PDA

View Full Version : Who lies more?



Catfan73
10-12-2012, 08:33 PM
Or maybe a better question would be who lies better?

Obama claims that the U.S. has created over half a million new manufacturing jobs. It's technically true, but misleading. We've lost about a million manufacturing jobs since 2009 but regained more than half that in the comeback.

Romney claims to have a plan to create 12 million new jobs. Also misleading. Independent forecasters predict the economy will gain about 12 million jobs over the next four years regardless of who is president.

Obama says Romney would give millionaires another tax break and raise taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 per year. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center concluded that he would have to close tax loopholes that benefit the middle class to do so, but in fact Romney hasn't specified how exactly he would pay for the tax cuts he says he'd give all Americans.

Romney says that under Obama's plan you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job. "They just send you your welfare check." The reality is Obama granted waivers to some states that asked for greater flexibility in attempting to make welfare-to-work programs more effective at getting people off of welfare rolls.

Obama's plan to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade relies heavily on budget gimmickry.

Romney plans to 'reverse Obama's defense cuts and strengthen our military'. The cuts are part of a debt-reduction deal agreed to by the White House and congressional Republicans, including running mate Paul Ryan.

Obama claims the way Bain Consulting reorganized cost the government and taxpayers $10 million. Bain wrote off $10 million in debt at the expense of the FDIC, not the treasury.

Romney says 'We're only inches away from no longer being a free economy.' Conservative Heritage Foundation ranks the U.S. in the top 10 worldwide for economic freedom, ahead of countries like Japan, Germany, and the U.K.

Obama knows most voters think of its controversial immigration law when he says 'My opponent says the Arizona law should be a model for the nation.' Romney was actually talking about an Arizona law requiring employers to check worker eligibility.

Romney says 'He was president for the last three and a half years, did nothing on immigration.' Obama actually lobbied for the Dream Act in Congress, where it was blocked by Republicans, so Romney is technically right since no law was passed but Obama wasn't exactly idle on the issue. Obama also issued an executive order protecting young illegal immigrants from deportation in June.

Doc
10-12-2012, 10:13 PM
I find it interesting that the Obama campaign wants specifics about Romney's plan because they don't know what's in it yet the know what's in it because it has a $5,000,000,000 tax cut for the rich. So which is it? Is it unknown because they have given no specifics or is it known because you know the tax cuts for the rich are there?



Or is it that they want to do what the founding fathers outlined. Is it that they actually want to create legislation that both side have input in creating so that both side can at least stomach it?

I don't doubt that there is a certain amount of bull**** in there. That's expected since that is what candidates do. However I'm sick and tired of one side being cut out. I'd say the same thing if the right controlled all legislative processes. IMO the gov't works best when BOTH parties are involved because that excludes the "far" aspect (left or right).

Catfan73
10-12-2012, 11:08 PM
I think the $5 trillion dollar thing came from multiplying the Tax Policy Center's estimate that the gross tax cuts proposed by Romney would amount to about half a trillion a year. From Forbes:

Romney has also said that he intends his reforms to be revenue-neutral, with the specified revenue losses being offset by a combination of economic growth and unspecified cuts in deductions and other tax preferences. The net impact of his reforms would undoubtedly be less than $5 trillion, perhaps much less if he’s aggressive in going after tax breaks or willing to compromise on some of his other tax reform goals (e.g., not raising taxes on investment income). Without any details about what he would do, however, we can’t measure the net revenue impact of his ideas.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/10/12/five-things-you-should-know-about-mitt-romneys-5-trillion-tax-cut/

CitizenBBN
10-13-2012, 01:51 AM
They all are misleading, that's for sure. In about every election it happens in part b/c it's so hard to define what is "factual" in the policy arena. It's easy to say "well I meant it for this narrow set of data or this interpretation".

It also happens b/c most voters won't follow the policy discussion below that first "he's going to raise taxes" or "he's going to raid Social security" level. You could be more accurate by explaining what candidate X will do to Social Security, but in a 15 or 30 second attention span about all you get out is the inaccurate "raiding".

