Perspective: Obama's Date Cost $75,000. Bush's Crawford Trips Cost $17.4 Million.

Hold on Jimster, it's only been 4 months. We'll tally it up in the end and see who blew the most dough.

Yup! Only 4 months and already many accomplishments.

I look back on the last 8 years and see nothing.

So Mr. President you deserve a day out with your wife!

Brent, based on a direct comparison -- President Obama's NY night out vs. former President Bush's Crawford trips -- the current administration is saving American taxpayers about $150,000.00 per occurrence.

Not bad.

jimster can't you say the some things about Dems? bush's debt spending is bad while Obama's debt spending is good (even though Obama will increase debt even more than bush did...) hypocricy works both ways.

and yes let's wait to tally it all up when Obama's term is done.

A side point would be that we weren't in this deep of a deep recession while bush was in office. preceptions do change when hard times fall on the people, they look to leaders to lead by example. whether or not it is the way that is has always been, the perception has changed.

Killfile - How true !!!! And how fast people forget.

Profchaos

The argument against Bush wasn't that he was spending money, it was how he was spending it. That and the fact that he was cutting taxes for the rich while running up deficits. The bill for our 2 wars is fast approaching a trillion dollars. Maybe if that money was spent domestically, we wouldn't have needed a stimulus.

and yes let's wait to tally it all u p when Obama's term is done.

Make sure you also "tally up" his successes....seems like it would be the fair and honest thing to do.

Obama's done absolutely nothing except bankrupt the Treasury.

He's confused, and because he was voted in doesn't make him an Einstein, he's crying for answers on every subject because he doesn't have a clue.

Obama's done absolutely nothing except bankrupt the Treasury.

Do you think that would be a criticism more appropriate for the president who inherited a surplus and left us with a record deficit and a failing economy?

That would be Bush in case you hadn't figured out who i was talking about.

bush's debt spending is bad

Bush's debt spending primarily stemmed from the huge tax cuts without corresponding cuts in spending. He did increase spending on bombs, bullets and no-bid contracts -- things which didn't help the economy. The wars we're in now are unlike WWII where the thousands of jobs were created back home. Take shipbuilding for example. German U-boats were sinking our freighters as fast as we could build them. Tens of thousands of man hours of labor were being lost in an instant. By the end of the war American workers were pumping out a new ship every day at some ship yards. Now? We might be replacing a few humvees each week and the occasional chopper that goes down. It's just not the same -- there's no economic benefit to war anymore.

Obama's debt spending is good

Obama is spending money on public works projects which will have value for many decades. In addition to the immediate benefit of employing people, the public gets something out of the money that's being spent.

So yes - Bush's debt spending bad, Obama's debt spending good.

there's no economic benefit to war anymore

Tell that to Halliburton.

"Obama's done absolutely nothing except bankrupt the Treasury."

As if the Treasury was doing just fine when we were only $10-12 trillion in the hole. Right. You might as well have said, "if only Obama had kept us on the course we were on..."

Obama said it himself on C-Span, that our country is broke.. Good work for a 100 days..

How will be the next 100 ? Maybe like this GM, Chrysler move to Mexico or China with bailout money.

Tell that to Halliburton.

I can only take consolation in knowing that Halliburton's stock is going for about the same as it did when Bush took office.

Obama said it himself on C-Span, that our country is broke

Our country has been broke since Bush wiped away Clinton's budget surplus. When expenses exceed revenue, you're broke.

Great Greg

The country was bankrupt when he took office.

GM has already moved to Mexico. It happened years ago.

Interesting thing about government spending -- it actually boosts the economy. There is this fallacy that the GOP loves to cling to that, when the economy is tight government shouldn't spend any money.

A date is a pretty inefficient way to spend $75K (assuming that is indeed the total, I've seen estimates up to $250K), especially when it's taxpayers' money. And when the government is borrowing money in order to spend it, it should make damn sure that the money isn't wasted, regardless of which party's in power.

Tacitus13

So what do you propose, that they never leave the White House unless it's on official business? Never go on vacation for four years? Remember that even if he said, "i'll fly coach with no Secret Service. See you guys in a couple of days." They wouldn't let him. He has to be protected. He has to travel in certain vehicles and with certain safety precautions. This is the life of a POTUS. It was the same with Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Regan...

Good point, Something new please.

Let's also not forget that the ex-presidents enjoy secret service protection. So, that means that when W wants to take Laura on a date, they are also spending tax payer money.

It's the same thing as the bogus Pelosi military jet "controversy". When Hastert has secret service protection, crickets chirp. When Pelosi has it, the earth spins off its axis.

First of all, Paul, the First Lady does not fly on Air Force One, unless she is flying with the president. By definition, any plane the president flies on is AF1.

Secondly, the First Lady receives no compensation whatsoever, so whatever she does for the country is technically on her own time, and in the interest of the nation. Are you suggesting that she should do nothing for the next eight (!!) years? I suspect that if she did, there would be a lot of whiners who complained about that. Michelle Obama is a highly educated, experienced professional, and we're lucky to have her as First Lady. No doubt her efforts will benefit the nation, gratis.

By definition, any plane the president flies on is AF1.

Just to clarify, and flying vehicle operated by the Air Force carrying the President is Air Force One. There are also Marine One, Navy One, etc...

At a bare minimum, for the flights alone, Bush's 77 vacation trips to Crawford cost us $226,072 per trip. That's $17,407,544 so he could ride his bicycle in the woods and clear brush for the cameras.

HOLY COW! $226,072.00 for a damned airplane ride?! That is absolutely obscene!

but its a sweet plane and the drinks are free....

Obama is spending money on public works projects which will have value for many decades. In addition to the immediate benefit of employing people, the public gets something out of the money that's being spent.

So yes - Bush's debt spending bad, Obama's debt spending good.

Not enough of the stimulus was for this. 50% of it went to tax cuts...but that's not all Obama's fault. The republicans wouldn't let it pass without tax breaks (which as you said...are unfunded, so if you don't cut spending the become debt, unless the resulting increase in tax revenue offsets it).

My main issue is "public works" Highways, Railways, Ports, Airports, etc only got around 60 Billion dollars of it. And "Green" industry only got about 30-40 billion. That's not nearly enough to stimulate job creation in an economy the size of ours.

Nicey-1026620

Actually, tax cuts accounted for about a third of the Stimulus, but you're absolutely right about everything else.

SR Dave...don't argue with Brent he is 100% fact free! If you really want to see an article/thread that will blow your mind, go to The Capitalist thread on Congrats. you've just elected a Fascist's! What a voluminous load of bovinal fecal matter! Go check it out,put him in his place Dave, you can do it! I know!

KillFile... always a pleasure to find your posts.

Our president is a man with morals and values that go far beyond the incompetent, self-righteous,sociopath ideal of the former Dictator. This being said, Obama and his family are a beautiful example of solid family life. Obama loves his wife and he shows it. Unlike Bush, Obama does not have the GOD complex, he revels in being an ordinary man with an extraordinary job. He does not take his task lightly nor does he view Americans as his "subjects" but rather his PEOPLE. Because Obama sees us as HIS PEOPLE (do not start that Messiah crap, his people as in respect and equal) and does not demean us by seeing us simply as a revenue base like Bush did. A man who has love in his heart, respects and revers his wife and children and is not ashamed to show it, is a positive component we have needed as a country for some time. Bush demeaned and demoralized us for 8 years, he saw our constitutional rights as something he and only he could dictate, because he had his GOD complex. The middle class was the NO CLASS to Bush. Right now, I would give Obama 74K to take Michelle on another date. I know my money would be well invested. Obama is not the Messiah, he is not the slayer of dragons nor the all knowing eye of RAH. He is humble enough to know he has and will make mistakes and he owns up to them, he is not prideful and he learns from those mistakes. I feel safer in the last 5-6 months than I have in the last 8 years. Obama has a vision to make our country better, the same vision every person who voted for him has, not for the select few as Bush did, but EVERYONE. Class Warfare will soon be a thing of the past. I am hopeful for better things to come, I will sacrifice for the greater good of my country and my president and if he wants another date, he can give me a call, I'll hook him up. Paying if forward has always been good to me and this would be honor.

