The Illusion of Choice: Romney vs Obama

[FoundingFather]

So, what specifically is in the Ryan budget that makes you believe this?

What would YOU do to solve the budget problems?

As I said before, Ryan's budget does not cut anything. The debt still grows under his budget. The budget "cuts" are just decreases in the rate of spending and planned ones at that. Even so, they occur over a 30 year period. They can be voted to be rolled back at any time. Ryan has a proven voting record of a big time spender, when he feels the pressure, he won't do the right thing, he would roll back his planned cuts.

The solution is as simple as reducing spending to our level of revenue with real immediate cuts. Some easy cuts are to military spending: stop the wars. We have over extended our military throughout the world for far too long. Yes, there will be some short term pain with immediate drastic cuts in other areas, but unfourtanetly it is reality of the situation. The longer we wait, the bigger the problem will get.

But ultimately the government has already decided to take a different route for the budget problem. That route is to print currency endlessly and inflate away the debt. That is nothing more than a hidden tax on the people.

 

[FoundingFather]

The few people who are willing to write in someone like Gary Johnson or Ron Paul is so small that it will not send any real message across the nation that some fundamental change is in the air. We have to get their name on the ballot with a resounding and meaningful voice. Otherwise, voting for Johnson at this point is nothing more than singing in an echo chamber. You might like hearing your own voice, but no one else is hearing it and it has really served no purpose.

Well Johnson is officially on the ballot so there would be no need to write him in. His votes will be tallied.

I know you want to say “But it’s because of the people like PsyOps that we keep going down this road”. I will do everything I can to get real conservatives out there, but I refuse to participate in such a campaign at the expense of having the other team continues to rack up points while our liberties exponentially keep getting eroded.

Your liberties are being eroded by both teams. There are multiple examples of Republicans eroding your liberties during the Bush term and now Obama has taken those same policies and expanded them. Do you really feel that they are defending your liberties? When do you draw the line in the sand and withdraw your support of both parties? How bad does it have to get for you to do that?

 

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

The few people who are willing to write in someone like Gary Johnson or Ron Paul is so small that it will not send any real message across the nation that some fundamental change is in the air. We have to get their name on the ballot with a resounding and meaningful voice. Otherwise, voting for Johnson at this point is nothing more than singing in an echo chamber. You might like hearing your own voice, but no one else is hearing it and it has really served no purpose.

Well Johnson is officially on the ballot so there would be no need to write him in. His votes will be tallied.

I know you want to say “But it’s because of the people like PsyOps that we keep going down this road”. I will do everything I can to get real conservatives out there, but I refuse to participate in such a campaign at the expense of having the other team continues to rack up points while our liberties exponentially keep getting eroded.

Your liberties are being eroded by both teams. There are multiple examples of Republicans eroding your liberties during the Bush term and now Obama has taken those same policies and expanded them. Do you really feel that they are defending your liberties? When do you draw the line in the sand and withdraw your support of both parties? How bad does it have to get for you to do that?

I think there are only a few states where Johnson won't be on the ballot.

 

[ylexot]

Gary Johnson on ballot in 47 states

The Libertarian Party reports that Gary Johnson will be on the ballot in at least 47 states, plus the District of Columbia.

The party is involved in litigation to get him on the ballot in the three remaining states, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Michigan, where a judge ruled last week that Johnson could not appear on the ballot because he also ran as a Republican in the state’s February presidential primary.

 

[Larry Gude]

Gary Johnson on ballot in 47 states

There is no excuse for any Maryland GOP'er who claims to want more conservative governance and would vote for them, if only they're on the ballot, to not vote for Johnson. I'm talking about the folks who take any one of the 'voter profile' tests and it always comes up Libertarian. If you actually support Mitt, by all means.

That said, you CAN'T hurt Mitt's chances so, that excuse is gone but you CAN tell him and the rest of the GOP in no uncertain terms; "Hey, you might want to start considering us over here."

Lotta states like that. Any safe state, right or left. Texas. California. On and on.

