US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

[Warren Dew]

Article in the Grauniad today opining that the Republicans are deliberately damaging the US economy as they just want to get rid of Obama more than anything else and are prepared to do anything to achieve that. Conspiracy or truth?

Not generally true.

The Republicans in the house of representatives have a majority, so they want the economy to be good so they can be reelected. They've been passing all sorts of good economic measures which as Coito points out get bottled up in the senate.

That said, it sure looks like both sides on the senate are deliberately damaging the U.S. economy by refusing to pass Republican jobs bills from the house and refusing to pass a budget. It's barely possible that the senate Republicans are doing that to keep things bad so they can gain a majority they don't currently have. But that doesn't explain why the Democrats, with a majority, are being equally obstructive. Possibly the Democrats are trying to make congress look bad to help Obama's strategy of running against congress, thinking that the electorate will blame only the Republican parts of congress.

[Ian]

Coito - The Democrats who gripe about wanting to leave the country if the other guy gets elected are the occasional kooks you hear from every four years. The Republicans who gripe about socialism and death panels and the government coming to take your guns are on television and radio (and bumper stickers) every frickin' day. Not to mention similar rhetoric coming from many who've been elected to Congress.

What exactly are the Democrats so afraid of? Well, there's the idea of Medicare being replaced by Vouchercare, which isn't exactly a case of paranoia considering that's literally what many Republican leaders have been calling for. There's the idea of privatizing (at least partially) Social Security: also no case of paranoia considering Bush already tried it in 2005 and the GOP clearly still would like to see this (whether or not these might be good things is another matter, but the point is that Democrats aren't entertaining their worst fantasies when they talk about what the GOP wants.) There's the fear of Citizens United and turning into an even worse plutocracy than we are now, though as I've pointed out elsewhere this is an attitude held by a lot of people on both sides; the recent Wisconsin race did little to calm those fears. Is criticism of the Arizona immigration policy so unjustified and unbased on reality? What's wrong with criticizing oil companies, considering that criticizm can be quantified by pointing out how (unnecessarily) well subsidized they are? As for media figures in the national discourse, I'll put a group of left-leaning ones up aginst those on the right in the fear-o-meter contest any day of the week. Rachel Maddow may be a smart-aleck, but try comparing what she says to Sean Hannity.

Republicans, meanwhile, don't just criticize Democratic policies for what they are. They're all about the slippery slope. This is the key difference: the slippery slope, the secret intentions. How many times a day do you suppose the word socialism is mentioned on Fox News? I shudder to think. This, despite none of the current administration's policies looking even remotely like socialism. Obama's the most radical left-wing President in US history according to apparently every single GOP Presidential candidate... even though his record to date has probably put him to the right of Nixon, at least in economic terms. I've heard a good amount of paranoia about gun control ever since the 2008 election, and yet I don't know that Obama has mentioned a single thing about gun control in all this time. Republican campaign dogma is not just to criticize the other guys and their policies, but to make you afraid of what is not there at all.

(BTW - I haven't once claimed that the GOP is deliberately trying to sabotage the economy in order to win the White House this fall. The Guardian tends to be a lot of hot air. I would point out, however, that when the latest Congress came into session, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnel proclaimed that their first priority would be to make sure Obama is defeated in 2012. Not a proclamation to serve the American people, or to strengthen the economy, or to ease partisan gridlock, but to defeat Obama. No doubt the other stuff is on his mind as well, but there's the priority, right from his mouth.)

[Warren Dew]

I would point out, however, that when the latest Congress came into session, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnel proclaimed that their first priority would be to make sure Obama is defeated in 2012.

Sometimes I think that's why McConnell keeps rolling over on Obama's efforts to maintain unemployment insurance out to two years: it helps keep the unemployment numbers high and thus hurts Obama's reelection chances.

[Coito ergo sum]

What exactly are the Democrats so afraid of? Well, there's the idea of Medicare being replaced by Vouchercare, which isn't exactly a case of paranoia considering that's literally what many Republican leaders have been calling for.

They don't advertise "we're against the Republican voucher proposal..." they say "they're going to throw granny off the cliff..." and such things... to scare people into thinking that the Republicans are out to kill the old people....like that lady in the commercial, shaking, and saying "Mitt Romney made me sick..."

There's the idea of privatizing (at least partially) Social Security: also no case of paranoia considering Bush already tried it in 2005 and the GOP clearly still would like to see this (whether or not these might be good things is another matter,

Again, some Democrats have proposed reforming social security using a variety of means....

