"We have to pass this bill [health care], so that you can find out what is in it"

consigliere

consigliere

New member
Jan 27, 2009
281
7
0
San Francisco, CA
"We have to pass this bill [health care], so that you can find out what is in it"

"We have to pass this bill [health care], so that you can find out what is in it" -Nancy Pelosi

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To"]YouTube - Pelosi: we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it[/ame]

the wicked witch of the west. wow.
 


So that is the correct order. I always had this crazy idea that you should find out what is in a bill first, then pass it. Thank you Nancy Pelosi for correcting me.

I really hope that she loses her job in November.
 
As a Canadian, I can only say this is great news. When the queue gets too long up here for treating granddaddy's goiter, I can just send him down south AND get him treated at socialized medicine rates.
thank you America
 
I despise Nancy Pelosi and politics generally, but to be fair it's extremely hard to take something seriously when it's a sub-five-second fragment of a sentence that person said.


Frank
 
fm1234 said:
I despise Nancy Pelosi and politics generally, but to be fair it's extremely hard to take something seriously when it's a sub-five-second fragment of a sentence that person said.


Frank
Click to expand...

Yep. I agree completely. I'm one of the first in line to pile on Pelosi, but this is likely taken way out of context. If I had to guess what she actually meant, probably something along the lines of "there have been a lot of changes / concessions made (and likely will be more) to get this thing done, so until it's passed, nothing is concrete."
 
nvanprooyen said:
Yep. I agree completely. I'm one of the first in line to pile on Pelosi, but this is likely taken way out of context. If I had to guess what she actually meant, probably something along the lines of "there have been a lot of changes / concessions made (and likely will be more) to get this thing done, so until it's passed, nothing is concrete."
Click to expand...

I am still willing to bet that she never read the bill. It is almost 6 reams of printer paper.
 
auroinfo said:
Funny.......... i have to wait till the bill is passed...... to know what is in it.............

Hope Government will pass it before knowing what is there in it ???

________________________
http://www.wickedfire.com/sell-buy-trade/87156-50-discount-submission-service.html

Search Engine Marketing Firm
Click to expand...

I avoid political threads on WF, but I just could not stop laughing at this guy ^

Yo auroinfo, you still haven't figured out how forum signatures work?

Hahahahaha... wow.
 
Here's another little gem they uncovered:

- A new federal mandate on businesses of 51 or more employees to provide a private area (not a bathroom) for nursing mothers to pump breast milk for up to a year after giving birth. This means that businesses have to plan for mainly unused floor space in every facility, or face federal sanctions.
 
hellblazer said:
Here's another little gem they uncovered:

- A new federal mandate on businesses of 51 or more employees to provide a private area (not a bathroom) for nursing mothers to pump breast milk for up to a year after giving birth. This means that businesses have to plan for mainly unused floor space in every facility, or face federal sanctions.
Click to expand...

Well if you have 50+ employees I'm sure you can sacrifice a 10x10 lounge of sort. If stingy enough, decorate the storage unit. But I thought however thats what maternity leave was for?
 
hellblazer said:
Here's another little gem they uncovered:

- A new federal mandate on businesses of 51 or more employees to provide a private area (not a bathroom) for nursing mothers to pump breast milk for up to a year after giving birth. This means that businesses have to plan for mainly unused floor space in every facility, or face federal sanctions.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem with any type of legislation that forces actors to do what they would otherwise not do...

It leads to unintended consequences that often hurt those whom the legislation was created to help.

Here's an example involving maternity leave. This will sound irrelevant, but I'll connect the loose ends.

I used to work for a very large money management firm. I was involved on many enterprise-wide projects that spanned several months. These were multimillion dollar projects. Women were rarely given the chance to spearhead them. Instead, they were almost always relegated to supporting roles.

Coincidentally, those few women who were given the chance to lead these projects openly professed to not wanting children. I saw this play out multiple times over a decade.

My suspicion is that the firm's senior management wanted to avoid placing projects on hold while a female lead was taking maternity leave. I know many of my cohorts at the firm felt this was the right decision given the cost of the projects and the consequences of delaying them.

In this case, an argument could be made that legislation forcing companies to provide maternity leave led to unintended consequences. The same will likely be true of legislation forcing them to provide space to pump. The only unknown variable is the nature of those consequences. This is the stumbling block of all central planners (whether they realize it or not).
 
Trademark said:
Here's the problem with any type of legislation that forces actors to do what they would otherwise not do...

It leads to unintended consequences that often hurt those whom the legislation was created to help.

Here's an example involving maternity leave. This will sound irrelevant, but I'll connect the loose ends.

I used to work for a very large money management firm. I was involved on many enterprise-wide projects that spanned several months. These were multimillion dollar projects. Women were rarely given the chance to spearhead them. Instead, they were almost always relegated to supporting roles.

Coincidentally, those few women who were given the chance to lead these projects openly professed to not wanting children. I saw this play out multiple times over a decade.

My suspicion is that the firm's senior management wanted to avoid placing projects on hold while a female lead was taking maternity leave. I know many of my cohorts at the firm felt this was the right decision given the cost of the projects and the consequences of delaying them.

In this case, an argument could be made that legislation forcing companies to provide maternity leave led to unintended consequences. The same will likely be true of legislation forcing them to provide space to pump. The only unknown variable is the nature of those consequences. This is the stumbling block of all central planners (whether they realize it or not).
Click to expand...

In before Psuedo_Nym vilifies the greedy, evil companies for not displaying 'social responsibility'
 
Solid gold analysis.

It's basic opportunity costs, which everyone human being, and certainly every marketer, *should* be able to understand. But many people don't learn how to use deductive reasoning, and that is why some will only see "More free stuff for Moms!" instead of the unseen, "This could cost Moms' jobs!"

Of course, when Moms get less jobs, there will be more regulations, which force businesses to hire Moms without discrimination, even when discriminatory pro-Mom regulation makes them more expensive to employ.

Every intervention creates the next crisis.

Trademark said:
Here's the problem with any type of legislation that forces actors to do what they would otherwise not do...

It leads to unintended consequences that often hurt those whom the legislation was created to help.

Here's an example involving maternity leave. This will sound irrelevant, but I'll connect the loose ends.

I used to work for a very large money management firm. I was involved on many enterprise-wide projects that spanned several months. These were multimillion dollar projects. Women were rarely given the chance to spearhead them. Instead, they were almost always relegated to supporting roles.

Coincidentally, those few women who were given the chance to lead these projects openly professed to not wanting children. I saw this play out multiple times over a decade.

My suspicion is that the firm's senior management wanted to avoid placing projects on hold while a female lead was taking maternity leave. I know many of my cohorts at the firm felt this was the right decision given the cost of the projects and the consequences of delaying them.

In this case, an argument could be made that legislation forcing companies to provide maternity leave led to unintended consequences. The same will likely be true of legislation forcing them to provide space to pump. The only unknown variable is the nature of those consequences. This is the stumbling block of all central planners (whether they realize it or not).
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom