TH3

I would say that the above has either no effect (kxl) or unmeasureable effect on middle income wages compared to global compettion, global sourcing and technolgical labor replacement.

I dont want Hillary. You just confirmed my thoughts that the GOP really doesn't have any good ideas. I even read the GOP platform today and it had no ideas. I think you are fooling yourself if you think POTUS has a big effect on middle class income. The effects of global competition, internet, computers, worker effeciency gains all far outweigh what either the GOP or BO could do to change these dynamics. Todays economic structure does not b ode well for the middle class.

The level of macro and micro economics in this thread is enlightening Since BO is not going to make things better what are the GOP' plans to restore middle class income growth? Seriously. Lets forecast that Jeb or Scott wins and the GOP wins 60 seats in the Senate.....what could we expect that would help middle class income growth and deeper employment?

What exactly are these laws supposed to do?

Meanwhile the GOP worries about legislation to help pizza huts and cake shops....

What did i say that differs from the law? Again - you are so weak - or I guess adept - at not really debating. You only reply on your terms and in vague ways. If you are adept at this law - What in particular is this law supposed to do and why? If it is not different that the federal RFRA - why did they pass it? Of course its different - waiting for your non answer.

Because I dont agreevwith you? Tell me DC. What people will this law help and how?

I did.....A$$....Again - Tell me where someone has been harmed that this law helps....sorry - the "market" has read right through this law and is reacting accordingly.... Keep playing that winning hand though! It got you 8 years of BHO and by doubling down on it you might just get 8 years of HRC So it just might target gays for discrimination though huh?

What problem? When where is it burdensome for expression of religon? What this law does is unburdens the ability to be discriminatory. Keep at it GOTP.....please the few and alienate the many....is this really worth it? The Market Speaks.....Arkansas backs off

Talk about the market deciding out of ignorance - I would say the supporters of this kind of legislation are the start of ignorant mob rule - Where is the problem that this legislation is addressing? And as usual - when the market starts deciding and the TP/Libertarians don't like that outcome - all of a sudden is something different than market rule. This law is nothing but a pander to the religious right and it is structurally different than others - It is crap and as long as the GOP focuses on this crap - they don't have a shot at the WH. Hey - keep it on the books - let it ride out - and see how the market decides. I am of the thought that we should just give the keys to the whole GOP/TP platform - let them write, pass and enact ALL the things they want and see what kind of country we have. Get it out of our system.

I don't agree with Sandy Beach too much - but I agree with him this morning. This is just another example of the GOP/Con latching on to a no win issue. This issue does nothing to get them closer to the white house - all it does in alienate MOST of the voters in the USA. This may delight the base but independent voters, women, etc that make the difference in the general election - people like me - this is simply ugliness. How do these laws make any difference in anyone's lives? These also highlight the hypocrisy of the TP/Libertarians: You say - let entities act as they wish and let the market decide. Well Indiana and now Arkansas are acting as they wish - and the MARKET is deciding that maybe they don;t want to deal in this environment by walking, Market forces at work.

And here is the text of Indiana's RFRA: Indiana's RFRA makes it explicit that the law applies to persons engaged in business as well as citizens in private lawsuits, but until quite recently it had always been understood that federal RFRA covered businesses and private lawsuits. (See this post by law professor Josh Blackman for more on these matters.) Late last night just outside the Senate chamber, I asked Senator Chuck Schumer of New York (who sponsored federal RFRA in 1993) to comment on the story. "Not right now," he replied. Schumer still hasn't found time to respond to this question on Twitter: So why are so many people saying that Indiana's law is an unprecedented attack on gay people? Bad journalism is to blame here. See this CNN headline that says the law "allows biz to reject gay customers," or this New York Times story that makes the same claim while ignoring the fact that many other states and the federal government have the same law on the books. Indiana's RFRA does not grant a license to discriminate. First of all, the state of Indiana, like 28 other states, has never prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation at public accommodations. Even without such laws in most states, discrimination doesn't commonly occur because the United States is a nation that is tolerant of gay people and intolerant of bigots. Mean-spirited actions by a business owner anywhere in the country would almost certainly be met with a major backlash. Much more (for those who can process it) at the link: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indianas-religious-freedom-restoration-act-explained_900641.html?page=2 I would suggest you expand your bookmarks list for a better understanding of the law and how it is unique in many ways.

Don t understand your numbers. How was was the govt fully funded last year and where did 15 come from?

