If the ACA succeeds, the GOP may be history

[emilynghiem]

Hi Rightwinger
I noticed you totally avoided the issue of
CONSENT
and
CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.

Is it because you don't believe that government authority is based on that?



Yes, people who ignore the "consent or dissent" of people,
that is how slavery was justified, and how rape is dismissed as consensual,
when you dismiss people as not counting or unequal to yourself.

Rightwinger are you deliberately trying to
misrepresent my statement to "dismiss" it as irrelevant?

Or do you really not see that the
issue I was focused on is
CONSENT?

Do you use a different term besides CONSENT?
What do you call it, freedom of choice?
Separation of church and state authority?

RW when you object to the political agenda or beliefs of another party
pushed through govt, what do
YOU call it when such a policy
violates YOUR beliefs?

Sorry I used the term CONSENT if this does not matter or mean anything to you.
Can you please tell me what term you DO USE instead?

Do you call it equal representation or protection of the laws from discrimination?
Anti-bigotry? What do you call when you don't believe in some opposing person or group
pushing their views, beliefs or agenda on you, especially abusing laws or govt to do so?

What do YOU call it then? I'm happy to use your terms if you can't understand mine.

This is America......you are free to dissent

You are free to elect a majority in the House, 60 US Senators, a President who supports your views....and then pass Supreme Court challenges

That is what the Democrats had to do

Nope. Majority rules ain't it.

Hi Rightwinger: Thank you for following up where Luddly gave up and bailed out. I hope you can help us with that, sorry.

I agree this is more than Majority rule.

Majority rule does not give anyone the right to abuse govt
to impose religiously held political beliefs against the consent of others to exclude them.

In order to respect beliefs on sides of the ACA and Singlepayer/Free Market issue,
I believe a consensus can be reached by going through Party and setting up
"separate but equal" systems. Keep the parts of the laws that all people and parties agree on as federal programs and jurisdiction, while the parts people disagree on religiously, manage by separate networks without infringing or dictating each other's systems.

The IRS needs to be reformed and internally checked anyway, so perhaps working out separation of taxation on health care plans by Party can lead to much needed separation on similar issues, from the death penalty, war and vet program funding, immigration and welfare support, and legalization policies where people don't agree what to fund and might resolve the political conflicts faster by separating their taxes to fund different approaches.

We need this reform anyway, might as well start looking into the best way to get there.
This is long overdue, and all these conflicts along similar lines could be resolved this way.

 

[rightwinger]

This is America......you are free to dissent

You are free to elect a majority in the House, 60 US Senators, a President who supports your views....and then pass Supreme Court challenges

That is what the Democrats had to do

Nope. Majority rules ain't it.

Hi Rightwinger: Thank you for following up where Luddly gave up and bailed out. I hope you can help us with that, sorry.

I agree this is more than Majority rule.

Majority rule does not give anyone the right to abuse govt
to impose religiously held political beliefs against the consent of others to exclude them.

In order to respect beliefs on sides of the ACA and Singlepayer/Free Market issue,
I believe a consensus can be reached by going through Party and setting up
"separate but equal" systems. Keep the parts of the laws that all people and parties agree on as federal programs and jurisdiction, while the parts people disagree on religiously, manage by separate networks without infringing or dictating each other's systems.

The IRS needs to be reformed and internally checked anyway, so perhaps working out separation of taxation on health care plans by Party can lead to much needed separation on similar issues, from the death penalty, war and vet program funding, immigration and welfare support, and legalization policies where people don't agree what to fund and might resolve the political conflicts faster by separating their taxes to fund different approaches.

We need this reform anyway, might as well start looking into the best way to get there.
This is long overdue, and all these conflicts along similar lines could be resolved this way.

I have no problem...go for it

Set up your separate but equal insurance program and get a majority of the House and 60 Senate votes and a President to sign it

That is the way our government works

 

[Mojo2]

This is America......you are free to dissent

You are free to elect a majority in the House, 60 US Senators, a President who supports your views....and then pass Supreme Court challenges

That is what the Democrats had to do

Nope. Majority rules ain't it.

Hi Rightwinger: Thank you for following up where Luddly gave up and bailed out. I hope you can help us with that, sorry.

I agree this is more than Majority rule.

Majority rule does not give anyone the right to abuse govt
to impose religiously held political beliefs against the consent of others to exclude them.

