I'm pretty sure this is actually the most important election in my lifetime.

[Direckshun]

Forum's pretty slow today. Allow me to speed things up with a super-wide view of the current political landscape.

You can thank me later.

I never like the idea of saying "this is the most important election of my lifetime" because it feels to hyperbolic. The only time I actually felt that way was during 2004 in the middle of the Bush presidency, but the Bush presidency gave way to the Obama administration, which is starting to unwind a bunch of the things I considered the Bush administration to have screwed up (the wars, the recession, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, Medicare's financial unsustainability). So it's pretty clear I overreacted in 2004. If only I had been a ChiefsPlanet poster then so you all could mock me for it.

All the other elections just seemed to be very important, because you can do a lot of things in 4 years when you've got the White House on your side.

The reason I think this election is so important, however, is because I don't think this election is about the next four years. I think the next decade of policy rests on this election's shoulders.

Obama was and is a game changer, politically. He represents the nation's fresh breath of anti-neoconservativism that the nation felt it needed in 2008 after Bush. Obama is unabashedly liberal, but incredibly charismatic and likeable (hardcore conservatives don't feel this way, but I assure you the polling has always suggested that everybody else does). The moment we elected him to was huge, as well, putting him right behind the 8 ball with the wars and the economy, a situation which clearly set him up for an extremely difficult four years.

If he is able to win reelection, it's possible that this country could face a true electoral realignment of Reagan proportions (or maybe even greater) within the next decade, the realignment that Rove so desperately wanted for Bush in 2004 but failed to achieve. I'm talking about a realignment that fundamentally changes the way the vast majority of the population views these two political parties.

I've written about this a lot on this forum, but I predict that no matter who wins the election in 2012, unemployment will drop like a rock in 2014 as the job openings/job applicant mismatches start to vanish and the pool of applicants adapt to all the job openings. Again, this is despite Obama or Romney being President.

But assume it is Obama. Then you're talking about, at the conclusion of 2016, a presidency that would have presided over a gradual but successful recovery from the worst recession in our and our parents' lifetimes, withdrawals from both wars in the Middle East, the killing of OBL, the passing and now implementation of full healthcare reform, and at least three SCOTUS judges... Even without Republican cooperation in Obama's second term, all these things would happen, with the only significant question mark being the unemployment situation, which I do believe will recover like gangbusters in a couple years.

If all these things happen, the contrast of the past two decades will be unbelievably stark in 2016: you can do it the Democratic way, like the charistmatic and successful Obama and Clinton admistrations did, and preside over successful economies and sane foreign policy, or you can do it the Republican way, like... George W. Bush.

Combine that with the demographic changes this country will be going over the next decade (Texas could genuinely become a swing state by 2020, for starters), and I believe we could be facing a realignment.

I think this would be especially likely if Hillary were to run in 2016. Barring a complete shitfit, she couldn't lose, running on the records of Obama and Clinton, who would both extensively campaign for her, giving her a 3-to-1 advantage over whomever the Republicans trot out. Thinking of what she could accomplish in the wakes of what these two Presidents have laid for her in terms of policy foundations, is mind boggling.

The Republican Party, in the face of this, would absolutely have to evolve from their current exclusivity, their current regressive tax policies, and embrace something more inclusive, more moderate, and less reactionary. More conservative, less reactionary regressive. And then you'd finally have the post-Boomer conversation about the true value of liberalism and conservativism that this nation has lost since the Vietnam war embedded the Boomer population in a decades-long culture war. This development would change the entire dynamic, and provide those weird things like "hope" and "change" that we've ridiculed for five years.

On the other hand, what if the Republicans win? Romney/Ryan '12.

Most of Obama's accomplishments would obviously be trashed. Healthcare reform would either be outright repealed, or simply not enforced and de-fanged until it could no longer accomplish much of anything. The Democratic goal of bringing back the Clinton tax rates for the wealthy would be a thing of the past; in fact, Romney and Ryan would move the offensive forward, attempting to bring their tax rates down even lower. The landmark regulations for the financial industry passed under Obama would almost certainly be neutered to the point of irrelevancy, in particular Consumer Protection.

