Speak Out: $10 million dollars worth of vacations.

Replies (36)

• We should start calling here Marie Antoinette O'Bama.

  The twisted and demented Rep. Maxine Waters D. California, will probably say that had it not been for the go to he** Tea Party, Marie Antoinette Obama could have rightly spent $20 million for the vacations she deserved.

  -- Posted by Thought Criminal on Thu, Aug 25, 2011, at 10:48 PM

• If only our politicians could convince themselves to act as though our money is actually theirs, perhaps they'd be a little more sensible about their spending ... whether for themselves or for 'the good of the country.'

  Uh oh, wait! Guess they DO view 'our money' as their own. Sorry.

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 12:16 AM

• These people make me want to vomit!

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 1:16 AM

• The question is how many more "vacations" at what cost will the Obamas take between now and January 20, 2013 when they return to private life?

  At least Marie Antoinette spoke only of cake instead of top shelf vodka.

  -- Posted by voyager on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 5:19 AM

• Just imagine what it would have cost if they vacationed as much as Bush.

  Funny how all you thought it was ok for Bush to vacation.

  The double standard highlights how full of BS you are.

  -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 8:33 AM

• "The National Enquirer"...c'mon.

  -- Posted by howdydoody on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 8:43 AM

• A little perspective? Bush took 77 "vacations" to his house - his home ranch in Texas. Now if he would have flown to Europe, Africa, Hawaii, Martha's Vineyard etc. which cost many millions of dollars then maybe I'd be more upset. Bush also spent several vacations in Maine at his parents summer home.

  Obama's problem? It's the economy stupid! A story today estimated Michelle Obama's foray to Africa at well over $10 million dollars. And unemployment is at 9.1%.

  Their real problem? They fire-up class warfare and talk about rich corporate execs in big jets and spending millions. Then they take off on the largest, most luxurious jet in the world and spend like Warrent Buffet on our dollar. I wouldn't have near the problem with this if they didn't criticize everyone who acts JUST LIKE THEM. "Do as I say, not as I do" should be his next campaign motto.

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 8:54 AM

• Then they take off on the largest, most luxurious jet in the world and spend like Warrent Buffet on our dollar. I wouldn't have near the problem with this if they didn't criticize everyone who acts JUST LIKE THEM. "Do as I say, not as I do" should be his next campaign motto.

  -- Posted by Dug on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 8:54 AM

  Dug,

  From what I read somewhere, I thought Warren Buffet lived rather simply, or at least for his means. Maybe Warren Buffet will get critized one day for living like the Obamas!

  I do not know who spent the most money on vacations the Bush's to date or the Obamas, but the defenders of either, such as Caddy, Lumber and Howdy would be well advised that justifying one form of bad behaviour with the bad behaviour of others is never acceptable. That was the kind of kid crap I heard from my children when they were 6 and 7 years old. Well she did it, why can't I?

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 9:12 AM

• -- Posted by Dug on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 8:54 AM

  A little perspective.

  Had bush had a (D) following his name, you would be more upset.

  The fact that you are one of those people who lets party affiliation cloud your judgment is obvious.

  I get you don't like Obama. There is alot not to like and he has made plenty of mistakes. But to continue and hypocritically whine whine about travel is pathetic.

  So lets break down your statement..."Take off in the largest, most luxurios jet." Largest...yes. Mos luxurios..No. Safest...Yes.

  So your opinion is Obama should not travel in AFO? So Democratic presidents should be targets, while republican ones shouldn't?

  Also, why are you not complaining about Bush's travel. He is not event he president anymore, yet you don't complain about his travel. Seriously, if this is really an issue why do you still not mention him.

  -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 9:13 AM

• spend like Warrent Buffet on our dollar.

  I wish our politicians and beauracrats(sp) spent like Warren Buffet. It's my understanding he is a very frugal man. Still lives in the 3 bedroom ranch house he bought back in the 1950's.

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 9:14 AM

• -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 9:12 AM

  Actually, I don't defend it at all. I just love pointing out the Hypocracy of it.

  Like the fact this was never an issue until Obama took office. Seriously Wheels, if President Travel was so important, why was it never mentioned when Bush was office.

  That makes it obvious that you really don't care at all about the issue.

  -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 9:17 AM

• lumbrg - thanks for the laugh this morning. You selectively skip the main point that anyone makes and take a "I'm above the crowd" attitude. Let me try again for you (and continue on for 14 more posts while you ignore this point).

  CLASS WARFARE. Get it? When you scream about how people live and spend and buy jets and on and on and on and then live lavishly yourself you are a hypocrite. Get it? Every time he opens his mouth on TV he continually runs down people with the same lifestyle.

  I wouldn't care about his vacations if he didn't constantly attack Americans. Show me where Bush attacked fellow Americans for their success? Show me.

  If Obama had an (R) behind his name you would attack him. See how silly you sound?

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 9:23 AM

• This just seems to fit for this thread too.

  Is anyone yet getting the picture that the "democrat good, republican bad, republican good, democrat bad" arguement is asinine and a complete waste of time? As both parties are one in the same, with the same goals of big government, ongoing war, protect our power, keep the citizen subserviant and dependent on us.

  No offense (and I'm sure offense will be taken), but IMHO, those who favor one party over the other show their ignorance. Ignorance resulting from the party and idealogy that they worship.

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 9:34 AM

• -- Posted by Dug on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 9:23 AM

  And once again you skip the main point.

  Seriously, How am I supposed to take you "travel" critics seriously when you constantly bring up the obama's travel....Yet not once in 8 years provide a criticism about Bush's Travels. Can't even complain about his current travels.

  If me point out this obvious fact makes me "above you" then I am happy to be there.

  Of Course I would attack Obama if he had an R behind his name. Just the way I attack him now. The difference is my criticisms have substance.

  -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 9:37 AM

• Step up to the plate lumbrg. Where have I attacked his travel before? Just for traveling? I don't give a tinkers d*** what he does except that he incites class warfare like all rich elitsits do. Again, you didn't answer a single question I'm posing and try to make my post something it isn't.

  R e a d v e r y s l o w l y - Bush did not criticize people who travel on planes. QUESTION - Did he? Bush did not incite class warfare. QUESTION - Did he? Bush did not complain how people spent their money in their lives. QUESTION - Did he?

  Actually, the country is better off when he's on vacation. When he gets back he's considering 2 new big government, tax payer funded programs to refinance everyones mortgage at lower rates and subsidize renting of homes that are under water. I hope he stays on Martha's Vineyard until the second Tuesday of Nov 2012.

  By the way, there are 5 questions up there. Any answers? I didn't criticize Bush when he played golf and I haven't criticized Obama either. You couldn't be more wrong.

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 9:44 AM

• DTower - I do agree to a degree. I think there's two sides to that coin. On one side people are very partisan. On the other side people judge all comments as partisan when they aren't. Case in point - lumbrg.

  He says people that attack his guy are partisan and he isn't. I'm critical of Obama for his attacks on fellow Americans all the time. Why doesn't he focus on his job as the leader of all Americans?

  Bush was a disaster his last couple of years - now I'm a democrat. I would vote for Hillary Clinton 100 times over Obama - now I'm a racist. I would vote for Condoleeza Rich any day over all of them - now I'm anti-male.

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 9:52 AM

• Like the fact this was never an issue until Obama took office. Seriously Wheels, if President Travel was so important, why was it never mentioned when Bush was office.

  That makes it obvious that you really don't care at all about the issue.

  -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 9:17 AM

  Lumber,

  I was not posting on here until toward the end of Bush's term, nor do I remember every hairbrained comment and critical remark made about him. Nor do I care. But for you to say there was nobody complaining about his trips and vacations. I find that very, very difficult to believe. I cannot see how the Dems missed that as they had plenty to say otherwise. Do you remember the term "Bush Bashing"?

  Go back to my previous post... it is kid crap!

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 10:06 AM

• Dug,

  Seriously, you are saying the president is no different anybody else?

  The President flying coach...That makes a lot of sense. You have crazy people all of the world, but you want to make him and even easier target?

  If you want to knock the president on his comments, fine. But don't knock him needing protection. Air Force One isn't a luxury item, it's a necessary evil. I mean what "luxury" does the fighter escort provide? Did Obama really complain about people flying with fighter escorts? You seem to complain about him doing so.

  Knock his comments for when he meets with the Hollywood nut jobs. The ones that complain about the environment and say they are doing their fair share because the buy a new $100 t-shirt with a recycling logo, one of their 9 cars is hybrid, and live in a mansions. Knock the hypocrisy of the democratic party in general. I am sure there are many more Hollywood types traveling in private jets that corporate types.

  -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 10:06 AM

• Lumber,

  I was not posting on here until toward the end of Bush's term, nor do I remember every hairbrained comment and critical remark made about him. Nor do I care. But for you to say there was nobody complaining about his trips and vacations. I find that very, very difficult to believe. I cannot see how the Dems missed that as they had plenty to say otherwise. Do you remember the term "Bush Bashing"?

  Go back to my previous post... it is kid crap!

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 10:06 AM

  I am not asking for every hairbrained comment.

  I am just asking for one.

  I remember plenty of the bush bashing. Some if justified, some of it not.

  I also got agrivated then to. I hated when people knoced his speech. Who cares? There were other issues to criticize him about.

  -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 10:09 AM

• Again, you completely ignored the class warfare comments. I think your posts, viewed by everyone, are obvious. You seem to think that class warfare is fine for Obama since you've ignored it 3 times and didn't answer a single question.

  No one, me included, said a word about security, luxury or fighter escorts but you. But hey! To quote YOU, your politics come from "South Park / Family Guy" or something like that?

  Dude - you're always attacking the poster. Why not go after the post? It might save your fingers some wear and tear.

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 10:12 AM

• Speaking of Hollywood, where did all the war protesters go after Jan, 2009? Is it another of those, "soldiers dying under republican commander in chief bad, soldiers dying under democrat commander in chief good" things? Kinda makes you go, Hmmmm.

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 10:14 AM

• -- Posted by Dug on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 10:12 AM

  Please tell me you are just messing with me. You take this discussing in a different direction, and now claim that you don't follow?

  Southpark Republican...Its a term. I don't get my politics from it. Why am I not suprised you are confused.

  -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 10:21 AM

• Class warfare lumbrg. I must be right, you're ignoring it. 4th time.

  Enjoy - gotta go outside and work to pay for Obama's vacation. Just like I did when Bush went to his Texas ranch. :-)

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 10:37 AM

• Many past presidents had a place away from the oval office. These were frequently visited places where hardware and resources necessary to support a president's stay were firmly in place.

  Vacation trips to various places require a lot of new set ups for comunication, security and iternery.

  It is hard to compare the first lady traveling on "vacation" to the first family relocating to their other home for a while.

  -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 11:12 AM

• I wouldn't care about his vacations if he didn't constantly attack Americans. Show me where Bush attacked fellow Americans for their success? Show me.

  If Obama had an (R) behind his name you would attack him. See how silly you sound?

  -- Posted by Dug on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 9:23 AM

  I'm sorry, I don't mean to jump in the middle of yall's debate but...

  I don't believe Obama ever "attacked" the owners of corporate jets, he merely pointed out how odd it is that the uber rich get a tax break for buying corporate jets. If you can afford your own jet, why do you need a tax break for buying one?

  And who convinced you that taking away a tax break for an ultra luxury item that only a privileged few can afford is the equivalent of class warfare?

  -- Posted by DADES on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 11:31 AM

• Back for lunch.

  "And who convinced you that taking away a tax break for an ultra luxury item that only a privileged few can afford is the equivalent of class warfare?" - uh, no one convinced me of that. Another liberal. Of course reducing a "tax credit" is not a "tax increase", right? If you owned a business and knew what accelerated depreciation was then you could speak better to it. ALL assets of a business have an asset value, an asset life and as they get older they are allowed to be "depreciated". That is a business expense. The same "tax breaks" are for forklifts, skid steers, cranes, bulldozers, etc.

  I'm sure you'd be just as avid of a critic of Acorns "tax break" they get as a charity. And churches. And political parties. And unions. They all get "tax breaks" while the rest of us work and pay taxes.

  But you and your president don't talk about unions and Acorn - you target the "uber" rich? What is that? Did you know that corporations are owned by PEOPLE. I own a bunch of corporations. I'm not even sure how many are in my 401k. And CORPORATIONS, like Acorn, like unions, like YOU, get to take tax deductions. But you're ok with everyone except the companies that I own stock in, right? I'm not "uber" rich, are you?

  Some of your presidents quotes. No class warfare?

  "...if we choose to keep a tax break for corporate jet owners...then that means we've got to cut some kids off from getting a college scholarship"

  "I've said to some of the Republican leaders: are they willing to compromise their kids' safety so that some corporate-jet owner continues to get a tax break?"

  I have about 5 others if you want them. My favorite on corporate jets - The Obama Stimulus law of 2009 includes a specific form of accelerated depreciation for corporate jets. The goal was to encourage corporations to buy jets which, in turn, would create jobs in the aircraft industry.

  You are too gullible. Educate yourself.

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 12:20 PM

• I'll be back in for dinner. Maybe you should look up the definition of demagogue. Heck, I'll do it for you:

  demˇaˇgogue [dem-uh-gog, -gawg] Show IPA noun, verb, -gogued, -goguˇing.

  noun

  1. a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.

  Prejudices? Sound familiar? Ah, probably not.

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 12:29 PM

• The Obama Stimulus law of 2009 includes a specific form of accelerated depreciation for corporate jets. The goal was to encourage corporations to buy jets which, in turn, would create jobs in the aircraft industry.

  -- Posted by Dug on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 12:20 PM

  Was that before or after the Democratically control Congress chewed out the Autombile Execs they called in to testify, for arriving in corporate jets?

  Just wanting to try and get everything in chronological order here.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 12:32 PM

• What's up with all the TV ads touting EITC?

  -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 4:26 PM

• The nuts will still fall from the tree regardless of what you call them. And the squirrels will still gather the nuts.

  -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 10:31 PM

• I don't believe Obama ever "attacked" the owners of corporate jets, he merely pointed out how odd it is that the uber rich get a tax break for buying corporate jets. If you can afford your own jet, why do you need a tax break for buying one?

  -- Posted by DADES on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 11:31 AM

  D-10 Cats are expensive also but there are businesses that own them because the are cost effective. What is wrong with having a transportation machine that makes the business efficient? The people cannot use them for personal flights and write them off. If they do they are gonna be caught.

  Some of you people amaze me how little you know about business, Its all about they have it and you don't and Obama knows how to push your buttons. He has divided this country when it needed to be pulled together.

  I vote for the best person to do the job. I knew this guy was the wrong one before he even won the nomination. He has hurt the very people he said he would help and they still love him or just are afraid the other team might win.

  Enjoy paying for it kiddies because it's gonna cost you. I enjoyed some of the best America had to give unlike future generations that will pay the bills being racked up by these spendthrifts.

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Aug 27, 2011, at 12:13 AM

• Takes a whole lot more jobs to build a private jet than to drive one.

  What better way to make the wealthy pay than to have them pay poor people to build airplanes?

  -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Aug 27, 2011, at 9:34 AM

• Instead of jumping on this President regarding every move he makes, how about the do nothing congress we have. I have not seen one thing that the republican house has laid up on the table that would would actually help us get out of this mess they have there same old agenda as the past cut taxes for the big boys, pro life and that is about it other than that it is "NO" on everything else. Not all republicans are like that but this small group of tea party far right radicials that were elected in 2010 has completely disrupted the house. Ronald Reagan would not even be allowed in this GOP of today. Jeb Bush said this week that the GOP candidates need to tone it down some on constant bashing of the President which should stop and professionaly debate the issues at hand and work toward a solution on both sides.

  -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Sat, Aug 27, 2011, at 10:20 AM

• Old John and Regret,

  Many of the poor live day to day. They do not invest or save. When they receive transfer payments from the government that money is perhaps spent on a higher class of disposable items that allow them to temporarily have what they perceive as a higher class of life.

  On the other hand, those people who build wealth and own property tend to start out by learning how to live on less and make do with what they have. They learn how to make money work for them rather than working for money themselves. (a talent I now wish I had learned when I was young) As a group, they delay gratification while they save and invest their money. When they do buy luxury items it is usually later in life when they buy on a cash basis or know that investments will support their lifestyle.

  When we take from the rich to give to the poor it is quickly consumed.

  The part of the equation that is generally ignored on the liberal side is that the income of the rich does not lie idle. When it is spent it creates jobs for those people who provide high-end products and services. If it is saved or invested it is used to capitalize and expand businesses, it is that pool of money which allows consumers to purchase products and services on credit, it provides the necessary liquidity for our economy to operate.

  This is part of the reason I prefer elimination of the income tax and replacement of that with a consumption tax (the Fair Tax in particular) The rich can avoid paying income tax for several reasons:

  1. The majority of their income is from investments and is not subject to income tax

  2. They can afford lawyers and such to create and use loopholes which help them to avoid paying income tax

  3. By investing offshore and having foreign residences they can shelter income made overseas

  I enjoy your postings and the common sense you exhibit. My hope is that some who read these threads (and often do not post replies) will recognize your common sense and gain an understanding of why we cannot escape this recessionary environment by taxing the wealthy.

  -- Posted by Robert* on Sat, Aug 27, 2011, at 10:27 AM

• swamp,

  how about the do nothing senate?

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Aug 27, 2011, at 10:38 AM

• Raising income tax rates on the very wealthy is silly considering many of those folks don't have much income. They cash in on growing investments just enough to meet what they need to spend.

  Thus they stay in the same bracket as folks making $50-60k.

  A few like John Kerry spend a lot and would pay more in taxes, but that wouldn't began to make a dent in what gov spends.

  Rather than trying to sell folks on bringing down the people on top to a lower level, it would be better to focus on bringing the bottem up toward the higher level.

  I suspect Obama will try to be percieved as doing that as the campaign progresses through proposed subsidies to small companies to hire more people they don't need.

  -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Aug 27, 2011, at 10:46 AM