The sky is blue and astroturf is green.

This article is completely fabricated by the liberal crazies.

No one would pay some hippy bloggers for friendly reports or statistical analysis on reader responses.

This is just another countless example of how the democrats want to confuse the populace on popular issues. Issue such as, should you vote for this republican or the other republican. There are also non-political issues as stake such as which is the better music genre.... country or western. (We have both kinds of music here)

Quick, someone tell Pudge! He can make money off his batshite insane posts.

The real question: "I'm a friendly blogger [homeip.net]. Why isn't anyone paying me?"

Frankly, I'll always take an openly partisan blog over a supposed "news" outlet that pretends to balance when they are really staffed almost completely by leftists. At least the partisan blog is up front about their biases.

Now begone you leftist troll.

Ah ha ha ha! Dude, you are going from funny to fucking hilarious!

I vote for the Republicans on economic and social policies. I'm white collar earning a little under 50k, so I'd probably benefit according to your comment.

I just don't see how I'd benefit on an economic level though. Would I have more money? Maybe, but so would everybody else like me, which would only serve to drive up the prices of the things everybody in my economic class would buy (houses in my price range, inexpensive cars, food, clothes, paying for education expenses, etc.).

My analysis of the health care reform is that the health care debate was that the government is going to take on an unaffordable liability (or pass it on to the states) and will basically use cost controls which will distort the market further encouraging monopolies, perhaps even giving rise to state run health care, instead of attacking market inefficiencies (eliminating different prices regardless of who pays (insurance company or patient), requirements that medical provider and insurance companies must publicly provide the prices you can expect to pay for a variety of services both before getting a policy and then before service is provided, requiring the insurance company to share cost savings with the patient for choosing the cheaper option, etc.) to provide customers a method to choose cheaper options.

Frankly, I would like to see payroll taxes like Social Security, unemployment, and medicare become optional. I think others would to a better job of recognizing they need to save their own money to cover situations those insurance programs cover if they realized they didn't have a safety net, and they could do a much better job of taking care of their own future needs than the government will. Since people would have more incentive to save, prices of thing I might want to buy now would probably drop, either leaving me more money to spend or save, and leaving all shoppers in a better position.

The government's history shows that every time a shortage happens concerning these programs, they will cut what you'll receive (changing when you become eligible, reducing payouts, etc.), essentially taking our money and reducing what we receive in exchange for what you've paid. The one exemption to this rule is for those in the unions who are the preferred beneficiaries of the Democrats, because of their political donations.

All of Democratic policy is to increase the amount of money that goes through the government coffers. Tell me, which do you think would be a less corrupt and wasteful government, one run on $500 billion or the one we have run on $3 trillion? I'll tell you, I have no doubt it's a lot easier to hide waste and corruption in the latter number than the former.

As for minimum wage, it (along with paper money) causes inflation, which is why we now have a significant price difference between us and the people performing our outsourced jobs in China and India, or what somebody in Mexico makes. If wages were set at a level comparable to the same job in China, Mexico or India (with comparably priced costs which would follow wages), we wouldn't have millions of Mexicans here illegally, or every item on a Walmart shelf having another country as the location of manufacture, or call center's and software shops run out of India.

I'd like to also say that my preferred economic ownership model more closely matches http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism [wikipedia.org]. I figure this is actually more capitalistic, since it provides more competition, encouraging a more efficient market, without large multinationals that can push everybody else around.

Thanks for reading.

Mmmmmmm, Dominoes Pizza.......

I stopped at Step #2....

It stands for Republican Party. If you squint, the G and the O kinda come together to form an R.

A couple points in this charged and juicy statement...

1) Those blue-collar folks work for the rich white men the Republicans represent. They know, and know it damn good and well, that if you make the fat cat suffer, he takes it out on them. This doesn't impact those in the breadlines as much, but the working man feels it, and feels it hard. Given every viable opportunity, the owner's take home pay will never decrease, taxes be damned. He'll just pay himself more, or up his lease rates to his shell company that he's leasing his own company's building from... There are limits, but 'screwing the man' invariably screws those he employs far more severely. That's why he's called 'the man' as opposed to merely 'a man'.

2) Liberal politicians are, indeed, immoral, to a Christian or similar. Liberals are indeed anti-Jesus, and they do appear to hate at least all white and/or middle class families. At least if you judge them by their policies, you would reasonably draw this conclusion. Primarily these views stem from wedge issues like abortion, gay marriage, and the like. Jesus's book says these are bad, but liberals are cool with them, and in some cases want tax dollars to fund these activities. Further, they take money from the tax payers and give it to the non-payers, which hurts those with jobs far more than it hurts those without. And, referencing my point above, even when they aim for the top earners, they hurt the middle class.

These aren't necessarily my own views, but they do logically follow - once you step outside the mental disease that is partisanship, that is.