Exactly who ‘makes enough money’ in Obama’s eyes?
“I do think,” you may have heard President Barack Obama say about a group of Americans last week, “at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”
And if you hadn’t heard it before now, you may be wondering who he was talking about.
Perhaps he was speaking to Hollywood — producer/directors such as George Lucas or Steven Spielberg, who were paid $170 million and $150 million, respectively, according to Forbes magazine’s 2009 list. Less generous, but still better than I and probably you, were Jerry Bruckheimer at $100 million and Atlanta’s Tyler Perry at $75 million. Or actors such as Harrison Ford ($65 million) or Adam Sandler ($55 million).
Then again, he might have been talking to America’s television stars. Dr. Phil (McGraw) pulled down $80 million, Forbes reports. Simon Cowell of “American Idol” was close behind at $75 million. And there’s Oprah, our highest-paid celebrity, at $275 million.
But Oprah is one of the president’s biggest backers, so let’s forget the big and little screens and turn to musicians. For all the challenges to that industry, Madonna managed to bring home $110 million. There’s Beyonce Knowles at $87 million; Bruce Springsteen, $70 million; Kenny Chesney and Dave Matthews Band, $65 million each; and a cool $60 million for the band Rascal Flatts.
I could mention athletes, but Tiger Woods was in a class of his own at $110 million (a figure he won’t match this year).
Oh, wait — maybe the operative words are “at a certain point”; Obama must have been talking about dead celebrities! It’s been half a century since Rodgers & Hammerstein put out a new musical, but their estates saw $235 million in new earnings. The King of Pop, Michael Jackson, with $90 million, and the King of Rock ’n’Roll, Elvis Presley, with $55 million, also did not do poorly posthumously.
Now, if you think it would have been odd for President Obama to scold celebrities in this way, you’re right. He was talking instead about businessmen – specifically, those who work in finance. Want to guess how many chief executives of financial companies in 2009, according to Forbes, earned as much as the 20 celebs I’ve listed here?
How about none?
In fact, the $2.4 billion in total earnings of the 100 highest-paid CEOs, regardless of industry, barely beat out the $2.1 billion of the twenty-five best-compensated celebs (living ones, that is). Just seven of those 100 CEOs worked in the financial industry.
I don’t begrudge Beyonce, Spielberg or Tiger — or the head of JP Morgan — the pay they receive. Nor do I begrudge Obama his $5.5 million in 2009 income — again, more than I and probably you.
So why does the president begrudge the same to others?
He claims that he doesn’t. The full quote from his Wednesday speech in Quincy, Ill., was:
“I want to be clear, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But part of the American way is you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or you’re providing a good service. We don’t want people to stop fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow the economy.”
The second sentence is the one that defines “fairly earned” for Obama. The man who as a candidate spoke of “spreading the wealth around” has found a matter he considers within his pay grade: other people’s pay.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
256 comments Add your comment
Jackalcrat
May 1st, 2010
11:03 am
“As Obama said in one of his books, capitalism is the enemy of good social policy.”
And there we have the mentality of the neo-Marxist modern progressive anti-American left. They will not be happy until everyone is in the same sized equal government-allocated communal apartment like good little Eastern Bloc dwellers. Then we’ll all go to work for the government and have an equal monthly paycheck. Doesn’t that sound like a winner for America’s future? More irony: idiots in America want to turn to the government and socialism and the Chinese are turning more towards capitalism.
Thought of the day as “immigrants” around the nation plan protests today over Arizona’s new law: if an illegal alien is an “undocumented immigrant” then a drug dealer is an “unlicensed pharmacist.”
Jackalcrat
May 1st, 2010
11:05 am
“An afterthought: Hannity and Boortz probably have a negative value to society.”
Bedwetter: I think the same can be said over CNN and the rest of the DNC main slime media.
Antiboortz
May 1st, 2010
11:07 am
Hey, Jackalcrat: Which Book, What Page in Which Edition. Citation Required. Where is the moderator?
Peter
May 1st, 2010
11:08 am
With all the talk Kyle……what do you think of the theory of “Consumption Tax” ?
So if you make all that money and want to say throw $15 mil into your house, or buy a big boat like Tiger’s, you pay tax’s for the luxury….and not get it as a write off.