Now, some lie in ways that are hard to get around as just simplification. The only one in this election that to me is a dead mortal lock is Obama's speech on the Stafford Amendment, and that's from 2007 so most won't pay attention to it.

I have serious doubts about their Fast and Furious position as well as the Libyan embassy, but likewise Romney has shifted descriptions of what he did as Mass Governor in things like health care.

So they all mislead, and they also outright lie, so I pretty much set that aside unless it's just egregious. I look for direction of policy and go from there b/c hoping for a true candidate, a candidate not jaded by a political career to get to this level, is all but impossible to get as a Presidential candidate. I loved the GOP guy and they ruined his life rather than let him run. No normal guy can survive the pit vipers from either party.

So I look at direction, knowing that it's only a direction b/c they're President and not King, and knowing everything they do and will do and did to get here is political and that means lots of kissing babies while they're stealing their candy.

Obama really is a western Euro social democrat, and Romney will be far more pro free market and what I consider to be the true American roots of individual responsibility. He isn't a Libertarian by a long shot, but he's a move in the right direction. I know it will too often mean pro big business rather than pro free market, but it's superior to pro big government with a deep suspicion and even distaste of free enterprise.

IMO the whopper lies happen more at the local level. Senate and House races seem to be ugly beyond description and overflowing with misrepresentations. They love to take House and Senate votes and cite them as being against social security or defense or whatever, when we all know they may have voted 10 times on the same basic bill as the amendments that were irrelevant to social security got rejected and negotiated. So you can vote down the appropriations for agriculture 10 times as it gets battled and in the end vote for the final appropriations bill, but they claim "voted against agriculture 10 times out of 11 as a Senator".

Are they "lies"? In letter no, but in spirit they're whoppers.

So I'll vote for Romney, who I think has been as misleading but not as extreme in his big lies as Obama IMO, but I'll do it b/c of their basic views on the economic nature of this country. As policy comes across their desk do they look for a way for government to directly act to fix it or do they look at it and start with how they can incentivize non-government action. That's Romney.

Doc
10-13-2012, 07:13 AM
I think the $5 trillion dollar thing came from multiplying the Tax Policy Center's estimate that the gross tax cuts proposed by Romney would amount to about half a trillion a year. From Forbes:

Romney has also said that he intends his reforms to be revenue-neutral, with the specified revenue losses being offset by a combination of economic growth and unspecified cuts in deductions and other tax preferences. The net impact of his reforms would undoubtedly be less than $5 trillion, perhaps much less if he’s aggressive in going after tax breaks or willing to compromise on some of his other tax reform goals (e.g., not raising taxes on investment income). Without any details about what he would do, however, we can’t measure the net revenue impact of his ideas.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/10/12/five-things-you-should-know-about-mitt-romneys-5-trillion-tax-cut/

There are not details because the specifics have not yet been created. The plan is to create the cuts through the work of both parties. My biggest complaint about the current administration is their repeated one sided approach to governing. My side has no input for 2 years. The people I elected were basically told to shut the hell up because we are doing this our way. Well to me that isn't how the founding fathers wanted government to work. Instead the specifics should be developed by negotiations between the parties and a consensus developed. That is the plan.

jazyd
10-13-2012, 11:54 AM
This. Obamacare, you can see what is in it when we pass it and screw you.

