Alan

please explain a little further before I consider the sourcwe

Really???? who cares!

Where does he stand on the economy... on job growth and on entitlement reform to keep the US from turning into the 'club med' countries in Europe. That is what is relevant in 2012.

Sarah... True -- It would not matter if this election was tomorrow or 100 years past or future. The economic well-being of one's life -- things like money and material possessions are always more important than a loving relationship that can live in freedom without prejudice or percussion. (patch readers please excuse my sarcasm) Or better yet... the control of your own body... Yep Sarah you get raped someday and pregnant... Romney & Ryan will pass a federal law that will mandate you have that baby -- will pass a federal law that life begins at conception -- will pass a federal law that will convict you of murder (30+ years in prison) if you caught getting an illegal 'back-room' abortion. Romney & Ryan will pass a federal law that only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman -- denying the LGBT community of any tax deduction or any other rights married heterosexual couples receive in this country. Elect -- get the right mix in Washington DC -- get rid of those liberal Justices on the Supreme Court; and all kinds of civil liberties will change. But your right who cares -- it's always all about the money -- Sarah please correct me if I'm wrong Romney & Ryan only care about the money...? -- they certainly don't give a crap about your civil liberties.

P.S. Sarah... I'm not happy with the party on the other side of the fence either.

Sarah... Some call these comments class warfare... just the facts Romney and the 1%.

"No matter how you slice it, when it comes to income and wealth in America the rich get most of the pie and the rest get the leftovers. The numbers are shocking. Today the top 1% of Americans control 43% of the financial wealth while the bottom 80% control only 7% of the wealth. Incredibly, the wealthiest 400 Americans have the same combined wealth as the poorest half of Americans -- over 150 million people." -- Center for Budget and Policy Priorities

Fact: Income for the top 20% has increased since the 1970s while income for the bottom 80% declined. In the 1970s the top 1% received 8% of total income while today they receive 18%. During the same period income for the bottom 20% had decreased 30%.

Fact: In the 1970s the top 0.1% of Americans received 2% of total income. Today they get 8%.

Fact: In 1980 the average CEO made 50 time more money than the average worker while today the average CEO makes almost 300 time more than the average worker.

Fact: Over the past 30 years the rich in America have become a lot richer, while many millions of Americans have seen their income stagnate or decline. As Warren Buffett, the second richest man in America, famously said, “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

Fact: "Myth is that people with the most money are the most generous. But while the rich give more in total dollars, low-income people give almost 30 percent more as a share of their income." -- John Stossel

Sarah... America's top 1% does not give a crap about us -- so why vote one of them in? Why do Republicans continue to defend them? Why do we continue to kid ourselves -- that this 1% is going to fix the American economy? So vote for the other party...? -- but they won't fix it either -- they're paid off by the same 1%.

Sarah... There are those who scold me for these kind of comments -- say the 1% should not be demonized 'they earned it.' Looks like they earned it all right -- right off the backs of America's shrinking middle class.

Sarah... How about this answer. Vote those who are willing to stand up and confront America's top 1% -- those who certainly don't feel we need to sacrifice for America's rich and those who will TAX the pants off that group if they don't start sharing the wealth and create living wage jobs. Sarah a TAX is the last solution -- but the rich has had the greatest tax breaks in American history, and their answer is -- no new jobs -- and a shrinking middle class -- if the Romney's of the world don't wake up then we need to vote in a government that will -- tax the 1% -- use that revenue to create new jobs in the PRIVATE SECTOR rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure. Sarah... unfortunately I don't see either political party stepping up to this plate -- their petty self-interest would rather see America fail. Lots of conversation out there about the fiscal cliff, Sarah... I'm more afraid if our political parties don't start working out America's problems together were going to face years of civil unrest -- similar to those I lived through as a young kid in the 60's.

Sarah... thanks for taking the time to read through this frustrated America's rant. Tigers won tonight love that.

note: U.S. Spent Nearly Half-Trillion Dollars on Foreign Oil in 2011... the sooner we fix this problem the sooner will fix our economy. www.pickensplan.com T. Boone Pickens is one of those rare 1% that does from time to time makes some sense.

So you listed 3 unalienable rights - Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, and then wondered why the GOP claims to pursue the right to life? Really?

Thanks for the demagoguery! The president has very little to do with abortion law. Since SCOTUS pretended that women have a right to medical privacy, and therefore could murder their unborn children, it would take an amendment to undo that. Note that when the evangelical wing of the GOP held all three houses of Congress, nothing happened on the abortion front though - because the GOP actually has no interest in outlawing abortion again. It's just a tool they use to keep the pro-lifers on their big government bandwagon.

Angela... I would concur the country going to have to define 'life' first. Got a real gut feeling Thomas Jefferson was not thinking a fetus in a woman's body when he wrote 'life.'

