ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • United States Politics

Election 2012: Why President Obama Will Be Re-Elected

Updated on January 21, 2015

Will President Obama be re-elected?

See results

There is little doubt that the 2012 Presidential election is going to be explosive. With the exception the Civil War Era an argument can be made that the American public has never been more divided in our politics than it is right now. The right wing has accused the President of being a Socialist, Racist, Communist, Fascist and just about every other extreme name you can think of. On the Right we have seen a boom in conservative commentators, especially on Fox News. In 2010 we witnessed the emergence of the Tea Party and historic elections that gave the Republicans a majority in the House of Representatives. If you watch Fox News or listen to Right Wing talk radio you would think that this election should be a walk in the park for the Republicans. After all, Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell has made it clear that his party’s top priority is to make “Obama a one term President.” Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck have expressed their confidence that President Obama will not be re-elected.

Make no mistake, the American public is going to have a clear choice on what direction they want the country to go. I want to be clear here. I am not a Democrat or Republican. I am an Independent and have voted for both Democrats and Republicans in my lifetime. The following it just my observations. I realize this hub may spark intense debate. It is my hope to create a civil discussion on this very important time in American history.

Here are four reasons why Barack Obama will be re-elected in November:

1. Mitt Romney
Throughout the Republican Primary it has been clear that the Right has been on a quest to find anybody but Mitt Romney to take on President Obama with the full knowledge that eventually he would become the nominee. Conservative pundit Ann Coulter predicted this a long time ago when she said Romney will lose to Obama. Many on the right share her feelings on this and that explains why many Republicans have been begging for someone like Jeb Bush or New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to get in the race. Mitt Romney also established the health care law as governor of Massachusetts that would eventually serve as the blueprint for the Affordable Health Care Act AKA "Obama Care". This is incredibly important because the health care law was one of the primary issues that drove the Tea Party and right wing talking heads over the edge in 2010. Now we are going to see the architect of this law debate a man who simply agreed with his concepts. Mitt will explain that the law is bad and he plans to repeal it, but most voters recognize this simple flaw. Mitt is in a corner that he cannot escape with this issue and he will not be able to recover from.

Another big problem with Mitt Romney is his inability to connect with the everyday American. Romney is clearly a member of the elite 1% of America. He has been privileged his whole life. Here are some of Romney's comments that demonstrate my point:

The other potential damaging aspect of Mitt Romney’s bid for the White House is his religion. Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Generally speaking the Christian-Evangelical Right will come out in drones to vote for the Republican in a general election. This year however poses a problem for that demographic. They have a choice between a President they hate or a conservative that is not of their faith. Many experts believe this could lead to thousands of Christian-Evangelicals staying home on election day which will benefit the President.

2. The War on Women
The the last two years there has been a alarming amount of abortion and contraception bills being proposed and passed by Republicans on both the state and federal level. This is surprising because Republicans ran in 2010 on the platform that they were going to focus on jobs and the economy. Instead they have launched a retro culture battle that they cannot win.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, the states enacted a record number of abortion restrictions in 2011.Perhaps the most alarming law was in Virginia. The law would demand that women seeking abortions would be forced to have a vaginal ultrasound. This set off a firestorm of angry protestors from the right and left. Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell would eventually back off once he faced the immediate backlash.

Then of course there is the birth control issue which has done nothing but hurt republicans and unite Women and liberals alike. The issue exploded when the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform debated whether or not requiring insurers to cover woman’s birth control was a violation of their religious freedom. The problem was that the panel was made up entirely of men. This led to the national story of Georgia law student Sandra Fluke making an appearance in front of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee. Ms. Fluke was blocked from testifying in front of the House Oversight Committee (All male) and made her argument for woman’s health. This led to some pretty viscous attacks from the right, especially from Rush Limbaugh. Most rational people would recognize this type of behavior is terrible for the Republican brand and it will hurt Mitt Romney in the general election. Women voters will not forget this incident.