As someone already noted - voted for Johnson. Yes I voted for a partial term senator over a clearly experienced candidate because I thought - and this has proven to be true - that Sara Palin is batsh$%t crazy. Someone who makes such a poor choice simply to cater to a small segment does not get my vote - and as well - a heartbeat away bro - BO may not be your cup of team but SP running this country I could not fathom. Again - voted for JOHNSON not BO in 2012. Yes I am concerned that - at the time - the govt did not bring in enough money. During the Bush years revenues were down to 15 percent of GDP and spending was over 20. There is nothing conservative about this - just fiscally irresponsible. Federal spending will never be 15 percent GDP. As as far as indexing the govt revenues to GDP -that is the way most economists look at it - what else do you want to do? Most federal expenses are SS/MC/Defense - what over 80 percent of the budget - so if you want govt to be smaller please have the GOP tell me how they are going to make these programs smaller AND pass that legislation - and yes I have been reviewing the current budget process and am disappointed that the GOP can't just be realistic with the american people - its all they want and it would go over well.

Why are you so worried about labels? My voting record is clearly independent Perot, Dole, Bush1, Bush2 in 2000, Obama 1, Johnson - not sure you can be more varied than that. I typically had voted mostly GOP for smaller offices but I think they are a mess right now and I don't agree with all the side issues they consume themselves with. What is so laughable about those statements? I liked McCain but as soon as Palin showed up - she was not fit for office so I voted for BO. I liked Romney all they way - but then he caved to the far right and started using the term "tax cuts" in his campaign. With rates at an all time low and receipts far below (17%) any range of historical spending (20%) - to talk about tax cuts was simply nonsensical and patronizing - so I voted for Johnson since he spoke what he really thought - whether he thought it would be well received or not. I am an independent voter. I would like to see a GOP candidate win. The winner needs to win the independent vote to win the election. The GOP is simply not going to win the GE with a far right or TP candidate - so the choice to me seems HRC or a more moderate GOP candidate. What do you want? The other half - all these far right flame throwing candidates - like Cruz - turn off the GOP to independent voters - I think they reflect poorly on the GOP and their gloom and doom message is tiresome.They may appeal to people like yourself - but your vote needs no convincing - the GOP needs to win the independent voters. So be nice to me...you need my vote

Actually. If the GOP could produce a decent candidate - BO wouldn't be in his second term. Further - if the GOP voters think veering farther to the right is going to work....get ready for 8 years of HRC....

No - I am independent. I think the GOP - as evidenced by this subject - spends all their resources/political capital on things that simply help no one and go no where. Gerrymandering/voterid/terryschiavo/schoolprayer/historybooks/science/evolution/uselesswars/unpaidtaxcuts/someoneistakingourguns/birthers/gimmickbudgets/bengazi... Tell me - Oh wise PPP board - where - oh where - was voter fraud an issue? This was never about voter fraud...it was about trying to gain an edge in voting...please tell me you are not so blind or deluded to not know that. GOP won in a "landslide" last fall - where is the legislative plan?

Excellent work and time well spent by our leaders wrestling a problem that did not exist to the ground... Chew on this: http://morningafter.gawker.com/john-oliver-shut-down-the-!@#$-barrel-of-pernicious-1693070305

The dog in the fight is a vitriolic hate for all things Obama. BO could negotiate a nuclear stand down from Iran delivered on unicorns farting heart shaped golden eggs that cured cancer....and they would hate it. "The purpose of the senate GOP is to make sure the the Presidency of the BO is a failure" - Mitch McConnell

My gut says a moderate R like Jeb or for that manner 41 could easily beat HRC, but Cruz/Huck/Palin...only make the GOP look bad and cast their smell toward viable andidates.

You can find your own link. He has a substantial record of results in the Senate...he should be a formidle candidate. I actually have no idea what he would want to do.....

The world you guys live in....

I always find it funny how everything (Rodak) is compared to the Patriots and how they have written the book on how to win. Here is their formula Success = 95% find the best qb who ever played the game in the 6th round + 5% everything else

take over the medical industry - with a GOP template. What do you want - people going bankrupt over medical bills, unable to access insurance because of pre-existing conditions, unable to get insurance? What is the TP/GOP plan for how HC should be delivered - and please be more specific than "free market" - I am sure you must have a link. Open the border - check your stats - also you do know you must be an american citizen to access benefits like welfare, SNAP, SS, healthcare right? - OF course you knew that. Destabilize the ME? Pretty sure that started in 2002 - or several hundred years ago.. Govt takeover of the internet - I honestly have no idea what the legislation will do - you probably don't either. You do understand what was going on at Ferguson - systematic targeting of poor - mostly black people - to fund the police department - but your cool with that? Gun control - where would that be? Pretty sure BO initiated nothing regarding gun control.

Thats quite a reach to rephrase the article title The blue dots represent the results from a comparable regression to predict whether one of these low-skill individuals had a job. Clemens and Wither found that the federal minimum wage hike resulted in about a 6% decrease in the probability that low-wage individuals would have a job based on this comparison of states in which the minimum wage hike would have been binding and those for which it would not. A SIX PERCENT DECREASE IN THE PROBABILTY.....