Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items tagged Money

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Melissa Diaz-Aguilera

Obama needs a 'Plan B' on guns - 2 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

Government Politics News CNN congress bill

shared by Melissa Diaz-Aguilera on 18 Feb 13 - No Cached
  • Melissa Diaz-Aguilera on 18 Feb 13
     
    Obama may not have votes for gun legislation to pass
  • ...2 more comments...
  • olinde on 28 Feb 13
     
    i think that obama should have a plan b when it comes to guns because there is always stories about how someone gets killed when they didnt do anything wrong
  • matthew corrin on 28 Feb 13
     
    i think there should be laws but you should have to take classes to even get a gun not just be able to go in and with a simple backround and just get one
  • Chris Lavy on 28 Feb 13
     
    I believe gun makers are just doing what will get them the most amount of profit, since there are no laws requiring them to make weapons safer, easier to match, or track they see no point in helping, since it would cost more money to fulfill these requests.
  • david martin on 01 Mar 13
     
    The reason it failed is because he is not using common sense, you cant just expect someone to do something you tell them too. No they need to think about the fact and solve the issue, like school shootings and gangs in the cities thinking they can run the place, because they are cool no. You need to use mind and use it wisely and if that doesn't work than i would suggest using brute force like getting the people that are paid to solve these problems like going in to the main source of violence which would be the gang shootings and take them into custody and put them behind bars for a long time which might be the only solution he has to offer who knows.
Julia Gibler

Should the U.S. allow gambling on elections? - CNNPolitics.com - 1 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Julia Gibler on 13 Oct 15 - No Cached
  • Julia Gibler on 13 Oct 15
     
    For years, Vaccaro has watched billions of dollars pour into Nevada for sports betting. And he dreams of extending casino gambling to political elections.
  • sophiataylor001 on 14 Oct 15
     
    I don't think they should allow gambling on elections because then the elections would be much more money focused than politics and people would could cause crime or go to extreme measures to make sure one person won for gambling's sake. However, this might also help people get more involved in voting and politics.
stacy martinez

Donald Trump walked off a 1990 CNN interview when asked tough questions about his casino - 6 views

money.cnn.com/...index.html

Politics cnn

shared by stacy martinez on 25 Oct 16 - No Cached
  • stacy martinez on 25 Oct 16
     
    It's something Trump has done before. In a 1990 CNN interview reviewed by CNN's KFile, Trump walked off an interview when reporter Charles Feldman pressed him on questions over the financial stability of his Atlantic City casinos. The interview took place in March 1990, just days before Trump's billion dollar Atlantic City casino, the Trump Taj Mahal, was set to open.
  • ravynanderson on 25 Oct 16
     
    Donald Trump walking off when he was pressed to answer questions about his casino make me want to know why he really walked off instead of just saying an excuse. Is he hiding something? Trump lashed out and said "You aren't going to talk about positive people. You'll talk about the negative. You want to talk about the negative." I understand that you should say positive things about people, but you should also be able to hear about the negative too because it is good to know.
kadenroen

Judge rules in favor of GOP in Obamacare suit - 2 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by kadenroen on 12 May 16 - No Cached
  • kadenroen on 12 May 16
     
    At issue is the "cost sharing" provision in the law that requires insurance companies offering health plans through the law to reduce out-of-pocket costs for policy holders who qualify. The government offsets the added costs to insurance companies by reimbursing them. But lawyers for the House argued that Congress did not properly approve the money for those reimbursements.
  • ivanhessche on 16 May 16
     
    This suit represents the first time in our nation's history that Congress has been permitted to sue executive branch over a disagreement about how to interpret a statute," Earnest said during his daily briefing. "These are the kinds of political disputes that characterize a democracy. It's unfortunate that Republicans have resorted to a taxpayer-funded lawsuit to re-fight a political fight they keep losing.
kadenroen

Trump warns of another attack - 4 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by kadenroen on 16 May 16 - No Cached
  • kadenroen on 16 May 16
     
    "Our country has enough difficulty right now without letting the Syrians pour in," Trump said on The Green Line. Trump also suggested ISIS is paying for refugees' cell phone plans. "They all have cell phones so they don't have money, they don't have anything, they have cell phones," Trump said.
  • morgandooty on 16 May 16
     
