Romney or Bush. What's the difference?

There have been a couple threads bouncing around asking what the difference is between Romney and Obama, and arguing they are substantially the same.

I disagree with that sentiment and identified several major policy differences between the two.

But to me, the more interesting question is, what's the difference between Romney and Bush.

I haven't seen anyone show how their positions are fundamentally different.

Both want tax cuts that mainly benefit the richest. Romney proposes even bigger cuts for the 1% than Bush.

Both say they will increase military spending.

Both claimed that even with the tax cuts and more greater military expenditures, they will improve the deficits.

Both are against regulation.

Both say they want to privatize SS.

Both are against abortion rights.

So to conservatives primarily, what's the difference? Aren't the policies of these guys fundamentally the same?

 

Not one of our conservative friends can tell us the difference between Romney and Bush?

Surely someone must be able to.

Or maybe there just isn't any major difference and putting Romney in the WH would be just the same as four more years of Bush.

 

I think there are two:

1. Romney is smarter. But who's not?
2. Romney is not a neo-con (they are slowly going away), so while he wants to help bankrupt the country by throwing more and more at the military, he is far less likely to invent ways to use it. And since Romney really believes nothing at his core, his position on military spending is simply a ploy for votes in those areas with bases (and, of course, it's a great way to help his buddies make a few bucks).

Other than that they are pretty much the same.

 

Since mittens has most of bush the failures advisers on his campaign staff.....no difference at all.
He would be just as bad or worse, if that is even possible, of a President as bush the failure was.

 

I'm not so sure about the neocon element. Romney has been making noises that he'd be more interventionist than Obama.

 

I think it would depend on who he picked as Sec. of Defence, as has been pointed out, he has no core so what ever he was told, he would go far.

 

But he won't as bad as Bush. And that is what you asked! I don't think think Romney is a warmonger or nation builder at his core. Bush was.

 

It is well documented that Obama has actually approved less pieces of regulation than George W. Bush. However, the cost of business is higher now under Obama's new regs. Both presidents are big regulators and big spenders. The large banking deregs that arguably played a role in the housing bubble were accomplished in 1999 via the Financial Services Modernization Act written by a Republican congress and signed by Bill Clinton. It still amuses me that Bill won't take any claim for that. He really can do no wrong.

The rest of these issues take a supporting congress but we are likely to have gridlock next term.

 

Obama brags about his regulations on the Big Banks, as Wall Street had turned into a Casino. The Dodd-Frank Bill is a devastating piece of legislation that screws small businesses and directly benefits Fortune 500 Companies. The idea that the FED is now paying Interest in Excess Reserves of .25% is ridiculous, essentially the Banks are being PAID not to lend.

It's so comical how the American people think Obama has reigned in Wall Street, he's gotten not reform. The derivative markets are still highly active, the fraudulent accounting practices of the Natural Gas Companies persists, and Billionaire Real Estate Developers are utilizing "Tax-Free Municipal Bonds" to grow their fortunes.

The Auto Bailout? If Detroit had actually restructured and Obama hadn't handed the UAW an open-ended check, they might be able to compete today without a major Tax Payer Subisidy. And it's comical, he condemns China for subsidizing their parts companies? Look, China's no angel but OUR GOVERNMENT Has a MAJOR stake in GM. And what did the Bailout Really Accomplish? It allowed the equity holder (Stocks) to keep their investments.

Let's move on- Alternative Energy Nonsense. These companies cannot stand up on their own two feet. It's wasted money. Because alternative energy is CAPITAL INTENSIVE, and NOT labor intensive. Meaning, not many jobs for our tax dollars.

So how is Romney different?

He's offered a PLAN. HE WROTE AN ENTIRE BOOK talking about how he would repeal these devastating policies, yet our ELECTORAL IS SO UNINFORMED- They haven't taken the time to read it on KINDLE (Where it is FREE)!

 

Obama brags about his regulations on the Big Banks, as Wall Street had turned into a Casino. The Dodd-Frank Bill is a devastating piece of legislation that screws small businesses and directly benefits Fortune 500 Companies. The idea that the FED is now paying Interest in Excess Reserves of .25% is ridiculous, essentially the Banks are being PAID not to lend.

It's so comical how the American people think Obama has reigned in Wall Street, he's gotten not reform. The derivative markets are still highly active, the fraudulent accounting practices of the Natural Gas Companies persists, and Billionaire Real Estate Developers are utilizing "Tax-Free Municipal Bonds" to grow their fortunes.

