Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

[irishpatrick]

I’m finished with politics.

Cannot say I blame you.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Interesting and substantive take, I must say. So what people are saying here, in support of Republicans, is that it’s imperative to vote against Obama even if he’s a shoe-in and even if it’s against the personal grain, because the abortion issue trumps everything else? It’s true the Dems haven’t done squat for the poor that I can think of; but they haven’t taken away from them as the Repubs are proposing.

First of all, I’m not a Republican, just so you know. I’m a lifelong Democrat who believes the party has seriously lost its way.

Second, I’m not persuaded the Repubs (Ryan proposal I guess) takes anything away from the poor. It might or might not reduce the overall expenditures for, e.g., food stamps, depending on how the block grant program thing works, but there is no particular reason to think the BENEFIT to the poor will be reduced. Nobody knows, but it’s possible it might even enhance the benefit, since states and localities may well be more efficient in using the money than the federal government, and better able to adapt to local conditions.

Third, the Democrats diverted food stamp money into other programs already, so it’s not as if they didn’t reduce at least the outlay.

Fourth, did you ever stop to think about who “cash for clunkers” helped and who it hurt? You had to be at least middle class to buy a new car; something you had to do under the program. So, people who could afford it anyway were given tax dollars to upgrade. I imagine automakers, both foreign and domestic benefitted from it as well. But who lost? Well, the poor did. The “clunkers”, most of which were perfectly operable cars, and which are precisely the cars poor people buy in the used car market, were all destroyed. So, all that material, all that labor, all that utility was taken out of their reach. I absolutely despised the program for that reason. How could the administration have been so heartless as to give tax money to the well-to-do and simultaneously make life harder for the truly poor? How could the administration have failed to turn the “clunkers” over to the various state agencies for distribution to poor people, either outright or for some little token amount of money, who could have used them to drive to jobs, go to the doctor, go shopping in the suburbs where things are cheaper. All it did was make the “clunkers” on the used car lots more expensive and less accessible to people who were poor. A despicable act.

Fifth, while we don’t really know what the real effects of Obamacare are going to be (they’re shy about it, which is why they put off most of it until after the 2012 election) it’s acknowledged that it will push a lot of people out of employer-paid health insurance into Medicaid. Medicaid is expected to expand a lot. Poorer people who earn wages usually work for marginal employers. Every place has those. It’s cheaper for employers to pay the penalty than it is to buy health insurance, for the most part. Some 70-89% of all people in the US had employer-based health insurance before Obamacare. If it’s cheaper for the employer just to pay the fine and push his employees off onto Medicaid, what’s to say he won’t do it? But remember, you still have to qualify for Medicaid (basically, not make very much and have no assets to speak of). If you’re poor, but don’t qualify for Medicaid, you’ll be fined if you don’t go out and get your own insurance anyway. So, as a poor person, your employer gets off cheaply, but you pay more.

Another thing about Obamacare. One of the things people don’t seem to realize is that people with employment-based health insurance benefit from something called the 'well worker effect". If you’re very sick, you’re not likely to be employed, so for the most part, insurers of group plans are insuring healthy people. That keeps the costs lower than they otherwise would be. Since Obamacare imposes coverages those programs usually don’t have, it will cost more. Also, most ERISA qualifing employer group plans have a one year exclusionary period for preexisting conditions. Obamacare won’t allow that anymore. Again, that will increase the cost. Obamacare mandates “portability”. It’s just a fact that group insurance rates are lower for industrial workers than they are for white collar workers for the most part. That’s because you can often still function in sedentary work when your physical condition won’t allow you to work at industrial work. White collar employers understand all that, and pay it. But with “portability”, the industrial worker who can no longer do that work can keep his previous insurance in his new sedentary job. Because his healthcare costs are now (on average) likely to be higher, but he is still on the industrial plan, it will tend to increase the cost of industrial plans.

So, what to do about those who are too sick to be employed or who have preexisting conditions and are worried about getting through that one-year exclusionary period? Well, one might argue that would have been a good thing for the government to focus on; perhaps increasing funding for “fair plans” that every state has for such people if they don’t qualify for Medicaid. They could have done that instead of making it all more expensive for everybody by turning the whole thing on its head.

Now I’m going to be “Republican cruel” even though I’m not a Republican. Insuring “stay at home” young people to age 25 on family plans under Obamacare? I’m sorry, but McDonald’s and a lot of others hire every day.

But you’re also right in saying abortion trumps all. It does with me, which is why I resigned my office in the party some years back and haven’t supported a Democrat since.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I do not think that somebody’s charisma, or social programs are enough when voting. You have to take all of the candidate’s beliefs in to consideration, I do not understand how charisma could be more of an important consideration than LIFE.

Bohm here is what the Church says on voting.

Catholic Church:

In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. – (CDF DOCTRINAL NOTE
on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life, 4)

The Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is “never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it” – (John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 73).

“When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral” – (CDF Considerations regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons, 10).

The Democratic Party says…

“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre and post natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.” (Democrat Party Platform 2008)

We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate President Bush’s divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a “Federal Marriage Amendment.” Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart. – (Democratic Party Platform 2004)

 

[_Abyssinia]

This is a very much on target statement.
To add to the Bishops’ and Pope’s statement, the humble Fr. Benedict Groeschel stated that those who vote for the candidate condoning abortion are sinning as long as that candidate is in office. You are so right about them being just incredibly misguided. The secular way is powerfully seductive.