The "fear" is not in the opposition to a particular proposal. The Fear Mongering comes when they say shit like "the Republicans want to gamble away your social security in the stock market" http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/democr ... ity-again/ and http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... g-social-/ And, the Democrats blatantly lie about what the Republican proposals are -- to scare the shit out of people into thinking that they will be stripped of their social security.

but the point is that Democrats aren't entertaining their worst fantasies when they talk about what the GOP wants.)

Of course they are. The Republicans don't want to destroy the economy or take away senior citizens social security. Even the Ryan plan doesn't effect anyone over 55, and only gives people the "option" to have personal accounts as part of their social security, and those accounts would be managed by the Social Security Administration, not by any private brokerages. But, the Democrats say the Republicans want to take away people's retirement and throw granny off a cliff. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnnaeOHXFyI (regarding Medicare, but it's the same old song and dance). Not fear mongering?

There's the fear of Citizens United and turning into an even worse plutocracy than we are now, though as I've pointed out elsewhere this is an attitude held by a lot of people on both sides; the recent Wisconsin race did little to calm those fears.

They don't just oppose Citizens United -- they misrepresent the holding, and claim it does what it doesn't do, in order to scare people into thinking that the SCOTUS just made it impossible for the government to regulate corporate campaign contributions. They don't care what the holding really was. They only care how they can twist it.

Is criticism of the Arizona immigration policy so unjustified and unbased on reality?

No, I'm not talking about "criticism." Both sides engage in "criticism." What the Democrats do on this issue is also engage in fear mongering by claiming that "brown people" are going to be rounded up and arrested and that it's going to be Nazi Germany. That's what the fear mongering is.

What's wrong with criticizing oil companies,[ considering that criticizm can be quantified by pointing out how (unnecessarily) well subsidized they are?

They aren't subsidized. The oil and gas industries don’t get tax credits (which reduce taxes dollar for dollar) or grants/subsidies from the government. They get tax deductions for business investments that will generate tax revenues in the future. Unlike the case of credits or grants/subsidies, the government will still be paid the full amount of tax owed on their operations. Which means the taxpayer is getting every dollar that’s owed. The energy subsidies go mostly to ethenol, solar and wind. http://energytomorrow.org/blog/fact-che ... #/type/all

But, again, it's not the "criticism" of it that bothers me. Oppose the tax deductions or whatever all you want. But, what they do beyond that is fear monger about "Big Oil" and how it is controlling or destroying America, etc. And, of course, they lie about the nature of the "subsidies" to begin with.

As for media figures in the national discourse, I'll put a group of left-leaning ones up aginst those on the right in the fear-o-meter contest any day of the week. Rachel Maddow may be a smart-aleck, but try comparing what she says to Sean Hannity.

Hannity and Schultz go good together.

Maddow is just a shill. She and the rest of MSNBC don't even pretend. They come right out and say that they are shilling for the Democratic Party.

Republicans, meanwhile, don't just criticize Democratic policies for what they are.

Democrats don't just criticize Republican policies for what they are either. If you can't see that, you're not watching.

They're all about the slippery slope. This is the key difference: the slippery slope, the secret intentions. How many times a day do you suppose the word socialism is mentioned on Fox News? I shudder to think. This, despite none of the current administration's policies looking even remotely like socialism. Obama's the most radical left-wing President in US history according to apparently every single GOP Presidential candidate... even though his record to date has probably put him to the right of Nixon, at least in economic terms.

LOL - o.k., I'll bite -- List the right-of-Nixon policies that Obama has advanced so far.

Secret intentions? Don't you see the Democrats are all about accusing the Republicans of secret and nefarious intentions -- the Arizona immigration law was really about race. It was a racist law, despite not being worded in any way racist and mimicking/enforcing federal law. The secret intention was to round up Mexicans, even legal ones. The same secret intention about medicare and social security -- don't believe what the Republicans say, they're going to take your retirement money and throw granny off a cliff.

(BTW - I haven't once claimed that the GOP is deliberately trying to sabotage the economy in order to win the White House this fall. The Guardian tends to be a lot of hot air. I would point out, however, that when the latest Congress came into session, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnel proclaimed that their first priority would be to make sure Obama is defeated in 2012. Not a proclamation to serve the American people, or to strengthen the economy, or to ease partisan gridlock, but to defeat Obama. No doubt the other stuff is on his mind as well, but there's the priority, right from his mouth.)

