Obama doesn't want Americans wasting money in Vegas

[1billsfan]

...off the backs of the people.

 

First you put a hit on Vegas and talk to Americans like they're your children who need a scolding...

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/02...hits-nashua-nh/

 

"Finally, shouldn't we all agree that we have got to do something about our deficits? These deficits won't just burden our kids and grandkids decades from now - they could damage our markets, drive up our interest rates now, and jeopardize our recovery right now. This isn't how responsible families do their budgets. When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don't blow a bunch of cash in Vegas when you're trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices. And it's time your government did the same."

 

 

Then you tell them to eat cake...

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianp...g_zZqP-tMM3DCFw

 

"Think of it as take-out, but at the presidential level. Since bringing their well-documented high-end appetites to the White House, U.S. President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama have broken new gourmet ground by inviting in a steady stream of the nation's top culinary talents."

 

 

It's so good to live like kings and queens...

 

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/...enhagen/?hpt=T2

 

"Hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's how much it cost for a delegation of 59 people - led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi along with members of Congress, staff and in some cases spouses and kids - to go to Copenhagen, site of the Climate Summit, just before Christmas. House Speaker Pelosi attends a press conference at the Copenhagen Climate Summit. CBS News reports that for 21 Congressmen, food and rooms for two nights cost $4,400; and the Total hotel bill - including meeting rooms - was more than $400,000. Pelosi used two military jets for herself and her party at a cost of more than $100,000 dollars in flight time."

[Alaska Darin]

The Dems are just keeping it real and representing the middle class.

[IDBillzFan]

...off the backs of the people.

 

First you put a hit on Vegas and talk to Americans like they're your children who need a scolding...

He didn't put a hit on Vegas, and complaining about that is a stretch. It was stupid to mention Vegas again, but all he was saying is "If you're trying to save for xyz, you don't waste your money on something stupid like gambling."

 

If you want to B word about something, B word about the fact that he refuses to follow his own advice. But piling on about the Vegas aspect is ridiculous.

[GG]

He didn't put a hit on Vegas, and complaining about that is a stretch. It was stupid to mention Vegas again, but all he was saying is "If you're trying to save for xyz, you don't waste your money on something stupid like gambling."

 

If you want to B word about something, B word about the fact that he refuses to follow his own advice. But piling on about the Vegas aspect is ridiculous.

 

It is a bit funny though, because Nevada is still pi$$ed about what he pulled last spring. Now that was a ridiculous statement that scared everyone - so people pulled out conventions from Vegas and at the last minuted moved to different venues. Result? More expensive for organizers and far lower attendance. FWIW, Chicago was a big beneficiary of some of those moves. Brilliant move.

 

There are only a handful of cities in the US that are tailor made for large gatherings of people. Vegas happens to be at the top of that list. Way to understand how things work, Mr President.

[IDBillzFan]

It is a bit funny though, because Nevada is still pi$$ed about what he pulled last spring. Now that was a ridiculous statement that scared everyone - so people pulled out conventions from Vegas and at the last minuted moved to different venues. Result? More expensive for organizers and far lower attendance. FWIW, Chicago was a big beneficiary of some of those moves. Brilliant move.

 

There are only a handful of cities in the US that are tailor made for large gatherings of people. Vegas happens to be at the top of that list. Way to understand how things work, Mr President.

That's why it was stupid. The first Vegas comment was wrong and embarrassing. This one was just stupid. And as someone who spent many years managing trade shows for various corporations, I'd be surprised if anyone moved a trade show from Vegas to Chicago. Every tradeshow person knows that it is brutally expensive to exhibit in Chicago relative to most other larger convention venues (Vegas, Dallas, Orlando). You can barely walk into McCormick Place without being helped by a union member. Good luck getting your carpet, power, signage, etc. without greasing every union members in sight. You can't even hire your own exhibit company to build your booth without having to hire union members to assist. And when the show is over, break out the twenties because otherwise you're in drayage for hours.

 

Vegas, on the other hand, knows how to bring them in, year after year, and keep them coming without costing you an arm-and-a-leg.

 

If Obama and his crew had even the slightest sense of how businesses operate, he wouldn't keep shoving a size 10 in his mouth ever time he ventured out sans TOTUS.

 

But hey...unemployment is down to 9.7%, so we should be "encouraged."

[1billsfan]

He didn't put a hit on Vegas, and complaining about that is a stretch. It was stupid to mention Vegas again, but all he was saying is "If you're trying to save for xyz, you don't waste your money on something stupid like gambling."

 

If you want to B word about something, B word about the fact that he refuses to follow his own advice. But piling on about the Vegas aspect is ridiculous.

 

The Vegas jab was anecdotal to the main point of Obama being an unashamed hypocrite by lecturing Americans about how they should manage their money more responsibly. I thought my point was made crystal clear.

[jjamie12]

The Vegas jab was anecdotal to the main point of Obama being an unashamed hypocrite by lecturing Americans about how they should manage their money more responsibly. I thought my point was made crystal clear.

Just for the record: President Obama was saying that the GOVERNMENT needs to act more responsibly. Read the quote again. He wasn't lecturing anyone except Washington.

[1billsfan]

Just for the record: President Obama was saying that the GOVERNMENT needs to act more responsibly. Read the quote again. He wasn't lecturing anyone except Washington.

 

"This isn't how responsible families do their budgets. When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. "

 

His premise about "responsible families" is fraught with hypocrisy. While it's true to your point that he wasn't lecturing "responsible families" he was lecturing congress as the all knowing professor. As if he knows the struggles of everyday Americans. What part of this being the greatest economically tough times in American history since the Great Depression does this man not get? Because it's not his money that he's spending, it's ok to fly in celebrity chefs because of his high-end appetite? It's hard to imagine but in just one year this president has become a much bigger joke than Bush ever was, and given the results of the last three big elections in this country, it's clear that the America has finally had their "fill" of Obama and his high-end appetite.

[Alaska Darin]

Just for the record: President Obama was saying that the GOVERNMENT needs to act more responsibly. Read the quote again. He wasn't lecturing anyone except Washington.

Says the guy who just spent $800 billion we don't have on a stimulus that isn't and is projecting the largest deficit in U.S. history. Any mirrors in that dude's house?

[jjamie12]

"This isn't how responsible families do their budgets. When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. "

 

His premise about "responsible families" is fraught with hypocrisy. While it's true to your point that he wasn't lecturing "responsible families" he was lecturing congress as the all knowing professor. As if he knows the struggles of everyday Americans. What part of this being the greatest economically tough times in American history since the Great Depression does this man not get? Because it's not his money that he's spending, it's ok to fly in celebrity chefs because of his high-end appetite? It's hard to imagine but in just one year this president has become a much bigger joke than Bush ever was, and given the results of the last three big elections in this country, it's clear that the America has finally had their "fill" of Obama and his high-end appetite.

What, specifically, in his quote do you disagree with? Do you think Congress is/has been acting responsibly? Why aren't you standing up and applauding him for this, rather than complaining about it?

[jjamie12]

Says the guy who just spent $800 billion we don't have on a stimulus that isn't and is projecting the largest deficit in U.S. history. Any mirrors in that dude's house?

 

Reasonable people can disagree on the effectiveness / necessity of the stimulus and whether or not we would be worse or better off in the long run with or without it.

 

What, in his quote, is objectionable, though? Everybody who feels like you do about fiscal restraint should be praising the hell out of a President talking about being fiscally responsible, right?

[1billsfan]

What, specifically, in his quote do you disagree with? Do you think Congress is/has been acting responsibly? Why aren't you standing up and applauding him for this, rather than complaining about it?

 

How is it possible that a man who is flying in celebrity chefs on the taxpayers dime, while the economy is in the tank, we're trillions of dollars in debt, and there are approximately 17 million people out of work, have the audacity to lecture anyone about fiscal responsibility? But it's ok for him to lecture congress because it's the right message? Obama has no ground to stand on. That's like wondering why people would criticize a John Edwards lecture to congress on why politicians should be morally responsible and hold true to their marriage vows.

[Chef Jim]

Reasonable people can disagree on the effectiveness / necessity of the stimulus and whether or not we would be worse or better off in the long run with or without it.

 

What, in his quote, is objectionable, though? Everybody who feels like you do about fiscal restraint should be praising the hell out of a President talking about being fiscally responsible, right?

 

What did I find objectionable? The fact that it even had to be said. Stop talking Mr. President and do.

[jjamie12]

Here's the thing, guys.

 

If you can't get on board with President Obama saying (essentially) "We've got to start being fiscally responsible", then what can you get on board with? And I ask the question sincerely because you guys will never, ever agree with him more than when he calls for fiscal restraint.

 

There are reasonable, intelligent people out there who believe that the stimulus bill wasn't big enough; that we'd all be better off if it had been far larger. There are reasonable, intelligent people who think that tax rates at the top of the income scale should rise significantly; that we'll all be better off with a higher marginal tax rate at the top.

 

The reason I bring this up is: Why should he even try to listen to the other side of those arguments if all he's going to get is criticism, even when the other side agrees with him?!? If we want the political nonsense to stop, then don't we (who aren't even politicians) have to stop the political nonsense, too? Honestly, if billsfan1 (and by 'billsfan1', I mean all of us)is playing 'politics' rather than applauding or disapproving ideas on their merits, how is it even remotely possible that a politician will? Their main aim is to stay in the job. If we (voters) won't get past 'politics' in order to get to 'policy' then how can they?

[Adam]

Here's the thing, guys.

 

If you can't get on board with President Obama saying (essentially) "We've got to start being fiscally responsible", then what can you get on board with? And I ask the question sincerely because you guys will never, ever agree with him more than when he calls for fiscal restraint.

 

There are reasonable, intelligent people out there who believe that the stimulus bill wasn't big enough; that we'd all be better off if it had been far larger. There are reasonable, intelligent people who think that tax rates at the top of the income scale should rise significantly; that we'll all be better off with a higher marginal tax rate at the top.

 

The reason I bring this up is: Why should he even try to listen to the other side of those arguments if all he's going to get is criticism, even when the other side agrees with him?!? If we want the political nonsense to stop, then don't we (who aren't even politicians) have to stop the political nonsense, too? Honestly, if billsfan1 (and by 'billsfan1', I mean all of us)is playing 'politics' rather than applauding or disapproving ideas on their merits, how is it even remotely possible that a politician will? Their main aim is to stay in the job. If we (voters) won't get past 'politics' in order to get to 'policy' then how can they?

He is the President- if he can't take criticism, he shouldn't have applied for the job. Many people will call his trying to appeal to the conservatives, self preservation....I don't care what it is called. Just act on bills and get things done.

 

I really hope that the tea party fractures the republicans and the bluedogs fracture the democrats. We need more choices- the 2 party system is a FARCE and does not work.

[jjamie12]

I don't care what it is called. Just act on bills and get things done.

But that's the thing... How is it logical to boo the things you want?!? You'll only get less of what you want, right? You've got to agree with the things you agree with, don't you?

[Magox]

Reasonable people can disagree on the effectiveness / necessity of the stimulus and whether or not we would be worse or better off in the long run with or without it.

 

What, in his quote, is objectionable, though? Everybody who feels like you do about fiscal restraint should be praising the hell out of a President talking about being fiscally responsible, right?

It's not just the Stimulus bill, although I can say with reasonable certainty that the $800 Billion spent vs. the amount of jobs gained or saved wasn't worth it.

 

What about last year's Omnibus bill, or for that matter this years? He "Froze" Non defense discretionary spending this year, ahhh wow, that's great mr. president, what a bold move! Ya, considering that discretionary spending has risen 20% since he took office, I hardly call that an effective move towards reducing the deficit.

 

Back to his original statement, I agree with the principle of his message, but he has to understand that this sort of a message coming from him invites criticism. Also, that's twice now he's made Bidenesque sort of gaffe regarding Nevada. Even Oscar Goodman, the DEMOCRATIC mayor of Nevada said:

 

“He’s not our friend. I don’t know about Nevada, but Las Vegas, he’s sure not our friend,” Goodman said. “He has a real psychological hang-up about the entertainment capital of the world.”

 

“Everybody says I shouldn’t say it, but I've got to tell you the way it is. This president is a real slow learner,” Goodman said.

[IDBillzFan]

Says the guy who just spent $800 billion we don't have on a stimulus that isn't and is projecting the largest deficit in U.S. history. Any mirrors in that dude's house?

No need to read this entire article, but I got a chuckle out of the way George Will mocks what he is seeing from the president in the first few paragraphs.

 

WASHINGTON -- On Day One of his vow to take "meaningful steps to rein in our debt," Barack Obama asked Congress to freeze portions of discretionary domestic spending. This would follow an astonishing permanent expansion: Republicans on the House Budget Committee say appropriations bills Obama has signed, along with his stimulus spending, have increased discretionary domestic spending 84 percent. He almost certainly will not keep his promise to veto spending bills when Congress, as it almost certainly will, largely disregards his request.

 

On Day Two, taking a break from the rigors of austerity, he was in Tampa, Fla., promising $8 billion for high-speed rail projects there and in a dozen other places. Four days later, he released a $3.8 trillion fiscal year 2011 budget that would add another $1.3 trillion to the national debt. The budget reveals that the deficit emergency is not so great as to preclude another stimulus, aka "jobs bill."

 

Or to require that middle-class tax cuts enacted under The Great Alibi (George W. Bush) be allowed to expire. Or even to scrub from the budget such filigrees from olden days as $430 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which perhaps made some sense 42 years and 500 channels ago, when public television meant for some Americans a 33 percent increase in channels, from three to four.

 

Just thought that was funny stuff.

[DC Tom]

Says the guy who just spent $800 billion we don't have on a stimulus that isn't and is projecting the largest deficit in U.S. history. Any mirrors in that dude's house?

 

They secretly replaced them all with pictures of Abe Lincoln.

 

Obama never noticed.

[Adam]

But that's the thing... How is it logical to boo the things you want?!? You'll only get less of what you want, right? You've got to agree with the things you agree with, don't you?

You have to bee willing to listen to, and sometimes accept things you don't agree with. That's a price of democracy