The Illusion of Choice: Romney vs Obama

[FreedomFan]

The point being we know what 0bama will do, probably even more of the same as a lame duck. Even when 0bama said he would cut the deficit he offered no real plan...and once elected he ignored anything to do with controlling costs and went on a spending spree.

Ryan is chairman of the House Budget committee. He is primarily known for his work in this area. The fact that his budget proposals have pissed off some people should be some indication that they might be able to make the tough choices. They might not makes a dent in the deficit, but I'm pretty sure they won't explode it like 0bama did.

I understand your logic and your point. But see I would look at the same situation and conclude that the devil is better than a placebo in this case. Since, as you point out, we know what Barry will do. Keep him there since we are better prepared to neutralize this time.

Romney/Ryan are slippery eels, and we're going to have a develop a whole new way of dealing with their flavor of big goobermint liebrawlism and outright fascism. Ryan talks a good talk, but he's no fiscal conservative. And he's also an enemy of freedom and liberty, just look at his voting record.

You pays your money, you makes your choice I reckon. I won't be voting for either one. Which, according to what I read here, means I'm voting for Obama. So be it.

 

[EmptyTimCup]

Precisely. And the have no difference in political ideology because they both are working for the same master.

which master is this ?

and how do you propose fixing it

 

[Larry Gude]

Romney is also a socialist. He seems to have a different set of people fooled than Obama does.

All the major candidates are to a decent extent or more. The unthinkable of 30 years ago, even 20, is common practice today.

However, that is merely a reflection of we, the people.

 

[FreedomFan]

which master is this ?

and how do you propose fixing it

I vote.

 

[FoundingFather]

Johnson could not win as a Republican so for some reason he jumped ship.

Romney/Ryan now realize the fiscal crisis is here and rearing it's ugly head! No difference? Who proposed a budget to cut spending? RYAN!!!!

It's a math problem and Romney and Ryan are saying THEY will address it. Obama is antithetical to American values. He is doubling down on his socialist agenda. I would let Romney have a whack at it before giving up.

No, Ryan's budget doest not cut anything. The debt still grows under his budget. The budget "cuts" are just decreases in the rate of spending. It's something called baseline budgeting, please research it.

Ryan voted YES on the following: TARP, Medicare Prescription Drug, Economic Stimulus plans, Bailouts for GM and Chrysler, and so on. These are the types of things that got us into this fiscal mess and Ryan is not going to do anything to stop our country's coming debt crisis. He is not even close to a budget hawk, but they would like you to think that he is, portaying an illusion of choice. Please don't fall for this!

 

[FoundingFather]

The fact that his budget proposals have pissed off some people should be some indication that they might be able to make the tough choices.

The fact that his "cuts" (explained in post above) piss people off just shows you that the politicians and people have been accustomed to this big governmt, big spending mantra.

 

[MMDad]

I absolutely understand why you see them as the same, and I understand your desire not to vote for either.

I just wonder what is the point in voting third party? Do you believe that he will win even one state? Do you think that voting third party will actually have any more impact than just not voting?

If people vote for Johnson, or if they just don't vote, the only thing that will be remembered is that Romney failed to convince some conservatives to vote for him. There is no chance that the mainstream, the establishment, or the average voter will understand the point you think you are making.

Remember Nader in '00? He took votes that would have helped Gore. Do we remember his voters as an important voting bloc that must not be ignored? I know that I see them as a bunch of fringe nutties that deserve to be ignored.

 

[FoundingFather]

All the major candidates are to a decent extent or more. The unthinkable of 30 years ago, even 20, is common practice today.

However, that is merely a reflection of we, the people.

Yes, the people are in part responsible for this. However, the people must wake up to realize that we are heading in the wrong direction. Government is supposed to be servant to the people, not the other way around. We are sinking deeper and deeper into collectivism. We need to embrace individual freedom and responsibility, as such is the founding princple of this once great nation. It may be unlikely for the population to recapture this way of thinking, but it is not impossible, and we must try.

 

[FoundingFather]

I absolutely understand why you see them as the same, and I understand your desire not to vote for either.

I just wonder what is the point in voting third party? Do you believe that he will win even one state? Do you think that voting third party will actually have any more impact than just not voting?

If people vote for Johnson, or if they just don't vote, the only thing that will be remembered is that Romney failed to convince some conservatives to vote for him. There is no chance that the mainstream, the establishment, or the average voter will understand the point you think you are making.

Remember Nader in '00? He took votes that would have helped Gore. Do we remember his voters as an important voting bloc that must not be ignored? I know that I see them as a bunch of fringe nutties that deserve to be ignored.

The main point is voting based on principle. You vote for those who respect the Constiution and the founding princples of America. You should not vote for someone based on whether or not you think they can win. That is just a self-fullfiling prophecy. By doing so, you are essentially giving up and playing right into the establishments hand! Do not give up. Have courage, vote for the one who is best suited to protect your individual freedoms.

