WorldTraveller

he he Sorry, that me laugh out loud a little

^^^. ^^^^ The lowest common denominator

Are you implying that Romney is racist? If so, you suck. I saw the speech and really thought this was an interesting moment. "if you want a president who will make things better in the African American community, you are looking at him" They naturally booed and he defiantly quipped "take a look" I gotta say, that was ballsy, and my guess is that he got some respect from some african Americans and I sure as hell can tell you thati have a new found respect for him, never had seen that side from him. No, you're voting for Obama because you always vote democrat, retard.

You're comparing this to a beheading? AND insinuating that this is widespread? You've got issues

Let me ask you this, if you are the owner of a restaurant, construction company, auto dealership, clothing store or just about any other business, is it their main objective to create jobs or turn a profit? you see this question, no offense to you is utterly preposterous. However it is a question that has been posed over and over by the Obama campaign and his surrogates and of course then repeated by the media. The main objective of 99% of any business is to turn a profit, if run effectively, then job creation in many cases is a byproduct of this development.

I'm not good at this text talk, what does GFYM stand for? The only thing I can come up with is Go !@#$ Your Mother

Id much rather of had Hillary at the helm than the economically incompetent ideologue that resides at the white house today.

He won't have to, the superpacs will use the court ruling that it was a tax and bludgeon Obama over and over with his broken promise that he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class. When you put that in the context of this weak economy, the idea of raising taxes not just on the wealthy but the middle class will be an extremely potent line of attack.

The plan that they are offering would be much more effective in helping limit the rise of health insurance premiums, much more so than the ACA, and would have considerable more support from independent voters. I'm hoping that's what happens.

It flies in the face of reason to believe that a bill that creates mandates for people to buy a product that otherwise never would have and throw in huge taxes on top of that and regulations that are harmful to small businesses by mandating coverage for their employees would be a net job creator. When you take money out of the economy and add burdensome regulations that inhibit growth, it doesn't create a landscape for more job creation. It's ok that you like this bill, that is your opinion, but let's not let your enthusiasm carry you away to such a high level of naïveté.

Are you suggesting that we don't do business with china?

It was the intent, and anything that includes the outright "nationalization" of any industry is not just a clear cut political loser but is completely unpalatable and smacks of Venezuelan Chavez style socialism. If we continue to go the path that we are steamrolling towards, maybe in about 10 years that will be acceptable, but as of today, it's simply not politically viable.

Let's not kid ourselves, this bill was crafted to make the size of government larger and increase the dependency from more segments of the US electorate on the ever growing reach of government in order to structurally enhance liberals prospects of elections moving forward.

Intrade hade it at 72% that it would be struck down, so this boards view was a microcosm of what the general public was feeling as well.

Funny how all of a sudden liberals cry foul now that the tables have turned yet when Obama for the first time in US history rejected public funds........ Crickets

. I sort of view it like the laffer curve, and right now it is too heavily weighted in favor of the pubic sector. The unemployment rate for public sector is below 5% and for the private sector it's near 10% according to the BLS . The average salary with benefits is nearly 20k a year higher than the average private sector worker. Which means that the near 10% unemployment private sector continues to fund the below 5% public sector employees who are making considerably more. Yet the solution from progressives to stimulate the economy,despite this huge despairity between private and public sector employment and total wages/benefits, is to bail out state and local government public sector workers with more federal funded private sector dollars?

No, it depended on the wording, if the word "government" was used , the polling went way down. There were many variations of the same question worded differently that got various results, most of them tested unpopular. Let's just apply some logic, if it had been popular, ( which it wasn't) then wouldn't of the president pushed for it harder? And let's be real, we know that the private sector can't compete with the government. Government can subsidizes losses at the expense of the tax payers ( for progressives this works just fine, because that means wealthier folks) running endless deficits, whereas the private sector doesn't have that luxury, in the real world that is called a "loss" and in the real world losses means companies closing down. So in effect the public option would of eventually had a crowding out effect of the private sector health insurance companies which in turn would of dramatically expanded the size of government, which of course would of led to two things, higher deficits and higher taxes ( which for progressives would of been just dandy because wealthier folks would have been on the hook)

The bill the far left wanted was even more unpopular than the final bill, which is why Obama went with what we have today. Most Americans don't share most progressives core values.

Actually, aside from the outlier, they aren't.

Economy looks like its getting weaker

After reading that, I now actually kind of admire him.

I think someone has been tuning into drudge lately.

I wonder what the presidents executive order will do to the unemployment rate? All these individuals will now be counted on the national employment rolls, I would suspect that most of the jobs effected would be lower tier jobs, and the unemployment rate is already higher the younger the age. There could be a strong economic argument against this executive order, at least for the short-term

I was making an apples to apples comparison.

It may be motivated by partisanship, but it's true, and shouldn't be discounted. The problem is that under bush, the press corps hammered the whitehouse secretary everyday, and after relentless withering pressure bush buckled and then came independent investigations. We aren't seeing the same today. The press has a journalistic duty to continue to press the W.H until they do, just as they did under the Plame fiasco, don't you agree?