Immigration reformists turn up the heat

Posted from Politico.com:

...Latino leaders are pressuring the White House to set a goal of signing a major immigration reform bill by the end of the year. Friction between immigrant communities and local police seeking to enforce federal law is increasing, prompting hearings on Capitol Hill and scrutiny from the Justice Department.

And in less than two weeks, Obama will be in Mexico for a presidential summit in which immigration issues will be on the agenda.

“I think, politically, [Obama] is in a tough spot, and he recognizes that the public isn’t where he is on immigration,” said Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, which bills itself as a “low immigration” think tank. “If you are Obama, it’s a no-win situation, and there is no reason to bring this issue up right now from a political view. You can give a few speeches to the right groups and then say, ‘What else is on the agenda?’”

With everything on his plate — from the economy to health care to two wars — it’s easy to see why Obama is hoping to steer clear of the issue. Immigration reform inspired furious debate in Congress when President George W. Bush tried to push through a “comprehensive” approach that would have allowed most of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants to stay in the United States.Bush’s approach called for a “path to citizenship” that would have allowed immigrants already here to apply to stay, as long as they paid any penalties and fines and stayed out of trouble with the law. Obama endorsed a broadly similar approach during the campaign.

Even as Latino groups and others seek to bring the issue back into the spotlight, the political reality is that the economic downturn might make this a particularly difficult time to clear the way for immigrants to stay in the United States.

The recession and rising unemployment rates are likely to undercut the already shaky public support for legalization of illegal immigrants. Business leaders are diverted by more immediate issues of corporate survival. And a surge in drug-related killings and assassinations in Mexico could stoke public fears that any immigration-related measure might cause that violence to migrate north, even though advocates insist reform would make Americans safer.

Asked whether the ailing economy would increase public resistance to immigration reform, the administration official said, “You might be right if the debate is about generosity versus being harsh to immigrants. ... It’s not about whether we’re nice to immigrants or not. It’s about whether we’re doing a smart thing for the economy.”

...The emotion the immigration debate inspires was on clear display on Capitol Hill on Thursday as two House subcommittees conducted a hearing on local efforts to detain illegal immigrants. One very high-profile drive, conducted by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., with help from a cooperation agreement with the federal government, is now the target of a Justice Department investigation into possible civil rights violations.

Julio Cesar Mora, a 19-year-old Arizona man who is a U.S. citizen, complained that he and his father, who holds a green card, were pulled over and detained for three hours during one of the sheriff’s immigration raids. “They patted us down and tied our hands together with zip ties like we were criminals,” Mora complained.

Another witness, Ray Tranchant of Virginia, described the death of his 16-year-old daughter and a friend in a car accident caused by an illegal immigrant who was driving drunk and had been arrested before. “Instead of being deported, he stayed on the streets of Virginia Beach to drink and drive and subsequently killed these two beautiful girls,” Tranchant said.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) told the Latino witnesses their plight paled in comparison to what had happened to Tranchant. “I don’t know how to impress to you what looks like an inconvenience to you compared to the very sacred life of this man’s daughter,” King said.

However, Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-Ill.) insisted the enforcement efforts were actually leading to more crime.

“Those drunkards and those rapists and those murderers do most of their drunkenness, their murdering and their raping in the very immigrant community in which they reside. And you know who wants to get rid of them? The very immigrant community that lives there, but they cannot call the police,” he said, insisting that comprehensive immigration reform was the only real solution.

Oh dear! Now Obama wants to grant sovereignty to lord knows how many illegal aliens. They are here illegally, not paying taxes, stealing our jobs away from us because they will work cheaper, and expect to stay here? They have no rights in this country. They all need to go home and stay there. Even if they do work some of the more undesirable jobs....there are people right now unemployed who would settle for any job they could get and there's nothing...thanks to the illegals in this country. It would help us out financially if we weren't supporting these illegals and if they weren't here.