Jackalcrat
May 1st, 2010
11:11 am
No further evidence of the crossroads this nation is at needs to be provided other than the lovers of State Control over what made America great (free enterprise). Fascist lovers need to be drawn out and exposed for what they are: America haters.
Jackalcrat
May 1st, 2010
11:14 am
“Hey, Jackalcrat: Which Book, What Page in Which Edition. Citation Required. Where is the moderator?”
When one of them gets taken to court for a lie or defamation of character, please call me. Until then, you made a comment and I made a comment. Both are OPINIONS. Oh, and for the record, I do love how CNN, MSNBC, and other Sunday “news” talk shows have a round table with three to five liberals and zero to one conservatives.
Now kindly return to wetting your liberal bed.
Michael H. Smith
May 1st, 2010
11:14 am
The other thing I begrudge is that the richest of the rich use these faux grassroots organizations to fund, and whip up, the tea-baggers into complaining about everything – hell, half the time they don’t even know what they’re mad about – other than having that black commie in the White House and ‘them fa&&ot, librals’ running the Congress – but they’re mad none-the-less.
What a piece of work.
No one on the left seems the least perturbed over George Sores and ilk using their riches to fund faux grassroots organizations to whip up the move on, code pink crowd that complains about everything they don’t know anything very much about – other than when their good socialist comrades are not controlling Congress and the White House?
Stick around lefties if you think Obumer is just going to tax hell out of the deserving rich. You guys have a reality shock coming when all your ignorant demagogy fails you. No need for you to apologize for your ignorant delusions then.
The truth is Obumer is not the one to judge when someone has made enough money. He made a very bad statement, then tried his best to correct it but really didn’t. Only the individual who is making the money has the right to say when and at what point they’ve made enough money – speaking within the framework of what is legal.
The rich also have the right to redistribute their wealth as they choose, not as Obumer would choose to redistribute it for them. As well, those who always seem to envy the rich for their wealth should consider that the rich usually give most if not all of their wealth away because they consider dying wealthy to be a sin.
How many of us on the left or right will give away all of what ever wealth we have to charity when or before we die?
Morrus
May 1st, 2010
11:17 am
Vote out the incumbents and start over
Antiboortz
May 1st, 2010
11:20 am
Why tax the rich? As “Slick” Willie Sutton famously replied when asked why he robbed banks, “Because that’s where the money is!”
Michael H. Smith
May 1st, 2010
11:26 am
what do you think of the theory of “Consumption Tax” ?
So if you make all that money and want to say throw $15 mil into your house, or buy a big boat like Tiger’s, you pay tax’s for the luxury….and not get it as a write off.
That is the way it should work, though I’m not completely sold on the consumption tax. What so many miss when talking about tax reform is that spending reform will have to take place before considering any type of equitable tax reform. Which will mean cutting the size, scope and cost of government, not simply cutting the rate of government growth. Yep, that means real pain and a great deal of GUB’MENT job loss, as rightly it should happen, when restructuring a government that is meant to work from the bottom up and not as now, incorrectly from the top down.
pg
May 1st, 2010
11:30 am
this column is alarmingly stupid.
really? the celebrities are the problem?
stupid.
Antiboortz
May 1st, 2010
11:33 am
Hey Jacklcrat: You don’t know which book, because I’ll wager you’ve not read one of them. I challenge you to read “The Audacity of Hope”. There you’ll find well reasoned, moderate, thoughts about how to better govern America.
And stop the infantile name calling. I know that Fixed News has given you precious little of substance and facts to work with, but name calling doesn’t contribute to discourse, and cannot possibly help make America a better place, you Chicken Hawk moron.
Tom
May 1st, 2010
11:36 am
Let’s see… back in the ‘good old days’ (as some call them) 50 years ago, there was a much higher marginal tax on mega incomes. That went away over time – and with its disappearance, expanded the chasm between the classes. The middle class is currently shrinking.
The risk is that with that widening gap, the ‘have nots’ get jealous, and grow in number. It’s easier for the middle class to fall into the ‘have not’ category, than to compete their way legitimately upward. Then happens the ‘let them eat cake’ syndrome – which ends up poorly for many…. history repeats…
The Obama Administration - Page 2
May 1st, 2010
11:39 am
[...] [...]
Michael H. Smith
May 1st, 2010
11:45 am
Since all this discussion centers on or is derived from the current attempts at financial reform, it would be worthwhile pointing out something that is missing here that determines fairness to all parties within the financial system. We probably don’t need the SEC and FTC or another agency heaped on top of them if the government made one clearinghouse agency to assign grades and values to all securities.
