stevoh

Whenever a person is denied access to anything on the basis of skin or sexual orientation, an injustice is committed. And that is the root of these affirmative action programs. I don't LIKE the solution, but how else do we get employers to see past color, sexual orientation and gender and simply hire the best person for the job? I am simply not niave enough to believe that race or sexual orientation is no longer an issue. You wouldn't point out Obamas race or the potential supreme court justices sexual orientation if it wasn't.

Someday, sexual orientation won't matter. Or color. Where simply the best person for the job is the best person for the job. Where Obama isn't remarkable because he is black, but because he is an outstanding president. Statements such as "The left elects a president based upon his color" however, point out that we are a long way from that day.

I believe the republican party has to EXPAND its appeal in order to get back into the race. Kicking out moderates will CONTRACT its appeal. Is it better to be morally "pure", or actually have influence and power? They are making that choice right now.

I doubt it. They seem to be more interesting in shoring up party lines and showing how everything Obama is doing is wrong rather than actually having reasonable input into new policy. The three republicans who did participate in a bipartisan matter in the stimulous package, making changes more in line with conservative policy, have been vilified by the republican party (no small part of Spectors consideration as well, I am sure). Its pretty difficult to participate in a bi-partisan manner when there are no gray areas, only black and white. Compromise is not part of the Republican way.

This will be an interesting test for "bipartisan" Obama. Now that he doesn't NEED any votes to pass his initiatives, will he continue to reach out?

I don't see Obama's hands as tied. If you attack the US, there will be reprocussions. He is not afraid to take bold steps when necessary, just look at the Somali pirate attack. If you threaten American lives, he will give the order to shoot back.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I also believe this budget calls for a non-military related spending freeze. A spending freeze during a recession is the WORST POSSIBLE ACTION.

In the interest of balance, the part of the zogby poll Shady does not want you to know about: UTICA, NY - A March 20-23 Zogby Interactive survey shows 45% of likely voters believe the nation is headed in the right direction, a gain of five points from a similar survey completed on March 5. At the beginning of the year, only 14% held that positive view. http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1686

Er, ok. So, let me get this straight. You are arguing FOR government funded public health care and AGAINST using private insurance?

If people don't like partisanship, then they must like bi-partisanship. So they voted for a president who holds bipartisanship as a cornerstone of his policy. How is this undemocratic again?

I don't disagree with a single point you make. Which is why I am JUST FINE with him being the rep of the republican party.

The best thing that could happen to democrats is for Rush to become the voice of the republicans. In order for the republican party to appeal to the majority of voters, they have to appear as moderate. Rush pulls them further to the right. Keep up the good work!

Go massively into debt for war... no problem. Go massively into debt attempting to help fellow Americans... FREAK OUT. Nice to see the republicans care more about IRAQI citizens than their own.

Why the heck anyone would reduce taxation by that amount during an expensive war is beyond me. Its almost like the massive deficit increase was intentional. Tax breaks for individuals should only occur during times of prosperity (so yes I disagree with Obama on this), and should effect all taxed people (not just the rich). When you have a massive spending increase, reducing income by 338 BILLION dollars is a foolish idea. I don't have time to go through all of the items in the list, but this one caught my eye: $882 million - eliminate advanced earned income tax credit Why does is this a tax on businesses? The advanced earned income tax credit is for INDIVIDUALS who want their employers to add their Earned Income Tax Credit to their paycheck. It has no net cost to business from what I can tell, its a way of getting your EITC funds on each paycheque rather than a lump sum at tax time. http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=96515,00.html In fact, the tag line from the IRS for employers is: http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=129062,00.html "Help your employees increase their take–home pay at no cost to you!" The accuracy of the list is suspect.

Your point was they had no time to read the bill. They had over a week, and three of them managed to read it AND modify it with no issue. Go on defending the lazy whiners...

3 republicans managed to entirely read and then modify the bill. Anyone else who didn't manage to review it is just whining, what, afraid of a little hard work and late nights when it comes to saving the nation?

The thousand plus page bill wasn't just dumped out of no-where on the republicans. The original version that was voted on a week before in the house had been available for review the entire time. So, while there were modifcations that you would have to keep up with, the basis of the bill and lots of the original spending ideas were in the original bill presented to the house. And three republicans not only managed to keep up with the changes in the bill, they were instrumental in adding new ones and tweaking old ones. These three didn't just have to read the bill, they had to intelligently interpret it and modify it. Why is it they can actively participate in the generation of this 1000 plus bill with no problem, but other republicans can't even read it? Does anyone honestly believe that, given another week to read the bill, a single republican would have voted differently? I don't think so.

