[QUOTE="airshocker"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]His governing in Massachusetts and past decisions is what Obama is trying to do at the federal level. So yes they are.DroidPhysX
No, they aren't. Romney doesn't support stimulus. Unemployment went down in MA during Romney's stint in office. Romney doesn't want to regulate everything under the sun.
I fail to see where the two are similar.
Romney raised fees and taxes to balance the budget, same with what Obama is doing. Romeny was also in favor of the stimulus BEFORE obama took the election in '08. > Regulation If Obama was a supposed staunch regulator like I've been hearing, he would of nationalized the banks years ago. Obama is more of a neocon and pre-Bush2 republican than anything else. The major difference with what Mitt did in MA is that he did it on the state level. His state supported what he was doing. Obama, and the like, are trying to do this one-size-fits-all approach and force every state to adhere. The POTUS, nor the Federal Government, have the power to do this. But, for some reason Obama is immune to the laws of the Constitution. Our government was never meant to be a top-down approach. It's supposed to be run from the bottom up. The only responsibilty of the Feds is to secure our country with a military. The nationalization of the banks happened with the bailout. Now, the Feds have a piece of every bank that was forced to take money. Yes, they were forced. A local bank where I live tried to reject the bailout funds... the Feds wouldn't allow it. Now, banks are being choked out of existence due to regulations impossed with the bailout.
Log in to comment