The Auto Bailout? If Detroit had actually restructured and Obama hadn't handed the UAW an open-ended check, they might be able to compete today without a major Tax Payer Subisidy. And it's comical, he condemns China for subsidizing their parts companies? Look, China's no angel but OUR GOVERNMENT Has a MAJOR stake in GM. And what did the Bailout Really Accomplish? It allowed the equity holder (Stocks) to keep their investments.

Let's move on- Alternative Energy Nonsense. These companies cannot stand up on their own two feet. It's wasted money. Because alternative energy is CAPITAL INTENSIVE, and NOT labor intensive. Meaning, not many jobs for our tax dollars.

So how is Romney different?

He's offered a PLAN. HE WROTE AN ENTIRE BOOK talking about how he would repeal these devastating policies, yet our ELECTORAL IS SO UNINFORMED- They haven't taken the time to read it on KINDLE (Where it is FREE)!

 

Romney will have a totally different group of core people which will influence him differently than Bush's did. Events will be different leading to different responses, Congress will be gridlocked unlike Bush who had a republican group. Romney also won't have the 9/11 scenario to deal with which will effect his decisions differently.

I'd imagine Romney to be far more center than Bush was or had to be. Bush also took some bold legislative steps that I don't think Romney will attempt. I think that from Romney you will see solid safe legislation to try to bring down the debt, more compromising with democrats, and a rather boring Presidency in general. It should be fairly effective though.

I think Romney will not follow the "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive war, no matter what hes saying about Iran, and will probably be less of an interventionist then Obama is. Romney is coming into office with the task of fixing the economy which will be his overriding goal, not war as Bush's was.

 

That being said, why vote for either one of them. If either one gets in and they accomplish even half of what they want, there very well might not be a next election (what with the blood running in the streets and all). I'm sorry but that doesn't fly with me. There is a better choice than that, and I'm voting for them (the Green Party) There's no better time than now as there might not be any other time but now.

 

Thanks for sharing your rant. How does any of this show Romney is different than Bush?

What PLAN and how are the policies of that PLAN and BOOK substantially different than Bush's policies?

 

That is all speculating what you imagince might happen, not really explaining how Romney the candidate's policies and ideas are substantially different than Bush's.

I'd hope that Romney wouldn't be as interventionist as Bush, but you may recall that in 2000 Bush's foreign policy position was based on "humbleness" with a disdain for nation building. He criticized Clinton for joining with Nato to stop the massacres in the former Yugoslavia.

That was a classic bait and switch. He and the neocons in his adminitration did a 180 when he got into office.

 

GW Bush cannot run for the Presidency again. as such, he is Presidential history.

Romney is the future.

 

Based on the inability of anyone to demonstrate any substantial differences in policy between the two, I more accurate statement is that Romney will be Bush Redux.

 

Based on the inability of anyone to demonstrate any substantial differences in policy between the two, the more accurate statement is that Romney will be Bush Redux.

 

were in deeper crap with him if thats true.Obama for all his autrocities against the american people, has at least resisted the status quoe to invade Iran so far.Romney has already said we need to do so and he will,Iran is not a threat to the world,Israel is.

 

here are two reasons they are no different,neither believe in the constitution and both are in favor of a new wolrd order.The Bushs have given that speech many times the same one Hitler gave,Clinton has given it,so has Obama.we got screwed when the the government sabotoged rons pauls campaine.

Here is why we are screwed just as much as we are now if Romney gets in office and why things wont change.

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

 

I'm bumping this thread up in light of the similar question asked at the debate.

Maybe some of our conservative friends out their can explain to us what the meaningful policy differences are between Bush and Romney.

So far we haven't seen it.

 

Depends on what happens worldwide of course. I attribute the Congressional gridlock directly to lack of leadership from Obama. His "hands off" attitude really exemplifies his disconnect with his job.

 

The fact that the Party Sworn To Grover Norquist's top priority has been to get the president out of office shows how they've been willing to work with him.

 

The fact that the Party Sworn To Grover Norquist's top priority has been to get the president out of office shows how they've been willing to work with him.

 

Romney to his credit can at least read and speak proper English; Bush could barely make it through a sentence without screwing it up.

 

Granted. But that's not a difference in policy.