So What Changes if Romney is Elected?

• ptown_trojans_1

  

  ccrunner609;1203436 wrote:THe day after Romney gets elected.....everything will change. The business structure in this country that makes the economy tick will take of. The piss poor economy has everything to do with one thing...Obama is the president. There is nothing that will change this until an election.
  
  Romney will go down as one of the greatest president following the worst we have ever had. Its like Reagan following Carter.

  You honestly think that? That businesses are sand bagging earnings and growth until Romney is President? Really, you think the Government has that much impact in the global economy?
  
  Nevertheless, that it's Congress, and not the President that probably has more to do with the economy, taxes, etc.
  If you really think that, then you are the same as the crazy people that thought Obama would change Washington Jan. 2009.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  ccrunner609;1203471 wrote:I know 2-3 business owners that are sitting on their hands waiting 2 see what the tax hikes in January are going to do.

  That's Congress there chief.
  Doesn't matter who is in the WH on that one.
  
  White House has really no political capital on the Hill anymore.
  Plus, I know more that could care less about the Presidential election. They are more worried about the do-nothing Congress.
• Con_Alma

  I'll take a do nothing congress so long as I am aware that they are going to do nothing. It's the things that they do that create deficits and uncertainty. Uncertainty is the worst business environement. All other business climates can be adapted to and improved by the private sector.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Con_Alma;1203482 wrote:I'll take a do nothing congress so long as I am aware that they are going to do nothing. It's the things that they do that create deficits and uncertainty. Uncertainty is the worst business environement. All other business climates can be adapted to and improved by the private sector.

  The flip side of that is the debt grows. Medicare stays the current way, health care costs continue to eat up the budget.
  Do nothing continues the spending problems as things will stay the same, not reduce.
  
  If people are serious about the debt, the way Congress operates has to change.
• Con_Alma

  ...or doing nothing lets the tax cuts expre and we have another slow down...business adapt and emerge with a plan to increase market share ad grow. Revenue increase at the federal level andsocial programs become insolvent and and to be terminated.
  
  Doing nothing is still better than increasing the debt at anincreasing rate. How sad is that.
  
  The key is to stop spending and be predictable with tax liabilities.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  And Medicare takes care of itself?
  Doing nothing solves nothing.
  
  Come on, Tea Party people were screaming about changing Washington, cutting spending, etc.
  A do-nothing Congress will just keep passing CR's, which will still keep spending at its current rate, which will solve nothing.
• gut

  ptown_trojans_1;1203476 wrote:That's Congress there chief.
  Doesn't matter who is in the WH on that one.
  
  White House has really no political capital on the Hill anymore.
  Plus, I know more that could care less about the Presidential election. They are more worried about the do-nothing Congress.

  You're really letting Obama way off the hook on the leadership front. He can't even get his party to follow him - control of the House and a near supermajority in the Senate and they still couldn't pass a budget. Abject failure no matter how you try to spin it or deflect blame.
• Con_Alma

  No Medicare does not take care of itself.
  
  I don't need solutions from congress. More important, I don't want them. I've had enough "solutions" in my lifetime. We won't addres the debt significantly without a long, stable economic run...at least in a healthy manner. I'd be happy with certainty from a tax perspective and a year or four! of balanced budgets. Humor me congress. Quit with the "solutions" for a while.
  
  To suggest that there's any reason to believe that congressional actions will solve our debt issue in a significant manner is ridiculous. There's nothing to base such a belief on. It will more likley be an accidently economic boom that makes a greater impact.
• gut

  sleeper;1203438 wrote:This is akin to advocating everyone eating a diet high in cholesterol and sugar until you have a heart attack and then to cut back on cholesterol and sugar.
  
  Buy time for what? No one wants to sacrifice anything; not now, not 5 years from now, not 40 years from now. Romney is another kick the can down the road kind of guy and the 2 in 2016 will be another pair of people willing to kick the can down the road. Consensus can go **** itself, it's time to get this **** right.

  So you'll take your ball and go home then? Driving over the cliff 10 years earlier is not a material difference to you? Whether we go over the cliff in 3 years or 30 years is irrelevant?!?
  
