cg2112

Currently, the NFL is considering getting rid of the kickoffs, since they're the most dangerous plays in the game.

Insurance companies have always been able to charge smokers higher premiums. I'm not sure why this is a story. I remember a couple years ago Walmart started adding a $2000 surcharge to health care for employees with coverage who smoked.

The article seems to deny it, but insurance companies will be able to charge higher premiums for obese people, as well, just as they've always been able to.

Does anyone realize that back in colonial days, all the ship board cannons were privately owned and operated?

There are no limits. Period. Just regulation.

I don't know that this is true. The Congress approved and paid for many ships during the Revolutionary War - I've never heard that they only armed them with privately owned weapons.

Huh, what? The Bill of Rights came into effect in 1791. The first true machine gun by any standard was the hand cranked Gatling gun. That wasn't invented until 1861.

Really hoping you just worded that wrong, otherwise you been fed some very poor information.

The Belton Flintlock could fire four rounds a second, and was introduced to the Congress by it's inventor, Joseph Belton. They ordered a hundred of them, too, but then cancelled the order because they were too expensive. This was in 1777.

A lot of people think that, but it's not necessarily accurate. Prior to the establishment of the military by the Continental Congress, militias were largely unorganized, poorly trained, and lacking in resources. Most did not have tools such as cannons or submarines (which, believe it or not, were used during the Revolutionary War). That doesn't mean that the guy isn't right, though, or that the founders didn't intend for private citizens to own the same types of weapons that the military had. For instance, machines guns were invented prior to the drafting of the 2nd Amendment, and the design was presented to the Congress, so they were clearly aware that they existed.

It wasn't voted on by congress; Dear Leader used another one of his famous Executive Orders.

effin' p.o.s.

It was an Executive Order because wages were previously frozen by Executive Order.

It wasn't just for Congress, it was for all federal workers, who haven't seen a raise in more than two years.

President Obama doesn't make frequent use of the Executive Order, it's odd to call them "famous."

It would be a financial drain on the US gov't. I would think that a significant percentage of people in PR would fall under the poverty line and qualify for US public welfare programs.

I don't see how the we could support that fiscally.

Puerto Rico is a US territory. Residents there already qualify for many US public welfare programs and government assistance. Additionally many Puerto Rican residents already pay federal taxes, and they all pay into Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, etc.

I've found that most times, most democrats agree with the republican platform on the issues but insist on voting democrat because their union told them to or the government agency they work for told them to and they really dont pay attention to politics or economics so they just go along with what they are told.

This makes little to no sense. First of all, most Democrats aren't union are neither union workers or government employees. Secondly, if most Democrats agreed with the Republican platform on the issues, they'd be Republicans, or the Democratic platform, which is modified and voted upon by delegates who represent their interests, which reflect those beliefs.

Most Democrats are pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, believe that a strong federal government can do good, believe in a progressive tax system tax cuts go to the middle class and not millionaires, embryonic stem cell research and universal health care, all of which are counter to the Republican Party Platform.

Thinking about buying my daughter a Smart for her B-day anyone have one or know anyone that does?

Hippie.

Best Post of the thread!

Agreed.

If you don't want to deport people who were brought here through no will of their own, have been in the United States their whole lives, who have been educated here, work here, pay taxes here, and have virtually no ties to any other country, and have no other country to call home, then you have no business being the President.

Nope...... didnt say that. The past is the past. We have done too much of that in the past. Thats why we are nearing economic collapse with a 16 trillion dollar debt.

This is kind of a non sequitur. A high national debt does not bring us closer to economic collapse. The debt was far higher during WWII, and we came out of that stronger, economically.

I cant change it and niether can you, however in the future, I want to see a smaller less intrusive government that requires less revenue to run. I want to see balanced budgets and lower taxes for corporations and individuals.

What would you cut to require less revenue?

For the record, President Obama has lowered taxes for individuals, and wants to lower the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 28%. He additionally wanted to renew the payroll tax cut, but Republicans in the Senate blocked him.

The liberals support the idea that government should control and direct the direction of markets and wealth so that no man may be inticed to go the extra mile to benefit himself and family because the government is the only profiteer.

This is false. Liberals, aside from the very far left, believe in the free market, in profit, and in success in business. Liberals certainly believe that people should be rewarded for harder work. I don't know of any liberals who believe that people who work harder and earn more shouldn't be rewarded.

Obama invested tax payer money in companies who were not failing but wanted to take a larger chance and who also had contributed heavily to his campaign.

The federal government invests, one way or another, in companies all the time. Energy, communications, transportation, finance, education, you name it, all get federal aid in the form of subsidies, grants, whatever. There's nothing new here.

He pumped billions of tax payer dollars into solar and battery companies. They have now failed but their technology is being manufactured overseas because they cant make a profit manufacturing the same product here.

When you say "They have now failed," do you mean that they have all failed, or that a very small percentage of them have failed?

You forgot to put "truth" in sarcastic quotes.

In effect, your also saying its useless to try to compete so you would rather sit here unemployed and wait until the rest of the world passes us economically at which point we will be glad to have any job.

I dont agree........

It's useless to try compete in the same way, absolutely.

We simply can't compete with China when it comes to certain types of manufacturing.

That doesn't mean "sit here unemployed." It means we have to find new and different ways to compete, and it means we need new kinds of jobs.

Surprised at NM, WA, OR, being blue. Equally surprised with AZ being undecided

I'm surprised about AZ, but not the other states. Neither NM or WA have voted for a Republican President in 20 years. OH seems to go back and forth, and while there is certainly support for Romney here, there's also a lot of support for President Obama, particularly in the population centers (Cleveland, Dayton, Cincinnati).

