50 Major Similarities Between Obama and Romney

Well at least you proved him wrong and proved your point. Oh wait, never mind.

 

Fair enough. 1 out of the 50+.

 

Note to those who lean left but don't really want to have to vote for Obama, but think Romney might be too Rightwing:

"Romney and Obama are almost exactly alike. I could show you 50 ways or more. 10,000 ways maybe. So don't be fooled, he's no Conservative. You don't HAVE to vote for that big, bad Obama. Vote for Romney. He's your dream compromise."

Note to Conservatives:

"Keep on your track to vote for Romney, as you know this thread is useless since most any discerning person would vote for almost anyone before they'd vote for Obama."

 

Good luck with that. This thread will be avoided by the left and right because they know they cannot refute it.

 

You didn't refute anything he said.

 

Fantastic OP.

 

Or an anarchist, or a libertarian. So... yes. They're either somewhat insane, or they're idealists with no reasonable explanation of things like "How would we make up for losing most of our revenue".

Yes, but everyone who isn't in the Austrian school (which, by the way, is one of the most discredited economic schools) is pretty clear that it worked.

I reject that it came at the cost of future growth. Do you have any explanation of that that could convince me otherwise?

The end result may be the same, but this doesn't make the policies equivalent. In fact, it makes them fundamentally different.

Uh... You misunderstand your source. Their whole point was that Romney's claims about his previous position, and his taking credit for the bailout, were ludicrous.

He's also a republican. And Ginsburg is liable to retire within the next 4 years.

That's conspiratorial conjecture on your part.

...Governments encourage pollution? Nowhere did I make that point. In fact, without government, there is next to no impetus for businesses to not pollute, so long as it remains profitable to do so (which it will).

...But I stated no opinion on the merit of Cap and Trade. I simply stated the difference between the two policies. Please, be more careful in reading my posts.

But of course, countless examples of government being less efficient than the market don't matter to my point of view, because I was not generalizing. I assume that the government is usually less effective and efficient than the free market, especially when it comes to market interactions, but in some cases, it is necessary, and in others, it is simply more efficient and effective. And in the case of the bank bailout, it was necessary. The degree to which those involved in the banks that were slated to crash would lose everything would send the economy into an absolutely horrendous tailspin, as even more people would be unable to introduce demand.

Yep. And somehow, we reached the point where banks became so big, and people so trusting in their record (banks that hadn't failed in 50-100 years!), largely through non-governmental means (legal mergers), that they became too big to fail. We could not afford to let them go down, because them going down would be a result that is absolutely awful.

But I don't believe that. I simply believe that, pragmatically speaking, we needed to do something to ensure that countless people lost their savings, retirement funds, and the like. And we did, and unfortunately we didn't take the next logical step and prevent this kind of thing from happening again by either nationalizing or subdividing the big banks. I mean, let me be clear, I don't like this. It's just that the alternative is worse.

Another difference! :troll:

But their stances aren't identical by any stretch of the imagination. Obama wants business as usual, with slight cuts and waste reduction; Romney (and, more directly, Ryan) want to privatize it. Similarly, the republican position on Social Security was equally to privatize it, and Romney was proposing very harsh cuts to Medicaid that Obama is not. Romney has stated his intent to leave FEMA up to the states as a block grant (which simply doesn't work, as some states get hit far harder by natural disasters than others - when's the last time Idaho or Montana asked for FEMA money?), and reinforced it in the wake of Sandy. Kind of a big deal in my eyes. They are similar. They're not identical, though, and I can easily tell you who in my eyes the less shiny turd is.

 

^^Ridiculous.

 

You'd expect that having gone thru the vetting process, the two candidates would have many similarities. Folks with views that are too radical for the mainstream don't make it to the finals.

However, more important than their similarities for the election, is their major differences in a number of areas, including these:

Taxes:
Romney would make the Bush tax cuts permanent, add a 20% income tax cut on top of that, eliminate the estate tax, and make $200k of investment income tax free.
Obama would repeal the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250k, and maintain the estate taxes.

