Comment: October 18, 2012 6:13 AM
People
have two choices. More Obama and 4 more years of an economy in the
toilet, record spending, and wasting billions of dollars on Obama's
green picks, or the possibility of a different direction with Romney. It
always irks me to hear of people who don't like the status quo but
won't do a thing to change it - instead they'll not vote at all, which
of course is the same as voting for the status quo.
I hear this kind of argument all the time.. "I don't like him" or "I can't stand him"... that doesn't matter. Do you like the direction your country is headed right now, and do you think the opposition could actually make it worse?... those are the only two questions that are important.
You don't have to like Romney to vote republican, you have to want a change from what you've been living with, and the direction you've been heading in for the last four years. Sitting at home and doing nothing just ensures four more years of what you weren't happy with in the first place. People deserve what they get if they're too lazy or picky to vote for change.
I hear this kind of argument all the time.. "I don't like him" or "I can't stand him"... that doesn't matter. Do you like the direction your country is headed right now, and do you think the opposition could actually make it worse?... those are the only two questions that are important.
You don't have to like Romney to vote republican, you have to want a change from what you've been living with, and the direction you've been heading in for the last four years. Sitting at home and doing nothing just ensures four more years of what you weren't happy with in the first place. People deserve what they get if they're too lazy or picky to vote for change.
My reply: I would wrestle with that if I was American and getting ready to vote.
My reasoning is that part of the problems in both our countries is
bigger and bigger govt growing out of control like a monster. Romney is a
big government man too.
In the debate on Tuesday, Romney talked about how he would not let illegal immigrants get driver's licenses, for example. How does he plan to do that? Driver's licensing is solely a STATE issue, not federal. Does that mean he plans to get involved in telling the states what to do over that? Does that mean he would be opening up a new crew of federal govt workers to oversee this? Secretaries, people to head it up, people to oversee them, new letterheads and govt titles? Pensions, wages, and benefits for them paid by American tax payers? How is that going to save real money? That is the sort of thing that would make me not want to vote for Romney.
I think he is on the right track for finding ways for businesses to be able to grow with LESS govt involvement, and that in turn should make the tax revenue grow bigger than it is right now - BUT you have to stop and think there too - WHY do they need such a massive revenue from taxes?
BECAUSE THEY SPEND TOO MUCH. They all do - democrats and republicans alike. If they keep funding new programs or keep the ones they currently fund without major changes, the US is never going to come close to getting out of debt. Some people refer to Romney as 'Obama Lite' and I can see why. If you really listen to his speeches and debates, he talks of new govt programs but does not say things like 'I would close such-and-such group and put those people in place in a new group called such-and-such', he just talks of all these new groups and plans. That means MORE GOVT SPENDING.
So, if Obama is driving the US over the cliff at 100kmp, and Romney is going to drive over the cliff at 60kph - it's STILL going over the cliff! If you are in that car and it's going over no matter what, do you think it would be better to die at 60kph instead?? Or would you rather throw open the door and jump OUT?
There is at least one other person who is on the ticket, running as an independent, but he has not been invited to any of these debates? Why not? I have to search the internet to find what his plans and policies are. Is that fair? What if this guy has a bunch of concrete plans to try to STOP the car from falling over the cliff, rather than just slowing it down a bit like Romney? Most people wont know what his plans are because they are told that it's either Romney or Obama and a vote for someone else would be a waste.
I heard a radio talking about this the other day and I liked it. Mike Church (sirius patriot) basically said that if people are told it will be THEIR FAULT if Obama wins, because they did not vote or voted for the Independent, or wrote in their own choice on the ballot, they could respond with 'No it's not my fault, it's Romney's fault, for not showing that he is going to take the country in the right direction, for not convincing me that he KNOWS what to do to stop this excessive spending at the Federal level'.
I whole heartedly agree with that. It's not a person's fault if they vote independent or cant bring themselves to vote at all because the two main choices are not appealing, it's the Candidates' fault and the fault of their policies and plans. End of story.
