Romney, Obamacare, and voting

Reply

gotlucky Posted: Thu, Jun 28 2012 7:26 PM

rated by 0 users

So, in light of the recent SCOTUS decision upholding Obamacare, Romney has come out and said that the only way to repeal it would be to vote him in as President.

So, my question is, does this change anything for you when it comes time to vote for president?  If yes, why?  If no, why not?

I'll start it off:

It does not change anything for me.  There is no necessary reason why Romney will actually keep his word on this particular issue, considering that he normally is on both sides of the issues and that he created Romneycare in MA.  However, it is possible he considers it a state's issue instead of a federal issue, but I don't give the benefit of the doubt to Romney.

Anyway, there is also the problem of, even if he intends to repeal Obamacare, that doesn't mean he will be successful.  So, if Romney were POTUS and unsuccessful at repealing Romneycare, then we are stuck with a president who can't do the one thing we would want, and pretty much everything else he'll do we'll hate.

My $.02.  What's yours?

Reply

Autolykos replied on Thu, Jun 28 2012 8:03 PM

rated by 0 users

I think Romney's about as serious about that as Obama was about e.g. closing down Guantanamo.

Reply

Phi est aureum replied on Thu, Jun 28 2012 8:04 PM

rated by 0 users

No. As much as I dislike ObamaCare, my vote doesn't hinge on that issue alone. Even if it did, I'm not so sure that (if he was even genuine about wanting to see it repealed) he understands why it should be repealed: it is a bad policy, ie it won't achieve the goals it sets out to achieve but will instead do the opposite as well as, in all likelihood, creates more "problems" that the government should solve that the free markets (if actually free) can't solve. I mean, even if a state could use force to tax somebody for not doing something, it is still poor economics. 

That being said, I also refuse to vote on an idea of "lesser of two evils," which might compel some to vote for a candidate that they really don't agree with.

Reply

gotlucky replied on Thu, Jun 28 2012 10:35 PM

rated by 0 users

Looks like you've been having trouble with posts, but I see that you still got to say it changes nothing for you.  Anyway, I suggest this thread to for your blank posts.

Reply

gotlucky replied on Thu, Jun 28 2012 10:38 PM

rated by 0 users

@Autolykos

Ha, yeah.  I hear that Romney is a very nice guy, and maybe he doesn't lie much in his private life.  But when it comes to politics, that guy is a fucking liar.  No two ways about it.

Btw, do you intend on voting or doing a write in?  Or do you just abstain from the whole process?

Reply

Neodoxy replied on Thu, Jun 28 2012 11:33 PM

rated by 0 users

As far as I see it if Romney becomes president then Obama Care will be repealed. Even if he can't actually get the law off the books then the fact is that the federal government choose not to enforce the law, or push and manipulate things in such a way that the law can be avoided.

This is the rundown on the candidates, and I think that most libertarians are likely to agree.

Romney

Good:

1. Likely to repeal Obama Care
2. More likely to cut regulation/decrease taxes 
3. Prevents Obama's bad from happening

Bad:

1. Likely to give libertarians and free market advocates a bad name and set back the libertarian movement
2. Much more likely to expand the American war machine
3. His tax cuts may well further increase American debt, furthermore, I don't believe for an instant that he is actually capable of fixing the debt
4. I'm not convinced of his real dedication towards making America more of a free market
5. Because of the resurgence in the republican party he's likely to have much more united government under his thumb, and we all love a united government that's more able to get things done.
6. Social conservatism, enough said
7. I would be willing to bet that he will enact policies which benefit the rich and large companies and further hampers competition and wastes public resources on already quite large enterprises. This goes hand in hand with the fact that it's all too likely that he's big businesses' bitch.
8. He obviously is not dedicated to real positive healthcare reform as we can tell from his actions as governor

Obama

Good

1. He'll prevent Romney from doing any of his bad and he's at least the known of the two evils we can choose from. He's bad, he's not terrible 
2. He seems at very least to have a more diplomatic foreign policy than many of our presidents have
3. He has at least slowed statist advances in both the drug war and the immigration war, and on that note he promised to oppose SOPA, although by the time that he did it was obviously extremely unpopular, so it' hard to determine whether or not this is actually a point in his favor, or nothing more than a political move)
4. His healthcare laws may, if enacted, prevent further advancements into the American healthcare system and open up the door for more free market solutions
5. He is obviously not a free market advocate, and therefore anything negative which happens during and around his term can (hopefully) be blamed on interventionism. The same can be said about his lies. 
6. He is terrible at actually getting anything done with republicans so avidly opposed to him

Bad

1. He is a known liar
2. He has continued and expanded American military advances
3. He has increased government advances into the economy
4. He has done nothing positive to help end the American economic crisis
5. He has done nothing to fix the American debt situation and it has, of course, merely gotten worse during his presidency
6. He passed the indefinite detention act 
7. He has made promise upon promise which he both could, and could not keep, which, at any rate, he did not keep. 

All in all, Obama seems to be the better choice, but the fact is that Romney is such a wild card that in truth, we have absolutely no idea what he will do, he could be bad, he could be good, but in the long run I think that it's a lot better to allow Obama to act as the antithesis to Bush and let those opposed to interventionism and the current system gain further support, and I hope we've all learned not to put our hope in the Republicans.