The 2012 US Election

[Frelga]

Well, yes, I think of myself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, too. I just don't think "fiscally conservative" means what Romney thinks it means.

[River]

Oh I just shamelessly enjoy my cats. It's possible to do that without slamming dogs (I enjoy dogs too, but cats are more suited to my lifestyle).

[anthriel]

As will shock no one, I enjoy both dogs and cats, fairly equally. Always in the middle.

[WampusCat]

At least dogs and cats don't make robocalls or attack ads.

[Maria]

I have cats, I have dogs. Each has their good points and bad points. I love them all, and they tend to get along with each other pretty well, too.

[axordil]

Disappointment is natural and acceptable, if it's grounded in reality. Much of the stuff Eru's talking about isn't. That's the price the GOP pays for embracing its crazies, unlike the Democrats, who have been extremely circumspect with theirs for a long time.

That, and the fact there is simply more crazy on the right than the left in this country at this time. That's quantity and quality. People may have called W a fascist or even a Nazi in moments of anger, but they didn't go around looking for pictures of him dressed in a Waffen SS uniform. There's still a cottage *industry* of books and websites based around trying to prove Obama isn't really American. The GOP elite may publicly poo-poo such ravings--usually--but they don't exactly chase them away. There are GOP members of Congress who say this sort of crap who just got re-elected with their party's full support.

It doesn't have to be that way. I voted for GOP candidates now and again, back when there were moderates to vote for I liked. They're all but gone now. Instead of a Jack Danforth in Missouri, we were presented with Todd Akin, of "legitimate rape" fame. I hope no one thinks for an instant the GOP didn't know his position on the subject. The reason he lost party backing wasn't because of what he believe, but because he said it out loud.

You want me to respect the GOP again? To bother looking at candidates with (Rep.) following their names? Take the party back from the crazies.

[Holbytla]

So despite governing under some of the worst economic circumstances most Americans have ever seen, despite having half of Congress striving for four years to limit him to one term, despite facing prejudice for being black, despite laws that allow corporations and billionaires to spend as much money as they want trying to defeat him, and despite being all over the lightning-rod healthcare issue that was too hot even for Clinton, Obama wins another term. Whether you like him or not, it's hard to deny the man has an extraordinary record of accomplishment.

He has accomplished quite a bit, but like anything else there is always another side of the coin.

Sure health care reform was a monumental piece of legislation, but some of the provisions in it left some victims in its wake. It is quite possible that I will be one of the 3-6 million people that will lose health care coverage in the coming months. That amounts to about a 10k/year cut in pay.

Sure ending one war and winding down another are positive things. Yet when you continually hear information about what is actually happening on the ground and the administration's position, you can be left somewhat disenfranchised by the fact that we are still wasting millions of dollars and too many lives over there.

Afghanistan security forces report raises fears over long-term stability

I can see how people support him. I can also see room for improvement and a wart or two here and there. There are lots of reasons why he beat Romney by only a couple million votes, but it isn't all hysterics, predjudice and backwards thinking.

Nor is the sky going to fall because he was reelected.

The GOP's base is disappearing, and they are failing to change with the times. The makeup of the country is changing and they need to figure out who they represent, and how to modernize their role before we are left with a one party system (which is about the only thing worse than the broken system we have now).

[Holbytla]

I wonder how elections would fare if each state used the Congressional District Method, like Maine and Nebraska do?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[It is quite possible that I will be one of the 3-6 million people that will lose health care coverage in the coming months. That amounts to about a 10k/year cut in pay.

What provision of the Affordable Care Act is threatening you or these other 3-6 million people with losing your health care coverage?

[Holbytla]

[It is quite possible that I will be one of the 3-6 million people that will lose health care coverage in the coming months. That amounts to about a 10k/year cut in pay.

What provision of the Affordable Care Act is threatening you or these other 3-6 million people with losing your health care coverage?

Companies with 50 or more employees can opt to pay a fine or fee, rather than offer insurance to employees. The CBO is the one that has the estimate between 3-6 million people with as many as 20 million being affected.

