Next best thing for the US (and perhaps the world)

[Ithildin]

Obama has the upper hand on this. He doesn't need to run for re-election. If nothing gets done about the fiscal cliff problems congress will be blamed and the republican party will most likely loose control on all levels of national government.

"... [T]he 2012 popular vote results are still coming in, but Obama has a slight lead with 60,652,238 to Romney’s 57,810,407." [source]

 

The difference as of this morning when the article was published was 2,841,831 out of a total of 118,462,645 voters, or 2.4% more for President Obama than for Governor Romney (51.2% for the President, 48.8% for the Governor). Since Democrats and Republicans retain control of the Senate and House respectively, it seems likely that 48.8% of the voters were not pinning blame solely upon Congress for the gridlock. For all intents and purposes, the balance between the parties is the same now as it was before the election; by retaining the same President and the same balance between House and Senate, the election rendered our government stagnant. If we do fall off the "fiscal cliff", our entire government is at fault, along with voters who chose to maintain the status quo.

 

Since I hold both Congress and the President responsible for the gridlock, I voted for all challengers, no incumbents.

 

The republican party can't afford to just obstruct legislation for the next 2 years or the Republican party will be finished.

Congressional Democrats and the President are as much to blame for obstructing legislation as the Republicans. For instance, the Senate voted unanimously against the President's 2012 budget (97 to 0) in May last year, and did it again (99 to 0) six months ago with his budget for 2013.

 

I've participated in seven presidential elections, four times voting for Democrats, three times for Republicans.

 

1988 - Michael Dukakis

1992 - Bill Clinton (Ross Perot was my first choice before he dropped out)

1996 - Bob Dole

2000 - George W. Bush

2004 - John Kerry

2008 - Barack Obama

2012 - Mitt Romney

 

Eight years before I could vote, my junior high school held a mock election, and I chose Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan. Needless to say, I've usually ended up voting for the underdog, but that's beside the point. My point is that after every election held during the last 32 years, I've heard the same puerile remark: the [Republican/Democratic] candidate lost, and their party is "finished". I have yet to see it happen - with either party - and will be very surprised if it ever does.

[colourwheel]

The republican party can't afford to just obstruct legislation for the next 2 years or the Republican party will be finished.

Congressional Democrats and the President are as much to blame for obstructing legislation as the Republicans. For instance, the Senate voted unanimously against the President's 2012 budget (97 to 0) in May last year, and did it again (99 to 0) six months ago with his budget for 2013.

 

I will give you the benefit of the doubt but congress can't afford to get nothing done economically with an 8% approval rating. This years election the Republicans lost seats in both the senate and the house. The democrates didn't take control over the House this year but now they have a super majority in the senate. I would say the Democrats have an upper hand this year. If John Boehner doesn't budge on raising taxes on the rich Obama is just going to let the bush tax cuts expire and the wealthly billonaires interests John Boehner is trying to protect is going to be hit the hardest anyways. Everyone will blame congress this time if nothing gets done.

 

Eight years before I could vote, my junior high school held a mock election, and I chose Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan. Needless to say, I've usually ended up voting for the underdog, but that's beside the point. My point is that after every election held during the last 32 years, I've heard the same puerile remark: the [Republican/Democratic] candidate lost, and their party is "finished". I have yet to see it happen - with either party - and will be very surprised if it ever does.

 

This year is different. Look at the demographics of voters this year...

 

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

 

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b291/princesstb/main-qimg-2217fd56a86572b3d67016bf822dc642.jpg

 

For example this year the asian voter is actually a solid demographic and currently growing the fastest every year and the latino voter will just keep growing at an exponential rate too. America is just changing and the republican party just can't keep up anymore as it is.

 

The growing voter population is against the republican establishment by default concidering the ideology the republican party holds so dear. Without major reform to their core beliefs it's actually very possible and very realistic the republican party will die. The evidence shows in the numbers.