The tragic event that happened to Mr. Tranchant should never have happened. If this gov't was more strict on immigration and actually actively pursued them, events like these would never happen. I said it once before and I will say it again:Put up the tallest, sturdiest cement wall you can and make sure it goes along all of the border states. The only message that it gives is that this country is serious about protecting it's borders and it's citizens. The only way through the wall would be through the proper channels and checkpoints where things will be checked thoroughly! And only registered LEGAL immigrants can cross over.

Rep. Steve King is looking at this in the right way, Rep. Luis Gutierrez is not. The only reason the immigrants in the immigrant community cannot call the police is because they are ILLEGAL!!!!! I know your latino but get a clue! You cannot justify these illegal aliens commiting crimes. They need to leave, period.

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII).

Obama plans more for auto industry!

Posted from CNSnews:
Congress enacted TARP last year, providing $700 billion specifically to bail out financial institutions. When President Bush asked Congress late last fall to approve a bill authorizing federal money to bail out failing auto manufacturers, Frank's bill to authorize those presidential acts passed the House but failed in the Senate.

Even though the legislation was defeated, President Bush went ahead and unilaterally loaned $17.4 billion in TARP funds to GM and Chrysler without congressional authorization.

Obama is now unilaterally authorizing the further use of TARP funds to sustain GM and Chrysler while those companies attempt to carry out restructuring plans under Obama’s direction.

Congress has enacted no further legislation on the matter since it failed to pass the legislation President Bush sought late last year.

“It’s an administration situation so I’m not very well informed on it,” Frank told CNSNews.com Thursday, when asked about Obama’s auto restructuring plan.

Asked specifically about the president’s Monday announcement that federal tax dollars would guarantee the warranties of all new Chrysler and GM cars during the period they are undergoing restructuring, Frank said, “Do the words ‘I’m not very well informed on it’ have any meaning to you? Am I speaking a language you don’t understand?”

“It’s not something I’m focused on. The committee, which I chair, keeps me busy,” Frank continued. “I have not had a chance to look at that. I do not have an informed opinion on it. It’s not my understanding that Congress is going to get to vote on it. So I tend to focus on things that are under the jurisdiction of the committee and that we’ll have to vote on. When things are neither, I don’t have a very well-informed opinion.”

When asked if he thought Congress should have a say on the auto restructuring plan, Frank walked away without answering.

On Tuesday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told CNSNews.com that he did not know where Obama got the authority to carry out his restructuring plan for GM and Chrysler. On Thursday, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) expressed similar uncertainty.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) (Photo courtesy of Boehner's Web site)

Though Boehner criticized Obama’s auto restructuring plan, he said he did not know if the president could do it unilaterally without congressional authorization.

“I have no idea,” Boehner told CNSNews.com. “They just shouldn’t do it at all.”

The White House plan involves ordering both GM and Chrysler to restructure their operations and produce what the president describes as “fuel efficient” cars. In the case of Chrysler, it requires the company to merge with Fiat, an Italian car manufacturer. Additionally, Obama forced the resignation of GM President Rick Wagoner.

On Tuesday, Hoyer expressed puzzlement as to the source of the president’s power for doing all this.

“The administration clearly believes it does have the authority to use some of the remaining TARP funds for the automobile industry,” Hoyer told CNSNews.com.

“I don't know, technically. I would be kidding you to mouth some words on that, because I don't know technically where that authority would be,” Hoyer said.

“But my own view is that if it is perceived they don't have that authority and it is perceived by the Congress they need to have that authority, the Congress would probably be willing to give that authority. But I don't know technically the answer to that question,” he said.

On Thursday, Boehner said Obama has to stop intruding the government into private sector.

“When are we going to stop this? I mean step back for a moment and think about it,” Boehner said. “You know the federal government, the president, decides to fire the chairman of GM. And then the administration comes out and says, well, we think we want to replace the board at GM. And then you come up with this idea to provide these assurances, these guarantees on the warranties of these two companies.”

He added that the bailout of GM and Chrysler is unfair to other car companies, such as Honda that operates in his home state.