3. The Economy
One thing is perfectly clear. President Obama inherited a horrific mess left by the Bush White House. Two unfinished and unpaid for wars and an economy in a death spiral. President Obama took bold action. Republicans will never admit it, but the stimulus worked and the economy is improving. Nothing can make this case better than the now famous bikini graphwhich charts the job growth in the United States from the end of the Bush Administration to today. Since January 2010 we have begun to see job Growth in American and there is nothing that the right wing can say to dispute this very simple fact. It is true the unemployment numbers are not we would all like, but they are improving and that is an incontrovertible fact.

Even Republican political pollster Scott Rassmussentold a very conservative crowd “If the economy continues to improve consistently between now and November, President Obama will be re-elected.” ( This bodes well for President Obama.

4. Health Care
Fox News and right wing radio hosts have done their very best to try to convince the American public that the Affordable Healthcare Act (Obama Care) is a vast government takeover of healthcare and will be devastating to the United States. Recent polling suggests their tactics have worked. Some polls show that over 50% of Americans oppose the law. But when you get into specifics of the law the overwhelming majority of Americans love it. You won’t find many people who oppose insurance companies not being able to deny people coverage for pre-existing conditions. You also won’t find any Americans who think it’s OK to drop people based too high of medical costs. Most people love the idea of children being able to stay on their parents health care until the age of 26.

The issue here is that Republicans have only voiced their desire to repeal the health care law while provided no alternative. So what happens if the law is repealed? Do we go back to insurance companies deciding who lives and who dies? I feel like Mitt Romney, having such close ties to the structure of this bill will not be able to convince the American public that he has a better idea on how to handle the countries health care concerns. The debate of this very important issue falls heavily in the President’s favor. In short, I don’t think anyone would argue that the Affordable Health Care Law is perfect, but do we have a better alternative at this point?


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image

      AlexDrinkH2O 5 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      "The legions of Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck." Count me in! C U later.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      TSAD 5 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

      Alex, you see what I mean - the gift that keeps on giving - he doesn't even realize he validated everything I said in his reply still never addressing the facts he can not refute in my original comment and talking about stuff that has nothing to do with what I posted in my comment - not worth giving him the time of day so I suggest you don't waste your sanity on him, either.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Imaginary history, I have read the Bible, front to back, twice in my 65 years, nope, I am not making it up. Show me anywhere where in there where it talks about love being the foundation of marriage between a man and a woman. I will show you many passages where the wives or wives were simply commodity items.

      1,2,4, and 10 are so wrong on the face of it, that I didn't want to waste space, although kudo's for looking up the definition of esoteric; it also means 'specialized' knowledge, btw, but I don't know that 'elite' and 'peon' are included in the definition; methinks you made that up.

      Another 'esoteric' fact. Your 'elitist blowhard' ad hominem reference is highly indicative (another elitist word) of the likelihood you would score very high on Professor Altemeyer's Right-wing Authoritarian follower survey; they are ones who make up the legion of listens of Linbaugh, Hannity, and Beck.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      TSAD 5 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

      Alex, do you know the definition of esoteric? requiring or exhibiting knowledge that is restricted to a small group or: difficult to understand. This is an appropriate description of My Exoteric's discussions because he is a member of the small group of elite we peons cannot understand and I'll be darned if I can make sense out of anything he says - for example he says I am wrong on points 1,2,4 and 10 (which are facts I don't see him repute) and then he pontificates about an imaginary history of marriage that has nothing to do with anything I said.... I'm directing this at you because I refuse to debate with an elitist blowhard. It will accomplish nothing...bye, bye.

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image

      AlexDrinkH2O 5 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      I just tried to place a link to an article in and the moderators said it was a "prohibited link." Attaboy Hubpages - show your support for the 1st Amendment! Unbelievable. Anyway Rich Galen has an article at today about the election that I believe is worth reading.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      I buy the arrogant, name me one President besides George Washington who wasn't. If Obama is marxist, he keeps it extremely well hidden since 100% of his policies which he has put forward has been in line with most moderate Democratic presidents, unless you consider all Democrats, except Southern Democrats, marxists and communists.

