Too bad you weren't protesting "irresponsible spending" during the
Bush reign. Do you know how much those "wars" cost? Do you know that
Bush borrowed hundreds of billions from China to finance the wars? Do you know
how much money has been wasted on fraudulent payments to Halliburton/KBR?
I'm sure most Utahns, who voted for Bush twice, didn't think much at
all about those little details.Please try to be respectful of the
will of the American people and especially be respectful of this wonderful,
amazing leader and President we are so fortunate to have in Barack Obama!And don't be a poor sport, I've witnessed enough of that from
Utah's "extra patriotic" sore losers the last four years to make me
really embarrassed to admit I come from Utah.
But $4,000,000,000,000 (that is 4 Trillion) on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was
necessary?At least when you buy an unnecessary luxury item, you have
something to show for it.The R and the D love to spend money that we
don't have. And they are happy to pass on the costs to future generations
to pay back.And those staunch party people only complain about the
spending on the other side.
I'm sorry, but this letter borders on bizarre. Maybe defense, education,
roads, parks, law enforcement, and so forth are also luxuries. This letter shows
an attitude of "I have mine and you are on your own." As long as you get
what you want without having to pay an appropriate amount of taxes, then you are
happy. My biggest problem with the Republicans is the narcissism that is at
their core. Reading letters like this drive me further away from what the GOP
stands for, because it will surely take the nation into destruction.
So sir, I suggest you give the 1.1 million auto workers who still have jobs and
can go to work everyday and earn a living for their families a call to see if
they think their jobs are luxuries we can't afford. Monies borrowed were
at 0% interest and have help create 4.5 milion private sector jobs..now
that's a trickle theory you can believe in. Regarding your
impending doom..asked if he would take a 10 to 1 cuts to revenue increase debt
reduction deal, Romney said no. What President ever has not used both cuts and
revenue increases to manage the debt? It's hardly a radical idea..except
in Romneys head.
I would argue the exact opposite. We could not afford to not do those
things.If we failed to help the auto industry, unemployment would
have sky rocketed. Not just in auto producing, but in all the industries that
rely on it. This in turn would have resulted in even more people on the
government dole, and really no place to find jobs. You take the auto industry
from detroit, where do they find jobs? Saving the auto industry kept those
jobs, introduced measures to make these companies more viable and profitable.
It was an investment that paid off.If we fail to anything about
health care, more people will continue to go bankrupt. Who pays that cost? The
taxpayer. We pay the cost of people being unable to afford healthcare, when
someone loses a home, we the taxpayer pay for that.These are
investments we had to make.
How about tax cuts for millionaires? Apparently, as with Bush, Romney and Ryan
seem to believe that the single biggest problem in our country, the single most
important national priority, the number one thing we need to address before we
address any other issue, is that our rich people aren't rich enough. All
our other problems will vanish, if only the wealthiest people were just that
The federal government is restrained from saving car companies and banks. It is
restrained by the little known and little respected document called the
CONSTITUTION! The Constitution didn't stop Obama from
"socializing" G.M. He ignored the Constitution and gave G.M. to the
Unions. He ignored the laws of the land when he gave G.M. a tax credit against
FUTURE earnings. He lied to us when he said that G.M. had paid back the TARP
funds used to "buy" it. G.M. used about $7 billion of other TARP funds
to repay a small part of another TARP loan. Everything about G.M. stinks.
Obama simply paid off unions for their help in electing him. If that is not
political corruption, then what is? We cannot afford Obama. We
cannot afford his graft. We cannot afford his ideas. We cannot afford his
principles. He has ignored the Constitution, even though he calls himself a
"Constitutional Expert". He refuses to duty his duty to enforce the
laws passed by Congress, instead he tells the justice department to ignore those
laws that he does not like.Obama is a "luxury" that we
Mike R: Since you are the Utah arbiter of what the Constitution allows and
doesn't, surely you must be aware that "graft" would meet the
Constitutional definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors". Hence the
overwhelmingly Republican House of Representatives could deliver a bill of
impeachment against the President. Since it would appear that the GOP has no
intention of doing any such thing currently, I would suggest you come forward
with your proof of graft by the duly elected chief executive of the nation or
cease and desist with your slander.
No complaints at all about Medicare Part D or 2 unfunded idiotic wars. It's
just useless to even try to talk to these people...
Oh I don't know. Keeping jobs from exiting the US seems like letting the
fisherman fish after you taught him to fish and healing the sick? Is that really
a luxury?When we spend a trillion dollars a year on warplanes,
missles and satelites to aid in killing people can we really say we are broke?
Grover,Read the tax laws that PROHIBIT a tax credit on FUTURE
EARNINGS after a bankruptcy. Read what Obama did to set aside that law.
It's public knowledge. You can easily find it on the Internet.As for impeachment, the House could easy impeach Obama, but the Senate would
do just as it did with Clinton. The corruption goes deep. The
House and the Senate get their funds, in large part, by passing laws that are
extra-constitutional. In other words, if they limited themselves to the
enumerated duties, the Federal Government would not have Obamacare, or Social
Security or Medicare or Medicaid or any other "social program". Those
"duties" are not enumerated in the Constitution; therefore, those
"duties" are to be left to the States or to the People. There is no
provision for "personal welfare" in the Constitution.That is
a very simple concept; yet you and others, who support Obama and big government,
either can't grasp it or refuse to abide by the Supreme Law of the Land.
