How do you feel about "income inequality"? How about Obama's $17 million golf vacation? Isn't he also "rich" you Liberals always put down?

President Obama is rich, he earned his money and he pays his taxes. I don't think you have any understanding of the liberal viewpoint on income inequality. There are a lot of very rich liberals.

The issues are taxation, poverty and the huge, and growing, distance between the income and wealth of a very few and the rest of the country. If this does not concern you then you are not paying attention.

As more and more of the country's wealth becomes concentrated at the very top of the economic ladder and the middle class shrinks, the outlook for the country's economic well-being becomes bleak.

I think income inequality has gotten out of hand. Obama is rich, but at least he's trying to help close the wealth gap. It's mostly the wealthy elitists who try to pretend income inequality isn't a problem and refuse to do anything about it that I put down.

How should the poor express the feelings we might have about a $17million golf vacation?

As a member of the overlooked, unwanted non earning caste in

the giant superpower of wealth inequality-

I can truly say-- America is a success! It was MEANT to kill off much of humanity & the ecosystem!

It is FOR the WINNERS, only! "income inequality" serves tha Obama-rich class very well.

Liberals don't put down the rich. They put down the rich who are living large off of the backs of low paid workers, with poor benefits. Also those companies that lay off thousands of workers just to make themselves look more profitable. Since Reagan, most American incomes remain flat, and we are all on a merry-go-round of frequent layoffs.

Quit whining about Obama until you research what other presidents spend on vacations. And so what, it is money he has earned, and he did not earn it by screwing workers.

The Obama trip to Hawaii cost about $4 million (not $17 million), of which over $3.6 million was for travel costs alone.

For Air Force One, running at about $181,757 per flight hour, to fly direct from Washington D.C. to Hawaii is about 9 hours, or $1,635,813 each way. Add to that the cost of the USAF C-17 cargo aircraft that transports the Presidential limos, helicopters and other support equipment to Hawaii, another C-17 flight with the presidential helicopter, pilots and support crews for the test flights, plus the six-member crew’s per diem and hotel, and you’ve got a big chunk of the total price tag.

Detractors would no doubt prefer that the Obamas fly commercial with two stop-overs.

Although the Obamas are paying for their own rental, housing is estimated at about $151,000 to house the Secret Service, Coast Guard and Navy Seals. The cost to put up the remaining staff and press corps costs the taxpayers about $72,000.

As of August of this year, President Obama had taken 61 days of vacation, a number that paled in comparison, at the same point in their presidencies, with George W. Bush’s 180 days at his ranch, and Ronald Reagan’s 112 days at his. The Daily Kos estimated George W. Bush’s Crawford ranch trips to cost taxpayers about $226,000 a trip in flight costs alone . . . so do the math. At the very, very least, the pricetag for Bush’s vacations to Crawford cost us $17,407,544 – and that’s before factoring in the costs of security detail, press corps, staff and the like.

I can appreciate having a President well rested and in a good frame of mind. maybe then he is not reading a childrens book at a time when the nation is being attacked.

Youre way off on "Obama's $17 million golf vacation"

it cost 350 thousand trillion dollars.

Your hero Bush cost over 3 trillion dollars for his little adventures and we're still paying. Now you want to waste another 3 trillion and more American lives. The golf vacation is a bargain in contrast.

The people who promote it are usually the types who make choices like charging hundreds of thousands of dollars for just one speech while criticizing people like CEO who can command a seemingly inflated amount of earnings.

It's nothing more than political grandstanding. Politicians know that it's not possible, nor do they have any intention of giving up their wealth, or limiting the amount that they personally can earn. When was the last time a politician left office poorer than when they entered it?

Its OK so long as it does not get out of hand, as it has lately. A CEO making 300 times the average wages of his workers is a little over the top, and if he paid out just a little better in wages and benefits such that he only make 250 times their wages, we would all be a little better off and he would not feel it that much.

Just fine

Incomes aren't supposed to be equal