Obama seem to think spending money is what it is all about, and I also disagree Obama see us as his people, I feel he could careless about the citizens of this country which I do believe you will see in the future.

This man is worth million let him foot the bill for his own date period.

jdl-28

He does pay for the dates, he just doesn't pay for the security and travel arrangements that are required by policies outside of his discretion. The dinner and the show were on his dime. He even pays for meals in the White House.

The argument against Bush wasn't that he was spending money, it was how he was spending it. That and the fact that he was cutting taxes for the rich while running up deficits.

bush cut everyone's taxes. the left has the fallacies they like to stick to as well.

cutting taxes while going to war is stupid. so is rasing debt so much to pay back your supporters. both bush and obama's spending is out of control and stupid. but more most people they only see the stupidity depending what side they are on

Killfile

Interesting thing about government spending -- it actually boosts the economy. There is this fallacy that the GOP loves to cling to that, when the economy is tight government shouldn't spend any money.

In reality, government spending is just about the only thing that's ever gotten us out of serious economic trouble.

Here we go again, like America should model our economy after the Same failed FDR New Deal Keneshia economics. The only good that ever did was pull us out of the Great Depression with enough economic backbone to help support us in a win against the Axis powers in WW2.

Profchaos

Look at the numbers. When Bush took office in 2001, the highest tax bracket was 39.5%. When Bush left office, that bracket was down to 35%, a reduction of 4.5%. Meanwhile, the middle income bracket was 27.5% in 2001. When Bush left office it was down to 25%, a reduction of 2.5%. So the rich had their taxes lowered by a greater percentage. By extension, they also saved a heck of a lot more dollars (given their higher income). The rich made out (literally) like bandits under Bush.

Setting aside the moral implications of such actions, in a spending-based economy like we have, you need the middle and lower classes to have money to spend. Otherwise, the economy collapses when the spending stops. The poor and middle classes kept up their spending for as long as they could, thanks mostly to easy credit and inflated home values. But unless take-home income can keep up with spending, the gravy train will stop. Since, under Bush, most people's incomes either went down or stayed flat, on an inflation-adjusted basis, while prices continued to rise, the economy ran out of steam. Say hello to Bush-onomics, and welcome to the recession!

Hold on Jimster, it's only been 4 months. We'll tally it up in the end and see who blew the most dough.

Ok, let's do it. Shall we start you tally now?

How much was Iraq again?
Oh, and before you get all excited about the chance to bring up the bailout, remember the total was 700,000,000,000 BEFORE Obama took office.

See you in 2012!

Well, according to those very same figures:

DC to NY trip cost approx $75,000 to go 206 miles. That is $364 per mile.

DC to Crawford trip cost approx $226,072 to go 1295 miles. That is $175 per mile.

Hm, looks like I can get twice as much 'persepective' if I go to Texas AND have enough left over to catch a play.

CCDesign - Nice, but how 'bout you calculate Bush's trip cost at todays costs if you are going to compare them. Used to cost me half as much to get there as it does now.

CCdesign

Besides Bob's argument regarding inflation, there's also the idea that it makes no sense to figure the numbers by the mile. The salaries of secret service and other staff aren't accrued by the mile, are they?It probably has more to do with time and the amount of security. The only thing that is (roughly) calculated by the mile is gas. And that brings you back to Bob's inflation argument. By the same token, Bush's (many) trips to Crawford didn't cost the same amount throughout the course of his presidency. The fluctuation in gas prices along would account for some variation.

Bob, the source provided in the DK article did say the figures where 'adjusted for inflation'. I'll give them the benifit of the doubt. Besides, coming from the DK, I am sure that the numbers used where to make Bush look as bad as possible.

Thanks CC: Well if not fuel/inflation I'd wonder what causes the difference, something is skewing the numbers.