      I will bet that for every communist policy Obama has put forward, I can find a historical counterpart put forward by a prior President starting with Abraham Lincoln; the first truly progressive American president. Granted, they may not have passed, such as Obamacare, but they were pushed by a previous President (Truman being the first for an Obamacare type healthcare program, I believe).

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image

      AlexDrinkH2O 5 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      Sorry, My Esoteric, but I saw the movie "2016" the other night and point #6 by tsadjatko is precisely correct. See the book "The Communist" by Paul Kengor for more on Davis's background. Obama is, at best, a statist with some Marxist tendencies. He's also arrogant, narcissistic, and a liar. I pray to God he is soundly defeated Tuesday.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      @TSA, Obviously you are not familiar with the topics regarding 1, 2, 4, and 10. You clear don't know the history of marriage (which is not between men and women, but a woman to a man, there is a pecking order there) either 3) do you. Traditional marriage in the Christian sense is purely for 1) procreation, 2) cementing relationsionships between families, and 3) providing a servant for a man ... check your Bible for hisorical reference; you have a fine "tradition" their, don't you.

      #5, you are talking about Romney/Ryan aren't you? They wouldn't know a truth if it slapped them upside the head. Image the gall of Ryan standing on the stage with his old mother saying the "truth" that is plan to destroy Medicare wouldn't effect her at all. Not quite true, it would cost her a little more prescription money but he, close enough for government work. What he didn't say, which is the lie by ommission, is that he destroys it for everyone under the age of 55.

      #6, you certainly know how to destroy your own credibility with inanities like that one.

      #8, Darn, just before the investigation cleared Holder and after few Supreme Court decisions supported previous administrations like the Bush administration in several famous cases; sorry you couldn't see a few government secrets

      #9, see #6

    • tsadjatko profile image

      TSAD 5 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

      Time to get real - 4 days to election and obviously we must elect Obama if for no other reason than he is the most representative candidate of the American people, he shares our values.

      What values you may ask? I'll list the top ten because it is much more than just hope and change. Actually you can put those two at the bottom of the list of say 40 more.

      Obama is one of us and like most people would, Barack (Who is sane?) Obama

      1) voted in favor of infanticide in the case of botched abortions (above his "pay grade" to say when life begins but not when he can end it)

      2) voted for late term partial birth abortion, sane people would describe as murder but then "who is sane?". (Sandra Fluke would have been proud).

      3) is in favor of gay marriage, an institution this country has held dear for centuries?...he flip flopped on that one but not really because everyone knew he was lying to get elected when he said he was against it and now he needed to raise money so he could be honest (thanks to Joe Biteme forcing the issue)

      4) has spent millions to conceal personal records which most Americans (many felons) wish they had the money for lawyers to do the same.

      5) basically can not speak one paragraph without expressing deception of some sort, either a lie, distortion or phrase that implies a lie but is vague enough to provide (questionable) deniability (like he called Benghazi a terrorist attack from the start when he actually did not but spoke of terrorism in generality). Everyone has to admire someone who, with the media turning their head the other way, has institutionalized the LIE.

      6) , like most other Americans? was raised by his Grandmother and had close friends who are either an America hating cult leader (Reverend Wright), an unrepentant terrorist (Bill Ayers), a felon (Tony Resco) or Communist Party activist (Frank Marshall Davis).

      7) , based on his history and relationships he would not pass vetting if he applied to become an FBI agent (like most people I suppose)

      8) , rather than answer a question honestly he feigns indignation that anyone would suspect his administration of leaking intelligence, covering up or fabricating information (while claiming executive privilege for Fast and Furious?). I know a lot of people who use that tactic to avoid telling the truth (btw Romney is not one of them)

      9) has done cocaine and smoked marihuana in his youth, who hasn't ? At least he admits inhaling was the point! He might increase his popularity if he were to admit he actually dealt the stuff.

      10) has never created a job in the private sector in his life which gives him something in common with the 23 million people who will probably never find another job in their life (if he is s re-elected).

