Obama or Romney? What's the difference?

Some government regulation is not socialism. Not everyone who wants some government regulation of the economy is socialist. No one in the democratic party wants to erase the private sector, least of all Obama.

 

Unless I'm mistaking him for someone else, Gator's idea of "socialism" is anything against capitalism, by which he appears to mean anything that interferes with any person's right to do anything they want economically.

So under his definition of socialism, regulation is socialism.

 

Everyone agrees that "some govt regulation" is required.

Nobody is argueing for "no govt regulation".

The arguement is over the degree of regulation. The degree of regulation is the difference between socialism and a free market, capitalism, private property, and individual freedom.

In obama's book (which everyone should read) Dreams From My Father, page 135, obama describes his one brief foray into the private sector. After applying to "every civil rights organization I could think of, to any black elected official in the country with a progressive agenda" and not being hired, obama decided he would "find more conventional work" so he could pay off his school debt and save some money. obama wrote, "Organizers don't make any money, their poverty was proof of their integrity". When hired by a large corporation, obama wrote, "Like a spy behind enemy lines, I arrived every day at my mid-Manhattan office...".

obama hates the private sector. He broadly determines a persons integrity by their degree of wealth, the more wealth, the less integrity. obama sees the private sector as abusive and corrupting. People in the private sector are "conventional" and require management.

 

The things that matter to me;
drilling for oil here.
Building more coal and nuke plants not less.
opening drilling in gulf, anwr, rockies, wherever the oil is.
lowering taxes on those who produce jobs.
allowing companies to bring their money back to the US without being charged extra tax.
Making sure Iran doesn't get a nuke
Making sure Israel keeps Jerusalem in it's entirety.
Closing the border so only Americans can compete for jobs in America and not have to compete with those willing to work for pennies.
increasing tariffs for those countries that don't pay an American living wage to force equal competition with our manufactured goods.

Romney is for and Obama is against.
That's different enough for me.
That other stuff doesn't matter to me.

 

The difference is that Obama is a proven failure, Romney is not. That's good enough for me.

 

On the ACA, obama and the dems have made it clear that it is only one step in an incremental apporach to universal govt run health care.

On the rest, there is a big difference between obama and romney. obama is a man of conviction, romney is not. romney is an opportunist who will pursue socialist policies as Gov of MA but conservative policies as Pres of the US.

I have no illusions that romney is conservative. He is not. But he can be influenced to pursue conservative policies. Thats why its most important to have a conservative Congress. obama will thumb his nose at congress and will pursue his own agenda through executive order and regulation and outright implementation or ignoring laws he doesnt like. Romney can be pushed by Congress.

(good video in post #1)

 

The solution to entitlements is absolutely to increase personal wealth. In the 1930's the FDR adminstration identified the problem that about 1/2 of retirees had not accumulated enough personal wealth to provide the income they needed in retirement. Instead of addressing the problem (a lack of personal wealth) they addressed the symptom (a lack of income) with the Social Security welfare program. By the 1960's the same 1/2 of the population didn't have the personal wealth to provide the income for health insurance so the LBJ adminstration addressed that with another welfare program, Medicare. Both adminstrations addressed the symptom (a lack of income) instead of the problem (a lack of personal wealth to provide income). Romeny and Obama are not proposing any solution. Only Gary Johnson is willing to address the problem by proposing privatizing Social Security which builds personal wealth through investment.

As for foreign v domestic goods the problem is simply. US goods cost too much because of the non-value added expenses related to income taxes, predominately the payroll tax and related adminstrative expenses, which foreign goods are not subjected to. The solution is simple. Repeal the 16th Amendment and replace income taxes with a consumption tax (with prebates to make it progressive) and the costs of US goods drops by between 10% to 25% (depending upon who does the calculations). Foreign goods would be subjected to the identical taxation as domestic goods and the costs of US goods goes down. Romney and Obama are not proposing any solution. Only Gary Johnson endorses ending income taxes and replacing them with a consumption tax.

Yes, national defense is important but the bulk of US military spending is unrelated to defending the United States. It is spent on foreign interventionism and providing a military for foreign nations which is not a responsibility of the US taxpayers. We could cut DOD spending by 75% and still be spending far more than any other nation on national defense.

 

There is a small group of liberals still advocating a "single-payer" health care system but they don't have traction in the Democratic Party anymore. They actually hope the ACA fails.

 

That doesn't prove Obama is a socialist, that proves that he doesn't belong working in the private sector, but instead in the public sector. A lot of people in a private sector want to do things that are ultimately not in line with what is best for the general population of the country, all the above quote is is an acknowledgment of that as he believes he must work against these forces to help maintain a balance. Unless you can show me a quote where Obama specifically says that he wants to do away with the private sector altogether, you have no proof he's a socialist.