  NO ONE, not even "genius" Ron Paul is going to fix this overnight. We need a tourniquet right now. Your choice appears to be to sit and do nothing because you don't like the solutions on the table - that's not enlightened, that's irresponsbile. You're kicking the can by omission.
• gut

  ccrunner609;1203471 wrote:I know 2-3 business owners that are sitting on their hands waiting 2 see what the tax hikes in January are going to do.

  The bigger issue is the uncertainty and regulatory environment - tax hikes exacerbate that under Obama, but it's uncertainty that paralyzes business investment.
  
  There's both a debt and Obama drag on the economy. Hard to say which is the bigger issue, but if Romney doesn't at least stem the debt/deficit tidal wave any pro-business boost will be short-lived.
• Con_Alma

  gut;1203502 wrote:...
  
  NO ONE, not even "genius" Ron Paul is going to fix this overnight. We need a tourniquet right now. Your choice appears to be to sit and do nothing because you don't like the solutions on the table - that's not enlightened, that's irresponsbile. You're kicking the can by omission.

  Rand Paul has a much better shot than Ron.
  
  What's irresponsible is wanting Congress to "fix" it. I would rather they get handcuffed as much as they handcuff business with their uncertain legislation. The private sector has a better shot of taking care of the issue over an extended period.
• sleeper

  

  gut;1203502 wrote:So you'll take your ball and go home then? Driving over the cliff 10 years earlier is not a material difference to you? Whether we go over the cliff in 3 years or 30 years is irrelevant?!?
  
  NO ONE, not even "genius" Ron Paul is going to fix this overnight. We need a tourniquet right now. Your choice appears to be to sit and do nothing because you don't like the solutions on the table - that's not enlightened, that's irresponsbile. You're kicking the can by omission.

  I'd rather have the cliff hit tomorrow so we can start over and get this thing fixed from the beginning rather than having unborn generations lives be ruined so that the boomers can have their cake and eat it too.
• QuakerOats

  ptown_trojans_1;1203464 wrote:You honestly think that? That businesses are sand bagging earnings and growth until Romney is President? Really, you think the Government has that much impact in the global economy?
  
  Nevertheless, that it's Congress, and not the President that probably has more to do with the economy, taxes, etc.
  If you really think that, then you are the same as the crazy people that thought Obama would change Washington Jan. 2009.

  The republicans are going to gain a sizable majority in the Senate; retain control of the House, and probably win the White House. Things will change, mightily.
• FatHobbit

  

  sleeper;1203506 wrote:I'd rather have the cliff hit tomorrow so we can start over and get this thing fixed from the beginning rather than having unborn generations lives be ruined so that the boomers can have their cake and eat it too.

  
• gut

  sleeper;1203506 wrote:I'd rather have the cliff hit tomorrow so we can start over and get this thing fixed from the beginning rather than having unborn generations lives be ruined so that the boomers can have their cake and eat it too.

  Sure, the cliff is inevitable so just floor it? Defeatist, reckless, and lazy. There's still time to turn things around, but you have to take what you can.
  
  I mean, I'd like to make $1M a year, but failing that I should just settle for welfare/unemployment? Same failed logic.
• sleeper

  

  gut;1203554 wrote:Sure, the cliff is inevitable so just floor it? Defeatist, reckless, and lazy. There's still time to turn things around, but you have to take what you can.
  
  I mean, I'd like to make $1M a year, but failing that I should just settle for welfare/unemployment? Same failed logic.

  Defeatist? No. Realist? Yes.
• O-Trap

  

  Technically, by Congress STOPPING things in place, that does constitute doing something. I am all for fighting to avoid the cliff until we go over, but it feels like we're picking up speed.
  
  One side spends into oblivion on social programs to "help the less fortunate" (most of whom, ironically, remain less fortunate, thus showing how fruitless this is). The other side spends into oblivion on departmental agencies and military, because if we don't have a presence in all these countries, apparently the terrorists win (when the more realistic outcome is that we go bankrupt trying to protect ourselves from shadows and become a far easier target).
  