Obamacare:
Mitt would repeal Obamacare.
Obama would enforce Obamacare.

Military:
Romney will increase military spending.
Obama will trim military spending.

Abortion:
Romney would severly limit a woman's right to an abortion
Obama would protect a woman's right to an abortion.

Safety net programs.
Romney propose big but unspecified cuts in these programs.
Obama favors defending these programs.

Financial regulation:
Romney supports lesser regulation
Obama supports greater regulation

Energy:
Romney focuses on more drilling and big oil
Obama focuses on more efficiency and alternatives

The environment
Romney favors a free market approach
Obama favors protecting the environment.

 

Good post!

 

Losing revenue means absolutely nothing. The only thing that matters is balancing the budget. There is nothing "insane" or "idealist" about that.

The Austrian school is not "one of the most discredited economic schools". Fabrication.

Creating money out of thin air doesn't create wealth, it simply transfers it.
Transferring wealth via taxation doesn't create wealth, it simply transfers it.

Do you have any explanation how transfering wealth amounts to creating wealth?

No it doesn't. They both support taxpayers being on hook to bailout corporations like GM and Chrysler. That is fundamentally identical.

Good for them. My point still stands that my source's opinion is irrelevant to the fact that you're misunderstanding Romney's position on the issue.

So what?

Which part? The part about Obama being bought out by the super wealthy he claims that he intends to punish? The part about Obama claiming to want to increase taxes on the rich despite the fact that he extended the Bush tax cuts for the super wealthy? Obama's rhetoric contradicting his past actions are plain as day for everyone to see.

Sure you did, though maybe not intentionally or directly. You brought up an example of a state with bad environmental standards, which could only ever be due to corporate lobbying for regulations that allow them to pollute the environment at the expense of private property rights. Governments encourage pollution by writing pollution laws that favor big business.

Of course. It's the government's duty to institute laws that prevent pollution, and to provide courts to protect private property rights that businesses violate when they break the law. But the idea that the federal government needs to regulate pollution is absolute nonsense; furthermore, the idea that the corrupt EPA is the most efficient method of regulating the environment is just silly.

I read your posts very carefully. You stated your opinion, "This is actually a fairly considerable difference in policy if you look closely." I disagree with that opinion for reasons already given.

Probably, but the recession would have been over a lot more quickly had that happened and the economy would be in much better shape right now than it is. I disagree with your opinion that the bank bailouts were "necessary".

The reason they got so big in the first place was because they are members of the Federal Reserve System, which is a banking cartel designed to protect the special interests of its largest member banks. Not only that, but countless banking regulations that were introduced over the course of the last century created a moral hazard that enabled banks to get "too big to fail", and very reckless.

The FDIC insures depositors for up to $250,000 no matter what happens to the banks. Depositors would have been just fine either way. The only logical step to prevent it from happening again is to eliminate the moral hazard - get rid of the Fed and FDIC, and don't allow Congress to bail out banks.

Not really. Obama does the same thing. Proven by his lies about the Bush tax cuts.

Please provide a source that proves that Romney wants to privitize these things.

A minor squabble - they both agree that Medicaid should go nowhere.

That's interesting, because my source right here says that Romney 100% supports FEMA:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57543411/mitt-romney-offers-answer-on-his-fema-stance/

You haven't provided any source to back up your claim about Romney's stance on FEMA.

But they're both still turds. I don't know why anybody would vote for someone they believe is a turd.

 

So you admit that both candidates support keeping the income tax?

Obama has already extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest. What leads you to believe, other than his empty campaign rhetoric, that he is actually going to do that to the folks who are financially backing him?

Already discussed in the OP.

Both have supported increasing military spending from their predecessors.

