The Media Restarts Its Obama Support

The Republicans ran on repealing Obamacare and won a historic election with over 60 seats changing hands in the House a a few seat pick ups in the Senate. Now that the last Congress has done its damage the new one is ready to take over. It is unlikely that they can repeal the law because the Senate is controlled by Democrats and if it makes it to Obama he will veto it.

But that should not stop Republicans from introducing legislation to repeal the law and if that does not work then they should defund it. If all else fails they can tack repeal on to the bill that would raise the debt ceiling. That issue will certainly come up and though I favor holding the debt ceiling, we could tack repeal on to the bill raising the debt ceiling and force Obama and the Democrats to either hold the debt ceiling or repeal a bad law.

An ABC staffer is already taking the lead in the media fight to help Obama by saying that if Republicans spend time on repeal it will not go well with the electorate.

The electorate voted them in based on repeal so it is obvious that the media are striking the first blow to help Obama.

Since when was anyone in the MSM concerned about the fate of Republicans?


Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

51 Responses to “The Media Restarts Its Obama Support”

    • Big Dog says:

      Certainly you are not foolish enough to understand that you think there are some parts that people do not like. However, what the foolish cartoon points out is contained in but a small part of the 2600 page bill. There are plenty of things in it that are objectionable and some have absolutely nothing to do with health care.

      There were alternatives that were many pages fewer and contained the items that people liked.

      I have no problem with not excluding preexisting conditions as long as insurance companies can charge people with them more money. It is about risk. If everyone can be charged the same then perhaps we should make all life insurance the same even for people who smoke or have diseases. Or maybe all people who have car insurance can pay the same even if they have a few DUIs.

      Repeal and replace. Add tort reform and allow companies to compete across state lines. Why is that not part of the law?

      Then again, I never expected you to understand a free market.

      • Adam says:

        I join with those who look forward to watching the GOP challenge the health care bill at the expense of their future majority. To say the GOP ran against health care and won because of it is big stretch. But by all means let them make that their biggest priority and we can watch them go down in flames for it.

        One of my favorite things from this year was watching Oompa Loompa Boehner cursing on the House floor like a child throwing a temper tantrum. More of that, please.

        • Blake says:

          Personally, I am in favor of starving it of ANY funds- at least until 2012, when Republicans will have a bigger majority and Obama is out on his butt- because if he believes that he can rule by executive fiat, he is sadly mistaken.

        • Adam says:

          The GOP will actually need a leader if they’re going to beat President Obama. The GOP will actually need accomplishments to increase their majority. I wouldn’t count on the GOP having either but you never know in politics.

  1. Ogre says:

    I want to repeal ANY part of it that uses force to make people do what others want. In other words, the whole damn thing. No government agency should ever tell a private business what they can and cannot sell to individuals. Of course, that would be a free country.

  2. Eoj Trahneir says:

    And the media supports Obama because bad news is good press.

  3. Eoj Trahneir says:

    Seriously, Adam, that is a cartoon! Yes, jokes can tell deeper truths, and that is the charm of a good joke. And yes, this one has a “laugh-able quality!”
    But lets look at this joke;
    Children with pre-existing conditions; you mean the condition that if parents decide, the kid can be murdered, at state expense? Is that included?
    Not very funny, murdering kids, at any expense. Do you approve of child murder, Adam? Just wondering. Nothing personal. Either you do (liberal) or don’t (conservative). Black and white, yes or no.

    I bet Adam equivocates rather than answers!

    26 year old kids covered by the parents plan…what does it matter if they are parents plan or their own? This indicates there are age restrictions? Do you know what those restrictions are?
    Like, after 26, is the “kid” suddenly not covered under Obamacare? Super-covered? What chages?
    What is it that changes at 26, except the kid is suddenly woah! not a kid! In America they are kids at 26? When do they get driver permits? How about vote? Military? Drinking?
    What is so important about 26?

    This part of the joke looks like a joke on 26 year olds.

    The part that of Obamacare that, “Stops insurance carriers from dropping people when they get seriously sick;”
    You mean, Adam, your insurance carrier could drop you if they knew you had a pre-existing condition, incurable liberalism? Ha ha ha! My joke! Oh, that was so funny!
    Hey, why aren’t you laughing? Its a true joke.
    I know, you need the pictures…

    Seriously, you imply that if you fill the application form saying, “No pre-existing conditions!” and it turns out you are a rump-wrangler and catch AIDS, as they all eventually do, then ha ha ha! the other non-risky life-styles should be obligated to pay for your care?

