Trying to save the 2014 elections

So Obama has decided to hold off on the employer portion of the mandate for ObamaCare.    No doubt because now everyone is starting to see the effects - Most companies are cutting hours to get as much staff below the 30 hour cutoff.   Color me unsurprised.  A significant percentage of the U.S. doesn't even realize they're going to get clobbered on their taxes because they didn't understand they needed to get insurance - on their own.   Because the individual mandate is still scheduled for 2014.  

Obsensibly this is done because they (the Administration) realized there is NO WAY they can roll this train wreck out this fast.   And they're hoping that this will delay the staggering effect that the employer mandate is already having on full time employment.  The real reason is to get folks to not spend time thinking about how badly they're being screwed until AFTER the elections.  Now the question is - will the Democrats believe their own bullshit and go into the 2014 elections with the ObamaCare Sword swinging for their necks or will they realize that voting for something no one ever read is perhaps a bad idea. Will they understand that, all the people who've already had their 40 hour jobs turned into 30 hour jobs, are going to understand (because their employers told them) that it's ObamaCare's fault.  And ObamaCare was the Democrats baby.     

So - on the one hand you can expect companies to stop cutting hours -- or not.  I'm betting NOT.   On the other hand, you can expect a lot of folks to see their cost of individual insurance climb, kind of significantly. My insurance company tells me I should know sometime in September.  I'll be a bit surprised if the increase is less than 30% and not at all surprised if it's over 50%.   Why?  because I have what is essentially classified as catastrophic coverage.   Really high deductible, no prescription coverage.

I'm wondering who in fact who; besides perhaps young single moms who don't want to work more than 20 hours a week because it screws with their benefits, will actually see any of this as a good thing come April.

I guess we'll see if anyone is paying attention - the Democrats have more than a few things to answer for, and one would hope that the Independents at least will remind folks of just what the Democrats did - with the help in a lot of cases of the Republicans.  My guess is that lots of liberals will blaming the downsides of ObamaCare, the IRS, Benghazi, Fast&Furious, NSA problems on Bush.   Because... BUSH. 

Well of course the tax payers should carry the Bird[en]

Obama make a crack about Romney eliminating wall street regulations and cracking down on  Sesame Street.    

The first seems unlikely at best.  The second could only be a good thing since the bird makes way more than the Mittster.

Get ready to pay for law suits

It makes perfect sense really.   Sequestration results in layoffs, layoffs bump unemployment, unemployment perceived as a bad thing.  Solution: tell companies to break the law, not issue mandatory layoff notices,  and that tax payers will pick up the bill for the law suits.  DC-Think at it's finest.

Want to know more

Dumb or Dumber

We're going to get one or the other.   Why? Well there's just not enough of us to elect Ron Paul (R) or Gary Johnson (L).  The GOP lackeys are going to Vote for who ever the RNC tells them to vote for - that'll be Mitt.  And the progressives will vote for BO.   Either way we'll get what they deserve for a government - possibly what we deserve for not beating the GOP into submission 30 years ago and turning them into the Small Government Party.   I suspect we failed not so much from a lack of trying (although there was a fair amount of that) but lack of foresight as to just how screwed up the GOP would become.  In my case it was an absolute refusal to vote anything but Libertarian - knowing full well I wasn't going to win - but I could sleep at night knowing I hadn't sold out to the GOP. 


Would Ron be better?  Yeah, not ideal but better - except he'd get little or no support from the GOP congress.  Which means he could fix Communist Czar problem that BO created.  He'll probably put us in to seclusion mode for foreign policy - in the short run, as long as we keep up HumInt funding that might not be tragic.  But congress is unlikely to do the rational stuff we want to see until his second term - after we've ousted the idiots that didn't get the message the first time around.   Gary Johnson would be my first pick but he'd be even less effective than Ron Paul for everything but Regulatory appointments (Very important), Supreme Court appointments (Critical), Foreign Policy (serious).   Getting congress to behave - Nah, since neither one is the official candidate for the BIG and BIGGER government parties, congress (except the TP'ers) will be as uncooperative as possible. 


