**Official** townhall debate thread - Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama

[fr33]

It may make sense to say Romney is a statist, overall I agree, but the statement in bold is unfounded imo. Romney has always said the exact opposite, you may argue that when he says the government doesn't create jobs or fix the economy, that he is saying it for political reasons. But I would argue that it is much easier to get votes saying that the government will be more involved in the economy, tax more and regulate more.

Romney more often says that he "will create 12 million jobs" than he says government can't create jobs. He brags about how he "saved the Olympics". Yeah saved it with a billion of federal tax dollars.

The most important thing though is that the economy is heading over the cliff, anyone who understands economics and is honest knows that. I'm interested in what the government will do in response. If Obama is in charge, I'm pretty convinced we will see a new wave of social programs that will become sacred cows and will never be undone. That's what happened last time, it was called the New Deal and everyone loved it and it will never go away now.

Mitt Romney raised corporate taxes and socialized healthcare as governor. Your argument is based off the rhetoric of a man who is lying to you.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Not economically. If you think that then you aren't paying attention.

Economically?

The banksters run that show. And if you don't understnd that, then you are the one not paying attention.

What the Puppet in Chief says in meaningless.

Besides, liberty is more important to me than making a buck.

My personal economic prospects would almost certainly improve with Ken Salazar gone at Interior.

Don't care.

Not voting for either fascist.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Mitt Romney raised corporate taxes and socialized healthcare as governor. Your argument is based off the rhetoric of a man who is lying to you.

This.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Don't care.

Not voting for either fascist.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.

 

[Odin]

Romney more often says that he "will create 12 million jobs" than he says government can't create jobs. He brags about how he "saved the Olympics". Yeah saved it with a billion of federal tax dollars.

Mitt Romney raised corporate taxes and socialized healthcare as governor. Your argument is based off the rhetoric of a man who is lying to you.

Well I just read the wikipedia about this, you can correct me if I'm wrong. But he came in with a deficit crisis, they raised fees and closed business tax loopholes, then when they had a surplus in the rainy day fund as a result he tried to get the legislature to lower income taxes which they refused to do.

But they also cut spending far more than they raised revenues, and with a state budget it has to be balanced which means a governor doesn't have the luxury of borrowing money in order to not raise taxes.

Socialized healthcare is a single payer system. A mandate is not. Not saying I agree with it, but you have 3 choices for uninsured people - when they get sick, they either don't get treated or the taxpayer foots the bill. Or you mandate the purchase of insurance. What do you think should happen?

 

[Odin]

Economically?

The banksters run that show. And if you don't understnd that, then you are the one not paying attention.

What the Puppet in Chief says in meaningless.

Besides, liberty is more important to me than making a buck.

My personal economic prospects would almost certainly improve with Ken Salazar gone at Interior.

Don't care.

Not voting for either fascist.

No I understand that. But Romney says he will get rid of Bernanke which means a possible end to suicidal monetary policies. I'm not foolish enough to believe that we will have the reform of the Federal Reserve that is needed but I at least hope that the policies destroying our currency will slow down.

I'm not saying that you need to vote for either of them, but I am saying there are real consequences - to pretend that it is not so is delusional. It's fashionable to say both suck, and I agree, but it doesn't mean the choice is trivial.

But the most important point is that this administration is definitely one of the most corrupt and deceptive in history and deserves to be thrown out. They should also be investigated and many of them should go to prison, there's no doubt about it. There are at least 2 scandals that they are trying to cover up and that reason alone is enough of a principle to vote against them imo.

 

[Anti Federalist]

No I understand that. But Romney says he will get rid of Bernanke which means a possible end to suicidal monetary policies. I'm not foolish enough to believe that we will have the reform of the Federal Reserve that is needed but I at least hope that the policies destroying our currency will slow down.

I'm not saying that you need to vote for either of them, but I am saying there are real consequences - to pretend that it is not so is delusional. It's fashionable to say both suck, and I agree, but it doesn't mean the choice is trivial.

But the most important point is that this administration is definitely one of the most corrupt and deceptive in history and deserves to be thrown out. They should also be investigated and many of them should go to prison, there's no doubt about it. There are at least 2 scandals that they are trying to cover up and that reason alone is enough of a principle to vote against them imo.

Like I said, be my guest, if that is what you think you have to do.

I'm not.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

No I understand that. But Romney says he will get rid of Bernanke which means a possible end to suicidal monetary policies.

Nah. It means Bernanke gets a new (high paying, less pressure) job and some other puppet steps into the position. Bernanke hasn't been a problem for 70 years. He's a spokesperson.

 

[Odin]

Nah. It means Bernanke gets a new (high paying, less pressure) job and some other puppet steps into the position. Bernanke hasn't been a problem for 70 years. He's a spokesperson.

Well that is a pretty cynical view lol, it may be true but I don't think it's justified. Maybe you think Romney is a Keynesian and will go along with Keynesian monetary policies but every suggestion points the other way.

Bernanke is a major part of the problem himself, his monetary policies are going to devastate this economy.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Well that is a pretty cynical view lol, it may be true but I don't think it's justified. Maybe you think Romney is a Keynesian and will go along with Keynesian monetary policies but every suggestion points the other way.

Feel free to list "every suggestion" pointing the other way, or even some of them. Romney's is/was a TARP advocate. Look at who finances his campaign.

Or tell us who Romney might appoint in place of Bernanke and what effect that will have on the federal reserve system being different.

Bernanke doesn't make the policies. He just defends them in public. Poorly, for those who understand it.

 

[devil21]

Well I just read the wikipedia about this, you can correct me if I'm wrong. But he came in with a deficit crisis, they raised fees and closed business tax loopholes, then when they had a surplus in the rainy day fund as a result he tried to get the legislature to lower income taxes which they refused to do.

But they also cut spending far more than they raised revenues, and with a state budget it has to be balanced which means a governor doesn't have the luxury of borrowing money in order to not raise taxes.

Socialized healthcare is a single payer system. A mandate is not. Not saying I agree with it, but you have 3 choices for uninsured people - when they get sick, they either don't get treated or the taxpayer foots the bill. Or you mandate the purchase of insurance. What do you think should happen?

Or you can do like I did and actually pay the bill out of pocket. Hospitals are more than eager to work with people to get their bills paid, even going so far as to write off a bunch of the fees and grant automatic "self pay" discounts and other things. I had a huge portion of my hospital bill written off and it became a manageable amount to pay. This is not to say that truly poor people aren't put in a bad spot if they unexpectedly get put into the hospital (since they can't really pay much of anything) but this notion that hospitals won't work with patients to get bills paid is horseshit. Payment plans, automatic 25% discounts, cheap meds, etc are all available to every patient that shows up. Whether the patient puts in the effort to follow through and work with the hospital is on the patient. Also remember that the bills given to self pay patients are the "full price", while the insurance companies are presented with the discounted rates. If you follow through with the hospitals they WILL give you the insurance rate for services and the difference is shocking. The bills can be paid and the hospitals WANT the bills to be paid.

 

[DamianTV]

Obama vs. Romney
Keynesian Economics vs. Keynesian Economics

Does that pretty much sum up the entire election?

 

[_pauladin_]

Romney was a Bernanke fanboy till it became apparent the libertarian vote might cost him the election, and then he did a 180 on it overnight. I don't trust him on it one bit.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Socialized healthcare is a single payer system. A mandate is not. Not saying I agree with it, but you have 3 choices for uninsured people - when they get sick, they either don't get treated or the taxpayer foots the bill. Or you mandate the purchase of insurance. What do you think should happen?

Well, a mandate is corporatism, techincally. If I come to you with government goons and threaten you with fines if you *don't* do business with an insurance company, then what happens is the left decries 'capitalism' and uses the situation as fuel to push for complete socialization of healthcare.

I think it is absolutely lunacy in how democrats were screaming "bloody corporatism!" years ago when trying to push Obamacare, and then we ended up with a bill that essentially makes it illegal not to buy insurance from said private companies. I mean, is that not absolutely hypocritical or what?

This is the sort of interference in the free market that ultimately backfires and is met with calls for more governmental controls. Just as medicaid and medicare fueled the calls for Obamacare, so too will Obamacare fuel the calls for more government control.

The government has rarely ever solved a problem which it didn't create at some earlier point in history.

"Hefty fines are due by anyone found to have committed the heinous crime of not being a customer of a health insurance company." -- Dr. Ron Paul

 

[Odin]

The issue though is that the government is already so involved in healthcare. Emergency rooms are required to treat patients whether they can pay or not which means we have illegal immigrants being treated in emergency rooms with the taxpayer paying for it. Hospitals and emergency rooms are heavily subsidized by the government so that they still make money for giving out free treatment. All of this pushes up the cost of health care. The point though is that the government is already involved financially in the healthcare system, and one way to reduce that is by getting people to purchase private insurance so we don't have people free loading. Of course I don't believe that is where the democrats are trying to go, I think they are ultimately want to get a single payer system, but I'm just saying that a "mandate" doesn't necessarily mean the government is more involved in health care than it already is.

Again, for people who can't afford their treatment, the options are either the taxpayer pays for it through subsidies to hospitals and emergency rooms, or we change the law to give emergency rooms the right not to treat people who can't pay, or we mandate the purchase of health insurance.

If we had a market in the first place, health insurance would be cheap enough for everyone to afford it anyway, but we have to undo the damage done by years of government intervention in the system. That's just being realistic.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Again, for people who can't afford their treatment, the options are either the taxpayer pays for it through subsidies to hospitals and emergency rooms, or we change the law to give emergency rooms the right not to treat people who can't pay, or we mandate the purchase of health insurance.

We're still going to have subsidies, though. I can't afford health insurance currently but luckily I will be starting a job soon with decent benefits. However, if this bill had gone into effect 2 years ago, I suppose would just have to go to jail or apply for government assistance. I might still be screwed because I'm going to be a nurse and this is a really bad time to get into the healthcare workforce.

There are going to be people who can't afford insurance so the government will basically have to pay their premiums anyway. Of course, rates will now be going up because of the number of people with pre-existing conditions who now must be insured, so that won't make it any more affordable. You can begin to see how the folks in Washington, D.C. didn't quite think this through.

I agree that we don't have a free market in healthcare but at the very least the government needs to stop trying to fix it. Don't do anything if you can't make it better, I say. Everything they touch turns to mud lately, and I fear that the mandate will be no exception.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Romney and Bush and Romney and Obama?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/123364.html

Posted by Laurence Vance on October 17, 2012 07:42 PM

A question asked Romney at the debate last night was something about how he differed from George W. Bush.

Perhaps a better question would be how he differs from Obama.

Police statists: both of them.

Warmongers: both of them.

U.S. empire: both of them.

Welfare: both of them.

Drug war: both of them.

Drone strikes: both of them.

Kill Americans without trial if they are suspected terrorists: both of them.

On the serious issues that matter there is no difference between Romney and Obama.

 

[bunklocoempire]

Originally Posted by bunklocoempire

Asking again,

What does the 2nd amendment mean to you, and how does your view of it support your Romney vote?

Yes but there's something else to consider, which is who is more likely to nominate a pro-2nd amendment Justice to the supreme court? If any of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, or Kennedy are replaced by another Sotomayor or Kagan then gun rights could be under far more serious threat.

Btw it's sad that we have to use language like "pro-2nd amendment" to describe justices, since all justices should be that by definition.

So the 2nd amendment seems to be a 'last resort' to yourself? (I can't tell from your reply)

I'm just trying to bring to light the mindset of folks considering who they vote for and their own relationship to the 2nd amendment.

One camp believes the 2nd amendment gives 'backbone' to ones choice for candidate and a draw courage from that: "Vote for one gun grabber because the other gun grabber seems worse? Screw that, I'm armed "

The other camp doesn't seem to want to address how their relationship to the 2nd amendment justifies their choice of candidate other than 'X is better than Y': "We have to vote for Romney because Obama and his gun grabbing is more likely to disarm us. Voting Romney will preserve our 2nd amendment rights. It's dangerous to have a gun grabber like Obama in office"

There seems to be a disconnect between a truth they claim to believe and their actions. I italicized seems because I have yet to see an explanation other than X is better than Y.

If someone really believes in something, it would seem that they might be able to show how their belief relates to their own actions. If their actions don't reflect their beliefs, then either their actions or their beliefs need some closer examination.

 

[JJ2]

 

[puppetmaster]

Romney was a Bernanke fanboy till it became apparent the libertarian vote might cost him the election, and then he did a 180 on it overnight. I don't trust him on it one bit.

This