SNP, I am just going by the numbers as they where given. You can't use numbers to make a point and then start adding other criteria when those very same numbers are used to make a counterpoint. I did not introduce any other criteria as to cost such as what did it cost NYC for all that extra security, or production cost at the theater due to the hour delay that Mr Obam caused. Not to mention the fact that the First Family could have gone down the street to the Kennedy Center and sat in the Presidential Box that already had security protocol in place.

As I mentioned to Bob just a moment ago. I am giving the figures givin in the article the benifit of doubt.

ScubaJackson-

Repugs want Obama to essentially be a slave

Ain't that the truth.

Strange that no one is mentioning the nearly $300,000.00 Valentine trip to Chicago, or the nearly half mil. trip to Jay Leno, or the nearly $300,000.00 trip to Denver to sign the nearly $800,000,000,000.00 stimulus bill. At this rate, Obama will surpass Bush in his first year as president. He has already surpassed the spending of every president combined.

Every President has the right to a free date with the First Lady, even if you don't like it.

If not we are going to criticize every President, let's start from Washington on.

It looks like the Republicans don't have any better to do than criticize, instead of fixing their own party that is ruled by a mediocre radio talk show host and Mr. Abracadabra (Steele) (nothing here, nothing there)

They tend to forget that they are responsible for the 2 wars that we are engaged, to the benefit of some of their "friends" (Halliburton & Co). We're still chasing Osama, We get involved in a civil war that we are not called for. We forget the history and culture of the people we gonna get involved. Like we do in Vietnam. We misscalculate that the culture and tradition factors are very important before we get engaged in a war, and we pay with more than 62,000 lives (58,000 in Vietnam, and 4,000 and growing in Afghanistan/Irak)

We didn't find weapons of mass destruction. We didn't bring the price of the gas down. We didn't "Mission Accomplished".... Anything else.

Please don't disrespect the lives of those whose pay the ultimate price for Mr. Bush/ Mr. Cheney "mistakes". The only ones that have a "benefit" from that were the drug dealers, Afghanistan became the #1 provider of opium worldwide (Good Achievement) Halliburton and the "oily" friends of Mr.Bush.

If you ever called yourself a democartic person, please let the democracy works and you will have your chance next election day, until that day, stop throwing rocks.

So what do you propose, that they never leave the White House unless it's on official business?

I propose that the political parties pick up the tab or pay the tab yourself. Don't charge the American taxpayer $100K to take your wife out on a date.

It wasn't a political expense, and the political parties are not responsible for paying the cost of protecting the president---any president, or any other Secret Service protectee, of which there are many.

This is not left of right and bickering leads to no answers, both parties are at fault and need to change. Also the president is not the only one overspending and is not in complete control of the country, all of our reps need to shape up and lobbying needs to be made illegal along with additional perks, such as a 70,000+ date. When these incentives diminish we can obtain honest people that will represent us not just themselves until then it is the same crap just a different day. The gov has not changed and we are still being bsed. Lets get some politicians with integrity that are more for their country then for themselves, we have not seen that. Not one person is going to have all the answers and not 1 person has led us here.

If you review the budget you will see that most of the spending is "mandatory spending" which does not come from the president and Bush's tax cut went to everyone. Clinton had a right congress that fought him every step of the way, he had to work with them and balance of parties helped to create the surplus.

I don't understand this approach of 'let's wait and see how much he will spend' let's limit the hell out of that right now! haha no really i think where ever Obama goes it will be a very good advertisement and a little change into the local economy as tourists will want to see where Obama went, what he ate, what he was wearing, etc (the people that buy those pillows and such, i bet they follow him) 8)

yep, Those trips to and from Saudi Arabia must be free!!! he goes what, every other week, so he can check in with his Mentors !!!

Killfile

In reality, government spending is just about the only thing that's ever gotten us out of serious economic trouble.

Indeed here in Australia the Rudd Labor Govt quickly & wisely developed a stimulus package late last year to buffer the effects of the Global recession. So far it's working, despite negative opposition from our equivalent of the GOP...

Can you imagine that? A politician actually going on a date with his own wife! I thought politicians only used taxpayer money to take hookers to hotels...

