iOS app Android app
Clicking Follow Back will add user to your friends list and may allow access to your Social News timeline..

HuffPost Social News

Badges:
Your Badges and the Badge Module will be removed from your profile

YodiBear's Comments

View Comments:   Sort:
Congressional Research Service Report On Tax Cuts For Wealthy Suppressed By GOP (UPDATE)

Congressional Research Service Report On Tax Cuts For Wealthy Suppressed By GOP (UPDATE)

Commented Nov 1, 2012 at 22:57:28 in Politics

“Who do you think is building those yachts? Who is cleaning them or captaining them? Those are jobs. When you punish "kings" its the the middle class who gets hurt.

What do expect from trickle down? You expect everyone to be the 1%?. In the 1980's who had cellphones? Millionaires and billionaires and those phones were crap. Only the wealthy could afford them. Now, everyone has a cellphone. Who owned laptops? HDTVs? Cars? Air conditioning? That has all trickled down.

Please explain what you think "trickle down" means?”
Robert Reich Defends Raising Taxes On The Rich In Under 3 Minutes (VIDEO)

Robert Reich Defends Raising Taxes On The Rich In Under 3 Minutes (VIDEO)

Commented Jun 14, 2012 at 10:13:23 in Business

“Roads and bridges are not what are causing these huge deficits in our country which is requiring the higher taxes. It's the warfare welfare states. I agree, bridges and roads should be paid for by taxes. But the idea that you don't get your goods to and from the market by roads is not true. You do. If the 1% didn't use roads to get their products to you, you would not have products, therefore you use those roads to get your products.

Why does it have to be rich pay more taxes or middle class pays more taxes? Stop fighting each other. The problem is not the rich or the middle class. The problem is the gov't spends too much. If the government spent less, then the poor, middle class, and wealthy, could all be taxed less.

Who are the people calling for higher taxes on one class or the other? It's the politicians. They create this fake argument to make us fight each other instead of fighting them. If you take any money out of the private sector, from the middle class or 1%, it hurts the private sector. If the rich are taxed, it hurts us. If the middle class is taxed, it hurts us. We need to stop this frivolous spending and tax everyone less.”
Robert Reich Defends Raising Taxes On The Rich In Under 3 Minutes (VIDEO)

Robert Reich Defends Raising Taxes On The Rich In Under 3 Minutes (VIDEO)

Commented Jun 14, 2012 at 10:07:44 in Business

“I looked it up. Bad stuff. I'm not sure I understand the reference though.”

Aj Beamish on Jun 14, 2012 at 12:34:10

“Rich people not only taking advantage of the working class but treating them less than human. Get a clue. No one in the history of mankind has ever made it "on their own." which is what you imply by saying that crap like "what right do you have to the fruits of someone else's labor? " When the historical fact is the wealthy have been living off the fruits of the working class' labor since the dawn of time. They have more money than "you' right now because they've taken most of the profits, most of the fruits of other people's labor. Doing 5% of the work and making 100% of the profits is immoral as well.”
Robert Reich Defends Raising Taxes On The Rich In Under 3 Minutes (VIDEO)

Robert Reich Defends Raising Taxes On The Rich In Under 3 Minutes (VIDEO)

Commented Jun 14, 2012 at 10:01:57 in Business

“I'm not a fan of Ms. Warren. However, she is partially right here.

But we need to stop thinking of the 1% as evil doers. The 1% might offer you a certain wage for your labor. You have the freedom to accept it or deny it. You're not being forced to accept this indecent wage.

I'm not sure what you mean they manipulate money and markets.

We as the "peasants" are doing the same thing the 1% is doing. We are trying to look out for our own interests. The idea that since we are not successful or that we "need" healthcare then the ones who are successful to pay for us is not a fair share. It is injustice and immoral. We have no right, as a majority, to demand the property and earnings of someone else. That's called plunder. It's thievery and it's immoral.”

eilish on Jun 14, 2012 at 14:30:15

“It's easy to sit there and postulate when you've got your job, your house, your car, your vacations - worries, but you're doin' ok. 6 million Americans live on food stamps as their sole and ONLY income. Fully 1/3 of the middle class fell into poverty with this 'recession' caused by. let me see - oh, yeah the inflated housing bubble, outrageous usury by mortgage companies who are federally insured so they lose nothing.

