erynthered Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 No. Of course not. I just think it's great that he can spend one minute telling everyone it's time to buck up and make sacrifices to get through the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression, (which, of course, he inherited and had absolutely no role in), while in the next minute taking three planes on taxpayer dime to NY for dinner and a play. What? No good restaurants and theater in DC? He couldn't buck it up for the night? Are things not as grim as he made them sound? That couldn't be, could it? No. Of course not. No. He's president. He can do what he wants, not what he says. What's the problem, here, really? I mean, it's a drop in the bucket, right? We're laundering trillions to unions through a bankrupt company. What's another million to take in a show? We can afford it if for no other reason than to heal our souls. This is probably where you come up with a link that says it wasn't a million dollars, it was only $638,438 and the Obamas haven't missed a date night in 20 years and it was important to do this to show people that all is well. Or you complain that all I do is B word about Obama, but that's not true, really, because he DID ask his cabinet to trim $100M, so that's something. And lest you think my problem is really the trip, let me spell it out for you. He's less disingenous that even I would have imagined. A leader leads by example. Even a liberal understands that. He's a phony sack of schitt and that's exactly how he'll go down in history. A phoney sack of schhitt. Did he pick up the tab for the three planes to get him and his staff there and back? Funny how everyone bitched and criticized the wasteful, moronic automakers for taking private planes to beg for taxpayer money, but when the president takes three of them to go to a !@#$king play, it's no big deal. Just taxpayer money. We'll print more. ....and KTD wouldn't have bitched a lick if Bush had done the same thing.
DC Tom Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 Funny how everyone bitched and criticized the wasteful, moronic automakers for taking private planes to beg for taxpayer money, but when the president takes three of them to go to a !@#$king play, it's no big deal. This is a good point.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 Are you giving credit to Obama and his administration for the DOW and S&P's rally? This administration has very little to do with the rally, their home modification loan program is failing miserably, with over 50% of all participants defaulting on their new loans. The Stimulus Bill is hardly a "stimulus", and the TARP program has recapitalized failed banks, which have yet to let credit flow the way they had anticipated. If anything, their programs are serving as a drag to the economy. The reason why the market has rallied is for a few reasons, one the market was severely technically oversold, and had it's biggest drop in decades and was due for a substantial Bear Market Rally. The impetus for the rally, was that LIBOR rates have eased dramatically and the commercial paper markets have opened up. You can pretty much say that the Federal Reserve with it's massive money printing, in the trillions has bought this rally. What do you expect? If you print trillions of dollars stuff is going to go up! But not on a sustained basis. You can take that to the bank! The real economy is continuing to lose jobs with very little prospects of recuperating the job losses. This administration will have you believe that their stimulus bill will create or save millions of jobs. Bullsh*t!! Even though bank CEO's say they are lending, they are lending less today then 3 months ago, and that is a fact! The real gauge of this economy improving will be when we start creating jobs again on a sustained basis, and I don't see that happening for a very long time. With high unemployment, banks and creditors will continue to constrain credit, if credit remains restrained, then the majority of goods and services will be muted, and if we aren't selling too many goods then there won't be too many job hires. That is the way it works! No way around it, I know this administration will have you believe that they have the answers, but soon enough we will find out that these plans are not good viable long term plans for this economy. Where to begin??? Umm in a sense YES. Why NOT? When a good portion of the right blamed Obama for the market drop from Jan 20 to March 9th. They also blamed him for the near double digit unemployment rates too. Rome wasn't built in a day. Companies will rebound. They always have. The Market ALWAYS fluctuates. 3 months of Gains IS a good thing compared to last year 9 months of DECLINE!. Pending sales of previously owned U.S. homes shot up by 6.7 percent in March, the biggest monthly gain in 7-1/2 years, according to a report on Tuesday that buttressed views the U.S. recession was easing. The National Association of Realtors said its Pending Home Sales Index, based on new sales contracts, rose to 90.3 in April from 84.6 in March. It was the third straight monthly increase and the largest jump since October 2001. The gain took the index 3.2 percent above its year-ago level, compared with economists' expectations for a rise of just 0.5 percent. Banks are NOT havding out loans like they did. The are issuing them if the borrower meets the tougher regulation standards.
