This improvement in business earnings has occurred under President Obama. If there was a decline, it is clear that a site like Townhall would blame Obama. If you were intellectually honest, why do you not give the policies of his Administration any share of the credit for the improvement? Or are you so fixated on your ideology that you can only note the actions of the Obama Administration if they are associated with a negative outcome, and you are systematically blind to any linkage to positive events?

You present zero evidence that the expenses under Obama are higher than under Bush, as so elegantly phrased on your second page: "Keep in mind, though, that it’s not just Obama. The Bush White House also was guilty of extravagance, albeit perhaps at a lower level." Who the hell uses the phrase "albeit perhaps"? That seems to be code for admitting what you write may be false, but you are too ignorant or lazy to actually check. This is the sign of an intellectually corrupt political movement - you have neither ideas nor truth on your side, and so instead you resort to lazy slurs.

The individual mandate addresses the exact problem that you assert it does not:. "ObamaCare “promotes irresponsibility by allowing healthy people to wait until they get sick to buy coverage. It creates that free-rider problem, which has been known to make insurance markets collapse. " Even if you have other problems with the concept of an individual mandate, it directly addresses the p And prior to Obamacare being fully implemented, there is a free rider problem with those who used emergency room services without being able to pay. Why don't you care about those free riders?

Here's how you can tell that this columnist is intellectually dishonest: "...President Obama's economics team predicted that the U.S. unemployment rate would never exceed 8% in the four years from 2009 through 2012" The 8% prediction was made in early January 2009 based on economic data from July-Sep 2008. The data (put out by the Bush Administration, but all sides believed it was valid) indicated that the economy contracted 3% in the crash of 2008. But the crash was so severe that these early measurements were proven wrong (by data that all sides believe is valid) - the economy collapsed by 9%. And that's why the Jan 2009 prediction was off.

Still yelling at an empty chair with an imaginary liberal sitting in it? These are inaccurate descriptions of me and my beliefs. They are cartoon versions of an imaginary foe. Consider why conservatism in America today has to resort to such fictions - a valid articulation of conservative beliefs is a useful and important part of our American polity (and I am a liberal). But this current nonsense and creative fiction espoused in the name of conservatism is silly adolescent drivel.

When multiple organizations (including Fox News!) call randomly selected voters, and in the vast majority of polls the number of people who assert they are Democrats goes up slightly, that's not magic, it's data. Actually, the biggest change in the data is not the increase in the number of Democrats, but rather the sharply shrinking number of voters who wish to self-identify as Republicans. What does it say about you and your movement that you need to resort to conspiracy theories rather than deal with reality?

Only as the election approaches does the majority of the population take a look at the policy and philosophy of the competing political parties. This is the season for that close look. And despite a weak economy, the majority is turning away from tea party extremism towards a "balanced" centrist approach expounded by President Obama. And all of your arguing with an imaginary Obama in an empty chair cannot change the fact that Americans are making a choice - and it is not the philosophy that you believe in. So when President Obama once again wins with over 300 electoral votes, will you then finally acknowledge that the mandate of the American people participating in our Democracy is for Obama's vision and not yours?

Obama, Biden, Palin, and even McCain did not need special treatment and extra rest to perform the usual schedule of campaign rallies. Neither did Clinton or Gore, or Bush and Cheney, or Dole and Kemp, etc. What makes Mitt Romney so special that he is unable to campaign at the same level as all of his predecessors? If he find this too hard, how would he ever measure up to the stresses of the actual Presidency?

The data is clear 53.5% pay federal income tax and payroll tax 28.5% pay federal payroll tax Of the remaining 18% of the population, the majority of them (10%) are retired people no longer earning income. Only the remaining 8% pay no federal taxes (and that includes students in college who are not earning much income as well as the poor. The unemployed members of the population do pay federal taxes, as unemployment benefits are taxed (definitely payroll taxes, as for income taxes it depends on how much they make). The Republican Party draws its strongest level of support from retirees, who have the highest percentage of any age group not paying income taxes

So you advocate that soldiers on combat duty (who pay no federal income taxes) should not be allowed to vote? And retirees on social security (who pay no federal income taxes) should not be allowed to vote? Those are the kind of people that Mitt Romney was describing, as he made clear by his definition of the 47%.