    Again, in my book that isn’t funny. Not even close.

    So go ahead and laugh at your own little joke. It defines you.
    I like the last line though, “The Obama part I can’t stand!” Because you see, no republican, or tea party or independent would ever promote Obama care. It is the pithy truth that makes that joke funny!

    Obama has tied a rope around his neck and now he is looking for a cliff to leap from.


    • Adam says:

      “Either you do (liberal) or don’t (conservative).”

      You’re always quick to reveal how little you know of politics in America and how much you rely on useless talking points. I’m generally an advocate for consistent life ethics. I oppose abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, and the abuse and torture of animals for cheap food.

      “In America they are kids at 26?”

      This has nothing to do with redefining when someone is a kid and simply addressing a big problem with insurance. Possibly the largest blocks of uninsured Americans are young adults. Most plans toss off dependents after a certain age or if the dependent status changes. This will allow parents to keep their children on their plans longer if they want to and if the child doesn’t qualify for an employer plan.

      “Because you see, no republican, or tea party or independent would ever promote Obama care.”

      While support for the bill as it stands has remained in the 40% range there has been no strong pull toward repeal despite what conservatives want to believe. I believe we’ll see a rise in support for the bill as soon as we see more of it kick in this year and the conservative lies about it become harder to pass off as truths.

      “Seriously, you imply that if you fill the application form saying…”

      Nice. Your first anti-gay slur of the year. Happy New Year!

  4. Big Dog says:

    Most young people over the age of 18 who have jobs that offer insurance are uninsured because they CHOOSE not to take the insurance.

    My kids are responsible and enrolled and paid as soon as they were too old to be on my policy. They took employment and paid for insurance.

    However, most of the mush heads that pass for young adults think nothing will happen to them and that it costs too much when they could be using that money to buy video games (or pot). Besides, they are entitled to FREE health care.

    Free in that someone else should pay for it.

    The lies about the bill? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    It is full of things that have nothing to do with health care and it does not do what it says.

    Of course, the plan was to have the better things trickle in first to hook the morons and then when they try to take it away people will cry and whine that they are losing a benefit to which they are entitled.

    If I pay for your health care then I want a say in how you live your life.

    Otherwise, get off your dead as and get a job and pay for your own.

    If you have problems with that let me know and I will be happy to sit down and show you where you can save money (hint, no cell phone or cable TV to start).

    • Adam says:

      “Most young people over the age of 18 who have jobs that offer insurance are uninsured because they CHOOSE not to take the insurance.”

      As far as I can tell the 26 year old thing has nothing to do with people who have the option of getting health care through work. Am I missing something?

      “It is full of things that have nothing to do with health care and it does not do what it says.”

      I’ve been looking but I can’t find a list of such items. What are some of the things you’re concerned about in the bill that aren’t related to health care?

      “If I pay for your health care then I want a say in how you live your life.”

      Yes, those pennies on your tax dollars a year are gonna buy you a whole lot of time overseeing those spending that money, right?

  5. Big Dog says:

    And I think he made an anti Adam slur. You would have to be gay for it to be anti gay…

    • Adam says:

      I keep waiting for you to find bigoted foul mouth homophobic morons like Eoj Trahneir as offensive as you find liberals that use the phrase “tea bagger.” It’s your site though…and your credibility.

      • Big Dog says:

        Are you a psychiatrist? Do you have the required education to diagnose a phobia?

        I think not. But as is usual, you call people racists, bigots or the phobe of the day because they do not agree with you.

        Eoj, please refrain from using gay slurs to refer to Adam though I do not find your descriptions any more offensive than the way the libs (Adam included) refer to Conservatives I can see how it would hurt the sensitivities of metrosexual men.

        There is no credibility issue. It is my site so yes I can pretty much tolerate what I want. I like to keep it balanced but what I find offensive is what matters.

        • Adam says:

          For the record Eoj Trahneir can refer to me any way he or she likes. I just find it funny that you found tea bagger so offensive but then look the other way when Eoj Trahneir pukes up gay slurs every day in the same space. If you lined up Eoj Trahneir’s comments end to end you’d find very few that didn’t contain some off-topic reference to homosexuals. Not knowing him or her personally I can’t say for sure why this happens but my best guess is simply homophobia.