Hear is -- not my words is a re-post from another patch blog same issue. 
"First of all, First term abortion is NOT about life or death, it is about a group of cells that CAN NOT LIVE outside of it's habit (same idea as a parasite although zygotes ARE NOT parasites). SECOND: If it is best for MY health, MY family, or what is best for the UNBORN zygote to have an abortion THEN I WILL. THAT is why it is called a CHOICE. Because the ZYGOTE CAN NOT CHOOSE. And third, NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE MEDICAL DECISIONS FOR ME EXCEPT FOR ME. So why the hell should the GOVERNMENT have the right to tell me what to do for MY HEALTH???? Fourth, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE exists for a reason and those lines have been blurred for too many years. If a church does not want to marry gays, then don't marry them but the government has no reason to deny them marriage! And religious views regarding abortion, if you think abortion is murder then DO NOT GET AN ABORTION."
-- by MRSPirateLarz

"The president has very little to do with abortion law." your quote


5th grade government class...? LOL -- the president makes the appointments to SCOTUS. SCOTUS can change its position any time it feels like it! Angela there have been some major shifts in this country -- I don't this is just a tool they use to keep the pro-lifers on their party bandwagon... I feel this time they mean it -- just my opinion -- I respect yours.

Angela... I would also concur this subject is quite contentious in America today. Here are some recent Gallup poll results.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154946/non-christians-postgrads-highly-pro-choice.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/pro-choice-americans-record-low.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/half-americans-support-legal-gay-marriage.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx

The GOP plan is to scare people into voting against their own interests. Perhaps Ryan is scary enough to get these voters scared straight. Can't believe there's a scintilla of empathy for others between Ryan and Romney.

really Charles
he locked upFlorida? what are you talking about>

Obama is the one who took $700 Billion out of the medicare budget to gamble on Obamacare & the seniors know that. They also know (and you should too) that Ryan's medicare proposal does not change benefits for current seniors nor those who are nearing retirement. It would only change benefits for younger people who have time to plan for the reduced benefits, such as myself.

I don't think the seniors will be flocking to Obama like you believe.

JH - I totally agree that Medicare needs an overhaul. But just to be clear - the ACA includes a deceleration of the current spending rate on Medicare that will equal $700 Billion. This has also extended the life of Medicare by 8 years. It is not a "cut", although that sure sounds scarier in commercials.

More importantly, Ryan and Romney AGREE that we should KEEP that $700 B decrease in growth rate of Medicare, and on top of that create a voucher system for Medicare. The Ryan plan actually takes this savings into account already. Unfortunately, for the fiscally minded, repealing ACA automatically would get rid of this cost control.

Further, Ryan and Obama's plan have the EXACT Medicare spending rate plan moving forward (GDP + 0.05%) - but Ryan gets there through the beneficiary end, Obama's plan through the provider side.

And yes, there are no changes for those in the system, or soon to be. READ: don't worry, you can vote for me, you've got yours.

Bottom Line: Kicking the can down the road, demonizing the other side for your side's own ideas, and pandering for votes instead of real reform.

and what Planet are you from Karen. Ill bet your a real hit with equality for women also. lol

I'd say he's a budget wonk, not so much a hawk. Not so hawkish when he voted for W's two Stimulus Plans (aka Bush tax cuts), Iraq and Afghan wars, budget busting NO-BID Medicare Part D drug plan (passed with essentially NO Congressional floor discussion) - none of which had off-setting budget components. Where were the hawks then? Sorry, there's a real credibility problem if you're a true fiscal conservative.

Ryan's Plan: I have yet to find any economist from either political ideology that says his plan balances the budget, many say it actually increases long term debt. His plan is also based on wild assumptions of revenues based on 2% national unemployment (it's never happened) and getting non-entitlement spending down to 3.75% of GDP. All while doubling down on defense. So, keep Bush cuts, then add MORE big tax cuts (more decrease in revenues), BIG defense spending (isn't that BIG gov't and more gov't workers to pay?), employ immediate austerity measures which necessarily causes harsh GDP contraction - trigger double dip recession - trigger another steep fall in revenues (local, state, fed), relive 2008. Hmmm.

Yes, I do really appreciate that he's put a lot of sincere effort into a comprehensive plan. At least he's done that to get the conversation moving. And yes, he has a rep for being the "policy" and "budget" guy, but not a proven ability to come up with GOOD policies or budgets. That's an important distinction to remember.

Ryan talks the talk, but his voting record doesn't stand up to his rhetoric. He voted for TARP, both stimulus plans, Medicare Part D, NCLB, ...the list goes on. I'm not liberal, but he's not a fiscal conservative.

Ryan is no budget hawk. His economic plan starts out with tax cuts to increase the deficit. Then, he proposes to balance the budget by cutting unidentified deductions. The problem is that even if all deductions are eliminated (which isn't going to happen), that still wouldn't provide enough money to balance the budget! He is offering tax cuts to the wealthy in exchange for ripping the social safety net, without actually reducing the deficit. This is not a budget hawk.