I know you haven't suggested it. We were, however, analyzing the nonsense in the Gardian article.

If the policies advanced by the President are policies you oppose, then of course you want to get the guy voted out. And, easing partisan gridlock is not in and of itself a virtue. It's only if the policies that come out of that easing of gridlock are good. And, if you like, I'll pull out some doozy quotes from Democrats about Bush. Do you not recall any? Do they illustrate the priorities of Democrats?

[Coito ergo sum]

I would point out, however, that when the latest Congress came into session, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnel proclaimed that their first priority would be to make sure Obama is defeated in 2012.

Sometimes I think that's why McConnell keeps rolling over on Obama's efforts to maintain unemployment insurance out to two years: it helps keep the unemployment numbers high and thus hurts Obama's reelection chances.

But, Pelosi said that unemployment compensation is the best "stimulus" the economy can get. She learned that in her home economics classes at Vassar.

[Coito ergo sum]

I would point out, however, that when the latest Congress came into session, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnel proclaimed that their first priority would be to make sure Obama is defeated in 2012.

Sometimes I think that's why McConnell keeps rolling over on Obama's efforts to maintain unemployment insurance out to two years: it helps keep the unemployment numbers high and thus hurts Obama's reelection chances.

But, Pelosi said that unemployment compensation is the best "stimulus" the economy can get. She learned that in her home economics classes at Vassar.

[Coito ergo sum]

Only one poll, and generally reported as "leaning right", but if this is the trend could Wisconsin change the analysis? http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... _president

What happens if Mitt takes Wisconsin?

[Warren Dew]

Obama may be starting to lose support among blacks:

http://www.businessinsider.com/barack-o ... ina-2012-6

Obama Is Losing A Stunning Amount Of African-American Support In North Carolina

President Barack Obama is rapidly losing support among African-American voters in North Carolina, a new poll out today from the Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling shows.

I guess they're starting to figure out that Obama's actual policies are hitting black employment hard.

[Tero]

http://teroreport.blogspot.com/2012/06/ ... ns-of.html

[trdsf]

Romney is pushing his health care plan. Basically it prevents insurers from avoiding their obligations by using the "preexisting conditions" excuse, but otherwise relies on the free market - exactly what's needed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

A free market solution is only a solution if you consider basic health care to be a privilege rather than a human right. In other words, it's really no solution at all, and just a way for companies to cherry-pick the customers who will cost them the least and fob off everyone else on already-overwhelmed public services.

Why not just make Medicare universal? When you both bring to bear the massive purchasing power of the US Government, and take the profit motive out of medical decision-making, then you have something that actually resembles a solution.

That's not true if you think the most efficient means of distributing health care is done via market system. If substandard universal care ends up with worse over all health outcomes then it's hardly better, even if universal. Ultimately you can not (or rather should not) define the standards of comparison by health care coverage, but instead by health outcomes.

Well, we know that satisfaction with Medicare coverage runs higher than satisfaction with private insurance, and by a significant margin. It seems a fair assumption that overall satisfaction with one's plan would be a direct function of accessibility, level of care, and simplicity of use. So Medicare for all still sounds like a win to me.

I don't object to finding a market solution to delivery -- a hospital or clinic that routinely fails to deliver timely and proper care should find itself being squeezed out by providers that can and do.

I do object to profit-making playing any role whatsoever in medical decision-making, and to basic health care being available based not on need, but on ability to pay. It'd be ridiculous of me to expect free cosmetic surgery just because I don't like my chin, for example. Is it not also ridiculous to just expect me to die of a ruptured appendix (for example) just because I'm a temp and don't get offered insurance at anything less than an obscene and literally unaffordable rate, or that if I get it taken care of without coverage that I should be completely ruined financially?

Fundamentally, the question is this: do you expect your medical provider to be a business first and foremost, or a medical provider first and foremost? Relying on the so-called free market means it's a business first and a medical provider second.

I want my provider to be a provider first, at least of medically necessary procedures and services. Let private insurance carry customers after the optional and elective services.

There actually is a middle ground -- the German system, as I understand it, runs on private insurance, but they are not allowed to deny coverage or service: the market is in play, but consumers are protected. It would be an improvement over anything we've had so far (excepting perhaps Medicare).

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Ian]

The Supreme Court will be releasing its ruling on the health care law within two weeks. No matter what is decided, the whole election will be about that for at least a few weeks.

