You might be right. The slow release has kept the story gong far longer than a quick dump would have, right up to the point Sen. Feinstein was livid at the idea the CIA spied on Her.

... not yet convinced Apple is even going to be selling a watch?

Is Your sig on the level?

... That explains Kevin Trudeau.

Yeah, no. Predictions of overcrowding due to population growth have been made generation after generation and, as Julian Simon demonstrated in "The Ultimate Resource" and "The Ultimate Resource 2", all else being equal, such events not only do not happen on a global scale but they cannot happen on a global scale. The reason for such lack of occurrence is the fact, if demand growth outpaces supply growth for a particular product or service, the price of that product or service will increase to the point it becomes worthwhile for People to innovate alternatives, reducing the demand for the original product or service compared to where it would otherwise be and effectively increasing the supply of product or service available to fulfill what economic need the original product or service was meant to fulfill. In the case of food, We innovate ways of increasing food supply, such as thru semi-dwarf wheat which can grow in areas traditional wheat cannot. In the case of "where to stand", We innovate ways to increase the total surface area of the planet by, for example, constructing taller buildings and converting otherwise inhospitable areas into livable space.

Yeah, no. Predictions of starvation and overcrowding due to population growth have been made generation after generation and, as Julian Simon demonstrated in "The Ultimate Resource" and "The Ultimate Resource 2", all else being equal, such events not only do not happen on a global scale but they cannot happen on a global scale. The reason for such lack of occurrence is the fact, if demand growth outpaces supply growth for a particular product or service, the price of that product or service will increase to the point it becomes worthwhile for People to innovate alternatives, reducing the demand for the original product or service compared to where it would otherwise be and effectively increasing the supply of product or service available to fulfill what economic need the original product or service was meant to fulfill. In the case of food, We innovate ways of increasing food supply, such as thru semi-dwarf wheat which can grow in areas traditional wheat cannot. In the case of "where to stand", We innovate ways to increase the total surface area of the planet by, for example, constructing taller buildings and converting otherwise inhospitable areas into livable space.

The constitution places no restriction on what such amendments may do. Therefore, replacing the contents of the entire bill is constitutionally valid.

Incorrect: roll call vote #165, 21st of March, 2010, 219 to 212.

Which is exactly what was done: S.Amdt. 2786 to H.R. 3590.

Actually, the ACA began as HR 3590 with the title "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" with the purpose of "[t]o amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes." Being a House Resolution, signified by the "HR" portion of the bill number, the bill for raising revenue did originate in the House, fulfilling the requirements of the Origination Clause, a.k.a., Article I, Section 7. Cf., http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3590:

Even if You are completely innocent, You have "something to hide". So agree both a defense Attorney and a law enforcement Officer as well as every other law enforcement Officer I have ever met.

The ACA is a regulatory bill with spending provisions analogous to almost every other regulatory bill; not what I would call a spending bill.

... To blame any one branch when the large bulk of the spending is automatic mandatory spending like Social Security and Medicare. With the sequester and other cuts, increasingly the only expenditures remaining tend to be direct payments; so, even if the amount of direct payments did not increase, the fraction of payments which are direct payments would increase. Additionally, since the total GDP is still lower than it would be if the recession happened, the "15% of GDP" is not surprising, especially when the question "Why do so many more People meet the requirements for these direct payments?" is asked an answered: the law has not significantly changed in these areas; therefore, the only remaining explanation is more People are meeting the requirements because Their economic situation has changed, which would also account for the 29% increase. At the same time, since January of 2009, real GDP (that is, GDP after adjusting for inflation) has increased almost 11% according to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Now, if We presume in a typical year the rate of such expenditures fluctuates at a rate equal to the growth rate of GDP, since 2009 that "29% increase" ignores a scaling factor of the same "almost 11%" and, after accounting for that factor, the rate of increase is ~16%.