Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Customer Service | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

President Obama will reportedly return 5 percent of his salary each month to the Treasury out of a desire to share in the sacrifice that government employees are making. Are you either impressed or inspired?

  1. Very much so
  2. A little
  3. Not much
  4. Not at all
 
 
 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(26)

muleskinner

Apr-08-13 3:21 PM

Obama wants to do his part so you have to feel obligated to do your part. If you make 40 grand each year, you should return 5 percent to your employer, share in the sacrifice for the company.

If Obama can do it, you can too.

If Obama really wanted to do his part, he would return 5 percent of his total wealth, not the yearly salary.

If he is worth 10 million, he should pay the treasury 500 grand, or work for free for the next 15 months.

He should be fined a 100 thousand dollars for not paying his fair share.

Why isn't the IRS after this deadbeat?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Apr-08-13 10:11 AM

grramexxx

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Apr-07-13 9:50 PM

billgrr, nice job of c/p. I was the one who typed it first, so it's familiar to me.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Thanks, billgrr!

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Apr-07-13 8:28 AM

veritas, good for you buddy! What does whale poop taste like?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Apr-06-13 9:34 PM

What color are your roots, billgrr, as long as you brought up the subject?

Any answer you might give will be the opposite of titillating for me.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Apr-06-13 9:21 AM

billgrr now works in retail, folks, as he seems to doing clean-up in aisle 13 for a dear friend of his.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SLAAAPPPP

Apr-05-13 6:11 PM

Geez Prez, that's great. Funny thing is there have been no spending 'cuts' because of the sequester. No, the sequester has only limited the planned/expected spending INCREASES. Now, how do I get invited to one of your big dance parties that I help fund? Oh, really? Well at least send me a pic of your Don Cornelius get-up. Thanks Prez. signed, Taxpayer.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Apr-05-13 3:04 PM

cab=can

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Apr-05-13 3:04 PM

But, we are not. If you cab read.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Apr-05-13 3:02 PM

Very simply, if you are the largest producer it would stand to reason you will be the largest recipient.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Apr-05-13 3:00 PM

veritas, I can rely on you to miss the point.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

namexxx

Apr-05-13 2:48 PM

From reality:

This whole state is a ghetto full of hoople moochers.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Apr-05-13 12:40 PM

From wikipedia...

"A welfare queen is a pejorative phrase used in the United States to refer to people who are accused of collecting excessive welfare payments through fraud or manipulation."

From urbandictionary...

#1 definition: "Welfare Queen: A woman, regardless of race who is living off the welfare system purely because of laziness and not due to any real need."

namexxx needs to use this phrase, because he imagines it can strengthen his (lack of) rational discourse.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

namexxx

Apr-05-13 11:04 AM

ND population is a fraction of the size of the population of Texas. When you account for the population difference -- North Dakota is the nation's biggest Welfare Queen.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Apr-05-13 7:57 AM

From 1995 through 2009, seven states received the lions'share, 42%, of U.S. farm subsidies. Those states and their respective shares of total U.S. farm subsidies were:

Texas - 9.4% Iowa - 8.5% Illinois - 7.1% Minnesota - 5.8% Nebraska - 5.7% Kansas - 5.5% North Dakota - 4.7%

As you see we produce the largest amounts of most grains but we do not receive the largest amount of subsidies. All hail Texas!

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Apr-04-13 9:10 PM

Soybeans are also an increasingly important crop with 400,000 acres (1,600 km2) additional planted between 2002 and 2007.[58] Soybeans are a major crop in the eastern part of the state and cultivation is common in the southeast part of the state. Soybeans were not grown in North Dakota in the 1940s, but it has become more common in the last 50 years and especially since 1998.[59] In North Dakota soybeans have to mature fast, because of the comparatively short growing season. Soybeans are grown for livestock feed. North Dakota is the second leading producer of sugarbeets, grown in the Red River Valley. The state is also the largest producer of honey, dry edible peas and beans, lentils, and the third largest producer of potatoes. North Dakota's economy is aided by nearly $1 billion in federal agricultural subsidies annually.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Apr-04-13 9:06 PM

The state is the largest producer in the U.S. of many cereal grains including barley (36% of U.S. crop), durum wheat (58%), hard red spring wheat (48%), oats (17%), and combined wheat of all types (15%). The state is the leading producer of many oilseeds including 92% of the U.S. canola crop, 94% of flax seed, 53% of sunflower seeds, 18% of safflower seeds, and 62% of mustard seed. Canola is suited to the cold winters and it matures fast. Processing of canola for oil production produces canola meal as a by-product. The by-product is a high-protein animal feed. Soybeans are a

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

namexxx

Apr-04-13 4:38 PM

Really? Well, how much are you freeloading freaks giving back?

North Dakota gets back 50 cents from the federal government for every dollar put in. The whole stinking state is one big welfare ghetto.

When will you lazy losers pull yourself up by your bootstraps, get off the dole, and get out of the welfare line?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SayWhat

Apr-04-13 4:33 PM

What a joke is correct! Just another ploy to pretend he is this caring President and is willing to "share" his wealther like he thinks everyone else should do. This guy needs to get off his high horse and get back to work fixing the economy. No one cares about the things he is focusing on... he by far is right in there with Carter as one of the worste President's to have taken office. I'm glad I didn't waste my time voting for this guy.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TheDiogenist

Apr-04-13 3:33 PM

It isn't much by way of a gesture, honestly.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

vietnamvet69

Apr-04-13 12:51 PM

How about all of Congress, the Supreme Court and the President give back 20% of their salary every month to help offset the furloughs of the civilian workers who make the country work. The only exception would be the leaders of the Veterans Administration who would be required to give up 50% of their monthly salary and for the leaders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who would be required to give up 75% of their monthly salary. That at least would be a good start.

10 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

namexxx

Apr-04-13 11:43 AM

Every politician should give back 5%.

With what they make in stock options, tax loopholes and unreported freebies -- they'll never even notice it.

9 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Apr-04-13 10:04 AM

Agreed, disgusted. Great post.

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Apr-04-13 9:31 AM

I was kinda expecting a question on the Enbridge pipeline disaster in Arkansas this week than on this topic. Interesting that the MDN is not carrying even a news article on the tar sand spill. Maybe a follow-up article on the spill in Michigan three years ago would also be interesting. You know, the one that still is not cleaned up and has already cost almost 3/4 of a Trillion dollars to try to clean up. Sorry, bloggers and anger for straying off topic but that would be far more pertinent to the news than this question.

6 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

disgusted

Apr-04-13 9:13 AM

I would have been impressed if he had done that back in 2009. I would have been more impressed if he had stopped all of the lavish vacations for his family back in 2001. This, not so much.

7 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 26 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web