50 Major Similarities Between Obama and Romney

Which is absurd and incredibly shallow-minded. The income tax is not the god-tax you seem to think it is. If it's done away with, another and fairer tax could be instituted in its place.

Besides, when 46% of the taxable populace doesn't even pay it (and spare me a condescending lecture, I know that the 46% are not made up of freeloading welfare queens), it's obviously not THAT necessary.

 

There is really only one difference that matters:

Obama will push for increased taxes and increased spending.

Romney will push for reduced taxes and reduced spending.

One way or the other, both will depend on Congress.

 

Except Romney won't push for reduced taxes and spending. His economic plan is entirely unrealistic because he's actually ADDING spending and drastically cutting revenue.

Not that his record suggests he reduces taxes anyway, because it doesn't.

 

His plan doesn't matter. Congress will decide the plan. He only has to provide leadership and a direction and that direction will be toward reducing spending and taxes - among other things like the big government.

 

Bullcrap. Every President (except Grant, who spent his presidency drunk off his ass) has gone into office with a plan, and they lobby Congress to pass that plan.

Now, Congress can choose how much of that plan actually gets done, but to say the President just sits in the Oval Office doodling and occasionally giving rousing speeches while Congress does all the work is absurd.

Except it won't, not unless he gets a Congress that will reduce taxes and spending - and except to avert the "fiscal cliff," his Congress (if he gets elected) will not reduce spending or taxes.

 

1st Romney Moved away from Prochoice before he ever left the governor's office in Massachussetts.

2nd in the case of "Romney Care" Romney didn't write the bill and given the makeup of the state legislature in Massachusetts something ike Romney care was going to happen no matter who was governor. His veto would have been over ridden in any case. The Bill is in most respects a compromise of sorts. Not to mention which states have far more latitude than the feds to do things like that.

3rd A country with thirty different currencies is a country in which moneychangers dominate the economy and one in which no one ever has any idea how much his money will buy if anything. One should further note that we have had a federal reserve of sorts as early as Alexander Hamilton and that the constitution is essentially moot on the idea. Further contrary to Glen Beck the federal reserve isn't the problem monetary policy is and that is set by the Department of the treasury.

4th The country has had a Department of the Interior since Washington, The Department of commerce is nearly as old.

5th CBO projection of economic growth is absurd. And comparing the Obama budget for 2013 to a projected budget for 2017 is the worst sort of flim flam. If yu used the precentage of GDP AS Obama's budget for 2013 does You'd see that the obama budget using the same grossly inflated GDP numbers be more than a trillion dollars higher and yet you make the absurd claim this is no different when in fact the differences are obvious.

 

Wrong, it was as he was leaving the office of governor and prepping for a Presidential run that he changed his position on abortion, in mid-2005.

So basically, Romney is a follower, not a leader, and doesn't have the balls to stand up for what he believes is right no matter how great the odds.

Of course, your point is ridiculous anyway, since Romney loved Romneycare, whether he wrote it or not.

Wrong. Monetary policy is decided mostly by the Federal Reserve, but it is somewhat of a joint effort with the Dep. of the Treasury.

We didn't have the Department of the Interior until 1849, fifty years after Washington died. The Department of Commerce didn't exist until 1903. So your assertion that one existed during Washington's presidency and the other shortly after is not just wrong, but laughably so.

Your last point was invalid simply because you called the most reliable and unbiased source on the matter absurd. Credibility? Shot.

All in all, that was an incredible display of ignorance.

 

If Romney is elected, there will be only one reason he and Congress do not succeed in reducing spending and taxes: Opposition from Democrats.

 

I already did. Feel free to point out where Superman55 said he was an Austrian.

 

Kinda like Obama and the Republicans. So productive you partisans...

 

None of those has anything to do with the political race. You're making a false analogy, which is a logical fallacy.

I disagree with your opinion that most people call those candidates crazy. Unless you can back up that claim with some data, it's pretty obvious to "most people" that you just fabricated that. Which is another logical fallacy.

Besides, even if it was true, the fact that most people share an opinion about a particular issue does not disprove the argument that the income tax should be abolished. That's called argument ad populum. Which is yet another logical fallacy.

Three logical fallacies in one post. You're on a roll.

 

You need to get away from the right-wing propaganda machine. Romney absolutely will not reduce spending, as I've demonstrated in the OP - which you apparently ignored.

 

I haven't ignored your OP, I've dismissed it as inconsequential drivel.

 

Any proof of that, aside from empty rhetoric?

Make all the excuses you want, the fact is that he signed it into law.

Feel free to explain how moneychangers would "dominate the economy".

Depends on what currency one is using.

We didn't have "a federal reserve of sorts as early as Alexander Hamilton". You made that up.

False. Monetary policy is set by the Federal Reserve, not the Treasury.

False on both points and irrelevant to the point.

Disagree with your opinion. It's one of the best estimates of economic growth we have.

What "grossly inflated GDP numbers be more than a trillion dollars" are you talking about? I can't understand your gibberish.

 

I appreciate you being honest by admitting that you engaged in an Argument of Dismissal logical fallacy.

 

They're not going to succeed in reducing spending because they're not trying to do that in the first place.

 

If you want to ignore the records of nearly every sitting Republican and Romney's own record, sure.

 

Nah, no Argument of Dismissal on my part.

You should go back to my first post in this thread for my reasoning.

 

Actually, they are.

The only record that matters is the record of deeds.

http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/

 

Voting records are "deed" records. A vast majority of sitting GOP Congressmen and women are totally cool with raising taxes and spending.

 

Yes it was.

Your first post in this thread contained no such reasoning.

Disagree with your opinion for reasons stated in the OP.

 

Your words aren't proof and you've demonstrated to me you're not credible.
Prove how much stock the poor own and then let's compare that to the amount held by the wealthiest 10%.

Your position is bogus, IMO. The point is that the rich own the vast majority of the stock in the country and therefore they are the ones who benefit from capital gains taxes. The fact that the poor may own a few shares (and of that, mostly in 401ks where cap gains tax rates don't apply) doesn't change the point.

The is utter nonsense. Prove it. Show how much estate tax and investment taxes the poor pay.

Your words aren't proof and you've demonstrated to me you're not credible. Prove it.

 

Wrong thread.

 

How did that happen?

 

I don't know, you're the one who posted it here.