Its up to the voters to repeal OBAMACARE your freedom is at stake CEOs across the country raise cost

[Anonymous]

Not impossible if repubs control the senate andhouse. Since SCOTUS deemed this a tax it will be taken up as a budgetary issue via recconciliation so only 50 votea are require in thesenate and they cant fillibuster. Still a long shot that the Republicans will take the Senate

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Not impossible if repubs control the senate andhouse. Since SCOTUS deemed this a tax it will be taken up as a budgetary issue via recconciliation so only 50 votea are require in thesenate and they cant fillibuster. Still a long shot that the Republicans will take the Senate

is anyone here an expert in Senate procedures? I believe items eligible for reconciliation have to be agreed upon my their own resolution. Plus reconciliation issues must not increase the deficit, something repealing Obamacare would do. So, I think the Dems can block this from reconciliation. However, Republicans could simply change the rules, something they are prone to do.

[Anonymous]

This is the big one. Get ready to be really uncomfortable for a long time.

[Anonymous]

My prediction is that a lot of Republicans (Romney included) will be much less concerned about the evils of ACA once it does not serve as an electoral issue, and once they have to face the question of what they will put in its place. Adjusting the system to make it more palatable, which reasonable people would have tried to do from the start, will probably appear much more attractive when posturing for the election is no longer necessary and governing is THEIR responsibility.

[Anonymous]

Are you nuts! The Aca is unaffordable. Just paying social security is beyond our ability. Massive changes are going to occur in the next 24 months... And they will be defined by the end of mathematical nonsense which by definition hurts liberals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you nuts! The Aca is unaffordable. Just paying social security is beyond our ability. Massive changes are going to occur in the next 24 months... And they will be defined by the end of mathematical nonsense which by definition hurts liberals.

Mathematical nonsense is a bunch of wingnuts demanding tax cuts when you don't have the the foggiest idea what you would cut in order to pay for them. Forget about whose political priorities are affected. You haven't come up with a budget that will do it AT ALL.

The great wingnut hypocrisy is that none of these complainers would dare cut the social programs that they care about, or the military that they want to grow, enough to pay for the tax cuts that they whine about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you nuts! The Aca is unaffordable. Just paying social security is beyond our ability. Massive changes are going to occur in the next 24 months... And they will be defined by the end of mathematical nonsense which by definition hurts liberals.

Mathematical nonsense is a bunch of wingnuts demanding tax cuts when you don't have the the foggiest idea what you would cut in order to pay for them. Forget about whose political priorities are affected. You haven't come up with a budget that will do it AT ALL.

The great wingnut hypocrisy is that none of these complainers would dare cut the social programs that they care about, or the military that they want to grow, enough to pay for the tax cuts that they whine about.

Given that you're not a wingnut hypocrite, what is your recommendation regarding social programs, health coverage, the military, and taxes? If we don't have enough money to finance them now, what percentage of a person's income (let's say an income between $40,000 - 175,000) do you think is fair to withhold in taxes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you nuts! The Aca is unaffordable. Just paying social security is beyond our ability. Massive changes are going to occur in the next 24 months... And they will be defined by the end of mathematical nonsense which by definition hurts liberals.

Mathematical nonsense is a bunch of wingnuts demanding tax cuts when you don't have the the foggiest idea what you would cut in order to pay for them. Forget about whose political priorities are affected. You haven't come up with a budget that will do it AT ALL.

The great wingnut hypocrisy is that none of these complainers would dare cut the social programs that they care about, or the military that they want to grow, enough to pay for the tax cuts that they whine about.

Given that you're not a wingnut hypocrite, what is your recommendation regarding social programs, health coverage, the military, and taxes? If we don't have enough money to finance them now, what percentage of a person's income (let's say an income between $40,000 - 175,000) do you think is fair to withhold in taxes?

Simpson-Bowles.