marks2065

Really? Well, if you do run a business, you know that the goal of a business is to make money and to grow. So a dramatic tax increase, followed by a rapid expansion of government would be to your liking, because it would be "good business" for the government? I don't think so. Government is not a business. They are not there to make money. They are there to serve US. So it's a very good thing that Obama isn't going to try to turn the US into a business. I'd rather have a well-run government than a big moneymaking business in Washington. >The government doesn't have the right to tell a company who to hire and >how much to pay them. If I (a taxpayer) support them, damn right I (through the government) can tell them what to do. If they don't like it they don't have to take the money. Do you have the right to tell your employees what to do? If so, aren't you just as bad as Obama? QuoteWe don't work for Obama, he works for us. The American people are Obama's boss. Obama is NOT our boss. So yes I do tell my employees what to do during the time that I am paying them.

The "government" is supposed to work for ALL of our best interests and not special interest groups (this includes business owners). The VAST majority of Americans are not business owners and the recovery can't only work toward the benefit of business owners.

YES!!!!!!!! Well, clearly YOU do. I was asking people that might know what they're talking about. I think Congress has overstepped it's Constitutional authority. Not just in the bailouts, but in a lot of things. If I disagree with you, does that mean that I'm just one of those people who doesn't know what I'm talking about?

Very funny. Do you know what the Daily Kos is? (Apparently not). The AIG bailout was started under the Bush administration and coordinated by Bush's Treasury Secretary. As far as losing ground is concerned, you do not seem to be correct: www.gallup.com/poll/112006/Gallup-Daily-Confidence-Obama.aspx

.

I don't remember my "example" involving an earthquake, Bill, or anything else from your fantasy. Good job Bill.

Some Alaska facts since there seem to be some wild ass assumptions going around- Alaska is 2.2 times the size of texas. If it was to cut its self in half Texas would be the 3rd largest state. Alaska is also one of the most underpopulated states. At less that 700,000 people for the whole state, if they didn't have federal funds to help out with infrastructure, they would be taxed out of existence. A lot of Alaskan residence can no longer work. With more and more of Alaska being labeled as a "National Monument" "Park", "Wild life preserve" or "Rain forest" (Tongas National forest, the south eastern pan handle, is a rain forest the size of NY state, and therefore, shut down to pretty much any industry but tourism) most of the jobs have left Alaska. The waters are even starting to be fished out by Canadians and Japanese. Starting in 1990 (approx.) King salmon tags had to be issued out similar to deer tags to control the take. Also, Alaska has some of the largest indian reservations in the US. With the population of the state so low and spread out, the indians can't sustain themselves with casinos. As for the money each alaskan get, the budget works like this- The state spends a year pumping oil and puts the money in the bank. That is the money the state gets for a budget the following year. As the money sits there waiting to get spent, it collects interest that gets divided up among the residents in the form of a permanent fund. In terms of government, it really isn't that much money. So yes, she will take what she can get and she will not take the bait and commit to more than she can afford with all the strings attached to the money. Alaska has some unique issues but it also has a balanced budget and this is one alaskan who is glad to see that my state is not turning into another California. I think she is doing a great job, other than my town is still waiting for its bridge. Blue skies, Jim

HISTORY (which doesn't appear to be one of your strengths) shows that RED states on average take rather more of federal tax dollars than blue states. The RED states are the welfare states. Even if Alaska turns down ALL of the stimulus money it will STILL be getting more tax money back than it sends to Washington.

And that's a valid attitude. But it's also the reason we spend so much money. (BTW while Alaska surely isn't as developed as the rest of the US, it's still a beautiful state. It's not a 'hole!') > but we know most states(especially the blue states) will spend >the money and take what ever is left by other states. ?? The red states take in more than they pay in taxes; the blue states pay more in taxes than they take in. To put it another way, the working blue states pay for the red state's welfare.

Why would we make any? It was an insensitive comment. But I'm glad to hear that your tolerance level for such comments is very low. I'll be sure to remember that for future reference. Unless of course you're simply not allowing a crisis to go to waste for political gamesmanship's sake. No gamesmanship here. I am truly offended that my president would make such a remark publicly and I believe it says a lot about his ability - or lack thereof - to behave appropriately for the situation. If you knew me you would know that my "tolerance for such comments" is actually very high. It's my tolerance for seeing my president do it in front of the world that I have no tolerance for. Some of us still feel a sense of deep respect for the office, even if we don't agree with the person filling it.

so you'll harass and intimidate any of your workers who want to unionise?

your facts are wrong... http://www.alternet.org/workplace/131456/americans_are_rearing_for_a_fight_with_corporate_power/?page=entire

GM claimed to spend $1700 in medical costs per car made, which suggests that either they're lying, or you made up the 10% number. Or you're packing "overhead."

Err...one administration isn't 2 months old yet, so any attempt to correlate the two is silly (or partisan). Plus Bush got the false boost for presiding over us getting blown up - any foreign policy event, good or bad, boosts Presidential ratings. Should Obama make a second term, it's the comparison there that would be more significant.

Quotewith the government programs now in effect to maintain safe and good working conditions, min wages, and employee insuance like workers comp, the only thing the union can do is lobby for wages and benifits. Wages and benifits are what is killing the companies. the unions cause the dead wait to stay around to long causing lower effiency of the company. the unions still do some good, but the good it does is smothered by the problems they cause to the company. The vote should be private and unions really need to scale back their pressure tactics and let the companies work to regain strength so they can become more viable in todays word market. Or they can disapear along with the jobs and the company.

Jeane...you got that kind of backwards ya know. The other way didn't work out so good AH..now there is the typical sexist response I would expect from a rabid right wing conservative. You should be oh so proud of yourself for upholding the best that people like you have.

Don't forget congress.