Dan J

1. Credit ratings don't really matter when every other option is worse.

2. Quantitative Easing is relying on getting wealthy people and companies to spend more money to create jobs, which is more of a conservative principle on how the economy works, although there is little else the Fed can do when it comes to job creation.

Cutting jobs to improve profitability is such a selfish reason to fire or let go of people. Its much better if you can blame it on the government if you can.

I totally agree with the bold part. I have mixed feelings about Obama, he's doing an OK job but what about issues like Guantanmo? It's still open! In the end they're just politicians, they will say anything to get elected. I do much prefer him to the used car salesman though.

That has a lot to do with Congress not wanting to provide other options. There was a lot of back and forth about closing Guantanamo at the beginning of Obama's term, but they eventually gave up as Congress didn't want to play along.

What I find funny is the people who say they believe in Evolution ..... really only believe in a PC version of it, so the willingness to embrace the science we feel comfy with, is perhaps universal.

The problem is that you equate an accepted and tested scientific theory as something to believe in. The scientific method does not operate on belief, only religion does.

If you are in this country illegally you are illegal. Plain and simple. What Obama did is not the law.

Wishful thinking is most certainly not the law. Deferred action is an executive power.

quite the contrary. What Reagan did was wrong and what Obama did was wrong.

THe Big part that is lost on all of you is >>>>>>>Reagan signed a bill into law that was passed by both houses of Congress!!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Obama issued a presidential order after a bill failed in Congress.

Can you see the difference ???

What was done in this case was not legislation. Nor was it something that was outside of the power of the Executive branch. Deferred action is a power that was given by congress to the President quite some time ago. It can only delay deportation, as well as provide the ability to apply for an EAD in the meantime. It does not provide a path for permanent residency or citizenship as only congress can do that.

exactly. zimmerman has been convicted by the media not by the courts.

You were dismissing the court case before it even concluded.

Roads are paid for from separate accounts funded by user taxes. The more you drive, the more fuel you consume, or the more you weigh, the more you pay.

That's not exactly true.

There are state and local gas taxes that do fund roads, but counties and cities often build roads with property taxes. There is likely some infrastructure spending that comes out of the general fund at both the state and federal level.

innocent. next case please.

Due process sucks, we should try everyone in the court of public opinion regardless of evidence.

These so called "self-funded" entitlement programs are a ponzi scheme. Medicare is the worst of the bunch, and Obamacare uses that as it's model. The only way that system can work is to tell old people, "Sorry, it costs too much money to keep you alive any longer, so you are going to die." Cost controls will only exacerbate the situation, as we have already seen. Doctors are refusing to take new patients. Forcing doctors and hospitals to take the patients that need the most expensive care for partial reimbursement and recovering your costs with other patients is what has driven healthcare costs skyward to begin with.

Under that definition, any insurance is a "ponzi scheme".

Pure spin.

In other words, he is basically an establishment republican, Not a Libertarian as some people would like him to be.

anything is better than the Iranian sleeper agent we have in office now.

Did you forget to take your meds?

By picking Ryan, he probably just lost any chance of winning the election. Ryan tried to get rid of Medicare which is very popular, especially among seniors. Romney is going to be attacked on that and it will probably cost him states he really needs to win like Florida.

Either you didn't read the posted piece or didi't get it.

Those that embrace the philosophy of the Right are Numerically in decline..... will soon not be able to get the electoral College votes needed to win a national election nor have much of a voice in the house.

Those groups which are expanding in numbers vote big - gov by 2 to 1.

The libertarian party is cut from the same cloth as the GOP and has the exact same fate.

Parties which seek to limit Gov will soon have no chance at winning the white house.

You suggest they "shift their positions" to what?

Libertarians have a pretty liberal position on social issues and is a political position that is popular with some groups of young people. Its the GOP's insistence to stay with conservative positions on social issues that is largely leading to its decline. Which is why I see a shift to Libertarianism the only way the GOP will be relevant.

It could also end up that libertarianism is born out of a split from the democratic party if the GOP isnt fast enough to realize the changing trends.

We wont end up with a single party. Instead I expect the GOP to shift more toward Libertarianism with less focus on or even abandoning the socially conservative/religious parts of its platform.

US political parties have shifted positions as demographics have changed. They will keep doing so into the future.

It's funny that knee-jerk liberals assume passing yet another law will stop any crime from happening. Funnier still that people support them. I'm always amazed by otherwise intelligent people who lose all cognitive ability when it comes to things like crime. "If we make it even more illegal than this will never happen again."

It's like trying to stop drunk driving by limiting the sale of autos to sober people.

I don't think anyone is claiming that it will stop crime from happening. Instead it will make it harder to get a lot of ammo anonymously and reduce the probability of a another large attack.

Of course Progressive does not make a point about being Christian, because they are not.. They are very vocal liberals to the other extreme. That is they whole point., Liberals only think it's a big deal when it's a viewpoint other than theirs.

The company does not make a point of any political or religious affiliation, even if its shareholders do. Chick-Fil-A makes it very public that they consider themselves a Christian company. They will take flak for it.

Chick-Fil-A has made a point about being Christian backed in some of its business practices. Progressive insurance doesn't. When a company makes political contributions or implements business practices that reflect a certain religion or political tradition, its likely going to see some fall out from that decision.

Target make a political contribution to a group supporting Tom Emmer in 2010. He was a Republican candidate for Governor who was against gay marriage. Target took a hit for that. Now they made contributions against the marriage amendment in Minnesota and are taking a hit from the other side.

There is hiring going on. That's not an opinion.

There is hiring going on in certain sectors, especially technology. However, its not broad enough to make in a meaningful difference in job creation.

You missed that point. If you ever had to make a payroll, you would know that the costs are more than what you pay in wages. Eliminate or reduce those costs, then you can afford to pay more in wages. The government has made it so that employees are not even aware of the contributions the employer has to make on their behalf. If you wonder why the employee portion for healthcare keeps going up, it is because the cost to the employer is going up. Add to that the employer's matching contribution for FICA, Unemployment Insurance, Workman's Compensation Insurance, Liability Insurance, etc., that doesn't leave much for actual wages.

A company could pay more in wages, but why would they?

Let the government pick up the tab for healthcare, pass tort reform, and eliminate workman's compensation costs, we could also have the cheapest labor costs per unit produced as well.

Wages may be falling, but labor costs are increasing. Cut labor costs, and wages could be increasing.

So in other words, you need to cut jobs to pay people more, but if you end up with more people competing for the same jobs the wages will stay low. Who is going to create jobs again?

They are not firing people, are they? Be grateful.

So?, The argument is that profit for companies = jobs. Companies, especially large ones have a lot of cash on hand. But their job creation rate is been very anemic.

And in order to expand you have to have capital and in order to have capital you have to have profit or at least show that you can earn a profit.

In order to have customers, customers have to have jobs. In order for Customers to have jobs, businesses have to have profits.

Government can create jobs, but it can not sustain growth and jobs, because it does not create profit.

It's really simple.

P.S. New figures show today that we are back to the poverty figures we had before Liberals started the War on Poverty, NICE JOB.

At the moment, businesses have massive profits and cash (In the order of Trillions), where are the jobs? Think your missing something in your equation.

Anyone who wants a job.

Why would anyone who wants a job care about the rich? Its not like wealth creation correlates to job creation.

The economy could use some heat right now. It's a long way from overheating.

If its used in ways that actually create jobs. But I wouldn't count on that.