Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Difference between Romney and Bush?

twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 11:35:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
https://www.youtube.com...

http://www.politicususa.com...

It seems Romney's policies are quite similar to the policies of Bush. When asked about it in the debate Romney just says that the difference is that now the USA can be energy independent, and that Romney will cut the deficit. Bush was generally regarded as "bad" by dems and repubs. It confuses me as to how people can hate Bush, yet like Romney, since their plans are so similar. It seems the republican plan is based on an ideology that does not change. What is the difference between Romney and Bush?

Here is Romney"s 5 point plan:

1). Achieve energy independence on this continent by 2020. America is blessed with extraordinary natural resources, and developing them will create millions of good jobs " not only in the energy industry, but also in industries like manufacturing that will benefit from more energy at lower prices.

2). Trade that works for America.

3). Provide Americans with the skills to succeed through better public schools, better access to higher education, and better retraining programs that help to match unemployed workers with real-world job opportunities.

4). Cut the deficit, reducing the size of government and getting the national debt under control so that America remains a place where businesses want to open up shop and hire.

5). Champion small business. Small businesses are the engine of job creation in this country, but they will struggle to succeed if taxes and regulations are too burdensome or if a government in Washington does its best to stifle them. Mitt will pursue comprehensive tax reform that lowers tax rates for all Americans, and he will cut back on the red tape that drives up costs and discourages hiring.

Here is John McCain"s 5 point plan from his 2008 acceptance speech at the Republican convention:

1). I will open new markets to our goods and services. My opponent will close them.

2). I will cut government spending. He will increase it.

3). Education " education is the civil rights issue of this century. Equal access to public education has been gained, but what is the value of access to a failing school? We need to shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition, empower parents with choice.

4). We all know that keeping taxes low helps small businesses grow and create new jobs.

5). We"ll attack " we"ll attack the problem on every front. We"ll produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells off-shore, and we"ll
drill them now. We"ll drill them now.

George W. Bush"s 5 point plan for the economy from 2004:

1). To create jobs, my plan will encourage investment and expansion by restraining federal spending, reducing regulation and making the tax relief permanent.

2). To create jobs, we will make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy.

3). To create jobs, we will expand trade and level the playing field to sell American goods and services across the globe.

4). And we must protect small-business owners and workers from the explosion of frivolous lawsuits that threaten jobs across our country. Another drag on our economy is the current tax code, which is a complicated mess"

5). To be fair, there are some things my opponent is for. He"s proposed more than $2 trillion in new federal spending so far, and that"s a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 11:40:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Romney would do better at spending. I think a comparison with Bush is a great compliment. Obama has not a tiny fragment of a good record that Bush had.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 11:42:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Romney could be the next Reagan...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 11:43:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/28/2012 11:40:19 AM, Mirza wrote:
Romney would do better at spending. I think a comparison with Bush is a great compliment. Obama has not a tiny fragment of a good record that Bush had.

What do you mean by "better at spending". Spend more, spend less, invest in different programs?
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 11:44:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/28/2012 11:43:55 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
If you really don't think there is a difference, you don't want to see the truth at this point.

Please inform me. What is the difference?
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 11:48:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/28/2012 11:43:44 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
What do you mean by "better at spending". Spend more, spend less, invest in different programs?
Spend less. Bush made an upsurge in spending, thought nothing compared to Obama.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 11:52:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Spend less. Bush made an upsurge in spending, thought nothing compared to Obama.

Bush spent on military, which Romney also plans to spend more on. Bush spent on the war in Iraq. Romney is more likely to invade Iran than Obama. And Romney will have to spend more to invade Iran. Like Bush, if Romney spends, he will spend on military and war.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 11:54:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/28/2012 11:44:36 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 10/28/2012 11:43:55 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
If you really don't think there is a difference, you don't want to see the truth at this point.

Please inform me. What is the difference?

I've posted before... Also, it doesn't matter if Bush said he would do something and didn't do it.

1 - Territorial tax system.
2 - Lower corporate tax rates.
3 - Make SS and Medicare more progressive.
4 - New trade/crack down on China.
5 - Return powers and programs to the states.

Just to get you started.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 11:57:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/28/2012 11:52:13 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Bush spent on military, which Romney also plans to spend more on.
No, he wants to keep the amount static. Obama wants to flush it down. That's nonsensical.

Bush spent on the war in Iraq.
Romney won't come close to the same number. Neither in Afghanistan.

