Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (744241)	10/5/2013 12:09:32 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1577900

"The law was not legitimately enacted. The "gut-and-amend" procedure that was used clearly was intended to defeat the spirit of the Origination Clause." The Supreme Court clearly disagrees, Dave. The conservative ROBERTS Supreme Court. I suppose they're wrong too, and a pencil necked accountant from Hot Springs, AK. knows more?

To: i-node who wrote (744241)	10/7/2013 2:52:39 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	1 Recommendation Recommended By i-node Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577900

Inode, I agree with you that the way ObamaCare was rammed through poisoned the political waters in Washington. The Democrats should have known that the law would have been a pariah and a focal point for Republican opposition for years to come, but I don't think they cared, or maybe their hubris made them believe that the GOP would inevitably implode. I also agree that ObamaCare will end up being much more expensive than originally estimated, and that it will eventually be another budget-buster. But that right now is far from a proven fact. In any case, I don't think the leverage that the House has right now amounts to anything more than mutually-assured destruction. There are just as many Democrats who are willing to sacrifice everything in order to make sure ObamaCare stays entrenched. Both sides are going to blame each other, and both sides will be equally at fault. As for fiscal matters, we have already seen on BOTH sides that "deficits don't matter," except when an arbitrarily-defined debt ceiling is hit. That's when the majority party wants to lift it willy-nilly while the opposition party acts all "fiscally conservative" and uses it to whatever political agenda suits them at the moment. We're just seeing that song-n-dance being played out again. Only this time, government is now going to "shut down" and force the public to suffer because they have to act like spoiled brats. Finally, with regard to the public getting its handouts, if that's what they want, then that's the society they're going to get. Maybe the country really does need to go down before the public (and the media) wakes up to the fact that there is no free lunch. (That may also be the point where libtards stop saying, "We're such a rich country, so we should be able to afford all of these government handout programs.") Until then, we can only argue with common sense, logic, and the fact that every attempt at socialism in modern history has ended up a complete and utter failure. But we can't argue using brinkmanship. That just pisses people off. Tenchusatsu

To: i-node who wrote (744241)	10/7/2013 3:02:36 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577900

Inode, in case you think debt ceiling politics are the only way to convince people that ObamaCare should be repealed: mercurynews.com Here's a great quote: "Of course, I want people to have health care," Vinson said. "I just didn't realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally." Of course, this lady will continue to vote Democrat. So will most Californians experiencing ObamaCare sticker shock. Why? Because they view Republicans as ideological extremists. Tenchusatsu