In order to respect beliefs on sides of the ACA and Singlepayer/Free Market issue,
I believe a consensus can be reached by going through Party and setting up
"separate but equal" systems. Keep the parts of the laws that all people and parties agree on as federal programs and jurisdiction, while the parts people disagree on religiously, manage by separate networks without infringing or dictating each other's systems.

The IRS needs to be reformed and internally checked anyway, so perhaps working out separation of taxation on health care plans by Party can lead to much needed separation on similar issues, from the death penalty, war and vet program funding, immigration and welfare support, and legalization policies where people don't agree what to fund and might resolve the political conflicts faster by separating their taxes to fund different approaches.

We need this reform anyway, might as well start looking into the best way to get there.
This is long overdue, and all these conflicts along similar lines could be resolved this way.

There should be NO COMPROMISE on ACA.

Scrap it.

Start over.

The Dems' strategy which has resulted in getting the country moving to the point where we'd elect an extreme radical for POTUS is as follows:

Start with an outrageous goal and then get the Conservatives to go through the roof in outrage.

Squabble.

Then get the GOP to compromise.

Repeat until America is no longer America the strong, America the free, America the prosperous and America the proud.

And now they are talking about doing the same with ACA.

This is unacceptable.

If you don't understand their strategy, let me reframe it for you.

Let's imprison ALL the Progressives and Liberals and Radicals and Left Wingers and Democrats on some bullshit charge.

Then when they hit the roof in outrage let's squabble about it.

Then after a protracted period of spirited debate...

Let's compromise and imprision only the radicals.

And every so often let's do it again but this time we would work on the hard core Progressives.

And so on.

That's why the NRA is so effective.

They look at any and every gun bill as unreasonable and refuse to compromise and allow our 2nd A rights to fall victim to the LW's slippery slope strategy.

Ted says we should repeal every word of ACA.

Ted Cruz.

 

[Meister]

Anyone who dismisses rightwing opposition or outrage as something
to be laughed at is either sick for revenge or woefully uninformed
on the Constitutional objections and conflicts with this bill.

I can't imagine you are that sick to laugh at someone's pain,
and don't mean to be cruel. if you don't get that the objections are real
please know that they are. All my friends who are conservative are
truly concerned this is destroying constitutional integrity
of govt, and it is stressing me out twice as much because
I have as many friends on the left, and this is tearing me apart. not funny at all.

The wingnuts' raging fear in this thread amuses me.

I'm a liberal prochoice progressive Democrat.
And I oppose the ACA mandates on Constitutional grounds.

I worry every day I cannot keep paying for the community projects I committed to before Democrats added this, and deal with the implications introduced by ACA added on top.

It is constantly stressing me out; my govt reform proposals call for unity with members of different parties, but conflicts with this ACA bill have weakened if not killed the ability to collaborate. so it puts more stress on me to pay the costs while these issues drag out.

It is very sad ppl see this as a political game you can afford to laugh at
as entertainment to see ppl suffer.
my ability to save a national historic site depended on organizing
resources that nobody can focus on because of problems added by this bill.
i committed to working two jobs and put over 60,000 on credit
to cover costs until the project could raise funds to pay back the debts.
all to save a national landmark.
but i can't do that and work under the federal terms of this ACA
that violate my conscience and constitutional beliefs on govt.
to me it is involuntary servitude to work this hard
only to watch govt abused further in ways i don't agree to pay for.

i am stressed out until this gets resolved
and dont think its funny at all. i think it is tragic
to watch ppl disrespecting and dismissing
each others views as if they dont matter.

what kind of country have we become
to laugh at other ppl suffering as if it isnt real

ecincola, why do you keep posting other writers material an call it yours ??? there isn't anything unconstitutional about the ACA ... many of you delusional republicans have tried to empty it is ... so far you've lost every time ... its not you who gets to decide what is constitutional or whose right or wrong its the supreme court that does ... so far you've lost that debate every time

The only thing the that court has heard was if the ACA was mandate. That was legislated from the bench by Roberts to be a tax.

 

[emilynghiem]

Nope. Majority rules ain't it.

Hi Rightwinger: Thank you for following up where Luddly gave up and bailed out. I hope you can help us with that, sorry.

I agree this is more than Majority rule.

Majority rule does not give anyone the right to abuse govt
to impose religiously held political beliefs against the consent of others to exclude them.

In order to respect beliefs on sides of the ACA and Singlepayer/Free Market issue,
I believe a consensus can be reached by going through Party and setting up
"separate but equal" systems. Keep the parts of the laws that all people and parties agree on as federal programs and jurisdiction, while the parts people disagree on religiously, manage by separate networks without infringing or dictating each other's systems.

The IRS needs to be reformed and internally checked anyway, so perhaps working out separation of taxation on health care plans by Party can lead to much needed separation on similar issues, from the death penalty, war and vet program funding, immigration and welfare support, and legalization policies where people don't agree what to fund and might resolve the political conflicts faster by separating their taxes to fund different approaches.

We need this reform anyway, might as well start looking into the best way to get there.
This is long overdue, and all these conflicts along similar lines could be resolved this way.

I have no problem...go for it

Set up your separate but equal insurance program and get a majority of the House and 60 Senate votes and a President to sign it

That is the way our government works

Thanks RW
I think it will be a more effective approach to say YES to all the things people want
rather than fight over saying NO to each other's ideas.

why not let each party set up their own, so everyone gets what they believe in.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes, for those who oppose ACA at all, it is the same thing as voiding it, for them.

For those who want a Singlepayer type system,
pushing ACA into the Democrat camp as a choice for their members to opt in and pay for,
it is getting them what they are asking for, and holding them responsible for paying for it.

Everyone is free to set up their own systems,
and can even compete to be the most effective and appealing to consumers.

Just saying no isn't enough to get a consensus.
What about saying yes to all people and parties getting their way and paying for it.

Nope. Majority rules ain't it.

Hi Rightwinger: Thank you for following up where Luddly gave up and bailed out. I hope you can help us with that, sorry.

I agree this is more than Majority rule.

Majority rule does not give anyone the right to abuse govt
to impose religiously held political beliefs against the consent of others to exclude them.

In order to respect beliefs on sides of the ACA and Singlepayer/Free Market issue,
I believe a consensus can be reached by going through Party and setting up
"separate but equal" systems. Keep the parts of the laws that all people and parties agree on as federal programs and jurisdiction, while the parts people disagree on religiously, manage by separate networks without infringing or dictating each other's systems.

The IRS needs to be reformed and internally checked anyway, so perhaps working out separation of taxation on health care plans by Party can lead to much needed separation on similar issues, from the death penalty, war and vet program funding, immigration and welfare support, and legalization policies where people don't agree what to fund and might resolve the political conflicts faster by separating their taxes to fund different approaches.

We need this reform anyway, might as well start looking into the best way to get there.
This is long overdue, and all these conflicts along similar lines could be resolved this way.

There should be NO COMPROMISE on ACA.

Scrap it.

Start over.

The Dems' strategy which has resulted in getting the country moving to the point where we'd elect an extreme radical for POTUS is as follows:

Start with an outrageous goal and then get the Conservatives to go through the roof in outrage.

Squabble.

Then get the GOP to compromise.

Repeat until America is no longer America the strong, America the free, America the prosperous and America the proud.

And now they are talking about doing the same with ACA.

This is unacceptable.

If you don't understand their strategy, let me reframe it for you.

Let's imprison ALL the Progressives and Liberals and Radicals and Left Wingers and Democrats on some bullshit charge.

Then when they hit the roof in outrage let's squabble about it.

Then after a protracted period of spirited debate...

Let's compromise and imprision only the radicals.

And every so often let's do it again but this time we would work on the hard core Progressives.

And so on.

That's why the NRA is so effective.

They look at any and every gun bill as unreasonable and refuse to compromise and allow our 2nd A rights to fall victim to the LW's slippery slope strategy.

Ted says we should repeal every word of ACA.

Ted Cruz.

 

[rightwinger]

Nope. Majority rules ain't it.

Hi Rightwinger: Thank you for following up where Luddly gave up and bailed out. I hope you can help us with that, sorry.

I agree this is more than Majority rule.

Majority rule does not give anyone the right to abuse govt
to impose religiously held political beliefs against the consent of others to exclude them.

In order to respect beliefs on sides of the ACA and Singlepayer/Free Market issue,
I believe a consensus can be reached by going through Party and setting up
"separate but equal" systems. Keep the parts of the laws that all people and parties agree on as federal programs and jurisdiction, while the parts people disagree on religiously, manage by separate networks without infringing or dictating each other's systems.