  I don't think people realize that most holistic fiscal conservatives (ie no government spending sacred cows) view fiscal sanity IN the military as being PART of defending our homeland. By avoiding outlandish spending on overseas operations, we maintain a better economy at home, strengthening our buying power in times of crisis, and avoiding opening us up as an easy target after our national poverty no longer allows us to buy what we need in a pinch for protecting our homeland.
• jhay78

  

  O-Trap;1203581 wrote:One side spends into oblivion on social programs to "help the less fortunate" (most of whom, ironically, remain less fortunate, thus showing how fruitless this is). The other side spends into oblivion on departmental agencies and military, because if we don't have a presence in all these countries, apparently the terrorists win (when the more realistic outcome is that we go bankrupt trying to protect ourselves from shadows and become a far easier target).

  I hear this all the time about reckless social spending being no different from reckless military spending. The 2010 DOD budget was around $700 Billion, or roughly 20% of the entire budget. SS and Medicare alone totaled about $1.5 Trillion, close to half of the federal budget. You could add up the cost of every war fought from WWI up to today and you won't come close to the nearly $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities that our government has promised but will never be able to pay.
  
  Just a small difference there.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2010.svg
• O-Trap

  

  jhay78;1203615 wrote:I hear this all the time about reckless social spending being no different from reckless military spending. The 2010 DOD budget was around $700 Billion, or roughly 20% of the entire budget. SS and Medicare alone totaled about $1.5 Trillion, close to half of the federal budget. You could add up the cost of every war fought from WWI up to today and you won't come close to the nearly $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities that our government has promised but will never be able to pay.
  
  Just a small difference there.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2010.svg

  I'm not saying we have as bad a history of one as opposed to the other. I'm saying the principle of one is no better than the principle of the other. Both can be equally as detrimental. Debt spending is debt spending, regardless of how or why you do it. Pros and cons can be made for either, though the pros are usually in the form of "Well, at least it's not ..."
  
  That's not exactly aspiring to fiscal conservatism. It's the equivalent of saying, "Well, we might be fiscally irresponsible, but at least we're not as irresponsible as THOSE guys!"
• Footwedge

  Manhattan Buckeye;1203081 wrote:Someone that worked a day in business. Whether one agrees with Obama's left wing politics or not, there is no way anyone can claim that he has even a slight advantage against Romney in the business sector.
  
  Obama graduated from HLS, and pissed away his degree. He could have clerked on SCOTUS (a dream for most law school graduates), yet didn't do it. He could have worked for Cravath, Wachtell, DPW, STB, any firm in the country, yet didn't do it. He's lived off his persona instead of living off of his accomplishments.
  
  He's the definition of an "empty suit", or an "emperor without clothing", at some point even the DEMS have to realize how badly they screwed up for not supporting Hillary. At least she has some private sector experience.
  
  I'm waiting to hear something from the resident left-wingers about something he's accomplished, he's been an embarrassment. The country is in the worst shape of my life, and my parents' lives, and my grandparents' lives, and we're still supposed to worship him?
  
  The gig is over. I respect Romney in many respects, I think he's the GOP's best candidate. There are many issues where we disagree, but I trust his experience and judgment. If Obama is re-elected I could see us with a +US$25T deficit and fiscal difficulties that the country will not survive, more class warfare, more blaming of Booooosh, more golf playing and being an inexperience executive, which is to be expected because he has no experience. 2008 was the worst decision in my lifetime. I can't even respect someone that says they will vote for him. He's been terrible.

  You write some nice prose there bro....but you answered nothing....as to my OP. So again, what exactly will be different if Romney is elected? Feel free to source previous Republican presidents to support your claim. Pretty much all I've read on this thread is "Obama this and Obama that". Fish or cut bait. I want reasons for voting Mitt. Thanks.
• HitsRus

  

  I said earlier Wedge....it makes a huge difference just by the appointments to the SCOTUS the next President will make.
• Footwedge

  jhay78;1203615 wrote:I hear this all the time about reckless social spending being no different from reckless military spending. The 2010 DOD budget was around $700 Billion, or roughly 20% of the entire budget. SS and Medicare alone totaled about $1.5 Trillion, close to half of the federal budget. You could add up the cost of every war fought from WWI up to today and you won't come close to the nearly $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities that our government has promised but will never be able to pay.