 

Just imagine how 2016 presidential election would be with such a diverse population when it is estimated the white voter will be reduced to around 68% or even less...

Edited November 9, 2012 by colourwheel

[Maharg67]

I am Australian so can somebody tell me which party red means and which party blue means.

 

Colourwheel, I think your posts in this topic have been quite informative and otherwise well thought out.

[Tidus44]

The 2012 election exit poll results are not yet posted, but one can do a comparison for previous elections, including 2008, here

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html

 

@Maharg67 - Color scheme is Blue Democrat (Obama), Red Republican (Romney).

[Ithildin]

The democrates didn't take control over the House this year but now they have a super majority in the senate.

A Senate supermajority is 60 seats; currently the Democrats have 53, including both of the Independents. (source)

 

Everyone will blame congress this time if nothing gets done.

Not everyone; some will blame both Congress and the President for their collective hard-headedness, some will blame solely the Congressional Republicans, some the Democrats, and some the President alone, depending upon who's willing to make compromises and who remains obstinate.

 

Without major reform to their core beliefs it's actually very possible and very realistic the republican party will die. The evidence shows in the numbers.

That's been said about both parties depending upon which one lost the most seats in a given election year. Our country's population is aging (source); the exit poll numbers you've posted also reflect votes according to age. There are unreasonable extremists on both sides of the aisle, and extremists alienate more voters than centrists do. Those who cross demographic lines cannot be discounted; I'm not the only one, of course, who chooses candidates based upon criteria besides age, race, and gender.

 

Speaking of gender ...

 

Example if employers had the right to cover or not birthcontrol pills for their employees the average women would have to pay from her own pocket almost $98,000 a year.

I'm wondering how that figure was reached. According to this calculator, the two most expensive methods of birth control have a lifetime cost of approximately $87,403 each (without insurance, assuming from age 12 to menopause, or about 51 according to the source), including a "[d]octor's visit and an annual supply ... every year". Dividing $87,403 by 39 years yields $2,241 per year.

[colourwheel]

The democrates didn't take control over the House this year but now they have a super majority in the senate.

A Senate supermajority is 60 seats; currently the Democrats have 53, including both of the Independents.

 

you are right about supermajority but...

 

Doesn't matter they still gained seats and closer to a super majority. Democrats reguardless control the senate.

 

Everyone will blame congress this time if nothing gets done.

Not everyone; some will blame both Congress and the President for their collective hard-headedness, some will blame solely the Congressional Republicans, some the Democrats, and some the President alone, depending upon who's willing to make compromises and who remains obstinate.

 

The president is a lame duck now. Even if people blame the president not much people can do to take it out on him. So people will blame congress and vote out those who they blame.

 

Without major reform to their core beliefs it's actually very possible and very realistic the republican party will die. The evidence shows in the numbers.

That's been said about both parties depending upon which one lost the most seats in a given election year. Our country's population is aging (source); the exit poll numbers you've posted also reflect votes according to age. There are unreasonable extremists on both sides of the aisle, and extremists alienate more voters than centrists do. Those who cross demographic lines cannot be discounted; I'm not the only one, of course, who chooses candidates based upon criteria besides age, race, and gender.

 

I don't see the voting elder of america growing at an exponential rate to compete with the constantly diversely growing voting populus alone. Also you are assuming that all elders vote which just doesn't add up because what matter is the amount of actual population growth of voters. The easiest way to recuit new voters is college students over population who do not normally vote. it can be argued that a majority of americans are conservative by nature yet a majority of new voters do not identify with the current republican party.

 

Example if employers had the right to cover or not birthcontrol pills for their employees the average women would have to pay from her own pocket almost $98,000 a year.

I'm wondering how that figure was reached. According to this calculator, the two most expensive methods of birth control have a lifetime cost of approximately $87,403 each (without insurance, assuming from age 12 to menopause, or about 51 according to the source), including a "[d]octor's visit and an annual supply ... every year". Dividing $87,403 by 39 years yields $2,241 per year.