“I just think enough is enough,” Boehner said. “Yesterday we had another bill coming through – two bills – that seem to try to put the federal government in charge of deciding what salaries for employees ought to be. This is just out of control. Somebody has just got to say, enough is enough.”

House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (D-S.C.), told CNSNews.com Wednesday that an act of Congress is probably needed to implement the warranty guarantee program that President Obama has already announced.

“I would think that for a government officer to extend a warranty that will create a liability for the government, an act of law would be required,” Spratt said. “If I were the beneficiary of the warranty, I would certainly want to know the entity that extended it to me had legal authority to grant it.”
The administration may be acting under the broad authority of the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, Spratt told CNSNews.com Wednesday. But, he stressed if it is not backed by some legislation, it should be.
“I would think as a matter of principle, this ought to be backed by legislative action. But I also think there will be some legislation to implement whatever the plan is,” Spratt said.
The president announced Monday that starting on that day the federal government would guarantee the warranties on all new Chrysler and General Motors cars.

“If you buy a car from Chrysler or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and repaired, just like always. Your warranty will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it’s ever been because starting today, the United States government will stand behind your warranty,” Obama said at the White House Monday when he announced his plan for dealing with the two auto makers.

The Warranty Commitment Program outlined by the administration would establish reserve funds that include 125 percent of the projected costs for servicing all Chrysler and all GM warranties for cars sold during the course of the restructuring program. Under the plan, the auto manufacturers will put up 15 percent of the projected costs, and the federal government will put up 110 percent.

Not only did Obama force the CEO out of the company but now he is trying to force restructuring upon them without the auth0rity to do so! Who does he think he is? He's guaranteeing warranties that he doesn't even know will be good. Not to mention the gov't pays 110%! Where are they getting the money? Then he is forcing them to merge with a foreign car company to make foreign 'fuel efficient' vehicles (hybrids). GM and Chrysler make AMERICAN cars, there an AMERICAN company! They don't make foreign cars! Hybrid cars are one of the most expensive cars on the market, so are foreign cars. The point should be to lower automobile prices not raise them. Not to mention probably lose a few more thousand jobs in the process. How many jobs are we going to lose to foreign countries because they would rather have idiots who speak no or little english and have no idea what they are doing do our jobs for less money? That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I have first hand experience working with the India people through a company that I worked for. THERE IDIOTS!!!! They have no clue what they are doing!!!! So much for free enterprise and the American Dream!

Where is Obama getting the authority to do this? Obama is running with his own agenda whether he has approval or not. That sounds alot like he's trying to be a dictator! He also has no right to put his nose in to other peoples' salaries! What happened to our right to privacy???!!!! I knew this would happen when he was elected. I knew he would abuse his power and that is exactly what he is doing. He is asserting his power and title in places it has no business. Stay out of the private sector and out of our lives!!!!!

This is all because no one educates themselves in the world of politics. Bush was a horrible President but that doesn't give people the right to automatically go and run to the other party's candidate without educating themselves first. They have all let themselves be tricked and lied to. Obama is a gifted speaker, I will give him that, but it's all bull. Every thing he spews from his mouth is lies. He's changing this country alright but it is not for the better! I was against him the minute I found out the church he went to and that he was muslim. I am not prejudice by any means but any preacher who curses America and our beliefs should be deported. Obama is Muslim and regardless of what he says, this is the perfect way to destroy our country. And guess what that is exactly what he is doing! Thanks go out to all of you again, who voted for this fascist SOB. Thanks for making all of our lives Hell! Hope your all happy.

Obama's new budget = devastating financial situations

Posted from CNSnews:

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, said Thursday that President Barack Obama’s budget proposals exploit the nation’s fiscal calamities in order to create “a nanny state” of historic proportions.

Ryan, joined by fiscally conservative academics and fellow Republican Rep. Mike Pence, said that Obama’s budget increased government spending to record levels at the expense of solving the financial crisis gripping the country.

