12 October 2012

I CAN'T VOTE FOR MITT ROMNEY! (FINAL)

by Frank Turk

Now, there are other objections which I didn't directly answer:
  • I can't vote for Romney because he's a liar.
  • I can't vote for Romney because he passed Romneycare in Massachusetts.
  • I can't vote for Romney because he's not pro-Life.
  • My vote doesn't count anyway (Blue state, Statistics, etc.)
These are actually permutations of objections I did answer, so go back, wash, rinse, repeat.

I wanted to close to make sure my intention here was very clear: I do not want you all to become mindless voters for red-state dominion.  What I want is for you to not pretend this election is just another election.  In the last 4 years, the Federal Government hasn't authored or passed into law a single budget -- it hasn't even tried to outline one.  They haven't wasted any time on it.  They haven't done anything to address the problems of debt or deficit.  And they passed the largest tax increase on the country every invented -- which conveniently takes effect after this next election.

If you want a second round of that kind of governance, then feel free to either allow it or to actually vote for it.  If you realize that this is probably the last time we'll get a chance to do anything at all about it -- even if we can admit that will be done under a new administration will be too little, and perhaps too late -- then vote accordingly.  Vote effectively.  And Vote prayerfully.



28 comments:

Peter said...

Here's why I am voting democratic:

Which party, over the last 30 years, has been more responsible with our public finances?

Frank Turk said...

Peter:

If you are serious, then please observe this chart. Note that when Republicans control the congress is when we have had the better results for financial responsibility.

Not best: better.

Also, consider this chart. That's the change in Federal spending compared to GDP growth. The big changes downward in the last 20 years were driven not by big cuts so much as the GDP running at a very good rate of expansion.

Peter said...

Frank,

Here is how I read your first chart:

Under Reagan:

1980-1988, public debt ceiling (not 100% sure this is a good metric, but I'll go with it) increased from 1 trillion to 3 trillion. (A 200% increase)

Bush:

1989-1992, increased from 3 trillion to 5 trillion. (A 66% increase)

Clinton:

1993-2000, increase from 5 trillion to 6 trillion (A 20% increase)

Bush II:

2001 - 2008 increase from 6 trillion to a little less than 10 trillion (say a 60% increase).

Obama

2009 - 2012 increase from a little less than 10 trillion to 16.5 trillion. (say a 66% increase)

So, who has done better?

Frank Turk said...

You have missed the point of which party controlled the legislature, which is to be expected.

Be warm and well-fed.

Peter said...

Frank,

You are right that expansion is the driving force in driving down federal spending relative to GDP.

However, we can also ask which party has had huge federal spending programs that it did not pay for?

That is a large part of what I mean by being "responsible."

semijohn said...

So Obama increased it more in 4 years than Bush, with the Iraq war, did in 8. And Obama increased the debt by 6 trillion, more than any other American president. Wow.

Of course, I didn't consider who was controlling Congress either.

semijohn said...

Answer to Peter's question: both parties.

Peter said...

Actually, looking at the chart again, the public ceiling debt at the end of 2008 was a little over 11 trillion (not 10 trillion).

And the public debt at the end of the chart is a little over 14 trillion. (not 16 trillion). (The chart stops at the beginning of 2011).

So no, semijohn, you are wrong on both accounts (at least according to this chart).

I am all for a Republican controlled congress and Democratic president. Best (or worst) of both worlds.


semijohn said...

Since I never looked at the chart, but was just going by your figures, we were both wrong on both accounts.

Eric said...

I hear Peter making the argument that fiscal policy is more of a concern for him than protection of innocent human life.

I do know that God created George Washington in His image, but I was unaware that God created George Washingtons in His image.

OFelixCulpa said...

Frank,

I like you, but this is definitely not your best stuff. We all care about politics; sometimes too much.

Brittney said...

Thank you for these six posts. I am a conservative that sat out the 2008 election. I raised many of the objections against McCain that are now raised against Romney. Though I live in a solidly red state, I still regret my non-vote and I will not make the mistake in 2012. Again, thank you for the posts.

I reached my decision for Romney/Ryan a few weeks ago, after complaining yet again that, despite agreeing with much of what Romney/Ryan offers, there are some nagging, lingering issues that make me feel like I'm AGAIN just voting for the lesser of evils.

My wiser, more mature, more saintly friend pointed out in that moment, "Remember, our only choice on the ballot is for one member of mankind, or another member of mankind -- our civic vote on this earth is ALWAYS going to be for the lesser of evils."

If Obama is allowed a second term, purveyors of all manner of thuggery will be emboldened and unchecked. 2012 is a last shot at setting them back on their heels for a while longer.

Peter said...

Brittney,

While I believe there are good reasons to vote for Romney/Ryan, doing so because you want to set back "purveyors of all manner of thuggery" isn't one of them.

They are good people, as is Romney and Ryan.

[It is sad to see this sentiment. And of course it cut both ways. Just yesterday someone told me that she believes Ryan is "evil, literally, evil." Ugh.]

zamar said...

Thank you for laying it all out... and not pulling any punches.

Frank Turk said...

Felix:

God's Ordinary Means of running the world ought to concern us.

Rational νεόφυτος said...

You know, though, if Obama wins re-election, it will all go to his head and suddenly his hair and fingernails will grow long and he'll sit atop a banded tree stump on the white house lawn eating grass...

sandysewin said...

Thanks so much for this series. You've managed to state much of what I've been thinking, but in a clear concise way that I haven't been able to nail down very well in my thoughts.

Of course, I'd love to see Ron Paul as president, but we all know that isn't going to happen. I've been torn between writing him in, which seems like an exercise in futility and a waste, voting for Romney or skipping voting altogether. But that last never seemed like a responsible choice either.