[Túrin Turambar]

I dunno Frelga.. I'm watching comments on Facebook, comments telling people things like start saving can goods and stocking up on ammo, we still have some republican control so good luck passing any socialist agenda, people saying they're physically sick, etc.. it's sad and disturbing.

While I am not surprised by the election results, and I am not personally fearful for the future, I find comments like this to be puzzling. Okay, so the saving can goods and ammo thing is a bit over the top, but I can totally understand people (perhaps the majority of the people who voted yesterday) to be unhappy with the results of this election. And glad that there is a balance of power in the government, so that their viewpoints are not overrun with decisions they do not support.

I had meant to say last nite, in response that Eru's comment, that that response sounded very similar to the comments I heard from the left in 04.

Honestly, in the three Presidential elections that I have now followed I have noticed a bit of an undercurrent of mania and hysteria in American politics generally. It may be that Presidential elections in the U.S. are, quite literally, more important than those in other (smaller) western countries, or it might simply be a product of the internet age. But based on those three elections, it seems that, coming in, everyone talks about how the election is 'the most important in living memory', how it represented a last chance to keep the country from going over the cliff, and, if their side lost, how it represented a repudiation of America's founding values and the end of the country as we know it. I was caught up by it in 2004, but I'm now more or less reconciled to it.

[The Watcher]

I am going to pass onto you all recent conversations with my best friend. In the last (non-Presidential) election, that of 2010, I was with her and she had yet to vote. She asked who was on the ticket, including her local candidates, and I passed on the federal, state, and county offices that I knew were up for the vote, but told her I did not know about the local offices. Her reply to me: "I guess it really doesn't matter, because I always vote straight Republican anyway." That response simply floored me!!

Texting her last night and this morning, I asked about the mood since she had some GOP friends and family over to watch the election returns. I teased her and asked her if her husband or sisters would ever talk to me again. Her reply - "I wouldn't talk politics to any of them right now." (I don't.) "It is not us that will feel the effects but our kids and that has me outraged." But, and this is an important "but", she and her husband and sisters and their spouses only get their political news from FOX News.

My point - how can anyone be so outraged and upset when they are relying on a heavily biased source for making rather important decisions? These persons never see the forest, just select trees. Anything that has words like democrat, liberal, social, publicly mandated, or universal seems to automatically imply communist or godless or supporting deadbeats. My friend easily fits into the 47% that receive government assistance or benefits. Her kids have student loans, her husband retired early, and they are the caregivers for a young woman with Down Syndrome and receive payments from the state for that.

I love my best friend dearly, and she is a smart hard working person who has been hit extremely hard over the past 5 years, but she has blinders on when it comes to politics and the world at large. Sigh

[Elentári]

Since stories and reactions are being shared, this was emailed to my mother, by the wife of a cousin of ours, who runs his own business in Colorado, last week:

Yes we are Romney fans. Our preacher in church this morning reminded us not to be upset about the results no matter how this election turns. I spoke with our Pastor after the service and told him I was reminded that God wants us to love each other and this President is dividing us and says it over and over. Pastor agreed with me. XXX, you would not believe the lies.


X and I vote in Colorado and we are swing state. Very important. X has raised a tremendous amount of money for Romney and here we are both official poll watchers on Tuesday. It will be a long day. Pray for us.


It's a vicious circle. The pres hates business, yet they employ the people. No poor man ever gave people jobs.

Many of X's friends from Wall street have switched to Romney. Only so much a man can take that works long days and spends time away from his family to be told he is rotten because he has succeeded.

X's Texan brother on the other hand, told us that although X and their mother would be very upset if Obama remained President, as far as he was concerned, "it is the price of living in a democracy....majority rules"

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[It is quite possible that I will be one of the 3-6 million people that will lose health care coverage in the coming months. That amounts to about a 10k/year cut in pay.

What provision of the Affordable Care Act is threatening you or these other 3-6 million people with losing your health care coverage?

Companies with 50 or more employees can opt to pay a fine or fee, rather than offer insurance to employees. The CBO is the one that has the estimate between 3-6 million people with as many as 20 million being affected.