Amen Christine you see the forest threw the trees. Lee

Angela,

Ryan will be a good match with Romney. Romney has the fiscal know how to at least get the economy back on track, creating jobs, etc, while Ryan is the political animal who lives and breathes politics, he plays both sides of the aisle, he is an expert at compromise. Without compromise, a word that Obama does not understand, politics comes to a standstill. Currently, none of the Republican proposals are not even being allowed out of committee, and the Obama proposals, well, just look at his budget, zero support, even from his own party, 99 to 0 and 409 to 0. Ryan will be the 'oil' that makes our govt work again, abeit very inefficently.

leever, how far did the forest throw the threes?

What type of Medical Coverage to you have Lee. Very self serving comment. Good luck in your small world. Lee

So, let's go back to 2008 when we were losing 800,000 jobs a month and the stock market was half of what it is now, and where Bin Laden was loose, and we were starting an unneeded war (not paid for) every few years. That is the world of a Republican administration. Why do we have a deficit now? Because of two unpaid for wars, tax cuts turning a surplus to a deficit, failure to pay for the Part D prescription drug plan because you refuse to consider taxes, and the need to restart the ravaged economy after the Republican debacle. If all of that sounds good to you, vote Romney.

Lee, non of the Republican proposals are being let out of committee? How is that? The GOP controls the House. Sorry, but I am voting against both Obama and Romney. If the GOP wants me to come back, they need to run fiscal conservatives, not political champions.

The country cannot afford to NOT have a National Heath Care Bill like every other Industrialized county in the world. It also has proven cost effective but most Republicans have insurance and want the same old system to prevail with Insurance Companies funding elections to stop it from happening. Let be honest with ourselves the current system is breaking the Country and almost everyone agrees with that. Its all about the have not wanting to change anything like yourself im sorry to say. thanks for you comment but its way off base. Enjoy your selfish Health Plan and let everyone else struggle. Leever

leever, you're confusing obamacare with a single payer insurance system. The bill that was passed is NOT a system like other countries have.

Good luck finding any blue collar job with health care in a few years if obamacare isn't overturned.

Oh Leever, the job of the federal government is to defend the nation, not pay for your medical bills. While there are certainly improvements that need to be made in the system, socializing it it the worst possible option .

Your in another planet just vote Republican and keep the status quo. You cant think past Romney you have a real problem but then so does he. The best of luck in your selfish world. You must be a true Christian. Wow unreal AMEN

I don't think most of the democrat politicians believe that the increased social programs are actual solutions, I think they know as well as the republicans do that the programs are severely flawed, but they are ok with promoting the programs as it is quite simply buying them votes. The welfare crowd will always vote overwhelmingly democrat because the democrats give them money - it's that simple. The politicians who make it to the national stage are smart enough that they don't believe in the programs, but they recognize the ability to purchase votes with other people's money.

While it is true conservative would get us pointed in the direction we need to go, neither Romney nor Ryan is especially conservative. Ryan has some credibility in social conservatism, but we need proven fiscal conservatives. We didn't get that, so the tone-deaf GOP needs to lose again until they decide to listen.

Folk are commenting on Ryan's approval of Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand has a lot of different views, as do we all. I suspect Ryan approves of her economic views, such as outlined in 'Atlas Shrugged', where the govt took credit for ideas from the private sector , (shades of 'You didn't build that!) and taxed away the incentive to even be in business to the point where the smart folk of the private sector simply said, 'Here govt, you are so smart, why don't you run things?'. Of course the govt did take over, at the expense of increased costs and suffering of the citizens... Some don't approve of Ryan suggesting to staffers that they read Rand's book. She is an atheist....horrors!!!! Ryan is a Catholic...so what? Obama is an unknown...many Americans think he is a Muslim, others a fanatical right wing Christian, taught by his beloved pastor, Rev Wright, who loves America like this
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2764536
Right now our country needs fiscal reform, and Obama is clueless, spending trillions for what? Romney has a successful business track record, and that includes the money loser Olympics, which he turned around successfully. Ryan has degrees in economics, but , more importantly, his contribution will be the political grunt work in Washington, knowing the 'player's', making deals. Politics is a game of compromise, and Obama is clueless as to what that means. Ryan will at least get folk talking again, Romney will guide the way.

Yes, Peter Ferrara is indeed frightening if he is posed as a factual resource.

Peter J. Ferrara is the general counsel for the American Civil Rights Union (a conservative civil liberties advocacy group) and analyst for The Heartland Institute. The George W. Bush administration championed Ferrara's plan to privatize Social Security.

The Heartland Institute is an American conservative public policy think tank. The Institute conducted advocacy work on issues including working with Philip Morris to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks, and lobbying against government public-health reforms. The Institute has also been focused on questioning the science of climate change, and was described by the New York Times as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism."

Here is a better view:

"The Ryan-Romney budget is based on a number of false and dangerous notions: that an unfettered free market can provide all that society needs, that slashing critical programs for struggling families while cutting taxes for the rich will make the nation stronger, and that ruthless individualism and selfishness trump community.
Not surprisingly, faith leaders condemned the Ryan budget — and the philosophy behind it — when it was first introduced in the House of Representatives last year. They intensified their criticism when the House passed the Ryan budget this spring." http://tinyurl.com/chk8opv

"Politics is a game of compromise, and Obama is clueless as to what that means."

Lee, been off planet that long? Read "Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan & Kevin McCarthy: Plot To Sabotage US Economy with Frank Luntz" http://goo.gl/4GQ6E

"On Jan 20, '09 Republican Leaders in Congress literally plotted to sabotage and undermine U.S. Economy during President Obama's Inauguration. During a four hour, "invitation only" meeting with GOP Hate-Propaganda Minister, Frank Luntz, the several Senior GOP Law Writers plotted to sabotage, undermine and destroy America's Economy.

Two months after their covert meeting where they plotted to sabotage the US Economy, in Mar '09, Rep. Pete Sessions said Republicans should follow the model of the Taliban in its battles against President Obama: "Taliban Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban. Insurgency is the way they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- is an example of how you go about to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that Insurgency may be required when [dealing with] the other side"

Newt Gingrich said after their dinner on Jan 20, '09 "You’ll remember this as the day the seeds of 2012 were sown."

To Translate GINGRICH: "You'll remember this day as they day we became Traitors to the United States."

No votes for GOP traitors. Obama/Biden 2012.

Imagine Mitt Romney refusing to release school transcrips, claiming that there might be something in them objectionable, and then telling people, I only spent 4 million to protect my privacy. Perhaps Obama is afraid that we will find out that he lied ,and was portraying himself as a foreign student. So what? It can't be worse than admitting being a druggie for his last two years of high school.

Detroit is a micro example of the welfare state problem. It is easier for a young woman to have multiple babies and fathers in Detroit, then apply for assistance at $700 per until they are 18. Have 5 kids, that's $3500 tax free per month, and we taxpayers foot the bill.
That is not how I want my tax dollars spent, over $750,000 until these kids turn 18, I will choose my own charity cases if you please. Folk need to be responsible for their actions.
Being coddled by the govt all your life , at our expense, is not a viable option.

Once again, Lee has no answer germane to the post to which he is replying.

The article was about picking Ryan as a VP, not about Detroit or school records.

The supporters of the Democratic Party do not believe in Ayn Rand's views as laid out in "The Virtue of Selfishness". No religion teaches the tenants she promoted.

This new Rolls/Royce Republicanism embodied in Romney/Ryan presents their mutual rejection of central tenants of both their religions in favor of selfishness. They should be held accountable.

Imagine Barack Obama forcing staffers to read the works of the selfish atheist Ayn Rand. Wouldn't his Americanism be under attack? Wouldn't the nature of his soul be thrown into question?

While Lee ignored it, the answer to the question is yes.

Imagine Barack Obama offering his business acumen as a chief reason to vote for him, yet refusing to release tax returns that would chronicle that acumen, and dismissing a reporter with "that's all YOU PEOPLE need to know". Wouldn't people demand the documentation?

While Lee ignored it, the answer to the question is yes.

No, most American people rejected the center of Romney's campaign: "no matter how twisted my world view is I'm a better choice than Obama", so he added Ayn Rand worshiping Paul Ryan. The specter of a "objectivist" on the GOP ticket, making selfishness the key tenant of its philosophical core, doesn't help.

Obama/Biden 2012.

Lee J - "have multiple babies and fathers in Detroit, then apply for assistance at $700 per until they are 18. Have 5 kids, that's $3500 tax free per month, and we taxpayers foot the bill. "

It never ceases to amaze me that those who rail against the tax-payer costs of so-called Welfare Queens are usually the same people that want to close Planned Parenthood - which provides low or no cost birth control and preventive services (as well as some women's only source of primary care), as well as push state and federal "Personhood" laws that would effectively ban the most popular forms of birth control. Not to mention that B/C is the major factor that has dramatically driven down the rate of teen pregnancy (now at a 40 yr low) and the resulting steady decline in abortion rates over the last 30 years. Isn't that both cost-effective AND Pro-Life?

Something to ponder -

Yep I agree ... Obama/Biden for the next 4 years. I want this country to run its deficit up to 25 trillion dollars as fast as we can get there... give more of my tax dollars to everyone that doesn't work in the process...extend Obamacare to cover my overseas relatives & household pets ...and raise taxes on those rich, greedy businessman who should only get a fair share of the money they earn- definitely not all of it.

Connecting the dots, the greedy rich guys will have much less incentives to make money resulting in more businesses closing, higher unemployment, me getting fired from my 48-50 hours per week job, and starting welfare and entitlement programs like the rest of the losers in this country. Heck, I might even have to pop out a couple more kids to make ends meet as they are worth $700 a head in extra welfare payments. Life will probably be good for a year or so before the whole system comes crashing down... but don't think about that-- that is then and this is now. Think for today!

Let me know when Obama releases his college records. Until then you can please stop prattling on about Romney's tax returns. We know he's rich. We know capital gains are taxed lower than income. That is indeed all we need to know.

Angela, President Obama has released 12 years of tax returns, all the way back to the return for 2000. You can see them here: http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/

Wanna-be Romney needs to step up and release the same. No excuses, no diversions.