/dev/null Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 Rome wasn't built in a day. Yes it was. By me anyway http://caesar4.heavengames.com/
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 You're not going to stoop to criticizing him for taking his wife to a Broadway show are you? That's friggin' weak. Kelly, You know that these people HATE Obama for nothing more than being in the other party. Obama sneezes and he's a failure. Obama's dog eats a mic and he's a failure. Three institutions move to repay TARP money Morgan Stanley, Chase, American Express announce series of stock sales The stock offers disclosed late Monday and Tuesday are a precondition for the financial companies to pay back loans received under the Troubled Asset Relief Program last fall. The Treasury Department is expected to announce next week the first group of banks that will be allowed to repay the money. They are REPAYING their DEBT on their own. You are NOT going to have to pay for it with YOUR tax $$$. But hey, Obama's still a failure. Rush Limbaugh says so.
DC Tom Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 Kelly, You know that these people HATE Obama for nothing more than being in the other party. Obama sneezes and he's a failure. Obama's dog eats a mic and he's a failure. Three institutions move to repay TARP money Morgan Stanley, Chase, American Express announce series of stock sales The stock offers disclosed late Monday and Tuesday are a precondition for the financial companies to pay back loans received under the Troubled Asset Relief Program last fall. The Treasury Department is expected to announce next week the first group of banks that will be allowed to repay the money. They are REPAYING their DEBT on their own. You are NOT going to have to pay for it with YOUR tax $$$. But hey, Obama's still a failure. Rush Limbaugh says so. And fifty bucks says that that TARP money, when paid back to the government, goes to something other than paying down the federal debt incurred by lending the money in the first place. IF the government allows them to pay it back to begin with - in this reaction towards greater regulation, Treasury could easily say "you can't pay us back until we re-stress-test you to see if you're solvent enough to do it...and we're changing the reserve requirements, oh-by-the-way." That isn't an "Obama sucks" thing. That's a "government sucks" thing.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 This is a good point. No, it's not. The Prez HAD to do it that way. The car guys chose to. The Prez would have hopped on a regular flight or used some rich guy's private plane at no cost to the taxpayer if they didn't make him.
DC Tom Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 No, it's not. The Prez HAD to do it that way. The car guys chose to. The Prez would have hopped on a regular flight or used some rich guy's private plane at no cost to the taxpayer if they didn't make him. The auto execs HAD to go to DC for Congressional hearings. The President CHOSE to go see a Broadway play.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 The auto execs HAD to go to DC for Congressional hearings. The President CHOSE to go see a Broadway play. What, are you channeling Owens Maniac? We're talking mode of travel. Seriously though, you may know some of this. I wonder what the actual cost of the trip was. I don't know this but I could imagine it cost NYC as much money as it cost the US Taxpayer. The cost to the taxpayer was probably just the gas in the planes (I'm only half kidding). I'm sure we own the planes. I assume all Presidential staff is on salary as well as Secret Service. I'd doubt these people get overtime (they would be getting it every day then anyway), they probably just work in shifts (correct me if i'm wrong). The pilots I'd also imagine to be the same guys all the time and on salary. The NYC security, however, could have been some hard cost. What would be the actual hard cost to the taxpayer? I know there is also the kinds of little things like two hours worth of wear and tear on the Gulfstream 500s they flew on, too, but those are fairly minimal.
Bad Lieutenant Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 The auto execs HAD to go to DC for Congressional hearings. The President CHOSE to go see a Broadway play. And if someone ripped Bush for taking AF1 to Crawford 77 times I'm sure you'd throw a hissy fit and dismiss them as Bush-haters.
