So What Changes if Romney is Elected?
-
believer
Obama's the better choice then? Your turn.Footwedge;1203662 wrote: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. -
isadoreI would rather have a lawyer who understood the laws of our country. A man with experience in the Illinois state legislature and in Congress gave him an understanding of how the legislative process works. A man with stated sympathy with the most oppressed people in American society. I would prefer that to man who made millions building up a business, successfully worked with international organization and had experience as an executive in government. The first would the compassion and sense to be a great leader of a our democracy, the second would not.
-
jmog
You do realize that not only does having legislative experience translate to zero experience as an executive branch leader (you know, two different branches of government that has completely different roles?), but he was only in the Senate for what, 1.5 years and voted "present" on most of the issues?isadore;1203692 wrote:I would rather have a lawyer who understood the laws of our country. A man with experience in the Illinois state legislature and in Congress gave him an understanding of how the legislative process works. A man with stated sympathy with the most oppressed people in American society. I would prefer that to man who made millions building up a business, successfully worked with international organization and had experience as an executive in government. The first would the compassion and sense to be a great leader of a our democracy, the second would not.
On top of that, this so called expert on the laws of our country has done nothing but botch the Constitution recently, completely bypassing the legislative branch he was a part of. You and I both know you, and most definitely President Obama, would have RAISED HELL if Bush had done this exact same thing.
There is a reason American's typically elect successful state governors as Presidents and not legislators. It is much more RELEVANT experience.
On top of running a successful business as a chief EXECUTIVE officer, I'm prone to believe that is valid experience as our countries chief EXECUTIVE. -
pmoney25
In all honesty voting for Romney is not just kicking the can for 4 years, it will be at least 8 years no matter what. If Romney wins, No Rep will run against him in 16 and if Romney loses in 16 it will be to a democrat so at best it will be 8 years of the same ol song and dance. So if Obama wins, at least it will only be 4 years vs 8 years. -
pmoney25
Yea because that has been shown to be true in recent history.QuakerOats;1203529 wrote: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. -
isadore
Gosh a ruddies, I was kind of talking about Abraham Lincoln who was a successful lawyers, was in the Illinois legislature and one term in Congress. Of course he had great sympathy for the slaves, the most oppressed people in American society. Most people think he was great President. And the other guy was the most successful businessman to be President of the United States, Herbert Hoover. He founded Zinc Corporation and built a successful corporation and a personal fortune. During World War I he lead the international Commission for Relief in Belgium to feed those starving people. After US entry in the war he worked Federal Executive Branch as the executive in charge of the Food Administration. He was Secretary of Commerce during the Harding and Coolidge Presidencies. Loads of business and executive experience. Gosh with all that business experience he was not a very successful President at a time of economic collapse and mass unemployment.jmog;1203699 wrote:You do realize that not only does having legislative experience translate to zero experience as an executive branch leader (you know, two different branches of government that has completely different roles?), but he was only in the Senate for what, 1.5 years and voted "present" on most of the issues?
On top of that, this so called expert on the laws of our country has done nothing but botch the Constitution recently, completely bypassing the legislative branch he was a part of. You and I both know you, and most definitely President Obama, would have RAISED HELL if Bush had done this exact same thing.
There is a reason American's typically elect successful state governors as Presidents and not legislators. It is much more RELEVANT experience.
On top of running a successful business as a chief EXECUTIVE officer, I'm prone to believe that is valid experience as our countries chief EXECUTIVE. -
sleeper
None of these people were black. Gosh a ruddies, that's the difference!isadore;1203747 wrote:Gosh a ruddies, I was kind of talking about Abraham Lincoln who was a successful lawyers, was in the Illinois legislature and one term in Congress. Of course he had great sympathy for the slaves, the most oppressed people in American society. Most people think he was great President. And the other guy was the most successful businessman to be President of the United States, Herbert Hoover. He founded Zinc Corporation and built a successful corporation and a personal fortune. During World War I he lead the international Commission for Relief in Belgium to feed those starving people. After US entry in the war he worked Federal Executive Branch as the executive in charge of the Food Administration. He was Secretary of Commerce during the Harding and Coolidge Presidencies. Loads of business and executive experience. Gosh with all that business experience he was not a very successful President at a time of economic collapse and mass unemployment. -
jhay78
O-Trap;1203618 wrote: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!"
I think we're all in agreement that in order to fix this everything will have to be on the table, including defense spending. It's just a pet peeve of mine when I read or hear someone (not necessarily you) acting like 75% of the federal budget goes toward invading foreign lands, blowing stuff up, killing/torturing/annihilating innocent people, and then rebuilding said foreign lands.
Let's start with post 9/11 wars- Iraq and Afghanistan.Footwedge;1203653 wrote: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?
1) Your buddy Ron Paul voted to give President Torturer/War Criminal the authority to use military force to punish and defeat the terrorists who planned and/or aided the first act of aggression, namely 9/11. That was Afghanistan and the Taliban. Had we waged war the right way, the Taliban would've surrendered within a few months and no rogue government would again think about aiding and abetting the likes of Al Qaeda.