There is absolutely no reason for Romney to release more tax returns - the Democrats just want to make this election about how rich Romney is instead of talking about how bad the economy and unemployment rates are.

JH, we ALREADY know he's rich! He's taring down a house to supersize it. His wife drives two Cadillacs. He offers to make $10,000 bets on a whim.

Let him show us how he has become so successful that he has between $20.7 million and $101.6 million in an IRA! Let us see how generous he has been. Let us understand why every citizen of the US should or should not have a Swiss bank account, or mix his money with drug dealers in Cayman Island accounts.

You may find it necessary to hide behind the anonymity of "JH", but Rmoney is running for President of the United States, and asking for that privilege while being so secretive in how he's handled his own finances doesn't cut it.

http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/

If he's such a financial stud, have him man-up and post his returns for the same years as the man in the White House already has.

One wonders why even bother playing the race card against Romney when Obama is going to get 98% of the black vote anyways? Do you *really* think 98% of black Americans agree with Obama's policies, or are the blacks the ones racially discriminating here?

JH, you know, this tactic of alleging others are playing "race cards" while playing them yourself is quite lame.

By your observation", are you suggesting that instead of getting an estimated 95% of the black vote President Obama will get 98%? And are you suggesting that blacks would actually get out and vote for someone whose policies they felt were not in their best interests? And wouldn't that suggestion in itself be you playing "the race card", claiming that the idea that blacks rejected McCain and probably will reject Romney merely on the basis of race and not a consideration of their policies?

The answer to that last question would be yes.

Yes, when blacks supported Obama in far greater numbers and numerous black voters who historically supported Republicans also voted for Obama, it is clear that they are voting on race rather than voting in their best interest. There are more black Obama supporters than there are black Democrats, this is fact.

"Yes, when blacks supported Obama in far greater numbers and numerous black voters who historically supported Republicans also voted for Obama, it is clear that they are voting on race rather than voting in their best interest. There are more black Obama supporters than there are black Democrats, this is fact."

Hello. There were more voters supporting President Obama than there were Democrats voting in 2008. In fact, that's how you win - appealing only to party doesn't work, unless you are confident of suppressing the voters who most likely would support your opposition.

In fact, to demonstrate this certainty, there will be Republicans speaking at the Democratic Party Convention who are supporting President Obama.

After all the economic disruption of the Bush years, the equity erosion of the Bush years, the obstructionism of the GOP over the last four years, and knowing that trickle down economics doesn't work, voting "in your best interest" is most likely a vote for President Obama, no matter what your race. Those free from being reluctant to vote for a black candidate will be the most likely to be able to truly see and vote their own best interest.

Oh right, I forgot that everything is still Bush's fault.... Obama can do no wrong!

No, JH, it's that Bush could do no right.

No, just 96 percent of them.

Obama got 96% of the black vote in 2008. That's the same percentage that David Duke'e opponent got when Duke ran for the House in Louisiana. It's racism, pure and simple.

I guess time will tell when we reach 2014 right? I guess you honestly believe Senators and Congressmen and women will be on Gov't Healthcare. I'm frankly not that naive. Also, you like to blast me over your comment regarding "Personhood" when in my above statement I AGREED that i believe in a woman's right to choose!!! Which begs me to ask did you even hear what I wrote?? Frankly I'm even surprised I'm responding to your slam on me. I suggest nothing. I can tell you that I am definitely NOT for gov't sponsored contraceptives like you obviously are. If individuals want to make the Adult decision to have sex and all the consequences (pregnancy, STD's) that go along with that, I am supposed to believe that they cannot afford to go to Walmart and buy contraceptives?? Myself and every other tax payer should fit the bill for that? Where in the heck do we draw the line? It's funny how I can concede certain things to the democratic party but you vehemently condone what republican candidates stand for? Please just answer me this one question: If Obama care is instituted, what is to stop businesses from offering Health care to its employees and force them to their only other option which is Gov't Healthcare? Are they by law forced to supply Healthcare? I personally like my BCBS package that I pay over 5,000 a year for and not needing a refferal or an approval to have medical treatment performed.

Buddyb, debating you when you are unconstrained by the facts is a hoot. You claim Congress is exempt. I show you that you were wrong, that Congress is not. You respond essentially with "well, they COULD be sometime in the future".

Oooo kay.

Then you whine when I point out that both Romney and Ryan have taken extreme anti-choice viewpoints, claiming they probably won't be able to enact any of them. Obviously, you have forgotten the issue of appointments to the Supreme Court of the United States, which is the path to overturning Roe v. Wade, as well as enscribing "personhood" laws into the Constitution.

Right. From a song I'm sure you don't know -

Makes ya wanna holla, throw up both my hands. ;-}

Some people will say anything to support a womans "right" to kill an unborn child.

Buddyb, you don't read much, do you? "a woman who suffers a miscarriage subject to legal penalties? Yeah that's not even close to being legal pal! That's like saying I broke my leg and now i'm subject to legal penalties!"

You haven't learned your lesson yet, have you? A simple Google search would have prevented you from confirming what many have already assumed.