      Yes, Obama is our man, he is the reflection of the American electorate, those patriotic people who can't afford a free ID (he has several), will vote for whoever the black guy is or whoever is promising things that sound good to them (but will NEVER be delivered e.g.immigration reform),

      Romney, well Obama claims he's for the 1%, not exactly a man of the sheeple, like Obama.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      It certainly wasn't liberal, Alex, lol. What defines conservative economics is 1) lack of regulation of the financial industry, or any industry for that matter, 2) laissaiz-faire policy toward business except when it comes to promoting business interests over that of labor and State-Rights, 3) relying "only" on supply and demand economics (microeconomics) as the mechinism by which the economy works, 4) denying that any aspect of government intervention in economic activity, whether it be monetary or fiscal policy, is beneficial, and 5) denying there is any need to intercede on behalf of the American people to mitigate the negative impacts of economic downturns.

      Each of these characteristics describes the conservatives currently in Congress and which were in Congress during the Bush administration was well as the last six years of the Clinton administration. They began infiltrating into government during the Reagan administration; slowly but surely returning our economic model to that which was in play prior to 1929. By 2002, they had largely succeeded. So yes, the Great Conservative Recession of 2008.

      As to your European rates, especially your 45% one, I refer you back to your own conservative economic guru Laffer; 45% fits well into his Laffer curve theory. Also, a major difference between their society and ours is most of their social services are paid through those taxes whiles ours are not; it is every man, woman, and child for themselves in America, that is our motto.

      When did Obama "ever" say that he would have unemployment down to 6.5%? Find me the quote if you would. If fact, find me his quote where he said he would keep it below 8%, for he never said that, nor did his staff. What his staff did say in "early" Jan 2009, with cavets coming out of their ying-yang, that IF all of these assumptions ACTUALLY come true, then MAYBE unemployment will stay below 8%. Then in February 2009, the 4th quarter 2008 data came out and blew all of their predictions out of the water; they were grateful to keep unemployment at only 10%. Now, I know you are an intelligent guy, Alex, so I know you knew all of what I just said is true, because it has been out their in black and white for years in the reports produced by these same staff members, but just chose to ignore it.

      You know, I had a similar problem that Obama had years ago, my household kept running a deficit and I kept trying to institute budgets and programs to stop it. Problem is, my wife fought me every step of the way and we ended up always staying in debt, until one day I found this new SUV parked in the driveway. I had a solution available to me that Obama doesn't, because the People just don't understand how it all works; I divorced my wife after finding that SUV and now my deficit has turned into some major surpluses because I was allowed to do what I knew to be right. Unfortunately, Obama can't divorce the Conservatives and the People seem to like it just the way it is.

      And no, Obama hasn't added $6 trillion, it seems to get larger with each telling, doesn't it. 2/3rds of the debt would have been added regardless of who was president, it was a function of the recession, not the presidency. The remainder was added trying to recover the economy which is what non-conservatives think should have been done. Conservatives, on the other hand, think the remainder should not have been spent, that federal spending should have been cut further thereby driving a bad recession into a soul-cleansing depression, hell we haven't had good on in what 80 years? They missed them after all after enjoying one every ten years or so in their economic heyday back in the 1800s.

      I wonder why so many small businesses like mine are doing so well in today's economy then TSA? How much higher than the normal failure of businesses is it today? Do you have that figure?

    • tsadjatko profile image

      TSAD 5 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

      Truth is conservatives didn't kill Joe the Plumber

      Obama did! this is what it's like for many businesses - what good is a tax cut or credit when you're business is losing money and going out of business?

