What Part Of This Doesn’t Paul Ryan Understand?

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to What Part Of This Doesn’t Paul Ryan Understand?

  1. SxyxS says:

    He probably does not understand
    how people could dare to vote against the official opinion
    dictated by MSM.

  2. jst1 says:

    Republicans simply lack the will to take away government granted benefits. It;s already too late.

  3. Gail Combs says:

    Healthcare Controls and The Benefits of “The Blame Game”…

    In the final hours prior to the healthcare debacle, the billionaire Koch Brothers sent a warning to the House Freedom Caucus that they’d better hold the line and kill the ObamaCare repeal or replacement bill, or else….

    Weeks earlier the Billionaire authors (special interests) behind the ObamaCare repeal and replacement, Tom Donohue U.S. CoC et al., warned Speaker Ryan they expected the boundaries established years earlier to be retained.

    Two sets of billionaire interests representing: ‘who-pays-the-insurance-premium‘ within the Healthcare issue…..

    Perhaps it’s just too disconcerting of a paradigm shift for the average voter to ask?

    Why are two billionaires Charles and David Koch allowed to threaten standing members of congress who are collectively at least supposed to represent the interests of approximately 28 million voters?

    Why is Tom Donohue (U.S. Chamber of Commerce, President) allowed to threaten the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and author legislation affecting 300+ million?

    No-one seems to ask those questions…

    You then use your media to keep people focused on factional fighting: Ryan Bad. No, Caucus Bad. Mentally, that’s much easier -more comfortable- to handle; and it keeps people from asking the ultimate questions which lay at the root of the issues.
    Billionaire BIG CLUB – Influence and Control agents:

    ♦ Billionaire Carlos Slim – PR Firm: New York Times.

    ♦ Billionaire Robert Mercer – PR Firm: Breitbart Media

    ♦ Billionaire Jeff Bezos – PR Firm: Washington Post

    ♦ Billionaire Rupert Murdoch – PR Firm: Wall Street Journal, Fox News Corp.

    ♦ Billionaire Farris Wilks – PR Firm: The Daily Wire (Ben Shapiro)

    ♦ Billionaire Cary Katz – PR Firm: Conservative Review and CRTV (Mark Levin)

    …and so it goes.

    Yet, no-one seems to notice.

    It is just much easier to argue about Paul Ryan and Mark Meadows, and ignore the bigger argument is really about Tom Donohue vs Koch Brothers…..

    BIG THANK YOU to the US Supreme Court

    Their citizens united v. federal election commission decision held political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep ORGANIZATIONS such as corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections.

    January 2015 —

    …Five years ago Wednesday, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that dramatically reshaped the business of politics in the U.S.

    In its Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, the court opened the campaign spending floodgates. The justices’ ruling said political spending is protected under the First Amendment, meaning corporations and unions could spend unlimited amounts of money on political activities, as long as it was done independently of a party or candidate.

    The result has been a deluge of cash poured into so-called super PACs – particularly single-candidate PACs, or political action committees – which are only nominally independent from the candidates they support. What’s more, the legal protections for corporations mean much of this spending, known as “dark money,” never has to be publicly disclosed.

    A recent analysis of the 2014 Senate races by the Brennan Center for Justice found outside spending more than doubled since 2010, to $486 million. Outside groups provided 47 percent of total spending – more than the candidates’ 41 percent – in 10 competitive races in last year’s midterms.

    “The premise that the Supreme Court was relying on, that these groups would be truly independent of the candidates themselves, is very questionable,” says Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, one of three Democrats on the six-member Federal Election Commission…..

    Of the $1 billion spent in federal elections by super PACs since 2010, nearly 60 percent of the money came from just 195 individuals and their spouses, according to the Brennan Center report. Thanks to Citizens United, supporters can make the maximum $5,200 donation directly to a candidate, then make unlimited contributions to single-candidate super PACs.

    At a Senate hearing last year, supporters delivered petitions with 3 million signatures calling for a constitutional amendment to undo the effects of the ruling, and 16 states have passed resolutions demonstrating the ability to ratify such an amendment.

