It Isn't About the Candidates - It's About the Policies Behind the Candidates

[George Costanza]

What policies does Obama embrace?

Universal health care - I agree with that.
Pro choice - I agree with that.
Getting us out of the Middle East by 2014 - I basically agree with that, if that's the earliest he will do it. I would prefer NOW.
Discontinuing the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy - I agree with that.

That's just off the top of my head.

Like Warrior said,... you've been an Obama ass sucker from day one.

Once again, wrong. I have never liked Obama. Still don't. But I am very much in favor of Democratic policies and strongly opposed to almost all Republican programs.

 

[peach174]

The point? You're the one who brought up the deficit. Obama and the dims blame everything on Bush, when does he put on his big boy pants and take responsibility for his own actions?



Are you kidding?

{The first year of the Obama presidency, 2009, is the largest year in decades, with federal outlays totaling a whopping 25.2 percent of GDP. Since then, federal outlays relative to GDP have fallen, but they are still incredibly large. In fact, you have to go back to 1946 to find a year when federal outlays were as large as they have been every year of the Obama presidency.}

Yep, Obama's a Big Spender...Just Like His Predecessors - Forbes
Govt. sets record deficit in February - Washington Times
Another Obama Record!… Four Straight Years of Trillion Dollar Deficits | The Gateway Pundit

See, I'm not defending Bush, fuck him, he spent like a drunken monkey - but Obama made things WORSE, much worse, not better.

cool.. one lying talking point after another from shouldbecensored

Thank you. My perception is, and always has been, that Dubya spent his ass off and Obama has spent significantly less.

How so?
Bush spent 4.899 trillion in 8 years. That's bad enough.
Obama spent 4.939 trillion in 4 years. Even worse.
What's he going to spend in another 4 years, if he gets re-elected?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where were you in 2004? Are you saying that the Republican party did not attempt to make the election about John Kerry as a person? Come on, QW - you are smarter than that.

I disagree with you about Obama's policies not being Democratic policies.

Lots of people pointed out how stupid Kerry is, none of them were Dubya.

Perhaps I was remiss in limiting the original parameters of this to one candidate attacking the other as opposed to one party attacking the other candidate. Whether it is one candidate attacking the other or that candidate's party attacking the other, it doesn't matter - no election should be decided based upon the personality of one or the other of the candidates. What "kind of guy" (or gal) the candidate is matters very little. The true issue should be the policies and programs which that candidate brings with him or her.

In 2004, the Republican Party launched a terrible smear campaign against John Kerry. It won Bush the election.

Parties and interest groups do this kind of thing all the time, Obama is doing it this time, that is a major difference.

By the way, Bush won the election because Kerry is a jerk.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The point? You're the one who brought up the deficit. Obama and the dims blame everything on Bush, when does he put on his big boy pants and take responsibility for his own actions?



Are you kidding?

{The first year of the Obama presidency, 2009, is the largest year in decades, with federal outlays totaling a whopping 25.2 percent of GDP. Since then, federal outlays relative to GDP have fallen, but they are still incredibly large. In fact, you have to go back to 1946 to find a year when federal outlays were as large as they have been every year of the Obama presidency.}

Yep, Obama's a Big Spender...Just Like His Predecessors - Forbes
Govt. sets record deficit in February - Washington Times
Another Obama Record!… Four Straight Years of Trillion Dollar Deficits | The Gateway Pundit

See, I'm not defending Bush, fuck him, he spent like a drunken monkey - but Obama made things WORSE, much worse, not better.

cool.. one lying talking point after another from shouldbecensored

Thank you. My perception is, and always has been, that Dubya spent his ass off and Obama has spent significantly less.

Your impression does not stand up to the facts.

Obama spent more his first year than Bush did his first term.

 

[Uncensored2008]

cool.. one lying talking point after another from shouldbecensored

There is a box of bon-bons and a rerun of "Law & Order" waiting on you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Thank you. My perception is, and always has been, that Dubya spent his ass off and Obama has spent significantly less.

Well, don't let the facts sway you. You serve your party, reality is such a bother.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The issue really should not be Obama v. Romney. It isn't about the men - it's about the ideas and policies behind the men.

I don't care that much for Obama as a person. I didn't like him in the primaries and I don't like him that much as our president. HOWEVER, it isn't about Obama with me. Rather, it is about Democratic programs v. Republican programs, whoever is in the oval office.

Like Obama or not, one can be reasonably sure that with him in the White House, most Democratic ideas and programs will be supported and, hopefully, enacted. Conversely, with Romney in there, what are we going to get - regardless of the type of person Romney is? Republican policies and programs.

I vote policies and programs rather than individual candidates. I think most people do the same - or they damn well should.

Not at all. It doesn't matter what policies the candidate is endorsing if he lacks the competence to deal effectively with Congress, and the fact is that Obama lacks that competence and Romney has it. The key issues are unemployment, the stagnant economy and soaring deficits. We have four years of proof that Obama can't deal effectively with these issues, but when Romney became governor of Mass., these were the exact issues he faced and he was strapped with an very hostile Democratic legislature. He did exactly what he is proposing to do in Washington, he cut spending and encouraged new business investment and the result was a sharp uptick economic activity leading to a sharp decline in unemployment and billions of dollars of deficits turned into billions of dollars of surpluses.

Obama has spent the last four years putting politics and ideology ahead of positive outcomes for the American people and then hunting for some one to blame for his failures. Romney's entire career in both the public and private sectors has been about producing positive outcomes. The election is all about the men. One man, Romney, has proven to us that he can do what needs to be done, encourage new business investment that will produce new jobs that will lower unemployment and create new tax revenues that along with spending cuts will lower the deficits, and the other man has spent four years proving to us that he can't deal effectively with the nation's problems.

As a side issue - a lot of people (yourself included) conveniently overlook the rather obvious point that, yes - Obama has not solved our economy, unemployment and deficit problems as successfully as most would like. He has made some progress but, regardless, which is better - to continue with someone who is trying to solve these problems, or return to a Republican administration WHEN IT WAS EIGHT YEARS OF A REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION THAT BROUGHT THE PROBLEMS ON TO BEGIN WITH?

When the fox kills almost all of the chickens in the hen house and is then replaced by an electronic alarm system, would the farmer be making a smart move to put the fox back to watch the hen house once again merely because the number of chickens did not increase fast enough for him while the electronic alarm system was in effect?

No, it was the Republican administration that preceded Obama that held off the recession for nearly eight years after the Clinton stock market crash of 2000 and the attacks on 911. However, Romney is not Bush and Romney faced the exact same problems Obama faced when he was governor of Mass. Romney brought the Mass. economy out of recession by encouraging a sharp increase in business investment which produced a sharp increase in employment and turned billions in deficits into billions of surplus. Facing the same problems, Romney produced positive results for the people and Obama has produced nothing but excuses for failure.