Thank you. If you vote for a pro abortion candidate your helping the continuation of abortion.

 

[mexilad]

You didn’t list the President. Not everyone on this Forum is a rightist or a Republican.

Yes, he did list the president. His name is on the list and as of this writing Obama has the most votes (Much to my dismay)

 

[Redbaron998]

Hermain Cain gets my vote!

After that whoever is not Obama and it Pro-Life

 

[paddy22]

I find two things wrong with responses thus far - first, why are so many (anybody really) going to vote for Barack Obama? Second, why would anybody vote for Sarah Palin?

 

[irishpatrick]

I find two things wrong with responses thus far - first, why are so many (anybody really) going to vote for Barack Obama? Second, why would anybody vote for Sarah Palin?

Obama is losing by a 2 to 1 margin if you look at all votes for the other candidates…

 

[paddy22]

True, I guess I didn’t look at it that way. But really, 34 votes? That’s 34 too many in my opinion.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Second, why would anybody vote for Sarah Palin?

Because she isn’t Obama.

I suspect that the Republican candidate preferences, presently diffuse, will coalesce around whoever is the nominee. And there is no way Sarah Palin is going to run.

 

[Ridgerunner]

True, I guess I didn’t look at it that way. But really, 34 votes? That’s 34 too many in my opinion.

Well, we don’t know how many Democrat operatives, official and otherwise, come here to try to influence the “lurkers”. Back during the 2008 election they sometimes came in here in herds, but disappeared after the election. There are just a few “regular” Obama apologists who have stuck around. Whether any of them are “assigned” to do it, I don’t know.

(And no, Rich O, I don’t think you’re a DNC “operative”.)

 

[irishpatrick]

True, I guess I didn’t look at it that way. But really, 34 votes? That’s 34 too many in my opinion.

I agree…but it would make me quite happy to see him lose next year by a 2 to 1 margin (not possible…but it sure would be nice).

 

[irishpatrick]

Because she isn’t Obama.

I suspect that the Republican candidate preferences, presently diffuse, will coalesce around whoever is the nominee. And there is no way Sarah Palin is going to run.

I hope she does not run–she will not beat OBama.

 

[pnewton]

I’ll give you an example. It’s not necessary for a Catholic to believe in the principle of subsidiarity. It’s a Church recommendation, but definitely not infallible or binding on all the faithful.

This is not a “recommendation”. It is a doctrine of the Church. Not all doctrine is infallibly pronounced, but one something becomes a focal point of a papal encyclical, it can no longer be dismissed as a “recomendation”. You can dissent, but it is in fact dissent, even if it is legitimate dissent.

FYI - This rock had and excellent article on this subject this last month. When it comes on line, I will try to link it.

 

[pismopal]

I stick to what I said.

And liberals are never called names or ridiculed by the Right? Sure.

Those people used that term themselves in the beginning. They didn’t know until it was pointed out to them that it’s a sexual term. So, they weren’t tagged; they tagged themselves.

Just not with you.

It is a derisive term used by liberals for the Tea Party. If it was a term they used to describe themselves it would not be derisive…would it? Stop getting your info from Keith O…he is a leftist…oh, I forgot.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

It is a derisive term used by liberals for the Tea Party. If it was a term they used to describe themselves it would not be derisive…would it? Stop getting your info from Keith O…he is a leftist…oh, I forgot.

Keith who? I don’t even own a television set. Television is all stupidity to me, news and entertainment. I rely on my subscriptions to the New York Times (liberal), the Wall Street Journal (conservative), and the Arkansas Democrat/Gazette (conservative) for my news and information.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is not a “recommendation”. It is a doctrine of the Church. Not all doctrine is infallibly pronounced, but one something becomes a focal point of a papal encyclical, it can no longer be dismissed as a “recomendation”. You can dissent, but it is in fact dissent, even if it is legitimate dissent.

FYI - This rock had and excellent article on this subject this last month. When it comes on line, I will try to link it.

An infallible declaration is not necessary for a doctrine to be binding on all Catholics. Almost no Church doctrine is infallibly defined, but one most definitely defies Church teachings at the peril of his soul. Bad idea.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

An infallible declaration is not necessary for a doctrine to be binding on all Catholics. Almost no Church doctrine is infallibly defined, but one most definitely defies Church teachings at the peril of his soul. Bad idea.

Exactly, take Sunday Obligation for example. It has not been infallibly defined dogma, but rather a disciplinary doctrine rooted in the Commandment to honor the Sabbath. Each time you miss Mass through willful intend, you commit a mortal sin.

 

[TMC]

The problem with using “subsidiarity” to justify every conservative proposal that comes along is not that subsidiarity is not a teaching of the Church, its that it is not the only teaching of the Church. Subsidiarity muse be applied alongside the equally strong principle of solidarity. Of course, liberals that claim that solidarity mandates that only their policies are acceptable fall into the same trap from the other side. The two principles are sometimes in tension, and the Church acknowledges that there are different policy choices that can legitimately be made to resolve that tension, but both principles have to be respected. Archbishop Dolan has an excellent blog post about it up right now:

blog.archny.org/?p=1210

 

[RosalieM]

Guess what? I’m not thru with politics after all!
I’m voting for Sarah Palin!