    The groundswell of support has spread beyond conventional clean governance groups to labor, environmental and other advocacy groups…

    We are now a representative republic of the billionaires, by the billionaires, for the billionaires. Thank you again Supreme Court!!

    • Gail Combs says:

      Speaking of the Billionaires Club…

      HR4310, signed by Obummer, authorized propaganda on American citizens. http://www.opsecnews.com/hr-4310-passes-in-ndaa-authorizing-propaganda-on-american-citizens/

      An earlier comment of mine today link shows the Globalist Cannon Fodder infiltrating our country. (Remember churches are just like professional science organizations, the Progressive Managerial scum rise to the top.)

      Now couple the 18 to 35 year old MALE Islamists on ‘disability’ with the La Raza 40 million illegals also receiving bennies and middle class America are now supporting other NON-AMERICAN families besides their own. People that have made it clear they hate our guts.

      Europe is in even worse shape than the USA, Australia and Canada are heading in the same direction.

      Then think of what happened in Rhodesia and is happening in South Africa thanks to pressure from International ‘Political Correctness’
      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-23/15-years-after-land-grabs-mugabe-invites-white-farmers-back-zimbabwe

      WHY the war on middle class Whites all over the world???

      The only thing I can think of is for the same reason England decided to import African slaves instead of continuing to use white prisoners, the Scotts and Irish as they had originally… It is darn hard to hide that you are a slave if your very skin marks you as one. — Could the ‘Billionaires Club’ be devious enough to actually breed a slave class that looks different then them so a middle class can never ever arise again once they destroy Europe, the USA, Russia, Canada and Australia?

      • Griff says:

        Unlike the US, England did not have slaves on its soil.

        We didn’t then, we don’t now.

        • Gator says:

          Yes, England only had slaves in virtually all of its colonies, and the Brits enjoyed the fruits of slave labor for hundreds of years.

          When Britain abolished slavery in its Empire, through Slavery Abolition Act 1833, it included a clause that allowed slavery inside India and enslavement of Indians for colonial markets operated by the East India Company.

          So to recap, slavery was institutionalized here by the Brits, and it was Americans that ended it.

          • An Inquirer says:

            If you are interested in trivia rather than blame . . . actually, England was a great source of slaves for the Roman empire. Romans liked English slaves.

          • Mark Luhman says:

            It conveniently to forget when the colonies that formed the US were under British rule slavery was allowed, had England forbid it we would have had and easier time forming our country and would not have need to loss 500,000 people in a civil war. To conveniently forget about British history and conveniently forget the root of slavery and the origins of slavery in the US only reflects a small mind. Oh by the way British law also allowed indenture servant, a nice name for another form of slavery, and also add in are you naive enough to believe serf was not just another name for slave.

          • gator69 says:

            AI, slavery was a human condition, and still is. Arabs raided the coastlines of Europe enslaving over a million. There is plenty of blame to go around. But the fact remains that slavery in America was established by the Brits, and ended by the free Americans.

        • Gator says:

          Ms Griff, if it was your family being starved by alarmists, would you do anything differently?

        • Gail Combs says:

          England called their slaves SERFS.
          It was an ENGLISH court that turned an indentured servant into a SLAVE in the American colonies and started slavery in the USA BEFORE 1776.

        • Eric Simpson says:

          Now the Brits are filling their country with Muslims that they think will be their new slaves. But they got another thing coming.

          • Gail Combs says:

            Muslims have always had slaves and still do. Saudi Arabia may have passed a law but they pay as much attention to that law as Obummer paid to the US Constitution.

            June 16, 2005 Saudis Import Slaves to America

            Child Slavery in Islamic Countries

            …A 2004 HBO documentary on the subject was especially responsible for making Americans aware of this modern-day barbarism. These boys, who were sold by poor parents hoping their offspring would some day experience a better life, were primarily from South Asia. But instead of a life of dignity and meaningful work, they wound up in the Middle East where they were made to race camels for their Arab masters. Beaten and often sexually abused, they were all kept undernourished, so that the camels would have less weight to carry.

            “As many as 6,000 child camel jockeys…languished in hidden slavery on ozbah farms, where their masters beat them and starved them to keep their weight down,” wrote E. Benjamin Skinner in his book, A Crime So Monstrous.