With Obama you have a record to go on, regardless of his new promises. He wont' reduce the deficit nor will he reduct the debt. And if you pay attention to what he says when talks about 'taxing the rich' he immediately starts talking about all the new spending he plans on doing with that little addtional money. Then he says he will reduce the deficit because of the savings from two wars, but those are being paid for with a credit card, not the budget. Much like Biden saying he was there and voted against both wars because he claimed we coulnd't pay for it, he voted to authorize both wars.
It is interesting to see how catfan phrased each of the Obama and Romney plans, much like the MSM, his descriptions of each were carefully worded to favor one side.
Obama has done everything he can to allow illegal immigration, he nor his attn general will not enforce federal law regarding illegals, and he and his attn general have fought every state that has tried to enforce federal law. In other words they do not obey the constitution.
Also Obama will do anything for unions such as using his dept to block Boeing from building a plant creating thousands of jobs in South Carolina simply because that state is a right to work state, even though Boeing was not closing their plant in Washington. He screwed all the creditors on GM and Chrysler and yet gave the unions part ownership plus billions of dollars we will never get back.
Oil industry, killed permits for drilling, will not permit on the outer banks to be drilled, no drilling on federal land, can't upset the enviromentalists but gives billions in aid to brazil to drill offshore. And blocks the oil pipeline from Canada, more lost jobs.
Like Citizen said Romney is pro business, pro growth, Obama is not and will stand in the way of growth with capitalism. And he has proved it.
Obama has a record of deficits, first president to ever have 4 straight years of over $1 trillion in deficits, a record of debt with 1/3 of our current debt being rung up under his watch, a 50% increase in foodstamps, a huge increase in welfare and poverty, education has gotten worse and not better, refusing to obey the constitution and enforcing federal law such as immigration and intimidation of voters by the new black panthers, his administration refusing to give security to our ambassadors in high risk areas, actually out and out lying about what happened in Libya. He has done class warfare at every turn, even Bill Clinton accused him of it in 2008.
Scandals right and left, all the green energy companies that were given billions of dollars for his friends, sending tax dollars to Norway to build cars, outsourcing to China jobs, fast and furious, Libya, refusing to meet with world leaders at a time of crisis in the Middle East. It goes on and on.
When Eastwood said he was an empty chair, he had it dead on.



There are not details because the specifics have not yet been created. The plan is to create the cuts through the work of both parties. My biggest complaint about the current administration is their repeated one sided approach to governing. My side has no input for 2 years. The people I elected were basically told to shut the hell up because we are doing this our way. Well to me that isn't how the founding fathers wanted government to work. Instead the specifics should be developed by negotiations between the parties and a consensus developed. That is the plan.

Catfan73
10-13-2012, 01:46 PM
A couple more. . . .

Romney says 'President Obama's trillion-dollar federal takeover of the U.S. health care system is a disaster.' Under Obamacare, private doctors and hospitals will continue to deliver nearly all care. Most Americans that already have private, employer-based insurance will keep their coverage. The merits of the law are debatable, but Obamacare is not a "federal takeover of the U.S. health care system".

Obama says 'We do not need an outsourcing pioneer in the Oval Office'. Bain Capital invested in lots of companies that outsourced jobs, but Romney was no longer directly responsible when the outsourcing occurred.

badrose
10-13-2012, 01:51 PM
Obama uses deception at every turn, and are often divisive. His speech to the victims of Katrina implied racism, that they didn't get the funds other victims of calamity received under Bush when, in fact, they got more. He framed the refusal to use federal funds to provide free contraception as a "war on women." Is there a war on milk drinkers as well? He blamed a video for the attack on our embassy at the UN when anyone paying attention knew less than 48 hours after it happened it was a terrorist attack. He promised transparency yet tried to push through Obamacare without anyone knew exactly what was in it, cited executive privilege when Fast and Furious documents were subpenaed. So many lies about his past in his book that are too many to list here. The man is an opportunist, a snake-oil salesman, and has no love for this country or its greatness. He and his party thrives on making people believe they are victims. They know they could not exist without "victims." He's the best at it, a real silver-tongued devil. The truth is not in him.

CitizenBBN
10-13-2012, 03:52 PM
A couple more. . . .

Romney says 'President Obama's trillion-dollar federal takeover of the U.S. health care system is a disaster.' Under Obamacare, private doctors and hospitals will continue to deliver nearly all care. Most Americans that already have private, employer-based insurance will keep their coverage. The merits of the law are debatable, but Obamacare is not a "federal takeover of the U.S. health care system".

