“As to how much money it will cost, today it will cost 450 billion (out of the very tax payers pockets that he claims he will give jobs to) . But when it is all said and done, it will probably be closer to a trillion dollars. Wasn't one round of stimulus programs enough? I agree with this comment in that Obama truly has no plan that he can back up without causing further damage to our economy. We do not need another stimulus that will end up in the hands of special interest groups and select individuals pockets. If he truly wants to help the economy he can strive to have government employee salries and benefits cut (which isn't going to happen since he just raised his advisors' saleries between 15% to as much as 80%) Vote this man out and find somebody who can at least give this country a fighting chance.”
Honest Babe on Sep 9, 2011 at 01:29:41
“He could tell you that the sky is blue and you would still argue with it. You are a part of the problem. There should be something he has done that you approve of if you are a thinking person, yet you are unable to do anything more than carp. If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem.”
“Though it is disapointing to see them skip out on meetings they should be attending, at the same time can you really blame them? After all, this speech will merely be Obama uttering more pointless statements that he will not hold up unless it helps keep him in power. This man from day one has spewed so many lies, broken so many promises, forced so many bills through congress that the majority of Americans disagree with, insulted those who do not agree with him while at the same time blaming the GOP for not being bipartisan; is it little wonder why people from the opposing party do not want to waste their time listening to Obama.”
“It wouldn't be too difficult when you think about it. There are so many little laws that nobody really thinks about, such as walking on the wrong side of the crosswalk (yes this is really a law in some places), not having your car lights on, etc.”
“I agree with this line of thought. Anytime somebody gets pulled over/arrested for a violation of the law whether it be a traffic violation or a criminal offense, their status should be checked regardless of a person being white, black, etc. This would make it so it is not an issue of race, and strictly an issue of law.”
“I think most have already said it, but lets rehash just in case it was missed. How did Obama cause this, instead of discontinuing Bushe's bad policies (i.e. bailouts and other similar practices) he continued them and broadened them. He somehow managed to increase our national debt by about 33% in less than four years, which is more than any other president in their whole presidency. He launched so called recovery stimuleses which was little more than money to be used for special interest groups. He and his family have taken several private vacations/get togethers on the tax payers money, the most infamous perhaps was when his wife and one of his daughters went to Spain for shoping, and as a side note to visit a dignitary. He insisted multiple times to raise the debt celing in his presidency while saying back in 2006 it was a mark of failure in leadership for Bush to do so. Now our credit rating has been downgraded thanks to his refusal to take the steps neccesary to get us out of this debt crisis.
So should I keep going, or does this give an indication on how Obama caused this.”
“Kinda tells you something doesn't it. To have the U.S. Treasury Secretary not pay taxes is the epitome of "do as I say, not as I do" which equates to poor leadership. This man needs to be replaced, and then thrown into jail for violating tax laws.
Of course we seem to have many politicians from both sides of the fence that seem to follow the "do as I say, not as I do" philosiphy. Frankly we need to vote most of them out and get some people that are actually going to help us, and not just live off our hard earned money.”
“Seriously. This was hardly a victory for anybody. We have simply delayed new taxes for an ever increasing and ever spending government that has spent more in less than four years than any other leader in all of their time. Because republicans didn't hold the line insiting that the government take fiscal responsiblity and not go further into debt, we will soon see new taxes in ever increasing amounts, which will mean less spending, and fewer jobs, and ultimately ruin our economy.”
Aaron Calhoun on Aug 2, 2011 at 13:02:15
“I couldn't disagree more with the implications of your comment.
“As to whats different (though I hated Bush for all the stupid things he did in this area, especially in his last year) the fact that Obama has spent more in less than 4 years what Bush did in all of his 8 years.”
Nighthawk1 on Aug 6, 2011 at 18:33:44
“The Bush tax cuts alone are 1.8 trillion. Obama spending is 1.44 trillion. Total Bush spending 5.07 Trillion. Why don’t you get on the next spaceship returning from the moon, on second thought, stay where you’re at.”
