Are income taxes deeply unpopular with a lot of Americans? What should we conclude from that?
If it’s truly necessary then Democrats will just have to pay the political price for it. Do you think the President is man enough to make himself a lame duck to make the country a better place after he’s left office?
Guess we’ll find out.
I fail to see what a lame duck has to do with anything in this thread.
If the Democrats enforce the mandate, and that leads to a big whupping at the polls in 2014, then Obama’s in the same position GWB was after the 2006 elections. He’s done.
That’s why I believe he won’t enforce the mandate in 2014, thus proving it is unnecessary.
Besides, it’s hard to run on inequality when you’re hitting a few million middle class taxpayers with even more taxes.
Your track record predicting elections exposes that as wishful thinking, nothing more.
I have not predicted anything, only stated what COULD happen IF certain other things happen. So what part do you actually disagree with?
Do you disagree that enforcing the mandate against millions would have electoral consequences?
Or do you agree with that, and disagree that Obama would be a lame duck should Republicans control the Senate and the House?
Certainly. The success of Obamacare terrifies conservatives so much, they are determined to strangle it in its crib.
Of course. Losing the Senate would be a setback.
But the success of Obamacare, including the mandate, will guarantee gains by Democrats in both the House and Senate.
The law won’t even be fully in effect by the 2014 elections. There’s no employer mandate yet and next year’s premium announcements are delayed until just after the elections. The president needs to have as much optimism as you do.
So why would the mandate influence the election, if it isn’t even enforced until after the vote?
The individual mandate and employer mandate are two different things.
When all is said and done, do you truly believe that we have fewer uninsured Americans today than we had a year ago? If so, do you have any evidence to back that up?
FUN FACT: Democrats are Americans too.
Liberal Democrats are 20% of Americans, and tend to isolate themselves, sticking to people of likeminded views.
The evidence? Liberals think they speak for the masses, yet don’t realize just how tiny a minority they are.
You’re so cute when you’re projecting.
non-affordable care act is that, no-affordable …
alot people are going to pay that fine ( another word for tax w/ this admin. )
and i dont even want to touch up at whats happening w/ your data that you input on the site …
alot of non secure links and alot of colourful employees ( w/ a bit of them having criminal backgrounds )
so, if it was me, i wont be signing up no matter what
Please, enlighten us with more rectum-derived “evidence” and posts like this one.
Observe, if you will, how he changed the group from “Democrats” to “liberal Democrats” in order to provide that anally-extracted “20%” number. Because clearly he can’t claim that Democrats as a whole, the group that currently controls the Senate and Presidency AND received the majority of votes for the House (albeit undermined by gerrymandered districts), are a small and unrepresentative minority in America.
Well, he could and probably will. And he’d be as right as he always is.
Here’s more evidence. You think Americans will like the individual mandate. First they have to like the GOOD stuff in the health care law, before they like the medicine. You’re getting ahead of yourselves.
Anyway, I think Howard Dean understands this particular issue, both the politics of it and the policy, a bit better than you guys do. Even in Vermont they don’t like to be ordered around by their government.
Nothing in that post meets the descriptor of “evidence”.
Your GI tract is not a good source for evidence. From now on, when you pull out information from that source, you should use a different word.