House Republicans Set to Unveil "The Pledge to America"

[miraja2]

I haven't read the whole thing yet, just the list posted here.

For anyone who has read it, who exactly do they want to "certify" the constitutionality of each bill before it is voted on? Do they specify? Am I wrong or is the Supreme Court the only body that can legally decide that? Do they expect the Supreme Court to weigh in on every bill? If not, if it is somebody else, then I don't really see how they can really certify anything regarding constitutionality. Also, as amendments are added to each bill during the debate process, would it need to get re-certified?
That whole suggestion seems rather odd and impractical at first glance.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by miraja2

That whole suggestion seems rather odd and impractical at first glance.

Exactly.

[Gaelic Storm]

I am not sure what is wrong with the Health Care Reform other then it should be called Health Care Insurance Reform. It seems that an individual’s insurance coverage will be better and that insurers can't really charge more for the better coverage. So basically the big insurance companies (I work for one of the largest) will make hundreds of millions instead of billions. One thing I have noticed is that most companies who's Health plan's my company administers are willing to pay extra to have their claims and customer service handled in this country and we are outsourcing less and less every day and hiring here.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Gaelic Storm

I am not sure what is wrong with the Health Care Reform other then it should be called Health Care Insurance Reform. It seems that an individual’s insurance coverage will be better and that insurers can't really charge more for the better coverage. So basically the big insurance companies (I work for one of the largest) will make hundreds of millions instead of billions. One thing I have noticed is that most companies who's Health plan's my company administers are willing to pay extra to have their claims and customer service handled in this country and we are outsourcing less and less every day and hiring here.

how is coverage going to be better when you arent allowed to choose plans that have good coverage?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I haven't read the whole thing yet, just the list posted here.

For anyone who has read it, who exactly do they want to "certify" the constitutionality of each bill before it is voted on? Do they specify? Am I wrong or is the Supreme Court the only body that can legally decide that? Do they expect the Supreme Court to weigh in on every bill? If not, if it is somebody else, then I don't really see how they can really certify anything regarding constitutionality. Also, as amendments are added to each bill during the debate process, would it need to get re-certified?
That whole suggestion seems rather odd and impractical at first glance.

You seem to be confusing a PR strategy with an actual, working plan.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

wow I was under the assumption that obamas job creation was well on its way to his stated goals..

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Econ...spx?Symbol=USD

if im reading this correctly..2008 is when he took over..hmm

how many billion did he spend on hope and pocket change..

4 more years.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

wow I was under the assumption that obamas job creation was well on its way to his stated goals..

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Econ...spx?Symbol=USD

if im reading this correctly..2008 is when he took over..hmm

how many billion did he spend on hope and pocket change..

4 more years.

Yeah, I don't understand why he won't wave the super-special Magic Employment Wand that they keep under the desk in the oval office. Why won't he just wave the wand and make a bunch of jobs appear? What an idiot!

Anybody that knows anything about economics understands that the executive branch has complete control over how many jobs there are in the United States. Man, if only Bill Clinton or Dwight Eisenhower had taken over in 2009 instead of Obama, I bet the unemployment rate would be less than 3% by now!! Yippeee!!

The executive branch had nothing to do with all of the free trade agree...


er nvmd.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Yeah, I don't understand why he won't wave the super-special Magic Employment Wand that they keep under the desk in the oval office. Why won't he just wave the wand and make a bunch of jobs appear? What an idiot!

Anybody that knows anything about economics understands that the executive branch has complete control over how many jobs there are in the United States. Man, if only Bill Clinton or Dwight Eisenhower had taken over in 2009 instead of Obama, I bet the unemployment rate would be less than 3% by now!! Yippeee!!

I cant believe my eyes. Your talking bad about Obama. If Clinton or Eisenhower was President I have no doubt unemployment would be alot lower. Im also sure this country would be in better shape economically.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

I cant believe my eyes. Your talking bad about Obama. If Clinton or Eisenhower was President I have no doubt unemployment would be alot lower. Im also sure this country would be in better shape economically.

Umm...your post here is way off the mark. I wasn't "talking bad about Obama" in this post. I was being sarcastic, although I have frequently criticized the administration on other topics.

If you honestly believe that a different president taking over in 2009 would have had a significant effect on employment, you are even more clueless than I thought. Whether Sarah Palin, Bill Clinton, Dwight Eisenhower, Newt Gingrich, PG85, or J. M. Keynes had taken over in January 2009, the unemployment rate would be about the same.
Unemployment would probably be a tiny bit higher if an anti-stimulus president had taken office (although the budget defecit would obviously be smaller) but the statistical difference would almost certainly be marginal.
Executive decisions can have some effect on the national economy's long-term trajectory, but the idea that any single person can have a dramatic effect on the unemployment number in the span of a couple years is completely incorrect.