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image

      AlexDrinkH2O 5 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      How can you call what happened in 2008 the "Great Conservative Recession?" What George Bush and the congress did was hardly conservative! France - 75% for 1 million Euros or more, 45% rate for over 150,000 Euros - this is almost confiscatory and will further erode their economic picture. Yes, we had a 92% top tax rate way back when but also had numerous deductions we don't have now. Lowering taxes increases government revenue - that has been proven time and time again. And the stats you gave for job growth, etc. are anemic. "Conservatives get of the way" - the GOP controlled House has sent up bill after bill to fix things and that half-wit Harry Reid keeps them from coming to the floor of the Senate. Democrats won't pass anything unless they get their precious tax cuts on "the rich." Even if you took ALL the money from "the rich" it won't even make a dent in the deficit never mind the national debt. Obama was supposed to have unemployment down to 6.5% now - where is it? He was supposed to cut the deficit in half - he doubled it. And he added $6 trillion (trillion!) to the national debt. For this he should be reelected? I don't think so - and he probably won't be.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Then show me, Alex, the statistics to prove me wrong because I have already published several hubs with the statistics to back up my claims.

      You simply make an unsubstantiated claim that

      "the poor and the middle class do best in an unfettered, market-driven economy with a low tax structure and without meddling by those who swear by Keynesian economics."

      ... where the historic data says exactly the opposite. Even your own conservative guru Laffer, disagrees with you; his theory counsels to raise taxes on the rich because they are currently below the theoretical "sweet" spot that maximizes tax revenues.

      Again, as I show mathematically and logically, in another hub, raising personal taxes 5% on the rich "does not" interefere with capital formation, it "does not" discourage wealth creation, it "does not" (I like the "", rather than the caps) inhibit job creation because "personal" taxes at that minimal amount has nothing to do with any of those things; it "only" impacts what a rich person does with some marginal (to them) disposable income, play money, as it were.

      A "75%" upper tax rate is an absolutely meaningless number unless you provide more information. If you say it is a 75% upper tax rate on income over a billion franks (yawn). If you say is on income over 1000 franks, now I get very excited and bothered. BTW, 75% is the upper end of the theoretical Laffer "sweet" spot. Research has it between 35% and 75%. or maybe 35% and 70%, but it is up there anyway. When we had 92% top marginal rate, nobody left the US, btw. I think that was on the equivalent of $5 million or something in today's dollars back in the 1940s.

      Stat 1: Jan 2009: job losses 800,000 per month and growing at an alarming rate; - 2012: job growth in excess of 40,000/mo, more if the conservatives would get out of the way

      Stat 2: Jan 2009: Unemployment rate: 7.8% and growing at .2%/mo and accelerating; - 2012: unemployment rate 7.8% and falling slowly; it would be falling faster if the conservatives would get out of the way.

      Stat 3: Jan 2009: Economic activity crashing -6%/year and accelerating; - 2012: economic activity growing at an average rate of 2%/year

      Stat 4: As a result of the Great Conservative Recession of 2008, over 10 million Americans lost their jobs between Jan 2007 and Jan 2010; - since 2010, over 5 million of them got their jobs back.

      Yep, you are so right, Alex, America is so much worse off today than it was Jan 2009. Who knows, it might get so bad if we elect Obama that the other 5 million Americans might have their jobs back, unemployment might be down to 5.8% and he would have increased growth a miserable 1.5% to 3.5%, a rate that virtually all economists believe should be maintained for the economy to remain healthy. We wouldn't want that, would we? :-)

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image

      AlexDrinkH2O 5 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      "Consider it is only under Conservative administrations do the rich get a lot richer and everybody else gets poorer while under Democratic administrations do the rich get somewhat richer and the poor make some gains and the middle class grows." What did you do, copy this out of the Communist Manifesto? First of all, it's not true - the poor and the middle class do best in an unfettered, market-driven economy with a low tax structure and without meddling by those who swear by Keynesian economics. As you try and soak the rich (like Obama wants to do), you decrease capital formation, discourage the creation of wealth, and inhibit job creation. Look what is happening in France - that fool socialist they elected wants a 75% upper tax rate - so if they are stupid enough to enact it, the "rich" (i.e., the business owners who provide jobs) will leave France and make people poorer. Secondly, I defy anyone to prove that the American people are doing better under Obama. Statistics clearly show we are worse off than we were four years ago. And if we reelect this guy, we will be FAR worse off than we are now.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Yep, Romney goes in mind and eyes closed and guns blazing, questions can come later, if at all.