In a civilized nation those who have help those who are less fortunate. IT IS NOT ALWAYS THEIR FAULT. We should take care of our own but you got yours, screw the poor.

Ghandi said "I like your Christ.I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike their Christ."”
Robert Reich Defends Raising Taxes On The Rich In Under 3 Minutes (VIDEO)

Robert Reich Defends Raising Taxes On The Rich In Under 3 Minutes (VIDEO)

Commented Jun 14, 2012 at 09:18:15 in Business

“Do the 1% use the roads more than you do and thats why they need to pay more? Is that how we define fair share?? Think about it.

And the cost of roads is does not require a tax rate of 70%.”

TheClairvoyant on Jun 14, 2012 at 09:45:12

“Missed the "tax rate of 70%". where does that comes from? They should pay an equal amount, scaled off couse.
Have you know any of these kind of people? I have and that's why i won't ever stick up for them or even like them.”

TheClairvoyant on Jun 14, 2012 at 09:38:40

“Not them, but their companies use it to deliver goods. The other comments here explain that well. I don't have to think about it, i had sociology classes that cover all of this.”
Robert Reich Defends Raising Taxes On The Rich In Under 3 Minutes (VIDEO)

Robert Reich Defends Raising Taxes On The Rich In Under 3 Minutes (VIDEO)

Commented Jun 14, 2012 at 09:16:08 in Business

“Agreed and he/she does. Because that labor he/she "used" was not actually used but paid for. Schools can be privatized. Fire Departments can be privatized. However, I don't even have a problem with taxing for schools, fire departments and courts. But that's not where the majority of the money goes. The majority of the taxes goes to wars and welfare programs. Those do not help our society or the 1%'s business (I mean technically it could if he's making weapons or something)

The problem is not taxes, but the amount of taxes and what it goes to. Instead of saying the 1% needs to pay more, say the government needs to spend less. Whenever the gov't takes money out of the private sector, from the wealthy middle class or poor, the private sector economy is hurt.”

jsh9i on Jun 14, 2012 at 11:48:27

“supporting the hungry is a problem hmm you do not want privatized schools there is no evidence that they are better for the masses go read jefferson. you want privatized fire/ police what happens when the co. let's your house burn down or doesn't respond to the 911 because you forgot to write the check TN. th final statement is garbage. the marginal rate under eisebhower was 91% we built the interstate highway system, under kennedy/johnson 50-60% we went to the moon. big things big ideas require gov't (no private co. is going to build a nuclear reactor or the hoover dam)”
Robert Reich Defends Raising Taxes On The Rich In Under 3 Minutes (VIDEO)

Robert Reich Defends Raising Taxes On The Rich In Under 3 Minutes (VIDEO)

Commented Jun 14, 2012 at 09:09:37 in Business

“I agree. I don't have a problem with taxes that allow for the continuation of commerce. For example taxes for roads.

But the idea that my business can only work in a marketplace where 70% of every dollar I make is given in the form of a welfare check to someone who is willfully avoiding work is a flat out lie.

What people are failing to see is that the 1% help the marketplace even without taxes. Take home depot for example. The founders of Home Depot are billionaires and you're saying they need to pay more of their fair share. They have already contributed tens of thousands of jobs across the US. Has that not helped the economic marketplace in the US?”

Roadrun on Jun 14, 2012 at 20:32:56

“When they pay for their share of the roads and other infrastructure and schools who provide them with a workforce and on and on like that then nobody has a problem.
When they say that they should be able to sit back and have everything given to them on a silver platter and through everybody else's taxes then I say they get kicked out of the game altogether. 
 I am for making them go find another country to pillage.  Buying politicians isn't paying taxes.”
Robert Reich Defends Raising Taxes On The Rich In Under 3 Minutes (VIDEO)

Robert Reich Defends Raising Taxes On The Rich In Under 3 Minutes (VIDEO)

Commented Jun 14, 2012 at 09:03:49 in Business

“I would be fine with it if it happened in a honest and genuine way. The rich actually benefit the poor. Unfortunately we have a government with too much power in every sector of the economy. This allows for rich people to throw money at politicians that give the rich an unfair advantage. If the gov't did not have the power to grant these advantages, then there would be a more equal footing for individuals in the U.S. That's the failed policy, not free markets.