    I think there is a possibility that Trump is right. We could be letting people in that are terrorists. It is a problem that we can not keep track of the refugees and we have no way to know if they are working for ISIS or not. There has to be a way that we protect ourselves. If we can not protect ourselves at home we will not be able to help other countries.
Bryan Pregon

Smoke pot legally? You can still get fired - Nov. 9, 2014 - 3 views

money.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 10 Nov 14 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 10 Nov 14
     
    "So even though you can walk into a store and buy weed legally, you can still lose your job for smoking it. That's true even if you only smoke on personal time and always show up to work stone cold sober."
natefisher

Trump Vows to Remove Millions Living in Country Illegally - 9 views

www.thenews.mx/...ns-living-in-country-illegally

shared by natefisher on 01 Sep 16 - No Cached
  • natefisher on 01 Sep 16
     
    PHOENIX - Seeking to end confusion over his aggressive but recently muddled language on immigration, Donald Trump vowed Wednesday to remove millions of people living in the country illegally if he becomes president, warning that failure to do so would jeopardize the "well-being of the American people."
  • ...4 more comments...
  • Tanner Morriss on 01 Sep 16
     
    I feel like Trump is like a cyber bully in the fact that when he isn't face to face with Nieto he will say whatever he wants. But when confronted he is mild mannered, unlike when he is on TV giving speeches.
  • emilbrath on 05 Sep 16
     
    What if foreigners need a place to stay, he can't just kick them out and accept no immigration, and avoid the question, "What about those who haven't committed crimes?" Well maybe if some foreigners have committed crimes, but not all of the crimes were that bad, and what if the immigrants are desperate, or need something, or again, a place.
  • william bach on 07 Sep 16
     
    Trump wants to remove millions of illegals, but like the passage says what would he do with the ones the haven't committed a crime? The ones that have done crime should be removed, but the ones that haven't should continue living here.
  • cvanhessche237 on 13 Sep 16
     
    Trump said in his own words that when he becomes president he wants to exile the millions of illegal immigrants from the US and that if this succeeds he would change the world completely. Any illegal immigrants that are arrested will be deported as well.
  • ravynanderson on 13 Sep 16
     
    Trump said "We agreed on the importance of ending the illegal flow of drugs, cash, guns and people across our border and to put the cartels out of business," not all Hispanics bring drugs, cash, and guns across the border. Some come to America to get away from their country because we have more freedom. Kicking all of them out just doesn't seem fair. Also making Mexico pay for the wall isn't fair either. If America wants the wall then they should pay for it. When you go shopping and you want a shirt you don't make your friend or the cashier pay for it.
  • kaylynnsmith on 13 Sep 16
     
    "We agreed on the importance of ending the illegal flow of drugs, cash, guns and people across our border and to put the cartels out of business," (Trump). He acts and speaks as if every single foreigner brings trouble when they come, and he's wrong. Yes, there are those that cause trouble with guns, drugs, and money- but not every single one of them. He wants to deport all of foreigners who have "overstayed" their visa, even if they have caused no trouble or harm whatsoever.
Bryan Pregon

Facebook slammed for deleting iconic Vietnam War photo - Sep. 9, 2016 - 23 views

money.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 09 Sep 16 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 09 Sep 16
     
    "Mark Zuckerberg is facing criticism after Facebook censored one of the most famous war photographs in history."
  • ...4 more comments...
  • schumann49 on 13 Sep 16
     
    I can see the situation from both directions. Facebook was trying to keep it theses things from blowing up and how close it was to child pornography, even if it was a historic photo. But it is part of our history and we should be able to see it when we want. I guess its just a matter of opinion.
  • Jacob Jensen on 13 Sep 16
     
    I can see why they censored the photo because it's in direct violation of their rules. I can also see the other side of the story and how people say that it's historical contention should be left untouched. If Zuckerberg doesn't do this then people can use the photo against him and claim that their rules are biased.
  • stacy martinez on 13 Sep 16
     
    Its not Mark Zuckerbergs fault the picture was on Facebook, and it should not be a big deal because the picture is part of understanding the history of the world.
  • Lanny Mcalexander on 13 Sep 16
     
    The picture is not a big deal it is part of history and it wasn't his fault at all, there is no reason that other people should be blaming him for the whole deal when he didnt even put it up in the first place
  • acarlson521 on 13 Sep 16
     
    I can understand were their coming from but that doesn't excuse that fact you should delete a picture of history.
  • mckennareese12 on 13 Sep 16
     