Romney has proven himself to be more pro-choice than Obama. Not only has he claimed to be pro-choice, but Romneycare provides taxpayer funding for abortions. Not even Obamacare directly funds abortions. Romney is more pro-choice than Obama is. If you're concerned about which candidate is more pro-choice, then Romney is your guy.

Your opinion that a woman has a "right" to an abortion is irrelevant to this discussion.

So you admit both favor keeping these unconstitutional programs at the federal level?

Fabrication. Romney wants to repeal and replace Dodd Frank.

Both are in bed with big oil, demonstrated in the OP.
Your opinion that government investing in alternative energies is "efficiency" is irrelevant to this discussion.

Another fabrication, demonstrated in the OP.

 

There is no such thing as permanent in terms of government.

Repeal and replace. I guarantee the replacement will still be corporatism.

No, Obama won't. If the Congress decides not to trim, it won't trim. They'll both continue interventionist policies, so ...really we will need the budget for that kind of meddling behavior.

Romney will no more do that then Bush did while in office. Mormons don't care. He's just pandering.

Only difference.

Cronyism is supported by both.

He won't after the debacle with this term.

Maybe?

 

Obamacare came from Romneycare, they're nearly identical. Even if Romney got the votes to repeal it, he'd likely intend to replace it with something nearly identical.

Military spending is ridiculous either way. Obama isn't really rocking the boat much, here.

Obama has cut Medicare, and people with fixed incomes will worse off with higher prices due to inflation. Especially with the Obama re-appointed Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke running the show. QE3 will probably cause some serious damage to the dollar.

Both are corporatists. Both will work hard to give wealth to the banks. Obama has proven time and again that he works for Wall Street. Romney will too.

Romney says a lot of things, we'll see his real stance in regards to this if he gets in.

Wasn't Obama bragging about an increase in oil drilling under his administration anyway?

Let's make one thing clear, Mitt Romney does not support the free market anywhere, neither does Obama, for that matter.

Mitt Romney has stated that he believes in climate change and was for cap and trade.

 

Lol, I love how we all responded to the same BS in succession.

 

Well that's a big "well, duh!" on that one good buddy. So what?

I don't expect the economy to tank again like it was when he took office.

Well that's a big "well, duh!" on that one good buddy. So what?

Nonsense. I agree that Romney flip flops in the wind, but to claim he is "more pro-choice" is just hokem.

What unconsititutional programs?

How does that make my statement fabrication?

You demonstrated no such thing. You just stated a few facts and your opinion.

It is completely relevant showing how they are different.

You demonstrated no such thing. You just stated a few facts and your opinion.

 

I'll trust most of our members understand my point without restorting to irrelevant semantics.

Where does Romney say he'll replace it and with what?

Either president's actions are constrained to some degree by the Congress. That doesn't eliminate their differences.

That's a *big* difference between Obama.

Point does not rebut mine.

Could be. We know Romney won't.

Maybe what?

 

It's a major similarity, as the thread title states.

What does the state of the economy have to do with cutting taxes for the superwealthy?

It's a major similarity, as the thread title states.

He is less pro-choice in the sense that he is in the closet about it and pretends to be pro-life, whereas Obama is very open about being pro-choice.

Whichever federal safety net programs you were referring to.

Because Romney doesn't support lesser regulation, he supports at least an equal amount of regulation.

It's no less valid than your opinion that Obama doesn't focus on big oil.

The OP shows that Romney supports government investing in alternative energies, which he - like Obama - believes to be efficient.

Romney's environmental stance is not a free market one. He supports Cap and Trade and the EPA. Your claim that he supports a "free market approach" is nothing more than your unfounded opinion that is contradicted by the facts.

 

So what? That doesn't mean their policies are the same now.

Romney proposes to make it much more ridiculous and Obama less so.

Obama changed the funding source as party of the health reform.
Romney/Ryan proposes fundamental changes to Medicare and SS and drastic but unspecified cuts to other safety net programs.

Regardless, doesn't rebut my point.

Of course. All we can go on now is what their policies are now.