      - Unemployment will remain high regardless of who is President because the People will have re-elected a non-compromizing Right-wing minority Senate which means nothing of consequence will get to the President's desk; which means business will still not know what government is going to do which means they won't hire much

      - Businesses don't care about personal or estate tax rates, those are personal matters. Instead, they care about corporate tax rates, corporate welfare, and business tax incentives.

      - High gas prices are 70% a function of speculation and price manipulatoin, e.g., falling oil prices from $105/bbl to $85/bbl recently and increasing gas prices in California at the same time.

      - Consider it is only under Consrvative administrations do the rich get a lot richer and everybody else gets poorer while under Democratic administrations do the rich get somewhat richer and the poor make some gains and the middle class grows.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      TSAD 5 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

      Consider that Obama gets reelected.

      If Obama is reelected, unemployment will remain very high, maybe go even higher as business will not hire without some idea of the long term tax rates, estate tax, and just the fear of confiscation in one form or another. So with high unemployment there is very little labor power to increase wages. Inflation remains very low. Companies will continue to pile up cash making them less risky from a credit standpoint. Interest rates stay very low, yield spreads continue to contract. Companies continue to refinance debt at low rates adding to earnings which bolsters stock prices. A virtuous cycle. Companies can be stingy on dividends and executives can once again make big money on their options because they plow the corporate earnings back into buying back stock.

      The wealthy become wealthier and the middle and lower class suffer with high unemployment, high gas prices, they get more tax breaks but since half of them don’t pay any taxes its not a big deal and they stay in line because their guy tells them how hard he has worked for them.

      Now who do you think is the one who really favors the rich?

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image

      AlexDrinkH2O 5 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      Strongly suggest you guys read the latest hub by Ghost32:

      "Unlike Obama, Romney Does Not Dither"

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      #American, no not really. I am not sure I would classify Walker's effort as "kicking butt". Remember, his starting point is being one of the very few governors ever to go through a recall election in the history of the U.S and he is only a few points ahead in the latest polls.

      As to Obama, I refer you to my initial comment which contains my latest estimate of the final electoral count. That estimate is based on current polling data.

      In any case,

    • American Romance profile image

      American Romance 5 years ago from America

      Really think he will win? Isn't Scott Walker kicking butt at the moment after the unions spent over 30 Million to oust him? Isn't he the governor of a predominate Democrat state?............I would say this isn't a good sign for President Obama......wouldn't you?

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Alex, think about it; exactly how much sense does it make that two wayward Dems, in a Congress controlled by conservatives since 1996, had so much power and influence as to cause the kind of recession that has only happened when conservative economic philosophy was being practiced? It boggles the mind they could overcome the objections of conservative majority and keep the policy you refer to in force for the 12 years prior to the recession!

      Furthermore, to believe that that single policy, if it were even true the way you stated it, could bring the country down as bad as we experienced. The TRUTH of the matter is that the policy you mention did NOT allow those who could not show sufficient, reliable income to purchase a house to be able to do so; it simply didn't happen the way conservative propaganda said it did. Please provide the proof of your assertion.

      You still say "Obama made it worse" when the actual facts contradict that statement. Tell me, exactly how did Obama "make it worse"? Give me some statistics to prove what you say is true; I provided data to show that what you said isn't true.

      As to theocracy, that is the clear goal of fundamentalist Christians, the ones who control the social conservatives today. Again, you make unsubstiated claims as to how the government is doing what you say. All I see is the government trying to keep religion out of government and government run agencies and functions.

      It is interesting then, that my companies health insurance premiums went DOWN 10% at the beginning of 2012. That allowed me to substantially increase the benefits to my employees. It also flys in the face of common sense. What makes ObamaCare work is adding 37 million more people to the insurance roles, which as a consequence must drive down insurance rates simply because that is how premiums are set; the more healthy people there are in an insurance pool, the lower the premiums ... that is a given.

      So the question comes down to the individual mandate, and its constitutionality. If the Court holds it to be constitutional, which it should, then premiums will go down. If it doesn't find it constitutional, then it should, at the same time, strike down social security and Medicare, because those are individual mandates as well.

