What specific Romney policy that he has proposed do you like?

Question to the Republicans.

Please detail specifically which of Mitt Romney's policies that he would like to impliment in America if he is elected, that you think will help get America "back on the right track" so to speak. And please be specific on what you like about the policy, and how you think it will help America.

 

Romney would bring the rogue EPA to heel.

 

His proposed energy program sounds pretty good and gee, it even makes sense. Allow the "Keystone" pipeline to proceed, cut EPA regulations preventing business from exploring for and accessing all energy sources in the US. Your then talking about 2 million jobs, that will be created by the private sector in months with no tax payer dollars...You ask for a policy, so I won't mention repealing Obamacare, which would allow small business to hire, as needed to grow and are now worried about future cost.

 

What specifically will he do to the EPA? And whats rogue about it?

 

The problem with the Keystone pipeline isnt the line its self you know. It was the company that was denied the permit because they did not perform all the needed environmental impact studies, and the GOP wanted to rush it through as fast as possible.

The company that wants to build the pipeline does NOT have a very healthy record when it comes to environmental issues either.The project isnt dead, just on hold. Sorry, I am one of those tree hugger types that thinks we need to go to almost any measure to protect natural habitats. A disaster like the gulf oil spill should never have happened, and can NEVER happen again. IMO.


I dont like everything the EPA does, but I would rather error on the side of caution than not. We only get one planet. We best not screw it up. But what specific EPA policies do you want cut? and why? Do you think we have to put up with a state of heightend pollution over what we have now in order to have a viable economey and jobs?

 

I advocate expanding our energy supplies but one issue I have is with "fracking" for oil and natural gas. It's not that I oppose the practice but I do oppose the use of toxic chemicals to do it. Using water and nontoxic chemicals to hydraulically fracture rock is one thing but using toxic or carcinogenic substances like chromium, which is being used, I find objectionable. Make the "fracking" liquids safe is the key criteria and they currently are not from what I've read. Mitt Romney does not propose EPA guidelines that would make the practice of fracking safe and there is a problem with that.

Additionally Mitt Romney, from what I understand, opposes the requirement to employ existing technology, promoted by the coal industry itself, on existing coal fired electrical powerplants. Yes, retro-fitting these powerplants will cost money but even with that expense electricity from coal is one of the cheapest forms of electricity and retro-fitting these plants will reduce emissions by up to 40% per the coal industry studies. Now in case someone thinks this is just about AGW then think again. These powerplants in the East are creating acid rain. We can't "see" acid rain but it's killing the ecology in the Eastern United States.

http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/effects/forests.html

An energy plan has to be responsible but I've failed to see that in Mitt Romney's proposals. We do need EPA regulations that protect us from pollution that is harmful to the United States. Mitt Romney's proposals seem to take us back to the days which spawned disasters like the "Love Canal" and that simply isn't acceptable. For those not familiar with the "Love Canal" tragety here is a link:

http://www.onlineethics.org/CMS/edu/precol/scienceclass/sectone/cs6.aspx

Yes, we need energy sources such as natural gas, coal and petroleum but we must also ensure that our environment is protected by the production and use of these fuels and Romney apparently fails to understand that protection is a mandatory component of production.

 

Quote " We do need EPA regulations that protect us from pollution that is harmful to the United States. " End Quote

So who gets to rule on that ..congress or each state as they see fit over eco nuts from New York and San Francisco ?

2. Education ..ruled by parents and Taxpayers ..not Teacher UNIONS.

3. Government controlled by the people ..not the UNIONS controlling the taxpayers.

4. Policy not guided by who paid the most ..but by STATES and their voters.. DECENTRALIZING a runaway FEDERAL Government .

5. Religion NOT confined by government but allowed to prosper .

6. Free markets allowed to pick winners and losers..not Federal Government to repay crony political support.

7. OUR IMMIGRATION laws enforced as they are written unless states and congress change them..not ANY PRESIDENT.

8. Ending waste and fraud in our entitlements..not protecting any program based upon crony politics.

9. Passing the voter ID law..if its OK for union card checks..its OK for the ballot box.

10. Ending the class warfare and race divide game..rules apply evenly to everyone.

 

I like that he said he would scrap the AMA.

