fjl2nd

And the other side is basically admitting they want to limit the number of minorities and poor people who vote. I've yet to see any real evidence of mass vote fraud. This is all in conservative's heads.

The goal of the budget is to focus on getting back to full employment in the first two years. The Ryan budget goes straight to slashing and burning. That is not good economic policy at all. Comparison of job creation for each budget from http://www.epi.org/blog/congressional-progressive-caucus-budget-jobs-impact/

Agreed, the Dems should come up with something more than they have. Although, the Congressional Progressive Caucus has come forward with a budget. Breakdown: My link

Lol. Somehow I knew you would say that. We all generalize but the author took a little far. I'm just pointing out that there are people who believe what this woman believes.

True. The author shouldn't have generalized like that. There probably are a lot of people that feel this way though.

She really is a dumbass though...

Yes, there is a point but it isn't an arbitrary number. There is no real signs that our debt load is hurting us too much. We've seen these kind of debt levels (as a % of GDP) before and many other countries got themselves in much worse shape. The way to prevent the debt from spinning out of control is to have some sensible reforms to the social security and medicare programs. Drawing back our defense spending over time wouldn't hurt either. As for yearly deficits, the way to get those under control is simple: strong economic growth.

I would actually agree to a point that uncertainty with certain things is hurting the economy a bit. I wish congress would just sit down right now and extend the current tax rates and increase the debt ceiling so we can move on from that argument. But, that would never happen with this Congress.

Even health reform critics say: Quit repeal talk Looks like talking health care is going to be a big LOSER for the Romney campaign. He's taken a hit this last week and could get worse with a better jobs report tomorrow. I think he will be picking his VP very very soon.

Obamacare is CERTAIN now. Republicans would be the one causing uncertainty by repealing... "starts to tank" meaning losing jobs or GDP decreasing.

Haven't they already voted on a repeal or no? I honestly don't know.

Agree on everything. Romney can't win unless economy really starts to tank I think.

Don't think so. I think it was pretty well-known Democrats were losing the house. Polls trending wrong way for Romney though. We'll see if this ruling has an effect. I'm sure he is hoping for a rough jobs report in July!

This just happened with the Arizona immigration law too. I doubt it is new.

This ruling should not hurt Obama at all. If anything, it may have sealed the election.

How is not a distraction? Or useful?

I don't even know what this is about and I'm not about to watch that long ass video. I don't consider myself an atheist but I am not religious at all. Religion actually doesn't matter to me one bit. But, I don't call myself an atheist - more like an agnostic.

You can make the argument that Obama flip-flopped on gay marriage. He took too long on immigration since one of his promises was to fix immigration problems. Romney still has the problem on immigration. There was no need to say what he said in the primaries. Don't know why he took that approach. Republicans for the most part do not have a terrible record on immigration. He is going to struggle with the latino vote which could cost him the election.

I didn't care about it too much. I don't live there. I think what he did probably helped the state long-term. The language and demeanor he approached it with was a little strong but that's not that important now.

Here is something that we can probably agree on for the most part. There needs to be a complete re-working of pension and retirement plans for public workers. Because as you said, they are pretty much unsustainable. If that is done, then governments can start hiring more teachers, police, etc. right now. The sooner that the public unions realize that some of their demands are a little steep, the sooner government finances can be controlled a little more.

I didn't know you were even talking about that. I noticed I forgot a word and changed it. Settle down guy! I guess you struggle with reading. I said I want a single payer system. POLLING showed Americans wanted the government to compete with the private sector. Agreed on the bolded. The poll I just looked up from the NYT showed Americans in favor of public vs. private competition. But when the word "single-payer" is used, the vote swings the other way. The public option probably would have changed the discussion a whole lot. Now, the private insurance companies are making out very nicely with the individual mandate.

Yet you are opposed to hiring back all of the public workers who have been let go. Your second point is meaningless really. Of course the government is not the same as the private sector. It's not supposed to be the same either. The government is not running to make a profit. Again, another person speaking for progressives. You know liberals/progressives say the same thing about conservatives right? So, no reason to go back and forth with that. Obama will be re-elected in November so your last paragraph is wrong.

But, when you views opposing views like that it gets us nowhere. I'm not going to keep going into it, but it's just stupid to pretend like you know what other people believe.

Standard.

The basic arguments would be: Taxing her: She did nothing to earn this money and it could be considered a lot of untaxed "income". Or it counts as one giant gift and is subject to taxation. Not taxing her: It is technically small gifts from many different people so it shouldn't be subject to taxation. Again, these are just simple statements that certainly doesn't cover each entire option.