      Show me where in the bill that "several bureaucrasies are added between patients and there doctors". It, in fact, reduces some by not allowing the private insurers to decide anymore, who lives and who dies; as they often do today. When I read the bill, I didn't see any new bureacrasies at all that were related to the doctor-patient relationship.

      Even the one single-payer system we do have, Medicare/Medicaid, doesn come close to approaching a "socialized" paradigm. If it did, there would be no profit-based insurance companies participating in the process. In fact, the American insurance companies do control their own production and delivery of health care. Having that kind of control tells me that our system is clearly not "socialist".

      I wrote a hub, by the way, that discussed the possibility that if the Court does find the individual mandate unconstitutional, then there might be a backlash in the voters when they finally realize how much will be losing with the elimination of the parts of Obamacare currently being provided. The result could be a total rejection of conservative politicians and the expansion of Medicare to accomplish the same goals of Obamacare.

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image

      AlexDrinkH2O 5 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      The original problem during the Bush administration was not caused by Bush - it was primarily caused by two Democrats, Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank - they and others insisted on allowing people who had no business buying homes get mortgages in the name of "fairness." So what happened? The bottom fell out of the subprime market - well, no sh-t! That started the freefall of the economy. Did Bush fix it? No, but Obama made it worse. "Christian theocracy?" Come on, no one wants that. As a practicing Roman Catholic, however, I am appalled at the efforts of some to eradicate faith from every nook and cranny of our society. As for Obamacare, you know as well as I do all that miserable excuse for a bill will do is push up the costs of health care (it already has), add several bureaucracies between patients and their doctors, and sooner or later the push will come for a "single-payer" system, and THAT is the end-game. The only reason it wasn't in the original bill is because there were many patriotic Republicans (and more than a few Democrats) opposed to socialized medicine. My friend, I lived in the UK for eight years - the last thing you want is socialized medicine!

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Alex, why do you start with the day Obama took office? You treat it like everything was in stasis rather than going to hell-in-a-handbasket. Does it make no difference to you that on the day President Obama took office, 700,000 people were in the process of losing their jobs and, as a consequence, the ability to pay taxes as well as start to collect unemployement? You do realize, don't you, that both of these facts add to the deficit and debt, in case you weren't aware, and cannot be attributed to Obama, except by some sleight of hand.

      And how about the next month, February, where another 700,000 jobs were lost due to the on-coming depression caused by a failed conservative economic policy? Did Obama cause those people to lose their jobs as well or the increase that job lose placed on America's debt and deficit? Was it, instead, the on-coming depression?

      How about March, where I think another 600,000 peole lost their jobs. Wow, Obama has now been in office a whole 60-days and his stimulus in place an incredible 30-days. Now, it is easy to claim that the huge increase in debt and deficit MUST be due to Obama's inability to work a miracle and stop the on-coming depression and massive job loses in their tracks the day after he took office as the Conservatives clearly believe, given your rhetoric, he should have been able to do.

      Now let's turn to the large increase in debt and deficit brought on solely because of decreased tax revenues from failing and falling business activity that has been occurring since 2007 and hit its zenith in 2009 as a result of an economic downturn the was quickly becoming a depression; according to President Bush's economists anyway. That increase in national debt must clearly be due to Obama's mismanagement of the economy from 2002 to 2009, shouldn't it? ... OH Wait, that was President Bush, wasn't it.

      How much of the $5 trillion you site do you HONESTLY think came from Obama's efforts to prevent a depression and save millions of American's from worse misery and heartbreak than they already were feeling because conseratives don't know how to run an economy.

      Let's move on to the $1 trillion in stimulus Obama did spend in SUCCESSFULLY averting a giant depression. Here you are partially right in asserting it wasn't enough. The $1 trillion amount was based on the rosier, 3rd qtr economic information that was made available in early Nov 2008, and not the much more realistic and gloomier assessment available in early February 2009. That assessment said Obama needed $2 trillion, which Obama should have tried for, in my opinion, but didn't in the face of unbelievable conservative resistance, even in his own party.