Yes.

But support free markets. I agree that their positions on the environment vary by degrees.

Could be. He's not any more.

 

Romney is going to sign the Repeal ObamaCare Bill passed by The Tea Party Congress.........

.........The Kenyan Tyrant is going to veto it.

Romney is going to sign the Tax Reform Bill passed by The Tea Party Congress..........

.......the Sh'tcago Slimeball is going to veto it.

Romney is goint to sign the 40+ Jobs bills passed by The Tea Party Congress........

.......The pile of Kenyan Excrement is going to veto them.

When it comes to every major piece of legislation that will come to the President's desk over these next 4 years.......the differences between Romney and The Community Organizer couldnt be more stark and extreme.
.
.
.
.

 

So what?

I don't know. So what?

So what?

So what?

Responses edited.

Wrong.

His plan seeks to reduce taxes, spending, regulation, and government programs.
http://www.mittromney.com/jobs

To Mitt Romney, with a Wall Street pedigree himself, efforts to rein in the financiers with regulation piled on regulation are an attack on “economic freedom.” President Obama, who often referred to the pin-striped set as “fat cats,” cites a need for regulations that make it “more profitable to play by the rules than to game the system.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Dec...all-Street-Reform-and-Consumer-Protection-Act

Implementing significant regulatory reform by streamlining the fast-track approval of processes and amending the Clean Air Act to exclude the regulation of carbon
o Repealing and replacing both Obamacare and Dodd-Frank
o Reviewing and eliminating Obama-era regulations
o Requiring Congress to approve all major regulations
o Capping new regulatory costs at zero dollars, forcing agencies to limit the costs imposed on society
Reforming the legal liability system to ensure the federal-state balance of power in courts is respected while creating a legal environment for economic growth
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012/mitt-romney/issues

Mine statement is not an opinion. It's based on the stated policies of the candidates.

I didn't say in this category their positions where totally different, but their focus.

Wrong. See above.

 

Known as "tax cuts for the richest" as an accurate description.

 

These are the real similarities between Romney and Obama:

One puts dogs on top of his car, one eats them

One belongs to a church with a racist background, and so does the other one

As children, Romney Beat up a boy; Obama beat up a girl

Romney’s Grandfather was a polygamist; Obama’s father was

Both have surrogates who have gone off of the talking points (Trump for Romney and Booker for Obama).

 

That is the point of the thread.

I asked you why you thought Obama was going to follow through on his pledge to raise taxes on the super wealthy, and you replied, "I don't expect the economy to tank again like it was when he took office." I believe the implication you were making was that the reason he didn't raise taxes the first time around was because the economy tanked, and since you don't expect the economy to tank again soon, he will be able to raise taxes on the super wealthy. So I am asking you - why was the economy tanking a reason for Obama to not raise taxes on the rich?

That is the point of the thread.

Romney has taken a more progressive stance on abortion than Obama has.

What responses?

I agree that Mitt Romney has made campaign rhetoric claiming that he wants to reduce spending, regulation, and government programs. So what?

So Romney wants to replace Obama-era regulations with a "more stream-lined" set of regulations. Where is your proof that Romney's vague and unspecified plan will offer less regulation than Obama-era regulations, aside from empty Romney campaign propaganda?

Where does Romney claim that he favors big oil?

How is their focus different? They both support government investing in alternate energies.

Where?

 

You haven't established anything with your point.

Because many argue that when the economy is tanking cutting taxes provides stimulus to mitigate the effects. IMO it depends on what taxes you cut.

You haven't established anything with your point.

Past is irrelevant to their positions now.

Mine, see my prior post.

So that is a major difference between the candidates.

I didn't say they would be. I said they had different policies. Which you just verified.

But apply your own standard of proof to yourself. Prove that Rommney's regulations will be the same as Obama's. And after that, prove that Obama will do the same things as Romney as president over the next four years, as you are claiming they are basically the same.

The section on regulation.