Why President Obama’s Amazon speech drew fire from GOP, booksellers

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Area 52 Tooele, UT
    Aug. 6, 2013 12:02 p.m.

    All of these posts written by our Liberal friends are truly Hilarious! It’s so plain as day, you can spiel numbers all day long and it still won’t fix the National Budget, Federal Spending, Loss of Personal Freedoms, Loss of Jobs, and etc… Liberals love to focus on the past especially on G.W. Bush. But BO has done more to destroy this country than any other president, and that is a FACT!!!!!!

  • David Centerville, UT
    Aug. 2, 2013 11:03 p.m.


    After presenting those numbers, it is sad to realize that Obama is even worse, isn't it?

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    July 31, 2013 3:33 p.m.


    Nixon was not aware of the break-in until AFTER it happened. he did NOT, as you say, try to fix a national election. Please do not fabricate "facts" to fit you agenda.

    the "Gap" has increased more under BO than anyone else. how's BO's trickle-up poverty working for you?

    BO has been a more consistent in his telling of untruths than any president in our history.

    BO's words and action have done more to destroy faith in the president than anything his distractors have said. Where were your protests when bush was lambasted daily?

    BO is doing more to show himself a fool than anything we can say. Where were your protests when bush was lambasted daily?

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 31, 2013 2:52 p.m.

    @UTCProgress Thanks for the data, though I suspect it will sail over the heads of the Obama haters. These data are facts which the Tea Party crowd will not face. We all to a certain degree look only at information which supports are own view. I am not immune. But in this case the facts are facts. Deal with it if you dare.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    July 31, 2013 2:26 p.m.


    Those irrelevant numbers when comes it how well the economy is doing. It assumes a set sized pie. But under capitalism the pie is always growing. So its is not percentage of wealth but how are the poor and middle class doing.

    And your point only serves to distract from truly relevent points, like that the economy under Obama is growing at a rate far worse than any president in history except maybe carter, FDR, and Wilson.

  • uintahutefan Fort Worth, TX
    July 31, 2013 12:37 p.m.

    I don't know about the rest of you, but I am much worse off under this president than I was under any other president, including the philanderer-in-chief Clinton. So, that being said, I keep going down further the "wealth distribution" hole under BHO. I cannot see what he has done to help me out. He has actually made it harder for me to pull myself up by my bootstraps. I am pretty sure that he won't be providing me with any opportunities either unlike some previous presidents.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    July 31, 2013 12:16 p.m.

    There is a very verifiable and simple truth that says a lot about president Obama. He knows next to nothing, or at least very little about macro-economics.

    When he came into office, our national debt was about $10 trillion. And since then, his spend and spend more policies have driven the national debt to $17 trillion (a 70% increase) and still raising it at over a trillion more per year. The interest on this staggering debt is in process of consuming our federal budget. By choosing to ignore his self-created problem, he is essentially kicking the can down the road for some future administration to deal with and that liberals will be anxious to blame when this house of cards finally collapses.

    And collapse it will! Economic laws can't be ignored any more than other laws. Because he doesn't seem to understand this, nor what additional government interference does to private business in our society of capitalism (which made us the predominant country on earth) is one of the primary reasons he shouldn't have been re-elected. But he was, and now the price must be paid... by all of us.

  • metamoracoug metamora, IL
    July 31, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    When chief justice Roberts and his liberal colleagues considered the mandate a tax, they seem to mean only the penalty a person must pay for not having health insurance. However, the mandate has two parts: the requirement to have coverage and the penalty — er, tax — for not getting it. Why aren’t both considered a tax?

    When George Stephanopoulos directly challenged the president on the mandate-as-tax question, he said, “Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?”

    And if both the premium and the penalty are considered a tax, the mandate becomes the largest tax increase in U.S. history. And that doesn’t include all of the other taxes imposed by the legislation.

    And because the cost of the coverage will be similar even though incomes vary significantly, the lower the income the higher the effective tax rate — in essence, the most regressive tax in U.S. history, too.

    If the President is so concerned about the middle income group, why do his actions say otherwise?

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    July 31, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    Distractions? Distractions don't come home in body bags Libs!

  • Larceny Rural Hall, USA, NC
    July 31, 2013 8:07 a.m.

    Thanks @Bobk

    I enjoy reading all of the comments mainly for the sensational slander of our own "Barry O." but I do find it tiresome sometimes how far it is taken. Let's completely destroy all faith in the President should not be the stand of anyone who seeks to really help the nation grow together and make progress.

    We should hold fast to our values, while at the same time attempt to help our President with prayers and with our VALID and REASONABLE opinions.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    July 31, 2013 3:42 a.m.

    This article seems to be about the unfortunately favorite subject "What can we write today to distort President Obama into a socialist fool?"
    The fact is that he inherited a recession, partly caused by extremely foolish wars that seemed motivated by gaining profits for certain corporations.
    Even the photo is unflattering.
    It is FINE to be conservative, but conservatism should not be about lying, spite, or looking down on groups of Americans

  • Elsombre Portland, OR
    July 30, 2013 10:29 p.m.


    When did you start believing that facts were any part of this conversation?

    I'm pretty sure that patriot, calculus and jp don't find themselves encumbered by facts.

    Or, if they had facts, maybe they post them here.

    Nah, that won't happen.

  • UTCProgress American Fork, UT
    July 30, 2013 9:23 p.m.


    You are as completely uniformed as you are biased.

    A couple of observations:

    - President Obama was correct in his statement that wealth distribution and the benefit of the economy has skewed toward the wealthy over the past decade. In 1983 the top 20% of income earners owned 81.3% of the private wealth, by 2007 this number had increased to 85%. The bottom 80% of income earners saw their share of private wealth drop from 18.7% to 15% in the same period. By 2010, the top 20% of income earners owned 88.9% of all wealth. So, tell me again how President Obama lied about this fact?

    - Conservatives love to call Obama the most dishonest President of all time. What a crock. Richard Nixon attempted to fix a national election and was on the verge of impeachment when he resigned. He is among the many Republicans who are much more dishonest than Barak Obama will ever be. (GW Bush and Ronald Regan being members of this club as well. Iran-Contra anyone?)

  • JP Chandler, AZ
    July 30, 2013 9:18 p.m.

    Please quit complaining so much. At least he showed up to work for once. After the weeks of golfing and vacationing, I thought we'd never hear from him again. Give him some credit.

  • ThornBirds St.George, Utah
    July 30, 2013 8:04 p.m.

    Oh, gloom and doom, the end is near, these predictions continue on and on.
    Wonder if there is ANYTHING President Obama can talk about that does not bring the whining and moaning to a fever pitch.

  • calcu_lus tucson, az
    July 30, 2013 4:51 p.m.

    The white non-Asian minority leader has spoken and the liberal lemmings will enthusiastically follow him over the fiscal cliff. After the policy fails, the increasingly poor liberal voters will then blame the conservatives for suicidal bullying and request monetary reparations.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    July 30, 2013 3:50 p.m.

    "Even before the crisis hit, we were living through a decade where a few at the top were doing better and better, while most families were working harder and harder just to get by."

    This is fundamentally false. The truth is that the middle class was doing much better BEFORE Barack came to office especially small business owners. Barack considers small business owners to be part of the evil rich and so the idea is to punish them as much as possible and that is exactly what Obamacare is doing. The Obama idea is to redistribute wealth to the LOWEST class of people ...those on generational welfare or fraudulent disability and thus 'buy' the votes of all the dead beats at the expense of the real worker bees.

    With Barack you have to ALWAYS think the opposite from what he says to even be close to the truth. The man is as dishonest a man as has ever lived in the White House.