      • Blake says:

        Personally, I would like to have a civilized conversation about this post myself- although I do poke fun at Adam, I DO(really I do) try to keep it civilized-
        I think we will have to raise the debt ceiling, although I too think it should be TIGHTLY tied to spending cuts that really matter- Obammacare, elimination of several bureaucracies (Education, EPA, FCC,) for starters. Then an across the board 25% cut on all other departments, including Defense- that one I hate to do, but it is time that other nations take care of their own borders- we need to secure our own.

  6. Big Dog says:

    Pennies? If the health care law costs half a trillion a year to run then that would be $3600 for each worker currently employed. Since 50% of those folks do not pay taxes it is about $7200 per working TAX PAYER.

    You brought up young workers. Most do not have insurance because they choose not to (either by choosing not to work or choosing not to sign up for it).

    • Adam says:

      It would be more helpful to examine the reasons they are without insurance deeper than your comments. Have you seen any studies to base your opinion on?

    • Adam says:

      And I’d like to see you expand on where you get your numbers for cost and workers.

      • Big Dog says:

        The debt clock shows that we have 138 million workers. Since you will call that unofficial the CDC says we have 138 million workers.

        Obamacare is stated to cost 2.5-3 trillion over 10 years (the post passing numbers, not the pre passing ones based on lies). Since it will not be fully enacted for 4 years that upper end of 3 trillion (government always runs over cost) is really over 6 years which is half a trillion a year.

        Almost half of wage earners do not pay taxes so divide the number of workers by two and then divide the amount it costs by the number of workers you get for a result and you will have the numbers.

        138 million / 2 is 69 million (half the workers since half pay taxes). Half a trillion divided by 69 million is slightly more than $7200. This is what is costs divided among the 50% who pay taxes.

        • Adam says:

          As you start to reveal your numbers it just becomes even more clear how flawed your math is here.

          First of all how do you arrive at 2.5 to 3 trillion? Where is that stated?

          Second, I wouldn’t figure you could call it 6 instead of 10 when the costs are starting now even if all of the parts don’t kick in for several years. I don’t get your reasoning there. To call it 6 you’d need to start 4 years in and I doubt you’d get to your high cost value doing that.

          Third, when you suggest that half of people pay no taxes actually what you mean to say is 47% of people pay no income taxes. But income tax makes up only 45% of federal tax revenue.

          Using this chart and this chart which you and I have used several times you can see that between 2011 and 2014 the bottom 50% of taxpayers are going to pay about 30% of federal taxes each year. That hardly means you can wipe out 50% of the 138 million workers.

          And if you go back and read I’m not suggesting you’ll pay pennies, but rather pennies on the dollar. What percent of every tax dollar you pay over the next 10 years do you think will go toward health care as opposed to the vast number of other things our taxes get spent on?

  7. Big Dog says:

    Eoj is from another country Adam. For all I know what he is saying is the custom there and if I shut that down you will accuse me of not being sensitive to the culture of another.

    Man I can’t win with you…

    • Adam says:

      I generally don’t support cultures that make it a custom to be bigots. Certainly not when it comes to homosexuality.

      • Blake says:

        Adam- there will always, ALWAYS be people who are bigoted in one way or another- dig deep enough, you will find a bigot in anyone, even you, perfect as you believe yourself to be.
        This is as true as the fact that everyone is a potential killer- for if you won’t kill another to save your family or yourself, then your genetic line deserves to stop right there.
        And I am not being homophobic, or racist, or any other term you might think of- I am just stating facts.
        PC bs does nothing more than make us joyless, afraid to joke, lest we offend, and I say the hell with that- If we are afraid to laugh at ourselves, what’s left?
        Stupid pet tricks?

  8. Big Dog says:

    Adam, there is no way that the people in the bottom will pay 30%.

    Let me assume that you are correct that I will pay pennies on the dollar. That will be on top of the thousands of dollars I spend each year for the health care of me and my wife. I pay for mine so tell me where I should pay for someone else’s.

    The reality it that the top 50% pay nearly ALL the income taxes and the bottom does not pay much at all. Certainly they do not pay 27% that is not income taxes.

    The numbers for the health care come from the revised CBO numbers and those of organization that have been able to score the thing now that everything is included.

    And yes, we tax for 10 and pay for 6. Very little is spent int he first 4 years. The bulk of the spending will be in 6-10 and it will be massive.

    • Adam says:

      “Adam, there is no way that the people in the bottom will pay 30%.”

      Based on what? I showed you the table you’ve already accepted and used as truth in your arguments in the past. What’s wrong this time? The bottom 50% pay little or no income taxes but 30% of the total taxes. Find me a source to discredit that conclusion.

      “And yes, we tax for 10 and pay for 6.”

      Isn’t paying taxes how we pay for the health care bill? I’m not sure I’m following this argument very well.

      • Big Dog says:

        The bottom 3 quintiles need to be included to get that rate and that equals the bottom 60%. And the total federal tax includes Social Security and Medicare which are dedicated taxes. Total income tax accounts for 45%. Then 36% is payroll taxes which are paid by employers, not workers earning salaries. The last 19% is not paid for by workers (excise, corporate and other).

        The income tax, which 97% of is paid for by the top 50%, will pay for the health care. So my numbers can certainly exclude the bottom 50% (47% if you want to be technical).

        Even if the health care is paid for by the other 55% of taxes, the bottom 50% is not paying them. The source that discredits this is from YOU. The chart shows where taxes come from. The 45% is income and of that the bottom 50% pay 3% so they will not be paying for the health care.

        Yes taxes is how we pay for it but taxing 10 to pay for six put the entire thing in a deficit. Try working 10 years to pay for 6 years of debt and you will be underwater.

        • Adam says:

          “Then 36% is payroll taxes which are paid by employers, not workers earning salaries. The last 19% is not paid for by workers (excise, corporate and other).”

          I don’t see your point. That argument doesn’t imply that 100% of health care costs will come from income since the other parts of federal revenue aren’t paid by individuals. Right? As far as I can tell (excluding SS and Med, I see your point there) revenue is revenue no matter where it comes from.

          And all other arguments aside let me ask you again: How many cents of every dollar of income tax is going to go toward health care?

  9. Big Dog says:

    OK, let us try this a different way.

    We know that 45% of taxes come from income and of that the top 50% pay 97% of them.

    We also know that the other 55% of taxes are not paid by the bottom 50% (they are paid by companies and employers and come from excise).

    If I refine my original claim based upon this that we both know to be true then 45% of the 7200 in my original claim would be paid by taxpayers. Remember, the claim was that it was divided among those who paid taxes.

    So, once the cost is divided and we get 7200 then we multiply the 7200 by 45% and end up with 3240.

    Now, one could argue that larger portions will come from one place or another but the claim is the cost per taxpayer and this would be the cost per income tax payer.

    I suppose we could further whittle that down by figuring how much other entities will pay but the reality is that on a per individual taxpayer basis that is how it breaks out.

    Obviously, the bulk of our taxes comes from the taxpayer (when comparing any individual entity) so the taxpayer will pay the bulk of the bill, as an entity.

    Since SS and Medicare are out of money or require legislative sleight of hand to make them look sound, how can you say government will run yet another social welfare program in a fiscally responsible fashion?

    I know you think we need to just tax the rich more and all will be well but that is nonsense. You could confiscate ALL of their money and it would not pay the bills.

    • Adam says:

      “OK, let us try this a different way.”

      I’m not buying into your math at all. Consider that 80% of households in America pay about $16,000 or less in federal taxes per year. Considering all of the things our federal taxes go toward do you think that all of the sudden 20%+ of our federal taxes ($3240) is going to health care? I don’t know the right way to tackle this question but I know your math still doesn’t add up.

      “You could confiscate ALL of their money and it would not pay the bills.”

      You’d have a hard time finding a Democrat that thought increasing the taxes on the rich will pay all the bills. It’s just a smart thing to do and a step in the right direction. We’re talking trillions of dollars over a decade that will not be there to pay down debts because your side protects the wealthiest tax payers from a 3% increase in their taxes.

      • Big Dog says:

        The government did not LOSE trillions of dollars over a decade because the money was not the government’s to begin with. Therein lies the real problem. You and the liberals think the money people make belongs to the government, it does not.

        What you are really saying is that because the tax rates remained the same the government will habve to live on less confiscated money. The government will have to live on what it has been taking for the past 10 years. I know it is tough for you but you know in your heart that the money does not belong to government and that government has a duty to be fiscally responsible.

        The issue was how much it cost per person that actually pays taxes and that is how much per person who actually pays taxes.

        One thing is certain, 50% of the working people will be paying for some portion of the people in the bottom 50%. End of story.

        And one needs to also consider that it might not seem as if this much of our taxes goes to paying the bills but since government spends more than it takes in in taxes it must borrow the money and we, as taxpayers, are on the hook for that money. If we were taxed at a rate that supported this level of unnecessary and out of control spending then we would be paying what I stated if we were not borrowing the money to pay for the spending.

        This is the actuality of the situation and the actuality is that each taxpayer is on the hook for the amount divided by the number of taxpayers.

        And, to make it clearer, since we are 14 trillion dollars in debt we taxpayers are on the hook for $125,658. Now I know we do not pay that amount in taxes but that is how much each taxpayer owes for the debt (about $45,000 per citizen). It has to be paid.

        Now does the math add up?

        Debt Clock

        • Adam says:

          “You and the liberals think the money people make belongs to the government, it does not.”

          You say that all the time. I cannot speak for other liberals but I can say I do not believe the money belongs to the government. I just think of it more like dues paid.

          “Now does the math add up?”

          No, not really. US debt isn’t like a family that is in debt. It’s much more complex than that. I’m not saying the debt is fine or small. I’m just saying that I’m not comfortable talking about it as if you or I will someday have to write a check or that our grand kids will. It just doesn’t work that way.

      • Ogre says:

        The classic liberal:

        “Numbers confuse me. You’re wrong.”

        “Increasing taxes is not enough, we must have more than that.”

  10. Blake says:

    The tax system is broken and needs to BE SCRAPPED,period.
    A flat tax would be best, but if there is to be a sliding scale, then it should be,
    5% for 15,000- 100,000
    10% for 101,000-750,000,
    15% for all others above that- this way all but the very poorest have some skin in the game.
    I also believe you should have a job if you are to vote- you can’t just vote yourselves bread and circuses- you need to know that this will cost YOU.
    Eliminate the Dept. of Education, and return control to the states, reducing a HUGE federal cost, and doing it in a constitutional way.
    Eliminate the EPA- they have become ridiculous in their “green” mandates and edicts- they need to go away.

    • Adam says:

      A job to vote? Why? What happens when painful unemployment hits like it has in the elections between 2007 and today? What about students? This is not a good idea.

    • Ogre says:

      Not far enough, Blake.

      Flat tax: 5%. Period.

      It used to be that you had to own land to vote. Why? Because you paid taxes on that land and had a vested interest in expenses. I would say if you’re not paying net into the government, you don’t get to vote. That means if you get refunds of more than you paid, no vote. If you get paid by the government more than you paid in, no vote (so yes, that would absolutely include all government employees).

      THEN you would only have people voting who were getting hurt by these punitive taxes — see how long the politicians that exist today would last.

      • Big Dog says:

        I do not see how it would include all government employees. What about those who earn money that is not from the government? What about the people in the military who earn a paycheck from the government (and I mean they EARN IT)? Would you exclude those who protect our way of life including our voting process?

        If a government employee has investment income or income from other sources not from the government then they would not be excluded.

        I also can’t see how those who are in government and holding a Constitutional position would be precluded from voting…

        Land owner, no problem but the other part makes no sense to me.

        Though I have advocated for people to be allowed a vote for each $5000 in taxes they pay. Everyone gets one vote and then you get additional votes depending on how much tax you pay. You pay more you should have more say. Sort of like voting the numbers of shares in a company. The people with more shares of stock get more votes.

        • Adam says:

          You can only vote if you own land, pay taxes, or hold a job? Your modern conservative movement, folks. Taking us all back to the good old days of the 18th century…

        • Ogre says:

          Votes based on taxes paid? Never heard that one before. Interesting…

          The idea on government employees — if you are getting paid $50,000 a year from government, you ARE going to vote to give yourself a raise, period. That’s why I said “net” — if you are earning a government paycheck, including the military (sorry), then you shouldn’t vote (unless you pay more in taxes from other sources than your government paycheck). It’s a simple self-interest thing. Anyone who gets cash from the government will support others paying them more cash. I consider it a cost of deciding to take tax dollars as income.

  11. Big Dog says:

    Well Adam, where will we get the money to pay for it? Who will pay for it if not us, our kids and our grandkids?

    Your messiah Obama said that spending too much pushed debt to our children and grandchildren. Was he wrong about that?

    I know you have this wealth of experience and knowledge but I can’t see where that money will come from if not from the people who fund the government.

    • Adam says:

      As we already talked about, personal taxes are just a little less than half of federal revenues. I don’t think the debt is fine and I do agree that debt is a burden on future generations. I’m just saying that you cannot take the total debt and divide it out by household to get a realistic figure.

  12. Big Dog says:

    You get confused by fuzzy conservative math? You seem to be OK with that BS math Obama and your other leaders spout when they discuss deficits and how much things will cost.

    You seem to be OK with deficit spending and fiscal irresponsibility when it comes to your leaders.

    A guy who divides the debt among the people who have to pay it confuses you.

    No surprise though, those who think they are entitled to the money of others and who think government is their nanny have no idea where the money comes from.

    • Adam says:

      “You seem to be OK with deficit spending and fiscal irresponsibility when it comes to your leaders.”

      I simply understand that when we have 2 recessions in 1 decade we’re going to see debt grow. I believe we are better and stronger now and we grew less debt because we spent that money on stimulus and TARP and the auto-bailouts.

  13. Big Dog says:

    Adam, I know reading is difficult for you sometimes but explain to me how a plan where each person gets one vote (so no one is eliminated) and then people get more votes based on the taxes they pay excludes anyone and takes us back to the 18th century?

    How do you feel about the plans in certain places that gives minorities more votes in local elections?

    • Adam says:

      If my broke parents get 1 vote a piece and I get for example 3 votes then my vote would essentially cancel out 2 other people. Simplify the math. It’s not the number of votes that matters but the margin. Your plan is the same as me getting 1 vote and my parents getting no votes. It’s absurd.

      Remember that the top percents pay the vast majority of taxes not because the tax scale is so unfair but because they earn the vast majority of income. In your mind it’s more fair for those that earn the most money to have the most say over the country. Talk about madness.

      We’ve grown the circle of voting for a good reason and thank goodness your crazy schemes will never be put in place.

      • Big Dog says:

        Ahh, but that is where you are wrong. I do not want those who mak ethe most to have the most say. I want those who PAY the most in taxes to have the most say.

        You want people who have little or no skin in the game to have as much say as those who pay for them. Your broke parents can keep voting for people who will give them more of my stuff.

        Once we get to more than 50% they will keep voting for those who keep giving our stuff away.

        • Adam says:

          “I want those who PAY the most in taxes to have the most say.”

          And why do some pay more taxes than others?

          “Your broke parents can keep voting for people who will give them more of my stuff.”

          My parents are as much American citizens as you and I no matter how many tax dollars they pay. As citizens just like you and I they get the same vote as you and I over the leaders that represent us. It’s not a hard concept.

          • Big Dog says:

            No one said your parents were not as much American citizens as anyone else. The reality is, they do not pay their fair share. They do not have as much skin in the game as the non broke people but they get as much say in the matter.

            You are right, it is not hard to understand. Those with little on the line should not have as much say as those who have more.

            As far as the extra votes canceling out people, try to show that kind of concern with groups like ACORN and others. Dems love to have the dead vote and cancel out the votes of the living. ACORN and groups like it love to register fraudulently and have people vote who should not or have them vote several times and that cancels out votes. Show the same concern.

  14. Big Dog says:

    I have to disagree with you Ogre. If the guys in the military decided not to serve then we would have a draft and those folks would then not be allowed to vote. Why should they fight to protect a right you would take away from them.

    To say people would vote for increases is not necessarily correct either. The government workers cannot vote themselves pay raises (except Congress). I think that the matter would be resolved if we have no public sector employee unions because that is where trouble comes in.

    But we have to have a government and people should not lose the right to vote (now that it is defined as a right) because they work for taxpayer money.

    • Ogre says:

      I get where you’re coming from. And yes, it wouldn’t be an issue if we didn’t have SO many government employees. I guess I could see an exception for the military. What I’m looking at is the hundreds of thousands of government bureaucrats (like firefighters getting $300K/yr and school employees that get $100K/yr for doing literally nothing — yeah, unions) that are always going to support bigger government because that means they get bigger paychecks. That’s wrong and evil.