 

you are right. I mis-read the data thinking they meant yearly. Reguardless letting employers freedom or not to have their healthcare benifits provide birthcontrol for their employees shouldn't be their decision to begin with. Who should be giving advise for health issues their employer or their doctor?

 

Atleast you Ithildin if you are a republican you seem much smarter than the majority of right-wing wing nuts you see and read in hate media and bias new networks. Maybe you could help influence the republican party to reform their core beliefs because they sure don't listen to people like me. lol

Edited November 9, 2012 by colourwheel

[Ithildin]

Democrats reguardless control the senate.

Yes, Democrats retain control of the Senate, Republicans retain control of the House, and we still have the same President. As I said, for all intents and purposes, the election rendered our government stagnant.

 

The president is a lame duck now. Even if people blame the president not much people can do to take it out on him. So people will blame congress and vote out those who they blame.

Yes, and he's also been a lame duck during the last two years. If people blame the President, they may use their votes to help elect a Republican candidate in the next presidential election. In other words, if President Obama chooses not to compromise - which is certainly his prerogative - it won't affect him, but might affect Vice President Biden's chances in 2016.

 

I don't see the elder of america growing at an exponential rate to compete with the constantly diversely growing populus. Also you are assuming that all elders mainly vote Republican which just doesn't add up because what matter is the amount of actual population growth of voters.

If you look at the resource I posted, you'll see that our country's population growth is declining:

 

The recent decline in immigration has also accelerated population aging in the United States. Most immigrants are working-age adults, and many start families after they arrive in the U.S., creating an immigrant youth bulge. Less immigration therefore reduces the potential number of young people in the population. But even if immigrant levels had held steady during the recession, the U.S. population would still be growing older as the large cohort of baby boomers starts to reach retirement age.

 

A decade ago, children under age 18 made up a significant component of annual population growth and exceeded the growth of those ages 65 and older (see Figure 2). But by 2011, these patterns had reversed: The number of people under age 18 declined by 190,000 between 2010 and 2011, while the number of elderly increased by 917,000. Growth in the number of working-age adults, including those in prime childbearing ages, is also down sharply.

- Population Reference Bureau

 

In addition, you're assuming I'm "assuming that all elders mainly vote Republican", which is putting words in my mouth. Going strictly by the chart you provided, exit polls indicated that the number of people voting "red" (Republican) increased with the age of the voter:

 

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b291/princesstb/main-qimg-2217fd56a86572b3d67016bf822dc642.jpg

 

you are right. I mis-read the data thinking they meant yearly. Reguardless letting employers freedom or not to have their benifits provide birthcontrol shouldn't be their decision to begin with.

Employers may reduce employees' hours to part-time in order to avoid the cost of providing health benefits altogether. Alternatively, they may hire temps, outsource, or move operations overseas when U.S. tax rates and/or government mandates would otherwise put them out of business. Finally, they may choose less costly insurance policies that do not cover a wide range of services and prescriptions, including forms of birth control. Unfortunately, all of those options force employees (or former employees) to pay for birth control out of pocket. Believe me, I'd like to see all employers cover all forms of birth control for all employees who want them; however, the reality is that employers tend to do whatever is in their own best interest financially. Ultimately, when government regulations hurt a company's bottom line, its employees end up paying the price.

 

 

Edit:

 

Atleast you Ithildin if you are a republican you seem much smarter than the majority of right-wing wing nuts you see and read in hate media and bias new networks. Maybe you could help influence the republican party to reform their core beliefs because they sure don't listen to people like me. lol

I'm affiliated with neither party, and do not vote according to platform. :thumbsup:

[colourwheel]

Democrats reguardless control the senate.

Yes, Democrats retain control of the Senate, Republicans retain control of the House, and we still have the same President. As I said, for all intents and purposes, the election rendered our government stagnant.