I really appreciate your well-thought-out arguments helping me come to terms with ===sigh=== the middle choice.

It has been quite comforting lately to be reminded that God is the one who sets kings and rulers on their thrones, and he does it for his own good purpose. So while I am determined to make the wisest, most God-honoring decision I can, I know I can trust in His sovereign purposes to be fulfilled. Whether I like the results or not.

Peter said...

So much misinformation (really lies, but misinformation is nicer), where to begin.

In the last 4 years, the Federal Government hasn't authored or passed into law a single budget -- it hasn't even tried to outline one. They haven't done anything to address the problems of debt or deficit.

This is not true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011

And they passed the largest tax increase on the country every invented -- which conveniently takes effect after this next election

Again, not true. Simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire (as they were always designed to expire), and returning to the tax rates of 2000, is not passing a tax increase. This is nonsense.

Peter said...

In the last 4 years, the Federal Government hasn't authored or passed into law a single budget -- it hasn't even tried to outline one. They haven't done anything to address the problems of debt or deficit.

This is not true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget

Peter said...

They haven't done anything to address the problems of debt or deficit.

This is not true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011

Frank Turk said...

Peter, you poor fellow.

http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?feed_id=0&catid=4977653&videofeed=36

That wasn't a budget: it was a budget outline which was non-binding as law.

Does it bother you that you have no idea what the law actually requires of Congress?

That Crazy Christian said...

"What I want is for you to not pretend this election is just another election."

Copy and pasted from the '80, '84, '92, '96, '00, '04, & '08 election rhetoric handbooks. Guys, hysteria is not a strategy.

"In the last 4 years, the Federal Government hasn't authored or passed into law a single budget -- it hasn't even tried to outline
one."

1) This has happened before. We survived.
2) The budget doesn't matter so long as there is "debt ceiling". Think about it.


"They haven't done anything to address the problems of debt or deficit."

Neither has any republican (short of Ron Paul) in the past 40 years. Mitt Romney won't either. Don't kid yourself.


"And they passed the largest tax increase on the country every invented -- which conveniently takes effect after this next election."

That Mitt Romney designed and implemented already. There are a lot of losing arguments for Mitt Romney (today on Pyromaniacs has been a wonderful collection of them), but the ObRomney-Care argument is BY FAR the weakest. I mean seriously, you want to try to tell us that we HAVE to be rid of Obama (and I would embrace being rid of that tyrant) by electing... wait for it... THE GUY WHO INVENTED AND DESIGNED THE CHIEF POLICY STATEMENT OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION?? Are you guys serious?

This is like saying that we need to get rid of George Bush, so to do that we ought to get behind the Cheney/Rove ticket.

Come on.

Eric said...

TCC,

And your viable perfect candidate for the office of President is....?

That Crazy Christian said...

"And your viable perfect candidate for the office of President is....?"

I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries. I could have potentially voted for any number of Republicans that would have done half of what Paul would have done. It was never Ron Paul or nothing for me.

I admit that our choices are merely Red Faction Candidate Romney, and Blue Faction Candidate Obama.

My contention is that this is not much of a choice and I likely won't make one.

Choosing between drinking poison or hanging oneself isn't much of a choice either. My point is that refusing to make such a choice and keep one's life is not Cowardly or Evil.

For the record, I do intend to vote for Senator, Congressman, etc.

Unknown said...

Add up all the debt that this country has from federal to state to county to city to corporate to individuals; it is unreal and it really won't matter who is in office when our fake money system crashes. That's not including future obligations (future social security and Medicare beneficiaries). This bickering over a fake elephant and a real donkey is just a sideshow. The people who control the money system are the real rulers. This country is going down hard no matter who takes president if we don't replace the Federal Reserve Bank and the ones who control our money.
-CS

Daryl said...

As a Canuck who has no dog in this race, may I just say...

To those who complain about the less-of-two-evils thing. As a believer, are we loving our neighbours by graciously providing the greater-of-two-evils?

I didn't think so.

Fiscally, child-killingly and freedom-ly, Obama is as bad as it has ever been south of the border.
Mitt, however non-ideal (and evil in his own right) is a significantly lesser evil.

Do you not owe your country-men the lesser evil?

Just asking...

Brittney said...

Peter:

"While I believe there are good reasons to vote for Romney/Ryan, doing so because you want to set back 'purveyors of all manner of thuggery' isn't one of them."

Yes it is - it's just as good a reason as any. And I specifically said "for a while" -- I don't think 2012 will solve anything, but it has a chance to delay the complete over-washing of at least *some* of the more putrid offerings riding in on certain tides.

I don't hold out hope for long - the socialists set out in the 20s to take over education in the US, with the goal of eroding civic, financial, and theological understanding to the point where their purposes would be achieved without overt revolution. Couple that with, uh, unregenerate human nature, and voila! The DNC is -- I'll be generous and say "unwittingly" -- running their playbook. And the RNC hasn't been putting up much of a defense. Still, we have to press on...

"They are good people, as is Romney and Ryan."

I guess by "they are good people" you mean Obama et al? I disagree. First, on theological grounds. Who is "good" ? I refer you to Scripture for that answer. So we're left with a relative comparison - the lesser of evils, if you will. I won't rehash the myriad ways the DNC/Obama lose in the relative "good" contest vs. RNC/Romney.

You say your vote is based on the handling of public finances. That is an important issue, I heartily agree. And I say both Rs and Ds should be tarred, feathered, and rode out on a rail, but for more reasons than shirking fiscal responsibility. And for those reasons, I refer you to your history books, and Scripture again.

Frank Turk said...

It would take all wekend to unpack poor Peter's left-wing tom-foolery.

When CNN admits that the Senate has not passed a budget in 3 years, the Left needs to stop trying to deny it.

Comments are closed.