            When investigating in the 1990s the enslavement of hundreds of thousands of black Africans in Mauritania by Arab-Berber masters, African-American author Samuel Cotton was stunned to discover that African children were still being kidnapped by Arabs traveling with camels carrying big baskets. The child, usually playing alone, would suddenly be snatched from its play and placed in one such basket, after which its new owners hurried away. The children, he was told, are sometimes found later “hundreds of miles away as slaves.”

            Also during his investigation, which was summarized in his highly informative book Silent Terror: A Journey Into Contemporary African Slavery, Cotton was told there was “still a huge trafficking in slaves going on between Mauritania and the United Arab Emirates.”

            Black African children are also not always stolen so surreptitiously. Until recently in the southern Sudan, the old-fashioned slave raid witnessed villages being burned down, the men killed and the women and children captured. This was the Arab slavers’ main harvesting tool of humans. Thousands of children were captured by this murderous method and forcibly taken as agricultural, domestic and sex slaves to Arab northern Sudan — where many still languish today. Darfur has also seen many children disappear from both refugee camps and towns subjected to central government attack. They are suspected victims of Arab slave hunters….

            June 9, 2011 The Dark World of the Arab Child Slave Trade: Where is the world’s attention and moral indignation?

            Southeast Asia is not left out of the slave trade.
            Special Report: Traffickers use abductions, prison ships to feed Asian slave trad

          • Gail Combs says:

            You would think the idiots in Europe would learn from history.

            The White slave trade of the Arabs
            David Brion Davis, in The New York Review of Books, explains that

            “The origins of African slavery in the New World cannot be understood without some knowledge of the millennium of warfare between Christians and Muslims that took place in the Mediterranean and Atlantic and the piracy and kidnapping that went along with it. In 1627 pirates from the Barbary Coast of North Africa raided distant Iceland and enslaved nearly four hundred astonished residents. In 1617 Muslim pirates, having long enslaved Christians along the coasts of Spain, France, Italy, and even Ireland, captured 1,200 men and women in Portuguese Madeira. Down to the 1640s, there were many more English slaves in Muslim North Africa than African slaves under English control in the Caribbean. Indeed, a 1624 parliamentary proclamation estimated that the Barbary states held at least 1,500 English slaves….

            Professor Robert Davis, in his book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800, estimated that 1 million to 1.25 million White people were enslaved by North African pirates between 1530 and 1780. North African pirates abducted and enslaved more Europeans from coastal villages and towns. Italy, Spain, Portugal and France were hardest hit but the raiders also seized people in Britain, Ireland and Iceland. They even captured 130 American seamen…

            Arab rulers even had white eunuchs (slaves with their testicles [And the rest] cut off).

            I wonder if Griffy understands that…

          • Griff says:

            British muslims were mostly born here and are as English as I am.

            I work and live among them – what exactly do you know about it?

          • Griff says:

            I might note also that Britain stopped the world slave trade by action of the Royal Navy.

            Not a finger lifted by the US to defeat world slavery I think ?

          • gator69 says:

            That’s what you get for thinking Ms Griff. Actually in 1819 the US Navy posted warships off the coast of Africa to stop slave traders, and if caught, a trader would be hanged. This continued until 1861 when the Civil War broke out.

            Meanwhile…

            When Britain abolished slavery in its Empire, through Slavery Abolition Act 1833, it included a clause that allowed slavery inside India and enslavement of Indians for colonial markets operated by the East India Company.

            So to recap once again, slavery was institutionalized here by the Brits, and it was Americans that ended it.

          • Gail Combs says:

            Griffy doesn’t understand that England paid the Jizya Tax to the muslims for years and years. They did not DEFEAT muslim slave traders the UK BRIBED THEM!

            Europeans made peace with the Barbary powers through treaties that involved annual payments of tribute — sometimes euphemistically called annuities. The merchant vessels of any country without such a treaty were at the mercy of the state-sponsored maritime marauders known as corsairs, sometimes mislabeled pirates.

