Simple Romney question

The most obvious improvement that Romney would be over Obama is in the area of greatest need--Taxes and Spending.

Taxes

Romney wants to keep the Bush tax cuts intact. Obama wants to return to the pre-Bush era tax rates, which would mean a tax increase for every wage earner AND impose a special 30% tax rate on anyone making more than $1M in income.

Romney would eliminate all capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, and interest taxes on people with incomes below $200,000. Obama wants to increase the current long term rate of 15% to at least 20%.

Romney wants to eliminate the estate tax, or "death tax".

Romney wants to lower corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% and eliminate dozens of loopholes.


Spending

Romney says he will immediately cut spending by 5%. He would convert Medicaid into a block grant to the states giving states more control over how it allocates Medicaid funds. He says he will cap federal spending at no more than 20% of GDP and he favors a balanced budget amendment.


As I think of more things I will post them. These positions are not unique to Romney, as Gingrich and Santorum would likely do the same things, whereas Obama will not.

 

Those are reasonable specific arguments.

As for additional "reasoanble specific arguments" in favor of Romney, let's add "experience" in actually running something -- both in business and in politics. He has not been a member of a church where the pastor spouted the most vengeful, anti-American, progressive, liberation-theology crud under the sun (that President Obama never once heard in the almost 2 decades he sat under that preaching), and Romney will actually show the rest of us his birth certificate without a court order.

Notice that I'm not saying that Romney is my dream candidate. He is not. But if it comes down to Romney or Obama, the choice is SO very clear. Romney all the way.

 

He has as much experience governing people as our current president. Scary.

 

The republicans will become a huge minority in 2014, if Romney is elected. I left Massachusetts under his watch. He will be a disaster. I know the GOP will pick up seats in congress, and I would rather see gridlock with an Obama presidency, than a liberal republican trying to get along with everyone. We've seen this movie before.

 

Without a doubt. It amazes me how little effort people put into knowing the political spectrum and our candidates. The mindless opposition against the extreme nature of things is what gets the world in trouble.

 

The problem with the American voter is they can no longer see past a few days. Gone are the folks who could think in 20 year blocks.

 

That's not the worst of it. They will say WE put Obama in office because we voted our conscience instead of their's. If we had put aside our values, and voted for someone THEY ADMIT IS A BAD CANDIDATE, we would still have their respect.

 

Yes, and it got us a president who has now spent more than ALL former presidents of the United States in history -- with no hint of slowing down.

It has also gotten us an almost complete overhaul of the medical industry including a few novel features that we have yet to see implimented, such as decisions as to whether one's "quality of life" is sufficient to allow for the expenditure of hard-to-come-by funds.

It has gotten us an almost complete overhaul of the financial world -- with effects yet to be discovered when the entire 10,000 + page package starts to take effect after the 2012 election.

It has gotten us socialized big business.

It has gotten us a HOLE dug so deep and money printed SO FAST that once the next bubble pops there will be no America as we now know it.

BTW, did you see the CBO data released yesterday? They anticipate the unemployment will remain above 10% until well after 2014 and that there will be no appreciable change in the current economic status of America between now and then. Worse is that they expect the tax burden to increase an average of 30% across the board. I suspect that their figures are laid out with a kind eye toward the sitting administration, for IF WE CONTINUE in the same way as we are now going it will be, in fact, worse than anything we can imagine.

And, no, Romney will not be able to fix it. He will get elected because he is stupid (as is Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul) to actually want to get elected into the scenario that is now before us. Whomever gets elected next will either be ruined because of the woes this nation will soon see -- OR -- will become our new dictator when the Constitution is set aside because of a crisis of such large proportions that it is the only way to preserve the USA -- but it won't, for what is left will not be America at all, save that the map won't change much (until he names a city, "Obamabad").

 

Running $1 trillion deficits three years in a row (Obama) compared to Romney pledging to cut spending 5%, balance the budget, and cap spending at 20% of GDP (currently at 24% of GDP) is NOT all that great?!!

 

It HAS slowed down. That's what the mid-terms did. Obama came in with a heavy majority in congress, ready to lick his boots, and call anyone who protested "racist".

I don't share your pessimism. I think it can be fixed, but not with any of these front-runners.

 

We are not going to get another choice in candidates unless someone comes riding in on a white horse during the convention and the entire crowd decides to swing that way, including delegates changing their man in mid-stream. That CAN happen, but I don't see it for the reasons I outlined above.

So, the choice will be a man who can really do nothing much except soak up the abuse that is coming his way -- intentionally -- from a sitting President that effectively led a bloodless coup against America, or we get that same POTUS who will no longer be POTUS but instead DICTATOR.

As a side note, have you seen the ramped up printing of dollars? Really... Google FRED then find the monetary supply chart. It is SHOCKING -- burning dollar bills for heat shocking! :BangHead:

Also, did we not just approve another 1.1 TRILLION (or have to in the next few days)?

 

Here are just a few...

TAXES
Romney - keep Bush tax cuts
Obama - remove Bush tax cuts - especially for "wealthy"

ABORTION
Romney - Pro life
Obama - Pro choice

CAPITAL GAINS TAXES
Romney - Reduce to encourage investment
Obama - Increase so that "wealthy" pay "fair share"

ROLE OF FED GOVT
Romney - Reduce; more power back to states
Obama - Increase; more 150,000 federal jobs in last 3 years

OBAMACARE
Romney - Opposed
Obama - In favor

 

I think both are bad ideas, but you do understand that something done at the state level is different from something done at the federal level, don't you? In many issues it's completely consistent to support the former and oppose the latter. Most things are SUPPOSED to be done at the state level and local level, not the federal level. But don't feel too bad if you have trouble grasping this basic constitutional concept, a lot of people seem to be having trouble with it right now, at least concerning health care.

It's pretty clear that you had already decided that before you asked the question, which makes the asking of it rather disingenuous.

 

If your purpose was simply to start a debate, that's fine. Taken at face value, the question implied that you were actually interested in the answers. Most of your responses indicated that your only interest in the answers was to have the chance to try to shoot them down, that there was nothing anyone could say that could make you see any meaningful difference between Obama and Romney. Given your obvious animosity toward Romney (at least as a candidate), it's hard to see a motivation for you to simply start a debate, since that would certainly result in positive things being said about him. Hence my conclusion. If I am being unfair in this evaluation, I apologize, but the available evidence strongly suggests that I am accurate.