Staying at a 20 million dollar mansion while many Americans struggle to pay their mortgage, buy food and clothing and pay bills, the president once again, proves he is all about him and the rest of us can go to hell in a handbasket.
Our 401k's take another beating, but he could care less since he and his cronies have federal pensions paid for by the taxpayer. They only grow and are guaranteed.
His 'plan' that will be unveiled after he gets done with vacation, will be just another tired old remake of the same old crap he has promoted before. This guy does not have a clue. The other day instead of finding ways for government to lessen its negative impact on business, he was more concerned about mileage ratings on trucks. He attacked Bush for his 'nationbuilding' and here he is telling the leader of a sovereign nation to leave office. He volunteered this country's resources to attack Libya after telling Mubarak to get out. Now it's Syria's turn. Not saying Assad shouldn't go, just saying it's not up to Barry to decide. Oh that's right, I forgot, he's smarter than any of the rest of us. No one else knows what to do in the world except for him. Of course he doesn't know what to do unless Michelle tells him.
Tired of the dude and his incompetence. Too bad we can't recall his sorry ass.
What I heard an Economist say yesterday is that we are suffering from Stagflation. If the Government admits this, they are admitting they screwed up and can't borrow more money. They may know exactly what they are doing, to us.
I like the new song going around by Ray Stevens. We should all get us a printing press and start printing our own money just like the government. We just keep on printing and buying and spending. If the tax payers are stupid enough to put up with it...then tax and spend right on up to the end. Bye y'all. Words Hardee
You likely heard that from an Austrian Economist. Stagflation disproves mainstream economics, and thus they try to deny it exists.
The general theory of what is taught in Colleges across the world is called "Keynesian economics", and it demands that inflation and unemployment are inversely related.
That is, if you want employment, you need to increase inflation, but if you want to reduced inflation, unemployment will result.
But according to stagflation, the two are completely independent.
The 70s and 80s stagflation AND modern stagflation have proved people like Krugman and countless other economists wrong.
People still demand they're right because Economics can't be a science - it's impossible to control the experiments.
Much as the US decided that Saddam should go? Much like Reagan tried to bomb Gaddafi into oblivion? At least they are not starting a war to get him out of office.
I have to laugh at people now being against strategies that have been used in the past just because it's the other guy doing it.
Personally, I don't find hypocrisy by a president that funny.
I thought that was Clinton? He killed one of his children with the missile.
Interesting article. You have done your homework. So it would appear that both parties have at one time or another tried to delete Qaddafi without success, but he kept on thumbing his nose at the US until his people with the aid of the US and the United Nations got his number. Of course he is still defiant, but they appear to be closing in on him. The end is near for him.
You really should stop projecting personality traits onto people you don't know...
He has been covered by a idolizing press for years, pretty sure we know more about him than just about anyone else in the world.
The vacation isn't the problem, it is the timing. Besides being hypocritical about complaining about rich people.
What about Congress taking the entire month of August off? After the Republicans gave him such a hard time over the debt deal, I'd think he does need a vacation. Did you take one? Most people get one.
It appears that many people are addressing the symptom not he problem. The problem the nation is facing started with Woodrow Wilson and the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank, who now is control of printing the money not congress as the Constitution implies is to control this part of the government. President Obama and all the other were nothing but figure head. Allen Greenspan was the head of the Federal Reserve Bank, and claimed "I didn't notice this economical disaster coming. Yet, once out of that office he wrote a book detailing the events that led up to the housing collapse A recent article read, Feds eying Standard and Poor. These are the thing Americans should focus on Not Obama..Mr. Greenspan could clear his throat and the interest rates would fluctuate Don't believe me read for yourselves.
Hay at least he isn't in the Taj Mahal at 200 million a day. I thought the most important part was when he said he had used his presidential fiat to do a end run around Congress on the Dream Act.
He is dreaming of more bought votes....illegals and their supporters Cupajo. He doesn't mind buying the Presidency...that is the American way!
It sure did. They were both Bilderberg approved! Wonder who will be their next President?They always win, we only think we have won. Same old song, same old tune. Let us do your thinking, you just trust us and pay the bills. We need a new party, and we need new untainted leadership, but I doubt we will ever get them?
The president doesn't control the economy.
