Who will be THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.A? Obama or Romney?

[One_Tycoon]

good job defending your party's voting record of NO.

Not my party. I align myself with whoever has the most sincere individuals of achieving across the board smaller Government. Which happens to be those in the Republican Party the majority of the time. I've got nothing in common with Democrats.

And who says voting NO is a bad thing?

[Jim Jeffries]

good job defending your party's voting record of NO.

empty platitudes? Look at all those bills you said NO to.

just learn to live with the fact that a black man is president.

Barack Obama was in office 3 days when Eric Cantor spoke to him about some Republican ideas for the Stimulus Bill. Obama said "elections have consequences and I won." And for the next 2 years he proceeded to disenfranchise almost half the country by ignoring any and all Republican input on huge pieces of legislation. Americans spoke out in 2010 with historic gains in the House and large gains in the Senate. Come November they'll replace Barry so he can go back to community activism, maybe he can join the senior golf tour.

BTW Rasmussen has Obama with only a single point edge in Ohio (within the margin of error.)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ohio_president

[MetalVomit]

Barack Obama was in office 3 days when Eric Cantor spoke to him about some Republican ideas for the Stimulus Bill. Obama said "elections have consequences and I won." And for the next 2 years he proceeded to disenfranchise almost half the country by ignoring any and all Republican input on huge pieces of legislation. Americans spoke out in 2010 with historic gains in the House and large gains in the Senate. Come November they'll replace Barry so he can go back to community activism, maybe he can join the senior golf tour.

^This

[arraamis]

Not my party. I align myself with whoever has the most sincere individuals of achieving across the board smaller Government. Which happens to be those in the Republican Party the majority of the time. I've got nothing in common with Democrats.

And who says voting NO is a bad thing?

Alright, let's deal with that MYTH\Talking point right now. Republicans are NOT the one's who has a record of shrinking government.

And this can be proven by using actual GOVT. records {Historical Federal Workforce Tables} coupled with a very informative article.

Let the GOP back-tracking begin

*******
http://www.opm.gov/feddata/Historica...tSince1962.asp
http://www.politicususa.com/big-gove...ma-reagan.html
*******

Every single Republican today talks about being a Reagan conservative. This is a conservative that believes in small government, reducing federal spending and ultimately runs a lean and mean government. They talk about this stuff in campaigns, but in practice they failed miserably.

In fact HISTORICALLY, it is has been Democratic presidents who have reduced the size of the federal government. The Republicans have lied to the people so much that I believe the current crop somehow BELIEVES the history as they have been told, rather than researching the facts for themselves. This may be a stretch, but I am trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.

According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which tracks the number of employees per year, the data shows that the “conservatives” for small government are really just big government conservatives. I know that is an oxymoron, but numbers don’t lie.

Let’s start with President Carter.

On December 31st 1976 (Not Carter’s term yet), total nonmilitary personnel was 2,883,000. By December 31st 1980 the end of his term (minus a month), the total in nonmilitary personnel was 2,875,000.

Federal government nonmilitary employees shrunk by 8,000 employees under Carter.

On January 21st, 1981, President Reagan started with 2,875,000 nonmilitary federal employees.

By the end of Reagan’s terms the total number of nonmilitary federal employees was 3,113,000. That is an INCREASE of 238,000

Let’s move on to President George H.W. Bush.

On January 20th, 1989, total federal nonmilitary employment was 3,113,000
by the end of his only term, President George H.W. Bush had 3,083,000 federal nonmilitary employees on the books. That is a REDUCTION of 30,000 employees.

President Bill Clinton came into office with 3,083,000 and by the END of his TWO TERMS he reduced the number of Federal employees to 2,703,000. That is a reduction of 380,000 federal employees.

Now finally, President George W. Bush came into office with 2,703,000 nonmilitary employees and by the time his terms were through, the total nonmilitary federal employees on the books were 2,756,000, which is an INCREASE of 53,000 employees.

The small government, lean and mean political party, seems to be the Democratic Party. President Clinton reduced the size of the federal government’s nonmilitary employees by OVER 10%.