That is one of the things I like about Limited Purpose Banking, it will bust up any possible fraudulent collusion between a Goldman Sach and a Moodys assigning an investment grade to junk securities.
A Banking System We Can Trust
Laurence J. Kotlikoff and Edward Leamer
A new Federal Financial Authority (FFA)–would rate, verify, supervise custody, disclose and clear all securities purchased, held and sold by LPB mutual funds. Private rating companies could stay in business, but no one would need to trust them ever again.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/22/loan-mortgage-mutual-fund-wall-street-opinions-contributors-bank.html
Bill Sanford
May 1st, 2010
11:54 am
Very good article.
Obama and his “progressives” have the intention of implementing control in United States of America. He will need the help of the wealthy elites, and will need the votes of the non-taxpayers.
That leaves the middle-class… we are the ones that Obama intends on having to ask the question “how much is enough”? Of course, Obama was talking about money…
The REAL question of “how much is enough” applies to – Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Soros, and their regime of “progressives”. And I have had quite enough of this gang, thank you.
Vincent
May 1st, 2010
12:06 pm
Impartial analysis would conclude President Obama’s Marxist slip of tounge underscores his socialist impulses. No matter the angle, it’s an anti-capitalist rant. Who or what determines maximum income? The recipient, the innovator, the risk-taker, the investor, the employee. Only a free market and a rent seeker should have a say in the calculus of maximum income.
You Distort/We Deride
May 1st, 2010
12:09 pm
I agree with Obama. If you make over $250,000 a year, which I do, then you should shoulder a disproportionate amount of the burdens essential in maintaining the socio-economic environment that allowed you to earn that much money in the first place.
Do not confuse taxation of the wealthy with the benefits afforded the lazy. You’re combining two issues that are dissimilar in nature. The lazy of our country need to get off their sorry zzzes and contribute. We need to invest MORE money in the moderation and enforcement of our welfare state. Where were the Republicans in Congress on this issue from 1994 through 2006? Why wasn’t our porous welfare system addressed in those long 12 years? Where was Bush on this?
Banned By Cindy
May 1st, 2010
12:19 pm
The Audacity Of Hope HAHAHAHA. By some second-rate intellectual wanna-be who’s glory time is soon coming to a well-deserved crash and burn.
Instead, why don’t you read Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis
by the one of the great thinkers of modern times – Ludwig Von Mises.
Hillbilly Deluxe
May 1st, 2010
12:21 pm
Talking about sports stars and entertainers is comparing apples to oranges. Nobody has to go to a ball game or a concert or a movie. We have a choice in whether or not we give them our money. They can’t wreck the whole economy either.
cooperscopy
May 1st, 2010
12:25 pm
This president is on a crusade against wealth, as long as it’s not the wealth of those he benefits from, like the Hollywood celebs, and the George Soros’s of the world…..read: The divider in chief…..at……
http://cooperscopy.blogspot.com/
Banned By Cindy
May 1st, 2010
12:25 pm
$250,000, its a magic number decreed by magic people who know of magical insights into their magical society..
$250,000, it’s a special number decreed by overseers with the overseeing power of swat teams and prisons.
$250,000 is a butt-pulled number reeking of sh!t for brains who can’t help but exercise their own maniacal brand of authoritarianism over others.
250,000 creeeeeeam piiiiies. Doh.
Michael H. Smith
May 1st, 2010
12:28 pm
Do not confuse taxation of the wealthy with the benefits afforded the lazy. You’re combining two issues that are dissimilar in nature.
I don’t.
The lazy of our country need to get off their sorry zzzes and contribute.
Absolutely true.
We need to invest MORE money in the moderation and enforcement of our welfare state.
We need to invest in whatever will eliminate any such need of a welfare state to even have a reason ever exist!
Where were the Republicans in Congress on this issue from 1994 through 2006? Why wasn’t our porous welfare system addressed in those long 12 years? Where was Bush on this?
Out to launch with the corporatist outsourcing the wealth of this country over a plate of laissez-faire pottage.
So where is dear leader comrade Obumer and the Democrats?
Out doing a working launch re-inventing socialism, picking winners and losers in their corny elitist capitalism of redistributing whatever wealth is created or which might remain.