Instead, out of the goodness of our evil warmongering hearts, we tried to rebuild Afghanistan before our enemies were defeated- thus the long stay, billions spent, and lives lost.
2) Iraq- you have more of a point there, although we will disagree on some specific issues.
As for the "bullcrap" $700 Billion figure I "threw out there", you'll have to take that up with my linked source, Wikipedia.
Supreme Court justice(s). Mentioned about a half-dozen times.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 -
pmoney25
First Paul wanted to use Congress power for Letters or Marques and Reprisals. He knew that just giving the President/Congress blanket authority to do whatever they wanted in afghanistan would lead to the mess it is now. Obviously no one was against going after Bin Laden. But even days after 9/11 Paul knew where this would ultimately lead.jhay78;1204103 wrote: Let's start with post 9/11 wars- Iraq and Afghanistan.
1) Your buddy Ron Paul voted to give President Torturer/War Criminal the authority to use military force to punish and defeat the terrorists who planned and/or aided the first act of aggression, namely 9/11. That was Afghanistan and the Taliban. Had we waged war the right way, the Taliban would've surrendered within a few months and no rogue government would again think about aiding and abetting the likes of Al Qaeda.
Instead, out of the goodness of our evil warmongering hearts, we tried to rebuild Afghanistan before our enemies were defeated- thus the long stay, billions spent, and lives lost.
.
Here is a good read on his position on Afghanistan.
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Texas/Ron_Paul/Views/The_War_in_Afghanistan/ -
O-Trap
I think the reason more Libertarians don't bang the drum against Medicare, Social Security, entitlement programs, etc. is because when speaking to people like YOU, we're in agreement, if nothing else, in profession on the issue.jhay78;1204103 wrote:I think we're all in agreement that in order to fix this everything will have to be on the table, including defense spending. It's just a pet peeve of mine when I read or hear someone (not necessarily you) acting like 75% of the federal budget goes toward invading foreign lands, blowing stuff up, killing/torturing/annihilating innocent people, and then rebuilding said foreign lands. -
O-Trap
Purely out of curiosity, do you know how different his choice will be from a fiscal responsibility or civil liberties standpoint? I'm genuinely curious on your opinion.jhay78;1204103 wrote:Supreme Court justice(s). Mentioned about a half-dozen times.
PS - I multi-post instead of multi-quote. What was I thinking? -
Ty Webb
http://www.electoral-vote.com/QuakerOats;1203529 wrote: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. -
FootwedgeOne last time on defense and defense related spending...referencing footnoted Wiki for all to source.
Budget breakdown for 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_StatesDefense-related expenditure 2012 Budget request & Mandatory spending[SUP][21][/SUP][SUP][22][/SUP] Calculation[SUP][23][/SUP][SUP][24][/SUP] DOD spending $707.5 billion Base budget + "Overseas Contingency Operations" FBI counter-terrorism $2.7 billion At least one-third FBI budget. International Affairs $5.6–$63.0 billion At minimum, foreign arms sales. At most, entire State budget Energy Department, defense-related $21.8 billion Veterans Affairs $70.0 billion Homeland Security $46.9 billion NASA, satellites $3.5–$8.7 billion Between 20% and 50% of NASA's total budget Veterans pensions $54.6 billion Other defense-related mandatory spending $8.2 billion Interest on debt incurred in past wars $109.1–$431.5 billion Between 23% and 91% of total interest Total Spending $1.030–$1.415 trillion
The next highest military "spender" is probably China. which spends not even a 1/10th of the amount the US does per capita. Probably closer to 1/15th. Funny how they run a huge surplus and all. As for empires....people who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. -
I Wear PantsIf you don't think we need to cut large amounts from defense spending (all the things related to that) then I really doubt you're seeing what's going on here.
That's one of my biggest problems with the Republican party right now. There's no excuse for the outright refusal to decrease defense spending.
Also...
-
gutYeah, but if you cut ALL of what Footwedge posted (including interest which, curiously is almost double what we currently pay - not like the entire deficit is defense spending-related)., you're STILL running deficits in the hundreds of billions. The deficit problem is really about equal parts medicare/medicaid, defense, taxes and the economy. The solutions may be painful but hardly elusive.
-
I Wear Pants
That's my point. Neither party is going to do anything about all three of them but I see tons of conservatives acting like the GOP is. They aren't.gut;1204195 wrote:Yeah, but if you cut ALL of what Footwedge posted (including interest which, curiously is almost double what we currently pay - not like the entire deficit is defense spending-related)., you're STILL running deficits in the hundreds of billions. The deficit problem is really about equal parts medicare/medicaid, defense, taxes and the economy. The solutions may be painful but hardly elusive.
Also I'm not convinced a GOP president is the magical economy fixer pill that many on here seem to think it is. -
O-Trap
Bush certainly wasn't in the vein that many seem to think Romney is.I Wear Pants;1204198 wrote:That's my point. Neither party is going to do anything about all three of them but I see tons of conservatives acting like the GOP is. They aren't.