Now Borepatch makes an interesting argument for voting for the unrestrained reign of National Democratic Socialist/Communist/NWO terror that Obama supporters seem to want (of course they're not going to much like what they get but they're convinced they want it and there's no changing their minds). 


I understand the logic - I really do, I'm just not sure we'll recover from what an unrestrained BO will do to us - we may not get another election without a fight (literally a fight as in with weapons).   Maybe I'm over reacting - maybe he'll just really screw things up so bad that the TEA Party gets a huge boost - which means a lot more congress-critters get the boot.    I don't think the Tea Party trusts  Mitt anymore than I do, and they really do want smaller government, controlled spending, and lower taxes so I don't think they'll give up. 


I absolutely agree that Mitt, if elected, will sway in which ever breeze seems most likely to blow him into a second term.   The trick then is to make sure that breeze is fairly strong - dumping every incumbent and putting in a TP'er or Libertarian candidate.  My preference would be any libertarian - and I don't agree with a lot of them but they all want a Small (tiny, damn near non-existant government) which is what I want.   What's the difference between a TP'er and Libertarian - TP'er are still a little to ... Not Democrats rather than even Libertarian Light.   Still a little too willing to give the GOP the benefit of the doubt.  If I think a TP'er has a shot where a Libertarian wouldn't I'd go for the TP'er. 


It will either be BO or MR, both are worst choice, but at least we have a small chance of steering the Mittwit as he sees what we do to congress bit by bit.  Right Now - I just don't know. Either go all in with Borepatch, or hope you draw to that inside straight.   It's either completely screwed or completely screwed only slower.  Me I'm going to vote my conscience, if that means doing a write-in for Gary Johnson - I'm OK with that.  

Voting Depression

I generally vote for whom ever I think represents my views the best - usually it's not a (D) or (R).   I rebel against the idea of voting for a Republican just to keep a Democrat out of office, or vice-versa.   So here I am feeling sick to my stomach because I can't in good conscience do something that might lead to Obama getting re-elected.   He and his people are trying to bury the Constitution.   They despise gun owners.  And I believe their policies are going going to destroy our economy.   I will grant that he started off with a next to impossible situation that I believe started with Clinton (Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac) and was made considerably worse by the ill advised war waged by Bush - Oh and the IDIOT tax breaks they passed.   There was that brief moment when we had a surplus (OK Not really - but based on the fantasy accounting used by the government).  We could have used that to pay down the National Debt - you know the same thing they keep telling all of us to do - pay down your debt....


Nope Bush decides to give it back to the rich folk - oh sure the rest of us got a tiny bit too - then he goes and starts a massively expensive war and yep - cuts taxes again.   Now don't get me wrong - I'm not a fan of Taxes.     At the very least taxes give government types the idea that they have money to spend.   They don't - they spent it all a long time ago.   


OK enough history.    So here I am faced with Voting my Conscience (my usual choice assuming there's anyone at all on the ballot that fits that bill) and voting against Obama - it Damn it to Hell - they stuck me with MITT.  None of the four contenders where really worth a damn to begin with.   I really like about 60% of Ron Paul - the rest is.... not good.   Santorum scares me - he's a big government type - no real track record for protecting the Constitution and he believes some people have the right to tell other people what's right and wrong - despite what the courts have said.    Not interested in living in a Theocracy - thanks Rick.   Newt - well, at least I have an idea what to expect from him - more of the SAME.  but I don't think he'd trample our rights as fast as Rick or Mitt.  And I don't think he'd get us into the same problems with our allies that Ron would.


So now - after all the preaching I've done about not voting for a Republican or a Democrat - I'm thinking I'll have to vote for one - and it SUCKS. 


George was right - the two party system is a bad idea.

     I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.
     This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
     The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

(George Washingtons Farewell Address)