On the other hand, stuff like the bailouts, TARP, and the crap-ton of stimulus spending...
I just want to have a pause here.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was the big stimulus package, passed by the Obama administration, about a month after his inauguration, with a pricetag of $787 billion.
Prior to that, there was the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, which was essentially a pre-bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and came with a $152 billion pricetag. Later that year, there was the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, which came with a $300 billion pricetag and placed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae under government management. Still in 2008, there was the Trouble Asset Relief Program, which was a blanket authorization for the executive branch to spend up to $700 billion in bailing out troubled businesses, and this was the source of funding for the bank and auto bailouts. These were all three signed into law, without any threat of veto, by President Bush.
Funny factoid: The Obama administration would later sign into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, which reduced the TARP authorization from its original $700 billion to $475 billion.
If we're just totting up spending figures for bailouts and stimulus, that means that the conservative Bush administration authorized $1.15 trillion in such spending, while Obama racked up $787 billion, less $225 billion for what he deauthorized from TARP, leaving $562 billion.
Of course, Romney was in no place to vote or have any influence on the signing of these bailout/stimulus packages (and rhetoric is easy, when you aren't actually making policy), but Paul Ryan was. Where's he stand?
Economic Stimulus Act of 2008: Yea
Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008: No
Troubled Asset Relief Program: Yea (as amended by Senate)
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: No
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act: No
Make of that what you will.
Opposing the bailouts also begs the question about whether or not you think the nation's economy would be better off, had the automotive industry and banking sector been allowed to collapse. What would have been gained by allowing these truly massive businesses to fail, instead of injecting them with capital and restoring regulations (particularly with the banks), previously dismantled, necessary to prevent such catastrophic failure from recurring?
I'll add these questions to the other two that you didn't address, quoted below, for convenient reference:
To the point of the thread, was it the choice of Paul Ryan as Romney's VP candidate that made you make that decision, or had you already made your mind up to vote for Romney, regardless? In either case, do you think that Paul Ryan was a sound choice, given other possible running mates, who could have given Romney an edge in key swing states and given that some of Paul Ryan's stated positions will turn off, not just voters in some of those states, but entire voting blocks, across the nation?
Moving on...
Various states all had heavy coverage mandates, which will drive up the cost of insurance since companies will charge for whatever they're covering.
I'm going to have to ask you to be more specific, when you say, "various states." The only health insurance mandates that I've found in US history include Romney's healthcare bill for Massachusetts and a federal law dating back to 1798, when the Adams administration mandated that owners of US-flagged merchant vessels provide a form of proto-health insurance for their sailors. Now, you can't say much of anything about the 1798 mandate's effect on health insurance premiums, since health insurance wasn't a thing in 1798. I'd be interested if that leaves you with more examples than just Massachusetts, or if you want to cite examples of other countries with universal healthcare systems and longer life expectancies.
You, sir, win 2 internets.
I will accept my two internets in the form of DARPA Net and Ted Stevens' series of tubes.
