Thread: How would an Romney presidency be different from Obama's?

Probably not that different, imo.

Things that come to mind (I could be wrong here, I'm sure I'll be corrected...)

1. Romney would probably push for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion.
(more government intrusion into private lives...)

2. More agressive stance with Iran.
(more spending on defense, further running up the deficit...)

and?

Originally Posted by St. Jerry

Probably not that different, imo.

Things that come to mind (I could be wrong here, I'm sure I'll be corrected...)

1. Romney would probably push for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion.
(more government intrusion into private lives...)

2. More agressive stance with Iran.
(more spending on defense, further running up the deficit...)

and?

1. Highly doubt it. Romney was pro choice before he was pro life. I don't see that being a big issue for him.

2. Again, I doubt it. Contrary to his hot air the Obama administration is being pretty hawkish towards Iran.

The only real difference I see is that Romney may be a little bit less gay friendly (remember Obama is opposed to gay marriage).

I think Romney would have the feds go after the medicinal marijuana movement a lot heavier than Obama has. They would completely disregard states intentions.

The big difference is that Romney would probably have a better, more fiscally conservative financial policy. But, that's hard to say.

If it comes down to Romney or Obama I am voting libertarian.

How would it be different? We would see a whole bunch of OMFG the sky is falling threads started by the libdopes on this forum. Even though as you said, it would be business as usual. Two peas in a pod.

Not much of a difference.

Either dipshit would probably pursue much the same policies.

Originally Posted by Pillsbury

The big difference is that Romney would probably have a better, more fiscally conservative financial policy. But, that's hard to say.

Not that hard to say. His tax plan would add $600 billion, or 16%, to deficit in 2015. If you thought President George W. Bush’s, economic policies were sound than Romney's plan is similar, just more so.

Originally Posted by Triage

Not that hard to say. His tax plan would add $600 billion, or 16%, to deficit in 2015. If you thought President George W. Bush’s, economic policies were sound than Romney's plan is similar, just more so.

Most of that sounds good to me, especially the corporate tax cuts.

I dispute the assertion that his plan would add to the deficit. That assertion is based on there not being commensurate spending cuts, and on the tax cuts not stimulating investment and growth. I prefer Romney's approach to Obama's. Although, I do have a problem with the Bush tax cuts being made permanent, and I think it's ridiculous that while cutting taxes for the wealthy that they want to get rid of the tax cuts that primarily help the poor. That's a hypocritical double standard IMO.

Douche or Turd Sandwich?

Originally Posted by Pillsbury

Most of that sounds good to me, especially the corporate tax cuts.

I dispute the assertion that his plan would add to the deficit. That assertion is based on there not being commensurate spending cuts, and on the tax cuts not stimulating investment and growth. I prefer Romney's approach to Obama's. Although, I do have a problem with the Bush tax cuts being made permanent, and I think it's ridiculous that while cutting taxes for the wealthy that they want to get rid of the tax cuts that primarily help the poor. That's a hypocritical double standard IMO.

The Bush tax cuts never came close to paying for themselves so it's unlikely that this time would be different. The last 30 years show that starve the beast does not work. In fact, it has the opposite effect. Yes, cut corporate tax rates but leaving all the corporate tax loopholes and corporate welfare intact means more of the same and higher deficits too. Obama's $500 billion reduction in defense spending reductions as part of the $1.3 trillion reduction in federal spending starting in 2013 are already being called reckless and acts of "appeasement" by the Romney campaign so that would be put back on the table as well.

Originally Posted by Triage

The Bush tax cuts never came close to paying for themselves so it's unlikely that this time would be different. The last 30 years show that starve the beast does not work. In fact, it has the opposite effect. Yes, cut corporate tax rates but leaving all the corporate tax loopholes and corporate welfare intact means more of the same and higher deficits too. Obama's $500 billion reduction in defense spending reductions as part of the $1.3 trillion reduction in federal spending starting in 2013 are already being called reckless and acts of "appeasement" by the Romney campaign so that would be put back on the table as well.

You are incredibly delusional if you think Obama is going to reduce defense spending.