If the law is upheld, Republicans will of course go berserk. Romney will mention his pledge to repeal it in every speech (focusing on the individual mandate, since pretty much everything else in the law remains popular with voters). There will be all the rhetoric we heard before it was passed: that it's unconstitutional, that it'll drive the country bankrupt and the CBO doesn't know what it's talking about, that it's socialism and a Goverment Takeover of HealthcareTM. We might even hear about death panels again. The GOP will see a surge in fundraising. Ironically, as far as the November election goes, this is probably the Obama camp's least-preferred ruling.

Is the entire law is struck down (because the mandate cannot be seperated from the rest of it), the Democrats will go berserk. Expect rhetoric about the Supreme Court overstepping its bounds, discussions about how conservative the court has become, estimates about how many millions of people will lose (or rather not gain) health care, examples about how constitutional the law really was (ex: Congress once mandated all able men to purchase a firearm from private manufacturers) and about how Republicans are merely the party of No, as they still have no realistic plan to replace it (http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... le-for-gop). Ironically, as far as the November election goes, this is probably the Romney camp's least preferred ruling since it will enrage the Democrats and boost their fundraising, and it also negates one of his biggest talking points: "Vote for me and I'll repeal Obamacare".

If only the individual mandate portion is struck down but the rest of the law is upheld, the insurance companies will go berserk. They'll point out (correctly) that being obligated to accept all customers who want insurance, even the very sick ones, without having the financial cushion of tens of millions of normally healthy people who don't want to buy insurance until they get sick will destroy the industry.

So no matter what happens there will be a lot of people going berserk, and the national discussion will go back up towards hysterical levels. As for me, as important as this issue is for the country, health care laws are at best a second-tier interest, personally. So I'll probably try to ignore the news for several weeks.

[Warren Dew]

Well, we know that satisfaction with Medicare coverage runs higher than satisfaction with private insurance, and by a significant margin. It seems a fair assumption that overall satisfaction with one's plan would be a direct function of accessibility, level of care, and simplicity of use. So Medicare for all still sounds like a win to me.

Why wouldn't people be happy with a system where the taxpayer foots $10,000+ of health care benefits per year? Increase taxes by $10,000 a year per person to fund that for everyone, though - $40,000 per year for a family of four - and people aren't going to be so happy.

The truth is, before Obamacare, most people were fine with their own health care:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06 ... -coverage/

Even most people who lacked insurance were happy with their health care.

[Warren Dew]

If the law is upheld, Republicans will of course go berserk. Romney will mention his pledge to repeal it in every speech (focusing on the individual mandate, since pretty much everything else in the law remains popular with voters).

Favoring corporate hospitals by preventing physician owned hospitals and clinics from expanding is popular with voters? I don't think so. Rather, that, like almost everything else in the law aside from the individual mandate, most voters don't know about, so they're not complaining about it yet.

Is the entire law is struck down (because the mandate cannot be seperated from the rest of it), the Democrats will go berserk. Expect rhetoric about the Supreme Court overstepping its bounds, discussions about how conservative the court has become, estimates about how many millions of people will lose (or rather not gain) health care, examples about how constitutional the law really was (ex: Congress once mandated all able men to purchase a firearm from private manufacturers) and about how Republicans are merely the party of No, as they still have no realistic plan to replace it (http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... le-for-gop). Ironically, as far as the November election goes, this is probably the Romney camp's least preferred ruling since it will enrage the Democrats and boost their fundraising, and it also negates one of his biggest talking points: "Vote for me and I'll repeal Obamacare".

Romney actually does have an excellent health care plan for the federal government. If the press is willing to cover his plan fairly, this situation would work to his advantage.

If only the individual mandate portion is struck down but the rest of the law is upheld, the insurance companies will go berserk. They'll point out (correctly) that being obligated to accept all customers who want insurance, even the very sick ones, without having the financial cushion of tens of millions of normally healthy people who don't want to buy insurance until they get sick will destroy the industry.

So no matter what happens there will be a lot of people going berserk, and the national discussion will go back up towards hysterical levels. As for me, as important as this issue is for the country, health care laws are at best a second-tier interest, personally. So I'll probably try to ignore the news for several weeks.

I don't think the health insurance companies would battle it in the press, so this might not raise hysteria levels. Rather, they'll do some heavy duty politicking behind the scenes. That will probably result in some high profile legislation, though.

[Tyrannical]

Romney Care, though I disagree with it was at least constitutional. There is no legal authority to Federalize health care.