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

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

It IS about the candidates for they support those policies they embrace.

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.

 

[George Costanza]

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 killed almost all of the chickens in the hen house and was 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?

It was both parties that caused the melt down. But the Dem's blocked any of Bushes polices.
In 2002 the Enron Scandal uncovered that Freddie Mac was dealing in illegal hedge funds.
Republicans moved swiftly to enact a stronger GSE regulatory framework… Democrats dug trenches and defended. Please recall – if investors become more skeptical about Fannie’s health, they would not purchase as many of Fannie’s repackaged mortgage securities, at least not at market-low interest rates. That situation would reduce Fannie’s ability to buy mortgages, particularly in the risky subprime market. This was something Democrats wanted to avoid, at severe cost if necessary.
3 Dems stopped all of the Repubs bills coming out the Houseing and banking committee.They could not get any bills out to go to the floor to be voted on.
And we have all paid severely for it.

What was the national deficit when Bush took office? What was it when he left office?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Yet, for some reason, Obama wants to make this election about Romney, not about issues. The only explanation I can come up with for that is that he doesn't have any policies.

Given that Romney has said he would sit down with both parties in Congress, and Obama has spent the last 4 years ignoring both parties, I would think that anyone who really wanted to see Democratic policies enacted would vote for Romney, which is why I am not voting for him.

Oh, yes - of course. Both candidates want to make the campaign about the other guy, because they both know that this is largely why people vote for one or the other - which is the whole point of this thread. That is the wrong criterion, but that's what people do in general.

How many times has a friend of yours recommended a professional person such as a doctor, with: "You really need to go see Dr. Smith. He's a REALLY good doctor." In point of fact, they don't have the slightest idea what kind of a doctor Dr. Smith is. All they know is that they had some brief contact with him which did not involve anything really serious, and he seemed like a NICE GUY.

The last time a sitting president made the campaign about the other guy was 1980, do you remember what happened then? Every president since then has made the campaign about his policies and his record. If you want to make this campaign about Obama's policies, which are not the Democratic Party's policies, feel free. Since Obama's policies have resulted in a sluggish economy and most Americans worst off than they were I am quite sure Romney would have no trouble making a case.

 

[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.

Pay attention, moron - everything listed here is a policy. It has nothing to do with an individual.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What was the national deficit when Bush took office? What was it when he left office?

So, your claim is that your little tin god has added LESS to the deficit?

No, in fact he's added far more in 4 years than Bush did in 8 - so what was your point? To blow smoke, because the Union wants Obama and you do what the Union tells you to do?

 

[George Costanza]

Yet, for some reason, Obama wants to make this election about Romney, not about issues. The only explanation I can come up with for that is that he doesn't have any policies.

Given that Romney has said he would sit down with both parties in Congress, and Obama has spent the last 4 years ignoring both parties, I would think that anyone who really wanted to see Democratic policies enacted would vote for Romney, which is why I am not voting for him.

Oh, yes - of course. Both candidates want to make the campaign about the other guy, because they both know that this is largely why people vote for one or the other - which is the whole point of this thread. That is the wrong criterion, but that's what people do in general.

How many times has a friend of yours recommended a professional person such as a doctor, with: "You really need to go see Dr. Smith. He's a REALLY good doctor." In point of fact, they don't have the slightest idea what kind of a doctor Dr. Smith is. All they know is that they had some brief contact with him which did not involve anything really serious, and he seemed like a NICE GUY.

The last time a sitting president made the campaign about the other guy was 1980, do you remember what happened then? Every president since then has made the campaign about his policies and his record. If you want to make this campaign about Obama's policies, which are not the Democratic Party's policies, feel free. Since Obama's policies have resulted in a sluggish economy and most Americans worst off than they were I am quite sure Romney would have no trouble making a case.

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.

 

[peach174]

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 killed almost all of the chickens in the hen house and was 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?

It was both parties that caused the melt down. But the Dem's blocked any of Bushes polices.
In 2002 the Enron Scandal uncovered that Freddie Mac was dealing in illegal hedge funds.
Republicans moved swiftly to enact a stronger GSE regulatory framework… Democrats dug trenches and defended. Please recall – if investors become more skeptical about Fannie’s health, they would not purchase as many of Fannie’s repackaged mortgage securities, at least not at market-low interest rates. That situation would reduce Fannie’s ability to buy mortgages, particularly in the risky subprime market. This was something Democrats wanted to avoid, at severe cost if necessary.
3 Dems stopped all of the Repubs bills coming out the Housing and banking committee.They could not get any bills out to go to the floor to be voted on.
And we have all paid severely for it.

What was the national deficit when Bush took office? What was it when he left office?

That is what I mean when I said it is both parities that are to blame.
Yes, it was Bushes borrowing and an unfunded Medicare program, plus the Dems not allowing stronger GSE regulations.

 

[George Costanza]

What was the national deficit when Bush took office? What was it when he left office?

So, your claim is that your little tin god has added LESS to the deficit?

No, in fact he's added far more in 4 years than Bush did in 8 - so what was your point? To blow smoke, because the Union wants Obama and you do what the Union tells you to do?

Stick with the point. She was trying to claim that it the mess Obama inherited in 2008 was not caused by the eight previous years of Republican administration. To illustrate her point, she conveniently cited the economy, failing to mention the deficit. I was questioning her about the deficit. So far, she hasn't come back on that point.

You are claiming that Obama has added more to the deficit in 4 years than Bush did in 8 years? Cite me some specific numbers to back up that claim.

 

[George Costanza]

Let me ask a question of all who have contributed to this thread so far:

Do you vote policies or do you vote the man?