 

[PsyOps]

As I said before, Ryan's budget does not cut anything. The debt still grows under his budget. The budget "cuts" are just decreases in the rate of spending and planned ones at that. Even so, they occur over a 30 year period. They can be voted to be rolled back at any time. Ryan has a proven voting record of a big time spender, when he feels the pressure, he won't do the right thing, he would roll back his planned cuts.

And Johnson even has a budget? Does deficit and debt free? Does it even stop the bleeding a little? Help us out; where is Johnson’s budget plan?

The solution is as simple as reducing spending to our level of revenue with real immediate cuts. Some easy cuts are to military spending: stop the wars. We have over extended our military throughout the world for far too long. Yes, there will be some short term pain with immediate drastic cuts in other areas, but unfourtanetly it is reality of the situation. The longer we wait, the bigger the problem will get.

But ultimately the government has already decided to take a different route for the budget problem. That route is to print currency endlessly and inflate away the debt. That is nothing more than a hidden tax on the people.

Believe it or not, I am with you. But I also live in the real world. I will take what I can get and keep pushing for what I want. To use another sports analogy… Winning by three is just as much a win as winning 50.

 

[PsyOps]

Your liberties are being eroded by both teams. There are multiple examples of Republicans eroding your liberties during the Bush term and now Obama has taken those same policies and expanded them. Do you really feel that they are defending your liberties? When do you draw the line in the sand and withdraw your support of both parties? How bad does it have to get for you to do that?

If you've read any of my past posts you'd know I am full aware of this. I've posted often about the need to clean house... get all the establishment trash out to the dumpster. My faith in the American voter is at an all-time low.

 

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

As I said before, Ryan's budget does not cut anything. The debt still grows under his budget. The budget "cuts" are just decreases in the rate of spending and planned ones at that. Even so, they occur over a 30 year period. They can be voted to be rolled back at any time. Ryan has a proven voting record of a big time spender, when he feels the pressure, he won't do the right thing, he would roll back his planned cuts.

And Johnson even has a budget? Does deficit and debt free? Does it even stop the bleeding a little? Help us out; where is Johnson’s budget plan?

The solution is as simple as reducing spending to our level of revenue with real immediate cuts. Some easy cuts are to military spending: stop the wars. We have over extended our military throughout the world for far too long. Yes, there will be some short term pain with immediate drastic cuts in other areas, but unfourtanetly it is reality of the situation. The longer we wait, the bigger the problem will get.

But ultimately the government has already decided to take a different route for the budget problem. That route is to print currency endlessly and inflate away the debt. That is nothing more than a hidden tax on the people.

Believe it or not, I am with you. But I also live in the real world. I will take what I can get and keep pushing for what I want. To use another sports analogy… Winning by three is just as much a win as winning 50.

Johnson's plan is to close entire agencies and make MAJOR CUTS, pass a balanced budget.....

Here
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/spending-and-the-deficit

 

[helloween]

People gotta stop being such good Republicans or good Democrats, and start being good Americans. I say defend the Constitution and your rights by voting for those that will do the same. To me, Gary Johnson is the only pres. canidate on the ballot that will do this, so he's got my vote.....

 

[JoeRider]

People gotta stop being such good Republicans or good Democrats, and start being good Americans. I say defend the Constitution and your rights by voting for those that will do the same. To me, Gary Johnson is the only pres. canidate on the ballot that will do this, so he's got my vote.....

I struggle with his position on drugs, civil liberties, military budget cuts and foreign policy. His position on education sound workable. He is just as much a comprise candidate as Romney is so if I have to pick which was is going to be more successful with my issues it is Romney. I can't win no matter what.

Bottom line, I need a George Washington to run for President to make me happy. My ideal candidate would be a Neo-con black women that was a previous a general in the military and believe in Scalia and Washington as shining examples of true conservatism. Including in this mix would be one hard ass cabinet that would get things jumping and drive us into another industrial revolution using private sector as the catalyst and scare the hell out of all other foreign nations to not mess with us. Entitlement programs would be driven by charitable organization that have the understand and know how to actual provide services instead of creating paper work bureaucracies.

 

[Larry Gude]

I don't like to use that word because its true meaning has become lost. I am not a modern day conservative, also known as a neo-conservative. The neo-conservatives are not for limited constitutional government. In the traditional meaning of the word, yes I am conservative.