The IRS needs to be reformed and internally checked anyway, so perhaps working out separation of taxation on health care plans by Party can lead to much needed separation on similar issues, from the death penalty, war and vet program funding, immigration and welfare support, and legalization policies where people don't agree what to fund and might resolve the political conflicts faster by separating their taxes to fund different approaches.

We need this reform anyway, might as well start looking into the best way to get there.
This is long overdue, and all these conflicts along similar lines could be resolved this way.

There should be NO COMPROMISE on ACA.

Scrap it.

Start over.

The Dems' strategy which has resulted in getting the country moving to the point where we'd elect an extreme radical for POTUS is as follows:

Start with an outrageous goal and then get the Conservatives to go through the roof in outrage.

Squabble.

Then get the GOP to compromise.

Repeat until America is no longer America the strong, America the free, America the prosperous and America the proud.

And now they are talking about doing the same with ACA.

This is unacceptable.

If you don't understand their strategy, let me reframe it for you.

Let's imprison ALL the Progressives and Liberals and Radicals and Left Wingers and Democrats on some bullshit charge.

Then when they hit the roof in outrage let's squabble about it.

Then after a protracted period of spirited debate...

Let's compromise and imprision only the radicals.

And every so often let's do it again but this time we would work on the hard core Progressives.

And so on.

That's why the NRA is so effective.

They look at any and every gun bill as unreasonable and refuse to compromise and allow our 2nd A rights to fall victim to the LW's slippery slope strategy.

Ted says we should repeal every word of ACA.

Ted Cruz.

[[/url]

No compromise on Obamacare?
Republicans have already gotten that. Your take no prisoners approach has gotten you a healthcare plan without the tax incentives, tort reform and interstate sales you wanted
Your constant attempts at repeal at all costs, even shutting down the government has gotten you nothing
Now, the best you can get is to live with Obamacare......that is all you ended up with for your histrionics

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hi Rightwinger
I noticed you totally avoided the issue of
CONSENT
and
CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.

Is it because you don't believe that government authority is based on that?



Yes, people who ignore the "consent or dissent" of people,
that is how slavery was justified, and how rape is dismissed as consensual,
when you dismiss people as not counting or unequal to yourself.

Rightwinger are you deliberately trying to
misrepresent my statement to "dismiss" it as irrelevant?

Or do you really not see that the
issue I was focused on is
CONSENT?

Do you use a different term besides CONSENT?
What do you call it, freedom of choice?
Separation of church and state authority?

RW when you object to the political agenda or beliefs of another party
pushed through govt, what do
YOU call it when such a policy
violates YOUR beliefs?

Sorry I used the term CONSENT if this does not matter or mean anything to you.
Can you please tell me what term you DO USE instead?

Do you call it equal representation or protection of the laws from discrimination?
Anti-bigotry? What do you call when you don't believe in some opposing person or group
pushing their views, beliefs or agenda on you, especially abusing laws or govt to do so?

What do YOU call it then? I'm happy to use your terms if you can't understand mine.

This is America......you are free to dissent

You are free to elect a majority in the House, 60 US Senators, a President who supports your views....and then pass Supreme Court challenges

That is what the Democrats had to do

Nope. Majority rules ain't it.

with SCOTUS on board, yep, it does.

 

[rdean]

There were Republicans who voted for both programs.

NONE for ACA.

Does that teach you anything?

Probably not.

Neither of those programs were an attempt to enslave Americans.

ACA is.

Neither of those two programs put Americans out of work or cost them, personally, thousands of dollars to implement.

Neither of those two programs resulted in life threatening decisions having to be made by individuals and families just to stay alive.

Neither of those two programs was created and passed through the use of underhanded, sneaky, manipulative games by lawmakers in collusion with the President of the United States.

Neither of those two programs forced businesses to lay off employees or cut their employees' hours.

You aren't just ignorant or stupid. You are a tool being used to effect the downfall of America.

Yea, it tells us that in 50 years, the Republicans have gone from mildly anti middle class to rabid mouth foaming tards.

You are a waste of space and time.

Did I say something that wasn't true? Come on, this GOP would never build the Interstate highway system or found NASA. In fact, only a very tiny few scientists want to be in any way associated with this Republican Party.

Birtherism?

Anti Science?

Let him die?

Poor children are better off hungry?

Feed the poor and they will breed?

Don't put you government hands on my Medicare?

