Barack Obama Vs. Mitt Romney: 10 Big Differences Going "Forward"

Forward is not a destination. If you'd asked Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or their supporters if they were taking their nations forward, they'd have undoubtedly said "yes." Mussolini? Forward. Napoleon? Forward. Genghis Khan? Forward. Of course, Churchill, Thatcher, and Reagan would have said "forward" as well. So, that's why it's important to ask what difference it would make if we go forward for four years under Mitt Romney as opposed to going forward for another four years under Barack Obama.

1) Mitt Romney would try to reduce tax rates for the wealthy and corporations to spur economic growth. On the other hand, Barack Obama is likely to try to raise taxes not just on the rich and corporations, but on the middle class. He really wouldn't have much choice. Despite the class warfare rhetoric you're hearing, there is far more money that can be confiscated from the vast middle class than there is to be plundered from the relatively thin ranks of the wealthy. If you believe tax increases are the answer, then you go after the middle class for the same reason Willie Sutton said he robbed banks: "because that's where the money is."

2) Barack Obama has run trillion dollar plus deficits every year he's been in office and given that everything he wants to do comes with a large price tag attached, there's no reason to think the next four years would be any different than the last four years. At a minimum, that would mean further downgrades of our nation's credit rating, but it's possible it could precipitate a full-on Greek style financial crisis if investors conclude their money isn't safe here. On the other hand, Mitt Romney would be under tremendous pressure from his right to reduce the deficit and a further credit downgrade on his watch would be a devastating political blow that he'd be highly motivated to avoid. Romney wouldn't have it easy since Obama would be leaving him a full-on budgetary disaster to deal with, but he'd have little choice other than to make cuts if he wants to be reelected in 2016.

3) Barack Obama has made encouraging dependence part of his electoral strategy. The more Americans that are dependent on the government for unemployment insurance, food stamps, and welfare, the more votes he believes the Democrats will get. In order to swell the welfare rolls, he’s no longer demanding that welfare recipients work for their handout. Mitt Romney opposes that change and would put the work requirements back into welfare.

4) If Barack Obama is reelected, we should expect no serious attempts at entitlement reform in the next four years. That's very problematic because nobody wants to cut a deal that impacts current retirees which means any change will impact people 55 and younger. So every year we wait, we end up with more Americans in an unsustainable system. The longer we go without making a change, the more likely it becomes that we'll be forced, under financial duress of the sort Greece is facing, to dramatically cut benefits for people who already rely on the program. Of course, there are no guarantees Mitt Romney could reach a deal with Democrats in Congress, but he will at least try to make it happen. Barack Obama won’t.

5) The Supreme Court currently has four doctrinaire liberal justices (Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer), three conservative originalist justices (Alito, Thomas, Scalia) and two right leaning moderates (Roberts, Kennedy). Four of the justices, Ginsburg (79), Scalia (76), Kennedy (75), and Breyer (73) are over 70. Given the ideological split of the SCOTUS and the ages of the judges, the next President may have an opportunity to create a historic shift on the Court. Replacing a single justice with an ideological opposite could be a decisive factor on cases from Roe v. Wade to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

6) We currently have a de facto amnesty for illegal aliens who haven't committed a felony in the United States. All they have to do is claim that they went to school here and they're automatically released without verification. If that continues for another four years, millions more illegals will pour into the United States and Obama will encourage them to settle in for the long haul. On the other hand, Mitt Romney would be likely to continue to improve border security and deport illegal aliens who are captured. In fact, his supporters during the primary, like Ann Coulter, were touting him as the toughest GOP candidate on illegal immigration.

7) Obama has taken over the student loan program, frittered away billions in bad loans to companies like Solyndra, and proudly proclaims his partial takeover of GM and Chevrolet to be a success despite the fact the taxpayers lost 25 billion on the deal. If Barack Obama is reelected, expect more government takeovers and bailouts. In fact, Dodd-Frank, which Obama supports and Romney opposes, has bank bailouts built into the law. If Romney can, he will repeal Dodd-Frank, he won't be interested in any more government takeovers of industry, and the Tea Partiers in his base would so adamantly oppose any more bailouts that going down that path would probably make him unelectable.

8) The housing market was terrible when Barack Obama came into office and not only has he done little to improve the situation for people who currently own homes, the root causes of the crash are still in place. The government is still demanding that loans be given to people who can't afford them. Fannie and Freddie are still handling 90% of all new mortgages. Mitt Romney will make it easier for people with good credit to get homes, will stop applying pressure to give loans to poor risks, and will force Freddie and Fannie to slowly and responsibly reduce the number of home mortgages they're covering so that if, God forbid, there's another crash one day, taxpayers don't get stuck with the bill.