I can't believe people are complaining about this, he's the president for heaven's sake! What, he can't take his own wife out for a date without republicans complaining? He's been elected to the most powerful office in the world, and people complain that he takes his wife out... other world leaders must be laughing their asses off.

Point, set, match!!! Touche, FL!

I feel safer in the last 5-6 months than I have in the last 8 years.

I will say this. When he was elected, other countries around the world cheered. And he's recieved warm international response, which has been sorely missed for a long, long time.

It's the way he says that he's at the table to listen, learn, and help. He's not there to impose American policy. Opening the lines of communication is actually going to make us safer, integrating other countries into efforts for the common good of humanity makes us safer.

Nicey,

I agree, but it's also perfectly reasonable and understandable for Obama to forcefully present American policy, which he absolutely should do. The idea is that he seems willing to communicate in a bi-directional fashion, and listen in a serious manner---something Bush never seemed willing to do.

bush cut everyone's taxes. the left has the fallacies they like to stick to as well.

cutting taxes while going to war is stupid. so is rasing debt so much to pay back your supporters. both bush and obama's spending is out of control and stupid. but more most people they only see the stupidity depending what side they are on

The lions share of the cuts went to the top earners. And not only that, they were unfunded...i.e. the government created debt to do the tax rebates...which would be fine, we did see increased revenues, etc. - but they expanded the budget and spent all the increased revenues.

What was more was the result of the tax cuts put more of the wealth concentrated toward the top brackets. What has a larger impact? Cutting capital gains, dividend taxes, etc which for people who have billions invested amounts to millions and millions of dollars or...the 400 dollar rebate American families got?

We have the highest poverty rate of any industrial free market country, and certainly higher than the mixed market and state welfare economies of Europe.

17% poverty...that is *an income half or less of the average income* and our wealth is more closely distributed to the top than any of the other industrial countries as well.

The argument has always been those that create jobs deserve the tax breaks...our corporate tax should be 25% as is Europes (ours is 35%)...but we should regulate our corporations as they do. Because Corporations create the jobs.

The "rich" who supposedly put their capital at risk...no longer do so. Their capital is tied up in REITs, Banks, Tax Shelters, etc just generating interest.

Obamas spending is not given the level of the situation. My opinion was that it should be higher, and more closely tied to public works, research investment, green tech jobs, etc and that it should be continued next year, and even the year after.

Look at History for relevance...during the depression we spent up to 150% of our GDP in Debt...we're around 60-70% now...given the crisis we should be spending a lot of money.

Bush spending was ridiculous because he expanded government spending into useless areas (like a war in Iraq) and didn't trim spending when we could have.

I agree, but it's also perfectly reasonable and understandable for Obama to forcefully present American policy, which he absolutely should do. The idea is that he seems willing to communicate in a bi-directional fashion, and listen in a serious manner---something Bush never seemed willing to do.

I agree from the sense that you can't just let things happen.

i.e. Appeasement to Hitler. That was Europes policy, if we give him land, he'll go away. But at a deeper level, Europe created the environment for Hitlers "terrorism" - After WWI they imposed harsh economic restrictions, stripped Germany of anything resembling dignity, and treated them with contempt in international dealings.

That caused the situation where German people were desperate for anything, especially the youth. In the absence of international concern, the rise of Facist ideology.

The whole thing is we cannot just "impose" policy any longer, we really have to stop and think, ok, 20 years from now what are the ramifications of our decisions going to be.

Here we go again, like America should model our economy after the Same failed FDR New Deal Keneshia economics. The only good that ever did was pull us out of the Great Depression with enough economic backbone to help support us in a win against the Axis powers in WW2.

Are you agreeing...or not agreeing with government spending?

It's conclusive from the depression that the worst thing you can do is shut down government spending. When the "New Deal" went into effect unemployment dropped, things started improving, then FDR went back to the "balanced budget" policies of the day which mandated that you couldn't spend more than a certain amount, unemployment went back up, things got worse again.