I suppose its okay to intentionally misuse words if you don't mind people thinking there is something wrong with you mentally. As much as I (*)(*)(*)(*)ing loathe socialism a small dark part of me wishes it were still around somewhere so that people could see what it is and what it is not.

 

o Turned around an economy that was tanking at a -9% rate and shedding 700,000+ jobs a month
o 30 straight months of private sector employment growth.
o 12 straight quarters of GDP growth
o 60+% increase in the stock markets since taking office
o Got Osama bin Laden.
o Saved 2-3 million jobs with stimulus package
o Got Atiyah Abd al-Rahman
o Got Anwar al-Aulaqi
o Ousted Muamar Kadaffi at 1/1000 the cost of the Iraq war
o First president to decrease spending in a year in decades
o Reduced the deficit his first full year in office
o Got us out of the "mistaken" war in Iraq
o Stock markets up 100% since bottom of the recession in 2009
o 4.6 million additional private sector jobs created since Jan 2010
o Improved US approval rating abroad
o Oil production up for the first time in decades.
o Passed health care reform that will provide coverage to tens of millions of Americans
o Employment rate dropped from over 10% to 8.1%
o Passed financial regulation reform to prevent another housing bubble fiasco.
o Lowest rate of spending increases of any president in modern history.
o On budget deficit has decreased every full fiscal year he's been in office.
o US domestic oil use decreasing
o Net creation of the number of people employed and employed in the private sector

Doesn't look like a proven failure to me.

 

I see, so socialism is simply "doing away with the private sector". You are the one who doesnt understand socialism.

And its clear you simply don't want to consider the possibility that obama is a socialist, much less admit it.

 

Marxist collectivism vs economic and personal freedom.

 

Yes, Mad Max vs Utopia. 1984 vs Paradise. Mordor vs The Pearly Gates.

Christ, America is (*)(*)(*)(*)ed.

 

It is not a small group, that is the democrat base. During the passage of the affordable care act, many polls said the split was 3 ways.

30 percent of people said it didn't go far enough to single payer who were liberals, 30 percent said it went too far who were conservatives, and 30 percent were independent and ignorant of what was happening, so voted undecided.

Today 60 percent of the people prefer the AFA by President Obama, because it was the pathway to universal health care after it inevitably fails, and the ignorant 30 percent decided free health care, no pre existing conditions, all sound good regardless of how it comes.

Increasing personal wealth will not end entitlements because many people simply choose not to work, this is seen all over Europe, that is why they have so many entitlement programs. Cutting these expenditures is the worst thing to do for obvious reasons, the only way to remedy it is by increasing the pot, with more money. The debt can be solved by increasing revenue by taxing the rich, and creating more jobs for people who want to work. The population is growing, and more people want to work, than don't, so that leaves a liberty for both sides to enjoy, those who work will pay welfare for those who don't want to work, and there will be more than enough money to cover them, with extra leftover.

For all the reasons above, President Obama is the right choice this election, because he will create jobs by investing more taxpayer money in programs like solyndra, eventually one will work and spark a whole new industry in clean energy, as opposed to oil. Secondly the President will raise taxes on those who make over 100k a year, or who are rich, to pay for the rest of the debt in the budget.

Romney has no plans to do either, and he wants to start another war for the oil industry, to preserve American oil company profits, he is the wrong choice.

 

Which economic policy can you point to that has led to this "economic success" other than Bush's Tarp bailout, Obamas bailout, and three rounds of easing. The bailouts, which have left a huge debt on our country, and the easing, which has inflated our currency. Yeah sure, you give someone with a spending problem a credit card and they will get by for a while. But, what happens when those debts expire and you don't have the revenues to pay it back? We may have to wait a decade to see the effects of our fiscal policies between 2008 and now.

 

I always find this statement that "many people simply choose not to work" to be false whether we're talking about America and I doubt it's true in Europe. Overwhelmingly people want to work and improve their lives. Yes, there are some but they would only represent a small fraction of 1% of the entire population. Our biggest crisis in American relates to generations of racial discrimination predominately against African-Americans related to employment where many have lost any hope of gainful employment. Why get an good education if there's no job at the end of it? Why establish a good work ethic if there's no job to apply it to? Our unemployment statistics, which relate to those that want to work, reflect that an African-American has about a 50% chance of getting a job than a White person. Remember that a person doesn't qualify for unemployment benefits and isn't counted unless they've already been working and lost their job.