Everyone in health care I know would disagree with you.

It's a strained analogy but it goes to your point that private doctors will continue to provide care. When the Nazis invaded France it was still the French who ran the day to day government, the trains, etc. Was the Vichy government still "French" or was it more fair to say it was the Nazis with French citizens enlisted?

This is government health care with private doctors and hospitals forcibly pressed into compliance. Obamacare is incredibly involved in every aspect of their practice right down to how they keep their records. There is little semblance of private medical choice in anything they do now. They're told who they will and won't treat, which treatments are to be done, when to stop treatment, what they can and can't charge for treatment, what insurers can/must and can't/won't cover, every aspect of the health care decision making process.

No, the lie is that any of this is still private, just like the lie that France was still an independent nation under the Vichy government. When private doctors and hospitals can't make any choices as to how to run their practices other than the pure medicine of diagnostics that's not "private."

A less strained analogy might be the Lexington Center Corp that runs Rupp Arena. It's technically a private, non-governmental corporation, but the board is appointed by the Mayor with Council approval. So it's technically a non-governmental body but that's in name only for legal purposes. The board serves at the whim of the mayor and Council so it's really part of the city government.

If you can be fined and shut down as a doctor b/c your records system is paper based, that's not private. the doctors serve at the whim of government b/c if the doctors dare do things like keep paper records they lose their ability to bill anyone.

"Truth" isn't a matter of technicality so much as of reality. Obama claims truth on technicality, a legal distinction that has no real world use. Romney is right, this is socialized medicine, just done such that Americans don't revolt.

CitizenBBN
10-13-2012, 04:22 PM
badrose, we've elected a man who sees America as a deeply flawed, fundamentally unfair and immoral nation. He see us as imperialist in our foreign policy and immoral and repressive in our pursuit of free enterprise. He has nothing but disdain for free markets and capitalism, feels only shame for how America became the greatest nation on Earth.

His perspective is part of his upbringing both living abroad (where we aren't exactly loved by many) and his uber-Leftist political path. Successful Americans didn't get their by pulling up their own bootstraps and being self sufficient and taking on risk, they got there on the backs of the disadvantaged who they somehow effectively repressed through their economic rise.

"You didn't build that." How much more freakin' obvious can he be without saying "Free Enterprise bites"? it shows a fundamental belief that individual economic achievement doesn't exist but is a function of the broader economy and some randomly benefit and some randomly are hurt and government has to step in and fix this unfair series of outcomes.

It's fundamental, textbook Leftism. Not "liberalism", Leftism. That statement was a dead giveaway that is fundamental to the Leftist economic paradigm. taking from some to give to the others isn't unfair b/c the unfairness was some having more than others in the first place. They're correcting an unfairness, that's how they sleep at night.

Obama's "tax the rich" isn't to fix the deficit, as was said he already has publicly talked about all the things he's going to spend it on and paying down the debt isn't on the list. it's to create economic fairness, to correct the unfair outcome of the free market that some end up with far more than others.

I hear all this, you know, 'Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever.' No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

Yes, the rest did work that helped him with his factory. You know what happened when the police did their jobs, when the guys who built the roads built them? They got PAID. They were compensated immediately for their contributions to the nation. The market said "doing this job is worth $X" and they were paid X to build the road. They didn't take on risks, they didn't see the need for the thing the factory would build, they didn't work the hours to make it happen. They did their work, their part, and got paid for it. Many of them, like the guy building the road, were in fact paid indirectly BY the guy building the factory through taxation. So not only did the worker get paid for his work but the factory owner got charged already for what the government spent to provide the road to his factory.

The bill has already been paid. What Obama wants is to double dip.

Obama doesn't like what they got paid. Oh no, they get the money not only for the work they did, their contribution as determined in a free market (if someone else would do it for X that's what you can get), he wants them to get their contribution that was neatly quantified PLUS a cut of what the market determined to be the fair reward for taking the risks, working the hours, and having the vision.

