Pres. Obama and Mitt Romney: Where they stand on the issues

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • RBW 2012 Canby, OR
    May 7, 2012 11:06 p.m.

    I don't see a dimes worth of difference between the two. One waves with his right hand and the other with his left. Both like to say whatever their audience wants to hear. Don't look at what they say. Look at what they do. I would love to see a debate between Romney, Obama, and Ron Paul. Let's have a serious discussion on the course of this country. Republicans/Democrats - two wings of the same party.

  • Badger55 Nibley, Ut
    May 3, 2012 1:57 a.m.

    @ Truthseeker:
    Unfortunately, for your argument, the companies you speak of hired Bain, willingly I might add, to try to turn things around. Taxpayers, like me, were not given a choice with solyndra. HUGE difference. and, I will take a 70% success rate compared to 0% that Obama has on our investments (Obamacare, chevy Volt, Solyndra, etc)

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 2, 2012 11:21 a.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" I have a simple response:

    Prove it. Give me some shred of evidence first that you understand the teachings of the church you claim memebership in that could even disprove the fact that Modern Liberals are todays Pharasees.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 2, 2012 11:03 a.m.

    Deep Space 9, Ut

    You are sooooo twisted, warped and flat-out wrong on so many levels ---
    I only have 200 words....

    Not nearly enough to properly respond to such falsehoods.

    I have, however, cut-and pasted this mindless ramble -- and will periodically reply to.

    ...amazing you can be soooo 180 twisted wrong....amazing.

  • Getting it Right Sunnyvale, CA
    May 2, 2012 10:36 a.m.

    @TOO I totally agree with you. Bain did not used taxpayers money while Solyndra used taxpayers' money just like BO going to Afghanistan with political agenda using more taxpayers' money. BO is going to use more taxpayers' money to advance his personal agenda.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 2, 2012 9:15 a.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" as I have pointed out before, the Pharasees are more akin to todays modern liberals. Here are some reasons why liberals are more like Pharasees:

    The pharasees saw the scriptures as something up for translation and based their beliefs on writings about the law, and not the law itself.

    The pharasees were mainly the wealthy, recent studies show that those who claim to be liberals have more money than those that claim to be conservatives.

    The pharasees were socially liberal.

    The pharasees attacked any non conformist, just like liberals do today.

    The Pharasees were trying to reform society to their idea of a communal utopian society.

    The pharasees were revolutionaries, just like todays liberal OWS group.

    Just like today's liberals, they believed in a strict observance of God's laws, but failed to understand the deeper meaning (this is why they didn't figure out that Jesus was the Son of God).

    If you wish, we can discuss how modern liberalism is in direct contradiction to LDS teachings.

  • TOO Sanpete, UT
    May 1, 2012 6:51 p.m.


    I have gone on record dozens of times saying I did not agree with the war. I was never old enough to vote for Bush and had I been of age, I would not have voted for him.

    Just so you know, I did not vote for McCain either.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 1, 2012 6:30 p.m.

    Bain was primarily risking OTHER people's money, not their own. Bain charged and collected fees even as some of the companies they took over were going bankrupt.

    Solyndra--small potatoes compared to the major miscalculation called the war in Iraq, the lives lost the trillion spent and the billions never accounted for.

  • TOO Sanpete, UT
    May 1, 2012 5:58 p.m.


    You completely misinterpret that parable...obviously.

    In the parable it also states that the workers AGREED to get paid their wage at the beginning of the day, so that's what the master gave them. He didn't cheat anyone.

    But I do agree that comparing Obama to a Nazi is not a good way to have a discussion. Anyone who uses such rhetoric needs to argue their point more intelligently.

  • TOO Sanpete, UT
    May 1, 2012 5:53 p.m.


    "Solyndra is so minor in the scheme of things. Goodness, do you go after Bain because a company Romney took over failed?"

    BIG difference. Romney and his colleagues were using COMPANY money. It was the risk of their own money that was on the line. If it failed, it hurt them.

    Solyndra was used with taxpayer money. When my money is used, and it fails, it hurts me. I don't appreciate the federal government gambling with my money. My taxes should pay for roads, the military, and other national defense programs. They should not be used to encourage PRIVATE companies because "it sounds like a good idea".

    If you and your little buddies want to spend your own money then go ahead. But don't force me into paying for it as well. And when it fails, don't say that you need more money to throw away.

    The government has no right to decide who should succeed and who should fail. That's the private sector job.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    May 1, 2012 5:40 p.m.

    "If Jesus was a modern liberal, he would have divided the inheritance."

    Oh you mean like in the parable of the workers, where some worked all day long, and others worked only part of the day. At the end of the work day, all were paid the same, and those who worked all day murmured that it was fair. And the master responded that he would be the judge who gets what, and that it was his right to bless all equally, no matter how long they worked..... Matthew 20:1–16

    Is that what you were talking about?