In the debate on Tuesday, Romney talked about how he would not let illegal immigrants get driver's licenses, for example. How does he plan to do that? Driver's licensing is solely a STATE issue, not federal. Does that mean he plans to get involved in telling the states what to do over that? Does that mean he would be opening up a new crew of federal govt workers to oversee this? Secretaries, people to head it up, people to oversee them, new letterheads and govt titles? Pensions, wages, and benefits for them paid by American tax payers? How is that going to save real money? That is the sort of thing that would make me not want to vote for Romney.
I think he is on the right track for finding ways for businesses to be able to grow with LESS govt involvement, and that in turn should make the tax revenue grow bigger than it is right now - BUT you have to stop and think there too - WHY do they need such a massive revenue from taxes?
BECAUSE THEY SPEND TOO MUCH. They all do - democrats and republicans alike. If they keep funding new programs or keep the ones they currently fund without major changes, the US is never going to come close to getting out of debt. Some people refer to Romney as 'Obama Lite' and I can see why. If you really listen to his speeches and debates, he talks of new govt programs but does not say things like 'I would close such-and-such group and put those people in place in a new group called such-and-such', he just talks of all these new groups and plans. That means MORE GOVT SPENDING.
So, if Obama is driving the US over the cliff at 100kmp, and Romney is going to drive over the cliff at 60kph - it's STILL going over the cliff! If you are in that car and it's going over no matter what, do you think it would be better to die at 60kph instead?? Or would you rather throw open the door and jump OUT?
There is at least one other person who is on the ticket, running as an independent, but he has not been invited to any of these debates? Why not? I have to search the internet to find what his plans and policies are. Is that fair? What if this guy has a bunch of concrete plans to try to STOP the car from falling over the cliff, rather than just slowing it down a bit like Romney? Most people wont know what his plans are because they are told that it's either Romney or Obama and a vote for someone else would be a waste.
I heard a radio talking about this the other day and I liked it. Mike Church (sirius patriot) basically said that if people are told it will be THEIR FAULT if Obama wins, because they did not vote or voted for the Independent, or wrote in their own choice on the ballot, they could respond with 'No it's not my fault, it's Romney's fault, for not showing that he is going to take the country in the right direction, for not convincing me that he KNOWS what to do to stop this excessive spending at the Federal level'.
I whole heartedly agree with that. It's not a person's fault if they vote independent or cant bring themselves to vote at all because the two main choices are not appealing, it's the Candidates' fault and the fault of their policies and plans. End of story.
Now to go the other way, I believe that Romney really feels he can
change things. I believe him when he says that. I believe that he is a
nice person, not the rich snooty that people have been making him out to
be. I believe that he knows how to run a business, and how to be part
of a team.
I like him more than I like Obama, I was always wary of Obama when he tried to act like he knew what people wanted to here. He did not seem sincere and laughed at his own jokes too often. But I do not feel that liking one more than the other automatically means that I would know that Romney should get my vote. It's very difficult. I do not think that Romney has enough of the right ideas for how to turn things around fast and hard. That is the only way, I feel, that the US has any hope of getting through this. Fast and HARD changes. Changes people are not going to like. To me it's like a household realizing they are heavy in debt and getting the Debt Lady from tv to show up and put their money in jars and tell them how much they have leftover and only to live on what they bring in, NOT on credit. If that's how households have to get out of debt, how is it that both these candidates are talking about revenue for the future, and new spending programs???? There is NO FREAKING MONEY. They are in debt an astonishing amount of money. A shocking, sickening amount of money. How are they going to get out of it?
As Mike Church also put one morning, when they finally pay the 16 TRILLLLLLION dollars back, they only break even, only in the black. Better than in the red, but it's almost impossible to think of how they can possibly ever get to the point where they bring in enough to cover what they are putting out. Households cant run like that. They may lose their home and vehicles. They have much less chances to fix their problems than the federal govts have allowed themselves. It's, quite frankly, terrifying.
Another thing I would note about this Romney Obama time is that if Romney wins, that does not necessarily signal the demise of Obama. He only served 4 years, so he could sit back and watch the debt clock continue to rise, and come back for the next election. If Romney really messes up or something bad happens under his watch (terrorist plots, etc), Obama could slide right back in again. The elections lately have been so close, near a 50-50 split, I dont know that the Dems would kick Obama to the curb so easily. He could still be their poster boy while they sit and watch the same things happen under Romney. It could go back and forth between both parties for the next 20 years and the US will just continue to crumble. How does that help anyone? What does that solve?