      Now, I understand that many conservatives actually believe Obama should have let the economy slide into a depression, it is good for the soul, after all. Many other conservatives don't believe their own economists in that is where the country was headed, they only listen to the conservative radio enterainers like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Fortunately, moderates and liberals DO NOT believe a depression is good for the country and proceeded to stop it.

      For this you roundly critisize Obama and misrepresent about how much HE actually contributed to the debt and deficit.

      Also a pure lie and conservative propaganda, successful propaganda, I might add, is the claim ObamaCare is a government take-over of the health care. Show me even one section in the ObamaCare act that supports your view.

      Reagan has the longest record of unemployment over 9%, so there!

      If the Federal government has refused to protect the border, why has the number of border agents increased to record levels and illegals apprehended trying to cross the border decreased by 10-fold?

      Finally, I reject the coservative religeous Right's attempt to turn this country into a Christian theocracy.

      Sorry for the length, but it easy to make unsupported bumper-sticker claims but much more time-consuming to present the facts.

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image

      AlexDrinkH2O 5 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      $10 trillion national debt when Obama took office, $15 trillion national debt now; longest string of months with unemployment over 8% in history; largest aggrandizement of power in the Executive Branch since FDR (some people actually like this - fools they be); a stimulus package which stimulated NOTHING; attempting a virtual government takeover of 1/6th of our economy with the "health care" bill (which the Supreme Court thankfully will overturn soon); actually bringing lawsuits against states who are just trying to do the job the federal government REFUSES to do; a failed foreign policy (too many instances to list here); the war on religious freedom . . . and you want this guy to be reelected? Are you kidding???

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      I always love to see someone on the Right say Obama has made the economy much worse, I have to chuckle thinking of how out of touch with reality they are and positing how high on the Right-Wing Authoritarian follower (RWA) scale they would score on the test I have in one of my hubs. I don't need to point out the obvious absurdity in their statement because you already have in this wonderful hub; reversal of job loss and continuous economic growth, yep, that is much worse than what I call the Great Conservative Recession of 2008.

      My count, at the moment, is Obama will win by a 314 to 224 electoral vote majority. It is also interesting to note he is ahead in 4 out of the 5 states mentioned by Dr. Kidd, AZ by 2, NV by 8, CO by 13, and NM by 14! Only in FL is Romney winning by 2.

      Finally, the count on the poll I have been running for a long time (and garnered a mere 49 votes, frown) is 57%/33% for Obama/Romney.

    • Dr Billy Kidd profile image

      Dr Billy Kidd 5 years ago from Sydney, Australia

      You covered the bases, and it seems to makes sense. I do think you left out the Latin/Hispanic vote. After Marco Rubio's Freudian slip, where he started talking about his plans after being V.P., I think the Etch-A-Sketch has been reset. Don't get me wrong, but Ed Gillespie and Carl Rove running a smear campaign with a half billion dollars (American Crossroads and GOP money combined), and with Rubio shoring up Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico--I think Romney's got it. Not the man, but the Gillespie-Rove lies will win.

    • Davesworld profile image

      Davesworld 5 years ago from Cottage Grove, MN 55016

      No way the economy works in Obama's favor unless we see a dramatic turn around in the next six months. Too damn may people out of work and hurting. And I think Romney is going to surprise you now that he is through with the in-fighting and can turn his sights on the bozo in the White House. Obama is destined to join the surprisingly small club of one term presidents.

    • coachmiller13 profile image

      coachmiller13 5 years ago from Florida

      Whether or not you agree that there is a "war on women" does not change the fact that there is a 30-35% gap among female voters between Romney and Obama...that's the point.

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image

      AlexDrinkH2O 5 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      War om women? Did you really buy that malarkey? And Obama inherited "a horrific mess left by the Bush White House" - yeah, and he made it MUCH worse. Obama is the worst president in US history and if the American people foolishly re-elect him, they deserve what they'll get - the decline of the US as an economic and world power, and the establishment of a European-style, bloated welfare state.