This is the party of tards and they are proud of it:

 

[JimH52]

Did Ryan's latest budget again propose to defund the ACA. Will they ever give up?

 

[Rozman]

First thing.....when ACA succeeds, Republicans will stop calling it Obamacare

When?

Barbara Boxer has already called it a huge success...
Obama has already taken his victory lap...

 

[Stephanie]

If that is true,

First thing.....when ACA succeeds, Republicans will stop calling it Obamacare

then a slew of you cult members can finally get off your knees and instead bow in silence to your shine of him

and repeat three all hail Obama's

gawd you people are sick in your worship of some man

 

[emilynghiem]

That's why the NRA is so effective.

They look at any and every gun bill as unreasonable and refuse to compromise and allow our 2nd A rights to fall victim to the LW's slippery slope strategy.

Ted says we should repeal every word of ACA.

Ted Cruz.

[[/url]

No compromise on Obamacare?
Republicans have already gotten that. Your take no prisoners approach has gotten you a healthcare plan without the tax incentives, tort reform and interstate sales you wanted
Your constant attempts at repeal at all costs, even shutting down the government has gotten you nothing
Now, the best you can get is to live with Obamacare......that is all you ended up with for your histrionics

Hi RW:
This isn't entirely accurate.

The GOP leaders in Congress DID orchestate a very fair compromise to pass the budget with only two changes to ACA (liberal Democrats supported these two points more than the conservatives who opposed all ACA but AGREED to limit it to these two concessions to get the budget passed)
* delay the individual mandate for one year since the employer mandate was also
(NOTE that Obama kept changing the rules himself, which isn't constitutional, but opposed anyone in Congress changing it which was constitutional)
* remove the tax on medical devices as members of BOTH parties agreed should be changed

I thought this was a very good solution. I checked around, and people from both parties, both for and against Obama and ACA AGREED to these two points.

Yet Obama REFUSED to sign any budget that had any changes at all to ACA,
only to change the ACA later himself.

So how can you blame the GOP for the shutdown when they did offer solutions
but OBAMA refused to compromise for political reasons?

 

[emilynghiem]

First thing.....when ACA succeeds, Republicans will stop calling it Obamacare

When?

Barbara Boxer has already called it a huge success...
Obama has already taken his victory lap...

I will believe they really believe this,
when Democrats agree to fund and run the program themselves
by voluntary participation through their own party
because it works so well for them.

Anything else tells me it doesn't work the way it was set up.
Even if it works 100%, it is still imposing tax and business regulations
against the consent of law abiding citizens penalized who haven't committed any crimes.

Any business or charity can "work wonders" and do wonderful things to help people in need, but if it is forced onto people by federal govt to pay into it against their will and violating Constitutional procedures and principles, it is still unlawful.

You might as well be teaching people that it's okay to steal the money or labor of
other people, by bullying theft or fraud,
"as long as the program is successful and helps more people."

It's still unlawful to force people against their will this way, spelled out as
"involuntary servitude" which is against the law.

The Constitution set up procedures to pass amendments in order to expand the duties of federal govt, and to ensure representation before imposing taxes.

If this many people are protesting on Constitutional grounds, that means they are not represented. So it is unlawful to enforce taxes or fines against the public, but all grievances should be redressed so there is representation and protection of interests.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Rdean:
I also have been pushed to the limit as a prochoice progressive Democrat.
It's not just Republicans who are fed up with unconstitutional government.

And yes, the problems have grown worse and worse, so that's why all people I know are
increasingly disgusted with politics, on all sides.

Yea, it tells us that in 50 years, the Republicans have gone from mildly anti middle class to rabid mouth foaming tards.

here, Rdean, you can change your avatar to this if you want to be more accurate:

If you don't respect conservative media for skewing biases against Martin,
I would not play into the hands of liberal media railroading Zimmerman either!
Both men had backgrounds, and both got into a fight. They are both responsible for what happened.

 

[MeBelle]

Did Ryan's latest budget again propose to defund the ACA. Will they ever give up?

^^^Fail^^^

Paul Ryan on Sunday said that the GOP House budget was tailored to assume that the Affordable Care Act would be repealed.

"Are you saying, as part of your budget, you assume the repeal of Obamacare?," asked Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace.

"Yes," said Ryan, adding that, "we're going to propose replacing Obamacare with patient-centered health care, with a better health care system for everybody."