 

Our government being stagnant compaired to 2 years ago is not really the point. The Democrats gained seats in both house and the senate as well as taking a larger control in the senate. The democrats have the upper hand this cycle.

 

The president is a lame duck now. Even if people blame the president not much people can do to take it out on him. So people will blame congress and vote out those who they blame.

Yes, and he's also been a lame duck during the last two years. If people blame the President, they may use their votes to help elect a Republican candidate in the next presidential election. In other words, if President Obama chooses not to compromise - which is certainly his prerogative - it won't affect him, but might affect Vice President Biden's chances in 2016.

 

He was not a lame duck the last two years. You might think he was a lame duck, but it isn't true. Also If he was such a lame duck then why did he get re-elected?

 

Also compromise goes both ways though and Congress dug the hole they call the fiscal cliff. Also assuming Biden is going to run for president in 4 years is a premature assumption.

 

In addition, you're assuming I'm "assuming that all elders mainly vote Republican", which is putting words in my mouth. Going strictly by the chart you provided, exit polls indicated that the number of people voting "red" (Republican) increased with the age of the voter:

 

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b291/princesstb/main-qimg-2217fd56a86572b3d67016bf822dc642.jpg

 

I wasn't assuming anything and never put words in your mouth. I was just trying to point out the data of how the voting popluation broken down in percentage is totally against the republican party. Even if you break down just the female vote alone is a serious problem the Republican party faces. They face problems dealing with multiple levels of the voting population.

 

Employers may reduce employees' hours to part-time in order to avoid the cost of providing health benefits altogether. Alternatively, they may hire temps, outsource, or move operations overseas when U.S. tax rates and/or government mandates would otherwise put them out of business. Finally, they may choose less costly insurance policies that do not cover a wide range of services and prescriptions, including forms of birth control. Unfortunately, all of those options force employees (or former employees) to pay for birth control out of pocket. Believe me, I'd like to see all employers cover all forms of birth control for all employees who want them; however, the reality is that employers tend to do whatever is in their own best interest financially. Ultimately, when government regulations hurt a company's bottom line, its employees end up paying the price.

 

All I have to say is employers like this are so greedy....

 

I would not work for anyone who would do this. An employer on average pockets more than 400% income than their average employee pockets. They wish to have policies that take the working class back to the way the 1950's use to be when back then the average employer only made at most about 150% more in pocket income than their employees they should go back to the percentage of income they made back then too.

 

I'm affiliated with neither party, and do not vote according to platform. :thumbsup:

 

That is good.

 

Sometimes voting for a specific person people tend to indirectly support the ideology the person stands for when you endup voting someone in political office that tries to turn their religious beliefs into policy.

Edited November 9, 2012 by colourwheel

[Ithildin]

Compromise goes both ways though and Congress dug the hole they call the fiscal cliff. Also assuming Biden is going to run for president in 4 years is a premature assumption.

As I said, I hold both Congress and the President culpable for digging the hole. Feel free to replace "Biden" with "anyone who wins the Democratic nomination in 2016".

 

I was just trying to point out the data of how the voting popluation broken down in percentage is totally against the republican party.

I prefer not to use generalizations such as "totally". Your exit poll charts show both blue and red; I'd say "totally" if the charts were entirely blue. :tongue:

[colourwheel]

As I said, I hold both Congress and the President culpable for digging the hole.

 

I hardly see how Obama is blameworthy for the fiscal cliff. If anyone is to blame, blame Ben Bernanke.

 

I prefer not to use generalizations such as "totally". Your exit poll charts show both blue and red; I'd say "totally" if the charts were entirely blue. :tongue:

 

Generalizations can be used quite easy when trying to put into perspective of how severe something actually is. Yet giving you the benefit of the doubt the word was poorly chosen the point is you can't run a canidate in any election and expect to win if your party doesn't seriously reform with those statistics.

Edited November 9, 2012 by colourwheel