Frank
May 1st, 2010
12:34 pm
Just how do you make 5.5 million dollars as a public servant?
Michael H. Smith
May 1st, 2010
12:35 pm
Excuse the over excitement in misspelling “lunch”.
Dan Green
May 1st, 2010
12:50 pm
Any variation of socialism, paints a very pretty picture. Obama is all over the map, trying to get his vision explained. The entire doctrine of the left wing Liberal Democratic doctrine, clears things up. People should study it. It roots, it beliefs. Again nothing wrong with it, whether you agree, or disagree with it. It should however be clarified, and communicated. I had opportunity to interface with the United Steel Workers Union executives, and run a large facility, with them in control The rules were clear.
Bratty1
May 1st, 2010
12:59 pm
who the HELL cares what one “adds to society”. To HELL with the collective. I do not exist in this life to “add value to society”. I exist for me, and my goals. The rest of you should be doing the same.
Dave H
May 1st, 2010
1:31 pm
“Obama never held a job, godless heathen? Does being a constitutional law professor for 12 years not count?” He was a lecturer with no publishing obligation (and no legal publishing accomplished). Having held a similar position myself while also actually in practice, I’d have to say, no, that doesn’t count as a real job.
DavidM
May 1st, 2010
1:39 pm
Actually Obama was classified as a senior lecturer, never tenured, ergo not a law professor. During his time at the university he taught 3 classes a year.
Jackalcrat
May 1st, 2010
1:51 pm
“Hey Jacklcrat: You don’t know which book, because I’ll wager you’ve not read one of them. I challenge you to read “The Audacity of Hope”. There you’ll find well reasoned, moderate, thoughts about how to better govern America.”
Hey Boortzpig: I don’t waste my money on propoganda. By the way, if you think your beloved Teleprompter In Chief is a “moderate” as he ran on, then Bush was a Conservative.
By the by: why can’t you liberals ever get over Bush, FoxNews, Tea Party, and Palin? Clean out your own yard of liberal rubbish, lies, incompetence, deficit spending out of control, and cronyism before wetting yourselves over anything Republican.
I dare you.
But don’t you worry – you’ll find out what payback means with moderates who voted for Obama this November and in 2012.
Gator Joe
May 1st, 2010
1:56 pm
Kyle:
Most Liberals, which includes me, don’t have any problem with people making as much money as they can. Just don’t make it by exploiting workers and trashing the environment. That is, pay a living wage, provide safe and healthy working conditions, produce safe and healthy products, and finally don’t degrade our water, air, and land. And yes, pay your fair share of taxes.
Jackalcrat
May 1st, 2010
1:57 pm
Here’s the modern liberal mentality: make Queen Pelosi look about 30 years younger.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/blogs/yeas-and-nays/Vogue_-Cover-girl-Pelosi-looking-rather-airbrushed-in-D_C_-glossy-92327844.html
Kinda reminds me of this administration and lawyers running this nation telling us that 10+% unemployment is a good thing. (IE: reduces commuter carbon emissions, allows families to spend more time together, etc.).
Liberals really are the Baghdad Bobs of politics – and reality.
No More Progressives!
May 1st, 2010
2:02 pm
Mark C
April 30th, 2010
10:23 pm
You seem to have a hard time distinguishing between CEO’s and the people on Wall Street. Mostly they aren’t the same people. For example, David Tepper, formerly of Goldman Sachs, pulled down $4 billion in 2009 from managing his hedge fund. That’s right. One guy. One year. $4 BILLION. How did he do it? Largely by betting that the government wouldn’t let the banks fail. In other words, the whole too-big-to-fail thing.
Why do you think bright people go to schools like Wharton Business school and get an MBA in finance? Seems like he outsmarted the feds to me. That doesn’t mean I agree; it just means there’s always a way.
And I’m sure if you won $75MM in the lottery, you’d give most of it back. That’s just “too much.”
Jackalcrat
May 1st, 2010
2:02 pm
Jobs lost at Ely Power Plant –
$135,000,000 in sunk costs to be passed on to Nevada ratepayers (Very Soon)
1,600 Construction jobs lost to build the facilities in Ely
200 Operations jobs lost
Jobs lost at Yucca Mt- 1,200
2,500 Construction jobs lost to build the facilities at the Nevada Test Site
500 Operations Jobs
(Since Yucca is the law of the land, it still goes forward, but without the Nevada workforce. {Watch it return, like a zombie from the cemetery}
Lost corporate travel business from Obama’s anti-Vegas statements – 6 Large Corporate cancellations, and climbing (One hundred million dollars in impact so far).