Half of the problem relates to our tax laws more than anything else. The Treasury notes that about $1.1 trillion in lost revenue are due to IRS "expendatures" which relate to tax deductions in the tax codes. The wealthy receive about 80% of these benefits but many of us do as well. The home mortgage deduction, for example, is a tax loophole that overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy. We can ask whether it's even fair because a person that's renting, where 100% of their "cost for shelter" receives zero in tax deductions while another person that "buys" a home can deduct the lion's share of their expendature for shelter. There are obviously other "tax loopholes" such as the treaty between the US-UK which exempts capital gains from "Cayman Island" (off shore) paper corporations from being taxed or even reported on a person's tax returnes. Mitt Romney loves his Cayman Island accounts where he's moved his personal income to an off shore account where it's tax free and not even reported to the IRS. The loopholes can be closed and overwhelmingly it will affect the wealthy but it would also affect the middle class as well.

At the same time we have roughly $500 billion annually that's being taken from the People earning low to middle incomes in FICA and being distributed as welfare payments (Social Security). This is $500 billion in "personal wealth" that is being lost to the American People which also results in a loss related to how much this money could generate in investments over time. If this money was invested in a 401K type account, which have had an 8% annual return on investment over the last ten years, it would equal about $152 trillion in personal wealth in 40 years and this personal wealth would be owned by average and low income workers. That's $152 trillion in personal wealth that average Americans won't accumulate under Social Security. We could do this with just the "employee" FICA contribution leaving the "Payroll tax" to provide a safety net.

 

I know a lady who thinks that just because she has kids she should be supported. If not by the father than by the state. Her job is child rearing. She sits her ass in her living room watching tv letting the eldest actual do that child rearing.

 

Sounds like a social conservative's wet dream.

 

I know a lady who struggles to get by with her minimum wage jog while raising her kids who cannot afford basic necessities despite working full time.

 

you lost your credibility right there.You hate Obamacare so much but your ignorant to the fact that Romney was one of the first ones to sign it and you STILL evade the facts in that thread as well.congrats.

 

In other words you dont care if we have a white Obama in office who also does not believe in the constitution,is funded by goldman sachs as well and has these beliefs below.I see.

http://endoftheamericandream.com/ar...mitt-romney-is-a-vote-for-the-new-world-order

Oh and stop listening to the lamestream medias lies,Israel is the threat to the world,not Iran.

 

President Obama and President Romney have different takes on the future of social security/medicare debt.

Romney, would like to privatize it into 401ks, but that isn't safe because in the 2008 recession, many 401ks went bankrupt.

President Obama, would like to expand the socialist welfare program (social security), by taxing the rich, and when more jobs are added to the economy, that will create more taxpayers to pay for deficits.

 

Why do you think I hate Obamacare?

What does that fact that Romney passed a similar package in Mass have to do with his policies now?

What did I evade.

Bizarre.

 

The difference is that Obama has a dismal record, that he is avoiding, to run on.

More unemployment: He failed to get it below 8%.

Record deficit: It is now over 16,000,000,000,000. He promised to cut it in half.

Transparency: He failed to live up to it. Fast & Furious is a perect example.

Energy costs up: Obama will make this worse by stiffing coal, oil and gas companies, while throwing money at renewable energy companies like Solyndra. His EPA will regulate coal-powered plants out of existence, thereby severely increasing costs of energy. Gas prices at the pump are sustained at a high level.

Health care costs are up: His ACA will only make the problem worse as it is implemented.

Incomes lower: The average American's income is down $3040.

Home prices are down: I think they may have stabilized, but home prices have been at record lows.

Obama complains about what his opponents wish to do in order to make Medicare and SS sustainable, but he will let them go bankrupt.

Obama whines about jobs supposedly sent overseas, but what has he done to keep them here?

People, just look at Obama's record. It is time for him to go, and let someone else try something new.

 

Mitt Romney has not proposed any privatization of Social Security. He's proposed cutting future benefits on his website to balance the Social Security budget.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/social-security

401K's averaged over 8% return on investment between 2001 and 2010 but that would not be important related to privatized Social Security which would use diversfied and age-adjusted investments as those approaching retirement would have had their assets in more stable investments such as gold which has soared in value since 2008. As an individual nearing retirement that has age-adjusted investments I know this for a fact because my retirement account has ballooned during the recession because of my holdings in gold and silver. Financially I'm far better off because of the 2008 recession and many seem to miss this point when it comes to private investments that are age-adjusted.

Mitt Romney's proposal for Medicare also results in benefit loss because it won't pay enough to provide those benefits. He gives lip-service to maintaining the same benefits but doesn't state how he would pay for those benefits and his proposals don't fund those benefits.