Ultimately it was infinite government spending that ended the depression. The government was employing some 3 million soldiers, and they were bank rolling practically every industrial operation in the country towards the war. They continued those policies after the war (which was another economic boost) with the GI bill.

Bush literally spent over 1,000 days, almost 3 years, of his 8 years in office "on vacation". I'm convinced that if 9/11 had never occurred, he would have spent nearly all of his time on vacation. If he had traveled more he would have cost the government much more money. It just happened that he liked to hang out on his ranch, trim the brush and have all his friends come over and kiss his ass.

There have been several Republican Presidents who literally felt that the best Presidents were those that did the least. This is an interesting theory if nothing is happening affecting the welfare of the country, but the concept is frankly, stupid... and a rationalization for laziness.

That is the alternative spelling of "Politician"

true true, can't argue with either...

Its really a matter of whom is most boldly practicing it then isn't it?

And on that scale the rejected retrobate remnants of republicanism are leading by quite a margin these days...imho of course...

Lift a Jackasses tail and you'll always find a Dem

Why would a Democrat be hiding under a Republican's tail?

I guess some Democrats don't know what there symbol is...

I guess some Democrats don't know what there symbol is...

Still, at least some of us can properly identify jackasses.

I guess some Democrats don't know what there symbol is...

I guess some trolls don't know the difference between their, there, and they're...

A jackass (or mule) is not a donkey, some people need a biology lesson great greg.

In politics there's not much difference.

Is that an irrelephant I see blindly groping through the language trying to determine just whom is looking out whose ass around here... Is that what I see poking out from between the cheeks of its political ideology?

Now how do they get a conservative Bush hugging irrelephant up the GOP symbols rear end like that? I don't know but I would suggest you lift its tail and look real close...closer....closer....sssuuuuuckkk POP!

Lol, we got another one, turns out he want so great after all... ;)

Greg reminds me of a constantly yapping dog. It thinks its saying something really important in its opinion but it all sounds like just the same monotonous annoying noise to humans.

FrJack, sounds like your one of those tailgaters

But a yapping dog will shut up if you tell it to.

Raven, I don't want to start your motor, so I'll say have a nice day :-)))

Inadequate Greg...don't you get it? Your lack of spelling and grammar skills (which should have been learned by the third grade) suggests an awful lot about the state of your education and rather nullifies your opinion as nothing more than the pointless jabber of a parrot. You seem uninformed and opinionated with little or no real factual basis. I don't know if this is the case, but it is how it looks. Use the spell check at least!

well there ya go...great... as in a hostile, untalented, neo conservative and written for a pre teens afternoon tv watching of the Brady Bunch level...or maybe spongegreg square head...

In any case obviously still trying to get over his fear of gay teletubbies or something...lol...watch out for that blue one, he's sneaky and just loves anger!

ftmack, It seems it must be your duty to protect whatever Libertarian has to say.

Its really a matter of whom is most boldly practicing it then isn't it?

they all are. you are just choosing who you want to see as doing it more. There is a host of democratic examples... geithner and rangel pop to mind real quick

Greg...what is so great about you? I mean really? how self aggrandizing, how self loving!

schroedingers, A person with an above average IQ wouldn't have to ask that question.

ftmack, It seems it must be your duty to protect whatever Libertarian has to say.

Woah, I think you accidently used "your" correctly there, even a blind troll finds correct grammar once in a while I guess.

Actually, Greg, not to boast, but my IQ is way above average, and I have the same question.

Well… its been said but may I add, being that I was, after all, referenced personally in this....

My own little all American political super sized haiku on it all... no genius just average opinion now, no one gets hurt...

What about it would possibly make anyone think I'm defending some darn libertarian and not just playing with some snot nosed, obviously ignorant, dirty little boy taking a break from porn…

His screen bright, his face screwed up, typing so very hard trying to hang and all while never understanding that no one will ever respect him as from here we can see that he picks his nose and his undies are all dirty, yellow and brown…

That he is likely semi literate; comic books at best, ungrammatical, quite untalented, ideologically immersed and terribly ignorant…

Like a puppy but a mean one…. One you take to the pound as fast as you can.