Romney is more likely to invade Iran than Obama.
His goal is to get Iran to cooperate through diplomacy. He's no more radical than Obama in this case. Both candidates would attempt to invade Iran if all evidence pointed toward development of a nuclear weapon. Both would work with a team of experts who would guide them through decision-making, and both would most likely make a decision based upon the arguments of their team.

And Romney will have to spend more to invade Iran. Like Bush, if Romney spends, he will spend on military and war.
That's way over the line. You don't know that. Yet, Obama will spend far more than Romney in any case!
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 12:09:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

I've posted before... Also, it doesn't matter if Bush said he would do something and didn't do it.

1 - Territorial tax system.
2 - Lower corporate tax rates.

Bush was for tax cuts for businesses. In addition, it is going to be tough to reduce the deficit with less tax revenues
3 - Make SS and Medicare more progressive.

What do you mean by progressive? Increasing the financial burden on who?
4 - New trade/crack down on China.

"Cracking down" is not a plan and is easier said than done. The only plan Romney proposed was to label them a currency manipulator.

5 - Return powers and programs to the states.

Bush was all for "states rights".
Just to get you started.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 12:14:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/28/2012 11:57:44 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/28/2012 11:52:13 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Bush spent on military, which Romney also plans to spend more on.
No, he wants to keep the amount static. Obama wants to flush it down. That's nonsensical.

Bush spent on the war in Iraq.
Romney won't come close to the same number. Neither in Afghanistan.

Romney is more likely to invade Iran than Obama.
His goal is to get Iran to cooperate through diplomacy. He's no more radical than Obama in this case. Both candidates would attempt to invade Iran if all evidence pointed toward development of a nuclear weapon. Both would work with a team of experts who would guide them through decision-making, and both would most likely make a decision based upon the arguments of their team.

And Romney will have to spend more to invade Iran. Like Bush, if Romney spends, he will spend on military and war.
That's way over the line. You don't know that. Yet, Obama will spend far more than Romney in any case!

While Romney plans to spend less than Bush, I believe their philosophy for spending is the same. Romney surrounds himself some of the same advisers of Bush.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 12:41:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/28/2012 12:09:50 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

I've posted before... Also, it doesn't matter if Bush said he would do something and didn't do it.

1 - Territorial tax system.
2 - Lower corporate tax rates.

Bush was for tax cuts for businesses. In addition, it is going to be tough to reduce the deficit with less tax revenues

Doesn't matter. Bush didn't do it. So you can't say it's a proven bad policy.

It's more difficult to reduce the deficit with 23 million un/underemployed. Corporate taxes only account for a small percentage of revenue, we can more than make up for it by creating millions of new jobs.

3 - Make SS and Medicare more progressive.

What do you mean by progressive? Increasing the financial burden on who?

I mean, less benefits for the wealthy. Progressive based on income.

4 - New trade/crack down on China.

"Cracking down" is not a plan and is easier said than done. The only plan Romney proposed was to label them a currency manipulator.

Which would allow us to apply pressure through tariffs, regulations, etc...

5 - Return powers and programs to the states.

Bush was all for "states rights".

Ok, so what did he do for the states?

Just to get you started.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 1:04:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

Doesn't matter. Bush didn't do it. So you can't say it's a proven bad policy.

http://upload.wikimedia.org...

Yes, the effective corporate tax rate decreased and was the lowest it has ever been under Bush.

It's more difficult to reduce the deficit with 23 million un/underemployed. Corporate taxes only account for a small percentage of revenue, we can more than make up for it by creating millions of new jobs.

So Romney will cut tax rates, yet increase tax revenue?


I mean, less benefits for the wealthy. Progressive based on income.

Okay, so if this it true, Romney gives more benefits to the poor than Bush.
4 - New trade/crack down on China.

"Cracking down" is not a plan and is easier said than done. The only plan Romney proposed was to label them a currency manipulator.

Which would allow us to apply pressure through tariffs, regulations, etc...

Okay so Romney may impose more tariffs than Bush. But Bush still imposed tariffs on China.

5 - Return powers and programs to the states.

Bush was all for "states rights".

Ok, so what did he do for the states?

Bush allowed healthcare to be state run, like what Romney wants to do. Did Bush force the states to do anything that Romney would not?
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 1:10:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/28/2012 1:04:57 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

Doesn't matter. Bush didn't do it. So you can't say it's a proven bad policy.

http://upload.wikimedia.org...

Yes, the effective corporate tax rate decreased and was the lowest it has ever been under Bush.

Lol. Do you know how taxes work? Where did Bush lower the tax rates?

Effective rates =/= marginal tax rates. Effective rates change without any changes from the government.

It's more difficult to reduce the deficit with 23 million un/underemployed. Corporate taxes only account for a small percentage of revenue, we can more than make up for it by creating millions of new jobs.

