Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Why would the Whitehouse give an immediate answer? If the unions made a reasonable and potentially legal claim shouldn't that be investigated? I haven't read anywhere that the Whitehouse was leading any effort to placate the unions...and the Treasury reports to the Executive Branch just in case you forgot.
-spence
|
Spence, what legal (or moral) basis could there be, to give subsidies to unionized workers, but not to an otherwise-identical non-unionized worker?
I brought this up before, and you ignored it, so I'll do it again for laughs...
Whan Obamacare first came out, one feature was that it taxed the so-called 'cadillac healthcare plans', unless the insured was in a union. You tell me, Spence, how is that proper legislative practice, and not a payoff?
We are all ears...
And I have a question for you in the other post I started yesterday, regarding Obama's flip-flop on raising the debt ceiling, which Obama described as "un-patriotic" when a Republican was president...when Bush proposed it, it was un-patriotic. Now that Obama is proposing it, it seems unpatriotic to oppose it. Why is that, Spence? Maybe now, Obama is hoping that the US will be the one-millionth customer of the Bank Of China, and that we get a prize for that?
Threaded Mode