Ryan defended his opposition to the law.

"We don't want to push more people into a failing program," he said. "We believe that Obamacare is a program that will not work. We believe Obamacare will actually lead to hospitals and doctors and health care providers turning people away."

Paul Ryan: GOP Budget Assumes Obamacare Repeal

 

[JakeStarkey]

"The GOP leaders in Congress DID orchestate a very fair compromise to pass the budget with only two changes to ACA (liberal Democrats supported these two points more than the conservatives who opposed all ACA but AGREED to limit it to these two concessions to get the budget passed)
* delay the individual mandate for one year since the employer mandate was also
(NOTE that Obama kept changing the rules himself, which isn't constitutional, but opposed anyone in Congress changing it which was constitutional)
* remove the tax on medical devices as members of BOTH parties agreed should be changed"

*This was only after ACA was passed and our GOP in 2012 and 2013 were trying to force changes in return for the debt ceiling and the budget.

*BHO's EOs concerning the program are certainly constitutional.

The point here is: tails don't wag the dog. The GOP helping get the Civil Rights Act is exactly how a minority party should act.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There has to be a reason the GOP is lying so much about the ACA. It has to be if this becomes a popular law and it succeeds, the GOP is toast. WOW!

Yet, you haven't shown any evidence proving they lied. In fact, they were proven correct.

 

[JimH52]

Nope. Majority rules ain't it.

Hi Rightwinger: Thank you for following up where Luddly gave up and bailed out. I hope you can help us with that, sorry.

I agree this is more than Majority rule.

Majority rule does not give anyone the right to abuse govt
to impose religiously held political beliefs against the consent of others to exclude them.

In order to respect beliefs on sides of the ACA and Singlepayer/Free Market issue,
I believe a consensus can be reached by going through Party and setting up
"separate but equal" systems. Keep the parts of the laws that all people and parties agree on as federal programs and jurisdiction, while the parts people disagree on religiously, manage by separate networks without infringing or dictating each other's systems.

The IRS needs to be reformed and internally checked anyway, so perhaps working out separation of taxation on health care plans by Party can lead to much needed separation on similar issues, from the death penalty, war and vet program funding, immigration and welfare support, and legalization policies where people don't agree what to fund and might resolve the political conflicts faster by separating their taxes to fund different approaches.

We need this reform anyway, might as well start looking into the best way to get there.
This is long overdue, and all these conflicts along similar lines could be resolved this way.

There should be NO COMPROMISE on ACA.

Scrap it.

Start over.

The Dems' strategy which has resulted in getting the country moving to the point where we'd elect an extreme radical for POTUS is as follows:

Start with an outrageous goal and then get the Conservatives to go through the roof in outrage.

Squabble.

Then get the GOP to compromise.

Repeat until America is no longer America the strong, America the free, America the prosperous and America the proud.

And now they are talking about doing the same with ACA.

This is unacceptable.

If you don't understand their strategy, let me reframe it for you.

Let's imprison ALL the Progressives and Liberals and Radicals and Left Wingers and Democrats on some bullshit charge.

Then when they hit the roof in outrage let's squabble about it.

Then after a protracted period of spirited debate...

Let's compromise and imprision only the radicals.

And every so often let's do it again but this time we would work on the hard core Progressives.

And so on.

That's why the NRA is so effective.

They look at any and every gun bill as unreasonable and refuse to compromise and allow our 2nd A rights to fall victim to the LW's slippery slope strategy.

Ted says we should repeal every word of ACA.

Ted Cruz.

The Canadian has every right to voice his opinion...in Canada.

 

[Truthbetold]

My personal opinion is the GOP is already in trouble. Im a lifetime republican trying to protect what I have been earning since the age of 10 on my paper route.

The reason I believe the GOP is in trouble is two fold:

1) the GOP is fractured into 2 groups now. Tea Party and Moderate Republicans. The dems however stick together all throughout the spectrum.

2) the unproductive majority have realized they can vote themselves money. This of course will be paid for by the middle class and rich who won't be able to keep up with the forever increasing taxes. Eventually there won't be enough money to fund those increases and America will become a dictatorship.

Ive never taken a cent in any form of welfare. Ive paid into it my whole life. I was brought up to manage my money in the exact opposite way the government does. I buy to needs not wants. I pay myself first so I can invest. If I can't afford it cash guess what IM NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE IT! My only exceptions are my homes and a car.