Is there a difference between Romney and Obama? I have been critical of both Mr Romney and President Obama for various reasons but both being so different in terms of background, surly they cant be that similar, right? When the
subject comes up of differentiating between the two I find myself scratching my head. The same head scratching can be said for those folks who ask me my support for either two, and when I reveal my support of Ron Paul regardless if he’s third
party or not, it’s often met with the same rebuttal: “it’s a waste of a vote,
its better to pick the lesser of two evils”. However, I just can’t seem to
grasp the difference between the two men as far as policy is concerned.
Sure, Romney has the business experience, that is
unquestionable a difference and he has balanced the budget as Governor in Massachusetts.
Both of those are very big props for Romney in my book… but other than that, I looked
and I can’t find a difference between the eventual nominee for the Republicans
(Mittens) and the incumbent, President Obama (at least not in the pivotal positions).
- Obama has maintained the foreign policy of an empire, just as Romney would do (although Romney said he would actually increase spending on defense) not to mention he chastised the President for pulling out of Iraq. No savings there.- Obama has continued to support even more of an assault on our personal liberty’s extending the Patriot Act and signing NDAA, wouldn’t you know it - Romney supports both. Liberty trampled on again.- Obama passed Universal Healthcare as did Romney. Romney even is proud of his healthcare bill, (‘I’m very proud of my health-care plan and think it should be a model for other states to adopt’) or at least he was before he was against it again.
What do we have left? Taxes. Yes, taxes, death and Mittens oh boy! This is the same guy who didn’t release his taxes because he didn’t wantto show he paid at or under the 15 percentile reserved for Capital gains (between 13.9-15%) on over 40 Million dollars of
income. That would show he is using loopholes (although legal) just like
many of our corporations do.
Romney said recently that Obama passed 19 tax increases
under his terms as POTUS. Most people on the right would believe that to be
true, he is said to be the most polarizing president in our history isn’t he? Although
the validity to those tax hikes in question has been shaky and even a few of
the 19 suspected raises have been actually proved false, Mitt continues his
assault. For the record, the Obama tax increases were minimal in nominal terms considering
(the large deficit) and directed at very specific small targets; not wide wielding
swaths of people and demographics as Romney would have you believe.
The truth of the matter is Obama has cut taxes too. He did so
in his 700+ Billion dollar stimulus (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) he
then cut taxes in the ‘December 2010 tax deal’ that extended the Bush tax cuts.
Those tax cuts were worth $654 Billion and if you factor in the 250+ Billion from
the ARRA cuts in his 2009 Stimulus act, we are talking 900 Billion in Tax cuts
through his administration. I think its safe to say he has cut more taxes than
he has increased taxes by a large sum.
Look at the revenue or receipts our government is pulling in. If we were seeing tax increases, wouldn’t we also being seeing soaring
revenue? We aren’t. We are in a massive economic quagmire and tax cuts will not
get us out of it. And if we continue to cut taxes and keep the budget as is or
increase it, we will only cause even more damage down the road. And that seems
like the message from Newt, Obama or Mitt.
While I agree with the Republican field running for the oval
office about the over-regulation that we are seeing under this administration; it’s
not what ails us either. What we have is a political atmosphere where nobody
wants to make the touch decision and cut major aspects off our budget or raise
taxes to pay for the bills we have. Obama or Romney will never do it; they lack the
thick skin and willingness to lead by example despite the consequences. responsible debt is one thing, what these kooks are proposing is simply not feasible long term.
Romney has no plan to cut government just spend an equal
amount or more and lower taxes for the richest Americans. Obama seems to have
no plan at all and while he lowered taxes he increased regulation and didn't do anything to make cuts. Gingrich? He thinks we can save 500 Billion annually on modernization,
he’s also the same guy who said Fannie and Freddie hired him as a historian... not
a lobbyist. He won’t be the nominee but it further drives home the point. The
900 lb gorilla in the room remains Keynesian economics. Until we face the
reality of the magnitude that beast has in terms of influence and destruction we will be here every four years with the same logical
outcome: vote for a Paul (Ron or Rand).