Originally Posted by Pillsbury

You are incredibly delusional if you think Obama is going to reduce defense spending.

Why? Apart from the U.S. embassy mission, we've left Iraq and we've set a timeline to leave Afghanistan by 2014 with in theator troop reductions beginning in September. Those two things alone will reduce spending. If you mean that the $500 billion in reductions fall far short of what you or I would like to see then sure, you have a point, but budgeting works off of a baseline so it is a reduction compared to what Romney proposes.

Originally Posted by Triage

Why? Apart from the U.S. embassy mission, we've left Iraq and we've set a timeline to leave Afghanistan by 2014 with in theator troop reductions beginning in September. Those two things alone will reduce spending. If you mean that the $500 billion in reductions fall far short of what you or I would like to see then sure, you have a point, but budgeting works off of a baseline so it is a reduction compared to what Romney proposes.

IRAN

Mark my words. Obama and Romney will both lead us to war with IRAN

Originally Posted by Pillsbury

IRAN

Mark my words. Obama and Romney will both lead us to war with IRAN

With all due respect, now you are reaching based on your preconceived notions and prejudices.

Maybe you are right, maybe you are dead wrong, either way there is nothing to support your suppositions and your assertion is plain and simple.

Fucking Silly.

Sorry......

Originally Posted by Pillsbury

IRAN

Mark my words. Obama and Romney will both lead us to war with IRAN

Maybe. But predictions are hard, especially about the future. The Obama administration condemned the recent assassination of the Iranian nuclear scientist, more importantly, the sanctions have turned Iran into a containable paper tiger so preemptive war has mostly been repudiated. Even one of the staunchest neoconservatives out there thinks the current strategy is working:

The Iranians must realize that the balance of forces does not lie in their favor. By initiating hostilities they risk American retaliation against their most prized assets—their covert nuclear-weapons program. The odds are good, then, that the Iranians will not follow through on their saber-rattling threats. But this heated rhetoric does suggest how worried the Iranians are about the potential impact of fresh sanctions on their oil industry. All the more reason for the Europeans to proceed with those sanctions.

You might be right for all I know and that's a good reason for supporting RP but unless Iran attacks America first or retaliates against an Israeli strike then I think the current strategy will remain in place.

Originally Posted by Pillsbury

IRAN

Mark my words. Obama and Romney will both lead us to war with IRAN

Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion man...

And though you may be right, it's still fucking silly

fuck ya pillsbury

the cafe is still sleezy

If RP doesn't get the nomination hopefully he backs Gary Johnson. RP has enough backing now that if he pushed all his supporters to a third party candidate, GJ could get enough real traction to keep the idea alive for awhile.

Originally Posted by Triage

Not that hard to say. His tax plan would add $600 billion, or 16%, to deficit in 2015. If you thought President George W. Bush’s, economic policies were sound than Romney's plan is similar, just more so.

Deficits don't matter to GOP. Never have-never will. Cutting taxes will solve EVERYTHING.

last time Romney was elected to office he was more liberal than Obama

Originally Posted by St. Jerry

Probably not that different, imo.

Things that come to mind (I could be wrong here, I'm sure I'll be corrected...)

1. Romney would probably push for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion.
(more government intrusion into private lives...)

2. More agressive stance with Iran.
(more spending on defense, further running up the deficit...)

and?

Agreed and will probably lift some environmental regulations. He'd pretty much pass anything that crosses his desk if the GOP takes the senate like many think they will

Go back further in time for a song to set the mood

Originally Posted by hitek79

If RP doesn't get the nomination hopefully he backs Gary Johnson. RP has enough backing now that if he pushed all his supporters to a third party candidate, GJ could get enough real traction to keep the idea alive for awhile.

^^^^^ Would be very interesting.

Wall St bloodsuckers wont have to use the secret side entrance to the White House anymore. They'll be able to use the front door again.

What the Secret Service says about the Obama's and other P'sOTUS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5INF...ayer_embedded#!

The greedy fucks on the right would have the money instead of the greedy fucks on the left.