    Comparing Obama with Nazsm - not really the way to get reasonable people to listen to you. It actually is a bit scary some would go to such depths to try to justify their own beliefs. This is what it makes it hard for me to even consider supporting a conservative, such rhetoric.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 1, 2012 5:34 p.m.

    Washington Times-Sun Myung Moon's publication?
    It is Republicans who idolize those who are wealthy and adopt policies to further enrich them, while cutting heating subsidies for the poor during winter.

    After Pres. Obama, the second most powerful Democrat in the U.S. is a Mormon who has a higher rating by pro-life organizations than pro-choice organizations.

    Therein lies the difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

    Republicans are focused on party purity, purging any who are moderate or those who dare compromise. As soon as Obama took the oath of office, the stated goal was to make sure he failed.
    Governing and problem-solving requires compromise.

  • UtahCentrist Salt Lake City, UT
    May 1, 2012 5:33 p.m.

    Alright RedShirt, two can play this game.

    If you bothered to look into the history of political use of the color Red, it predates the communist movement. When it was adopted, there was not a negative history associated with the color. However, now it has been co-opted by Socialists/Marxists/Communists into their visual iconography. Therefore, anyone else who uses the color red as their political color (Republicans) is a communist as well.

    See, it isn't enough to simply "connect the dots." You have to do it in a way that makes sense. If you don't bother to follow the basic rules of the game, you can make any sort of "connection" you want. If I do a "connect-the-dots" drawing, ignoring the numbers and the logical connections in the sequence, I can draw whatever picture I want, no matter how silly or disconnected from reality I want. It doesn't even have to resemble anything coherent, even if all the dots are "connected"

    It's the same with politics. If I cherry pick facts and invent other "facts" you can make any argument you want. But all it looks like is random scribbles.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 1, 2012 4:34 p.m.

    Deep Space 9, Ut
    To "LDS Liberal" unfortunately liberalism was not taught by Jesus. Liberalism is what Caeser practiced.

    And Conservatism is what the Pharisee’s practiced.

    BTW - Jesus had no qualms with Caesar or Rome or with Taxes,
    he even forgave them from crucifying him.

    He did however, take serious issue with the Pharisee’s (Conservatives)
    [i.e.,The Church at the time, the Ultra-Religious, the Rich, and the overzealous Law abiders] many times over and over again.
    Because, they should have known better.
    What was that he called them again, oh ya – Hypocrites.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 1, 2012 4:30 p.m.

    To "UtahCentrist" if you bothered to look into the history of the Wisconsin slogan, it predates the communist movement. When it was adopted, there was not a negative history associated with the word. However, now it has been co-opted by Socialists/Marxists/Communists into their vocabulary.

    It isn't Association Fallacy. You forget that Obama has admitted that he asociated with Marxists. Many of his appointed advisors have significant connections to socialists or are self avowed socialists/communists.

    There is no Association Fallacy, just a connection of the dots.

  • UtahCentrist Salt Lake City, UT
    May 1, 2012 3:57 p.m.


    "Don't you find it ironic that Obama is using the same or a similar slogan that some of the greatest murderers used in their political campaigns? By agreeing with it as a campaign slogan, aren't you agreeing with evil tyrants?"

    That is a textbook example of the Association Fallacy.

    "An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion."

    I sincerely hope your occupation does not rely on good logic skills.

  • UtahCentrist Salt Lake City, UT
    May 1, 2012 3:19 p.m.

    "Forward" is also the state motto of Wisconsin. Is the entire state of Wisconsin a socialist/communist plot?

    This whole "Forward is a communist phrase" thing is beyond ridiculous.

    For a political wing who claims to want to talk about "issues", the right-wing sure is spending a lot of time whipping themselves into frenzies over the most trivial banalities.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    May 1, 2012 3:01 p.m.

    Obama's zombie followers could care less where he stands on issues - they don't even know what the issues are. These clueless masses vote for him regardless - unemployment could be 50% and they don't care because they don't work anyway ... nor do they want to. The fed gov is there to give them their money 'owed' to them and Obama is Santa Claus.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 1, 2012 2:41 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" unfortunately liberalism was not taught by Jesus. Liberalism is what Caeser practiced.

    Read "Luke 12:13-15
    13 And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me.

    14 And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?

    15 And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth."

    You can go to the Gateway Pundant and watch the Nazi "Forward" march, complete with subtitls.

    If Jesus was a modern liberal, he would have divided the inheritance.

    Actually you can get teh information from the Washington Times article "New Obama slogan has long ties to Marxism, socialism". The BBC also did an article on Mao, where they explain that he called his movement "Great Leap Forward".

    Don't you find it ironic that Obama is using the same or a similar slogan that some of the greatest murderers used in their political campaigns? By agreeing with it as a campaign slogan, aren't you agreeing with evil tyrants?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 1, 2012 2:04 p.m.

    Deep Space 9, Ut
    …, if anything, liberalism is a learned ideology.

    To "A1994" Obama's new theme is more interesting when you look at the history of using the word "Forward" as part of a political movement. Karl Marx, Engels and Mikhail Bakunin created a commuist magazine titled "Forward".


    Yes – I suppose Liberalism is a learned ideology.
    Jesus taught it.
    As opposed to the Dog-eat-dot, Law of the Jungle world Conservatives cling to.

    And you associate Karl Marx, Communism and the Nazis to the word “Forward” as being evil?
    Where did you hear that? Don’t tell me – Glenn Beck.
    Therefore; Eternal Progression, this great cause moving forward, and overcome all things as we press forward on our journey of mortality…. As you move forward in patience and in faith, ...and the fortitude that enable us to press forward with cheerfulness through physical limitations and spiritual...
    Forward Pressing Forward….etc.

    Forward is not evil RedShirt… absurd.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    May 1, 2012 1:41 p.m.

    Red Shirt..once again..I said Mitts plan was for a managed bankruptcy without government money..meaning a managed bankruptcy with private money..that was impossible. A managed bankruptcy takes someones money.

    Also I said reality not life has a liberal bias. That's why America has become more liberal (SS, medicare, civil rights, welfare saftey net work)over time. It has to there is no other choice if it wants to exsist and flourish.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 1, 2012 12:39 p.m.

    To "pragmatistferlife" the article has a liberal bias because the writer has a liberal bias. Life does not have a liberal bias, if anything, liberalism is a learned ideology.

    Just ask any kid if they will do some hard work so that another able bodied kid can just sit around and play.

    Also FYI, after receiving government money GM did go through a managed bankruptcy.

    To "A1994" Obama's new theme is more interesting when you look at the history of using the word "Forward" as part of a political movement. Karl Marx, Engels and Mikhail Bakunin created a commuist magazine titled "Forward". In NAZI Germany they had a march for the Hitler Youth titled "Forward, Forward". Vladimir Lenin had a publication titled "Forward". The socialists in Germany have a newspaper titled "Forward" which has had such notable writers as Friedrich Engels and Leon Trotsky contributing to it.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    May 1, 2012 11:49 a.m.

    Romney supporters who receive most of their news from spin-meisters have a hard time dealing with facts when laid out in plain english before them, and seem to, when cornered by the truth, resort to attacking the messenger as being liberally bias. One thing this newspaper isn't is "Liberally Bias."

    When I used to listen to one of the spinmeisters, they would alway hang up or shout down someone with the facts as having it backward or liberal liars, but never address the facts, this is one of the reasons I couldn't listen, I was interested in the truth, and it was avoided more than confronted.

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    May 1, 2012 10:52 a.m.

    That is an interesting, and very accurate, assessment of the positions of both candidates. It sets forth both strengths and lackings, successes and failures, and is neither biased nor propaganda for either side.

    I know that proponents on both sides of the election would like to see their candidate shown as being on the side of the angels and the opponent shown as being akin to Beelzebub, but that is neither real nor realistic.

    Whoever prepared this assessment did an excellent job.

  • RAB Bountiful, UT
    May 1, 2012 9:24 a.m.

    I read about 3 of the issues and could not force myself to read any more. I don't know why anyone publishes such slanted liberal propaganda like this. Conservatives see right through it and harden their resolve to fight it. Liberals just blissfuly feed off it. It changes no one'sind.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    May 1, 2012 9:16 a.m.

    tweedle dee and tweedle dum! Is there any person out here in la la land that believes that either political party represents the values of constitutional government and a God fearing citizenry?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    May 1, 2012 7:49 a.m.

    If someone thinks this article is biased in favor of Obama, I would suggest that it is only because reality has a liberal bias. The article seems to do a good job of holding both candidates accountable for not just present but past positions on issues. It also holds the President accountable for his actiions even if that includes 8% unemployment within the confines of an economy that ceased to be in a recession six months after his inaguration, and has posititve growth since.

    I've said it many times before and will continue to say it reality is not Mitts friend. Just yesterday his campaign tried to take credit for the saving of general motors (Mitts plan managed bankruptcy without government money..impossible). Then Mitt later in the day said flipptanly that of course he would have given the order to get Bin Laden..forgetting he specifically said Obama was wrong in considering action inside Pakhistan without notifying Pakhistan first.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    May 1, 2012 7:26 a.m.

    I do want to say I am not just an "Obama Puppet". Yes, I am leaning toward him in re-election, but there is a long time between now and November, and I am willing to be open minded.