Ok, so presumably you are referring to the infastructure spending. Interesting that the only piece that directly creates jobs is the one you are opposed to. I agree that the government money will not last indefinitely, but hopefully this recession isn't a decade long affair. I don't think any amount of government "help" could get us all out of that mess. The increased public sector funding is not going to create many new jobs, it is going to retain the current public service sector employment level. This might not seem like a big deal until you see how some states, like California, are planning on dealing with the budget shortfall. Big layoffs coming. I would have thought you supported tax breaks as potential economic stimulus, although I question the value of individual tax breaks during a recession. If my taxes go down by 1000 dollars right now, it doesn't go on new spending, it goes towards debt/savings. Corporate tax breaks I can see at least retaining profitability and employement levels, but if you have no product demand, no amount of tax breaks will help. My personal belief is that tax breaks should occur only during boom times. It helps perpetuate prosperity, it can't reverse a depresssion however. So, back to you, what would you have liked to see in the stimulus package, or do you in fact think we need one at all?

Tax breaks, infastructure investments, and increased public sector funding. Which part do you think will fail to generate or keep jobs? I know you guys think he's lying about the ayers thing. But I worked once with a person in a fireplace factory I had the misfortune of working in (on the assembly line) who had been in jail for 15 years. Did I ever ask him what he did? No. Did I assume he was rehabilitated? Well, I pretty much did. I mean, sure, a bit more wary than I would otherwise be sometimes, but otherwise, not an issue. So while you guys might feel Obama was secretly sympathizing with an ex terrorist and chuckling over the idea of bombing things over a joint and exchanging secret black panther handshakes, I believe he met the guy in the context of helping his community (honorable work, after all), and might have thought what I was, that this guy had a past but he is here now, trying to do a good thing, and I don't have a problem with that. If he's lying he has me fooled. *shrug*

I notice that approval of congress among republicans has lowered 4% however, despite congress recently passing one of, if not the, biggest tax cut for lower to middle income families in American history. Partisianship over principles, obviously.

Nope. I believe him.

What does the science say? Is the amount of mercury in vaccines supposedly small enough that it doesn't have an effect?

I don't know about you, but I would certainly rather pay for new school construction, infastructure and tax breaks than billions further bailing out irresponsible companies that even now, JUST DON'T SEEM TO GET IT. In my opinion some of those companies (including the big 3) should have been allowed to fail, and the bailout money should have gone to the laid off workers in retraining or other benefits that would allow them to find work in other areas. When you say your company is just moments from going bankrupt one second, and then say you somehow deserve a huge bonus because your "section" actually made money, YOU DESERVE NOTHING. I don't care how much your little section made, if the overall company goes bankrupt, YOU WOULD STILL GET NOTHING.

I see your point there. However, I am equating the combination of risk and personal belief with Heroism. Republicans who are against the bill are putting nothing on the line.

As most of you already know, 3 republican votes guarenteed that a modified economic stimulus package has now passed the senate. Those three republicans helped modify the house version of the bill, reducing its total cost, and changing its focus somewhat, a good summary is here: http://www.propublica.org/special/the-stim...ouse-vs.-senate Basically, five areas of stimulus go down in funding: Aid to Low-Income Families Aid to States Small Businesses Education Energy And three areas of stimulus go up in funding: Science and Technology Tax cuts (75 billion dollar increase, single biggest increase) Transportation and Infastructure So, the result of the efforts of three brave republicans (who are certainly feeling the heat for thier decision right now) is that the plan has increased tax cuts by 25%, while reducing spending on most other areas. I, being left wing biased, believe that these three republicans are hero's, they know that they only way they are going to get any real influence at all within the current administration is to work with them, rather than block them. They are basically putting their potential political future on the side in order to benefit millions of americans. They are putting America first, not their own partisan beliefs. These kind of "put America first" hero's are vital to the recovery effort. Its easy for a democrat to support this bill, business as usual. But to the three republicans who pulled for what they believed in and made real change on the economic stimulus, hats off to you!