It will take tough ideas, that is the only way I can see to salvage what's going on.
And here is another thought - how many times have either Obama or Romney spoken about the Constitution in their debates and speeches? A light mention here and there when it suits them. But that's about it. Neither one of them has talked about how the Federal govt is going beyond what it was supposed to do, and that has contributed largely to the debt and problems. Neither one of them. They swear to uphold the constitution and then ignore it. THAT is a major problem that both of them are the stars of. So while I dont think Romney is a horrible man, I do think he feels the Feds have the right to do what they have been doing and that is just plain wrong. That thinking has led to the increased spending of tax payers dollars over the decades and it's not going to turn anything around.
I like him more than I like Obama, I was always wary of Obama when he tried to act like he knew what people wanted to here. He did not seem sincere and laughed at his own jokes too often. But I do not feel that liking one more than the other automatically means that I would know that Romney should get my vote. It's very difficult. I do not think that Romney has enough of the right ideas for how to turn things around fast and hard. That is the only way, I feel, that the US has any hope of getting through this. Fast and HARD changes. Changes people are not going to like. To me it's like a household realizing they are heavy in debt and getting the Debt Lady from tv to show up and put their money in jars and tell them how much they have leftover and only to live on what they bring in, NOT on credit. If that's how households have to get out of debt, how is it that both these candidates are talking about revenue for the future, and new spending programs???? There is NO FREAKING MONEY. They are in debt an astonishing amount of money. A shocking, sickening amount of money. How are they going to get out of it?
As Mike Church also put one morning, when they finally pay the 16 TRILLLLLLION dollars back, they only break even, only in the black. Better than in the red, but it's almost impossible to think of how they can possibly ever get to the point where they bring in enough to cover what they are putting out. Households cant run like that. They may lose their home and vehicles. They have much less chances to fix their problems than the federal govts have allowed themselves. It's, quite frankly, terrifying.
Another thing I would note about this Romney Obama time is that if Romney wins, that does not necessarily signal the demise of Obama. He only served 4 years, so he could sit back and watch the debt clock continue to rise, and come back for the next election. If Romney really messes up or something bad happens under his watch (terrorist plots, etc), Obama could slide right back in again. The elections lately have been so close, near a 50-50 split, I dont know that the Dems would kick Obama to the curb so easily. He could still be their poster boy while they sit and watch the same things happen under Romney. It could go back and forth between both parties for the next 20 years and the US will just continue to crumble. How does that help anyone? What does that solve?
It will take tough ideas, that is the only way I can see to salvage what's going on.
And here is another thought - how many times have either Obama or Romney spoken about the Constitution in their debates and speeches? A light mention here and there when it suits them. But that's about it. Neither one of them has talked about how the Federal govt is going beyond what it was supposed to do, and that has contributed largely to the debt and problems. Neither one of them. They swear to uphold the constitution and then ignore it. THAT is a major problem that both of them are the stars of. So while I dont think Romney is a horrible man, I do think he feels the Feds have the right to do what they have been doing and that is just plain wrong. That thinking has led to the increased spending of tax payers dollars over the decades and it's not going to turn anything around.
I see your point. But. Romney can buy us some time. You bet I'd rather be going toward the cliff at 60 rather than 100! More time, more chances to turn off the road.
ReplyDeleteBrilliant by the way, to observe that, theoretically, a losing Obama can come back in 2016. Not going to happen, though. Obama can not narrowly lose this election because if it's that close, he will (ahem) "find" the votes to win. If he loses, then, he can only lose in an humiliation. (Which is on its way to happening, judging by the rolling polls)
I appreciate your reply to my comment. I agree with you that both parties spend WAY too much and this is a huge part of the US problem. Mitt Romney is not my idea of an ideal president either, but again, America right now has only two choices, and if people really don't like the incumbent, nad how he's been running America (into the ground), then they should vote for a change.
ReplyDeleteI live in Ontario and find it sickening that in the last two provincial elections, Ontario voters have returned Dalton McGuinty to power - after turning this province from a 'have' to a major 'have-not' in the first term alone, they voted him in two more times, a second majority and almost a third one after that. I hear people say they "can't stand Hudak", or "wouldn't vote NDP". I would vote for ANYONE else other than a party who have proven they are accomplishing nothing more than destroying our province, and spending us all into bankruptcy.
