I don't think they are the same at all. That's like saying that paying my mortgage, bills and providing for my family is the same as blowing my paycheck at the track. But, even still, you're claiming that any Republican would be the same as Obama on this one particular issue, not that Romney in particular is the same as Obama.
Are Romney and President Obama that much different?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
I don't think they are the same at all. That's like saying that paying my mortgage, bills and providing for my family is the same as blowing my paycheck at the track. But, even still, you're claiming that any Republican would be the same as Obama on this one particular issue, not that Romney in particular is the same as Obama.
cawacko
Well-known member
Yes any Republican, outside of Ron Paul, would be the same on spending as Obama however I will stick to saying specifically Romney. And how you define spending really comes down to whether you like how one side or the other spends. If you like it I'm sure you think it responsible spending or the opposite the money is spent gambling. However if Romney wins there will be no 'Romney Revolution'. He will keep the status quo and make sure he doesn't offend anyone so he can attempt to get re-elected. So yes on an EPA policy there can be a difference but in the big picture same two people. Ron Paul vs. Obama you have a stark difference.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I don't think you can say that any Republican will be the same as Obama. Sane people see The Obama for what he is, Carter II. Don't forget the TEA Party victory in 2010 and folks plan on doing it again in 2012. There will be a lot of pressure on Congress to cut spending, and if the GOP takes over the senate, I'm cautiously optimistic that it will happen. Especially since it's in Romney's written platform.
cawacko
Well-known member
I hope you are right. If it does I will gladly call myself out publicly and say I was wrong. My hesitation is we need entitlement reform and who will stand up and lead and get enough followers? That's where real reform will come. Cutting non-entitlement spending is nice and all but it doesn't address the big issue of entitlement and defense spending.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Not to mention that the regulatory era as we know it began under Richard Nixon.....wasn't he a Republican?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Dude....pass whatever your smoking my way! LOL
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
He's claiming to support a balanced budget amendment, and a 10% reduction in the federal work force. That's not enough in my mind but at least its in the right direction. With regards to entitlements he's claiming to support Medicaid reform and then give it over to the States as block grants. Again, too little for me but he's designed a plan that voters can swallow.
He claims to support a spending cap of 20% GDP and I can't argue with that if it includes social security, but I'm not sure if it does.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
The fact is Moot that borrowing to spend is now to the point where our debt exceeds our GDP. You libtards used to bitch about W's spending and had a point. But The Obama put federal spending in overdrive and ya'll have been silent about it. We now have a significant percentage of people who consider themselves part of the TEA movement and in spite of your silly name calling about us we have made significant progress in gaining legislative representation and influencing fiscal policy. Romney, the establishment GOP candidate, recognizes the TEA Party in his campaign and we're going to hold his fancy-shoe feet to the fire when he gets elected. If he wants to be a two-termed president he'll do more than lip service.
We like to fire people who give us bad service too.
apple0154
MEOW
As Dungheap points out there is a difference on where the money is spent and, conversely, where it's cut. We saw the perfect example when Rumsfeld said the Iraq war was an option they could afford. If the Clinton surplus had been spent on "entitlements" such as medical care or unemployment or pension increases more people would have benefited. It's defence that has to be slashed. Perhaps an increase in covert operations to make up for less troops but to employ so many armed forces around the world is draining the US. Also, entitlement programs put the money back in the pockets of the people. I'm sure the unemployed are not complaining about the UI deductions they paid when working now that they're collecting two years of benefits.
Finally, the entitlement programs need to be streamlined. Every program involves a bureaucracy which adds greatly to the cost. Just as UI benefits can be made tax-free pensions can be taxed at a greater rate depending on total income. The basic idea of entitlement programs was/is to help the poor. There's nothing fair about people collecting benefits when they're not needed and that is where the Romney/Obama divide occurs. The cut to benefits can not be across the board as the poor will suffer.
Take ObamaCare, for example. The goal is to ensure everyone has medical coverage and the government will help those who can't afford the premiums. That will be the first thing to go if Romney gets in due to the gang he associates with.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so you're perfectly fine with the NDAA and indefinite detention of american citizens without charge?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
If he named John Bolton to be his Secretary of State I'd be a contributor.
No I am not, where did you get that?
apple0154
MEOW
(Excerpt) Following Bork's nomination to the Court, Sen. Ted Kennedy took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork declaring:
Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy ... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.
To pro-choice legal groups, Bork's originalist views and his belief that the Constitution does not contain a general "right to privacy" were viewed as a clear signal that, should he become a Justice on the Supreme Court, he would vote to reverse the Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. Accordingly, a large number of groups mobilized to press for Bork's rejection, and the resulting 1987 Senate confirmation hearings became an intensely partisan battle. Bork was faulted for his bluntness before the committee, including his criticism of the reasoning underlying Roe v. Wade. (End)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork
Hmmm, not a very nice fella.
cawacko
Well-known member
(Excerpt) Following Bork's nomination to the Court, Sen. Ted Kennedy took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork declaring:
Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy ... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.
To pro-choice legal groups, Bork's originalist views and his belief that the Constitution does not contain a general "right to privacy" were viewed as a clear signal that, should he become a Justice on the Supreme Court, he would vote to reverse the Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. Accordingly, a large number of groups mobilized to press for Bork's rejection, and the resulting 1987 Senate confirmation hearings became an intensely partisan battle. Bork was faulted for his bluntness before the committee, including his criticism of the reasoning underlying DRoe v. Wade. (End)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork
Hmmm, not a very nice fella.
Ted Kennedy? Don't talk poor about the dead.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
by the fact that you wholeheartedly endorse Obama, who signed that abominable law, and the fact that you view romney as basically the same as Obama. Romney, no doubt, will serve to utilize the new NDAA as 'religiously' as he see's fit as well. that of indefinitely detaining anyone, citizen or not, and use the media to hype up any connection to terrorism as it's justification. Since I haven't seen you vehemently protesting this piece of unconstitutional garbage, we can only assume you support it. Much like taichiliberal, who can't be expected to differentiate between progressive and neocon, so he classifies people as either/or then expects anyone who disagrees with his classification of you, to provide proof of your own innocence. so don't be too offended when I say fuck off to you and your nazi head in the sand support of tyrants.
apple0154
MEOW
LOL
SmarterthanYou
rebel
and as a result of 'borking', we end up with a bench full of justices who tell the senate one thing, then rule an entirely different direction.(Excerpt) Following Bork's nomination to the Court, Sen. Ted Kennedy took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork declaring:
Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy ... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.
To pro-choice legal groups, Bork's originalist views and his belief that the Constitution does not contain a general "right to privacy" were viewed as a clear signal that, should he become a Justice on the Supreme Court, he would vote to reverse the Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. Accordingly, a large number of groups mobilized to press for Bork's rejection, and the resulting 1987 Senate confirmation hearings became an intensely partisan battle. Bork was faulted for his bluntness before the committee, including his criticism of the reasoning underlying Roe v. Wade. (End)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork
Hmmm, not a very nice fella.
I don't even know why people bother to argue the constitution and it's meaning anymore, since they got stupid and lazy letting the judiciary tell them what it means now.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
hey, you're the one complaining your candidate is like our conservatives.....