Comments on: Obama Earmarks $1 Million For Wife’s Employer

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:46:24 +0000

Either way, canâ€™t we agree that money for hospitals is a good thing?

No. You’re asking people to say money for this hospital is a good thing when it may not be. Hospitals compete for funding based on many different criteria. Why should this hospital get funding based on what appears to be a conflict of interest?

By: adam

adam — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:53:20 +0000

john,
if he must earmark money for his local hospital, that doesn’t make him any different from any other corrupt senator. hardly equates to “change” huh? but if subtly channeling this money to his wife’s hospital is some sort of moral endeavor, as you imply, isn’t it possible for it to occur without michelle’s 160% raise quickly following?

let’s get real. you’ve posted twice now. you continue to rail about helping hospitals and even when you apply a little common sense and preface it with “if”, you still don’t even acknowledge mrs. obamas substantial increase in pay. have you ever got a $200,000 raise? are you disputing she did? are you scrambling to research how she thought she could get away with it? are you seriously trying to tell us all to move along, there’s nothing to see here? do you think you may be acting a bit disingenuously?
pres,
you only commented once. what’s with this blatant dishonesty? when do the rabid change supporters take the blinders off?

By: Robbie Cooper

Robbie Cooper — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:52:49 +0000

Actually, is the University of Chicago Hospital a non-profit organization? Or are they a private hospital in the money-making business?

Because, I’m generally NOT in favor of earmarking federal money for private local businesses. To include hospitals.

Any reason Dick Durbin couldn’t have requested this particular ~~earmark~~ shafting of the tax payer?

You don’t think it unusual that Michelle happened to get a 160% raise in one year?

By: John Jarzemsky

John Jarzemsky — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:09:50 +0000

Adam:

I’m saying maybe it’s in the interest of his constituents to increase funding for institutions like hospitals, and that his wife being employed by the hospital is a coincidence.

Do you think he SHOULDN’T give money to the hospital because his wife is employed there?

Or even if (mind you if) his wife pulled strings to get the money, perhaps it’s because she works for a hospital and wants more money so that, I dunno, sick people can be more readily attended to?

By: adam

adam — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:28:12 +0000

that’s some salary for for someone who has never been proud of their country.
john, pres,
when we talk about how “good” helping hospitals is while ignoring someone extorting taxpayer money to increase their personal family income, aren’t we being a tad disingenuous?

By: Preston

Preston — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 01:48:58 +0000

Beat me to it, John.

It’s not like she worked for an obscure mom and pop outfit. It’s kind of his job to acquire Federal funding for his constituents. And a major urban hospital is the sort of infrastructure that actually deserves earmark funding.

By: John Jarzemsky

John Jarzemsky — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 05:00:50 +0000

Maybe he was trying to put money in his wife’s pocket.

Maybe he was, I dunno, earmarking money for a GODDAMN hospital.

Either way, can’t we agree that money for hospitals is a good thing?

By: no2liberals

no2liberals — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 03:22:42 +0000

It’s all semantics.

When he says he hopes for change, he means the change we have in our pockets, sofa cushions, car ashtrays, piggy banks, etc.
He is an uber-liberal, after all. Other people’s money is the most alluring.