H.R. Pufnstuf, apparently you're completely uneducated as to how Black voters have voted in pre-2008 elections.

"I believe in the last election, white voters were fairly split between McCain and Obama."

Well, at least you're not just ignorant about how African-Americans voted.

Jag, I'm not sure what your problem is. Googling around it looks like white voters were split 43/55 for Obama/McCain. Black voters were 95/4 for Obama/McCain. I'm aware that black voters typically support Dems (and black voters are typically opposed to gay marriage, which is why Dems can never get that marriage equality thing passed).

43/55 isn't a split and the the Dems historically garner 90%+ of the African American vote. You saying Black voters voted for Obama because of the color of his skin is remarkable ignorant. You think if Hillary was going up against McCain then you wouldn't have seen it go 95/4? Of course it would have.

43/55 is pretty close to split. Is it exactly 50/50, no. Does that weaken my point? No. It is true that African American voters typcially vote for Dems. I guess I'd be curious to know why an entire race of people is lining up +95% of the time behind one political party.

Btw, as the author of this article states, 2 million more African American voters showed up to the polls in 2008 than in 2004. She then follows that statement with "gee I wonder why?", apparently not even realizing the hypocrisy of that statement.

Let me reinterate: as the author of this article states, 2 million more African American voters showed up to the polls in 2008 than in 2004. She then follows that statement with "gee I wonder why?", apparently not even realizing the hypocrisy of that statement.

I rest my case.

Don't put words in my mouth.

That is really weak Frank, even for you. His house is less than a mile from the border? Then it's in Maryland is it not? And in one of the most lily white areas of Maryland. It's amazing how liberals excuse horrible lies and race baiting by other liberals especially when the facts are no on their side.

Also, it doesn't matter who you see working. That's a red herring. It's who is on food stamps and there are more now than ever. Do you dispute that? If not, then what's your point?

Frank (The one with the silly insults) : Chris Matthews is the one who claimed to have lived in D.C. Do you dispute that? If so, you're a liar and you can have a good day.

So you'd ratehr keep jobs in the U.S. at the expense of American women? Typical GOP thinking -- "I've got mine, F%$# everyone else."

No, DawnP, I am simply pointing out the damages these laws do. It's a fool's paradise to think you can grant "rights" to one group without taking them away from someone else. The market determines where the jobs go.

It's hard for liberals like Frank to follow but laws like Lily Ledbetter make it less desirable to create jobs here. Since it passed 3 million jobs have disappeared and ther are fewer people working than ever in this country. Gloat all you want about feel good laws but they cost jobs because it's easier to move them overseas than to keep them here and get sued.

Other considerations? That's a laugh but oh so liberal. Those jobs are going overseas to avoid the litigation and risk of locating them here.

"Those jobs are going overseas to avoid the litigation and risk of locating them here."

What risk is there if they just pay equitably by education and experience rather than gender?

This isn't about equality. It's about what you convince a jury and the law has unlimited consequences in terms of time. A woman could work at a company that is small and then leave. Thirty years later the company may have grown and a woman could come back and sue even with no case. The liability and time to file under Lily Ledbetter is unlimited. As a result of the law jobs are being restructured and many of the lower paying ones are being relocated overseas where those managers there can handle them.
http://www.stosselintheclassroom.org/essay_contest/first_place/
The Heritage Foundation's Andrew Grossman speculated that The Ledbetter Act would lead to a myriad of unintended consequences. "Foremost," he said, "it would push down both wages and employment, as businesses change their operations to avoid lawsuits. Perversely, it could actually put women, minorities, and workers who are vocal about their rights at a disadvantage if employers attempt to reduce legal risk by hiring fewer individuals likely to file suit against them or terminating those already in their employ."

Grossman's prediction is supported, in part, by U.S. Census Bureau data analyzed by the National Committee on Pay Equity. In 2008, women were earning 77.1% cents of every dollar earned by men. The following year it dropped to 77%, and it ticked up to 77.4% by 2010. The difference was .3% over two years; virtually no change.

BHO: "The liability and time to file under Lily Ledbetter is unlimited."

How do you figure that? The law says it is 180 days from the last discriminatory act, and it actually returns to form the standard precedent set before the supreme court changed the interpretation. http://www.humanresourcesiq.com/benefits-compensation/articles/human-resources-action-plan-for-the-lilly-ledbette/ explains:

"Prior to Ledbetter, the EEOC and most federal courts applied the paycheck accrual rule. Under the paycheck accrual rule, each paycheck that delivered discriminatory compensation to an employee was a wrong actionable under the federal antidiscrimination statutes regardless of when the discrimination began. While Ledbetter lost her case, she ignited a campaign to restore the paycheck accrual rule. During the 2008 presidential election campaign, Ledbetter became the symbol for equal pay for women.

