All_Pro_Bills

Liberals are funny as they always say any policy they disagree with results in people dying. Their solution is always to throw more and more taxpayer money up to infinity until more of what isn't working actually works which won't happen. My liberal brother told me this. I

What Schumer wants is a year extension of health insurance subsidies until the end of 2026 so: 1) They get what now 2) they create an issue they can campaign on with a mid-term election promise to make the subsidies permanent if the voters give them control of Congress. Keep the affordability issue alive. Smart tactic.

Like all these proposals the devils in the details. What it means to me is people get funds to use for direct purchase of medical insurance outside the ACA rather than using the money to pay medical expenses like an HSA. What I don't get is how those premiums would be any lower individually vs. the ACA which I understand works by "pooling" risk?

Native Brits have 2 choices. Continue to be submissive and obedient or fight for the survival of their national identity. First step, wake up and stop voting against your best interests. My prediction for NYC is the new kids are way over their head and it will result in widespread corruption and graft. These socialist always talk a good story about fighting for the downtrodden and being guardians of right but they're never above tapping into the public Treasury to live the good life. Just watch.

I should point out nobody seemes concerned about the new fundamentalist government in Syria wiping out Christians and other minorities. The administration is rolling out the welcome mat for the new dictator. One wonders the logic of supporting these regime change operations such as removing Assad. They generally result in consequences greater than those existing under the original dictator. As for Nigeria, look before you leap comes to mind.

I think because the only reason the Dems suddenly became flexible is the election came and went so holding the line no longer provides any politiical value. Too far away from Nov 2026. Secondly, the majority has traditionally imposed the clean continuing resolution approach on the minority and there's nothing special about this budget impasse exercise that warrants any conditions. The idea being this is what you guys force us to accept and suddenly now that its your turn you want flexibility. Perspective can change a lot.

And yet what do the Dems have? More hand outs and spending? Pretend soak the rich speeches? Subsidies for health insurance under a program called the Affordable Care Act with is nothing close to affordable. Clearly a failure. From a fiscal perspective we're doomed either way.

So if this claim of "evidence" was valid and demonstrated violation of the law explain why the DOJ didn't file charges against Trump and his inner circle while Garland was AG? Maybe because what is called "obstruction" by this Dem account was procedural actions within and allowed by the law? And calling an on-the-record meeting a conspiracy by definition invaldates the use of the word. Because conspiracies by design are secret. That could be it, right?

Gas is $2.85, eggs $2.29 a doz., paid 99 cents for a 5 pound bag of Russet potatoes today. Bread as low as $1.29, bacon on sale $3.99. Sounds like you're getting ripped off where you live. Also have a Costco membership but don't use it regularly and when I do I have a set list because I find just going in and walking around the place we end up spending too much.

I'm curious if the affordability theme Democrats exploited in NJ and NYC will resonate with voters in Ohio.

Yes. High property taxes are a major issue.

All true as I eagerly wait on what our new governor will do on issues like affordability, sky high property taxes, and the electricity rate problem. I'm not sure about the last one as my utility bill has been about as low as it ever was the last few months.

These guys are allies of self-interest. If the Dems regain power they'll swing back in the other direction

I'm reading notes from today's session and questions from the justices as skepticism over the administration's assertions that the executive branch has the power to impose tariffs under the circumstances they claim exist. Those circumstances being some extreme threat or emergency that requires presidential action (my words). If I had to guess they're going to rule against the President here, 5-4, 6-3, something like that. I read elsewhere that if Trump loses the back-up plan is to invoke some action based on the Trade Act of 1974-Section 122. I don't know a thing about this Act.

You are the spinner here my friend. The Biden era passed subsidies for coverage premiums expire on 12/31/25. You can't lose something in 2026 that you never had.