So Romney will cut tax rates, yet increase tax revenue?

Yup. Funny, that... you can get more money with lower rates, if you have a couple dozen million more people paying taxes, and employers of a couple dozen million more people paying taxes, and all that extra income being spent on things that are taxed.


I mean, less benefits for the wealthy. Progressive based on income.

Okay, so if this it true, Romney gives more benefits to the poor than Bush.

Yup, and that's been his plan all along. Even his record shows that he's not adverse to some progressive ideals.

4 - New trade/crack down on China.

"Cracking down" is not a plan and is easier said than done. The only plan Romney proposed was to label them a currency manipulator.

Which would allow us to apply pressure through tariffs, regulations, etc...

Okay so Romney may impose more tariffs than Bush. But Bush still imposed tariffs on China.

I'll admit, I'm not very good with international trade issues, but I'm certain there are a lot of things we could do to get China to play fair.

5 - Return powers and programs to the states.

Bush was all for "states rights".

Ok, so what did he do for the states?

Bush allowed healthcare to be state run, like what Romney wants to do. Did Bush force the states to do anything that Romney would not?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 1:30:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/28/2012 11:52:13 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Spend less. Bush made an upsurge in spending, thought nothing compared to Obama.

Bush spent on military, which Romney also plans to spend more on. Bush spent on the war in Iraq. Romney is more likely to invade Iran than Obama. And Romney will have to spend more to invade Iran. Like Bush, if Romney spends, he will spend on military and war.

Bush also spent obscene amounts on old people.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 3:56:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/28/2012 12:14:20 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
While Romney plans to spend less than Bush, I believe their philosophy for spending is the same. Romney surrounds himself some of the same advisers of Bush.
Great, so he'll be about x10 better than Obama. If Romney's presidency becomes even a 10% success, that's something Obama would die over due to jealousy. He has nothing to be proud of, except for bringing the US closer to a fanatic, socialist utopia. Other than that he fails on every account. And Romney's spending would NEVER make him worse than Obama.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 4:11:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/28/2012 11:44:36 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 10/28/2012 11:43:55 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
If you really don't think there is a difference, you don't want to see the truth at this point.

Please inform me. What is the difference?

1). To create jobs, my plan will encourage investment and expansion by restraining federal spending, reducing regulation and making the tax relief permanent.

lol. so is Romney lying about this too? Bush didn't do this.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 4:14:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/28/2012 4:11:50 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/28/2012 11:44:36 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 10/28/2012 11:43:55 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
If you really don't think there is a difference, you don't want to see the truth at this point.

Please inform me. What is the difference?

1). To create jobs, my plan will encourage investment and expansion by restraining federal spending, reducing regulation and making the tax relief permanent.

lol. so is Romney lying about this too? Bush didn't do this.

This is also a big reason why "Moderate" McCain lost. Even fiscally careful Democrats were forced to vote for Obama.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 4:49:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/28/2012 11:35:19 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

http://www.politicususa.com...

It seems Romney's policies are quite similar to the policies of Bush. When asked about it in the debate Romney just says that the difference is that now the USA can be energy independent, and that Romney will cut the deficit. Bush was generally regarded as "bad" by dems and repubs. It confuses me as to how people can hate Bush, yet like Romney, since their plans are so similar. It seems the republican plan is based on an ideology that does not change. What is the difference between Romney and Bush?

Here is Romney"s 5 point plan:

1). Achieve energy independence on this continent by 2020. America is blessed with extraordinary natural resources, and developing them will create millions of good jobs " not only in the energy industry, but also in industries like manufacturing that will benefit from more energy at lower prices.
Notice he doesn't say America, but the continent. He acknowledges Canada and Mexico's aid in this goal.

2). Trade that works for America.
This is too vague to comment on. This could mean opening trade relations with other countries, it could mean tarriffs, it could mean less regulations to bring the cost of doing business here less, it could mean lowering or eliminating the corporate tax rate, and/or it could mean more free trade agreements.

3). Provide Americans with the skills to succeed through better public schools, better access to higher education, and better retraining programs that help to match unemployed workers with real-world job opportunities.
He does not say how he will do this. My guess is by eliminating the Dept of Education, and letting states rule their schools.

4). Cut the deficit, reducing the size of government and getting the national debt under control so that America remains a place where businesses want to open up shop and hire.
This is a hallmark of the GOP, and to be fair, Obama and many other Dems run on cutting the deficit. GOP generally by spending cuts, DFL by raising taxes.