I cannot for the life of me understand the thinking that voting for "the devil you know" is the best alternative. You're still voting for the devil!
This is all true - both replies. That's why I would really struggle if I was in the US and had to go to the polls in a couple of weeks. I would think that voting Romney could slow things down and give more time to find ways to stop the madness, but I am not convinced at all that the debt clock will slow down enough at all.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, I watched the debate between Santorum, Gingrich, Romney and Ron Paul, and all three of the former were talking about how they would 'appeal obamacare'. That was their mantra. When Ron Paul's turn came, romney had JUST spoken to say that the very first thing he would do, the day after he was inaugerated as President, was to sign an executive order to appeal Obamacare. Paul turned to him (and the other two in general, but more to Romney) and said 'It is highly unlikely that you would be able to appeal Obamacare'. Paul knows that you cant really just sign an executive order like that, and it would be really difficult to get the senate and congress to vote with enough members to appeal it (I think they need 2/3 to accomplish that), so it would be unlikely. He was trying to force them to be realistic with their campaigns for being the candidate for president, but they all kept up with it right to the end.
But now, Romney is talking about how many parts of Obamacare he likes and wants to keep. He went from spending several months talking about appealing it, to the past few weeks talking about keeping a great deal of it. Perhaps he took ron paul's words to heart and realized he could not get rid of the whole thing with one swipe of his pen, but instead he is talking about what he likes about it. That's different than saying 'we cant get rid of it now, it's law, so lets find ways to pay for it from other sectors that are overspending'. Instead, he is talking about how to bring in more revenue from the tax payers, even if he goes about it the right way it's only in order to bring in tax revenue in higher amounts, and that's about all I have seen. He talks about immigration issues because of course, money is going to illegal immigrants in many ways, but a lot of those issues are state's rights and the federal govt is not supposed to be involved in how they handle that. And he talks about building an even stronger military, and talks about needing to get a handle on Iran, Syria, etc too. all of that is $$$$$$$$$. If he goes through with even just one or two of those plans, the debt is not going to go down and Romney could be heading for the cliff at 100km/hr just the same as Obama. I picked 60kph just for fun, because no one knows what Romney is going to do and how it's going to work, and unfortunately due to the past decades of mess, we probably wouldnt see the reaction to his plans in the first 4 years anyway. It's THAT much of a mess.
What I do laugh at is how Obama talks about jobs overseas. I thought his jobs czar was the head of General Electric? Doesnt that company have most of its jobs overseas now??? What a total dork! And then of course it was his fave campaign tool, Bill Clinton, who worked during his presidency to allow that to happen in the first place, most specifically with China. So DUH? Do people not remember this stuff? I cannot stand Obama but in the end, I am not so sure Romney is going to be much better witht he most important thing the fed govt has to deal with right now - its masssssive debt.
oops Im tired, I was saying 'appeal' Obamacare, but I meant REpeal lol
ReplyDeletean added ps - I would like to say that I really feel for Ontario, but being from Alberta I get lost in the stereotypes lol. Ive seen nothing but disdain over the decades from the Ont press and many people and govt officials, ranging from slamming the oilsands to making fun of us hicks. I have lots of friends and family in Ontario so I hear all levels of interesting comments. So I should say that I only feel bad for those that did not want McGuinty and the liberals in there, and those that did not slam the oilsands from here to hell and back. I was appaulled at some of the press I saw (actually, most of it) because all I could think of was how many jobs in Ont are in the automotive sector and I would say 'um, we are bringing in the oil that the vehicles YOU make need to run.... duh???'. And then when Ontario started receiving equalization payments from us and the press still berated the oilsands, I could not believe it. Hate how the province makes a good chunk of it's money, but take the payments from it and hand it out to the people, while getting them to run around and berate the oilsands too? I wanted to plug the money well and say HAVE A GOOD DAY to Ontario many times over the years.
ReplyDeleteI realize that's unfair lol, it's just difficult reading so much venomous crap and know that we were then forced to help pay for McGuinty's cesspool that he created. Good riddance but I can only hope that whatever happens next is best for Ontario and they can get out of this - WITHOUT help from alberta ;)