    Mark should not be getting negative feedback from this picture. This is part of our history, and he may be getting the hate for this picture when he wasn't the one that posted it, but people should understand that this picture is part of history. Even though some may believe this is bad it shouldn't be taken like that.
Christina Beck

Clinton: Trump shamed into making donations to veterans groups - 4 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Christina Beck on 13 Sep 16 - No Cached
  • Christina Beck on 13 Sep 16
     
    "Look, I'm glad he finally did it, but I don't know that he should get much credit," she told CNN's Jake Tapper on "The Lead.""I think the problem here is the difference between what Donald Trump says and what Donald Trump does."
  • emilbrath on 14 Sep 16
     
    It's good that Trump raised all that money for the veterans, but he let people think that he donated it. But then he donated some because he got caught. Clinton is trying to shame Trump even more, but isn't having much luck with it. She and Sanders may have been competing, but they're working together to make sure Trump doesn't become president.
dominiclamkins

The middle class gets a big raise ... finally! - 1 views

money.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by dominiclamkins on 13 Sep 16 - No Cached
  • dominiclamkins on 13 Sep 16
     
    After years of watching their incomes go nowhere, America's middle class finally got a big raise last year. Median household income rose to $56,516 in 2015, up from 5.2% a year earlier, according to data released by the U.S. Census Bureau Tuesday.
  • laurenspencer on 13 Sep 16
     
    It's nice to know that in the past 16 years household incomes have improved. That unemployment has gone down along with poverty.
Bryan Pregon

The weekend America's newspapers called Donald Trump a liar - Sep. 25, 2016 - 16 views

money.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 26 Sep 16 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 26 Sep 16
     
    "On the weekend leading up to 2016's first presidential debate, four news organizations came to a similar and sweeping conclusion: Donald Trump lies more often than Hillary Clinton."
emmaseilstad

Warren blasts 'insecure, money-grubber' Trump - 1 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by emmaseilstad on 25 May 16 - No Cached
  • emmaseilstad on 25 May 16
     
    In a speech at the Center for Popular Democracy's annual gala, the progressive stalwart took aim at Trump's business record and populist rhetoric during a 10-minute invective, and sought to portray the billionaire real estate mogul as uncaring and dishonest -- picking up on Trump's comments he made about the 2008 financial crisis.
kfloerchinger

Four months later, Donald Trump says he gave $1 million to veterans group - 1 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...ve-1-million-to-veterans-group

shared by kfloerchinger on 25 May 16 - No Cached
  • kfloerchinger on 25 May 16
     
    Almost four months after saying he would give $1 million of his own money to veterans' causes, Republican candidate Donald Trump moved to fulfill that pledge on Monday evening -- promising the entire sum to a single charity. Trump said in an interview Tuesday that he pledged the $1 million to the Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation.
Bryan Pregon

Iowa bill would let women sue doctor after abortion - 9 views

www.desmoinesregister.com/...96662044

shared by Bryan Pregon on 19 Jan 17 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 19 Jan 17
     
    "Iowa bill would let women sue doctor after abortion"
  • ...12 more comments...
  • sydney matheny on 24 Jan 17
     
    It is a women's choice to choose abortion but you have to make sure it's what you want. if you feel you made the wrong choice, you should deal with it because the doctors did what you wanted.
  • mitchell_johnson on 24 Jan 17
     
    I think that this is stupid because the article says that it's a difficult decision for the woman, and that they should get a recourse if they have mental health issues because of the decision. It's the woman's choice to have it done so why should she get money back for her mistake, the doctor has no choice in doing the procedure so they should not get sued for doing their job.
  • kelsi836 on 24 Jan 17
     
    It was the women's choice to get the abortion in the first place. Which means that they wanted the doctor to the procedure. It is NOT the doctors fault if you get an abortion and then feel bad about it. You should NOT be able to sue the doctor for emotional damage. I can understand physical damage only if the doctor did not do the procedure right and the physical damage is because of that. But emotional damage is total ..... Anyway, in the article it says "that many studies show that only a small percentage of women regret their abortions." Regret is NOT the same as emotional damage. Just because you REGRET something that YOU did does NOT mean that you can put all blame on the doctor because of a decision that YOU made. "Chelgren's emotional distress bill says a woman could sue the doctor who performed the abortion anytime during her lifetime." this means that you could have had an abortion 20 years ago and then sue the doctor. It doesn't even make sence and it is NOT the doctors fault for doing his or her job.
  • kim bagshaw on 24 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Kelsi because it is the women's choice to have the abortion in the first place and its the doctors job to do the procedure. The doctor did not make the choice, the women did, the doctors are just doing their job. It's like suing a dog for peeing in the wrong place. It's just ridiculous. The only thing it will accomplish is putting abortion clinics out of business causing people to try aborting the child on their own which can cause a lot more deaths.
  • alejandrarangel on 24 Jan 17
     