Most people are not even aware that Gary Johnson will be on the ballot. The first step is to raise people's awareness. Second, if we can increase the numbers for third party candidates on election day, even slightly, then this may encourage those who do vote based on probability of winning to consider voting thirdy party next time.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yes, the people are in part responsible for this. However, the people must wake up to realize that we are heading in the wrong direction. Government is supposed to be servant to the people, not the other way around. We are sinking deep and deeper into collectivism. We need to embrace individual freedom and responbility, as such is the founding princple of this once great nation. It may be unlikely for the population to recapture this way of thinking, but it is not impossible, and we must try.

I hear you but, the first step is in coming to grips with the simple facts of the matter. Most people do, honestly, like big gummint. There is NO way Mitt could be the nominee otherwise. The excuses are endless but, that is the Gaddis Smith view; "one of the most somber aspects of the study of history is that it suggests no obvious ways by which mankind could have avoided folly". The '#### happens' school of thought.

Then, there is Santayana; "those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it." Or, '#### happens' because people forget history and how their 'new' ideas results were very probably long ago proven.

That's what we do. If 'they' do something stupid, it's because they're too dumb to remember history. If 'we' do something stupid, '#### happens'.

Interesting tidbit; one of Professor Gaddis's students was a guy named George. George W. Bush. His detractors see the repeat of failed ideas. His supporters argue '#### happens'.

Mitt is going to win and that isn't likely a good thing because he is being elected on the same premise that he can't possibly be as bad as the other guy.

 

[FoundingFather]

Where were you, say, twenty-odd years ago with this sudden enlightenment? It's too late, now.

It is not too late. You have simply become a coward and given up. But that is ok, we do not need everyone. Revolutions are often led by just a small group of the populace.

 

[Larry Gude]

Remember Nader in '00? He took votes that would have helped Gore. Do we remember his voters as an important voting bloc that must not be ignored? I know that I see them as a bunch of fringe nutties that deserve to be ignored.

See, the thing is, we would have very likely been better off with President Gore because he would have had a VERY observant R congress riding his ass every day.

The same can not be said of Mitt winning. We've already seen how the R's do oversight when our team has the WH.

 

[FoundingFather]

I hear you but, the first step is in coming to grips with the simple facts of the matter. Most people do, honestly, like big gummint. There is NO way Mitt could be the nominee otherwise. The excuses are endless but, that is the Gaddis Smith view; "one of the most somber aspects of the study of history is that it suggests no obvious ways by which mankind could have avoided folly". The '#### happens' school of thought.

Then, there is Santayana; "those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it." Or, '#### happens' because people forget history and how their 'new' ideas results were very probably long ago proven.

That's what we do. If 'they' do something stupid, it's because they're too dumb to remember history. If 'we' do something stupid, '#### happens'.

Interesting tidbit; one of Professor Gaddis's students was a guy named George. George W. Bush. His detractors see the repeat of failed ideas. His supporters argue '#### happens'.

Mitt is going to win and that isn't likely a good thing because he is being elected on the same premise that he can't possibly be as bad as the other guy.

I do realize that most people are accustomed to big government and that is unlikely to change on its own. But for those of us who do realize that big government is the problem and not the answer, we MUST do something.

 

[Larry Gude]

I do realize that most people are accustomed to big government and that is unlikely to change on its own. But for those of us who do realize that big government is the problem and not the answer, we MUST do something.

It's a representative republic.

In that context, the will of the people can be the problem but ONLY the people can be the solution. I know that's not real exciting but, the 'something' to do is keep making the argument for constitutional limited federal government.

Any other path, unless you've a better idea, is more of a sure, and swift, death of our republic than what we are doing to ourselves now.

 

[PsyOps]

Romney is also a socialist. He seems to have a different set of people fooled than Obama does.

I find this kind of thinking really interesting. I always think of things as relative. If you ask an Obamaite Romney is a radical right wing zealot. If you ask a moderate Romney is just a right winger. However, ask a far right person and Romney is a socialist.

Calling Romney a socialist shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what socialism is. You’re using this term for no other reason than to exaggerate that Romney has some big government tendencies. You don’t do your argument any favors by claiming extreme things that just aren’t true.

Obama’s answer is to pump more fake money into the system. He has no desire to slow spending. He has no desire reduce the size of government. He desires to dictate, through government power, our lives: what to buy, what not to buy, speech, religion, etc…

Romney on all fronts is opposite, and his track record as governor shows it. He managed a balanced budget. He lowered unemployment. He reduced taxes for EVERYONE. I am adamantly against universal healthcare even at the state level, but I agree that it should be left up to the states to decide these things; and Romney has stated this as well.

• Romney believes life begins at conception. Obama doesn’t even believe life is viable after it’s born.
  