Economic Stimulus bill supported by Reid allows the Government to BAN TRIPS TO VEGAS due to excessiveness. As the RJ stated, “ An amendment to the $787 billion economic stimulus bill could have some unpleasant fallout for Las Vegas”
All travel to Las Vegas from Federal agencies are now under the microscope!
(This is not the case for San Diego, Miami, New York, or anywhere else)
Massive cutbacks in flights to and from McCarren
20.0% or worse unemployment for Las Vegas! (Unemployed, forced part time, & quit looking)
Nevada was shortchanged on the crumbs that we did receive from this multi-billion dollar stimulus. Reid was to blame for our misfortune
Let us not forget what Harry specifically ensured what would NOT be in the bill,,, E-Verify. For those not familiar with it, it helps ensure that only legal U.S. citizens get jobs.
$1,000,000,000,000.00 in debt to be paid by current taxpayers and their kids
Harry Reid’s negative impact on Nevada and voter revolt,,,, PRICELESS !!!!
No More Progressives!
May 1st, 2010
2:08 pm
Gator Joe
May 1st, 2010
1:56 pm
That is, pay a living wage… How much is a living wage in dollars?
provide safe and healthy working conditions… You ever been through an OSHA audit?
produce safe and healthy products……….. The Chinese or the USA?
don’t degrade our water, air, and land. You ever heard of the EPA? RCRA? The Clean Water Act? The Clean Air Act?
I thought not.
No More Progressives!
May 1st, 2010
2:15 pm
You Distort/We Deride
May 1st, 2010
12:09 pm
I agree with Obama. If you make over $250,000 a year, which I do, then you should shoulder a disproportionate amount of the burdens essential in maintaining the socio-economic environment that allowed you to earn that much money in the first place.
Why?
Mr T
May 1st, 2010
2:18 pm
Kinda reminds me of this administration and lawyers running this nation telling us that 10+% unemployment is a good thing. (IE: reduces commuter carbon emissions, allows families to spend more time together, etc.).
Yeah I miss the good old days- being hood winked into a bogus war, the fundumentals of the economy are sound while Wall Street destroys the economy, preaching fiscal conservatism while souring the national debt out of control. I see you you have the talking points ready today jackalcrat. Are you playing with your Marco Rubio and Ronald Reagan action figures? Please turn off Fox news and maybe pick up 3 or 4 newspapers. Stop drinking the Rush Koolaid and use your brain!
Jackalcrat
May 1st, 2010
2:20 pm
NMP: liberals don’t like direct questions because liberalism is based on emotions. You won’t get a direct answer. I have YET to have one liberal give me either a dollar amount or household annual income ball park of what “livable” wage is.
Most of us had minimum wage jobs while in high school and/or college to help with expenses while living at home, but then we moved out and moved on to bigger and better things. It’s the American way. Well over 90% of those who moved out and moved on when to PRIVATE SECTOR jobs, not government jobs, like the Obamabots want us all to take joy in.
We had choices. We chose mediocrity and comfort which paid the same long term or chose sacrifice and hard work which paid off more long term. Guess which one made this nation great?
Jackalcrat
May 1st, 2010
2:24 pm
“Yeah I miss the good old days- being hood winked into a bogus war, ”
You mean the one DEMOCRATS in Congress voted for authority for, who saw the SAME intel data as the Bush Administration? Were they too stupid to read or were they too incompetent to make up their own minds? Which is it, liberal?
‘the fundumentals [sic] of the economy are sound while Wall Street destroys the economy, preaching fiscal conservatism while souring the national debt out of control. ”
Everyone slammed McCain for saying that, but nobody said a WORD when Obama said it. And you liberals need to SHUT UP over deficit spending. WAY shut up.
‘Please turn off Fox news and maybe pick up 3 or 4 newspapers. Stop drinking the Rush Koolaid and use your brain!”
You mean those newspapers about to go out of business without a government bailout? No, I like to get my information from a variety of sources, and liberal rags like the New York Slimes aren’t one of them (Wall Street Journal is one however).
Go take a swim in the Gulf, mouth breather.