“Isn't it funny that when somebody suggest that everybody get equal treatment, in this case taxes, so many people scream that it is absurd and unfair. I think it would be great if there were a flat tax rate for everybody.”
Pool Guy on Jul 26, 2011 at 17:59:08
“Some people only want equal rights when it’s to their advantage.”
procrustes13 on Jul 26, 2011 at 17:57:45
“When people are fined for breaking some bylaw what is the purpose, allegedly? It's punishment, isn't it. Isn't it slightly different punishment to fine a billionaire $500 and to fine someone who makes $10,000 a year $500, isn't it? So clearly there's not equal treatment there. It's also self-evident that the first dollar made is not the same as the millionth doillar made, and clearly they must not be taxed at the same rate. Businesses are not taxed on anything other than profits, the operating costs are taken into account. The same goes with people. The money to keep people alive, to feed, clothe, shelter and do the things required to keep healthy and able to work must not be taxed - what comes after can and should be.”
“Would it be such a bad thing if programs like social security went away? Before you jump on me for saying such a thing think about this. It would be one less payment we all would have to make, and we would have the freedom to chose how to use our money that would have been spent on SS, and not feed that money into a program that is showing signs of failing, proving that it is not a sure thing. For all those that have paid into it, they should definitely get their money back somehow, but it seems Obama would sooner threaten to cut Social Security before ever thinking about cutting back on other government expenses such as more limousines, more vacations, more benefits for government workers, etc. , etc.”
“Its funny how they reffer to programs such as social security, medicade, and medicare, as entitlement programs when they in fact are not. We as citizens were forced back in the 1930's by a different Democrat President, FDR, to be part of this program, as well as many others. We as citizens have to pay a certain amount of each dollar we make into this program. If they truly want to cut of entitlement programs, so be it. But these are programs that we have been forced to pay into with the promise that it would be paid back in time.”
badman400 on Jul 25, 2011 at 20:29:52
“Mostly correct. And it was also promised by FDR adn our government that not one penny of the Social Security or Medicare funds would be touched by our government. Now the coffer is empty except for a bunch of pretty worthless IOUs and what's deducted from paychecks this month. Our SS and Medicare programs are "living from week to week." And the politicians continue to lie...and the people continue to fall for it...”
Crthompson2010 on Jul 25, 2011 at 19:57:25
“Medicaid is an entitlement program...Check the facts on that...It has a set of criteria used to determine who is allowed benefits.
All on SS have not put money into the system...For them this is an entitlement that was later added.”
“Sorry, the numbers just don't add up to your statement. Our National Debt has increased as much as in Buhses 8 years in less than 3 years of Obama.”
kaykaythere on Jul 25, 2011 at 19:56:45
“Not if you add in the wars (which Bush kept off the books) and Medicare D( which Bush Kept off the books) and so many other things Bush kept off the books. See being from Texas and learning math there he actually thought that if it wasn't written down in the book of bills, no money was owed.
SO Obama PUT those things on the books.
But facts elude you I am sure.”
Dave Yost on Jul 25, 2011 at 19:53:43
“Libs lie but with the net those days are ending.”
cica1018 on Jul 25, 2011 at 19:52:17
“But Bush started two wars off the books, meaning that Obama had a higher budget on the books than Bush without passing one law, just from factoring in Bush's wars.”
“It's funny you see it that way. When you break it down you are actually calling our founding fathers and the constitution extremists and anarchists, which they were far from. For your first word 'God' Our first amendment provides that we have freedom of religion, with the note that religion cannot violate the laws we abide by. To the word 'Guns' we are given the right to bear arms in the second amendment, which is essential for any free people. Because if the government, controls the guns, they, as well as criminals, can do whatever they want without fear of retaliation. To the word 'Liberty' I am aware you are using it in the sarcastic tone to complete your comment, which the first amendment grants you with freedom of speech. But you when you think about it, is it not essential for a nation to truly have liberty, and for the people to be free in name and deed, that they are granted certain rights to protect them from would be oppressors. I am inclined to disagree with your comment that such view are extreme and anarchists, but rather essential for a free people.”