5). Champion small business. Small businesses are the engine of job creation in this country, but they will struggle to succeed if taxes and regulations are too burdensome or if a government in Washington does its best to stifle them. Mitt will pursue comprehensive tax reform that lowers tax rates for all Americans, and he will cut back on the red tape that drives up costs and discourages hiring.

He is saying taxes and regulation will be lowered, not not increased. If what he says is true, and rates go down by eliminating credits, there will be a zero sum in tax liability. If this is true, that means the next dollar earned will be more lucritvie; even one only makes $40K, the next dollar is taxed at 15% fed, plus state, plus 5.65% payroll, plus 7.65% if self-employed. After a few thousand more, the rate is 25% federal.
Most Republicans say we can lower taxes on everyone by cutting spending.

I don't know how much I believe of what Romney actually says is true. I am hoping he sounds deceptive because he is. He is a businessman, and he knows what needs to get done; however, no one is going to get elected by running on this (personal income taxes would need to be raised 100% to cover the current deficit, or all taxes would need to be increased by about 30%, or a 25% cut in spending needs to occur).
I hope I am right, and that Congress has the will to allow it.
My work here is, finally, done.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 6:22:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/28/2012 11:42:06 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Romney could be the next Reagan...

Let's hope not. Reagan was one of the worst spenders of the modern era.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 7:18:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/28/2012 11:40:19 AM, Mirza wrote:
Romney would do better at spending. I think a comparison with Bush is a great compliment. Obama has not a tiny fragment of a good record that Bush had.

Yes, because a rapid surge in defense spending that the military says it doesn't need and tax cuts for everyone is a lovely way to reduce the deficit. Call Obama whatever you want, but I'm not going to tolerate this delusion that Romney will change anything. You all know that he won't. You know he's a flip flopper and tells people only what they want to hear. Stop pretending.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 8:26:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 7:18:07 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/28/2012 11:40:19 AM, Mirza wrote:
Romney would do better at spending. I think a comparison with Bush is a great compliment. Obama has not a tiny fragment of a good record that Bush had.

Yes, because a rapid surge in defense spending that the military says it doesn't need and tax cuts for everyone is a lovely way to reduce the deficit. Call Obama whatever you want, but I'm not going to tolerate this delusion that Romney will change anything. You all know that he won't. You know he's a flip flopper and tells people only what they want to hear. Stop pretending.

What about Obama's SSM policy?

I'm not going for a rebuttal, I've just always been curious about your opinion on it, and, seeing as how it changed, it seems relevant to bring up.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 8:35:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 8:26:55 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/29/2012 7:18:07 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/28/2012 11:40:19 AM, Mirza wrote:
Romney would do better at spending. I think a comparison with Bush is a great compliment. Obama has not a tiny fragment of a good record that Bush had.

Yes, because a rapid surge in defense spending that the military says it doesn't need and tax cuts for everyone is a lovely way to reduce the deficit. Call Obama whatever you want, but I'm not going to tolerate this delusion that Romney will change anything. You all know that he won't. You know he's a flip flopper and tells people only what they want to hear. Stop pretending.

What about Obama's SSM policy?

I'm not going for a rebuttal, I've just always been curious about your opinion on it, and, seeing as how it changed, it seems relevant to bring up.

I'm not just saying this because it's Obama, but that one is fine, because he did it once and remained consistent thereafter. When you say you're for the blunt Amendment today, and then say you oppose a plan for employers to determine women's coverage of contraceptives a few days later, then reassert that for the blunt amendment a week later,....that's unacceptable. When you say you're going to eliminate Obamacare "in its entirety" today, then your campaign team quietly tells reporters that actually you're going to keep some parts of it a few days later,....that's unacceptable. When you advised the President to follow Massachusetts' model for healthcare, and then when he does, you attack him for it, ...that's unacceptable. When you claim that you now and will always protect a woman's right to choose, then a few years later say that you'll reverse Roe v. Wade and cut planned parenthood,....then on the debate stage a few months later, say you won't cut planned parenthood...that's unacceptable.

^^^^^^^^THAT is why it really bothers me, and at times makes me derisively angry that people are treating Romney like he's the "fix-it guy". Either they really have some short memories, or their brains aren't functioning properly.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 8:41:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago

What about Obama's SSM policy?

I'm not going for a rebuttal, I've just always been curious about your opinion on it, and, seeing as how it changed, it seems relevant to bring up.

Obama was always in favor of gay rights. He repealed DADT his first term! He eventually went further to support gay marriages from supporting gay unions. This is not a big shift. Its like switching from supporting a 5% tax increase to a 6% tax increase. His actions have always been consistent with what he says.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 8:55:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago

http://upload.wikimedia.org...