    I agree with kelsi, I don't think women should be able to sue a doctor for an abortion she choose. The doctor gives you a choose if you want an abortion. You can't blame the doctor of your mistake.Women have a choice and if they decide to have an abortion and if she regret later, then you have to deal with it.
  • lauren rambo on 26 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Sydney, this is ridiculous. It was the woman's decision in the first place, the doctor is just doing his job so I think it's unjust to sue them if they later regret their decision.
  • delaniehubbard on 26 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Kelsi! The doctor is doing his job and I think that once a woman has made a choice to or to not to get an abortion, there should be a contract signed that before the doctor does the actual abortion the woman can not sue later in the future. Its not like the doctor is forcing you to get an abortion they are only doing it for the sake of the woman's decision.
  • Landon Mohr on 26 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Sydney and Lauren. It was the woman's choice to get the abortion. Not the Doctor. They shouldn't be able to sue because they had a change of heart and thought they made the wrong decision.
  • sschultz777 on 26 Jan 17
     
    I think that when women choose to have an abortion they are giving the doctor permission to kill their baby. Its not the Doctors fault their just there to make sure you have the procedure done right. Everyone is aware of the emotion damage of losing a child.
  • brettday on 26 Jan 17
     
    Its the woman's decision not the doctors. There just doing there job and if they could be sued for it then no doctor is gonna do it.
  • daulton wilcoxen on 26 Jan 17
     
    Women should not have the right to sue the doctor for carrying out their act kill their baby, because with their body their choice saying, their choice, their consequence not the doctors.
  • hmiller403 on 26 Jan 17
     
    I don't think that women should be able to sue a doctor due to emotional distress after they gave consent to the doctor to go through with the procedure. If they have emotional distress they should blame themselves because they were the one who decided to have an abortion. Now if a doctor forced it then i can see why she would sue.
  • amiahdoty on 26 Jan 17
     
    i think that a women should not be able to sue a doctor for her choice of having an abortion
  • jwelch096 on 26 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Sydney, Lauren, and Landon. You made the choice of getting the abortion, and the doctor just did what you wanted. YOU should have made sure that it was the choice you wanted.
Bryan Pregon

Fatal accidents involving stoned drivers soared in Washington since pot was legalized -... - 18 views

money.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 11 May 16 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 11 May 16
     
    "Fatal accidents involving stoned drivers have soared in the state of Washington since marijuana was legalized there, according to a study from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. But it's difficult to determine whether a high-on-pot driver is too impaired to drive, according to a separate study from the same group."
  • ...11 more comments...
  • lizretikis on 11 May 16
     
    I believe that this is null and void, just because someone has the drug in their system at the time of driving does not mean that it was the reason for their impairment.
  • calebsnead on 11 May 16
     
    Fatal accidents involving the use of marijuana have risen ever since it was legalized. Sparking the debate, which is worse? Driving drunk or stoned? This is a hard thing to prove which one is worse, so the answer is unclear. Either way just because the drug is legal does not mean you are totally safe to be operating a vehicle.
  • egessert on 11 May 16
     
    I think that they should try and invent things to help test and see if it impairs their judgment.
  • zander0823 on 11 May 16
     
    If it is harder to tell whether marijuana has something to do with impairment or no then they need to do more studies on it. Once they have done more studies and figured out what effects marijuana have then they can decide on laws or regulations that they need to have.
  • tyjeff22 on 11 May 16
     
    I believe that it could have happened if they weren't using the drug
  • ivanhessche on 11 May 16
     
    But coming up with a test to get impaired drivers off the road will be far more difficult than the blood alcohol tests used to test for drunk drivers, according to the group. While tests show the ability to drive gets worse as blood alcohol rises, laboratory studies show the same is not necessarily true with increased levels of THC,
  • kyleighsev on 11 May 16
     