 

Speaking of hydraulic fracturing and fracturing in general, yesterday, a man by the name of Seamus McGraw spoke on the campus at American University. His book, The End of Country: Dispatches from the Frack Zone provides a personal account of the actions and effects of fracturing in his native Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. One of the recurring themes in his rhetoric would be the lack of a middle ground on matters pertaining to energy, conservation, and preservation. He contrasts the sentiment by mentioning two influential characters in his book and the debate over natural gas. They are Victoria Switzer and Terry Engelder. The former is an ardent environmental activist and resident of Dimock, Pennsylvania. The latter is a world renowned Geology professor at Pennsylvania State University.

The reason why I bring up McGraw's work and speech is that you epitomize what he desires, and Victoria and Terry tarnish. The moderates in this increasingly polarizing political landscape we call the United States of America are the torchbearers of logic, reason, equity, liberty, and freedom. I commend you for being one of these individuals, and wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments on the future of American energy.

 

Well, let's see where there's agreement.

For pollution issues that cross state lines, such as air pollution, then it should be a federal responsibility. For local pollution it should be a State issue but based upon federal guidelines. An interesting note is that recently I looked up regulations related to permitting of new oil refineries and which the guidelines are established by the federal government the permits are controlled by the State.

Teacher contracts are a state and local issue and not a federal. The federal issue is related to federal funding and mandates and both should be ended. No federal education grants to states and no federal education vouchers for individuals, period.

Once again this would be predominately a state issue, not a federal issue. Unions, which represent workers, have lost much of their political power over time and today the problems are more related to corporate PAC's as opposed to unions but both can present problems.

I don't disagree. The primary role of the federal government should be to protect our inalienable Rights which are afforded some protections under the Constitution. All States need to also comply with the protections afforded by the Constitution and should not be attempting to usurp them. At the federal level we should repeal the Patriot Act, the War Powers Act, close GITMO and prosecute suspected terrorists in a criminal court, and we should enforce the statutory laws that require the Federal Reserve to redeem Federal Reserve notes in American Eagle coins (ref Title 12).

Good. Let's end the definition of marriage based upon Christian theocratic laws and allow all consenting adults to marry regardless of sexual, religious, ethic, racial or any other invidious discriminatory criteria. Let's also replace the national motto of "In God We Trust" which is based upon religious beliefs in a mythical entity with "E Plurbius Unim" which reflects the true nature of America. We should also end all special tax exemptions for religious institutions while we're at it. They should be treated like any other not for profit enterprise (assuming they're not for profit).

Good, let's shut down the Federal Reserve and limit government regulations based upon laizze faire capitalism where regulations are explicitly about protecting the Rights of the Individual. No more bank bailouts, no more corporate bailouts, no more "too big to fail" enterprises. Let's have federal regulations that address our Rights like not having excessive pollution when the technology exists to prevent it in a cost effective manner. Let's end the income tax by repealing the 16th Amendment and replacing it with a consumption tax (with prebates) so that we're not imposing huge non-value added expenses on our production. Let's also end foreign wars which consume the production of America and reduce our military based upon it's Constitutional role to provide for the common defense of the United State instead of being used as a tool of US imperialism.

Let's also require a balanced budget beginning in 2013 with enough excess revenue to pay off our $16 trillion national debt over the next 15 years.

Yes, but in the meantime we need to focus our limited financial resources on addressing those that we most want to deal with and that is criminal aliens. To accomplish this let's defer prosecution for those that aren't a priority so that we don't waste valuable financial assets addressing the wrong people.

Better than that let's address the problems as opposed to the symptoms of the problems.