That's probably worth defining, what conservative even means.

For our purposes here, 'conservative' means deliberate, considered change, mindful of the way things used to be done based on results, not intentions and, mindful of how that applies to proposed changes, based on likely results, not intentions. Conservative means sometimes, most of the time really, the answer should be no.

The problem with that in government is 'smart' people eager to fix all of societies ills if only they, because they're so much smarter than everyone else and all that came before them, could get their hands on the controls. To which, of course, the founders, being familiar with 'smart' people, built a mechanism to limit the use of those controls based on broad and sophisticated consent of the governed.

This is why Ron Paul sounds like a radical kook to so many ears these days, ears accustomed to all sorts of governmental excess as the smart people have proven to be smart. Not so much in results but, in getting around the safeguards built to keep them under some sort of control. A Ron Paul says 'you can't do that!' and, because that is such a shocking concept, people respond "Kook!"
We used to have lots of Ron Paul's. Not so much that we had more people who would say you can't do that but, because we had more people who wouldn't consider radical violation of our governing limits in the first place.

Neo cons are absolutely not for limited government. They're the smart people these days and because their excesses, predictably, failed so miserably, we got us a good old fashion socialist to lead the way around the constitution for awhile.

And this is my beef with Romney; what, on the major issues we've gotten so wrong, is he saying we should not of done and what to do about it. Psy linked to a video a week or so ago where Mitt was starting to point out what we on the right have done wrong and I got excited for a minute that he'd say 'this is wrong, here's why, here's what to do about it' but, I haven't heard a peep since then.

 

[FreedomFan]

I struggle with his position on drugs, civil liberties, military budget cuts and foreign policy. His position on education sound workable. He is just as much a comprise candidate as Romney is so if I have to pick which was is going to be more successful with my issues it is Romney. I can't win no matter what.

That's my problem with capital-L Libertarians -- they have a constituency (and donors) to satisfy. I hope no one is fooling themselves, Libertarians are in it for the money as much as anyone. They are being pulled from both sides to come up with something reasonable in the political arena. Not everyone will be satisfied. That's what my problem with Paul was -- he was only in it for himself. He was only acting libertarian, I am not 100% certain he was. He had a facade to sell, and he does it well. I do believe he reads the likes of Hayek, Von Mises, etc., but my fear is that's where it ends with him.

Bottom line, I need a George Washington to run for President to make me happy.

OK, allow me a followup if you will. In another post here, you rejected my espousal of Ron Paul's foreign policy ideal, "free trade with all nations, entanglements with none" as naive (<- my word, not yours, but I forget your exact verbiage).

George Washington famously had a lot to say about foreign relations/foreign policy in his farewell address, including:

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

That sounds pretty Paulian to me, or should I say that Paul sounds awfully Washingtonian. Granted there is a lot more to their broader platforms. But since you took the time to point out your problems with Paul's foreign policy, in particular, I assume you have a particular interest in that arena.

So while I realize that the world is a much different place today than it was in the 1790s when Washington delivered his farewell address, what do you think Washington's foreign policy ideals might look like today? Washington sounds awfully close to "free trade with all, entanglements with none". Actually, that opening sentence to me parses almost exactly as Paul's version.

 

[PsyOps]

Johnson's plan is to close entire agencies and make MAJOR CUTS, pass a balanced budget.....

Here
Spending and the Deficit

That's a plan, not a budget. What you provided is vague at best, although I am not doubting Johnson’s wishes to do these things.

Ryan has submitted an ACTUAL budget. His budget includes an eventual balanced budget. The timeline is too long for me, but in contrast (as it shows clearly in the doc) to Obama's budget (which has been rejected unanimously 3 times), it aims to slash spending on nearly everything. The primary goal is to relieve our debt.

No doubt Ryna's plan isn't perfect (at least for a lot of people like FF), but FF's claim that Ryan's plan doesn't cut anything is false. It may not cut enough for him, but it's a move in the opposite direction from Obama. I know, FF will throw things in here like “it does cut, it only slows the increase in spending”. I want to see an actual budget from someone like Johnson or Paul that actually CUTS spending as opposed to slowing the increases in spending. Our government is spending so much that producing a budget that actually CUTS spending rather than slows it would pretty shut everything down. The problem with people like FF is they want it all NOW. Well, so do I. But I'm being realistic in realizing we need to move towards a goal and stop being unrealistic in our expectations of what we're going to get from this government.