THAT is Leftism. Fundamentally the market isn't fair, the X that person got paid wasn't fair, wasn't enough, so the state has to intervene to take some of what the factory builder was paid which was unfairly too much, and give it to the guy who was shafted by the free market.

You cannot reconcile the two. Either you believe the market is the starting point to determine one's contribution to the nation's economic well being or you believe it is an unfair and distorted system that is fundamentally flawed.

That's why I say Obama sees America as fundamentally flawed. Free markets, open competition is what built the nation and he's saying that system doesn't determine one's contribution to the nation, one's economic contribution to the others in the group.

Forget Policy X and Policy Y. Look at the fundamentals. Obama fundamentally, in his heart, is a classic limousine Leftist. He lives in a million dollar house in Chicago, given to him by political supporters, sees rural people as "clinging to their guns and religion" (remember that quote?) and himself as somehow smarter and more sophisticated. that's the smirk from the debate. The "you poor fool you just don't understand."

He fundamentally is against everything I believe America to be about. where he sees shame I see pride. Where he sees unfairness I see the fairest system yet devised by man. Where he sees unfairness I see the amazing power of personal accomplishment.

I stand up and cheer for the man who built the factory, who showed the determination, the sheer guts, the intelligence to make it happen, to create something where nothing existed and to carry the nation forward in a meaningful way. He sees a modern era plantation owner who got rich on the backs of the unfortunate, a man without ethics and no one special who got lucky.

there is no reconciliation. America is either a land of free markets that cheers the accomplishments of its individuals or it's a land of socialist commune where we expect from each according to ability and to each according to need.

Sadly we live in a nation where most voters who decide these things (the undecided 20%) can't find Iraq on a map and can't name the Vice President. They have no interest in learning anything more than who Jennifer Anniston is dating. Mindless sheep steered by sloganism and propaganda, marching to the beat of modern day Leni Riefenstahl. I don't know if they're incapable of understanding the issues b/c they don't even know there are issues.

Useless gits who will ruin the American experiment. They've always been with us, even during the revolution, but they weren't allowed to vote.

CitizenBBN
10-13-2012, 04:34 PM
Oh, and those of us who paid the rest of the taxes to build the roads? Where did we get paid? We got the PRODUCTS from that factory. He followed the demands of the market to provide for us what we wanted.

Adam Smith called this the invisible hand. the unique nature of the market that to be economically successful you must provide for the needs and wants of others. Capitalism itself is a system entirely geared to serving others. You get rich by serving customers, not taxing them.

That factory HELPED people in and of itself. It met their demands, improved their lives by providing things they wanted.

Further, it provided the jobs from that factory, the taxes he already paid on it. Yes, those of us who just paid our taxes were rewarded mightily already by his efforts. The bill was paid many times over before we ever got to Obama's sense of fairness.

Look at RJ Corman. He is making tons of money, but he's providing jobs, providing services that make life better for all of us, increasing the tax base of the city, even directly helping neighborhoods by investing in the rail yard in downtown. Yes I paid taxes that infinitesimally may have built something that he used, but I've been repaid many times over by his efforts.

Alltech? Now there's a success story. My God look at how much Dr. Lyons has repaid us all. How many he's employed, how many good things he's brought to market, how much he's met the needs of Americans and people worldwide with healthier and more plentiful livestock, aquaculture, equine, even adult beverages. Not counting bringing the world games to Lexington and sponsoring the next ones as well.

Are you seriously telling me Dr. Lyons STILL owes something to everyone? That his accomplishments haven't so much improved our lives compared to the work of the average American that we should be putting up statues instead of sending him a tax bill?

No, Dr. Lyons and RJ Corman showed guts, intelligence, vision. They built successful businesses that benefited us all in total disproportion to what the average American contributes to us all economically.

They don't owe me or anyone else one penny more than they've given. RJ paid me in full and then some, his jets are his reward and his alone and I'll gladly thank him without resentment as he steps onto it.