And the 1% benefits the 99%. Do you own a cell phone? In the 1980's the only people that owned cell phones were the 1% and they were horrible pieces of technology. But, because the 1% was able to purchase those crappy phones, you're now able to also have a cell phone, and not only that, but one that can access the internet.”

Doobie Snacks on Jun 14, 2012 at 14:24:03

“the one percent were never the ones that drove the cell phone market. salesmen  did tho. The 1 percent do not benefit the 99 percent in any way shape or form. Never have and never will. The 1 percent benefits from the 99 percent otherwise they wouldn't have a dime to their names.
Taking money out of politics will fix most of the corporate influence.”
Robert Reich Defends Raising Taxes On The Rich In Under 3 Minutes (VIDEO)

Robert Reich Defends Raising Taxes On The Rich In Under 3 Minutes (VIDEO)

Commented Jun 14, 2012 at 08:56:27 in Business

“That was slavery, not capitalism. Slavery is where someone works and the fruits of their labors are forcefully taken from them and given to someone else. Kind of like the 1% working, and then the government forcing them to give their money to people who have not earned it.”

Ernst Angst on Jun 14, 2012 at 11:54:28

“Try reading up on a topic you have only slight knowledge of before commenting. Ancient Egypt, while practicing slavery, did not base their society on that peculiar institution.

Also, the "1%" do not "work", they inherit--like Pharaoh.”
Robert Reich Defends Raising Taxes On The Rich In Under 3 Minutes (VIDEO)

Robert Reich Defends Raising Taxes On The Rich In Under 3 Minutes (VIDEO)

Commented Jun 14, 2012 at 08:54:41 in Business

“What? What kind of a question is this? The 1%'s workers contributed to the success of the 1%s wealth. However, they have already been paid for their labor. That's what work is. It's a coexistence between two people. One says, "I will pay you X amount to do this job." The other says, "I will do this job for X amount." This is done through freedom and choice rather than force.”
Robert Reich Defends Raising Taxes On The Rich In Under 3 Minutes (VIDEO)

Robert Reich Defends Raising Taxes On The Rich In Under 3 Minutes (VIDEO)

Commented Jun 13, 2012 at 20:07:32 in Business

“Why are you all upset about trickle down? What have you done that makes you deserve more than a trick? Why should they give you any?

Yes the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. If I go to the gym and work out I get strong. If I continue to do the things that make me strong, I will get stronger. The rich are rich because they work hard, they save their money. The get richer because they continue to work hard and save their money.

Taxation should not be the argument. Spending is. If the corrupt gov't takes money from the middle class, then they have less money to spend which hurts the economy. Right? If the corrupt gov't takes money from the rich, they have less money to to invest in companies and create jobs. Anytime the corrupt gov't takes money out of the private sector, the economy is hurt. It does not matter if it's taken from the rich, middle class or poor.

It's not poor vs. rich. It's us vs. them. If the corrupt gov't stopped spending so much of OUR money, then the rich, the middle class and the poor could be taxed less.

The problem is not rich people. Rich people are actually very good for the economy. The problem is not the middle class. The middle class is actually very good for the economy. The problem is gov't spending. Gov't spending is actually very bad for the economy.”

Uncas72 on Jun 13, 2012 at 20:48:40

“You don't know it, but you are completely clueless.”

splashy on Jun 13, 2012 at 20:44:10

“You are totally wrong right at the beginning with this statement "The rich are rich because they work hard, they save their money. "

It all goes downhill after that.