“The president’s budget does not solve our fiscal and financial crisis. The president’s budget exploits our financial crisis,” Ryan said. “The president’s budget does not seek to bring forth an opportunity for society. It’s more of an ideological document seeking to bring forth a nanny state.”

Ryan explained that Obama’s proposals would increase spending to historic levels and amounted to the most radical transformation of government’s role in American life since the New Deal.

“This budget is the biggest-spending budget we’ve seen in generations,” he said. “This budget brings the size of government to its largest levels since 1945 in its first year.”

Pete Sepp, vice-president of policy and communications at the National Taxpayer’s Union, who joined Ryan and Pence at the podium, saying that Obama’s budget put the country on a “slide to bankruptcy” that it might never get out of.

“The slide to bankruptcy is beginning a lot sooner than we think,” Sepp said. “This budget does nothing to address fundamental problems with Medicare, despite the healthcare reform proposals. This means we are looking at a much lower standard of living for the next generation.”

Sepp said that Obama’s other measures, particularly the $787 billion stimulus package and the recent $410 billion omnibus spending bill, only added to the nation’s fiscal woes, making things much worse if the administration’s rosy economic forecasts don’t come true.

“We keep passing stimulus bills and omnibus bills on borrowed money, which is only adding to the problem. Heaven help us if the economic assumptions in this budget are off by even a few points. We’ve got to get a handle on it now. This budget doesn’t do it.”

Pence (R-Ind.) said that Obama’s budget had three primary flaws.

“The truth is the president’s budget spends too much, it taxes too much and it borrows too much -- and the American people are figuring that out,” Pence said.

Obama and congressional Democrats are out of touch with Americans who are cutting back during the recession, he added.

“During these difficult economic times every American family, every small business, every family farm is making hard choices necessary to get through these difficult economic times,” Pence said.

“The American people are concluding that Washington, D.C., doesn’t understand what they’re dealing with,” he added.

Pence said the Obama administration is failing to provide leadership for America.

“At a time when we should be looking to Washington, D.C., to demonstrate the kind of fiscal restraint and the kind of sacrifice that every American family and every American business have demonstrated,” Pence said.

“Washington, D.C., and this administration have come forward with an enormous spending increase, expanding the size and scope of government into virtually every area of our national life.”

Ryan, meanwhile, acknowledged that Obama had inherited very difficult circumstances, but said the new president’s budget was only going to make things worse.

“Look, we’ve got bad times,” Ryan acknowledged, “and they inherited a difficult situation. But instead of inheriting a difficult situation and improving it, they’ve made it worse.”

When asked by CNSNews.com whether Obama had bitten off more than the country could chew, Ryan said that Obama’s budget was an “anti-stimulus” that sent the wrong message to America’s struggling businesses.

“Rolling this budget out the way they did actually hurts the economy. It tells small businesses, it tells consumers, it tells the markets: ‘guess what, big tax increases are coming.’ The rolling out of this budget was actually the epitome of an anti-stimulus bill.

“Bringing this budget to Congress, showing it to the American people they way they’ve done, with this explosion of taxes and spending and borrowing tells the economy and the markets: ‘it’s not going to be a good economy in the future. That is the wrong thing to do.”

The situation that Obama and his gov't lackeys are bringing to the table are really disturbing. I am seriously rethinking having kids. I want kids more than anything in this world but with this mounting debt and severely screwed up gov't I am starting to wonder. Why should we all have kids just so they can live hard lives and inherit a debt that will take generations to pay off?! It's not fair. I have a hard enough time paying my bills. I can't even pay off my debt from when I went to college. I have no way to do so! There are a lot of people in my shoes. To say that the taxes are going up when 663,000 jobs have dissipated, the gov't deficit continues to sky rocket at an alarming rate, people are struggling to make ends meet, while making serious cut backs, is very disturbing and worrysome. I am not just worried about us and our generation but i am worried about future generations. We are heading for a depression so horrible that it surpasses "The Great Depression".