I would love to fly one of these things. I don't know if I could, I've got a nasty fear of heights. Not nasty enough to keep me on the ground, but I don't know about a craft with no cabin.

First you have to get people to agree that the government is spending too much.

The express purpose of the funds was to grow US business and to lower US unemployment, and much of it was instead given to "green" firms that promptly go bankrupt

Companies went bankrupt during a recession?

That's some crazy news right there. How many of them went bankrupt?

LOL...Obama lying about attacks in Benghazi...hilarious

He didn't, this was already cleared up. He referred to it as terrorism the day after it happened.

LOL..."when 4 Americans get killed, it's not optimal"...hilarious

Context is important. "Not optimal" was John Stewart's phrasing, President Obama was merely parroting that phrasing.

LOL...no time to meet with Netanyahu, attend intel briefings - but plenty of time to meet with the Pres. of the Muslim Brotherhood, party with Jay-Z, Beyonce at a fund raiser, go on Letterman...hilarious

Also already cleared up. President Obama and Netanyahu were not in the same city on the same day, Netanyahu didn't request a meeting outside of NYC.

LOL...welfare/aid payments up 32% (now at $746 billion, more than S.S., Medicare, or Defense) during this regime...hilarious

I'm SHOCKED that welfare/aid payments are up during recession recovery. Simply shocked. Remember in 2001, when food stamp use when up 100%? And we weren't even in a recession.

LOL...stimulus money sent overseas...hilarious

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obama-and-outsourcing-a-guide-to-the-gops-charges/2012/07/11/gJQA1LBIeW_blog.html

LOL...US debt rating cut from AAA...hilarious

Cut from AAA because the Republicans in Congress made clear they were unwilling to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire.

"Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."

LOL...Debt to GDP at 104%...hilarious

See above. What do you think happens when you pay for two unfunded wars, and refuse to restore tax rates for a decade?

Facts...hilarious

i dont think he's saying they are worthless, just that they expect too much for nothing...

This 47% includes retirees who spent their whole lives contributing to society, college students who end up paying 10's of thousands to become better contributors, and soldiers at war who may or may not come home in a coffin.

I hate how they expect to get too much for nothing.

That's not bad considering that only 53% work in the first place. Roughly half to two thirds are full time.

The "47%" estimate is not people without jobs, it's people who don't pay federal income tax. The statistic his very simplified, though. Those people aren't free loaders, they pay state and local income taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, etc. In fact, lower income earners pay a higher percent of their taxes than the rich do in medicare, sales tax, social security, property taxes, etc.

In the same way that Mitt Romney uses the tax law to end up with a lower effective federal tax rate than I do, the 47% end up with no federal tax liability once deductions and credits are accounted for.

The question is, what part should they play in governing the country. Of course, we'd have to ask that about just about everyone, since the general opinion seems to be the country isn't governed very well.

They should pay the same role that anyone else plays. What other role would they play?

Several companies have already stated that they intend to drop coverage and pay the fine. It will be cheaper and for them and the employee is still covered on the tax payers dime. I believe McDonalds was the most recent. The problem is that as more companies drop coverage, that eats into the insurance company's bottom line and they will have raise rates, which will lead others to drop coverage. Snowball effect. Which, many believe is the intent behind this legislation. They want a complete takeover.

They say they intend to do this, but they won't.

Health care plans are currently offered by employers as an incentive. They're a benefit to keep companies competitive for potential employers.

Currently, they can already drop health care plans, offer nothing, and pay no penalty whatsoever. But they don't.

....

Romney clearly outperformed the President in the debate, but the fact checkers had a field day. Romney had what was the closest to a "gotcha" moment when the President said that he'd get rid of tax loopholes that allow tax savings for companies that export jobs overseas. Romney pointed out that in 25 years he's never heard of such a thing, suggesting that the President didn't know what he was talking about.

The problem is that Romney was full of it. There are a number of ways that companies who outsource jobs overseas can get tax credits and deductions. You get a tax credits for taxes paid to foreign governments, you pay lower payroll taxes, the profit earned overseas is tax free when re-invested into offshore efforts, the tax on other profits can be deferred, and more.

Basically, Romney lied his ass off by pretending that it doesn't exist. President Obama, unfortunately, didn't call him on it (or anything else, for that matter), which is a big reason that he lost this debate.

U6 January 2009,14.2%

U6 September 2012, 14.7%

U3, January 2009 and September 2012, 7.8%

So what does that tell us? That there are more people unemployed? Nope. That there are more people working part-time jobs? Maybe, but there's no way to know for sure. That there are more people who have full time jobs, but want to be self-employed? Possibly. That there are more people who are in fact self-employed. Perhaps. This is why U-6 is meaningless as an economic indicator, and is purely used for political purposes.

U-6 Says it hasn't changed.

Unmanipulated U-6 data does, in fact, show a decrease. Either way, both unadjusted and seasonally adjusted numbers show significant decrease over the last year. Keep in mind, too, that U-6 contains the official unemployment rate, with the addition of part time employees who are part time because they can't find a full time job, people who are self-employed, and people who want to be self employed.

First of all, Jack Welch is a dick. That's unrelated, though.

Unemployment is going down. The unemployment data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics isn't just the number of people applying for unemployment. it's also based on polls of Americans, so those who are no longer collecting unemployment, but who are not back to work, are also sampled and included in the data.