Try playing the game of Monopoly to understand where you have gone wrong. Once you get a certain amount of wealth, you just take everything from everyone else with ease. It's not about hard work. It's about having money to begin with.”

rnl52 on Jun 13, 2012 at 20:27:12

“We have been doing your trickle down crap for over 30 years, wages have remained flat for workers while all of the benefits of higher production have gone to the top. This is a massive FAIL for the citizens of this country and is unsustainable. Go back to the 70% top tax rate we had before reagan, the "job creators" need to be heavily taxed.”

Rascals Veda on Jun 13, 2012 at 20:25:35

“"The rich are rich because they work hard, they save their money. The get richer because they continue to work hard and save their money."

Myth.

Read a book titled, "Outliers."

Or think of Paris Hilton, which might be easier than reading.”

jimboy71 on Jun 13, 2012 at 20:23:36

“That is the most simplistic bit of tripe I have ever heard.”

HellBank on Jun 13, 2012 at 20:17:52

“Welcome new toady!”

jsh9i on Jun 13, 2012 at 20:17:13

“you actually believe that! what do you want no schools, no police no fire no airports no ports no courts no highways all of that is done by our gov't. govt't spending is not the problem. it is the utilization of the vast wealth of this nation. the wealthy have received the greast benefit and should pay the most. we shouled take money from them welathy and insure we have the best schools etc in the world, then the wealthy will be able to create more for all not just themselves”

nowThenzen on Jun 13, 2012 at 20:10:53

“You are strong
We are weak
Lead us! Oh Great one! Lead us to the Mountain!”

971 on Jun 13, 2012 at 20:10:14

“"Gov't spending is actually very bad for the economy"

Yep, especially all those needless, no bid military contracts.”
Robert Reich Defends Raising Taxes On The Rich In Under 3 Minutes (VIDEO)

Robert Reich Defends Raising Taxes On The Rich In Under 3 Minutes (VIDEO)

Commented Jun 13, 2012 at 19:35:07 in Business

“What right do you have to the fruits of someone else's labor? Forcing rich people to pay for your healthcare, education, welfare, etc. because they have made more money than you is immoral.”

GemineyeSF on Jun 13, 2012 at 20:23:05

“The wealthy should pay for a larger portion of our infrastructure. Take for just ONE example...roads/bridges: They get us to and from our jobs and the market. Should we pay taxes for the maintence of roads. Perhaps. But the wealthy not only use the roads to get to and from their business and the market...they use the roads in ways the rest of us don't: To get their products to and from the market. To do so, they move these items in big, heavy vehicles that actually break down roadways much more rapidly than the cars most of the rest of us use, requiring repair and upgrade of surfaces much more rapidly than we would need if these heavy vehicles were not used. That's just one example. So, YES, they need to pay more. Its just that simple. Toll roads on highways require higher rates for multiple axels. Do you understand why now? The big vehicles cost more to maintain the road. Wealthy need to absorb higher tax rates just for roads and bridges on freeways (they are called freeways not because they are free but because users do not pay a toll) alone.

We can list all the other reasons why the wealthy utilize more common resources than the rest of us and therefore ought to be required to assume a higher tax burden than the rest of us. Certainly not pay less taxes than the rest of us.”

Aj Beamish on Jun 13, 2012 at 20:08:42

“Ludlow Massacre. Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. Look it up and shaddup.”

eilish on Jun 13, 2012 at 20:04:49

“"There's nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody".

Elizabeth Warren

They did on your back, genius. If they paid you a decent wage you could pay for your own damm healthcare, education, welfare, etc.

Last I checked the uber wealthy 1% don't 'labor' they manipulate money & markets. You're the one laboring in the hope that you, too, will one day be able to look down and piss on the middle class. The 1% aren't out there jockeying for new members, they're out there trying to knock each other off and take the whole world. To do that they have to scrunch a few billion peasants.”

TheClairvoyant on Jun 13, 2012 at 19:54:37

“our taxes paid for the counry's infrastructure that the rich's companies use. do they pay for the roads their supply trucks use? think about it.”

jsh9i on Jun 13, 2012 at 19:46:55

“because that rich person used our labor, our schools, our courts our police our fire dept to make that money. i don't begrudge him his wealth but he should support the society that made it possible.”