With a stroke of a pen, on January 29, 2009, President Obama overturned the Supreme Court’s decision and restored the paycheck accrual rule."

BHO: "Thirty years later the company may have grown and a woman could come back and sue even with no case."

Again how is that possible under the 180 day limit of the law? If there is no case then what would the suit matter?

The law is vague about when the 180 days actually is invoked. For instance, if a policy is changed, then a former employee can come back and sue even 40 years later. And don't think the employers aren't afraid of this law. As the article I linked noted, this will end pay for performance, which may in fact put companies out of business as high achievers move on and start their own company.

Frank, do you have a mouse in your pocket? Who's "we"?

Since Larry likes math so much - Randy, you mean Larry is 1 of the 155,000,000 Americans that are dependent on the government. 5 trillion in new debt and for the first time 50% of the population is dependent on government assistance - that's a disgrace!

In summary Randy, I'd say the chances that Larry is waiting for that check are pretty good.

Larry, Frank... whatever his name is - facts don't mean anything to people like him. Note, every time he's hit with a fact, he ignores it. Like I said, 50%. I think he is okay with that number, in fact I'm guessing he would like it to be higher.

Thanks Randy for pulling that article from a nice liberal website.

Less than half of households w/one recipient is nowhere near half the population. Not to mention "government benefits" (e.g. things you pay into like Social Security and Medicare, which the study includes) has little overlap w/the statement in question: "50% of the population is dependent on the government".

Obviously, people who pay into govt. programs their whole life and then get some of it back to supplement their retirement income is not even close to being "dependent on the government".

Also obvious is the fact that 1 member of a household collecting benefits doesn't mean the whole household is "dependent on the government". The statement in question is flat dumb and lacks even basic common sense and intelligence.

What part of "HUFFINGTON POST" did you miss Frank ?

Brian, you seriously don't understand this? Of course the numbers are trending upwards, and they'll continue to trend upwards for some time. That's the shift in demographics in this country. People are getting older and living longer, hence the number of people collecting Social Security and Medicare are going up.

Collecting on basic social services that have been pre-paid is, obviously, not being "dependent on government". Also obvious is the fact that just because 1 person in the household (whether a disabled child, a senior citizen, whatever) collects said basic social service does not mean the entire household is "dependent on the government". If you honestly can't understand those basic facts then there's no point in talking to you.

And I probably pay more in taxes every year than you do in 10, so feel free to chill with the dumb insults.

Fight straw men much? I didn't say there weren't issues with Social Security. As I did say, the demographic shift in this country means, collectively, we're getting older. That means a heavier burden on the fund than in the past. However, of course people (maybe not you, but most of us) have paid into Social Security for years. Just because people then begin to collect it, instead of paying into it, during retirement doesn't mean all those old people are "dependent" on the government. That's hugely insulting and blatantly false. The end. If you don't get it, move on and complain somewhere else about how everyone is lazy and collects checks, except you of course. I'm sure you're a hugely productive member of society. Way more so than everyone else here, obviously.

Yes, Brian, and when that time comes, and you start collecting that Social Security check, whether or not you are "dependent" on it, your household will be counted in the kind of statistics cited in that WSJ article. (Which, in case you've missed the point, does not talk about households being "dependent" on government assistance, as you suggested. It talks about households "that received some type of government benefit." HUGE difference.)

A lot more private sector jobs........

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/03/13103583-a-decade-of-jobs-numbers?lite

And a lot fewer public sector jobs (over 600K fewer than under Bush). But the Right doesn't care about facts as much as they care to hear themselves whine nonsensically.

The president had several private sector jobs. Associate at a Law Firm, University Professor.....

Frank, I feel bad for those people my age who are thinking Social Security will be there for them when everyone who is paying attention knows that it will not. That's the opposite of security. I don't dispute that the old people now love the program; it enabled them to rob my generation. Btw, the "trust fund" is filled with IOUs, not cash.

I don't know about criticisms of Social Security from generations ago, but the Baby Boomers will be the generation that kills it. There used to be 12 workers for every one retiree, now there's something like 2 workers for every retiree. Even the Social Security officials are saying the trust fund will be bust in 2040, but more importantly the trust fund is devoid of cash now, which is why Obama said he needed the debt ceiling raised to make sure SS checks got mailed. If Bernie Madoff belongs in jail, so does every politician who supported SS over the years. I encourage you to get a clue about Social Security. It is seriously the worst government program ever. A true theft from one generation to give to another.