But even more than his policies, the idea of what Obama represented would be defeated. The idea of providing more for the less fortunate, for collectivism and the social safety net, would suffer irreperable harm as Romney and Ryan get to benefit from an employment boom in 2014, something they will understandably take credit for and the public will understandably reward them for, embedding in the public psyche the idea that regressive policies somehow accounted for all of this, and cementing trickle-down economics as vindicated once and for all.

And while Ryan seems very green now, assuming Romney wins reelection, Ryan would be a powerful candidate under this philosophy in 2020 running against whomever the Democrats could put up. By then, barring any huge screwups or scandals by the Romney administration, the conversation between conservativism and liberalism would almost certainly vanish, and instead be between conservativism and libertarian regressivism.

You're talking about two radically different futures for the next decade-plus, one with generational realignment possibilities in my opinion.

All of it sparked from one election.

That's why I think this could be the most important election in our lifetimes.

Thoughts?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by philfree

O.K. there are some things in Obamacare that are good and that's one. So is the ability to keep insurance on your kids till there 26 or whatever it is. Did we have to agree to a government mandate to for that to happen?

Anyways IMO real healthcare reform starts with what people are being charged for their healthcare. I don't see any changes in that. When a cancer patients medicine cost them thousands of dollars a month something is a miss. When it's $38,000.00 for scorpion anti venom something is a miss. Obamacare hasn't changed any of those practices.

Without a mandate or some other incentive to carry coverage continuously, forcing insurance companies to insure those with pre-existing conditions would destroy the insurance industry. Without that incentive/mandate, many healthy people would just wait until they needed health care to buy coverage and the costs of sick people wouldn't be able to be spread across as many healthy people driving the cost of premiums through the roof.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Without a mandate or some other incentive to carry coverage continuously, forcing insurance companies to insure those with pre-existing conditions would destroy the insurance industry. Without that incentive/mandate, many healthy people would just wait until they needed health care to buy coverage and the costs of sick people wouldn't be able to be spread across as many healthy people driving the cost of premiums through the roof.

This is going to happen a lot more often than some seem to think.

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by philfree

That's true but we might be better served to regulate the healthcare industry instead of starting another social program to keep feeding it.

I don't disagree. But we have one political party that is for more regulations and one who is against further regulations. The end result? The AHCA.

I don't think we'll have a real solution to this issue until 2020 at the earliest.

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by vailpass

This is going to happen a lot more often than some seem to think.

I think there will be a fair share of assholes that cheat the system, for sure.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Donger

What's to argue about, honestly? It's a basically a long-winded "Romney sucks and Obama is great" piece. I already knew that Direckshun felt that way.

The piece is an argument as to the relative importance of this election.

You just see the world in red and blue. That's why a piece like that comes across as nothing more than rah rah partisanship.

That's the soup you swim in.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

True.

Which just reaffirms my thinking that people here in the D.C. subforum don't like to talk politics, they just like to talk about ideologies and support a winning team.

Very much like how a lot of ChiefsPlanet, homers mostly, doesn't actually like talking football.

Yup.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I think there will be a fair share of assholes that cheat the system, for sure.

Yes. With the absence of any enforced repercussions what incentive is there for the middle class wage earner to spend $ on insurance premiums until they need insurance?

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-m...lty-tax-2012-7

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The piece is an argument as to the relative importance of this election.

You just see the world in red and blue. That's why a piece like that comes across as nothing more than rah rah partisanship.

That's the soup you swim in.

"Piece"? You think your post is a "piece"? Is that why you spend a ridiculous amount of time making more and longer posts than anyone here? You fancy yourself a writer, and this forum your publisher?
Dude.

[philfree]

Originally Posted by vailpass

This is going to happen a lot more often than some seem to think.

Yeah it's going to happen anyway.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by philfree

Yeah it's going to happen anyway.