That's not the law threatening people with losing health care coverage, that's businesses deciding not to offer coverage. If anything, the law makes that less likely to happen, since without the law there is no detriment to a company deciding not to provide coverage.

[yovargas]

I've often said I'm a libertarian-leaning guy, but this article from Slate points out one of the several reasons why the Republican party keeps freaking me out:

Cheer up. The guy we just re-elected is a moderate Republican.

Their point, essentially - the right is insisting on painting Obama as some wildly leftist extremist despite a bunch of policies that, not that long ago, would have been considered moderate-to-centrist-to-right. I find this - attacking moderates as extremists - quite disturbing. Because it is an attitude that itself indicates extremism. I say that as a guy who is very uncomfortable with the health care's mandate, just about the only particularly leftist thing Obama did that I know of. The article points out, not that long ago, you could find Republicans/conservatives who were themselves suggesting such a mandate. But today it's called extremism and ever-dreaded "socialism"?

[Holbytla]

What provision of the Affordable Care Act is threatening you or these other 3-6 million people with losing your health care coverage?

Companies with 50 or more employees can opt to pay a fine or fee, rather than offer insurance to employees. The CBO is the one that has the estimate between 3-6 million people with as many as 20 million being affected.

That's not the law threatening people with losing health care coverage, that's businesses deciding not to offer coverage. If anything, the law makes that less likely to happen, since without the law there is no detriment to a company deciding not to provide coverage.

I guess it depends on where you live. I don't know all the ins and outs of Mass health regulations or the tax incentives associated with it, but apparently the Affordable Health Care Act has provided my company with a way to save some pennies, that it didn't have previously.

It isn't etched in stone for me, but I would bet if they can save anything, they will opt to pay the fine. Which apparently was not an option for them prior to Obamacare. We'll see.

[JewelSong]

I would bet if they can save anything, they will opt to pay the fine. Which apparently was not an option for them prior to Obamacare. We'll see.

I don't think there previously was any kind of requirement that companies HAD to provide health coverage for their employees. Most companies do, because it makes good business sense to treat your employees well and keep them healthy. But as far as I know, no company HAD to provide it if they didn't want to.

Now they DO have to provide it. Or pay a fine. My guess is that most will continue to provide it, as they have been doing.

[Holbytla]

Had to? No I don't think so, but again I am not sure.
Will it be more profitable for them to do so now? I don't know.
This is a corporation with $19 billion in assets, teams of lawyers, CPAs and number crunchers. I'm sure they know the more profitable route. I don't have all of the answers, nor how or if tax incentives still play a role, nor whether the fine is a more appealing option, nor if there are tax incentives at all anymore.

I know that a lot of legislation that is enacted, has unforeseen loopholes that are exploited somewhere down the road by someone who has figured out a way to save a buck. There is no doubt in my mind that this company is seriously weighing their options and paying the 2 or 3 thousand dollar fine per employee, which was not a viable option before Obamacare.

If you want to sift through the CBO website, they have information there.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Holby, with all due respect, you are repeating false information stated by Romney as if it is the truth.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... on-americ/

[Holbytla]

I'm not repeating anything from Romney.
I know what I know at work, and I know what I've read from the CBO.

And from your own link;

The CBO study was undertaken to estimate the impact of the health care law on the number of people obtaining health care coverage from their employer. CBO came up with a "baseline" estimate -- its best guess. CBO settled on a range of 3 million to 5 million fewer non-elderly people obtaining coverage through their employer each year from 2019 through 2022 than would have been the case before the law was passed. Including those with individually purchased policies means a decline of an additional 1 million to 3 million Americans.

That’s nothing to sneeze at, but it’s quite a bit lower than 20 million. So where did 20 million come from?

CBO supplemented its "baseline" estimate with four alternative, and wildly divergent, estimates. One resulted in a net gain of 3 million people with employer-sponsored insurance. The other scenarios resulted in a decline of 10 million, a decline of 12 million, and -- here it is -- a decline of 20 million.

Romney may have "cherry picked" the numbers to bolster his argument, but I doubt the CBO is. There will be companies opting to pay the penalty instead of offering insurance.