Roadrun on Jun 13, 2012 at 19:44:24

“Only so long as they make their money in a vacuum.

If they make their money in the United States under the economic market created by the United States then they are expected to pay the price of the marketplace they make money in.

Or they can pack up and move to the marketplace of Somalia where they still have to pay the dues to do business in Somalia anyway, just not in taxes because it is to the local warloard.”

Doobie Snacks on Jun 13, 2012 at 19:42:42

“Would you be fine with 1 person owning 99percent of the resources in the U.S? If so then you should have a problem with 1percent owning almost half...and owning more and more everyday. What is immoral is your blind allegiance to a failed ideology.”

Ernst Angst on Jun 13, 2012 at 19:39:42

“Even Pharaoh understood the basics.”

silverstreet on Jun 13, 2012 at 19:38:16

“What a second. Whose labor? Think about it for a minute. Whose labor made the 1% rich?”
huffingtonpost entry

Iraq Troop Withdrawal: 75 Percent Of Americans Agree With Obama Decision, Poll Finds

Commented Nov 4, 2011 at 12:44:12 in Politics

“What's the alternative? Keep them away from home indefinitely?”
Rand Paul Amendment To Eliminate Federal Funding For Bike Lanes Defeated

Rand Paul Amendment To Eliminate Federal Funding For Bike Lanes Defeated

Commented Nov 4, 2011 at 12:41:35 in Politics

“I think it's interesting that we both recognize the problem and then can take opposite stances on the way to fix it. Government and Corporate created monopolies are hurting America. But my answer is less government intervention and yours is more government intervention.

Do you have websites that you visit to learn more about this topic? Part of my problem is I read stuff that reaffirms what I believe and therefore won't ever be swayed, so I would like to see counter arguments to what I believe. For example, I really like http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/
huffingtonpost entry

Iraq Troop Withdrawal: 75 Percent Of Americans Agree With Obama Decision, Poll Finds

Commented Nov 4, 2011 at 11:42:56 in Politics

“I love the fact that we are removing troops. I think this should be done in all the countries we are occupying. But this exit was not determined by Obama. Bush established this exit date with Iraq when he was president. Obama attempted to keep troops there, but Iraq would not allow it. No praise belongs with Obama here.”

minnelusa on Nov 4, 2011 at 17:16:32

“Really ? Then why did it all come down to whether the troops would have immunity if they remained in Iraq. Iraq said, 'no immunity' and based on that they are coming home....period !”

sitdownANDlisten on Nov 4, 2011 at 12:33:19

“why so they come home to a thrashed economy with no jobs....”
Rand Paul Amendment To Eliminate Federal Funding For Bike Lanes Defeated

Rand Paul Amendment To Eliminate Federal Funding For Bike Lanes Defeated

Commented Nov 4, 2011 at 09:43:41 in Politics

“I do use bike lanes, when they are there. Dallas is kind of light on them.

I take back my it's not a product argument. You are right. It is a final project.

I support infrastructure projects in the sense that we need infrastructure. I don't support the federal government using tax payer money for state issues like bike lanes. I definitely don't support the past jobs bills either. I believe that it cost around 400K for each job created. I can find that source if you want me to.

I'm not sure if I understand this push his weight around comment. That's an action not a goal or purpose. Why would he be solely trying to push his weight around. What I believe Rand's goal to be is to minimize the role of the federal government. Imagine if everyone in your state was not throwing billions of dollars of tax money to the federal government for the eternal military expansion abroad or for the over payed, over insured politicians in washington, bailouts of banks, or the ever failing war on drugs. Then that money not going to bureaucrats in washington would stay in your state. You could have all the bicycle lanes you would ever want. That's what Rand wants. By decreasing the size of the federal government and increasing the power of the states, he in turn increases the power you have over the government. Cool huh?”

YodiBear on Nov 4, 2011 at 12:41:35

“I think it's interesting that we both recognize the problem and then can take opposite stances on the way to fix it. Government and Corporate created monopolies are hurting America. But my answer is less government intervention and yours is more government intervention.