The “so called” small government President Reagan INCREASED the nonmilitary size of government by almost 10%.

In fact, Democratic president Bill Clinton reduced the size of the federal government employee size to PRE-REAGAN levels.

Clinton left office with 2,703,000 and Reagan started his term in 1981 with 2,875,000

The Reagan conservatives, in fact the entire GOP TODAY are trying to frame President Obama as a big government liberal but again, the numbers don’t lie.

By the end of 2010, the United States STILL has less employees on the books than we did back in 1980 even though the population has grown from 226,545,805 to approximately 330,000,000 in 2010.

TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 1980 — 2,875,000
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 2010 — 2,840,000

We have 35,000 less nonmilitary employees under President Obama than we had 30 years ago.

So it comes to mind that those who claim to be Reagan small government conservatives and blame Democrats for growing government are either lying to the American people or are themselves willfully ignorant.

[One_Tycoon]

Alright, let's deal with that MYTH\Talking point right now. Republicans are NOT the one's who has a record of shrinking government.

And this can be proven by using actual GOVT. records {Historical Federal Workforce Tables} coupled with a very informative article.

Did not read (because it isn't addressing anything in context of what I said. I bet you were itching to post that. Just calm down man, stop being a partisan hack. I'm not a representative of the entire Republican Party and their blunders.), and as per usual (last being "Ron paul was right" thread) you have this habit of bad comprehension. I have explained myself in multiple threads.

The Republicans are not even nearly enough of a Fiscal conservative/Small Govt. Libertarians as I'd like. Get it? Got it? Good. But what I said is....nobody and I mean nobody in the Democratic party has anything to offer up on that front. Not to my standards. You can post flaws in Republican's failure to shrink Govt. all you want, The Democratic party is not the alternative. Unless you accept the Liberal nonsense of increase revenue (higher taxes) vs spending cuts (which are always fake cuts in proposed increases anyway).

So the Republican Party is the one I align myself with. Looking to get the most Conservative Republicans elected, and replacing the establishment incumbents...as has been happening in a lot of Senate/Congressional races. The talking point is that the Democratic Party is the diverse party, more open to ethic groups or whatnot. Well it's only the Republican Party that is open to Free Market Capitalism and proponents of it. Even if the leaders of the GOP aren't 100% Free Market as one would like.

The Democratic Party is not Pro-Capitalism. As a laissez faire person, you don't run to the Dem. Party...you're not welcome there. Some of them are just politicians looking to stay in there till they turn 90. And some tone down their rhetoric by mildly talking about the Free Market, because they can't talk about their Quasi-Socialist ways out in the open, the way that a Free Marketeer like Ron Paul (or to a less extent Paul Ryan even) can. Because Extremists that talk about Unregulated Capitalism are more tolerable in this country then extremists that talk about Socialism or a High Taxed European style Mixed Economy.

[One_Tycoon]

@Arrammis

Now that I got the gist of your fallacious post, I can answer.


As a previous poster with a Penguin as his avatar picture (shawn maybe) has already explained this - The amount of Government employees alone are not the criteria of Small Govt Vs Big Govt.

It's the across the board regulations imposed on the private sector. You can have a 1000 Govt employees that live off of the Public trough, that don't do squat in terms of imposing themselves on Free Enterprise. Then you can have a relatively few Govt. bureaucrats that do. That's the measure that should be considered in Big Govt vs Small Govt. Not just how many employees a Federal Dept. has/employs.....but what that Dept. does in terms of regulatory power, subsidies to favored companies (alternative energy) etc,.

[arraamis]

@Arrammis

Now that I got the gist of your fallacious post, I can answer.

As a previous poster with a Penguin as his avatar picture (shawn maybe) has already explained this - The amount of Government employees alone are not the criteria of Small Govt Vs Big Govt.

It's the across the board regulations imposed on the private sector. You can have a 1000 Govt employees that live off of the Public trough, that don't do squat in terms of imposing themselves on Free Enterprise. Then you can have a relatively few Govt. bureaucrats that do. That's the measure that should be considered in Big Govt vs Small Govt. Not just how many employees a Federal Dept. has/employs.....but what that Dept. does in terms of regulatory power.