Not only are Obama's budgets and stimulus packages "anti-stimulus" but they are devastatingly putting us in a submissive position. We have foreign gov'ts buying our debts and if they keep on buying our debts, sooner or later they will own us. That in itself is horrifying. I don't want to be subjected to any other gov't other than a democracy, I don't want to be forced to have a certain religion or have anything changed negatively because another country owns us. Obama is taking this country down and he's doing so quickly. The power in the world is shifting and soon we will no longer be the super power, then help us all. We will likely turn into a third world country and I do not want to live like that. I have seen how they live and if you think it's hard now just wait. Obama is taking us away from Democracy and we are heading towards ruin. We as the people need to fight to get things back to the way they are meant to be. The way the Founding Fathers set it out to be. We need to go back to our Constitution and our successful gov't and away from this chaos. We need our balance of power within the gov't, and we need our constitutional rights back. This President and the road he is taking us down are disastrous. We need to step up and make our voices heard, because that is the only thing that will save this country.

GM CEO Forced to step down!

This is where the gov't just shouldn't get involved. We shouldn't even be giving them loans. They made their bed let them lie in it!

Posted from AP:
...The management shake-up, according to several industry analysts, shows that the administration is serious about forcing GM to change more quickly and dramatically than it did during Wagoner's nearly nine-year tenure as CEO.

Jeremy Anwyl, chief executive of the automotive Web site Edmunds.com, called the move "political theater" to appease an increasingly bailout-weary public.

"American taxpayers are not happy," Anwyl said. "But this way you're able to point to Rick and say he's gone, and that creates an environment where the loans become politically palatable."

By all accounts, Wagoner made progress in fixing GM. While CEO, he cut its U.S. work force from 177,000 to roughly 92,000 today.

Wagoner also closed factories; shed the unprofitable Oldsmobile brand; globalized GM's engineering, manufacturing and design to save billions; and led a resurgence in quality and performance of its long-neglected cars. In 2007, the company reached a landmark agreement with the United Auto Workers that shifted massive retiree health care costs to a union-run trust and ushered in a $14-per-hour wage for new hires, about half that of a current laborer.

But critics, including many members of Congress, say Wagoner moved too slowly, failing to cut enough of the company's huge health care and pension costs, and relying too long on high-profit pickup trucks and SUVs as gas prices rose and the market shifted toward smaller vehicles.

In the past four years, GM has piled up $82 billion in losses.

Still, Wagoner had the company moving in the right direction, Anwyl said.

"Was he moving fast enough or bold enough? Obviously, in light of what we know today," Anwyl said, "the answer would be no."

While ousting Wagoner, the Obama administration made no management changes at Chrysler LLC, which also is getting government loans. Chairman and CEO Robert Nardelli has only been in charge there since August 2007.

David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich., said Wagoner's departure probably will have little impact on GM's restructuring efforts because Henderson was the heir-apparent in GM's succession plans.

"I don't think you would see any shift or significant change at all with Rick's leaving. I think the course that they're on, they're on," he said.

Wagoner became GM's face to the public during a disastrous November appearance before Congress to request assistance. He was lampooned on NBC's Saturday Night Live after being torn apart by lawmakers for flying to Washington in a corporate jet and offering vague, rambling answers to their questions.

"Given the history, a change in management could hardly hurt and might do some good," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Sunday.

Wagoner's ouster came just before President Barack Obama planned to announce what Chrysler and GM must do to get government loans beyond the $17.4 billion they have already received.

Several senior administration officials said GM will get enough government aid to restructure over the next 60 days, while Chrysler will get up to $6 billion and 30 days to complete an alliance with Italian automaker Fiat SpA. If Chrysler fails to reach a deal with Fiat or another partner, the government won't provide any further financing, likely sending the company into liquidation.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to make the details public.

First of all what the hell is the gov't doing lending these car companies money?! They put themselves into this mess due to bad business. The gov't is in massive debt and they are still bailing out car companies???? They aren't going to lower there prices enough and they are not going to help out the people. Stop bailing out car companies!!!!!!!!!!!