9) If Barack Obama is reelected, Obamacare will go into effect in 2014 and many companies will stop offering insurance, it will be harder to find a doctor, the quality of medical care will drop, costs will explode, and death panels, along with the IRS, will become permanently involved in your health care. If Mitt Romney is elected, this won't happen. Romney would also try to push through a replacement plan for Obamacare, but chances are Democrats would block it.

10) At some point, you have to expect that the natural vitality of the economy will reassert itself no matter who's in the White House. However, it is also entirely possible that the hostile, unpredictable business environment created by the Obama Administration could keep the economy just as stagnant for the next four years as it has been for the last four. Romney's pro-business administration along with his attempts to cut taxes and regulations will encourage growth and put Americans back to work. What would we rather have? Four years of hate, demonization, and class warfare aimed at small business owners because they'll never be able to do their "fair share" in Barack Obama's eyes or would we rather have a growing, thriving economy again?

This easy read reminds me how easy it would be to sharpen the Romney campaign message.

Right now it is “we have record high unemployment, things are terrible. vote for me. I have a better plan.”

It needs to be “we have record high unemployment. 42 months straight Despite this president spending trillions in new government to solve the problem, it didn’t work. we have a plan that has worked every time it is tried. Keep the tax burden low. Slow the government expansion Lower energy costs. Create a growth economy that puts more people to work and increases take home pay. “

There is a cause and effect of Obama policies that must be singled out in a factual way in every ad, interview and campaign appearance.

That is seriously depressing. Wow. I think we are going to be stuck with Obamacare regardless. I can’t see how Romney can inspire the Democrats to do the right thing like Reagan was able to with a Democratic majority. Romney may have Republican majorities, but will he even be able to inspire them? Frightening times.

If Romney is elected and cannot get the Democrats to accept his health care proposal (whatever that may be) and the Democrats block it, doesn’t Obamacare go through anyway since it is already passed?

If the bizarre happens and Romney wins, but the 'Rats retain a majority in the Senate, yes (more about that in a moment). Otherwise, with even a bare majority in both houses, the repeal-and-replace measure can be included in a budget measure and passed through reconciliation (the same way Obamacare was passed) without needing a supermajority in the Senate to overcome a filibuster.

Now, in the semi-disasterous scenario of Romney winning but the 'Rats retaining control of the Senate, there are chances that measures that tinker around the edges and shrink Obamacare could pass with some 'Rat support, and there will be a Republican Secratary of HHS, who can by decree (since that's a power granted under Obamacare) undo the abortion-and-contraceptive-coverage mandate and redefine Obamacare "bronze" coverage as a no-frills catastrophic-only policy, or maybe a catastrophic plus covering-a-few-things-that-cut-the-cost-actuarially policy. The odious taxes would still kick in in 2014, But then later that year, the NRSC will be able to run a raft of ads about how Romney tried to replace it, but had to settle for his HHS Secretary fixing the things Sibelius had done to make it even worse, all because the 'Rats in the Senate blocked the real fix of repeal-and-replace. With any luck, repeal could happen early in 2015.

(Art.). If you believe tax increases are the answer, then you go after the middle class for the same reason Willie Sutton said he robbed banks: "because that's where the money is."

This is the oldest liberal sucker play in the book.

Get some Pubbies to vote for a higher tax rate on just a few top-enders, just to get them to give up the principle (which the New York Times will ballyhoo immediately) that "Raising taxes is the right thing to do -- and fair!"

Then the whip comes down on the people they really want -- us.

Get some Pubbies to vote for a higher tax rate on just a few top-enders, just to get them to give up the principle (which the New York Times will ballyhoo immediately) that "Raising taxes is the right thing to do -- and fair!" Then the whip comes down on the people they really want -- us.

Bingo, see the A.M.T. (Alternative Minimum Tax), for how it works.

(Article) On the other hand, Mitt Romney would be likely to continue to improve border security and deport illegal aliens who are captured. In fact, his supporters during the primary, like Ann Coulter, were touting him as the toughest GOP candidate on illegal immigration.

None of the GOP primary candidates was really rock-solid on immigration, and even Sarah Palin was claimed to have squished a bit. I guess Michele Bachmann was probably the most reliably conservative, but I'd have to research the issue.

I am NOT prepared to believe for a second, Ann Coulter N/W/S, that Mittens's was the stoutest voice against the Open Borders Lobby.

(Article) Four years of hate, demonization, and class warfare aimed at small business owners because they'll never be able to do their "fair share" in Barack Obama's eyes...

Small businessmen are the kulaks of the American economy, and Obama hates them. If this goes far enough, those smalltime entrepreneurs will share the fate of the kulaks: there is enough hatred in the Left to incinerate all of them.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.