Please purge this idea from your brain.
You are right, the president doesn't control the economy or create jobs. But the words they use and the ideas they put forward do have an impact on the financial decisions made by those who do. He should stay on vacation and just remain silent.
No he does not control the economy, nor does he control his wife who spends our money like a drunken sailor. I wonder to what exotic place she will be off to next? Some photo op to help get hubby reelected I suppose?
Now just where did young'uns put that teleprompter? She knows he hates it when he has to speak without it. He could accidentally start a war, or maybe add a few more states to the union, or kill off a few thousand more people in that last flood out in the mid west. Oh well....it all has to be Bush's fault, there is no way it could be attributed to the Anointed One, right?
agree on that,but the president must have assertiveness
I don't think the president controls the economy, However, I think those that are puling his strings do. G Soros.
Can you please demonstrate for us how Obama's vacationing is any more or less frequent or insensitive than previous Presidents? With actual facts, please?
Facts? Now you want truth? What will it be next, logic and common sense? You guys are never satisfied!
Math ends debate over President Obama vacations
Posted on August 10, 2010 by editorial
A few facts and a basic understanding of “more” and “less” will clear up the subject of presidents’ vacation days.
During his first year in office, Barack Obama took 26 vacation days. During their first years in office, George W. Bush took 69, Bill Clinton 21, George H.W. Bush 40, Ronald Reagan 42 and Jimmy Carter 21.
Trips to Camp David, which were not included as vacation days, were: Obama 27 days, George W. Bush, 78 days.
http://blogs.tennessean.com/opinion/201 … vacations/
Now we should compare our leaders leisure time to that of the Average citizen! Then we can see the level of contempt and the condescension of the elitistocracy! I think I invented a word!! Webster's give me a call.
How bout this:
We quit comparing a bunch of jackasses to one another and just realize that they're all jackasses who don't deserve our money NOR the "donations" they receive from lobbyists NOR the cushioned jobs as a reward for their years of corporate handouts that await them after they leave their government positions.
Can we all agree to that? They're all mercantilist scumbags?
Ronpaulevan island will have none of these issues. Why don't you just move already and quit telling the 99.99% of Americans who don't agree with you how stupid they all are.
That's strange, 27% of American Republicans represented in Iowa agreed with me.
Iowa is a Republican state, and thus at least 60% or so vote for the Rs. 27% of that 60% means that at least 16.2% of Iowans agree with Ron Paul. That's about 486,000 people in one state.
Anyway, I'm just having fun with math while you waste time insulting me.
You have yet to post anything important in about 3 months...
"They're all mercantilist scumbags" is a statement worthy of serious reply and is also something 486,000 people in one state agree with?
I have serious discussions with people who submit serious posts. Clownish attacks on society will pretty much always be mocked, that's just the way it works.
Have fun on the island.
Duh, you talking about Gilligan's Island or what Ron? Could you help arrange it so some of our illustrious leaders can be deported to that there Island you speak of?All the radical ultra liberals will want to go there so it might get sort of crowded, don't you think? Of course we will save some room for Pres. Obama, his grandma, and the rest of his cronies. Michelle can do the cooking and vacation planning for them while they solve the world's problems. Hope the Island don't sink from all the heavy weight thinking that will be going on....
Perhaps Reality Bytes the ones who took more vacation days accomplished more while they were at work than their counterparts did? Besides who really cares how much vacation they take...what counts is what have they accomplished that we agree is beneficial to one and all.
Personally I would like to see Obama take a lot more vacation days, he should spend those days without a cell phone and hopefully on a deserted island. His kind of accomplishments we could do without.
Unfortunately for Bill, Jimmy, and now Obama, their brains have been on vacation since birth. As for many of our politicians, they seem to care little for their constituents. They should be called Congressional Thieves because they stole our Social Security funds and used it to bribe those who had not paid into the system in order to obtain their votes. Even now they are trying to add another state to the union in order to get more votes. They want to pass the Dream Act to legalize illegal immigrants to get their votes. The truth is they should be arrested and prosecuted for bribery, and embezzlement. They embezzled our tax money to buy votes, did they not?
