I think that reason alone, the fact that it is funded by a mechanism that imposes a tax on the poorest Americans to pay for a subsidy to people making over $60,000, and in some instances over $80,000 a year, is reason enough for the President to have vetoed the bill.
Discussing the implications of a bill funded by taxing low-income Americans.
Share
More from John Shadegg
No, we don't force people to do that. I guess we do say that if you want to drive in some places, you have to buy auto insurance to insure against damage to somebody else. Right?
An elaborate charade. Trickery. If the American people think we are engaged in trickery, why not engage in trickery.
It seems to me morally indefensible, morally indefensible to say to the American people, If you work for a big, big, big employer--like you and I do, the Federal Government--or like we'll say, General Motors or Intel or Motorola or AT&T or…
I kind of think the American people are fairly bright. I think they see through this. If you are deeming a bill passed in a rule, aren't you actually passing that bill and aren't you voting for that bill? And isn't this just a trick or a…
Other voices in this conversation