Second, the gov't has no right to force someone to step down. They are only to be involved with gov't issues not private business matters. If GM couldn't get GM issues under control then they deserve to fall apart at the seams. Our gov't needs to learn to start governing and stay out of everyone's affairs. This gov't is turning into a dictatorship and I for one am not liking where this is going. We as people and citizens of this country need to rise up and do something about this gov't. If we won't who will? Talk to your elected cockroaches everyone. We need to make sure our message is heard!

Notre Dame invite criticism mounts!

And so it begins....hmmmmm....

From the AP:

The University of Notre Dame has a tradition of inviting new presidents to speak at graduation. But this year's selection of President Barack Obama has been met by a barrage of criticism that has left some students fearing their commencement ceremony will turn into a circus.

Many Catholics are angered by Obama's planned appearance at the May 17 ceremony because of his decisions to provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and international family planning groups that provide abortions or educate about the procedure.

The consensus Thursday on the campus of the nation's most-prominent Catholic university was that any president should be welcomed at Notre Dame.

"People are definitely entitled to their outrage, but I think the main thing is to see that it's an honor to have the president of the United States come to speak here whether you agree with him or not," said Katie Woodward, a political science junior from Philadelphia.

Justin Mack, a senior film major from Dallas, agreed.

"I didn't vote for him and there are a lot of things I don't agree with him or support. But I feel like for this event people need to put that aside," said Mack, a senior film major from Dallas. "My hope is that doesn't distract too much from what the weekend is about, which is the graduation."

But the distractions have been mounting, including sharply worded letters from two bishops. Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of the Phoenix Diocese on Wednesday called Obama's selection a "public act of disobedience" and "a grave mistake." On Tuesday, Bishop John D'Arcy of the Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese, which includes Notre Dame, said he would not attend the ceremony because of Obama's policies.

Hundreds of people on both sides of the issue have sent letters to the student newspaper, and a coalition of conservative student groups has announced its opposition.

University spokesman Dennis Brown says Notre Dame does not plan to rescind the invitation. Anyone associated with the university can recommend a commencement speaker, he said, and the president consults with university officers to see who would be most appropriate.

Notre Dame President the Rev. John Jenkins has said the university does not condone all of Obama's policies but that it's important to engage in conversation.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday that Obama believes everyone has the right to express their opinion, saying the president met last week with Chicago Cardinal Francis George and others to discuss topics Obama and the Catholic church are interested in.

"He looks forward to continuing that dialogue in the leadup to the commencement, and looks forward to delivering the address in May," Gibbs said.

Bob Reish, the student body president and a graduating senior, said there is a "general excitement" about Obama's visit, although he is aware there are people on both sides of the issue.

As of 2 p.m. Thursday, The Observer, the student newspaper, had received 612 letters about Obama's appearance _ 313 from alumni and 299 from current students.

Seventy percent of the alumni letters opposed having Obama giving the speech, while 73 percent of student letters supported his appearance. Among the 95 seniors who wrote letters, 97 percent supported the president's invitation.

Sophomore Kelsey Fletcher, a Japanese major from nearby Elkhart, said she doesn't think the university should have invited Obama to speak.

"He shouldn't be giving the commencement address because of his policies, but once you invite him you can't disinvite him," she said. "That would be rude."

Others noted that Obama is only speaking at three universities this year.

"We can't just forgive his viewpoints, we can't just let it go without expressing our thoughts on it," said Thomas Heitker, a freshman biology major from Columbus, Ohio. "But he's only speaking at three universities this year and to be one out of so many is something we should be proud about."

Chris Carrington, a political science major from the Chicago area, said he doesn't see how Obama's appearance at Notre Dame contradicts Catholic values.

"To not allow someone here because of their beliefs seems a little hypocritical and contradictory to what the mission of the university and church should be," he said.

It seems that there is quite a bit of an issue. I think people have a right to be outraged at Obama for the crap he's pulled so far! I also don't think that the Univeristy should force a commencement speaker onto the graduating seniors. This is something they will remember for the rest of their lives. Yes it's great if he was an awesome President, but he's not. I was lucky and had the QB from the Tampa Bay Buccaneers speak at my commencement. It was awesome and I will never forget that! People who aren't happy about this will never forget it but wish that they could. This may cause people not to come and I for one wouldn't blame them. We shall see how this plays out.