  Wars of aggression can never be aquainted to any social give aways....socially, intellectually, financially or morally. Sure there are welfare cheats, disability cheats and many more. Compare and contrast to all these unneeded wars. We blow it up...costs hundreds of billions....and then we hang out in their land...and rebuild what we just destroyed....at an additional cost of hundreds of billions. When we leave, we have gained nothing politically either. (remember Vietnam)And for the tenth time, our defense expense annually with the auxiliaries counted in amount to over a trillion dollars a year....not the bullcrap 700 billion that you've thrown out there. 7000 dead Americans? Who cares right? They all volunteered, right? How's that for saddling our future generations with debt?
  
  But back to the question...what will Mitt do that's so different than the communist/socialist in the White House? So far, I've seen nothing.
• Footwedge

  HitsRus;1203644 wrote:I said earlier Wedge....it makes a huge difference just by the appointments to the SCOTUS the next President will make.

  I apologize there Hits...I admit that I have skipped around a bit....and have not read every post.
• Footwedge

  believer;1203093 wrote:When liberals argue, "What Changes if Romney is Elected?" I marvel over it.
  
  Their Community Organizer had zero/nada/no real executive experience going into the job. Despite holding office for the past 3 and a half years Obama is still inept, hasn't learned how to lead, clearly has no clue how the private sector works, and remains a total disaster.

  Nice preamble. I'm sure you'll point out the policy differences as I read on.
  

  Romney has an MBA, CEO experience, led a successful Olympic experience in Salt Lake City, and was governor of Massachusetts for starters. If we compare resumes on someone who has had both public and private executive leadership experience, Romney gets the job hands down.

  All those sheepskins that you speak of mean nothing regarding national defense policies. If elected, he'll be as big a virgin as the Black guy.
  

  Anyone who pulls the lever for 4 more years of the Great National Disaster known as Barack Hussein Obama is an unmitigated fool. Anyone who chooses not to vote because "what's the point...more of the same" is a blind fool. Anyone who wastes their vote "as a matter of moral principle" for any 3rd party candidate is a misguided fool.

  Nice. I see you still don't have an answer to my OP question.
  

  Folks, this clearly is the most important POTUS election in quite some time. If there are enough fools out there who believe that Obama deserves 4 more years to finish the job he's started, we deserve our fate.

  Focus Believer, focus. The question...what's your guy gonna do differently than the last guy? Or are you gonna vote Mitt because he has an R after his name?
  
  1.The national debt lowered under Romney? Nope.
  
  2. Sanity regarding military policies abroad? Nope. Both love their wars...but Romney doesn't know a neocon that he doesn't love. Just look at all the chickenhawk armegeddonites he's picked. Apparently, he hasn't read the news that the American public, by a 2-1 ratio, can't stand the band of neocons from Bush the 43rd.
  
  3. Raise taxes? Nope. Inspite of the OC rhetoric, Obama did not raise any income taxes.
  
  4. Health care? Nope. Romney has his resume loaded with the same socialized health care.
  
  5. Job creation? Nope. Mitt's state as governor showed him to rank 47th out of 50 in state job growth.
  
  Believer...your turn.
• Footwedge

  jhay78;1203279 wrote:What does the "past history of Republican presidents" have anything to do with what Romney may or may not do? Gee, you know Teddy Roosevelt/Calvin Coolidge/Richard Nixon/etc did X,Y, and Z 100 years ago, that means Romney will do A,B, and C.
  
  We're one Supreme Court Justice away from the whole thing crumbling down. That alone is reason enough for me to vote for Romney.

  Fair enough. Don't use former GOPers as a reference. Don't blame you, BTW. They've all done the same things as Obama. So go ahead...what will Mitt do differently this time around besides probably invading Iran and Syria?