For example, from http://tinyurl.com/c47mrna

"So, if life legally begins at conception, what would this mean to women? If the bill provides embryos and fetuses with “all the rights privileges, and immunities” of other citizens like the Oklahoma law, the following would be true.

If a woman was to get an abortion, she would be guilty of 1st Degree Murder.
First Degree Murder is any murder that is willful and premeditated.

If a woman has a miscarriage, she could be guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter.
Involuntary Manslaughter stems from unintentional, but criminally negligent behavior.

What if a woman doesn’t know she is pregnant and conducts herself in a way that results in a miscarriage. Depends on the judge – could again be Involuntary Manslaughter.
Involuntary Manslaughter stems from unintentional, but criminally negligent behavior.

Would your doctor have to report this to the Police? Yes."

Soooo, "personhood" is the key to more than one Pandora's Box.

BCBS costs more but you get what you pay for (in the private sector...) Better health insurance is a benefit most would consider when accepting a job, so it is likely that his total compensation cost may be lower.

Suggesting an employer give higher pay and hire more employees? Clearly you've never run a business... there's no such thing as free money. He's clearly stating that he can afford to hire more employees under Romney's plans and yet he will have to pay outrageous penalties or cut a few jobs under Obama's.

Ignoring the employers and pushing full steam ahead is exactly why unemployment is as high as it is, yet the Democrats are sticking to the strategy...

And the latest Democrat strategy is to keep unemployment high (over 13% for blacks) so that blacks will continue to vote for Obama, the welfare candidate. He's buying their votes with taxpayer money.

Lee, the basis of your analysis contains a huge error. "The ACA adds somewhere between 18 to 30 million people for whom "normal" health care is promised." You are assuming that NONE of those people are getting ANY healthcare. Hopefully, you know that is not true.

The economic modeling is much more complex. simple napkin or Patch pronouncements cannot do it justice. Try citing some actual study, unless you are just so against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that facts don't matter. I'm sure readers will be able to discern the difference.

And how many employees do you have? Yourself? Unless a business owner is currently making huge profits, how do you suppose they can hire more employees, pay everybody more, and not go bankrupt?

Please explain how the example is not relevant.

More patients = more wait time, it's not rocket science.

Greg-
And you understand supply/demand/price curve economics and believe it is not relevant to the American Healthcare market. Please explain why it is not. thank you

Are you suggesting you can have effective preventative care with three month wait times?

Lee,

Unlike you I used my full legal name and please by all means visit my web site.

http://farmersagent.com/gthrasher

BTW I am also a co-editor of Voice of Detroit and Founder of Plane Ideas and Birmingham's Patch First Black Blogger. I am also quite active in mentoring, volunteering and other community based activities.

I am not quite sure why my manhood and credibility have to do with having an opinon in a chat forum but then again I am not like you in many ways it appears.

The are a number of reasons why companies flee the marketplace in the USA not just to escape taxes but for cheap labor and compliance with humane work rules etc. Romney and Ryan are no more economically educated than many professionals in both the private and public sector. Clearly both of them have never been the leader and commander in chief of the most powerful nation in the world.

Unlike you I don't post dogma and fiction nor do I used tired political propaganda to butress my logic and talking points. Unlike you I don't need to lower my credibiliy by calling the ACA as Obamacare.

I applaud your success and I hope your firm continues to prosper and make a lot of profits in part to make your employees to fed their families but it is quite apparent to me that you are out of your element bantering with me on a number of levels.

I hope you will elevate the quality of your comments and not stay at the lower range of civility with your petty insults.

Regards

Greg Thrasher

Lee, read the tax article. Allow me to offer not only cheese with your whine, but advice about reading comprehension.

From that article: "Loopholes and other special treatment for different kinds of businesses mean that businesses pay an effective rate of only 29.2% of their income, which puts the United States below the average of 31.9% among other major economies"

Ergo, highest "theoretical" rate (and only in states with corporate taxes), below average actual. If you are paying 44%, you need a better accountant.

To answer your question " Why do you think jobs left in the first place?", I point you to that same tax code which contains provisions ENCOURAGING off-shoring. Ending these very measures has been opposed and blocked by folks like Romney and Ryan.

Finally, since you are big in challenging "credibility", let's see your wanna-be candidate for president MATCH the same years of tax returns released to the public as President Obama already has:
http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/

Time for him to man-up and open up. Until he does, those singing his "business acumen praises" can't prove they're not singing to an illegal tune. In fact, given his recalcitrance, its likely some illegality is in fact being hidden.

There's no contest here - you simply have no understanding whatsoever of the laws of supply and demand. You've also said supply and demand will not have "any real life application with regard to the ACA" which is simply nonsense.

It's amazing to me that you still fail to realize that if you try to schedule appointments with 25-30% more patients that wait times will be longer. The supply is fixed in the short term (only so many doctors) and can grow only gradually (as students graduate medical school or immigrate to the US). Increasing demand substantially overnight (which Obamacare will do) when the supply cannot increase similarly will cause a shortage (longer waits to schedule an appointment). This is *literally* a topic covered in 100 level economics classes.

