The Difference Between Obama and Romney ?

[Guest ThePunisher]

Could NOT find it.

When you do, open article, then copy what's in your browser address bar and paste it in post.

Thanks OS

i think its pasted in my previous post #123, but have not opened it yet.

[Oh Shoot]

Thanks OS

i think its pasted in my previous post #123, but have not opened it yet.

Yep, it worked, you added to your geekage.

[Guest ThePunisher]

I'm amazed that Romney is not really ramping up the rhetoric making comparisons of Obama's economic record with Carter's dismal economic record, and chiefly the reason Carter lost to Reagan in '80. Absolutely no one can say they are better off than they were 4 years ago, the same question Reagan asked of people when running against Carter, and Carter didn't even run up the debt like Obama.

Of course there are many that do not remember the dismal Carter days; I just happen to be an old poot that remembers those days.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Reagan saw both sides from being a liberal and realizing the problems. He stated the reasons he converted to a

conservative very well in several different interviews back then. Do a Google on his speeches and interviews and see

how very few in public office compare to him.

Mitt Romney was the product of a Rockefeller Republican, George Romney. His conservative creds are only a product

that branch of beliefs. I don't like that part of him. I realize he is a compromise candidate and I wanted to see a true

conservative. That just wasn't going to happen this time.

That link from Fox is a boilerplate of their platforms and a mixture of Fox's own points of history. It does give an insight

to the candidates but falls short of what is visible to the public if they look.

The gun control issues are irrelevant with Romney for reasons I posted elsewhere. They are a clear threat from Obama

because of ideology. The energy issues are clearly different between the two. No explanation necessary there. The

marriage issue is a deception designed to divide, something Obama campaigned to the opposite. He campaigned to

"bring us together". Oops! A flip flop, too. Nothing unique to Romney.

Health care. Romney did do that in the state he was governor. He has stated throughout the campaign he will work

to repeal the Obamacare tragedy. Obama was in deep with this bill, even though some say "it started in the House,

or Senate". Tennessee even came about with its own version of insurance: Tenncare. It's a flop, but it was an attempt

to do something at a state level, rather than a federal mandate.

By his statement "energy prices will necessarily skyrocket", Obama wishes to destroy our possibility of energy

independence and take more money out of the consumers hands to put in the government's pocket. Control!

Green energy is being proven to be a boondoggle every day. If its time ever comes, it isn't now. It is being used to

destroy the coal, oil and gas industry.

Obama wants to play Robin Hood with the tax code. That's obvious when one strips away his own "needs" from

the dialogue. Spending still increases and our government is a willing accomplice for the reason of power concentrated

in one place:centralized government, nihilism.

I think there are differences between the two even though the Republican candidate is infected by Nelson Rockefeller.

It is much a smaller infection than communism, which is what the Democrats have been infected with for decades.

Having said all that, Progressivism is the infection in both parties and is just as dangerous and needs to be rooted

out of both parties by libertarianism, if it can ever come out of the closet in a grassroots way.

[sigmtnman]

I agree with you, but Hell, if someone doesn't start down the road on simplifying the tax code like that, and axing stuff off the budget, it will only get worse. At least it is a step in the right direction.

What I think you're saying is there will eventually be a "reset" like Hillary said concerning the Russkies,

except in total global debt write down. If that's what you are inferring. I think it will happen. We ain't the

only ones, are we?

The government will eventually be forced into the mode I suggest, or there will be confiscation, which is someone's goal.

I'm with you on the tax simplification, but I'd prefer to see it done away with. I know... It's a dream, but if we need to cut the funding to the drunkard .gov. BTW, we can thank Abe and his "Civil War" for the Revenue Act of 1861 creating income tax. If we went to a sales tax, I would buy everything second hand and avoid it.

If there is a reset, I don't see it being a biblical jubilee. It more than likely will be a rejection of our $ for international trade due to over printing of cash, which will force either a straight devaluation of currency held within the states or the introduction of a new currency which US citizens will trade our current currency for at a much reduced rate. Savings will be wiped out overnight and I'm sure there will be prior or ex post facto legislation to protect institutional creditors.

I'd imagine confiscation of certain asset classes to be an absolute in a major US currency event.

Edited August 2, 2012 by sigmtnman

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's the whole problem. The drunkard keeps taking bigger gulps and we're running out of shine.

I agree with you about the tax. It'll never happen because they are already too drunk, but when the system implodes,

from liver failure and everything else, we will have another chance to work on our society. Abe didn't do us any favors.

At least his was temporary. But he did leave something for progressives to grasp a hold on. too bad for that.

You know, libertarianism would probably come out and prevail again, if we remember our roots after a meltdown.

[Guest ThePunisher]

6.8

The article is attributed to Associated Press writers if it makes any difference.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

If there is a reset, I don't see it being a biblical jubilee. It more than likely will be a rejection of our $ for international trade due to over printing of cash, which will force either a straight devaluation of currency held within the states or the introduction of a new currency which US citizens will trade our current currency for at a much reduced rate. Savings will be wiped out overnight and I'm sure there will be prior or ex post facto legislation to protect institutional creditors.