Do you have websites that you visit to learn more about this topic? Part of my problem is I read stuff that reaffirms what I believe and therefore won't ever be swayed, so I would like to see counter arguments to what I believe. For example, I really like http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/

tumorimmunologist on Nov 4, 2011 at 11:35:48

“I do not want the states to have as much power as you seem to. I have seen what state and local governments can do and I am not impressed. If you think the Fed is corrupt then you would be amazed at what state and local are able to get away with. My family owns and runs a business and we don't have issues with federal laws and Taxes as Republicans claim. What is killing us is local bureaucracy and corruption as well as insurance hikes that are out of control.

This is why Republicans want States in charge. Because they can hide corruption more easily when it is not localized. I live in America and am loyal to America not a given state. I want a UNITED States not a DIVIDED States.”

tumorimmunologist on Nov 4, 2011 at 11:32:25

“We will just never agree. I am an idealist in that I believe if the people are given back power (through campaign finance reform) then government can work for our benefit again. You are an idealist in that you believe the free market will act in our best interests or somehow end up doing what is best for the country.

I don't believe that corporations are patriotic (not what they are there for) and therefore need to be regulated in order to protect the countries interests. I believe a true free market can benefit us all (Like what we had in the 50s when the balance between free market and regulations were at there best). I also believe that we no longer have a free market and that corporations and monopolies through heavy lobbying have created a monopoly friendly government that allows siphoning of money and power to the top. We need to bust the monopolies and get the market moving again. We need to regulate trade because it is not in the Americans interests to try and compete with people who do not play by our rules. We should not try and get rid of our rules in order to beat them to the bottom.”
Rand Paul Amendment To Eliminate Federal Funding For Bike Lanes Defeated

Rand Paul Amendment To Eliminate Federal Funding For Bike Lanes Defeated

Commented Nov 3, 2011 at 15:01:50 in Politics

“No, I love alternative energy. Research away. I do believe though that the government fails in a lot of the programs it attempts (establishing democracies in the Arab world, Department of Education, War on drugs, Social security, balancing the budget, US postal service, stopping the influence of corporations in the government). Therefore I would prefer the government to stay out of the business of reallocating my money to companies who gave money to politicians. But no, long term I agree. Renewable energy is cool.”

Davidlf on Nov 4, 2011 at 16:46:06

“What are you smoking? Social security gave senior citizens lives and has been/is a huge success. You have a serious defect somewhere not to understand that SS is a massive success. Everything being said now was said before, the only difference is the people who said it before, now happily receive Social Security every month. The same will be true in another 30 years. The post office? The post office is suffering currently from an absurdly overfunded pension, give them back the money that shouldn't be tied up and they are fine.

I'm not crazy about gov't of by and for the corporation, but ya gotta get yer facts straight if you want to be taken seriously. Our debt is an issue, but not a pressing one when our economy is in the shape it is. Our debt is currently subsidized. We borrow money below the cost of inflation. Anyone who can do that and doesn't - isn't very smart.”
Rand Paul Amendment To Eliminate Federal Funding For Bike Lanes Defeated

Rand Paul Amendment To Eliminate Federal Funding For Bike Lanes Defeated

Commented Nov 3, 2011 at 14:58:09 in Politics

“Well we can't afford them. On Halloween our debt exceeded GDP. That means we have no money. And America's "safe"ty is at greater risk of the economy crashing the bicyclist. Not to mention that creating bike lanes is a constitutionally defined role of the federal government.

Besides that though, this is not a "mean-spirited" action. This is a fiscally conservative action. Mean-spirited would be saying Paul barely knows where the bathrooms are.

And our government is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's robbing 53% of the entire American population to pay 47%.

Again these are my opinions based off the idea that we are spending too much. Priority 1 in my mind is fix the spending. If spending goes down, jobs will increase. Your guys' priorities are obviously different, so of course we will disagree on what is important, but to call it mean spirited is a misnomer.”