Romney/Ryan are it for this round. If you really want someone better we're all going to have to work harder to get the Pauls and Johnsons out there; but we're up against some pretty insurmountable odds: the media, big money, establishment, etc...

 

[Larry Gude]

That sounds pretty Paulian to me, or should I say that Paul sounds awfully Washingtonian. Granted there is a lot more to their broader platforms. But since you took the time to point out your problems with Paul's foreign policy, in particular, I assume you have a particular interest in that arena.

So while I realize that the world is a much different place today than it was in the 1790s when Washington delivered his farewell address, what do you think Washington's foreign policy ideals might look like today? Washington sounds awfully close to "free trade with all, entanglements with none". Actually, that opening sentence to me parses almost exactly as Paul's version.

Ah, yes, but therein lies the crux of the matter. Through our practice, starting with Wilson, to become very mixed up in the affairs of others, we continually created and recreated a subtext of 'well, the world has changed, you know!' where our prior involvement constantly set the table for more.

Sort of a self fulfilling prophecy. This is why they built a central government with severe limits; once a national policy, foreign or domestic, is committed to, Social Security, New Deal, Great Society, Med Part D, etc, it become increasingly difficult to stop no matter how wrong the idea has gone. And, after awhile, anyone who says "Just stop" sounds like a kook. They're right, of course. Just stop is THE solution but, we become invested in so many various ways in these new norms that common sense gets railroaded out of town by the ever growing lists of interests making their daily bread off the various mistakes.

 

[FoundingFather]

I
Bottom line, I need a George Washington to run for President to make me happy. My ideal candidate would be a Neo-con black women that was a previous a general in the military and believe in Scalia and Washington as shining examples of true conservatism. Including in this mix would be one hard ass cabinet that would get things jumping and drive us into another industrial revolution using private sector as the catalyst and scare the hell out of all other foreign nations to not mess with us. Entitlement programs would be driven by charitable organization that have the understand and know how to actual provide services instead of creating paper work bureaucracies.

I am dumbfounded that you equate George Washington with a neo-conservative. Some quick research about Washington's foreign policy would show that he was much closer to the opposite.

 

[thatguy]

That's a plan, not a budget. What you provided is vague at best, although I am not doubting Johnson’s wishes to do these things.

Ryan has submitted an ACTUAL budget. His budget includes an eventual balanced budget. The timeline is too long for me, but in contrast (as it shows clearly in the doc) to Obama's budget (which has been rejected unanimously 3 times), it aims to slash spending on nearly everything. The primary goal is to relieve our debt.

No doubt Ryna's plan isn't perfect (at least for a lot of people like FF), but FF's claim that Ryan's plan doesn't cut anything is false. It may not cut enough for him, but it's a move in the opposite direction from Obama. I know, FF will throw things in here like “it does cut, it only slows the increase in spending”. I want to see an actual budget from someone like Johnson or Paul that actually CUTS spending as opposed to slowing the increases in spending. Our government is spending so much that producing a budget that actually CUTS spending rather than slows it would pretty shut everything down. The problem with people like FF is they want it all NOW. Well, so do I. But I'm being realistic in realizing we need to move towards a goal and stop being unrealistic in our expectations of what we're going to get from this government.

Romney/Ryan are it for this round. If you really want someone better we're all going to have to work harder to get the Pauls and Johnsons out there; but we're up against some pretty insurmountable odds: the media, big money, establishment, etc...

One of the first steps in Johnsons plan, submit a balanced budget in 2013. :shrug:

Ryans budget, maybe get to a balanced budget when we are all dead. But it wont be ryans budget anyway it will be romney's. I am pretty sure that Romeny has already said they wont be using the ryan budget.

 

[PsyOps]

One of the first steps in Johnsons plan, submit a balanced budget in 2013. :shrug:

Just like that? Do they also have to pass it in order to see what's in it?