• Romney believes in the most extreme cases the mother should have the choice to abort. Obama believes in abortion on demand at any time even after the child is born due to a botched abortion
  
• Romney has promoted energy intendance. He wants to open up domestic drilling on nearly every front. He promotes alternative energy source by stimulating the PRIVATE sector rather than pump billions into failing ‘alternative energy’ companies. Obama shows no desire to get us off foreign oil, is against new drilling and exploration in the US, and wants to abuse our taxes by throwing billions trying to stand up government-run ‘clean’ energy companies.
  
• Romney believes there must be tax incentives that don’t punish any class of American. He believes the economy grows through stimulating job growth through lower taxes, especially to those that are trying to start up businesses, those already running small businesses, and those running large businesses (the one’s that provide the largest base in jobs. Romney believes our economy grows from the top down. Obama wants to punish the success of these people with higher taxes. He believe our economy grows from the bottom up.
  
• The only difference I see between the two on foreign policy is Romney wont apologize for what American does or has done. Obama seems to think we are the reason for the world’s problems.

This is not an attempt to sell Romney. I’m only pointing out that Obama and Romney, on nearly every issue, are hugely different. If you don’t see this then you live your life in a far, FAR right wing bubble.

 

[foodcritic]

No, Ryan's budget doest not cut anything. The debt still grows under his budget. The budget "cuts" are just decreases in the rate of spending. It's something called baseline budgeting, please research it.

Ryan voted YES on the following: TARP, Medicare Prescription Drug, Economic Stimulus plans, Bailouts for GM and Chrysler, and so on. These are the types of things that got us into this fiscal mess and Ryan is not going to do anything to stop our country's coming debt crisis. He is not even close to a budget hawk, but they would like you to think that he is, portaying an illusion of choice. Please don't fall for this!

I realize what baseline budgeting is....I also realize what common sense is! Romney/Ryan are addressing the issue NOW. You can't cut everything right away it has to start incrementally just like it started. This is good for our markets when they know that spending is going to START the process of control. Really? You expect to go from 100 mph to 0 mph just like that

While it troubles me that Ryan voted for GM, Romney did not and spoke out against it. That said it's what they are saying NOW that matters. They are addressing the math problem NOW. Obama is not. Johnson is a Ralph Nader.....nothing.

 

[Larry Gude]

You can't cut everything right away it has to start incrementally just like it started. :

What does that mean? If we, say, pass a budget that is, say, $1 trillion more than the prior one, can we then, on the following budget, cut it $1 trillion? Is that incrementally?

 

[MMDad]

I see this election as analogous to Ghaddafi. Way back when he was actively sponsoring terrorism and doing what little he could to harm us, it would have made sense to take him out. This is how I see the choice - it may not be a great thing, but it's better than what's there.

Then our bombs scared him into being just a crackpot, but one we could live with. Taking him out this year looks like a case of removing the enemy you know in favor of the enemy you don't know. This seems to be more how the Johnson voters see the election - better not to take out the tyrant who's there.

That doesn't make me wrong for wanting Obama gone no matter what. And that doesn't make you wrong for being willing to live with the devil you know over the one you don't.

I was hoping to see if there's anyone who really believes that Johnson has a chance, or that he will even get enough votes to have any impact at all.

 

[FoundingFather]

Calling Romney a socialist shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what socialism is. You’re using this term for no other reason than to exaggerate that Romney has some big government tendencies. You don’t do your argument any favors by claiming extreme things that just aren’t true.

Socialism, fascism, communism are fundamentally under the same ideology: collectivism. Which is the belief that the state is master of the people and that indvidual freedom can and will be sacrifed for the "greater good" at the will of the sate. Both Romney and Obama fall under collectivism, arguing over which form of collectivism is better, is falling fool to the false left vs right paradigm.

Obama’s answer is to pump more fake money into the system.

And so is Romney's because he supports central banking (The Federal Reserve). Congress is given away its authority to coin money to a private banking cartel that basically uses monopoly money to legally enslave the entire nation. But of course, this is an unspoken issue.

 

[FoundingFather]

I realize what baseline budgeting is....I also realize what common sense is! Romney/Ryan are addressing the issue NOW. You can't cut everything right away it has to start incrementally just like it started. This is good for our markets when they know that spending is going to START the process of control. Really? You expect to go from 100 mph to 0 mph just like that

While it troubles me that Ryan voted for GM, Romney did not and spoke out against it. That said it's what they are saying NOW that matters. They are addressing the math problem NOW. Obama is not. Johnson is a Ralph Nader.....nothing.

How does this make any common sense? Is that how your household budget works? Do you gradually reduce your spending over a 30 year peiod to balance it?

The truth is that Ryan is pandering to voters who are fiscally conservative. When the going gets tough, they will vote to raise the debt ceiling, vote to undo any promised cuts, and continue to rack up debt until no one longer wants to buy our bonds, except the Federal Reserve of course, with its monopoly money.