“So being responsible and living within one's means is stupid? Frankly the stupitidy of both Republicans and Democrats in the last two decades (and one could argue everey president since the inception of a national debt) have set the stage for the crisis we are facing right now. We effectivley swept our national debt under the rug believing that we would could ignore it and it would not effect us. Well, now there is no room under the rug, or whole house for that matter, to sweep the debt under. No president or congress has had the good sense to start reducing our national debt so that the only debt we carry is in the form of loans to other countries, or times of real emergency such as war, always with a plan to pay it back. Instead all our leaders have continued to put it on the government tab, and made no plans to pay it back. Today we face a crisis, and if we don't start making plans to pay of this debt now it will economically ruin us.
So I disagree with you comment. While I certainly blame the Republicans as much as the Democrats for setting up the conditions for today, I am glad to see that the Republicans are willing to admit that something has to be done if we truly want to solve our debt crisis.”
“I think that is a great idea. We definenitley need a fresh start with so many incompetent and corrupt individuals on both sides of the fence. Frankly I don't think the government defaulting right now is such a bad thing. What is the worse that could happen; we stop paying for programs we can't afford right now, government officials no longer get pay, we all open our eyes and see that we need real change as opposed to the facade of "change" Obama has been touting. This will force us to get things in order and perhaps next time round get a system that is more responsible and can sustain itself.”
“It is usefull when the law is used for what it was meant for, such as roads, other tranportation issues, and certain other things that benifit the state as a whole. But unfortunately, much like this article, private companies want to abuse the system and enact eminent domain when it does nothing but benifit themselves. Frankly if the owners have mineral rights (which I am sure they do) then they should go to court and shove it in the oil company's face saying they don't own the dirt underneath and have no right to build there.”
“There is a difference in thse two situations. A freeway is something that is used to benift the state as a whole, while this Pipline is for a private company. Eminent domain gives the state the right to build on anybody land which generally results in a forced sale (and usually for much less than one could get on the market) and the structure/project being built must be justifiably benifiting the state as a whole (and as your example points out it is usually for transportation) Eminent domain does not give the right for a private company to build on your land for something that is not considered to benefit the state as a whole. There are of course individual cases in which states have ruled in favor of private companies, but generally the rule against them, such as a landmark case in Arizona where Ace Hardware wanted to purchase land on the corner of a fairly busy intersection. They needed the land that an old auto shop had, and the auto shop refused to sell. Ace Hardware wanted to enact eminent domain saying that they would benifit the public as a whole, but since they were a private company and were only benfiting themselves the court ruled against them.”
Daffhouse on Jul 20, 2011 at 23:17:41
“bdkenney29. excellent post. But...... while the original intent of ED was as you state, it, through legislation, and the courts become something entirely different. Example: In several States recently there have been cases, MOST won (as opposed to your Az story of ONE bus owner) of the State and/or City claiming ED to build a shopping mall, hi-rises, a park, etc. The politics and chance to make some big money enter into it strongly. Is the taking of land for a State or National Park valid? Some think that ED means ALL the land is owned by the State (generic here). I think they took the land from ranchers in Az for border patrol. And, don't forget that the taxes are a big source for the State. While the pipe line only passes through the folks farm and the state, you can bet your sweet biffy that TransCanada, or whomever, is going to pay a fee. (See Alaska).
We had a piece of land and some homes taken over to build a new school. Is that for the benefit of the state as a whole? It means property taxes may go up, and for those with no school aged, or any, children within the parcel they took may be "second class" citizens. Tis a very sticky thing, but, IMHO, you MUST take the emotions out of it as that is what the State and the Courts will do.”
“What part of "tax one group and they will pass the expense on to everybody else" don't you understand. As for all these people screaming for people to carry their fair share of the load, then shouldn't everybody be taxed the same?”
“That is a good point. We should be careful of the Federal government superseding state laws when power is not directly given to them in the Constitution, regardless of our individual opinions on this issue.”