Details! You can't propose a balanced budget without proposing an actual budget. What are the specifics?

Ryans budget, maybe get to a balanced budget when we are all dead. But it wont be ryans budget anyway it will be romney's. I am pretty sure that Romeny has already said they wont be using the ryan budget.

And as I stated, Ryan’s plan isn’t perfect. I’m not completely happy with it; especially the long timeline to get to a balanced budget. But with the TRILLIONS being spent and borrowed every day, there is absolutely no way Johnson can propose a balanced budget for 2013 and even get meager support.

This is not about pipe dreams that feel good on paper; it’s about reality and actually being able to accomplish something; as opposed to a zero-sum game that results in getting nothing accomplished.

 

[thatguy]

Just like that? Do they also have to pass it in order to see what's in it?

Details! You can't propose a balanced budget without proposing an actual budget. What are the specifics?

ryans budget didnt get passed......


Show me Romneys actual budget

 

[FoundingFather]

His budget includes an eventual balanced budget. The timeline is too long for me, but in contrast (as it shows clearly in the doc) to Obama's budget (which has been rejected unanimously 3 times), it aims to slash spending on nearly everything. The primary goal is to relieve our debt.

No doubt Ryna's plan isn't perfect (at least for a lot of people like FF), but FF's claim that Ryan's plan doesn't cut anything is false. It may not cut enough for him, but it's a move in the opposite direction from Obama. I know, FF will throw things in here like “it does cut, it only slows the increase in spending”. I want to see an actual budget from someone like Johnson or Paul that actually CUTS spending as opposed to slowing the increases in spending. Our government is spending so much that producing a budget that actually CUTS spending rather than slows it would pretty shut everything down. The problem with people like FF is they want it all NOW. Well, so do I. But I'm being realistic in realizing we need to move towards a goal and stop being unrealistic in our expectations of what we're going to get from this government.

But here is the important thing: Paul Ryan's budget does not move in the opposite direction as Obama's! The debt still grows under his budget. That is in the same direction as Obama's albeit maybe just a wee bit slower. The debt is the problem.

The details of Ron Pauls proposed budget are well documented. It balances the budget within three years or so, and actually starts to reduce total debt. Reasearch it. I think you have been tricked into thinking by the mainstream proproganda that real fiscal responsibility will be catosrophic which gives the politicians just another excuse to keep deficit spending. True, there will be some short term pain in certain areas, but it is necessary. We do not have 30 years to solve this problem, there will likely be a monetary crisis before then, and it will be too late at that point. That is why it must be done NOW.

Romney/Ryan are it for this round. If you really want someone better we're all going to have to work harder to get the Pauls and Johnsons out there; but we're up against some pretty insurmountable odds: the media, big money, establishment, etc...

I guess we just have a different sense of urgency. I find this to be a very urgent matter. I think were are approaching the point of no return. I refuse to vote against my principles and conscience.

 

[MMDad]

A vote for Romney is a vote for Obama and vice versa.

Roseanne Barr was on Hannity last night. She said the same thing as you are.

That sort of illustrates a point. To those who are not part of the fringes, there are enough differences between the candidates that we see a choice. The further you get out on the edges, the more the candidates all look alike, to the point that you start to agree with a loony washed up shrew.

While I agree that we need to eventually reach the Paul and Johnson views, the thought that either could take over in January and make any of that happen is ludicrous. The most likely outcome is four years of deadlock (which might not be that bad).

The masses will resist drastic change. The more drastic the change, the harder they will resist. If you want to get the needle shifting toward the right, you need to do that by getting someone in there who will at least slow the leftward progression, and just maybe start budging it to the right.

We know that Obama will do everything he can to move it to the left as much as he can. I believe that Romney is more likely to slow the the leftward progression. I hope that he might actually try to nudge it to the right, but it's not looking that great. Johnson and Paul will try to slam the needle so hard to the right that it just might bounce off and peg to the left side.

Every election is about compromising between what you want and what is offered. You can call that "Les Evil" if you want, but I disagree. If you ever find yourself agreeing with a candidate 100%, either you are the candidate or you are a sheep that is mindlessly following.