Laugh all you want, but I'm willing to bet the majority of people reading along are laughing at you (or finding themselves a new insurance agent).

Com'on Brother Greg, you know you're engaged in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents, right? :)

Darryl, let'ls play a little game of "I'll show you mine , if you show me yours'.

Ronney will no doubt show all his fiscal records of how he earned and spent HIS money, if Obama shows his high school and college records, something every other president has done without hesitation. Of course, it is a fact that Obama has spent 4 million so far keeping those grades private, is he worried that we will find out that he flunked gym class?

Perhaps his student loans had a 'foreign' tinge to them, a few lies on the forms perhaps?

The easiest way to deflect attention from yourself is make a louder accusation against your opponent, for practically the same action. Obama is doing that non-stop. Let's see Obama's school records, then Romney will either have to put up or shut up. Odds are, if Obama has spent 4 million plus so far , those school records will remain sealed.
End result? Each has a privacy issue and we have stalemate. We have seen Romney's school records, why not Obama's ? Of course, you will have no answer to that......

Lee,

How many times in a day do you put your foot in your mouth and make unwarrated assumptions? Given the wonderful legacy of your father I doubt if was bad parenting which makes you do this with people.

I knew Coleman on a personal level so your one time encounter is thrilling. BTW I don't work out of cubicle and like your father I am proud of my humble beginnings and the people that work for me respect me more than the salaries I pay them.

As I noted in my previous comments you are out of your element here. Please govern yourself accordingly you are not reflecting a good image of your father's legacy.

Walk away from the PC Lee and enjoy the evening.

I am out of here

Regards

Lee! Looking at your website, you are a company that provides manufacturing related services to other companies. You use machines. You consume raw materials. You have depreciation. You have employees. Why in the world would you be subject to the theoretical highest corporate tax? 44%?

Will some accountant offer Jacobsen Industries some help? Please.

And given your own statement "We understand that we are here because of the quick, personalized, service we offer our customers and the day that we forget that will be the day that we close the doors.", I doubt you have any more nor any less employees than business volume dictates. If you needed 10 more guys to get a new job done, you would hire them and include their cost in your bid, and if you got the job, you'd hire them. Your boast that "If Romney and Ryan get elected, the next day I will hire ten people, and start construction of a 6000 ft addition." is unbelievable.

"Do you enjoy paying more taxes??" Taxes have gone down under President Obama. You've paid more? Under Obama, Taxes Hit A 30-Year Low - http://tinyurl.com/7qkdota

Oh, wait. Maybe you did MORE BUSINESS during President Obama's administration, made more money, and thus PAID MORE TAXES!! NOW I get it!

Lee – Question: How could the Republicans get one of THEIR budget amendments on the floor – but CALL it “Obama’s Budget”, at the same time GUARANTEE to an embarrassing loss and headline for Obama, AND create the PERFECT talking point to paste into election email blasts and Congressional re-election mailers to folks like you? You’ve already answered it.

ABC News: May 16, 2012 6:48pm “House and Senate Unanimously Reject Obama Budgets — Or Do They?”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-and-senate-unanimously-reject-obama-budgets-or-do-they/

Step 1: Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Miss., introduced a budget amendment REPRESENTING the president’s budget request; the Sessions amendment was voted down 99-0. (You can read it here - http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112sconres41pcs/pdf/BILLS-112sconres41pcs.pdf.)
A similar effort from Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-SC, was rejected in the House 414-0.

Literally, their docs were outlines with titles and lists of numbers only. NO details, no anything. Sessions’ legislation: 56 pgs, actual Obama budget: 1,900 pages long. Even if you agree with the with lists of numbers, anything at all could be placed in the details later – good, bad or whatever. Thus, impossible for ANYONE to vote for.

To be continued -

Lee (Part II) -

Step 2: Sessions tells press that it was “stunning” that no one voted for the Obama budget. Saying: “A sitting president of the United States, seeking reelection, can’t lay out a plan that will gain a single vote in the House or Senate for the financial future of America? It speaks volumes”. Cue: Right-wing TV, blogs and radio eat it up!!

In a May 18, 2012 interview, even Mitt Romney admits that the slim amendment didn't actually match Mr. Obama's budget document, which ran thousands of pages.

Results of this craven political stunt:
Manipulating the Democratic process, the Media and Voting Public? Done.
Taxpayer money and time wasted in the process: way too much.
Jobs created in the process: 0.
I think THIS is what speaks volumes.

PS – The Washington Times is well-known for its hard right ideology as well as poor record of following even basic journalistic standards like fact-checking. Lee - please stop posting propaganda - it does not move the conversation forward.

Lee - Ryan the "master of compromise"? 10 yrs in Congress: 2 bills passed, 1 being the naming of a Post office. Major bills written/sponsored? Draconian Ryan budget, privatizing S.S. (R's called "irresponsible", Ryan's actuarial showed 2.4 Trillion in transition costs), and a federal "Person hood" bill. Someone who's crossed party lines to get some decent legislation done? You're talking about John McCain.