We need to privatize Social Security so that it addresses the real problem identified in the 1930's which was that people weren't investing and accumulating enough personal wealth to provide income and to pay for medical services (or insurance) when they became too old to work. The lack of income was a symptom of a lack of personal wealth so lets create personal wealth by requiring workers to invest in diversified and age adjusted retirement accounts. We can keep a small safety net even though history has shown that private investments provide five-times or more personal income when compared to Social Security. If people have five times or more in income from private investments then they don't need Medicare.

Let's also address a major welfare program which is providing aid for food. Currently we use a "voucher" system where people purchase food at retail prices at local grocery stores. The same amount of food can be furnished for about 1/4th the cost by food banks where no pre-qualifications are imposed on those in need. Convert our "food stamp" program to a "food bank" program.

The problem is that voter fraud, which is the practice of one person attempting to vote for a registered votes, is virtually non-existant in the United States. While vote ID laws would catch a person attempting to do this the last time I checked there were only 18 reported convictions for this in the United States for a single national election. What is far more problematic are individuals that are registered to vote but that are ineligible to vote such as previously convicted felons. The voter ID laws won't catch these individuals at all because they are registered voters.

Now it is acceptable for criteria to be established related to voter registration and certainly each state needs to have a process to weed out anyone from being registered that is ineligible to vote. That has nothing to do with voter ID laws though.

Something I find ironic is that I live in a state (WA) were we have no polling places. All of our voting is done by absentee ballot and obviously we don't show our ID to anyone. We just fill out our ballot and submit it along with a signed statement that we are who we say we are.

I agree but the government is limited in this regard.

We can end class warfare by addressing the tax code problems. Currently millionaires, such as Mitt Romney, have very special tax loopholes that allow them to not pay taxes on much of their income but the average person cannot take advantage of these loopholes. The wealthy evade paying about $1.1 trillion in taxes annually because of special loopholes designed just for them. The so-called "war" is really being waged by the very wealthy against the other 99% of Americans but few recognize that fact and the wealthy are winning that war. Personally I support abolishing the income tax completely and replacing it with a consumption tax with prebates. Everyone gets the same prebate and everyone pays the same tax rate.

As for racial warfare this is overwhelmingly being waged by whites against blacks. A black person is 22-times more likely to be the victim of a racist hate crime than a white person. We've addressed discrimination under the laws of the United States but cannot control individual discrimination or hate crimes. That remains a serious problem and it is predominately a relatively small percentage of "white male Americans" which continue this war. Obviously, to a lessor extent, this relates to other minority races in America as well but the elephant in the living room remains white racism against minorities.

I would like to see a solution for that problem.

 

Ill go through your post, line by line.

1.) Some regulations should be federal, some state. The federal government should provide a minimum base of regulations that ALL states must meet. Such as the ammount of carbon monoxide that a power plant is allowed to spew into the air, or whatever. You get the idea. States would not be allowed to go BELOW those standards, but they could certainly go ABOVE them if they want. And they could also make a choice on how they want to meet those standards. You know... kinda like it is now?


2.) Agreed. I dont really understand how teachers unions rule education its self. It seems to be lately that teachers have been getting pushed aside rather easily lately though.

3.) Why only mention unions and not corporations? THey have far more of a hand in shaping gov policy than anyone else atm.

4.) Agreed here. I believe the federal government should provide a basic frame work of requirements, and that states should work out on their own how to meet those requirements.

5.) Religion is already allowed to propser. I dont see why it needs Gov endorsement of ANY kind. Gov must remain 100% neutral when it comes to religion. No laws can favor or disfavor any type of worship. Religion is a personal choice. Not a public choice. Lets keep it that way.

6.) Absolutley agree. But that also includes getting rid of oil / natural gas and corn subsidies. Are you ready for higher power bills?

7.) Agree.

8.) Also agree. Wastefull spending needs to go. I dont think Romney is the guy to do that though. He loves wasteful spending. So I dont see why this is something you are looking for from him. Also, its possible to reduce waste and fraud WITHOUT impacting services. THat is also important.

9.) I am fine with voter ID laws. As long as they wait till AFTER this election. Pushing those laws in a month before the biggest election in the country is NOT being done to combat voter fraud. Its being done to STOP certain people from voting at ALL. If the GOP were doing this in good faith, I wouldnt have an issue with it. They are not though. ITs being done specifically to sway the vote. The Gov of Pennsylvania even very specifically said that thanks to voter registratin, and re-drawing voting distrcits, he has prepared his state to allow romney to win there. Thats crap, and bad politics. I am all for these types of laws, but I want them phased in over a long period of time. Voter fraud is NOT a problem in this country. There is no need to rush this.

10.) Again, in most aspects, I agree. But that includes tax laws. Right now we have insitutionalized being rich. If your rich. the country favors you with lower tax laws, as just one example.

 

Our current system with environmental regulations is probably how it should stay - a federal minimum (that all states must adhere to) with individual states able to refine and expand on those regulations as they see fit. If left purely to the states, I can certainly see how some could be much too lax enabling pollution (lower populations or global-warming denying hardcore red states).

Education should absolutely be at the federal level. For one, we need standardized curriculums/testing/etc throughout the nation to prevent fragmentation of knowledge and progress. Second, parents and taxpayers can be idiots, and they should not be setting education policies. One only needs to point at all the anti-evolution/"teach the controversy" BS (mostly in the southern states) to see how utterly horrendous this idea is. We needs teachers and experts in the respective fields to be setting education policies.

Could you please be more specific with this one? How is government currently confining religion? My main concern is religion influencing public policy. This absolutely should not be allowed.

This one isn't so easy. A free market is good, but a market should not be completely free to run unchecked. This can often result in monopolies/oligopolies/etc and all around anti-consumer behavior (including banking/insurance/etc). Many markets require some over-site to prevent them from straight-up ass-raping everyone. Companies fighting each other is generally a good thing. Companies fighting the consumer is not.

No. This is a "solution" to a fictional problem. It's main purpose is to basically cheat at the elections by preventing certain demographics the opportunity to vote. In fact, I feel that we need to see some prison sentences handed out over this whole fiasco (including various other voter suppression tactics being deployed).

Now, I'm not claiming that I'm against preventing voter fraud, it's just that we effectively don't have a problem with it, nor are the voter ID laws actually meant to "fix" it.

(You can argue against this all you want, but the Repubs have been fairly blatant about it - not trying too hard to cover up the actual purpose.)

Can you please be more specific? To what "games" are you referring? The issue is, things currently are not applied evenly to everyone. The "class warfare" to which I assume you are referring is completely justified.

I am amazed when people actively, and in many cases vehemently, argue in favor of a policy that obviously harms them personally. Yes, those politicians have some silver tongues, but come on, much of the crap isn't that hard to see through.

 

http://www.qgazette.com/news/2007-09-26/features/002.html

Do you folks understand pipelines already exist and frankly those supplying NYC customers, including highly explosive jet fuel to their AP's, could do more damage or cause more problems, than anything carrying crude from Canada to South Texas.

Fracking has been going on for decades and I'm not aware of one death attributable to the process.

I'll stand on my comments and Romney's said policy, "all of the above" for our energy needs, adding North America's independence of foreign oil needs by 2020...9 Million jobs are already occupied under energy and making them a source worldwide could create millions more.

 

Getting rid of Obamacare obviously.

and I like many of his options to reform healthcare:


End tax discrimination against the individual purchase of insurance

Allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines

Block grant Medicaid and other payments to states

Cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits

 

So am I to assume that you would always put energy needs above environmental needs? Always?

 

Your probably assuming environmental needs are what IMO Government is using to control the masses and may very well be unwarranted. Then actual production of energy and the usage of them are different issues. We could use the jobs...