You constantly, I mean constantly, double-talk and contradict yourself.

Quote: "I align myself with whoever has the most sincere individuals of achieving across the board smaller Government."

I call you on your BS, and present Government documentation showing in no uncertain terms, that the GOP historically has been guilty of growing Govt. dating back beyond Reagan.

And you backtrack and respond with:
"It's the across the board regulations imposed on the private sector. You can have a 1000 Govt employees that live off of the Public trough, that don't do squat in terms of imposing themselves on Free Enterprise. Then you can have a relatively few Govt. bureaucrats that do. That's the measure that should be considered in Big Govt vs Small Govt."

I can count almost SEVEN times in this thread alone, where you, in the process of avoiding DIRECT challenges to your complete BS, contradict and redefine what you already stated to mean something totally different.

And sadly, I don't think you even realize how many different directions you're slinging your BS. Its like trying to have a mature dialog with some smart-ass immature kid, where you're never wrong and to prove it, "I didn't mean that, I meant this" WTF is wrong with you dude????

You get called on your BS and what is your response:
"So to have fun, a little sensationalism had to be introduced....even though that's not my forte."

"It doesn't matter how intelligent Romney is."
"Mitt Romney is obviously smarter than Obama. Bilingual... speaking French. Does Obama speak any other language besides English? His private business experience."

You nuthug Romney because of your whacky belief, that he's some Pro-Capitalist angel from Mormon-high, yet cannot produce any documented plan Romney has for fixing the economy, you cannot produce any documented Tax-plan Romney has to address the fiscal deficit, you cannot produce any documented plan from Romney, PERIOD!!!

IT IS ALL SPECULATION!!!!!

Where is the Romney\Ryan plan for the United States of America??

Since you're so avid and have pledged your loyalty, surely you have an inside track to these well laid-out plans ..... What the hell are they??

Oh wait, I'll spare you the effort needed to avoid another challenge ....

The reason you cannot verbalize\document the Romney plan for America is because it does not exist!!! Romney\Ryan is as full of **** as you are.

[One_Tycoon]

You constantly, I mean constantly, double-talk and contradict yourself.

Quote: "I align myself with whoever has the most sincere individuals of achieving across the board smaller Government."

I call you on your BS, and present Government documentation showing in no uncertain terms, that the GOP historically has been guilty of growing Govt. dating back beyond Reagan.

And you backtrack and respond with:
"It's the across the board regulations imposed on the private sector. You can have a 1000 Govt employees that live off of the Public trough, that don't do squat in terms of imposing themselves on Free Enterprise. Then you can have a relatively few Govt. bureaucrats that do. That's the measure that should be considered in Big Govt vs Small Govt."

I can count almost SEVEN times in this thread alone, where you, in the process of avoiding DIRECT challenges to your complete BS, contradict and redefine what you already stated to mean something totally different.

And sadly, I don't think you even realize how many different directions you're slinging your BS. Its like trying to have a mature dialog with some smart-ass immature kid, where you're never wrong and to prove it, "I didn't mean that, I meant this" WTF is wrong with you dude????

You get called on your BS and what is your response:
"So to have fun, a little sensationalism had to be introduced....even though that's not my forte."

"It doesn't matter how intelligent Romney is."
"Mitt Romney is obviously smarter than Obama. Bilingual... speaking French. Does Obama speak any other language besides English? His private business experience."

You nuthug Romney because of your whacky belief, that he's some Pro-Capitalist angel from Mormon-high, yet cannot produce any documented plan Romney has for fixing the economy, you cannot produce any documented Tax-plan Romney has to address the fiscal deficit, you cannot produce any documented plan from Romney, PERIOD!!!

IT IS ALL SPECULATION!!!!!

Where is the Romney\Ryan plan for the United States of America??

Since you're so avid and have pledged your loyalty, surely you have an inside track to these well laid-out plans ..... What the hell are they??

Oh wait, I'll spare you the effort needed to avoid another challenge ....