Mr T
May 1st, 2010
2:34 pm
Did you get college loans or grants Jackalcrat? Will you call the fire department if you need them? Do you have family members on SSI or Medicare? I’ve found that most of the knuckle dragging moronic Rethugs are against social help unless they or family member need it. And Barry the Bailout, I wasn’t aware Obama was President during the Bank Bailout? Is this another spin like Bush wasn’t President during 9/11? Again corporate welfare ok, just not for people.
Mr T
May 1st, 2010
2:37 pm
Typical sophmoric response Jackass Crat. If someone challanges you, shout them down and not even make a valid point. Is your little head hurting from having to thinkie??? Why don’t you go take a swim in the Gulf with a lighter? Would be one less pampered moron out there!
No More Progressives!
May 1st, 2010
2:40 pm
Jackalcrat
May 1st, 2010
2:20 pm
Your comments are insightful and refreshing. I realize that lefties are loathe to answer even soft-ball questions, but I like to ask them “for the record.”
Antiboortz
May 1st, 2010
2:50 pm
Jacklcrat: Don’t buy the President’s book, check it out of the library so he won’t make any more money on you.
That’s what I did with “The Fair Tax Book”. I read that lightweight speculative tome passing for economic treatise: An entire chapter explaining the difference between inclusive or exclusive percentage rate calculations; but not even a footnote explaining where the percentage, however calculated, was derived.
For the record I do believe some form of value added tax is a good Idea, but I don’t believe it can be our exclusive tax vehicle as Boortz (not an economist) claims.
No More Progressives!
May 1st, 2010
2:53 pm
Antiboortz
May 1st, 2010
2:50 pm
For the record I do believe some form of value added tax is a good Idea…………..
So do I. Completely in lieu of an income tax. No more IRS. We can start Monday, I should think.
Antiboortz
May 1st, 2010
2:57 pm
NMP:
Because it makes perfect sense to me that those who are taking the most out of the system should be putting the most back into the system, some less regressive tax vehicle must be employed to suplement a VAT. Certainly a reasonable estate tax levied after a lifetime exclusion of between 3 – 7 million should be a part of the plan.
Hillbilly Deluxe
May 1st, 2010
3:07 pm
If the Fair Tax did become law and the IRS were abolished, it’d take another bureaucracy just as big to administer it. It’d just have a different name.
HDB
May 1st, 2010
3:21 pm
No More Progressives! May 1st, 2010
2:08 pm
Gator Joe
May 1st, 2010
1:56 pm
“That is, pay a living wage… How much is a living wage in dollars?”
That is contingent upon location, industry, and cost of living in a specific area. Many look at minimum wage as an economic floor which needs to be lowered so that the economy can grow…but the current wage scale has already been lowered due to corporate profits based on undocumented workers. What needs to be done is to keep the minimum wage elevated to motivate people to work the menial positions while aggressively going after corporations that are hiring undocumented workers.
“provide safe and healthy working conditions… You ever been through an OSHA audit?”
That hasn’t helped the WV coal miners or Gulf oil workers; the OSHA regulations need to be strengthened to ensure worker protections.
“produce safe and healthy products……….. The Chinese or the USA?”
Since the preponderance of manufacturing has been taken offshore by Corporate America, what needs to be done is strengthening of import standards by both the government AND Corporate America so that citizens are protected………
“don’t degrade our water, air, and land. You ever heard of the EPA? RCRA? The Clean Water Act? The Clean Air Act?”
Has that happened to protect the Mississippi River….or the Gulf?? Atlanta has some of the worst air in the nation….not just LA, Dallas, NY!! Oversight MUST be improved so that standards that make Americans safer are maintained.
NMP, industry has shown that it can not effectively police itself…and based on profit, it will not police itself!!! How would you suggest oversight be maintained???
HDB
May 1st, 2010
3:28 pm
Jackalcrat May 1st, 2010
2:02 pm
Question: has paying for health care with chickens helped the GOP gain voter share in Nevada??
Harry Reid is gaining ground in Nevada……….
retiredds
May 1st, 2010
3:30 pm
O.K., Kyle, let’s get down to the nitty gritty. The US debt totals $12+ trillion as of today. Simple question, who is responsible for that total? Another simple question, who is responsible for paying it off?
Hillbilly Deluxe
May 1st, 2010
3:45 pm
Simple question, who is responsible for that total?
They are.
Another simple question, who is responsible for paying it off?
We are.