An online budget pitch?

Posted from the AP:

The event capped a concerted Obama recent public relations foray in support of his young administration's assault on the country's twin crises in the economy and financial system, including two in-person town hall meetings in California and an appearance on Jay Leno's "Tonight Show." On Tuesday Obama held a nationally televised news conference, also in the East Room, calling on an unusual mix of reporters in an apparent attempt to shake up the focus of questioning.

Obama explained he had called the first-of-its-kind online town hall meeting as an "an important step" toward creating a broader avenue for information about his administration. Spokesman Robert Gibbs said there would be more such events.

Timing, of course, was key. Obama was beamed out through cyberspace a day after the House Budget Committee adopted a spending and revenue plan that broadly matched his massive $3.6 trillion outline even while seeking to reel back on deficit projections.

In a forum that gave him an essentially passive audience, Obama said the budget would put the country on a path to "a recovery that will be measured by whether it lasts, whether it endures; by whether we build our economy on a solid foundation instead of an overheated housing market or maxed-out credit cards or the sleight of hand on Wall Street; whether we build an economy in which prosperity is broadly shared."

Obama's Republican opposition _ which he pointedly did not mention Thursday _ has fought his budget proposal, broadly declaring it a spending recipe for national bankruptcy.

Not surprisingly, the Internet questioning dovetailed with the president's key projects: universal health care, improved education, energy independence and the range of promises made in the White House campaign.

At times flashing his broad smile and at others determined and serious, Obama drew on his own experiences with the American health care system to empathize with one questioner who supported his goal of universal coverage.

He threw bouquets of praise to nurses who helped the family when his daughter Sasha was stricken with meningitis and returned with vigor to a recounting of the experience of watching his fatally ill mother argue with an insurance company to pay what it owed her for ovarian cancer treatment.

His economic recovery thus far has put us deeper in debt. I am agreeing with the republican on this one. It will create national bankruptcy. The Chinese are buying our debt hoping that we come up with a "universal" bank. That will not solve our problems either. Not to mention that he said nothing of significance. He did what he always did, stood upon his soap box, and smiled pretty. He has no idea if the economic recovery plan he has will help at all. He again is putting it to us the people to fix the problems the gov't has created: "a recovery that will be measured by whether it lasts, whether it endures; by whether we build our economy on a solid foundation instead of an overheated housing market or maxed-out credit cards or the sleight of hand on Wall Street; whether we build an economy in which prosperity is broadly shared."

Universal health care as much as I would love to have health care and benefit from it, it would be a disaster. At first there would be no restrictions on any kind of procedure, but because so many people would be using it, there would be restrictions. Not too mention we do not have an economy that could sustain such health care. My fiancee is in with a great company. They pay for his health care costs. When we get married I will have free health care. Granted there are co-pays but it is well worth it. He has some of the best doctors you can find. They have a wonderful bedside manner and they treat him well. None of his Dr's. are overpriced, even without the insurance, and would work with a patient who did not have health insurance. If he finds one he doesn't like he can change his doctor at any time to find a more suitable doctor. With universal health care that will not be the case. You won't be able to choose your doctor's or the care you receive. It's a bad idea. It's tempting to go along with it, especially with my situation, but at what cost? Why make our children have to pay for our debts and our mistakes when we can fix it now.

As for his mother and ovarian cancer, yes some insurance companies won't pay for it, but that is why there are programs set in place to utilize. My grandmother died from lung cancer and she had home health aides that came by and she received free wigs. She never paid a dime and she had no health insurance. These programs are funded by things like Relay for Life or non-profit organizations. They should be used. I think if we change anything it should be with the current health care programs. If they cannot pay for certain services then they should direct you to a program or non-profit organization that can help. That is what they are there for. He uses those as examples to why health care should be universal, but it shouldn't. It is shocking and disrespectful that he should throw things like that out there. His intentions may be pure but he is going about things in the wrong way. He should really start listening to the people instead of being a puppet for the democratic party and their agendas.