Now why would anyone suggest that I was doing anything here on the great big WWW for any reason but for… my own personal amusement of getting little tiny penis holders to let go and say dumb things so we can all laugh at them....

Now why is that….hmmmm?

Lift a Jackasses tail and you'll always find a Dem

And they're looking right at you too.

J, even a broken clock gets the time right twice a day, but otherwise is useless, same thing here. Mostly useless.

Wow what group of losers.

Greg,

Na-na-na-na-na.

Raven are you upset because I won't be your Newsvine friend? :-)))))

Intelligence or the lack thereof on Newsvine have nothing to do with the state of the world. Let's hear something significant correctly spelled or not. Some people just like to change the subject or muddy the water to ignore the issue. Just because you can out name call or out insult the other does not make you the winner.

Greg,

Yeah, I'm so upset, I might actually start taking Limbaugh seriously. Would that do it for you?

Hate to poopoo on everyones party, but doesn't the COH apply here? (nevermind greg, im sure he hasn't read it) but seriously its sounding like the fourth grade

Come on, FL. Give everyone a little more credit. It's at least sounding like the fifth grade. :-)

You know, Greg...your analysis is actually correct. At this point, I AM a lifer in school. My retirement from teaching High School for seventeen years is coming up soon and that's after a couple of years in an Orthodox monastery, many years as a business manager in the entertainment industry, an urban planner in a major southern city, a published author and music composer and several other achievements and careers. I even spent time in a psychiatric health facility as part of the medical staff. What have you done?

My bad, watch. still haven't reached junior high yet, though. lol

Libertarian,

Seems like you bounced around quite a bit. You should have consulted me, I would have reccomended you do your retirement in the monastery.

Alleged Great Greg...you could not hold a candle to my I.Q. no way no how! and your reply shows that in spades!

Schroedingers Cat, Very aggressive/defensive attitude = Low IQ

G.Greg you called my posting overly aggressive, and just where you get this notion one can only guess, Note: superior abilities breed superior aggression. I'm not claiming superiority here but your equation is non sequitur. If you can beat an I.Q. that's over 250 then you have a reason to complain. My SAT scores were in 1976 in the top 1% of the nation, you cannot do that with the low I.Q. that YOU labeled me with, but only some one like you could be so wrong so many times. Grow up and stop calling people stupid especially when you act that way yourself.

Schroed, #1 you initiated the name calling. # 2 I don't believe your intelligence story.

Try doing something constructive

Since the 'ranch' was designated as the "Western White House" shouldn't we be taking it over as national property?

Give obama time...give him time.

peach! ya went creative instead of foxlingual! sweet!

peach! ya went creative instead of foxlingual! sweet!

Well how Keith Obermannish of you to say so.

lol, now you getting it! gimmee another ;)

Some people don't know their DONKEY from a hole in the ground.

ftmackinc..don't get used to ny peach's sudden sense of the sublime! even a foxlingual nut get catches a squirrel of guard once in a while!

Since the 'ranch' was designated as the "Western White House" shouldn't we be taking it over as national property?

Give obama time...give him time

And I thought Bush was the one using Eminent Domain to his advantage...

shush, be nice...trying is trying...I applaud all efforts to speak in anything but foxlinguals, even if it swipes at me, actually... ex-specially if it swipes at me... ;)

Since the 'ranch' was designated as the "Western White House" shouldn't we be taking it over as national property?

That's right. Run on down there and "git'er done." Let us know when you get back.

Since the 'ranch' was designated as the "Western White House" shouldn't we be taking it over as national property?

I don't think we really want it. After all, the only thing it is good for is pretending to be from Texas instead of Maine.

Vlad's dog

Since the 'ranch' was designated as the "Western White House" shouldn't we be taking it over as national property?

What he spent so much time there I thought it was the white house?

Besides, there's Always "Brush to cut", wouldn't ever get any rest.

Yeah, they wouldn't be able to continue to profit financially from other people's illnesses.

Yeah, they wouldn't be able to continue to profit financially from other people's illnesses.