Also I'm not convinced a GOP president is the magical economy fixer pill that many on here seem to think it is. -
Manhattan Buckeye
Perhaps not. But I don't see how it could possibly be worse. Obama had (or will have) his four years - the global economy is a disaster, the U.S. labor market is a disaster, the U.S. housing market is a disaster, the U.S. debt situation (both governmental and personal) is a disaster. Obama said that he should be a one term POTUS if he didn't get certain things done. He hasn't got certain things done. He didn't "inherit" anything, he actively campaigned and ran for the job, if his results are awful (which they are) then he needs to fall on his sword. Unfortunately he's too much of a narcissist to do it. Which is why he needs to be voted out, even if people aren't 100% behind his opponent. IMO it can't be worse. Four more years of this can make it much worse. The guy is unqualified.I Wear Pants;1204198 wrote:That's my point. Neither party is going to do anything about all three of them but I see tons of conservatives acting like the GOP is. They aren't.
Also I'm not convinced a GOP president is the magical economy fixer pill that many on here seem to think it is. -
I Wear Pants
You are a psychologist?Manhattan Buckeye;1204208 wrote:Perhaps not. But I don't see how it could possibly be worse. Obama had (or will have) his four years - the global economy is a disaster, the U.S. labor market is a disaster, the U.S. housing market is a disaster, the U.S. debt situation (both governmental and personal) is a disaster. Obama said that he should be a one term POTUS if he didn't get certain things done. He hasn't got certain things done. He didn't "inherit" anything, he actively campaigned and ran for the job, if his results are awful (which they are) then he needs to fall on his sword. Unfortunately he's too much of a narcissist to do it. Which is why he needs to be voted out, even if people aren't 100% behind his opponent. IMO it can't be worse. Four more years of this can make it much worse. The guy is unqualified. -
believer
The Anointed One is certainly not the hocus pocus economy elixir either.I Wear Pants;1204198 wrote:Also I'm not convinced a GOP president is the magical economy fixer pill that many on here seem to think it is.
Yet the OC lefties and libertarians completely ignore Barry's on-going ineptitude, failures, & shortcomings and keep point fingers back at that eeeevil warmongering neocon Bush as justification for not wanting Willard.
So apparently not wanting Willard means accepting 4 more years of Obama ineptitude.
It staggers the imagination to even attempt to understand the logic in that.
You are a doctor?I Wear Pants;1204211 wrote:You are a psychologist? -
Manhattan Buckeye
It doesn't take much of a psychologist to figure out that Obama is all about Obama. If the guy cared about the country he'd quit. He's inept.I Wear Pants;1204211 wrote:You are a psychologist?
edit- if this isn't evidence of a complete narcissist, I don't know what is:
http://news.investors.com/article/611592/201205160808/obama-inserts-his-own-name-into-online-presidential-biographies.htm
Who the hell does this? What type of advisors advise him to do this? This is the definition of narcissism. A person that has got by with his unfounded reputation other than his accomplishments. I can't imagine how stupid someone that voted for him feels right now. I feel stupid for not doing more about it in '08. We're all suffering. -
I Wear Pants
You'd be far more persuasive if you stopped letting your seething hate for a guy you don't know show more than the reasons you disagree with his policies.Manhattan Buckeye;1204214 wrote:It doesn't take much of a psychologist to figure out that Obama is all about Obama. If the guy cared about the country he'd quit. He's inept. -
pmoney25
No, the libertarians dont ignore Obama being a failure. We just believe that America deserves better and there isnt much of a difference between the two.believer;1204213 wrote:The Anointed One is certainly not the hocus pocus economy elixir either.
Yet the OC lefties and libertarians completely ignore Barry's on-going ineptitude, failures, & shortcomings and keep point fingers back at that eeeevil warmongering neocon Bush as justification for not wanting Willard.
So apparently not wanting Willard means accepting 4 more years of Obama ineptitude.
It staggers the imagination to even attempt to understand the logic in that.
You are a doctor?
Also would it make you feel better to know that if I was told my family was in danger and I had to vote for one of those two, I would vote for Romney. -
supermanBack to the question posed in the OP, Romney will bring in a new AG. Not having a street thug running our DOJ is enough to get my vote.
-
Manhattan Buckeye
And you'd be more persuasive if you'd address my arguments. I normally respect your posts, I think your politics are a bit whack, but if you think B.O. has been anything less than a disaster I might change my opinion. I don't hate the guy. I think he's unqualified. There's a huge difference. He's bad for America. He's bad for me. He's bad for you. He's been terrible. That isn't hate. That is fact. His policies have been surpassed only by his narcissistic lack of leadership. He isn't even trying to take the reins - he's the anti-Reagan.I Wear Pants;1204216 wrote:You'd be far more persuasive if you stopped letting your seething hate for a guy you don't know show more than the reasons you disagree with his policies.