Without law we are nothing. It's easy to see that Obama is turning this
nation into "nothing".
"The federal government is restrained from saving car companies and banks.
It is restrained by the little known and little respected document called the
CONSTITUTION! "I think he just took his queue from Ronald Reagan
who bailed out Chrysler.Or maybe he got the idea from Bush who
started the bank and auto bailout.I guess it is only
unconstitutional when a democrat does itReminds me of a recent
saying."It takes some brass to attack a guy who did what you
By 2019, nearly 50% of the national deficit will be from two Bush policies. (Source: http://bit.ly/NKPeFc)If you really care about the
national deficit, you should vote for Obama. - Under Obama annualized
federal spending growth is the slowest in multiple decades (1.4% for Obama, vs.
8.1% and 7.3% for Bush), 8.7% for Reagan) (Source: http://bit.ly/MnmUcR)-
Bush's policy decisions led to $5.07 trillion dollars in deficit; while
Obama's policy decisions projected for the same time period will contribute
$1.44 trillion. (Source: http://nyti.ms/qF1lNe)- The unfunded Bush wars
and tax cuts alone will account for nearly 50% of the overall national deficit
by 2019 (Source: http://bit.ly/NKPeFc)How is Romney's plan
different from Bush's? Answer is it is not. In fact, it is not really any
different than what Republicans have said for multiple decades. (Source:
http://bit.ly/SZsHLn)If you really care about national deficits,
please help me understand how a vote for Romney / Ryan makes sense?
After the previous automobile company "bailouts", who owned those
companies, the original stockholders or the government?That is the
issue here. Obama seized two car companies from private ownership and gave them
to the government. Doing that is illegal. What's next? Will the
government take ownership of the company that employs you (assuming that you
don't already work for the government)? If you OWNED a company
and the government took your equity in YOUR company and gave it to unions and to
Canada, how would you feel? Obama did that. Do you fully understand it? Obama
did that.He truly is a luxury that we can't afford.
Correction of my previous post. The legislation was signed in 1980 just before
Reagan took office.There are many instances of bailouts in the
history of the US. They have been done by R and D. Dont make it
sound like Obama invented the concept.
saving thousands of jobs is now a luxury?
@mike and J so when did baring false witness become a Christian value?
Obama did not socialist GM or the banks or allow the government to take them
over. You both repeat lies so often now that I think you actually believe they
are true, which seems like a very strange value system to me.
If Gm bankrupted, it would have been a depression. Hoping for economic problems
to obtain political power is unpatrotic.
phranc,Okay, have it your way. Obama STOLE G.M. and Chrysler from
the stockholders without paying them. That is against Amendment 5 of the
Constitution: ". . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
just compensation." What "just compensation" did the Government
give to the stockholders? There had to be something of value, because the
government gave a huge portion of G.M. and Chrysler to the Unions. What tax
credits did the Stock Holders receive against FUTURE PROFITS that they may earn?
The unions received BILLIONS in tax credits - all illegally.----Socialism: "Socialism is an economic system where the means of
production, such as money and other forms of capital, are owned by the state or
public."G.M. and Chrysler are both owned by the State. They are
the means of production. They represent capital expended by the people that was
seized by the government.YOU may object to my use of Socialism, but
the dictionary agrees.
Past tax cuts for he super wealthy were also unaffordable luxuries.Ensuring the burden of fixing our nations financial mismanagement
doesn't fall exclusively on the poor andmiddle class is necessary.
However only democrats and'evil' socialists can be counted on to
ensure this doesn'thappen.
@mike richards Keep piling on the false witness Mike. Obama did not
steal from the stock holders GM came to the government and requested a loan
which the government extended them and they paid back. No take over no
Health care isn't a luxury. Everyone will need it sooner or later. In
addition, we can afford it. Because in this country, there's more money
than almost anywhere else in the world per capita going towards health care.
What we need to do is stop giving huge chunks of it to hospital and insurance
company profit margins. Health care and its' institutions are a service to
the citizens of the nation. Make the system a manifestation of the best in each
of us, owned by all of us. No one should profit from the sickness of another.
Health care can be delivered to and by the people. Health insurance should be
seen as the oxymoron it is.
Saving the auto industries and have universal health plan are affordable
necessities especially when our country has $188 trillion in total assets. It
something we can afford and have the means to do so.
The auto industry repaid the money, we, as taxpayers, didn't lose anything.
We also didn't lose one million jobs, and behind each of those jobs is a
family, not just numbers.
Tax cuts for the wealthy are the most luxurious. They all need a third and
fourth residence. The patriotic thing do was to cancel the cuts the moment the
unfunded Iraq war started. The next such war should be paid for by cash from
Nice to brag, but we all know that is all it is. Because how is the
Administration (btw they used our money to do it) saving GM and Chrysler through
manipulation of bankruptcy laws and massive government funding saving the
American auto industry? Strange thinking given the second largest US
headquartered manufacturer of autos received no such monies nor the benefit of
bankruptcy manipulation. Further, foreign based producers Honda, Toyota, Isuzu,
BMW, provide more American auto manufacturing jobs than GM or Chrysler and they,
also received no TARP funds, nor bankruptcy manipulation. And, how is making
Chrysler foreign owned (it is now owned by FIAT) considered saving an American
manufacturer, when these others are not given that status? But, it is the season
for political rhetoric and the partisans need something to say even if it just
is not logical or true.