ShareThis Page

Obama created 'huge' problems

| Friday, Aug. 11, 2017, 8:57 p.m.

This is in response to David J. Roberts' letter, “‘Huge' is right,” in which President Trump's use of the word “huge” is critiqued. I believe “huge” can be aptly applied to several situations in the previous administration.

1. ObamaCare. The reason the current administration is addressing health care is the huge failure of ObamaCare. Do you recall that President Obama said the average household would save $2,500 a year in medical insurance payments?

2. Business ventures. There were several sophomoric business ventures initiated, including cash for clunkers, shovel-ready construction projects and Solyndra. These initiatives appear to have originated in some faculty lounge. All resulted in huge losses.

3. Czar rule. Obama appointed a huge number of czars. Are they still reigning, or do they now receive huge pensions? Did he ever get around to appointing a czar of unisex bathrooms?

4. Economic ineptness. The huge economic ineptness of the Obama regime is best expressed by the doubling of the national debt. Some say Obama incurred more debt than the previous 43 administrations combined, depending on how it's measured.

Who would you prefer to direct an economy — a highly successful business entrepreneur and executive, or a community organizer? The former is evaluated by financial success; the latter, by the social success of sit-ins and protest marches.

Jack Bologna

Parks

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.