            It was Thomas Jefferson in the newly formed USA who decided NOT to pay the Jizya Tax (bribes) to the ‘Barbary Pirates’ and instead kicked their A$$.

            The Barbary challenge to American merchant shipping sparked a great deal of debate over how to cope with corsair aggression. Jefferson doubted the American people would be willing to pay annual tribute. “Would it not be better to offer them an equal treaty. If they refuse, why not go to war with them?”

            A description of the US mix of war and diplomacy used to extract the USA from the Muslim’s CENTURIES LONG PRACTICE of BLACK MAIL!

            The Barbary Wars (1801-1815)

            NOTE the MUSLIMS DON’T PRODUCE THEY STEAL and always have until oil allowed them to STEAL (think OPEC) in a different way.

            Oh and Griffy, isn’t Turkey AGAIN using the practice of agression and blackmail against Europe???

            Isn’t Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatening the European Union with a flood of Middle Eastern refugees AND saying:

            “If Europe continues this way, no European in any part of the world can walk safely on the streets.”

            Seems Griffy forgot ALL the Terrorist Acts IN EUROPE by MUSLIMS over the last decades…. HOW CONVENIENT.

            Griffy READ IndiaFacts Statistics and the spread of Islam How agressive Muslims are vs how much they LIE is dependent on their numbers in a country. Their goal is to establish a foot hold by ‘making nice’ and become more agressive as their numbers increase until they get to the point of slaughtering all non-muslims.

      • -B- says:

        Most everyone has resumed being a slave. Property taxes, debt, the monetary system, the medical system, and on and on. All designed as forms of bondage so that we pay to live.

        The growing rental economy where we will own nothing. The moment we can’t make the monthly nut, we’re out on our ass.

        The important thing about ownership is control. Control is what they have. They don’t need skin color markers any more. It’s done with credit scores.

        The views of the ruling class are that they are separate species. The time machine was about the ruling class and the working class as two different species.

        They seek to destroy the middle class for the same reason the ruling class always does. The middle class is a viable threat to them.

        • Mark Luhman says:

          Sorry I might have to pay property taxes but if you don’t over house it not that big of a burden. As to medical expense if you don’t use them not a problem, after all 99% of all doctor call are a waste of money, the real problem is that 1%. If you went back to 1960’s medicine you would not have much cost but the outcomes will be certainly limited. As far as the elites kicking the middle class @$$ that been true through out history, the elites think they are so smart but they cannot seem to get over that the pie is not fixed in size, it more people have money the pie is larger but sill me it not about money it all about control!

      • Gamecock says:

        Okay, Ms Combs, what level ‘-aires’ should be allowed to speak? Can millionaires? On what basis is wealth a bar to free speach? Can anyone with more money than you speak? Your obsession with billionaires is creepy.

    • jst1 says:

      The CU case was correctly decided.
      The replacement bill was Obamacare by another name.
      Just because one is a billionaire doesn’t make them wrong.

  4. Steve Case says:

    The biggest government granted benefit is social security. Should retired people who take trips around the world, buy motor homes and airplanes receive social security?

    Paul Ryan? I used to like him – being from Wisconsin and all – but he didn’t back his own candidate during the campaign and I don’t know what his problem is now.

    • Will Janoschka says:

      “The biggest government granted benefit is social security. Should retired people who take trips around the world, buy motor homes and airplanes receive social security?”

      What total nonsense! Can you name even one US citizen that has ever received more SS benefits than they originally paid into SS ‘and’ already paid income tax on? You seem determined to steal whatever is left of that poor investment. I f the US government had actually invested those funds; the US now would have no debit! Not a benefit a governmental ripoff!

      • -B- says:

        The government’s courts declared SS a welfare program that exists at the whim of congress and FICA to be a tax. There is no insurance or investment or anything else. They simply stole about 12% of what you earned. (yes you earned the other half too, if you didn’t you’d be unemployed)

        As to people who put in less than they got out? Tons of them. Most are US citizens. The break even age used to be much lower. Someone in their 20s in the 1930s would have easily profited. Someone who was in their 20s in the 1990s… well that’s unlikely.

