The Republican led Congress is scheduled to vote next week to repeal Obamacare. This vote, in the absence of a Republican led Senate, and with Obama still in office, is mostly symbolic.
I'm all for repealing Obamacare, but the symbolism of voting to repeal it without proposing any alternative is exercising poor judgement in my opinion. There are some good features contained in the current law, and it is those features, even if they only amount to 2% of the current law, should be continued. Not recognizing those features, and voting to simply eliminate them is not wise.
We need our leaders to vote on measures with substance, not just for symbolic reasons. They need to re-think this vote.
Great informative article. I wish to completely agree with you but there are some points which I may not completely agree. But apart from that I think you have done an amazing job in this piece of write-up ?
Posted by: buy viagra | 19 January 2011 at 11:15 PM
with Obama still in office, is mostly symbolic.
Posted by: Buy Lebron James Shoes | 13 June 2011 at 09:13 PM
The Republican led Congress is scheduled to vote next week to repeal Obamacare. This vote, in the absence of a Republican led Senate, and with Obama still in office, is mostly symbolic.
Posted by: Nike Air Jordan Sneakers | 13 June 2011 at 09:14 PM
with Obama still in office, is mostly symbolic.
Posted by: Basketball Sneakers | 19 June 2011 at 01:09 AM
In its press release, AZRTL PAC states, "Under the AZRTL PAC criteria for endorsing candidates, if the incumbent candidate and the challenger both have a pro-life voting record, AzRTL PAC will endorse the incumbent over the challenger." That language never existed in any document I ever saw as Chairman, and is ridiculous on its face as any incumbent could be found to be pro-life on some issue. Would AZRTL PAC endorse an incumbent with a 2% NLRC rating? I hope not. It's the level of their commitment, and the consistency of the candidate's positions that count, not their mere incumbency. After all, we're working to save lives here, and each one should matter. Moreover in 2008, like now, John McCain had an inferior pro-life record to a more committed opponent. The PAC did the right thing then in endorsing the stronger pro-life candidate, why not now?
Posted by: Nike Dunk High Heel | 31 July 2011 at 10:31 PM
Greenpeace released on August 23 report "poison hidden in clothing - global brand clothing toxic and harmful residues investigation." Report: April to May, Greenpeace China, Argentina and other 18 countries purchased 15 samples of 78 brands of clothing, of which 52 samples tested the residual toxic substances. Includes Adidas, Cheap Nike Air Max, CK, Puma, Li Ning, 14 world-renowned apparel company. This opinion will be drawn into the vortex of well-known brand of material, known as NPE. According to reports: NPE is a common surfactant, is widely used in textile printing and dyeing, cleaning processes.
Posted by: cheap air max 2010 shoes | 24 October 2011 at 07:34 PM
Greenpeace released on August 23 report "poison hidden in clothing - global brand clothing toxic and harmful residues investigation."
Posted by: nike shoes | 10 January 2012 at 11:06 AM
Hi, the article is so wonderful, I am interested in it. I will pay attention to your articles.
Posted by: china wholesale | 11 January 2012 at 05:39 PM