I'd imagine confiscation of certain asset classes to be an absolute in a major US currency event.

Thanks for the good ideas, Sigmtnman

So for instance if the gov sets up a currency exchange rate of 1000:1... We receive 1 newbuck for every 1000 oldbucks we turn in-- You think the gov would pass a law declaring that current loans are to be evaluated in newbucks without applying the exchange rate?

In other words-- If you had 10,000 oldbucks in the savings account then your savings account now has 10 newbucks-- But if you owed 100,000 oldbucks on your house you still owe 100,000 newbucks on the house? Rather than the expected 100 newbucks owed on the house, if following the 1000:1 exchange rate?

Or did you have something else in mind? The above sounds like an easy way to start a shooting war. Something politicians would never have the nerve to do unless for some reason they actually wanted a shooting war?

Am not refuting but have wondered why nations bother to replace currencies after hyper inflation? Just keep issuing new bills and coins with bigger face value, ought to work just as good. The kilobuck might be a coin of equivalent value to the modern penny. The megabuck might be a paper bill of equivalent value to our $10 bill. Then issue a few assorted coins and bills-- Multiples of kilobucks and megabucks. 1, 5, 10, 25 and 50 kilobuck coins. 100 and 500 kilobuck bills supplemented by 1, 2, 5, and 10 megabuck bills.

There's plenty of expansion room in the system. After a few years inflation Bernanke and Geithner would gradually introduce currency based on the gigabuck and then a few years later the gov can phase in the terabuck coins and bills.

Accounting should be converted from integers to floating point numbers which would be more efficient and help solve world over-population. Millions of accountants would be discovered at their desks, face down in the ledger books, dead from scientific-notation-induced stroke.

"Thank you for eating at MacDonalds, sir. Your total for burger, fries and large coffee comes to 1.153E3 Kilobucks. Have a nice day!"

[sigmtnman]

Thanks for the good ideas, Sigmtnman

So for instance if the gov sets up a currency exchange rate of 1000:1... We receive 1 newbuck for every 1000 oldbucks we turn in-- You think the gov would pass a law declaring that current loans are to be evaluated in newbucks without applying the exchange rate?

In other words-- If you had 10,000 oldbucks in the savings account then your savings account now has 10 newbucks-- But if you owed 100,000 oldbucks on your house you still owe 100,000 newbucks on the house? Rather than the expected 100 newbucks owed on the house, if following the 1000:1 exchange rate?

Or did you have something else in mind? The above sounds like an easy way to start a shooting war. Something politicians would never have the nerve to do unless for some reason they actually wanted a shooting war?

Am not refuting but have wondered why nations bother to replace currencies after hyper inflation? Just keep issuing new bills and coins with bigger face value, ought to work just as good. The kilobuck might be a coin of equivalent value to the modern penny. The megabuck might be a paper bill of equivalent value to our $10 bill. Then issue a few assorted coins and bills-- Multiples of kilobucks and megabucks. 1, 5, 10, 25 and 50 kilobuck coins. 100 and 500 kilobuck bills supplemented by 1, 2, 5, and 10 megabuck bills.

There's plenty of expansion room in the system. After a few years inflation Bernanke and Geithner would gradually introduce currency based on the gigabuck and then a few years later the gov can phase in the terabuck coins and bills.

Accounting should be converted from integers to floating point numbers which would be more efficient and help solve world over-population. Millions of accountants would be discovered at their desks, face down in the ledger books, dead from scientific-notation-induced stroke.

"Thank you for eating at MacDonalds, sir. Your total for burger, fries and large coffee comes to 1.153E3 Kilobucks. Have a nice day!"

That's what I had in mind for option 2 and while it would generate bitterness to say the least, the police state is probably ramped up enough to quell any riots and of course Dancing with the Stars will still be broadcast in HiDef, so I don't expect a shooting war.

Option 1 was along the kilobuck line. You could argue that we have already gone down this path with the inflation we have seen over the past hundred odd years, escalating over the last twelve, where we now have a dollar that has is only worth about 5% of it's original value. We were watching the Waltons last night and the dad was complaining about a $1.75 electric bill.

Our coins have all been clipped as silver coins have no silver and pennies are now made of a zinc alloy. It will be hard to cover the exponential rise in dollars in the system since 2001 and I think there will have to be at least a truncation of zeros, though the psychological affect may be worse than option 2. Option 2 may allow for a displacement of blame, IE digital counterfeiting or some such thing. Regardless of the path the corporate sponsors of our elected officials would loose big time if institutional credit was not protected by some sentence hidden in an omnibus bill.

Turkey, Romania, Argentina and Russia have all done a devaluation of sorts within the last 13 years, so it is definitely something to think about.

All of that said, who the heck knows what will happen.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

6.8

The article is attributed to Associated Press writers if it makes any difference.

Appreciate it.

Really doesn't matter much,

probably be the same. The

boilerplate doesn't get to it well

enough for me. They leave too

much out.

Thanks

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk