On the public record
Every politician on the site, every statement on file. Search, filter, and read the public record.
13,000+·quotes on file
Absolutely, and I think that is what has to be part of the discussion, because if the utilities insist on fighting and trying to overprice their storage, people are just going to say: I am going to buy my own storage, put it in the…
I would hope that, in your final recommendations as you're--in your exit interview, if you will--that you would emphasize the importance of that.
What I'm trying to say--just as Senator McCain said, it isn't about numbers; it is about the capability.
Any military leader would want to keep all the advantage to him, not provide any advantage to the enemy.
Does it make any sense to announce to an enemy that you're going to reduce your--not only your troop level, but your mission?
Isn't it true that in order to go to the 5,500, which is a fundamental change of mission?
I can't understand any good reason to announce in advance to an enemy that you're going to reduce your troop levels.
I almost objected, not because of any reservations about General Nicholson, but about my extreme admiration for you.
I think we are undercutting our own national interests by not being at the table.
Have you done any analysis of the economic effect of people being freed from their employer based health insurance and, therefore, able to begin their own businesses, for example?
I think that is an important point, because there was a lot of talk at the time that CBO says ACA will cost 2 million jobs, and that is really not accurate.
As I read it, though, what you really found was it was the labor supply that you were analyzing, not people losing their jobs but people choosing not to stay in a particular job because they could have health insurance.
My only concern as a policymaker is that we not be seduced by the rosy projections that never manifest themselves.
I would argue, for example, that the GI bill is one of the most cost-effective programs in history, but the results did not come in for some years.
How do we deal with the $18 trillion debt? I mean, balancing the budget would be nice, but we have still got an $18 trillion debt.
I was amazed when I got here that somehow, when you get inside the Beltway, the law of net present value does not apply.
If you vote for the expenditures, you ought to be at the same time voting for an extension of the debt ceiling.