That kitty cat doesn't look like a panther to me Pretty Panther? Forget the vacations, its the cost of them that is important, also what has he cost us before going on vacation? by the way I am still trying to figure out the name of the rest of those states he said we had, hmm...57, I must have lost count, but what are they, and where are they? by the way I got to get me one of those teleprompters so I can find those states, and some of those thousands of people who drowned....cuz ...I only heard about eleven.
As has been said before, is a President ever really on vacation?
Should we allow those who do not pay taxes, but draw welfare, or government aid the right to vote? Is it possible that some folks think they can buy votes by offering welfare,free medical care,free food,free education,free telephone service, and lots of other free stuff? Should we insist on eliminating this opportunity by the unscrupulous to buy votes using our tax money? The floor is open for debate. Choose your words carefully and please think of what it means to be able to buy votes before you decide wheteher we should allow it or not? We do not allow those who do not own stock in a company to vote. They have to be stock holders of record. Why shouldn't we demand that those on swelfare be denied a vote until they come off of welfare and get a self supporting job?
Take it from here folks. Words Hardee, your friend, your ally, fighting crime, and fighting wasteful spending, and illegal vote buying!
so, I guess we would then have to disallow the people who receive government subsides not get a vote. Such as peanut farmers who sell their peanuts to Japan and then the United States buys them back at a unreasonable price and you favorite peanut butter price it out of the roof. Once you start making these types of decision where will it stop. It may start out well meaning but in the end it will be bad for all concerned.knowingly or unknowing you are already, you think singling out certain people. You may or may not think that this group of whom you speak are the only ones on this list, but statistics say you are wrong.
As a former peanut farmer, I take umbrage at this statement. Farmers do not decide where their peanuts go nor who buys them. Big business rules all and buys most of the votes and the politicians vying for them.
Randy Godwin I own some land myself and know how you feel. Prices for most farm products are artificially low in order to please the voters. It is hard for a farmer to make much money, or the land owners. Taxes, Federal, State, County, and some times even City leaves us with about enough to buy a cup of coffee at the end of the year. If they continue to keep food prices low this way, then commercial developers will continue to turn farm land into concrete jungles and we will have to import our food just like our oil. Woe is all of us if we have to do that!
Correct. Tobacco still goes for around $2.00 a lb. to the local growers. Peanuts are roughly $400 per ton. Figure in diesel, seed, fertilizer, insecticides, herbicides, and the list goes on and on. People should be worried about our food supply, but only see the grocery stores and McDonalds as where the food comes from.
You make a good point PlatinumOwl4, however I was referring to those whose income is mostly in the form of welfare, not a subsidy meant to encourage growing crops. Farmers don't need subsidies, what they do need is more money for their crops, then they will not need a subsidy. The government tries to keep prices artificially low to keep food prices low for the poor, so they use subsidies to accomplish that. This does not really help the farmer, or even those who are buying the product which is artificially low in price.Our overall food prices are lower today than they should be creating a false sense of security. As more and more land is taken out of farm use and gobbled up by land developers you will soon see soaring prices as we have to import from other countries; we will become hostages to them. That is similar to our current fuel prices. We are much too dependant on foreign oil. So it makes little sense to also become dependent on them for our food. Those who vote for free stuff will only get stuck in the end! If you don't pay taxes you should not have a vote until you do start paying taxes.Have a nice day all.
"He volunteered this country's resources to attack Libya after telling Mubarak to get out."
This was unforgivable. Fortunately, he made up for it by attacking Egypt after telling Ghadaffi to get out.
Too much is being said about Stagflation and so on. Our problems stem from too much spending of what you ain't got! Recently I learned that when a foreign aid package is approved it is for everyone. Over one hundred and fifty countries including China, Russia, and all those other countries that hate our guts are getting millions. My son recently read an article about how we had scraped our program to have the Navy haul our oil. Over three hundred million was spent for nothing. Now they want to pay a company in England ten million to take apart the oil cargo ship. We have countless people on welfare who make a living off having children and us paying for their support. We have more people drawing aid of some kind or another than we have workers who pay for it all. We need to overhaul our government and their way of doing business. We have Congressmen giving themselves raises while the country flounders in debt. It is time to clean house and start over with honest men and women....if we can find any! Do I get an amen to that? Your solid conservative friend, Words Hardee, wants your opinion.
I suggest you get a copy of "Economics" by Paul Samuelson and read it before wasting our time with off the cuff opinions on our economy.
Only after you read "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.
Ralph you and Evan don't need to blast each other over economics. The simple truth is easy for everyone to understand. If you spend more than you earn you create debt, then you have to cut cost, or eventually go bankrupt. That means by over spending they are now forced into cutting jobs and re-organizing. That makes stocks go down and leads to high unemployment. Once the books are balanced, or are nearly balanced the trend will start the other way and companies will start hiring again. More money will flow into the treasury from the newly hired workers who will spend at least a part of their income creating yet more jobs and more income for Uncle Sam. The trouble is some politicians only know how to taxs and spend. The Tea Party supporters are forcing thier representatives to cut spending. Once this is done things will soon turn around. Of course Obama and his spend like crazy crowd don't like it....cause they can't buy a lot of votes wiath our tax money if they have to cut cost and save money. You and Ralph are both good guys as is most everyone on this web site. Lets work together and all be friends and supporters of common sense government? Ok?
I'm afraid your approach is way too simple, economics must be complicated and result in failure to be taken seriously.
What you say about deficits which exceed the growth of GDP is certainly true in the long run. But cutting expenditures or raising taxes in the middle of a recession with nominal unemployment almost 10 percent and actual unemployment closer to 16 percent is suicidal. What is needed is more spending now until the economy turns around and structural changes to bring revenues and expenditures into balance long term. I find it hard to see what's so hard about that for so many amateur economists to understand. One of the biggest single factors in the current deficit is reduced tax revenues due to the recession. I wonder how many nobel prize economists saying that it would take to convince the Tea Partiers that now isn't the time to balance the short term budget.
So the answer is to spend more of the tax revenue that we are not collecting enough of? I don't know, how many Nobel winners does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Yes. But at the same time adopt specific steps (preferably a combination of expenditure cuts and tax increases (closing loopholes and allowing the Bush "temporary" tax cuts to expire as scheduled) which will take effect once unemployment gets down to a more reasonable level (6%??). Economists will differ about the details, but that's what most of them recommend, including previous GOP presidential economic advisers.
Why didn't Obama do exactly that when he controlled both houses of congress?
That's a fair question. I don't remember what the White House was saying and doing then. Perhaps they thought/hoped the stimulus would be sufficient. My recollection is that the GOP plus some Blue Dog Democrats blocked a sufficiently large stimulus package.
I think its a bit more sinister than that, I don't think he had any clue that he should.
It is that same old never ending argument. Should we cut taxes, or raise them? Should we spend more, or spend less? I only know what works for me.If I am short on cash and owe a lot I spend less and cut cost(spending) until I can get a handle on my income and outflow of money. Most businesses who are successful operate this way. Those who borrow a lot and spend their way into deeper debt more often than not eventually become bankrupt! When most bussinesses cut cost, and jobs, their balance sheets will soon improve, then they will add more products,build more production facilities, and this will result in hiring more people. These newly hired people will then start spending their pay checks buying different comodities which will encourage other bussinesses to expand. All of thse things will result in more revenue for the Federal and State Governments. They can then start spending more once again ,and soon the economy will be booming and the stock market will once again be soaring. Both of you, as well as myself, will be as happy as ducks in a pond full of minows
Now for your much expected rebuttal!!
Well said Repairguy47. These same geniuses were jumping out of windows during the great depression, now they write books and make their bread, but still don't really know beans about the economy!
This is just another thread by someone who doesn't like Obama. People find whatever reason they can to blast him despite the fact that every President takes and NEEDS a vacation, or at least time away. I'm sure it's hardly a real vacation.
When do you want him to take a vacation? Should he have your approval first?
This stuff gets ridiculous. In his critics eyes, any time would not be appropriate.
When he goes on vacation I wonder if he takes his teleprompters? Duh, but he is a great speaker. As for his vacation it does not bother me if he goes on vacation. It bothers me when he comes off of vacation....that is when it hits the fan.....
I'm not a fan of the man (to say the least), but his job is, again to say the least, not an easy one; and I really can't see making an issue of his taking a vacation (and particularly, having some time with his family). One set of problems or another have always existed. He's not the only one working on whatever issues there are, and I don't think a few days off amounts to a make-or-break kind of thing within the context of the larger picture of the issues to be addressed. Nobody who has not had his job (myself included) has any real clue about the challenges/demands that the person who has it and his family face.
I have plenty of criticisms of the man, but spending some time at a vacation spot with his family isn't one of them. He's human. So is his family.
If Mr. Obama controlled the economy, I'm pretty sure it would be a much better economy. If any President could control the economy, I feel certain everyday would be a good economic news day. As far as the President taking a vacation? Please! These complaints sound like stuff coming from the aching and under-worked brains cells of funny tea drinkers. The question begs to be asked: What's in that tea you're drinking?
What a bunch of baloney! Obama has "vacationed" less than any of his recent predecessors except for Clinton. At this point in office Bush spent three times as many days on "vacation" compared to Obama--180 days (Bush) and 61 days (Obama). Clinton had taken only 26 days on "vacation" at this point in his first term.
Let's have a bit more respect for the truth in this forum!!
http://napervillesun.suntimes.com/news/ … dents.html
Apologies to Reality Bytes who posted the above comparison previously. However, I think it bears repeating.
I don't like Obama.
Yet I have to say that everyone needs avacation once in a while. Especially with an extremely stressfull job like he has. He's really just another guy with a job, in the end.
and it's an important job, that effects millions of lives. Perhaps billions. i personally prefer to have him well rested, or he may screw the world up even more....
Princess g the more he rests the better I like it. It is when he is thinking and plotting that causes us so much trouble. If he took a permanent vacation he would be doing the country a great big favor. He wants to add another state to the 57 that he thinks we now have. He wants to pass the Dream Act to legalize all the illegals. He even thinks Christ was just another good man, maybe a prophet? He thinks there are many paths to Heaven. Wrong, there is only one Door and that is Jesus Christ the one and only son of Lord God Almighty. Recently he erroneously said that ten thousand people had died in the floods out West. Wrong, there were only eleven. Without his writers and his teleprompter he can hardly communicate. So let him vacation all he wants to. Maybe he will not completely bankrupt us or get us into another war if he is golfing (goofing) around?
My employees used to always say work was always more productive and successful when I was on holiday.
Perhaps my staff now work for President Obama?
Funny, how no one is outraged about the Tea-Party House that took 5 WEEKS off, and 82 members went to Israel!!!
Have people lost their minds? Or is it just August-itis setting in?
I get it every years after a month of Yankee tourists..........Arrrggghhhhh
And the Baggervilles are turning out to be just as bad. GOD, that makes me grouchy!
I hope the tickets to Israel were one way
I always get what I want, and if I didn't I would blame someone else and ask for government assistance.
If they didn't Uninvited Writer, then what advantage is it to be rich? It is the American dream. Everybody likes to play the blame game. How long will they blame Bush, not that he didn't make a lot of wrong decisions? We really all need to stop blaming everyone and start making some positive suggestions to solve our financial woes, to stimulate the economy, and put folks back to work. We have a lot of really smart well informed folks on this site, so let's be positive, and yes that goes for me as well. Sometimes I tend to be much too negative. I'm sure our Representatives would appreciate some good positive ideas instead of just a lot of negative criticism.fjh
by Onusonus4 years ago
“Barack Obama is now putting the United States squarely a decade behind Britain. Listening to the President’s State of the Union message last week was like a surreal visit to our own recent past: there were,...
by SparklingJewel4 years ago
and have alienated middle class democratsduhhhh, wonder why it took them so long to wake uphttp://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/ … mas/538141
by JOC7 months ago
The amount of false propaganda emerging from that network is literally tearing this country apart. Their viewers are so misinformed that it becomes impossible to have reasonable conversations with them. ...
by My Esoteric2 years ago
One of President Bush's arguments for invading Iraq was the strong Hussain-al Qaeda connection. The anti-Iraq invasion group said there was only very skimpy evidence of that and much stronger evidence that such an...
by crankalicious3 years ago
I was thinking about this from a historian's perspective (I have an M.A. in History). My first caveat about this question is that, as a historian, I think it's misguided to try to evaluate president's while they're...
by William R. Wilson5 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/busin … amp;emc=a2It's not all paid back yet, but things are looking good. Hardly a socialist nationalization of the auto industry though....
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.