I agree that long-term unemployment benefits may pose a moral hazard for some and I agree that the arguments presented above and in similar articles are basically true. However, the real problem is that government needs to stop being an impediment to job creation. To me, ending unemployment benefits is a sort of double jeopardy to the many people who really are trying to find a job. First, government creates an environment that is unfriendly to hiring and then it turns around and says its going to end the insurance too. I would prefer that government gets out of the way so that business can do what it does, and then worry about unemployment. This really is blaming the victim.

Wow. I don't know what else to say. Those darn founding fathers...Wow. XJ you are something special

Yes, that may be a better way to say it. I just feel that it is important that we refute unicorns with facts and make sure that we do not open ourselves to a situation where some troll points out one error and uses it to falsify the entire argument. Too easily I could see the false argument: Repubs are lying about the effect on profits, therefore they want to throw grandma out in the cold. etc.

While I agree with many of the points of this article and of the posts below I need to point out one error in the argument. Also, I have seen this error quoted several times and we, as conservatives with a solid argument, need to make sure that we do not spout hysteria as common to the liberal argument. In the above, Ms Doan writes that obamacare could raise health care costs by 9% which is certainly possible and a good argument against. However, a 9% raise in health care costs will not wipe out an entire year of 9% net profits. Simply put, if healthcare constitutes 10% of your total business cost and you have a, for example, 10% net margin then an increase of 9% to your healthcare costs will lower your net margin to 9.1% This is...

I would vote for a pet rock before obama

Jim, Don't you know that it was office gnomes (the ones that move your stapler, pencils, etc) that wired the buildings. That is why no one saw them. Please get with the program.

Incidentally, the "checks and balances" the founding father incorporated into our system of republican government has to do with the balance of powers between the three co-equal branches of government. Political parties was not something imagined by the framers and in fact, would be considered "factions" in founding parlance. Although you have some good and valid points, I would venture that a third party is not nearly as necessary as an understanding that public service was not meant to be a career and that the purpose of the government is to uphold the inalienable rights of the public.

But, but, in my high school history class I learned that America was only in 3 wars!?! There was World War I that had something to do with the Roman or something and happened in ancient times (we only spent 2 class periods on this "conflict"). And, as I recall the great failure was that Americans were too stupid to adopt the progressive vision of Woodrow Wilson and the League of Nations which then resulted in World War II where we "assisted" the great nations of England and France (our superiors) from a lone madman who was apparently a fascist which according to my teacher is what all right wingers are. The final war was a misguided affair somewhere in Southeast Asia that was brought on because the "military industrial complex" needed...

Go ahead, shut it down. It reminds me of a joke...something about how air conditioners were the worst invention for government because now congress could stay in session all summer long.

You gotta love the AP News, "Opponents of the bill_and constitutional scholars_predict..etc" Seems they are attempting to imply that the oppenents of the bill ARE constitutional scholars. I would assume that they could have also written "Proponents of the bill_and constitutional scholars_predict..etc" but then that would imply that maybe the knuckledraggers on the right have constitutional scholars on our side too. I am quite certain there are a LOT of constitutional scholars running around who uphold the intent of the Amendment and I am also quite sure that it had nothing to do with offering illegals full citizenship.