 

[Wiseacre]

Let me ask a question of all who have contributed to this thread so far:

Do you vote policies or do you vote the man?

Policies. I do not believe that Obama's policies have worked as effectively as they should have; IOW, I think different policies would have yielded better results for the economy and jobs. I think his administration has not been as effective in management as they should have been, and quite frankly I think he and his administration have not been as truthful and forthcoming as I would like.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

It IS about the candidates for they support those policies they embrace.

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.

He doesn't want universal health care, he wants universal health insurance with rationed health care. Universal health care is impossible unless he changes the way we educate doctors, which he has made no move to do.

My guess is that, like most people, you really have no idea what Obama's abortion position. He has the most extreme position on abortion of any candidate, including the fringe candidates that aren't on the ballots in most states. He actually supports denying legal rights to babies after they are born, he supports partial birth abortions, and he ran on a platform of expanding federal protection of abortion beyond what Roe has established, eliminating all state laws that restrict abortion even after fetal viability. He even supports abortions solely for the purpose of choosing the sex of a child. Is that your position on abortion, or do you find that extreme?

He doesn't want to get us out of the Middle East by 2014, he doesn't even want to get us out of Afghanistan by then. he has repeatedly said that American troops will be in Afghanistan until at least 2025. He started working after his inauguration to keep troops in Iraq, and the only reason he pulled out last year is the agreement signed by Bush required it.

Since you apparently don't know his positions maybe you should learn about Johnson's the only candidate that comes close to the positions you support.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh, yes - of course. Both candidates want to make the campaign about the other guy, because they both know that this is largely why people vote for one or the other - which is the whole point of this thread. That is the wrong criterion, but that's what people do in general.

How many times has a friend of yours recommended a professional person such as a doctor, with: "You really need to go see Dr. Smith. He's a REALLY good doctor." In point of fact, they don't have the slightest idea what kind of a doctor Dr. Smith is. All they know is that they had some brief contact with him which did not involve anything really serious, and he seemed like a NICE GUY.

The last time a sitting president made the campaign about the other guy was 1980, do you remember what happened then? Every president since then has made the campaign about his policies and his record. If you want to make this campaign about Obama's policies, which are not the Democratic Party's policies, feel free. Since Obama's policies have resulted in a sluggish economy and most Americans worst off than they were I am quite sure Romney would have no trouble making a case.

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.

 

[peach174]

What was the national deficit when Bush took office? What was it when he left office?

So, your claim is that your little tin god has added LESS to the deficit?

No, in fact he's added far more in 4 years than Bush did in 8 - so what was your point? To blow smoke, because the Union wants Obama and you do what the Union tells you to do?

Stick with the point. She was trying to claim that it the mess Obama inherited in 2008 was not caused by the eight previous years of Republican administration. To illustrate her point, she conveniently cited the economy, failing to mention the deficit. I was questioning her about the deficit. So far, she hasn't come back on that point.

You are claiming that Obama has added more to the deficit in 4 years than Bush did in 8 years? Cite me some specific numbers to back up that claim.

Post # 27 George

 

[Uncensored2008]

Stick with the point. She was trying to claim that it the mess Obama inherited in 2008 was not caused by the eight previous years of Republican administration.

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?

To illustrate her point, she conveniently cited the economy, failing to mention the deficit. I was questioning her about the deficit. So far, she hasn't come back on that point.

You are claiming that Obama has added more to the deficit in 4 years than Bush did in 8 years? Cite me some specific numbers to back up that claim.

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
www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/an...r-straight-years-of-trillion-dollar-deficits/

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

 

[peach174]

What was the national deficit when Bush took office? What was it when he left office?

So, your claim is that your little tin god has added LESS to the deficit?

No, in fact he's added far more in 4 years than Bush did in 8 - so what was your point? To blow smoke, because the Union wants Obama and you do what the Union tells you to do?

Stick with the point. She was trying to claim that it the mess Obama inherited in 2008 was not caused by the eight previous years of Republican administration. To illustrate her point, she conveniently cited the economy, failing to mention the deficit. I was questioning her about the deficit. So far, she hasn't come back on that point.

You are claiming that Obama has added more to the deficit in 4 years than Bush did in 8 years? Cite me some specific numbers to back up that claim.

National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

 

[peach174]

Let me ask a question of all who have contributed to this thread so far:

Do you vote policies or do you vote the man?

Policies

 

[jillian]

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.

that's probably correct.

 

[jillian]

Stick with the point. She was trying to claim that it the mess Obama inherited in 2008 was not caused by the eight previous years of Republican administration.

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?

To illustrate her point, she conveniently cited the economy, failing to mention the deficit. I was questioning her about the deficit. So far, she hasn't come back on that point.

You are claiming that Obama has added more to the deficit in 4 years than Bush did in 8 years? Cite me some specific numbers to back up that claim.

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
www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/an...r-straight-years-of-trillion-dollar-deficits/

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

 

[George Costanza]

The last time a sitting president made the campaign about the other guy was 1980, do you remember what happened then? Every president since then has made the campaign about his policies and his record. If you want to make this campaign about Obama's policies, which are not the Democratic Party's policies, feel free. Since Obama's policies have resulted in a sluggish economy and most Americans worst off than they were I am quite sure Romney would have no trouble making a case.

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.

 

[George Costanza]

Stick with the point. She was trying to claim that it the mess Obama inherited in 2008 was not caused by the eight previous years of Republican administration.

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?

To illustrate her point, she conveniently cited the economy, failing to mention the deficit. I was questioning her about the deficit. So far, she hasn't come back on that point.

You are claiming that Obama has added more to the deficit in 4 years than Bush did in 8 years? Cite me some specific numbers to back up that claim.

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.