What is going to happen anyway?

[philfree]

Originally Posted by vailpass

What is going to happen anyway?

People aren't going to pay for their insurance until they need it.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by philfree

People aren't going to pay for their insurance until they need it.

Oh, thanks. No doubt, why would they?

Here's How Much The Obamacare Penalty Tax Will Cost You..

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-m...#ixzz25p5zHH6M


Most of these folks seem to hate the idea that Obama is forcing them to do something more than they hate the idea of shelling out money.

But for those who also care about the money, here are the details.

The good news is that, for most people, the "penalty tax" for those who choose not to buy health insurance will cost a lot less than health insurance.

As with everything tax-related, there's no simple answer to "How much is the Obamacare penalty tax?" But here are some key points, from FactCheck.org:

The penalty/tax will be phased in from 2014 to 2016.
The minimum penalty/tax in 2016 will be $695 per person and up to 3-times that per family. After 2016, these amounts will increase at the rate of inflation.
The minimum penalty/tax per person will start at $95 in 2014 (and then increase through 2016)
No family will ever pay more than 3X the per-person penalty, regardless of how many people are in the family.
The $695 per-person penalty is only for those who make between $9,500 and ~$37,000 per year. If you make less than ~$9.500, you're exempt. If you make more than ~$37,000, your penalty is calculated by the following formula...
The penalty is 2.5% of any household income above the level at which you are required to file a tax return. That level is currently $9,500 per person and $19,000 per couple. The penalty on any income above that is 2.5%. So the penalty can get expensive quickly if you make a lot of money.
However, the penalty can never be more than the cost of a "Bronze" heath insurance plan purchased through one of the state "exchanges" that will be created as part of Obamacare. The CBO estimates that these policies will cost $4,500-$5,000 per person and $12,000-$12,500 per family in 2016, with the costs rising thereafter.

So, basically, you're looking at penalties of approximately the following at the following income levels:

Less than $9,500 income = $0
$9,500 - $37,000 income = $695
$50,000 income = $1,000
$75,000 income = $1,600
$100,000 income = $2,250
$125,000 income = $2,900
$150,000 income = $3,500
$175,000 income = $4,100
$200,000 income = $4,700
Over $200,000 = The cost of a "bronze" health-insurance plan

The IRS will collect the penalty-tax, a fact that will no doubt further enrage those who hate Obamacare.

But here's some more good news for those folks:

The IRS will not have the power to charge you criminally or seize your assets if you refuse to pay. The IRS will only have the ability to sue you. And the most the IRS can collect from you if it wins the suit is 2X the amount you owe. So if you want to thumb your nose at the penalty-tax, the IRS won't be able to do as much to you as they could if you refused to pay, say, income tax.

By the way, the following folks will be exempt from the penalty-tax:

Those who make less than $9,500
Employees whose employers only offer plans that cost more than 8% of the employee's income
Those with "hardships"
Members of Indian tribes
Members of certain religions that don't pay Social Security tax, such as Amish, Hutterites, or Mennonites


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-m...#ixzz25p5riFJg

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

Which is as it should be. Unfrotunately, the Feds have been reaching further down the chain in an attempt to control every facet of our lives, with the support of the Sheeple.

God forbid that a state/couty/municipality choose and enforce their own community standards. You know...choose how we want to spend our money and live around like-minded individuals, supporting the programs that WE choose to support with our tax dollars, charitable dontations and time. It's so much easier for the overall majority to force-feed their views on the minority.

Heaven forbid Bob Dole disagree with his city, county or parish's rules and have to move 20 miles to the next county, where the community standard it set a little differently.

Economic mobility damn near vanishes in a recession, however.

[Bwana]

Originally Posted by vailpass

This is going to happen a lot more often than some seem to think.

Yep, hedge the bet by buying major medical on the cheap and stepping up to the "Barry Care" if things went south.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by philfree

I still can't figure out what he reformed about healthcare.

Here.