Please purchase "Trump the Press" through Create Space.

The book is on Kindle. Order here.

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Republicans need to say the N-word

No is the N-word in Washington. Politicians never say No to a program.

The headline  in the Washington Times: "House Republicans craft Obamacare subsidies alternative ahead of Supreme Court ruling."

Time to use the N-word Republican.

There is no good reason to do this.

The majority of Americans HATE OBAMACARE.

Hate.

Why in the devil are Republicans funding it?

From the story:
House Republicans settled on the outlines of a plan Wednesday to wean the country off of Obamacare’s subsidies in anticipation of a Supreme Court ruling this month that could throw the massive health program into chaos.
Described as a “work in progress,” the plan would continue to pay full subsidies under the Affordable Care Act to all beneficiaries regardless of where they live, but starting next year states could begin to opt out of Obamacare, taking the money as a block grant to help their residents obtain insurance however local officials see fit.
The block grants and subsidies, including those for states that stay in Obamacare, would expire in 2017, forcing the next president and Congress to replace the law entirely.
We elected and re-elected and re-elected a Republican majority in the House to rid us of Obamacare.

In 2016, I will vote third-party if this is funded.

5 comments:

  1. DC Republicans don't fear voters, they fear the MSM. They evidently think if they smile and cooperate with Obama, they will get good press or at least avoid bad press. That will never happen.

    They don't want to be pilloried like Ted Cruz was during the Shutdown crisis, but Cruz needed support from his fellow Republicans instead of the back-stab. Why isn't Pelosi shamed for being obstructive now?

    I voted for Mitch because I wanted the Mitch who kept a single R Senator from voting for ObamaCare; instead I'm getting a ginned-up Obama-rescuer.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So, am I to understand that if the Republican nominee isn't ideologically pure enough, then you would prefer Hillary? That's what a third party vote - or failure to vote - means. Stop being juvenile; any Republican is better than Hillary. Give the Republican candidate a more conservative House and Senate and he will in turn become more conservative. The long-term goal is the political destruction of the Liberal version of the Democratic party. Any vote that doesn't do that is a vote for the Democrats.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So, am I to understand that if the Republican nominee isn't ideologically pure enough, then you would prefer Hillary? That's what a third party vote - or failure to vote - means. Stop being juvenile; any Republican is better than Hillary. Give the Republican candidate a more conservative House and Senate and he will in turn become more conservative. The long-term goal is the political destruction of the Liberal version of the Democratic party. Any vote that doesn't do that is a vote for the Democrats.

    ReplyDelete