tell you why.我也感谢密西西比大学今晚为我们筹办的一切。
JIM，我对于近来的很多事情感到不是很好。
有很多美国人面临着挑战。
但我今晚正觉得好一点，这将是我告诉你为什么。
Because as we're here tonight in this debate, we are seeing, for the first time in a long time, Republicans and Democrats together, sitting down, trying to work out a solution to this fiscal crisis that we're in.因为在我们今晚的辩论这里，我们可以看到，在很长一段时间里的头一次，民主党和共和党正坐下来，尝试想出办法来解决我们正处于的金融危机问题。
And have no doubt about the magnitude of this crisis. And we're not talking about failure of institutions on Wall Street. We're talking about failures on Main Street, and people who will lose their jobs, and their credits, and their homes, if we don't fix the greatest fiscal crisis, probably in -- certainly in our time, and I've been around a little while.这场危机的规模是不须怀疑的。