The reason you cannot verbalize\document the Romney plan for America is because it does not exist!!! Romney\Ryan is as full of **** as you are.

I did not contradict myself. I'm probably more Anarcho-Capitalist then the other Conservatives here. I'd rather have Gary Johnson as president if he had a fighting chance of winning this. But he doesn't, hence I'll take the lesser of two in Romney. It's as simple as that.

I don't have to defend Romney. Every nitwit has pointed out his shifting positions by now. But he is still better then Obama......something you have disagreed on. You think Obama is better. But that's because you and I fundamentally disagree. You have bleeding heart, Liberal positions (even if you haven't admitted it. I mean why would anyone support Obama over Romney if they weren't Liberal and Big Govt) and I don't.


As far as my overall Political analysis on the scope of things. I agree with my cousin Grover Norquist:




He doesn't fall in love with candidates and their campaign slogans. He just wants people to Veto stuff, sign the Tax cuts into law, and vote NO, NO and NO in the Congress/Senate, and Filibuster Debt Ceilings and the whole nine yards. It's a dry way to look at things....but that's how I see them.

[One_Tycoon]

It irks you guys when you try to throw mud at someone who even remotely supports Republicans (for Fiscal reasons/Small Govt reasons...not social ones) by pointing out to Bush's Deficit spending and Fake Conservatives and Fox News (all of us against Obama watch Fox News right?)....and it doesn't stick.

I'm my own man (or poster). I'm not a Partisan. The Koch brothers (my hero's) aren't partisan either. They're Libertarian. They would support Ron Paul if they knew he had a chance in hell of winning...but they've realized that he is uncooperative and isn't going to tone down his rhetoric to be more electable, and save his Libertarian mantra about Iran for example, for closed, private meetings. Like Mitt Romney does. Heck, he probably wouldn't even take their money all to not upset his Alex Jones-ian base of supporters.

So the two Koch Brothers just support and fund other Less-Libertarian/Less Capitalist candidates... to get elected and do something about regulations, taxes, spending. Even though those guys are not as principally committed as a Ron Paul and will vote "Yes" occasionally, on things they should've voted "no" on. As Paul Ryan did numerous times. **** happens. Rand Paul has learned a lot from his fathers failures and has toned down his rhetoric. Thus he will probably be more effective in getting elected into higher office and doing some real damage.....Austro-Libertarian style.

[arraamis]

In all honesty, it doesn't "irk" me at all that you have a system of belief that drives your actions, thoughts and deeds -- Even if its Republican\Libertarian in nature.

My issue, is that I'm reading about individuals praising Romney's past successes in the private sector, as though THAT success will somehow translate to future success in the GOVERNMENT sector -- And there is absolutely no evidence, that this belief is sound. In fact, that is a very dangerous assumption!

Here's a wake-up call for you homie ....

Romney is a walking, breathing contradiction of belief and practice -- He believes and worships one school of thought that is religious in nature, while staunchly and diligently practicing a business methodology that conflicts with his belief-system.

Romney is a long-time Ambassador for the Socialist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints "Mormons". "Mormons embrace and teach Socialism and from it's inception it was designed as a communal system with all people sharing and giving their property to the church for redistribution so that no one would be poor".

But his business methodology was one that undermined the very principle of Capitalism. Capitalism by design doesn't scavenge and displace the private sector while benefiting the parent entity. "Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit."

Romney's business model was one of Acquire, Monopolize, Market and diversify. This would be a great model, if in fact it helped the private sector that natively possessed and enhanced the resource. But, that is NOT the case, Romney's Bain capital actively raped the private sector of its assets and then through the practice of packaging of resources, sold those assets right from under the private sector. Leaving those who built the resource from nothing, with nothing -- Not even a job.

Romney’s Bain Capital invested in companies that moved jobs overseas
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...ptV_story.html

Companies’ Ills Did Not Harm Romney’s Firm
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/us...firm.html?_r=1




Romney is a living, breathing, walking hypocrisy of Belief and Practice. There is absolutely no way anyone can predict what a person of this duality will do within a GOVERNMENT structure that at the present time, cannot tolerate experimentation.