Stephen Stafford on Nov 3, 2011 at 15:34:45

“There are simple solutions such as increasing revenue and getting corporations and the rich to pay higher rates. Most people are in favor of these actions.

Nobody is being robbed. If you can pay taxes you are blessed to have such resources.

The people who favor the sort of actions you espouse are typically mean and nasty, and express little concern for others beyond telling them what they can or cannot do. During this Administration, they have been associated with all manner of obstructionist, regressive, reactionary attitudes and behaviors, in my view. These things are reflected in these stingy attitudes towards spending.

Again, this nation is not broke, and there is plenty of money and resources available.”
Rand Paul Amendment To Eliminate Federal Funding For Bike Lanes Defeated

Rand Paul Amendment To Eliminate Federal Funding For Bike Lanes Defeated

Commented Nov 3, 2011 at 14:36:13 in Politics

“Or just use the roads the cars previously occupied.”

jdmn17 on Nov 3, 2011 at 15:40:26

“Too many potholes and the bridges around here in MN fall down without notice.”
Rand Paul Amendment To Eliminate Federal Funding For Bike Lanes Defeated

Rand Paul Amendment To Eliminate Federal Funding For Bike Lanes Defeated

Commented Nov 3, 2011 at 14:35:37 in Politics

“Well it does address the deficit. Instead of adding to the deficit by paying for 2 things, he is taking funds that are already allocated to something that is not needed and putting it towards something that is. Rand does address jobs. Jobs are created by the private sector through production. If simply paying people for tasks that don't actually produce anything created wealth, then yes creating bike paths would make sense. So would paying people to tear down the Hoover Dam and put it back up again, but that doesn't actually create wealth.”

tumorimmunologist on Nov 3, 2011 at 16:35:05

“1. Bike lanes are also construction projects and "produce something." Just because you do not use them doesn't mean other Americans don't.
2. If you truly support infrastructure projects in order to create jobs then I am sure you supported Obama's Jobs bill and his previous efforts to fund infrastructure projects right? Rand is still just a sham politician trying to push his weight around.”
Rand Paul Amendment To Eliminate Federal Funding For Bike Lanes Defeated

Rand Paul Amendment To Eliminate Federal Funding For Bike Lanes Defeated

Commented Nov 3, 2011 at 11:23:50 in Politics

“Are you guys serious? You have a very finite self-centered picture of our entire economic situation right now. Rand Paul is addressing a bigger issue. We have a 14 trillion dollar deficit and we need to cut spending. Yes, bike lanes make traveling on bikes a lot safer, but that won't really matter when our huge debt crashes the entire economy. What Rand is doing is prioritizing spending. There is no money, so where should cuts come from? Social security checks or bike lanes? All he wants to do is redirect money for new projects to areas that need repair. This is actually a pretty responsible decision.”

Stephen Stafford on Nov 3, 2011 at 14:26:40

“We need these things and can well afford them. The situation is not dire as you present it. We need to spend on things that improve and make America safe. The nation is yet quite prosperous.

This deficit business cannot be allowed to be the excuse for mean spirited and misguided budgetary actions. This spending has been approved and budgeted. Paul barely knows where the bathrooms are, and is not fit to second guess established legislative action.

Should he be interested in repair, he ought to mark up a bill and get the repairs done, deficit or not.Our government should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul.”

GrabBagMind on Nov 3, 2011 at 12:47:14

“The"bigger issue" which has entirely eluded you. Similary I suppose you consider research into alternative energy sources a luxury in the current ecomonic climate. This is the sort of short sidedness that will cause the country emourmous woe inthe future.”

jdmn17 on Nov 3, 2011 at 11:47:45

“Maybe when the economy really tanks people will have to put away their cars and then the bike paths will be perfectly suited for alternative modes of transportation”

tumorimmunologist on Nov 3, 2011 at 11:39:37

“Maybe if he would focus on jobs then we could have bike paths and work. I am sure he would rather we couldn't afford a car and therefore could not travel to protest, even on a bike. BTW this bill does not address the deficit, as you claim, since he is only trying to re-divert the funds to something else.”