If your talking "AGW" (man caused global warming), CO2 levels have been under 400 parts per million for years, certainly longer than the industrialization of humans, while even today China adds 2 Coal Powered Electric Plants per week, along with using a lot of natural gas, both producers of CO2. I won't bother you with transportation usages and emissions from Russia, China, India and South America, which are outpacing anything the US uses, while CO2 levels remain under 400 ppm.

If your concerned with potential problems in the tens of thousands of miles of pipeline, there already happening daily in the US and elsewhere, where used. Frankly in about 10-20 years most older pipelines will need to be replaced or shut down, but we're not going to shut down our economy or the worlds energy needs to satisfy some scientist trying to get grants from Government to tell us how horrible the oil industry is.

While your concerns are for human life, I suppose, keep in mind plant life the source for the oxygen you breath, grows best with 1000 ppm CO2 and 1000 ppm, even if we could maintain that level, is far less than the average while driving in city traffic, being in an enclosed building or the EPA's limits, it won't hurt you. Climate patterns remain arguable, but the old fashion person I am, that big red thing in the sky (actually white without the atmosphere) and the angle it hits the earth still controls most those patterns.

 

Not yet anyway but one has to understand the nature of the problem when it comes to using toxic chemicals when fracking. The fracking is going on at depths which are below ground water we use, as the supporters point out, but we're drilling the holes that will allow these toxic chemicals to migrate up to our ground water. It can take decades for these poisionious chemicals to reach our drinking water supply but they eventually will and millions of people would die as a result. There is already surface pollution from these chemicals at the drill holes for the fracking and that should be warning enough for us.

The only issue is whether we allow the use of toxic chemicals when it comes to fracking and the simple fact is that they should be prohibited. The problem is real and it's happening now even though it will take decades before the effects will begin to kill millions of people when our ground water is polluted. We cannot be short-sighted in addressing this issue. We would be creating a "Love Canal" of epic proportions if we don't address it now.

 

converting our existing "dirty coal" fired electrical powerplants to use clean coal technology creates jobs. According the the coal industry itself it would reduce emissions of CO2 and other pollutants by up to 40% while still providing one of the least expensive forms of electrical power production (edged out slightly today by natural gas fired electrical powerplants).

We can ignore the AWG issue completely and simply address this as a matter of inalienable Rights. We all have the Right to breath clean air and unnecessary pollution which can be eliminated in a cost effective manner is a fundamental violation of our individual inalienable Rights. "Dirty coal" fired electrical powerplants can be cost effectively retrofitted to eliminate up to 40% of the pollution they're creating and there is no logical reason to allow them to continue this unnecessary pollution, period.

 

Have you seen the videos of people lighting their tap-water on fire? Yeah, that's normal.

 

http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/2011/05/scamed-by-the-envrios-again-public-duped-by-gasland.html

99.5% of the fracking process, use water and sand. When chemicals are used, they use according to the circumstances. People had best be cautious of what their being told and if you must worry, make it matter.

Near forty thousand people in the US alone, die in Auto Accidents, millions of others are injured, EVERY YEAR. Is there one of you that would suggest we shut down all auto/truck traffic, until we can make it safe?????

 

The oil companies don't need a pipeline from Canada to Texas so that they can refine the oil, load it on barges, and EXPORT it. At least they don't need it at MY expense. We are already exporting refined product and I haven't seen my pump prices go down. But, as well all know by now, Romney is a citizen of the United States of Global.

 

The rogue EPA??
Wow.

 

You don't believe all that do you?
2 million jobs? Your dream like pipeline is a short term project, 3 years max, then the jobs go away and the US gets nothing. And there is nothing that says ANY jobs will be created to build it, they can bring their own people down from Canada and cut us out all together.
As tot he rest of it, in order for any of that to happen the price of oil must stay high, is it worth it to you?

And finally the big scary Obamacare and all the lie you have swallowed...it's just laughable to listen to you rightists and you outlandish statements about it and what it does.
You would think that one little bill has torn up the Constitution and completely transformed our entire country!

 

I'm not a republican but I am fond of his position on trade and generally being against tariffs and protectionist policies.