      • Steve Case says:

        Will Janoschka says:
        March 27, 2017 at 5:08 pm

        What total nonsense! Can you name even one US citizen that has ever received more SS benefits than they originally paid into SS ‘and’ already paid income tax on?

        It’s not an investment, it’s a tax, it’s always been a tax, it’s socialism and ought to be recognized as such.

        You seem determined to steal whatever is left of that poor investment.

        Not an investment, see above

        If the US government had actually invested those funds;

        It’s not an investment, see above

        the US now would have no debit!

        The govenment is never going to invest those funds, they are always going spend them. To continue the social security program is to insure ever greater and greater debt until we are bankrupt.

        Not a benefit a governmental ripoff!

        To those on the dole, it’s great – free money!
        To those paying the tax, not so great.

        • Louis Hooffstetter says:

          “It’s not an investment, it’s a tax, it’s always been a tax, it’s socialism and ought to be recognized as such.”

          Yep and Obamacare is Social Security’s younger sibling. They’re both a tax.
          They’re both socialism.
          They’re both grand lies.
          They’re both taxpayer ripoffs.
          And they’re both examples of the government making bullshit promises and forcing taxpayers to pay and pay.
          But when it’s time to collect: “Oh, we’re sorry but…”.

          The government should keep their promise, and retired people who paid into the system for 50 years should do whatever the hell they want to with the money.

        • Mark Luhman says:

          Have you ever notice the only entity that allowed to run a Ponzi scheme is government!

      • Mike D says:

        A huge number of recipients to date have received more than they paid in. There is no way for that to not be the case since the “investment” only gets US Treasury yields, but the benefits are inflation adjusted. If people always received less than they paid in, it would never run out of money, but it will.

        If you want a name, try the first recipient, Ida May Fuller.
        https://www.ssa.gov/history/idapayroll.html

        Paid $24.75 in taxes, and received $22,888.92 over the remainder of her life. Her first check was $22.54, so she was almost even that first check.

        By the way, she was just the first name on the first list of 1,000 people who retired and received benefits. Unless the rest of them died right after their first month, they all probably came out ahead.

        • “If you want a name, try the first recipient, Ida May Fuller.”
          Thank you for identifying one who beat the system befor it became another tax to waste!

        • R. Shearer says:

          +1

          Many end up like this chap.

          “Mr. Sweeney was the son of a wealthy factory owner, and had grown up in a 15-room Westchester County home staffed with servants. In an effort to learn the family business, Mr. Sweeney was working as a shipping clerk for his father at the time he filled out his application for a social security card. The Sweeneys were Republicans and the whole family voted for Landon in 1936, although John Jr. allowed that he liked the new Social Security program even though he didn’t think much of the New Deal. John Sweeney died of a heart attack in 1974 at the age of 61 without ever receiving any benefits from the social security program; however, his widow was able to receive benefits based on his work until her death in 1982.”

        • Menicholas says:

          I look at my SS statement all the time.
          I am 55, and I can choose to start receiving benefits at any time after age 62.
          But no matter when I retire, I will collect far more than I ever paid in unless I die shortly after beginning to collect.
          If I wait until max retirement age, I will get almost as much every year as I will have ever paid in.
          If I choose to start collecting at 62, I will get what I paid in in a little over two years.
          Complete nonsense that you get back less than you paid.
          The big deal for me is deciding what to do…in 15 years will it still be paying what they tell me now I can expect?

          But besides for all of that, it is a tax, as most know…the SCOTUS ruled it so and it is in fact so.
          It is not a retirement fund.
          And it is a Ponzi scheme…the people who are paying in now are paying the benefits for those who are already retired.
          So if there are more people retiring, or less people working and paying, or people are making and hence paying less, or if people are living longer (this is the big killer), then all of those will tend to break the bank on the scheme sooner that otherwise.
          When the system was put in place, the average person died before reaching retirement age. Now, people who reach retirement age can expect to live decades more on average, and that amount of time (average lifespan after reaching retirement age) is still going up.
          And the pig in the python of the baby boom generation is now retiring in large numbers every year…the oldest boomers are now over 70.

          • Mark Luhman says:

            Excuse me had I been allowed to put that money onto an account controlled by me my entire life and I had bought index funds taking off 5% of my contribution for disability insurance I would have a net worth somewhere between one million to two million dollars, knowing that somehow I don’t think SS is a good bet. Oh by the way my life time earning are near what earned by the average american. If you don’t believe me I did put about the similar amount into a 401k for the last twenty years and now my retirement is funded to about 180% of what I presently live on.

        • Menicholas says:

          “•A man reaching age 65 today can expect to live, on average, until age 84.3.
          •A woman turning age 65 today can expect to live, on average, until age 86.6.”

          https://www.ssa.gov/planners/lifeexpectancy.html

          • Gail Combs says:

            Why the heck do you think they want Obummercare?
            People over 70 do NOT get the same healthcare as those under 70 as Hubby found out a couple of years ago. The doctor wanted to run some test but they are not ‘allowed’ if you are over 70.

            Just look at the Liverpool Care Pathway in the UK. Top doctor’s chilling claim: The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year
            * Professor says doctors use ‘death pathway’ to euthenasia of the elderly

            * Around 29 per cent of patients that die in hospital are on controversial ‘care pathway’

            Four patients die thirsty or starving EVERY DAY on our hospital wards show damning new statistics

            NHS millions for controversial care pathway: The majority of NHS hospitals in England are being given financial rewards for placing ‘terminally-ill’ patients on a controversial “pathway” to death

            “…At many hospitals more than 50 per cent of all patients who died had been placed on the pathway and in one case the proportion of forseeable deaths on the pathway was almost nine out of 10.

            …A series of cases have also come to light in which family members said they were not consulted or even informed when food and fluids were withheld from their loved-ones.

            …In some instances patients placed on the pathway because doctors judged that they were nearing the end of their life went on to recover.

            Fuel Poverty: Nearly 29,000 Die in UK Cold Snap
            ” According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) some 28,800 people died in the fortnight ending January 23… the winter death toll is expected to exceed 40,000, the highest figure for the past 15 years.”

            Lots of ways to kill off the ‘Useless Eaters’ once they no longer produce wealth for their owners.

          • Menicholas says:

            It’s Kafkaesque.

          • Mark Luhman says:

            And if you wait to retire at 67 you need to live to about 85 to recover the same benefit if you retire at 64. The only reason to retire late is if you pee away everything else you earned before retirement and you still need the money for your house payment,(mine paid off you car payment,) don’t have one of them, your credit cards somehow mine less that 1% of my net worth. The only reason I waited till 64 was health insurance, I will COBRA out on that. Obama care was a bust for us poor working stiffs who did piss away everything we earned!.

          • Mark Luhman says:

            Gail Comb, no surprise with what you are saying after all government has always been the leading cause of premature death, yet our liberal friends always worry about big business to bad they have not figures out “big business” in not a threat without big government!

          • Mark Luhman says:

            You are truly screwed if you don’t live to average and considering half don’t!

    • RAH says:

      If they paid into they should get the scale of their contribution out of it. Anything else is socialism. It is a terrible program that is a total rip off and all the proof a thinking person needs to demonstrate that the Federal government cannot even manage a basic retirement pension fund properly.

      One rational for letting so many illegally inter this country is that they will pay into the system to make up for the deficit in funds needed for payouts to those drawing from it. People that are drawing from it now are in large part baby boomers who paid into the system their whole working lives at a time of massive economic expansion and high union wages. Any yet now they justify selling our sovereignty down the river because they need their money to fulfil their promises. And even with that they can’t fulfil them. For almost my entire working life the promise was full payout at 65 y/o. Now the promise to me is full payout at 67 years 2 months old. They stole the money to use it for other things, but why would that be a surprise to anyone that hasn’t just fallen off the turnip truck is a mystery to me.

  5. Pathway says:

    Ryancare was a bad bill that would not have bent the cost curve down. This just shows the lack of leadership in the Republican party. Ryan should have had a bill written and in the hands of congress back in December. The Democrats had Obama care written years before Obama ever took office.

    • Ross says:

      Agree completely. The new bill should have been ready and agreed to on day 1.
      The problem is , it appears quite a few of the Republicans are really behind President Trump.

