Log In
Create Account
SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ
Login
Create Account
Search
Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...
RSS Feed
Hosting by DigitalOcean
Support ST on Ko-Fi
Links Only
50 Results
100 Results
250 Results
500 Results
1000 Results
5000 Results
2 Weeks
2 Months
6 Months
1 Year
2 Years
5 Years
All Time
Live
Down to Post
Backboards:
Live
________________
1: Dec 1, 17:33
2: Dec 1, 11:23
3: Nov 30, 15:54
4: Nov 30, 09:41
5: Nov 29, 16:44
6: Nov 29, 08:01
7: Nov 28, 16:19
8: Nov 28, 09:42
9: Nov 27, 18:07
10: Nov 27, 12:04
11: Nov 27, 08:26
12: Nov 26, 18:06
13: Nov 26, 12:05
14: Nov 26, 08:29
15: Nov 25, 18:33
16: Nov 25, 11:12
17: Nov 25, 07:08
18: Nov 24, 13:17
19: Nov 23, 18:13
20: Nov 23, 06:17
Posts: 154
(Dawson?) Folks seem to be saying that this ruling takes away a future (GOP) POTUS's ability to stop the subsidies administratively. -- nm
Posted by
ty97
Jun 25 '15, 07:45
(No message)
Responses:
you get an executive order ! and YOU get an executive order ! and You get . . . -- nm
-
Oprah !
Jun 25, 08:26
[deleted]
1
I saw a couple of comments on it from different people. Will post if I see a fleshed out argument article pop up today (I expect a few will) -- nm
-
ty97
Jun 25, 07:49
Why would a GOP President do this administratively when (in all probability) it could be done legislatively? -- nm*
-
Roger More
Jun 25, 07:47
2
Easier? Cover for all the GOP in Congress (provides cover, they don't have to vote)? In case the Dems win the Senate? -- nm
-
ty97
Jun 25, 07:48
1
I don't know what the Senate will look like in 2016, but the GOP in Congress want to vote against it. -- nm
-
Roger More
Jun 25, 07:56
Post a message
top
Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.