    What I don't like is either side casting their "opponent" in absurd terms. Obama is no more all evil than Romney is all Saint. Both have issues that I struggle with. When Romney ran in 2008, I was excited about the possibility of a fellow LDS person hold the highest office in the land. I also appreciated his moderated views - I thought it showed he actually had his own mind and was not just a shell for a party. But then he twisted and turned, flipped and flopped, and it started to look like he was just bending to appease what was popular.

    Obama, I think does strike a balance. He is hardly anti-military or guns, like many want to believe. He hasn't been week on Terrorism as promised by our former VP. He hasn't driven the dollar to being worthless, nor has gold gone to 4,000 as promised by Beck. Obama perfect though - hardly.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    May 1, 2012 6:07 a.m.

    Mick, you are being silly here. If Solyndra is so shocking to you, you had better review the fact that over 30 percent of the companies Romney backed, failed. If Obama's one investment disqualifies him, well then please apply the same standard to Mit.

    I do agree that placing the blame solelly on Bush is wrong. It was decades of bad policy that resulted in the collapse. And to be really clear, the housing market didn't come to its knees because demand for housing went away, rather, it was the collapse in lending that killed the housing market. A deeply unregulated financial industry created a home loan pyramid scheme that ultimately failed, knocking all consumer lending out of control. It was the lack of enforced regulation that was the catalyst. Bush was just the unfortunate chap to have the first domino fall during his Presidency.

    Also blaming Obama for spending the money to save the economy is a bit far fetched as well. Even a tea party republican would not have been able to sit idly by and fiddle as the financial markets burned. What was done was because of need, not desire.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 1, 2012 12:15 a.m.

    Stone cold fact: Cold Stone is delicious. (couldn't resist)

    Solyndra is so minor in the scheme of things. Goodness, do you go after Bain because a company Romney took over failed? By the way Romney wants to cut taxes by 20% and raise defense spending, how do you think he's going to balance the budget or get anywhere close? (There's a reason he doesn't show his math on it and even this guide shows his cuts are vaguely defined).

    That 47th ranking is kinda relative. Consider this, Massachusetts has one of the lowest rates of population growth in the nation. So the need for jobs is slower than a state like Utah with the highest birth rate (and as Huntsman noted #1 in job creation). So it'd be useful to have these numbers in context. For instance, if Romney inherited a low unemployment rate it probably wasn't going to drop much (I don't know what it was when he got in or left and how that compares to national average during that span).

  • Mick Murray, Utah
    April 30, 2012 10:24 p.m.


    Stone cold fact; We were never in a depression.

    Stone cold fact; 4 years of trillion dollar defeceits.

    Stone cold fact; Obama care will be found unconstitutional.

    Stone cold fact; Fast and furious.

    Stone cold fact; SOLYNDRA.

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    April 30, 2012 9:10 p.m.


    "it was Bush's fault for the Depression. Stone cold fact."

    No, it was the collapse of the housing market. Both parties share blame in that.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    April 30, 2012 9:08 p.m.

    When it is set out like this, my vote has to go to Obama.

  • williary Kearns, UT
    April 30, 2012 7:44 p.m.

    @Riverton Cougar

    Of course it sounds like mocking when anyone actually sits down and lays out the monumental swings on important positions that Mitt has had the last decade.

    Which of these accomplishments is more significant:

    Pulling the country out of a Depression


    Running on your business smarts and economic ability while you led Massachusettes to the 47th strongest job growth state during your time as Governor

    PS, it was Bush's fault for the Depression. Stone cold fact.

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    April 30, 2012 7:39 p.m.

    I love Obama's new campaign slogan: "Forward!" To where? More deficit spending? More 8% unemployment. More tax policy based on Obama's definition of fairness, rather than based on paying for the government?

    I'd just like someone to explain how the next four years are going to be better than the past four. Will it still be Bush's fault if the economy isn't on track in 2016? What, specifically, is Obama going to do to get things moving? Or is this the new normal?

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    April 30, 2012 7:26 p.m.

    Of course williary likes it. It's designed to make Obama's accomplishments seem significant and his failures out of his control (Bush's fault), while it mocks Romney's stances on many issues. That's what I mean by having a voter guide untainted with bias. This doesn't truly reflect the issues. It's almost a "Why you should vote for Obama" guide, courtesy of the media (go figure).

  • williary Kearns, UT
    April 30, 2012 5:10 p.m.

    I wish comparisons like this were required viewing before everyone voted. It's amazing where people really stand when they learn what their candidate really stands for.

    And can someone get a copy of this list to Mitt ASAP? I know by the time it's in his hands, he'll have changed his position on half the items again, but this might be a good way for him to understand what he stands for, or did stand for, or perhaps still stands for, or doesn't stand for anymore.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    April 30, 2012 4:29 p.m.

    It would be nice if they had a guide that wasn't tainted with bias.