Rombama means more of the same

[Chris]

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


Rombama means more of the same (http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/international/rombama-means-more-of-the-same)
Following his victory in the Texas primary last week, Mitt Romney is now effectively the candidate for the Republican Party (putting aside the issue of unbound delegates). Therefore, we can all look forward to an Obama vs. Romney showdown this November. Unfortunately, both candidates appear to agree with each other on all issues of importance.

<snip snip>

Both Obama and Romney supported the TARP bailouts - the biggest single transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy in human history. Mitt Romney is also committed to stimulus packages and quantitative easing being used to boost economic growth and employment, which are the same policies that Obama has pursued (which have failed to create growth or employment). Neither are even paying lip service to the idea of sound money or reigning in the corrupt Federal Reserve system. In short: both are corporatists, not capitalists. This is obvious to anybody who has looked at the top contributors to both campaigns – the same investment banks and other corporate interests are funding them both. The winner of the 2012 election has already been decided: it’s Goldman Sachs. Sorry taxpayers, you lose either way.

[Peter1469]

The only substantive difference is SCOTUS nominations.

[Aristophanes]

Romney has executive experience and has had to balance a budget with a finite sum of money, and has done so successfully.

Most important, Romney actually loves America.

The same cannot be said about Owebama.

[Peter1469]

Romney has executive experience and has had to balance a budget with a finite sum of money, and has done so successfully.

Most important, Romney actually loves America.

The same cannot be said about Owebama.

Romney care certainly has busted the budget in Massachusetts.

[MMC]

The only substantive difference is SCOTUS nominations.


That and Romney's Foreign policy on Iran. :smiley:

[Chris]

And historically, SCOTUS appointments have shifted.

[Aristophanes]

Romney care certainly has busted the budget in Massachusetts.Perhaps that is the case, but states should be able to choose how their HC is administered . Romney is not in support of any federal program, which is my concern. I don't care what MA does as I don't live there, nor would I vote for such in my state.

Being the President is about leading and being CEO of the largest budget in the world. Romney has it in spades. There should be some experience in those areas to even be considered, unlike the rube we are currently stuck with.

[Chris]

Thing is, government isn't, and cannot be run like a business.


As long as RomneyCare remains a state policy, and each state determines it's own policy, compared to ObamaCare a national one, then that is a significant difference.

[Peter1469]

Perhaps that is the case, but states should be able to choose how their HC is administered . Romney is not in support of any federal program, which is my concern. I don't care what MA does as I don't live there, nor would I vote for such in my state.

Being the President is about leading and being CEO of the largest budget in the world. Romney has it in spades. There should be some experience in those areas to even be considered, unlike the rube we are currently stuck with.

I agree that States have the authority to "nationalize" their health care if they so choose. I also understand that Mitt knows that the federal government does not have that authority.

I only mentioned it for the cost burdens on the state.

[Goldie Locks]

I'll vote for the one who is not openly a Marxist and take my chances. I know what Ubama will do.

[Beevee]

I'll vote for the one who is not openly a Marxist and take my chances. I know what Ubama will do.

Can you post the link where Obama said he was a Marxist. I can't find it. I can however find plenty of GOP supported links which make the claim. But I'm sure you are right, so enlighten me.

[Goldie Locks]

Can you post the link where Obama said he was a Marxist. I can't find it. I can however find plenty of GOP supported links which make the claim. But I'm sure you are right, so enlighten me.

Do Whatever the F you want Beevee.

[Peter1469]

Can you post the link where Obama said he was a Marxist. I can't find it. I can however find plenty of GOP supported links which make the claim. But I'm sure you are right, so enlighten me.

Obama was a member of the New Party. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302031/obamas-third-party-history-stanley-kurtz#

The New Party targets the left wing fringe of the democrat party and I believe it was more socialist than Marxist, but others have made sensible arguments that it was more Marxist. But then when you are dealing with Statists, practically, there is little difference between socialists and Marxists. But there you have it.

[Chris]

Can you post the link where Obama said he was a Marxist. I can't find it. I can however find plenty of GOP supported links which make the claim. But I'm sure you are right, so enlighten me.

These days few Marxists admit they are Marxists, and I'm sure you've heard of RINOs--self-identification is a poor measure.

Obama's policies follow and he has admired the social democracy of Europe. Social democracy is a branch of socialism. It sprang up shortly after the socialist admitted they could not solve Mises' economic calculation problem or Hayek's the problem of knowledge in society. The variation is simply this, knowing they need the free market to solve those problems, they don't await its fall, or try to hasten it, intentionally, but try to manage it for socialistic purpose like wealth redistribution. A recent statement of this branch of socialism is Robert Reich's The Answer Isn't Socialism; It's Capitalism That Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-answer-isnt-socialism_b_1491243.html). I don't think anyone would have trouble citing policies Obama has pesued in that direction, from stimuli to Obamacare.

[Goldie Locks]

These days few Marxists admit they are Marxists, and I'm sure you've heard of RINOs--self-identification is a poor measure.

Obama's policies follow and he has admired the social democracy of Europe. Social democracy is a branch of socialism. It sprang up shortly after the socialist admitted they could not solve Mises' economic calculation problem or Hayek's the problem of knowledge in society. The variation is simply this, knowing they need the free market to solve those problems, they don't await its fall, or try to hasten it, intentionally, but try to manage it for socialistic purpose like wealth redistribution. A recent statement of this branch of socialism is Robert Reich's The Answer Isn't Socialism; It's Capitalism That Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-answer-isnt-socialism_b_1491243.html). I don't think anyone would have trouble citing policies Obama has pesued in that direction, from stimuli to Obamacare.


Good reply, but don't expect that to convince anyone on the left...that's why I didn't bother.

[Chris]

Got to keep trying. :yo2:

[wingrider]

Can you post the link where Obama said he was a Marxist. I can't find it. I can however find plenty of GOP supported links which make the claim. But I'm sure you are right, so enlighten me.

I think actions speak louder than words and in Obamas case his actions have spoken volumes.

[MMC]

Got to keep trying. :yo2:


http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=I4860761097765626&pid=1.1 http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=I4951883118215857&pid=1.1

As long as you got that shiny stuff and or them greenbacks sir. :laugh: