Romney the Spender vs. Obama the Cutter?

[Yamato]

Hearkening back to the 2012 Republican National Convention, I acutely remember Peter Schiff's vblog response (who is no liberal and no democrat) mentioning the total lack of any details given throughout the convention about what spending cuts Republicans want while floating their vacuous platitudes about Obama's spending. Mitt Romney actually mentioned spending cuts one time, and astonishingly for who is supposed to be the conservative in the race, he was complaining about Obama's spending cuts to Medicare! If a candidate is going to complain about his opponent's spending cuts he is not the fiscal conservative, he's the big government guy. Peter Schiff concluded after listening to the aggregate of Republican speeches, and I think correctly so, that it doesn't matter who wins this election as far as actually solving our spending problem goes. It is clear that neither party understands the problem or provides a solution to solve it.

The debate tonight was quite good, at least from an intellectual perspective. Both candidates sounded like they did homework and rehearsed their talking points. But once again, I see the same irony from Mitt Romney who's supposed to be the conservative in this race. In this first debate, he complained about spending cuts yet again. He not only complained about Obama's spending cuts in our health care program once again, he added more complaints about Obama's spending cuts to our military spending. I support a strong military as much as anyone else here, but what I also support are efficiencies in spending, getting the best bang for the buck, doing more with less, and so I just can't understand the weird brand of "conservatism" that Mitt Romney is pushing. I agree with Romney's rhetoric about a military that's "2nd to none" and I will sign on to a military budget that's $100 billion more than China's military spending was the prior year. How much military spending would that be, and how much $$ would I be able to cut government spending down with one bold move by applying that standard and satisfying Romney's rhetoric to boot? I'll leave the numbers out of my introduction but to say that the savings from doing this would be so formidable that even a balanced budget becomes plausible.

I see very few meaningful differences between these two candidates and I say that because I don't want to risk exaggerating by saying I don't see any real difference at all. Quite a bit of Romney's rhetoric spoke to me, particularly the new moral wrinkles he's added to his speech, but trusting a politician's mindful platitudes and vague promises is a long-eroded skill I no longer possess. Romney wants to do so many things on "Day 1" he'll have to invent a machine that stops time. Putting aside the prices he's going to fix, and the jobs he's going to "create", and the economy he's going to "run", I see nothing but a few nuanced differences between these two candidates, tweaking the code around the edges of our problems, differing in rhetoric-only if even that, and not offering any bold vision capable of solving the growing problems facing America's future. The onus of this bold vision is on Mitt Romney since President Obama is more than smug about what he's doing already.

[+and-then]

Hearkening back to the 2012 Republican National Convention, I acutely remember Peter Schiff's vblog response (who is no liberal and no democrat) mentioning the total lack of any details given throughout the convention about what spending cuts Republicans want while floating their vacuous platitudes about Obama's spending. Mitt Romney actually mentioned spending cuts one time, and astonishingly for who is supposed to be the conservative in the race, he was complaining about Obama's spending cuts to Medicare! If a candidate is going to complain about his opponent's spending cuts he is not the fiscal conservative, he's the big government guy. Peter Schiff concluded after listening to the aggregate of Republican speeches, and I think correctly so, that it doesn't matter who wins this election as far as actually solving our spending problem goes. It is clear that neither party understands the problem or provides a solution to solve it.

The debate tonight was quite good, at least from an intellectual perspective. Both candidates sounded like they did homework and rehearsed their talking points. But once again, I see the same irony from Mitt Romney who's supposed to be the conservative in this race. In this first debate, he complained about spending cuts yet again. He not only complained about Obama's spending cuts in our health care program once again, he added more complaints about Obama's spending cuts to our military spending. I support a strong military as much as anyone else here, but what I also support are efficiencies in spending, getting the best bang for the buck, doing more with less, and so I just can't understand the weird brand of "conservatism" that Mitt Romney is pushing. I agree with Romney's rhetoric about a military that's "2nd to none" and I will sign on to a military budget that's $100 billion more than China's military spending was the prior year. How much military spending would that be, and how much $$ would I be able to cut government spending down with one bold move by applying that standard and satisfying Romney's rhetoric to boot? I'll leave the numbers out of my introduction but to say that the savings from doing this would be so formidable that even a balanced budget becomes plausible.

I see very few meaningful differences between these two candidates and I say that because I don't want to risk exaggerating by saying I don't see any real difference at all. Quite a bit of Romney's rhetoric spoke to me, particularly the new moral wrinkles he's added to his speech, but trusting a politician's mindful platitudes and vague promises is a long-eroded skill I no longer possess. Romney wants to do so many things on "Day 1" he'll have to invent a machine that stops time. Putting aside the prices he's going to fix, and the jobs he's going to "create", and the economy he's going to "run", I see nothing but a few nuanced differences between these two candidates, tweaking the code around the edges of our problems, differing in rhetoric-only if even that, and not offering any bold vision capable of solving the growing problems facing America's future. The onus of this bold vision is on Mitt Romney since President Obama is more than smug about what he's doing already.

This last statement sums up the choice for me. The biggest difference is that we KNOW Obama's policies have failed and we also know he has nothing else to offer except more of the same. He plans to continue running the nation on Executive orders and czars and to hell with the congress unless he gets lucky and gets a large enough majority to move his legislative agenda. If the American people are stupid enough to make THAT mistake then we deserve everything we get.

[Yamato]

Obama is George W. Bush on steroids as czars go too. Bush was the most Czarist President in US history, with 49 czar appointees compared to Franklin D. Roosevelt's 19. Obama is tracking higher than even Bush as the czars go, but what surprise is this to anyone? Obama has continued Bush's bailouts, Bush's tax cuts, Bush's preventative war, Bush's Ben Bernanke, Bush's bloated new departments, Bush's rendition, Bush's foreign welfare, Bush's Guantanamo Bay, Bush's love affair with oppressive regimes and yes, even Bush's czar fetish.

Republicans are so confused about what to say about Obama they can't even keep their statements straight from one week to the next. Even the media-described brainiac Newt Gingrich couldn't figure out whether Obama didn't go into Libya soon enough or whether Libya was none of our business to meddle in at all. Just say both, and maybe people won't notice? I guess the American people preferred the Republican who says the opposite of what he already did, instead of the one who says the opposite of what he already said.

Perhaps it shouldn't surprise me as much as it does that Romney sounds like the left-wing liberal on the stage even while standing next to Obama, repeatedly referring to how he's the bipartisan who can reach across the aisle and get things done, ready to "sit down with democrats on Day 1", sing songs together and apparently repeal Obamacare. Or whatever. He passed Romneycare in a democratic legislature stacked against him. And I do expect him to be the bipartisan guy, if bipartisanship is necessary. I don't doubt that Mitt Romney can sign his past positions over to whatever his preferred handlers want him to do. If that's what Ronald Reagan bipartisanship is, I'll take a lot less of it, thanks.

At least they agree on Social Security, right?

Romney hoped that the ever-polished Paul Ryan would provide him some fiscal cred, when Ryan couldn't even propose spending cuts either. Cutting proposed increases aren't spending cuts, they're cuts to spending increases. Someone should tell this faux conservative Ryan immediately, but he's not even worth an email and wouldn't answer it anyway.

[Yamato]

Here's the blog I referred to above at the 14:35 mark:

Bipartisan FAIL.

[Varelse]

Republican bipartisanship: If a democrat proposes it (even if we did the same in the previous term) or stands to benefit from it then the answer is simple -"Just say no!"

Democrat bipartisanship: "Oh please please please pretty please with sugar on top, oh please please....NO??!! Mooommmmyyyy, they aren't playing fair"

[WoIverine]

Still would've liked to see Rand Paul as Romney's running mate. He'd destroy Paul Ryan in a debate and Romney'd get larger percentage of the tea party as well.

[MiskatonicGrad]

Hearkening back to the 2012 Republican National Convention, I acutely remember Peter Schiff's vblog response (who is no liberal and no democrat) mentioning the total lack of any details given throughout the convention about what spending cuts Republicans want while floating their vacuous platitudes about Obama's spending. Mitt Romney actually mentioned spending cuts one time, and astonishingly for who is supposed to be the conservative in the race, he was complaining about Obama's spending cuts to Medicare! If a candidate is going to complain about his opponent's spending cuts he is not the fiscal conservative, he's the big government guy. Peter Schiff concluded after listening to the aggregate of Republican speeches, and I think correctly so, that it doesn't matter who wins this election as far as actually solving our spending problem goes. It is clear that neither party understands the problem or provides a solution to solve it.

The debate tonight was quite good, at least from an intellectual perspective. Both candidates sounded like they did homework and rehearsed their talking points. But once again, I see the same irony from Mitt Romney who's supposed to be the conservative in this race. In this first debate, he complained about spending cuts yet again. He not only complained about Obama's spending cuts in our health care program once again, he added more complaints about Obama's spending cuts to our military spending. I support a strong military as much as anyone else here, but what I also support are efficiencies in spending, getting the best bang for the buck, doing more with less, and so I just can't understand the weird brand of "conservatism" that Mitt Romney is pushing. I agree with Romney's rhetoric about a military that's "2nd to none" and I will sign on to a military budget that's $100 billion more than China's military spending was the prior year. How much military spending would that be, and how much $$ would I be able to cut government spending down with one bold move by applying that standard and satisfying Romney's rhetoric to boot? I'll leave the numbers out of my introduction but to say that the savings from doing this would be so formidable that even a balanced budget becomes plausible.

I see very few meaningful differences between these two candidates and I say that because I don't want to risk exaggerating by saying I don't see any real difference at all. Quite a bit of Romney's rhetoric spoke to me, particularly the new moral wrinkles he's added to his speech, but trusting a politician's mindful platitudes and vague promises is a long-eroded skill I no longer possess. Romney wants to do so many things on "Day 1" he'll have to invent a machine that stops time. Putting aside the prices he's going to fix, and the jobs he's going to "create", and the economy he's going to "run", I see nothing but a few nuanced differences between these two candidates, tweaking the code around the edges of our problems, differing in rhetoric-only if even that, and not offering any bold vision capable of solving the growing problems facing America's future. The onus of this bold vision is on Mitt Romney since President Obama is more than smug about what he's doing already.

What saddens me the most is people still fall for that whole spending cut crap the parties shovel. no administration really ever cuts spending they may not spend as much as was budgeted but they don't cut spending.