Obama has nothing that he can say that I cannot counter. I have too much education and too much life experience. I may be young but I have been through more than most people my age and their lifetimes. I have had a lot of hardships including financial ones that he will never experience. He is just like every other politician out there, very wealthy and his hand is in our pockets.

Drug tests for Federal Assistance!

This article is posted from the Associated Press:

Want government assistance? Just say no to drugs.

Lawmakers in at least eight states want recipients of food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing.

The effort comes as more Americans turn to these safety nets to ride out the recession. Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy could backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and making already desperate situations worse.

Those in favor of the drug tests say they are motivated out of a concern for their constituents' health and ability to put themselves on more solid financial footing once the economy rebounds. But proponents concede they also want to send a message: you don't get something for nothing.

"Nobody's being forced into these assistance programs," said Craig Blair, a Republican in the West Viginia Legislature who has created a Web site _ notwithmytaxdollars.com _ that bears a bobble-headed likeness of himself advocating this position. "If so many jobs require random drug tests these days, why not these benefits?"

Blair is proposing the most comprehensive measure in the country, as it would apply to anyone applying for food stamps, unemployment compensation or the federal programs usually known as "welfare": Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Women, Infants and Children.

Lawmakers in other states are offering similar, but more modest proposals.

On Wednesday, the Kansas House of Representatives approved a measure mandating drug testing for the 14,000 or so people getting cash assistance from the state, which now goes before the state senate. In February, the Oklahoma Senate unanimously passed a measure that would require drug testing as a condition of receiving TANF benefits, and similar bills have been introduced in Missouri and Hawaii. A Florida senator has proposed a bill linking unemployment compensation to drug testing, and a member of Minnesota's House of Representatives has a bill requiring drug tests of people who get public assistance under a state program there.

A January attempt in the Arizona Senate to establish such a law failed.

In the past, such efforts have been stymied by legal and cost concerns, said Christine Nelson, a program manager with the National Conference of State Legislatures. But states' bigger fiscal crises, and the surging demand for public assistance, could change that.

"It's an example of where you could cut costs at the expense of a segment of society that's least able to defend themselves," said Frank Crabtree, executive director of the West Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Drug testing is not the only restriction envisioned for people receiving public assistance: a bill in the Tennessee Legislature would cap lottery winnings for recipients at $600.

There seems to be no coordinated move around the country to push these bills, and similar proposals have arisen periodically since federal welfare reform in the 1990s. But the appearance of a cluster of such proposals in the midst of the recession shows lawmakers are newly engaged about who is getting public assistance.

This is the smartest thing this country could do. I don't know about you but I am sick of people abusing the system. When I worked as a cashier in supermarkets, while in college, you wouldn't believe the people that I saw with food stamps. They definitely didn't need them, especially with all the gold chains and rings they had on, and gold teeth. People get lazy and mooch off of our hard earned dollars and i am sick of this. There has to be randomized drug testing and I think they should have a house visit to see where they live, the cars they drive, and the jewelry. I am poorer than most people on welfare and they won't give it to me because I share an apt with my fiancee. That is crap. I have to pay my own way and I make no money. It sucks to live check to check. Hopefully every state will put this into effect. This is the smartest thing they could do, especially since we are in a depression. We need to start turning the situation around. Yeah there are people who are against it but that's because there socialists. We need much stricter enforcement. I am paying in to these programs as are all hard working american citizens who pay taxes. We have a right to say how it is spent. I am sick of the abuses this program has. Caseworkers are not enough. People are abusing drugs and using welfare as a stable, the same with unemployment. These programs were set up only to help those who truly need it. Due to those who abuse these programs they are running out of funding. To solve this we need to get tough and take care of this. I say you all discuss this with your elected cockroaches in the Senate and the House. We can make a difference and we need to!