Yes Mr. President, they did build that. Thanks to the invisible hand, they even built it for us.

badrose
10-13-2012, 07:08 PM
Chuck I think you give Obama too much credit. I think he knows the benefits of free enterprise outweighs that of socialism. You know who gets more support from the mega rich? Candidates on the left. Socialism is a power grab that leaves everyone else in the dust.

Catfan73
10-13-2012, 07:22 PM
Likening Obamacare to a government takeover of medical care was Politifact's 2010 Lie of the Year. Besides, it's pretty much the same plan put in place by Romney in Massachusetts.

CitizenBBN
10-13-2012, 08:03 PM
Likening Obamacare to a government takeover of medical care was Politifact's 2010 Lie of the Year. Besides, it's pretty much the same plan put in place by Romney in Massachusetts.

I honestly dont' care what any "fact checking" group says. They no doubt would say the "invisible hand" is a fairy tale.

I'm not a politico guy, and I'm sure not going to defend Romney's health care plan either. However, I do not subscribe to the assumptions on which many of the fact checks are based.

the government has been taking over health care since the 1960s when, with the creation of medicare and medicaid, they began to control the purse strings of the system. Did you know the government went to medical schools and were the push to create specialists and fewer general practice physicians?

The government has expanded its control through the power of the purse as more and more people who receive health care pay for it through the government. Since they're paying the bills they make the rules. They have come to control record keeping, which tests doctors can do given a particular set of symptoms or diagnosis, which doctors can see which patients (the referral system), it's endless.

So government has been taking over health care for decades, which is why it's a complete disaster. What Obama has done is not just continue down that path but sprint down that path as quickly as possible, moving us even farther from any hope of really fixing the system by accepting basic market principles and working with them instead of ignoring them.

We can't just accept what some other group, neutral or not, says is the truth. We have to look at the details, look at the trends, and judge them within a framework that tells us which basic approaches work and which don't.

I have several friends in health care from hospitals to single practitioners, one of whom is one of the smartest people I know and isn't really political at all, and she would laugh out loud at the "fact" that Obama hasn't all but completed the government take over of health care.

Seriously, what is left that they haven't taken over? They decide what tests to pay for which determines which tests are done. They decide whether a specialist can see a patient (by not paying for the visit). They decide the treatments, the drugs, the hospital stay, and now will decide if the prognosis is good enough to even pay for treatments.

If this isn't a take over, what exactly would one entail? If one car company made 75% of all cars sold in the US and had control over the opening of franchises and the import of other cars wouldn't that be a monopoly? Same thing here. Once you control enough of a market it's a monopoly and you can price fix. That's what medicare/medicaid has been doing and will do even more now as the government will completely control everyone now without insurance. Their power will be insurmountable.

So what would be a takeover in their view? Does it take direct paychecks to doctors for it to be a "takeover". That's naive beyond description. The government controls so much of the money in the system they control the system. Those people are clueless if that's the simplicity of their analysis of a system, any system.

You know the complaints about Wal Mart about how they squeeze their suppliers b/c they have so much buying power? This is that on steroids with no other person to sell to and no way to get away from it short of quitting the business.

CitizenBBN
10-13-2012, 08:10 PM
meant to put this in there:

Obama didn't create the government control of health care. that's been going on a long time. What Obama has done is move us farther down that road faster than anyone before him and in ways that will be difficult to undo and will dramatically increase the mess.

You don't have to be solely responsible for a problem to be part of that problem.

DanISSELisdaman
10-13-2012, 09:02 PM
I couldn't agree with you more Cit. I wish you were running for president.

jazyd
10-14-2012, 12:25 AM
When the federal government can fine a hospital because they have readmitted a patient too quickly after a procedure, they have taken over health care. So this is what I will have to do if I have a procedure done, wait outside the hospital until 1 sec after my 30 days after being released before I am allowed back in, hoping I don't die in the meantime and be sued for littering the sidewalks with my body.