Yes, the effective corporate tax rate decreased and was the lowest it has ever been under Bush.

Lol. Do you know how taxes work? Where did Bush lower the tax rates?

Effective rates =/= marginal tax rates. Effective rates change without any changes from the government.

It's more difficult to reduce the deficit with 23 million un/underemployed. Corporate taxes only account for a small percentage of revenue, we can more than make up for it by creating millions of new jobs.

So Romney will cut tax rates, yet increase tax revenue?

Yup. Funny, that... you can get more money with lower rates, if you have a couple dozen million more people paying taxes, and employers of a couple dozen million more people paying taxes, and all that extra income being spent on things that are taxed.


I mean, less benefits for the wealthy. Progressive based on income.

Okay, so if this it true, Romney gives more benefits to the poor than Bush.

Yup, and that's been his plan all along. Even his record shows that he's not adverse to some progressive ideals.

4 - New trade/crack down on China.

"Cracking down" is not a plan and is easier said than done. The only plan Romney proposed was to label them a currency manipulator.

Which would allow us to apply pressure through tariffs, regulations, etc...

Okay so Romney may impose more tariffs than Bush. But Bush still imposed tariffs on China.

I'll admit, I'm not very good with international trade issues, but I'm certain there are a lot of things we could do to get China to play fair.

5 - Return powers and programs to the states.

Bush was all for "states rights".

Ok, so what did he do for the states?

Bush allowed healthcare to be state run, like what Romney wants to do. Did Bush force the states to do anything that Romney would not?

Maybe Romney has a few differences on how he will implement the republican ideology. But, his basic ideology is the same as Bush. Based on Romneys flip-flops,his reluctance to give specifics, and reluctance to stand up to extremists in his party, I don't think Romney has a plan. I think Romney being different from Bush is just wishful thinking.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 9:38:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 8:35:28 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/29/2012 8:26:55 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/29/2012 7:18:07 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/28/2012 11:40:19 AM, Mirza wrote:
Romney would do better at spending. I think a comparison with Bush is a great compliment. Obama has not a tiny fragment of a good record that Bush had.

Yes, because a rapid surge in defense spending that the military says it doesn't need and tax cuts for everyone is a lovely way to reduce the deficit. Call Obama whatever you want, but I'm not going to tolerate this delusion that Romney will change anything. You all know that he won't. You know he's a flip flopper and tells people only what they want to hear. Stop pretending.

What about Obama's SSM policy?

I'm not going for a rebuttal, I've just always been curious about your opinion on it, and, seeing as how it changed, it seems relevant to bring up.

I'm not just saying this because it's Obama, but that one is fine, because he did it once and remained consistent thereafter. When you say you're for the blunt Amendment today, and then say you oppose a plan for employers to determine women's coverage of contraceptives a few days later, then reassert that for the blunt amendment a week later,....that's unacceptable. When you say you're going to eliminate Obamacare "in its entirety" today, then your campaign team quietly tells reporters that actually you're going to keep some parts of it a few days later,....that's unacceptable. When you advised the President to follow Massachusetts' model for healthcare, and then when he does, you attack him for it, ...that's unacceptable. When you claim that you now and will always protect a woman's right to choose, then a few years later say that you'll reverse Roe v. Wade and cut planned parenthood,....then on the debate stage a few months later, say you won't cut planned parenthood...that's unacceptable.

^^^^^^^^THAT is why it really bothers me, and at times makes me derisively angry that people are treating Romney like he's the "fix-it guy". Either they really have some short memories, or their brains aren't functioning properly.
So what do you want to debate? Don't think that your wall-of-text means anything. What you just said is incredibly stupid. I'm sure you can make a good case for Obama then.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 9:51:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 9:42:46 AM, blameworthy wrote:
This forum is plagued with nothing but ad hominems.

This time, you can say that it wasn't my fault.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 10:18:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 9:38:08 AM, Mirza wrote:

So what do you want to debate? Don't think that your wall-of-text means anything. What you just said is incredibly stupid. I'm sure you can make a good case for Obama then.

If it's so stupid, why don't you refute it? Yes or no, is Mitt Romney a flip flopper? Yes or no, did he change his position several times on the Blunt Amendment? Yes or no, did his campaign quietly correct him after the debate? Yes or no did he not oppose planned parenthood, then claim he was for it later on in the same general election? Yes or no did he not advise the president to employ Massachusetts' model of healthcare?

Answer them 1 by 1,....and 1 by 1 I will prove you wrong with quotes, videos and links. Go ahead. I'm waiting.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault