I can sort of symphatize with that reasoning but isn't it part of the American 'spirit' to help out fellow countrymen in need?
I come from a family which has always been above average in income and when governments raise taxes for the higher incomes, I'm not complaining because I feel I can do with a little bit less and if that helps the people that need it, I'm fine with it.
Some people can work harder than others but they still deserve the same basic needs as everybody else and if they can't afford that, the people who can, should step in. In the form of a bill or law or extra taxes or something.
No, by that I mean - universal health care was originally rejected because ti would have to be given to black people, too. After the civil war propaganda regarding Africans changed from them being happy, productive and content with their slavery, to being lazy or dangerous.
Since Nixon's adoption of the Southern Strategy, the Republicans have taken up most racist code agendas, these include opposition to universal health care, clamping down on 'voter fraud', and so on.
I always thought that the Republican party was popular among lower incomes but hearing what you said Veks, I can hardly understand why.
The Republican party is popular among those making between 30k and 70k a year, roughly, and they start to dominate again over 150k a year. They basically put out a lot of fearmongering regarding the lowest classes (who are generally viewed as black though this is false) wanting to take the middle classes' stuff. Which is basically already occurring - if you make less than ~8k a year you can get something on the order of $40k worth of government bennies. But once you cross these magical numbers, you lose all of the benefits - you make $10k a year, you get nearly nothing. There is no incentive to actually genuinely support yourself once you hit rock bottom and get into Section 8.
Republicans have a hugely disproportionate amount of power because of this - between gerrymandering and general rural balance favoring them, they have a 5% 'cushion' in the House. Their voter disenfranchisement efforts are harder to quantify, but IIRC Nate Silver estimated a bit less than 2%.
They actually lost
the popular vote for the House. They only won because Obama completely fucked things up and blew his political capital on the ACA rather than a proper (~$3 trillion) stimulus, and because the economy wasn't recovering it was easy for Republicans to get control of a lot of state legislatures in 2010 - allowing said gerrymandering.
I have no idea what the Republican party's plan is to survive post-2020, barring a colossal fuckup on the part of the Democrats (which is possible, but you can only be so stupid and still get into power). They are not America's future.
That said, they still have another 8-9 years where they can continue to do an immense amount of damage.
So here's what I don't get. Why haven't concessions been made? I mean, employers not paying for birth control (or paying for a percentage of the cost of...blah blah blah) was the status quo ante bellum, right? So no one will be losing anything, simply not gaining something. And, you know, this seems pretty fucking important, surely.
I mean, sure, the Republicans position is clearly in the wrong. And I get the whole "we don't negotiate with terrorists" aspect of it. But if two sides can't come to an agreement than how can it be that only one of them is being stubborn?
If you believe the Republicans are negotiating in good faith when offering to make a concession for 'only delaying the ACA for one year', I have some oceanfront property in Iowa to sell you.
The ACA is basically Obama's only positive legacy, at this point. It's a pathetic legacy, but it's something. They want Democrats to give up their only real success in the past decade - completely and utterly -
For the ability of the government to continue operating.
"Give me everything you've made in the past half-decade or I set fire to the house" is not an honest argument.