Obama not willing to compromise? Some of the harshest criticism of Obama has been that he caves/compromises too easily, and STARTS his negotiating baseline where the Dems want to end up - like starting negotiations on a house price, with exactly your bottom line. He started negotiations for ACA AFTER throwing the public option out, greatly reducing leverage.

Moreover, Obama put ALL entitlement programs on the table for the "Big Deal" in last year's debt ceiling debacle. Believe it or not, I"ve spent most my life as a conservative R, so I know that the deal that was up including huge cuts to entitlements (R's usually drool over that) and a decent revenue/cuts ratio (and precisely what the ratings agencies were looking for). This was a deal that ANY Republican in the last 40 years would snap up, and take as a big win for the R side (like Gingrich 1996). But, no deal. For me, that was when I realized that the R's had no intention of doing ANYTHING to advance the economy, or tackle debt until they had their shot at the White House. A sad and disappointing day for me.

Lee - just to qualify my last comment. I am not endorsing, denouncing or making judgments on Ryan's legislative efforts - but pointing out his record of presenting bills born out of conservative think tanks*, with a severe, one-sided view - which does not speak of "bi-partisan compromise".

Likewise, my statement about Obama ditching universal coverage prior to ACA negotiations was a comment on negotiating styles (NOT endorsing universal coverage). His style, at times, appeared to have been a naive approach to negotiating.

For bi-partisan compromise and good legislation to happen, you need two sides negotiating in good faith, showing up with a little "give" for each side. Preferably with neither side too dug in, or too willing to give up at first challenge.

*Although I have liked some of the policy out of such think tanks. Such as:
- The Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993, put forth by Chaffee (R)-RI text here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d103:23:./temp/~bdKtBJ:: , which was
- born out of conservative The Heritage Foundation.
- Later enacted by Gov. Romney (R) -MA in Massachusetts health care insurance reform law, St. 2006, c.58.
- It is nearly identical to what you disparagingly call "Obamacare" and what some of those same conservatives who sponsored those bills now call "an abomination to the Constitution."

Obama never stopped campaigning, he's been going nonstop since the last election and spending taxpayers money on most of it. Instead of passing budgets, fixing the economy, and creating jobs, he's instead spent his time campaigning, buying votes through increased welfare, golfing, and taking lavish vacations.

They passed budgets for one... and the vacations are hardly comparable.

Bush "vacationed" primarily at his ranch, as did Regan. They were out of Washington but otherwise it was business as usual. Obama vacations in Hawaii, Vail, Martha's Vineyard, and Spain. The travel and security costs are higher, and less work is done.

The most fair comparison in recent history would be comparing Obama and Clinton - Clinton took less than half the vacation time that Obama did. Obama also played more rounds of golf in his first two years than Bush did in eight.

This is without even going into Michelle's vacations & separate travel arrangements so she can leave a few hours earlier than Barak.

By all means no, they can "vacation" at Camp David as well.

Time on their ranches working vs. time kicking back in Hawaii aren't comparable. Whether Obama was on call or not, he clearly wasn't doing his job - unemployment is sky high, the economy is in the pits, and he hasn't passed a budget!

Democrats control the Senate and they controlled the House for the first two years, this isn't about congress, it's about Obama - who has clearly failed.

Why do you continually bring up race?

What have I denied? I have not denied anything and I have no amnesia.

And racial legacy? One of the bloodiest wars in the history of the Unites States was the civil war - 365,000 citizens died to win a war against slavery.

A H E M ! Time out, guys -- Please take a breather, a walk outside, a frosty beverage or whatever it takes to snap you out of this spiraling descent into irrelevance and nastiness.

Look again at the headline up top, Greg and JH. This article and comment thread, which began six days ago and stayed more or less on topic 'til this afternoon, is about the Republican ticket and the presidential campaign.

It's not about your formative years in Pontiac and Detroit. It's not about equal employment opportunity, remedies for historical past bias or discrimination of any kind.

Please stop bickering. It's tiresome and getting offensive.

Thanks.

JH

IMO you are quite angry and frustrated but just one man's opinion of course
- EOE unfortunately just like our civil rights laws were an outcome of a racist private sector which long before the civil rights acts had plenty of time and opportunities to measure people on thief merit instead of their hue. Civil Rights laws are not a model of a progressive culture but evidence of a failed society which had to force whites in our nation to respect the basic humanity and dignity of it's fellow citizens.
- There is no such fact called reverse discrimination that is a defensive and reactionary
- I can think of many others who play a destructive role in the decay of Detroit from Patterson to real estate agents to religious leaders and laws which sanctioned economic racism
- I love pies and cakes and cookies
-With regard to holocaust definitions Cleary slavery and ethnic cleansing apply the time line is not material nor the type of carnage
- I find profanity quite instructive and functional. I have learn to understand that even hate speech has a measure of value and utility
- I have posted anyone was ignorant on this site only that some of the comments have been including candidly some of yours like for example your definition of EOE but I am quite sure I have also posted some ignorant comments such is the nature of discourse especially on topics like race and politics. From my perspective candid and authentic exchanges are worth it