Simple Romney question

I can turn that around and say that the very fact that he did pass a state health care law is strong evidence for his opposition to such a law at the federal level. He wouldn't have had the freedom to do what he did as governor with Obamacare in full force. Differing on which level of government should do something if it's going to be done is not a minor distinction. The intent of the constitution was for the individual states to make most of the decisions about most matters. You and I agree that general health care should not be the responsibility of any level of government, but that's a completely separate question from the issue of whether Romney's support for state level health care in Mass automatically means he supports ALL government run health care at EVERY level. That's not a logical conclusion at all, and the original intent of the constitution is completely consistent with Romney's position.

 

Make no mistake, Romney is far from the ideal conservative candidate in anyone's eyes, including mine. But an ideal conservative candidate is not available in this election. We have to play the cards that have been dealt, because there are no re-deals in this 'game.' I strongly believe that four more years of Obama would do absolutely irreversible damage to this country. He has already shown that he has no regard for constitutional limits on executive branch power even while he is still facing re-election. If he has no more elections to worry about at all, he will step this up much farther. The spending and debt will be so high that they can never be fixed. And if the rest of Obamacare kicks in in 2014, it will no longer be possible to get rid of it. By the end of Obama's second term the USA as founded will be dead, replaced by another European socialist state, on the wrong side of the ocean.
So even though Mitt Romney isn't a great conservative candidate, as an alternative to the above scenario I can live with him. Would his presidency bear a resemblance to Bush II's? Probably. But after Obama, even going back to that would be a step in the right direction. And at this point, Romney is the best hope to defeat Obama. Gingrich and Paul are completely unelectable. Santorum might have a chance, but the way things are playing out he's not gaining the support a credible candidate needs to challenge an incumbent. That leaves Romney.
Some people here say their conscience won't allow them to vote for Romney. Well, my conscience won't let me cast a vote that would help Obama get re-elected, because that would cause a lot of misery for a lot of people. In the wake of Florida, the alternative to that is shaping up to be Romney. That's why I am willing to vote for him, even though he is not as conservative as I wish he were.

 

I agree that at some point soon something needs to happen in the conservative movement. But this isn't the right time. A second Obama term would be far too dangerous for the country. Stopping that has to be the priority in this cycle. If Romney does get elected and is the kind of moderate president I would expect, I could definitely get behind a primary challenge to him in 2016 with a true conservative candidate. Or even the right 3rd party candidate. I'm not locked into always voting for the designated Repub. But this time around I see it as a necessity.

 

Romney proposes cutting the capital gains tax rate for those that make less than $200,000 a year, i.e. the middle class. That's not Romney income territory!

Romney admits he had a change of heart towards abortion after studying the stem cell research controversy. He says that opened his eyes to being staunchly pro-life. I don't know when this revelation supposedly occurred relative to his term as governor, so there may be scant evidence of any action he might have taken.

It's a 10th amendment constitutional issue. Any health care policy should be administered at the state level, not the national level, according to U.S. constitution. Also, note that when Romney was governor his state legislature was 75% Democrats, a veto-proof margin, so he had little control over legislation.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/spending

Besides, isn't an oft-used criticism against Romney when he was with Bain Capital, restructuring failing corporations, that as the new CEO he would lay off lots of employees?

He's not Obama.

 

The last 2 posts by walguy and inthelight are excellent and reflect my view down to the "t" :thumbs:

 

Here are four more --

EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE
Romney - Yes
Obama - No

PRIVATE SECTOR EXPERIENCE
Romney - Yes
Obama - No

CANADIAN OIL PIPELINE
Romney - Yes
Obama - No

HAVE ACTUALLY BALANCED A BUDGET
Romney - Yes
Obama - No

 

No... They are worlds apart. The outworking of their worldviews ends up in a similar place because they are both social liberals, but Romney is not a Marxist. One can be fully capitalistic, as is Romney, and yet be a social liberal. One cannot be a Marxist and also be a capitalist, as is Obama.

No matter what else has to happen in the next election, even if we must hold our noses in order to pull a ballot box handle, we MUST un-elect a Marxist from the presidency of the United States of America.

 

Then, my best suggestion to you is to dedicate your life to pressing forth a qualified candidate DURING THE PRIMARY SEASON, which is, in fact, RIGHT NOW.

There is no "pie in the sky" hope that just comes down from the heavens and gives us a true conservative candidate, and like we found in the last several election cycles, a 3rd party individual only siphons off votes from the conservative candidate as the middle tends to go to the new man on the block for any number of reasons.

 

Umm....C4K is in Ireland.

 

The more he talks the more I believe he would be worse.

He said he is not worried about the poor. Hmmmm. Even a conservative candidate should be talking about how the poor can be helped instead of saying I don't worry about them. They have a safety net.

He said he is not worried about the rich. Hmmmmmmm. His primary worry is that his tax rate will not be raised and it is lower than your and I paid even though he reported making 20 million last year.

He says he is worried about the middle class but then presents ideas that would hurt the middle class by cutting programs that help them. Hmmmmmmmm.

And he wants to cut Medicaid, Medicare. Medicaid helps those who are probably in the most need. Medicare if mandatory for all folk over 65.

 

He wants to convert Medicaid into a block grant to the states so they can more efficiently allocate the resources.

Where did you get this idea that he would cut Medicare? Just this week:

Romney said at a Florida seniors’ center Monday night that he would preserve entitlement programs.

“We will never go after Medicare or Social Security,” Romney said. “We will protect those programs.”

 

I really do not believe this would be more efficient ... 50 different programs.

Where did you get this idea that he would cut Medicare? Just this week:

In Florida with the number of elderly people I would expect nothing other than such a statement from any politician in a primary campaign.

I am sorry, but I do not believe him considering his comments on not being concerned about the poor and saying he loves to fire people. I am coming to believe he is a scripted politician.

I may change my mind about him as it is a long way to the election and much can happen.

Frankly the old smoke filled rooms where candidates were choosen are looking better and better to me. The current system seems to end up with poorer candidates and the cost is sinful IMHO.

 

Can we all please get our facts straight on tax rates?? When someone makes money from a capital gain, it is double taxation. They have already paid taxes on that money once. Now, they have to pay taxes all over again on the investment gains and now some people want to further increase those taxes. Wow -- what a way to stimulate the economy! Let's further tax those that are investing in companies.

 

The "poor comment" in context was that he is focused on trying to fix things for the middle class -- the 90-95%, as he said. There are safety nets for very poor and to the extent that they need to be fixed, then let's fix them. Still don't know what's wrong with this statement.

 

Not necessarily. He may have paid no tax on the money used as it may have come from interest on municipal bonds from his state. No state taxes nor federal taxes on municipal bonds?

Oh, and though he says he created jobs, like at Stapes, he does not include in his figures the small business shop owners and their employees he put of out business and out of jobs. We really do not know if he made a net gain or loss in jobs. We do know there were companies that his company took over that went bankrupt and everyone was without a job. He never mentions those companies and those job losses.

Corporate raiders, and Romney's Capital One was a corporate raider are not in business to create jobs. They are in business to make money and Capital One was very successful.

Would you say that capital gains taxes should be eliminated totally?