      But would you think there was any truth in this ?

      http://politicsusanews.com/just-killed-healthcare-bill-paul-ryan-secret-meeting-hour-later/

      • Gail Combs says:

        The ReBooblicans have been saying VOTE FOR ME, and I will repeal Obummercare for the past seven years. The bill should have been WRITTEN AND AGREED TO at the Republican National Convention when Trump was nominated. It wasn’t which means they have been sitting on their hands for the pass seven years saying Yes sirrah boss to Obama with ZERO intention of ever repealing the darn thing.

      • Louis Hooffstetter says:

        No way to tell, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all.

      • Ross says:

        Ooops This ” a few of the Republicans are really behind President Trump.” should obviously read as “….not behind President Trump”.

  6. Advocatus Diaboli says:

    My understanding of it is that the problem is, the things that would make a noticeable difference in the cost of health care (tort reform, competition across state lines, ending mandated coverages, and the like) would need 60 votes in the Senate since they’re not “budget”-related items that can be passed under “reconciliation” rules, so they’re subject to the filibuster rule. That means that any significant legislation would need 8 Democrat votes to make it to 50.

    Good luck with that.

    It was a classic case of shooting for 50 (or 40, or 20) percent of something, versus 100 percent of nothing.

    • Advocatus Diaboli says:

      “to make it to 60” votes, that is.

    • Ktm says:

      That’s why they should have done a quickie repeal that sets a drop dead date for Obamacare first.

      Then after it’s decided, see how many democrats want a seat at the table to decide what the replacement plan looks like.

      If the answer is zero, then pass a few easy reforms like health savings accounts, rx reimportation from Canada, and medicaid block grants with only republican votes and declare victory.

    • Mark Luhman says:

      Yet somehow it got passed without 60 votes!

    • Menicholas says:

      The Rs just need to declare the nuclear option on everything…end the filibuster.
      The Ds have said they were going to end it, had they won the senate and the WH, and they surely will the next time they have a majority.
      So, just end it.
      This is the chance to get done what they have said they want to do.
      The obvious conclusion is that the leaders do not want anything to change.

  7. stpaulchuck says:

    Obamacare Lite was a hocus pocus act to keep control of our healthcare.
    I see two possible strategies there. One, make sure it fails so when Obamacare totally crashes they can bring in single payer. Two, they thought they actually could get everyone to go along with “step one” with additional steps towards total repeal somewhere down the road (like as in never). Then incremental “fixes” would move us to de facto single payer.

  8. mat says:

    “Effective as of Dec. 31, 2017, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted,”

    Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks Introduces One Line Bill to Repeal Obamacare
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/27/alabama-republican-rep-mo-brooks-introduces-one-line-bill-to-repeal-obamacare/

  9. Ktm says:

    Now with Trump and Pruitt balking on their opportunity to challenge and reverse the CO2 endangerment finding, they are doubling down on a major facet of the Obama agenda for the second time in a week.

  10. Steven Fraser says:

    A ponzi scheme is perfectly legal, as long as it is disclosed. SS is as Ponzi a Scheme as we have, whose purpose is income redistribution.

    • Menicholas says:

      No argument from me on that.
      The money they take is a tax, the money they distribute is an entitlement.
      They can change the rules whenever they want.
      Pretending it is a retirement fund they are holding for us generates needless angst.
      Why anyone drives themselves nuts trying to think of it that way is beyond me.
      The government has a gun to all of our heads and there is little we can do about it.
      If every incumbent was voted out at every election for a few years in a row, maybe then the people elected could be made to do the will of the people, but that will never happen.
      People hate congress, but mostly like the people they elect for their own states and districts.
      I imagine some truly horrendous cataclysm could change they way things are, but short of that, how will things ever be different?
      I was hopeful Trump would be able to get the things done he wanted to do, but now we see who the people in his party really work for…it seems that it aint us.
      Sad.
      Maybe the Freedom Caucus is right, maybe not…it hardly matters…end result is the same…nothing has changed despite the strongest position for the Rs since 1928 and maybe ever.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.