IDBillzFan Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 What, are you channeling Owens Maniac? We're talking mode of travel. And there you have it. When all else fails, break out "the label." You sound like Wacka! You sound like Owens Maniac! You've got the Obama playbook down cold. Seriously though, you may know some of this. I wonder what the actual cost of the trip was. I don't know this but I could imagine it cost NYC as much money as it cost the US Taxpayer. The cost to the taxpayer was probably just the gas in the planes (I'm only half kidding). I'm sure we own the planes. I assume all Presidential staff is on salary as well as Secret Service. I'd doubt these people get overtime (they would be getting it every day then anyway), they probably just work in shifts (correct me if i'm wrong). The pilots I'd also imagine to be the same guys all the time and on salary. The NYC security, however, could have been some hard cost. What would be the actual hard cost to the taxpayer? I know there is also the kinds of little things like two hours worth of wear and tear on the Gulfstream 500s they flew on, too, but those are fairly minimal. And there you have it, Part Deux. "It's a drop in the bucket, right? Half a million for a photo. Another million to take in a play. Another couple of million to hit some Vegas and LA fundraisers. Just a drop in the bucket. We can print more money. "And even though I CHOOSE to make these trips, why can't everyone understand that I HAVE to travel this way. Plus...think about it. The pilot? He's just sitting there. The plane? It's just sitting there. My staff? They're just sitting there. I'm already paying them to do nothing, so how about a roaq trip!" Really amazing line of thinking there, bro.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 And there you have it. When all else fails, break out "the label." You sound like Wacka! You sound like Owens Maniac! You've got the Obama playbook down cold. And there you have it, Part Deux. "It's a drop in the bucket, right? Half a million for a photo. Another million to take in a play. Another couple of million to hit some Vegas and LA fundraisers. Just a drop in the bucket. We can print more money. "And even though I CHOOSE to make these trips, why can't everyone understand that I HAVE to travel this way. Plus...think about it. The pilot? He's just sitting there. The plane? It's just sitting there. My staff? They're just sitting there. I'm already paying them to do nothing, so how about a roaq trip!" Really amazing line of thinking there, bro. 1. I was joking with DC and just clarifying we were comparing mode of transport, not whether they had to go. I assume he was making a good point but harassing me and pulling my chain as well. 2. Who is being more reasonable and honest, the guy who continues to blame Obama this guy knows full well had ZERO to do with and ZERO knowledge of a photo for that half million, and the guy who keeps saying that the play cost a million dollars when he knows full well it didn't cost a million dollars -- OR -- the guy that says "I wonder how much this really costs, more than the gas because these guys are all on salary and get paid what they get paid anyway. I don't know, but Tom, you're a smart guy, you may know this and tell me if I am wrong?" That's why you continue to fall off the deep end. Because you used to be rational in your arguments, and now you sound like parrots repeating lines and criticisms that have long been debunked and you know aren't true (in this case, the photo). Besides, I thought campaign promises were so sacrosanct to you. That's why he went to the play you know. You would have been criticizing him for not going when he promised to if he didn't.
Chef Jim Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 It's not going to be him and his wife, it will be him and Hilary, get it straight. Hillary...Hillary. The name sounds familiar but I don't recall who she is. Is she someone important? If she is it's strange I haven't heard much of her lately.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 Hillary...Hillary. The name sounds familiar but I don't recall who she is. Is she someone important? If she is it's strange I haven't heard much of her lately. I think she's in Latin America know and meeting the Prez in Cairo.
Chef Jim Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 I think she's in Latin America know and meeting the Prez in Cairo. And doing a bang up job with NK I see.
DC Tom Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 1. I was joking with DC and just clarifying we were comparing mode of transport, not whether they had to go. I assume he was making a good point but harassing me and pulling my chain as well. Pretty much, yeah...it's more than just modes of travel, but the cost-benefit analysis of such. There is a difference between bunch of guys spending private money on a required business trip, and a public servant spending public money on a weekend of leisure... ...assuming it was a leisure weekend, anyway. I was under the impression that he was going to be in NYC anyway to announce the GM bankruptcy...in which case, who gives a sh--? "Let's go to NYC for a show this weekend" is a little unusual for a President; "I'm going to be in NYC anyway, so let's catch a show" is pretty much normal. But then, I also haven't been following this story closely, because, as you said, it's not news. I also want to point out the irony of a bunch who so passionately promote "family values" bitching about a guy keeping a promise to his wife...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 I also want to point out the irony of a bunch who so passionately promote "family values" bitching about a guy keeping a promise to his wife... Not to mention the fact of which guy do you want running the country and making decisions, the one whose wife just gave him his first enthusiastic blowjob since Inauguration Day, or the one who had to turn over and face the wall and try to get some sleep while his wife is sitting up all night, whining, "You never take me anywhere! You said we were going to the show! You always go out with your friends Hilary and Sonia and Janet, but never once think about me!
DC Tom Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 Seriously though, you may know some of this. I wonder what the actual cost of the trip was. I don't know this but I could imagine it cost NYC as much money as it cost the US Taxpayer. The cost to the taxpayer was probably just the gas in the planes (I'm only half kidding). I'm sure we own the planes. I assume all Presidential staff is on salary as well as Secret Service. I'd doubt these people get overtime (they would be getting it every day then anyway), they probably just work in shifts (correct me if i'm wrong). The pilots I'd also imagine to be the same guys all the time and on salary. The NYC security, however, could have been some hard cost. What would be the actual hard cost to the taxpayer? I know there is also the kinds of little things like two hours worth of wear and tear on the Gulfstream 500s they flew on, too, but those are fairly minimal. Again, assuming the trip is specifically for the purposes of catching a show...I would guess that the biggest costs are probably staff costs related to preparation. It's not like the President can take off anywhere on a whim. Planning the entire itinerary, the security, OT reimbursement for NYC and NYS police, the communications (probably made more difficult in the absence of Air Force 1)...and it's not like the President just goes to Travelocity.com and rents a room at the Milford Plaza; they probably need a half-dozen for security and staff, with catering. I would be surprised if the cost of three Gulfstreams was the majority of the total cost. The biggest single cost was probably staffers planning the trip for the past three months (again, on the assumption that the trip was specifically to catch a show).
Kelly the Dog Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 Again, assuming the trip is specifically for the purposes of catching a show...I would guess that the biggest costs are probably staff costs related to preparation. It's not like the President can take off anywhere on a whim. Planning the entire itinerary, the security, OT reimbursement for NYC and NYS police, the communications (probably made more difficult in the absence of Air Force 1)...and it's not like the President just goes to Travelocity.com and rents a room at the Milford Plaza; they probably need a half-dozen for security and staff, with catering. I would be surprised if the cost of three Gulfstreams was the majority of the total cost. The biggest single cost was probably staffers planning the trip for the past three months (again, on the assumption that the trip was specifically to catch a show). My point is that all of those staffers are likely paid salaries and not hourly. With or without the trip they are getting paid the same amount, so how is that an extra cost to the taxpayer? I could be wrong and they get overtime but that doesn't seem reasonable to me. Staffers at the White House work 7 am to 10 at night on a regular basis. Stuff like catering would be a hard cost, yes.
Nanker Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 My point is that all of those staffers are likely paid salaries and not hourly. With or without the trip they are getting paid the same amount, so how is that an extra cost to the taxpayer? I could be wrong and they get overtime but that doesn't seem reasonable to me. Staffers at the White House work 7 am to 10 at night on a regular basis. Stuff like catering would be a hard cost, yes. Like the salaries of the military personnel is basically the same whether they're stationed in Jacksonville or Baghdad.
Recommended Posts