So you want to be president?

United States
October 1, 2011 4:32pm CST
If you think it is easy to be president you just have to look at what is going on in southern Ohio right now. You have many republicans including the governor, and many representatives calling on the Obama administration to write a $2 Billion check to a company in Piketon Ohio so they can try to build an experimental nuclear reactor. Now the process they are working on isn't tested, nor has the company been able to find funding anywhere, but the government. Now the people that have been at the front of the line attacking the president for throwing away money, want him to give money to a company that no bank will, for a project that NO ONE but the government would fund. If you were the president, would you fund this project? http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2009/07/construction_suspended_on_pike.html
2 people like this
3 responses
@gewcew23 (8011)
• United States
2 Oct 11
Wait just a minute their, Ohio Republicans want the Federal government to give a company 2 billion dollars of the tax payers money. Which one is the greater proof that Republican talk out of their a$$es when it comes to spending, that they want the federal government to spend more money or that this is spending is contrary to free market? If I was the President I would tell the Ohio GOP to have the invisible hand of the free market fund the reactor.
3 people like this
• United States
3 Oct 11
Yes, they do want to do this, and they are upset that he hasn't done so yet. Funny how the state isn't going to write them a check, but they want the federal government to do it. I agree with your assessment of the situation, and I am surprised that more people here in Ohio haven't questioned their actions yet.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22977)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
2 Oct 11
Every domestic expenditure of federal taxpayer dollars should have to pass a few basic challenges. 1: Is it a federal government issue? (In other words, does the US Constitution grant the federal government authority to act?). 2: Does the issue involve more than one state? 3: Is the issue one of basic infrastructure, or is it simply the government picking winners and losers in free enterprise? 4: How will the money used be covered (paid for)? In other words, does this nuclear facility meet a constitutionally backed, national infrastructure need? Or will it just help Ohio? While I think this project does pass some of the tests, the big questions in this economy is, how will the money be covered and does it help our national infrastructure. If it would improve the energy grid and can be "paid for", yes I'd probably approve it. Otherwise, nope, nope, nope. ~~~~~~ Side note: I've never considered being president an easy job, as attested by the presidents aging over 4-8 years. :~)
3 people like this
@clrumfelt (5439)
• United States
1 Oct 11
This is the first I have heard of this. I wish the government would get out of funding businesses and go about the business of giving people in the private sector the power to build them and fund themselves. That is how the government is supposed to work.
• United States
2 Oct 11
I heard about this today, and did some research because it just didn't sound on the up and up (and it looks like it isn't). I agree that the government shouldn't fund companies, but the problem that businesses have is that banks aren't lending (but, in this case, it looks like they shouldn't). I don't think that politicians should go to the government and ask them to fund something. Especially, when people like Kasich wants to bash Obama and the US government about balanced budgets, then try to push them into spending money they shouldn't spend.
1 person likes this