    If they are going to legalize marijuana they should come up with a test like a breathalyzer test so they can actually tell if the incidents were the cause of being stoned.
  • morgandooty on 11 May 16
     
    I think it is a possibility that people who are stoned are at an increased risk of crashing their car. The article said, "One driver with high levels of THC might not be impaired, while another driver with very low levels can be impaired." I think that researches should base regulations off of the people that are impaired by low levels. They should also look at how levels of THC decrease over time to see how long it would take to get down to the lowest level that would affect people.
  • mjones776 on 11 May 16
     
    I believe more research needs to be done. Like alcohol, there should be limits and rules with the marijuana. Because it is a drug, there should be a law about driving because it impairs your thinking just like alcohol.
  • emmaseilstad on 11 May 16
     
    I think that in order to decide what they are going to use to test the amount, more research needs to be conducted on how marijuana affects the brain. It seems to be proven that marijuana can have a negative affect on driving and can impair people who are using it and I think that's reason enough to do more research. I also think that before a state legalizes marijuana they need to find solutions to all of the precautionaries, such as driving, first.
  • msap832 on 11 May 16
     
    There is currently no way of testing if someone was "high" at the time of an accident and having THC in your system at the time of the accident means nothing, you could have smoked a week or even a month prior to the accident and had it in your system! I think they should keep doing studies and try and come up with a way of telling just like they have for alcohol testing for drunk driving but "All this report really shows is that more people in Washington State are likely consuming cannabis, and thus might have some THC in their systems at the time of an accident. But since having THC in your system tells us nothing about your potential impairment, it would be like a report showing how many people involved in accidents had drunk a beer in the last week" is all that needs to be said
  • epond857 on 12 May 16
     
    there is a way but its not like a brethalizer or anything like that for alcohol and other stuff.they can give u a piss test and it will tell weather u are on weed,pills and a bunch of other stuff so there is a way but i dont think that they think about it at the time.
  • bclayton731 on 12 May 16
     
    I think they need to do at least 10 to 20 years of research to confidently say marijuana is bad and causes this to happen so it should be illegal or its not so bad and can stay legal. I think its highly likely the deaths will go up for stoned driving for the first couple years then go down.
gabriella24

1 year old baby gets shot in a stroller - 44 views

The fact that this teen went to such drastic measures just for money is bewildering... prayers go out to the family and that innocent child.

started by Mike Bertrand on 03 Sep 13 11 follow-ups, last by gabriella24 on 29 Apr 14
egessert

$182 million: Bernie Sanders equals Clinton - 3 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by egessert on 22 Apr 16 - No Cached
  • egessert on 22 Apr 16
     
    The Vermont senator began his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination last year with a sizable financial disadvantage compared to front-runner Hillary Clinton. By the end of last June, Sanders had raised just shy of $14 million for his campaign, less than a third of the $47.5 million Clinton had raised for hers.
  • bclayton731 on 22 Apr 16
     
    It's crazy how much he has raised. Considering most of his money just comes from average citizens like you and me, and not big corporations.
  • epond857 on 22 Apr 16
     
    she would have never got caught if she wasnt being stupid and tailgating. I bet if she wasnt tailgating she would have never got introuble in the first place!!!
kfloerchinger

Harriet Tubman Ousts Andrew Jackson in Change for a $20 - 6 views

www.nytimes.com/...y-treasury-harriet-tubman.html

shared by kfloerchinger on 22 Apr 16 - No Cached
  • kfloerchinger on 22 Apr 16
     
    Proposing to replace the slaveholding Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill with Harriet Tubman, the former slave and abolitionist, and to add women and civil rights leaders to the $5 and $10 notes.
  • ...1 more comment...
  • kyleighsev on 22 Apr 16
     
    I think it's cool because it's the first African American who will be on money
  • ltorneten065 on 27 Apr 16
     
    Also the first women honored on paper currency.
  • alexander4434 on 27 Apr 16
     
    the country is moving forward
kittyterhune

Ben Carson: Keep Jackson where he is, put Tubman on the $2 bill - 0 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

Government news Politics economy Money cnn

shared by kittyterhune on 22 Apr 16 - No Cached
  • kittyterhune on 22 Apr 16
     
    Carson lacks political correctness and tact. It's no wonder he was incapable of winning the presidency. The $20 bill is a much greater honor than the rare $2 bill.
« First ‹ Previous 81 - 100 of 164 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page