Catfan we all know you love Obama and intend to vote for him, quit playing ring around the rosy, you are more transparent that Obama and that wouldn't take much

Doc
10-14-2012, 09:08 AM
When the government tells my physician what he can and cannot do, the gov't is involved in healthcare control. This happened to me back in March when the federal gov't limited what he could do to me despite me having private insurance and paying for it from my private funds. In the past, he would perform 8 rhizotomies each time (requires general anesthesia) and he did them all at once due to other medical pbms I have. This year the fed gov't forced him to a 4 spot limit per meaning rather than 1 general anesthetic event, I will need two. Twice the risk, twice the expense to me (none to the gov't because I take my responsibility to provide my own Heath care seriously). So explain how this is not the gov't involvement where beaurocrats w/o medical degrees tell my doctor, somebody I have a relationship and trust, can and cannot do?

As an aside, it is illegal for me as a medical professional provider to diagnose or treat a patient without a doctor patient client relationship. This generally means I need to have seen the owner and at least one pet in the last year. Failure to do that could cost me fines etc. if I treat, yet the gov't paper pushers who have never seen me are able to determine how I can and cannot be treated. So don't feed me some crap about private doctors still providing care. They are told what they can and can't do. This is fact as of right now. And once the gov't get more involved it will get worse

ColonelSteve
10-14-2012, 12:10 PM
They both are one in the same, if you dont agree with Obama youre not gonna agree with Romney, Romney at one point of his life has said he has agreed with the same policies Obama does and now he's denying him, no matter WHO you vote for the same thing is gonna happen, the POTUS is nothing more than a puppet and the people REALLY running this country knows it and just using this election for entertainment.

Doc
10-14-2012, 12:48 PM
I for one have no problem with Romney changing his position. To me, that is what an effective leader does at times. No different than Obama changing his stance. Gitmo isn't closed despite that being one of the main points of Obama's campaign 4 years ago. I'm glad of that. My political stance when I was 20 something is far different than my political stance at 40 something. Maybe its because my political stances are always "evolving" in the same way Obama's are "evolving" concerning gay marriage. Romney has stated he is against Obamacare now. Its one of his main points so I doubt he will suddenly become a supporter. While his states plan was / is similar to the national takeover, its different in that one is a state plan. What individual states do is their business. I look to the federal government to defend the nation, regulate interstate commerce, regulate international treaties and commerce. I don't look to them to help me buy a car (aka cash for clunkers) or buy my phone, or pay my mortgage or provide my healthcare.

CitizenBBN
10-14-2012, 04:02 PM
They are told what they can and can't do. This is fact as of right now. And once the gov't get more involved it will get worse

Apparently till they actually draw their checks from Washington this isn't a government takeover of health care. They've been taking over and this was the coup de grace.

jazyd
10-15-2012, 06:39 PM
This is how I feel also. We all change over time on different issues, mine have changed on abortion also just as Romney has. As we get older and sometimes wiser we see things in a different light than when we just got out of college.

As far as the health care of Mass, like Doc said it is a state issue and they wanted it and voted for it. No problem. But that is much different than the feds suddenly deciding they are taking over health care, deciding who gets what, having a board making decisions and most are not doctors, and spending even more billions upon billions in medicaid so that they can enslave even more people.



I for one have no problem with Romney changing his position. To me, that is what an effective leader does at times. No different than Obama changing his stance. Gitmo isn't closed despite that being one of the main points of Obama's campaign 4 years ago. I'm glad of that. My political stance when I was 20 something is far different than my political stance at 40 something. Maybe its because my political stances are always "evolving" in the same way Obama's are "evolving" concerning gay marriage. Romney has stated he is against Obamacare now. Its one of his main points so I doubt he will suddenly become a supporter. While his states plan was / is similar to the national takeover, its different in that one is a state plan. What individual states do is their business. I look to the federal government to defend the nation, regulate interstate commerce, regulate international treaties and commerce. I don't look to them to help me buy a car (aka cash for clunkers) or buy my phone, or pay my mortgage or provide my healthcare.