SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (23579)12/22/2009 8:35:50 AM
From: Zincman3 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 103300
 
Blows me away that the majority of the voters don't want health care reform as it stands now, nor cap and trade, but they are passing them anyway.
Why the hell vote?



To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (23579)12/22/2009 1:02:04 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 103300
 
Re: "it was bought in shady backroom deals"

Aren't *all* the big ones?

(Remember how Bush finally pushed his Medicare part D bill through? All the arm-twisting and backroom deals... even keeping the vote OPEN in the House three hours past the legislative limit just so, one-by-one, they could take legislators into backrooms and offer them 'bennes' for their districts, or threats of denied funding, just so they could convince them into going back onto the House floor and *changing* the votes they had ALREADY CAST against the measure.... And all this for an entitlement expansion that was 100% added directly to the federal deficit... no offsetting spending cuts anywhere else, no revenues raised to pay for it, just nothing --- straight to the deficit.)



To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (23579)12/25/2009 1:44:47 AM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 103300
 
As Health Bill Advances, Few Changes Seen for Millions
By REED ABELSON
For the roughly 160 million people who receive health insurance through an employer, the result of the long, angry health care debate in Washington may be just more of the same.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/25/health/policy/25employer.html?_r=1&hp