Oh don't get me started on healthcare...

owned!

President Obama could single-handedly find a cure for cancer and the extreme right will find something about it to whine about.

If Obama were to fly like Superman, the Right would complain he's too lazy to walk.

Keep dreaming

President Obama paid for the dinner and theater tickets with his own personal funds. As president, he is entitled to protection wherever he goes, just like every other occupant of the office.

People act like they haven't been anywhere at all since he took office.

Canada in February
Eight Day – 5 country trip in March
Latin America in April
Russia, Italy, Ghana scheduled for July

I am sure they attended lavish parties, nice dinners and even stayed in beautiful hotels together. Poor babies beign treated like royalty in the countries they vist isn't quite enough for them. They even visited the Buckingham Palace (like all presidents before them). I accept these costs as a taxpayer because the President needs to do these things as part of his job, but who pays for the first lady and her entourage of hairdressers .. etc ? Making it seem like they are prisoners in the White House and never get out is ridiculous. He has called for Americans to sacrifice and to give some "skin" during these rough economic times. He could have easily cooked her dinner in the White House kitchen and then cozied up on the couch with popcorn and a movie. We hired him to be the best president possible, not the best husband. He will have plenty of time for all of that after he leaves office, hell you would think after all the travelling he has already done he would be happy to relax at home.

I'd rather have a president like Obama who travels, builds relationships with other leaders, and is well informed, than a president like Bush who had barely left the country at all (maybe twice, for vacations) when he was first appointed president.

I completely agree, but this constant "he is a prisoner in the White House" crap is stupid and in no way, shape or form the case.

I am sure [while abroad] they attended lavish parties, nice dinners and even stayed in beautiful hotels together... Making it seem like they are prisoners in the White House and never get out is ridiculous...He will have plenty of time for all of that [time-off] after he leaves office.

Their diplomatic trips abroad aren't a vacation, their time in D.C. isn't a vacation, staying in the White House isn't a vacation from work or parenting. Expecting to limit himself to this is holding Obama to a different standard and very unfair. Your comments about Michelle's entourage of hairdressers is equally unfair. Every first lady travels periodically with her husband. She is no different. I didn't complain about Bush getting time off or any other president. I'm not going to start in on it now. Every POTUS, every person needs periodic distractions we call rest in order to get their mind back into the order of business. It's a natural human cycle. People need to get over this.

..Perhaps if President Bush had endeavored to more countries and worked harder to build relationships with the world instead of cherry picking people he'd speak to or put on a state dinner invitation list as the 'right sort of people' rather than going to his Crawford ranch to commune with trees, cows and horses........

We wouldn't be in the trash bin we're in today.

Wow, way to take my entire comment out of context. Read it again and then one more time. I was only demonstrating that the people commenting on here that he is a prisoner in the White House are being ridiculous. As for Michelle travelling with her husband, she has been on all international trips with him, not just the occasional one. The hairdresser comment is for those complaining about the money spent for the date as well. They have people on staff that are making money for something pointless.

I made no mention of relations with other countries and never once hinted I felt that Bush could be compared to Obama. He wanted this job and sacrifice is in the job description. He decomnpresses by working out daily and playing basketball like normal people do, only normal people don't have a country to run.

(#13.7) out of context? You have a right to feel the way you do about what is spent where, but IMHO her upkeep, her travel, their time off, and what they wear are all part of the minutia. Even fox news reported that Michelles's first 100 days were unexpectedly positive, focusing on matters like veteran's families, soup kitchens, and presenting a positive image here and abroad. Given the past performance of first ladies, Nancy took the cake for all of them with her designer dress snatching and extravagance. Former first ladies Nancy, Laura, Hillary approve of Michelle and they have the best information on what it takes to do what they have to do. If they start in on her, I'll be interested to find out why.

yeah of course I realize that...but this stupid article is b******g about $74,000...

the repubs are gonna be out of power for a long long time if they continue with this sillyness...

it's true fols are concerned about the defict and all - but it's also true we probably wouldn't have a lot of this mess if the previous admin hadn't been so asleep at the wheel

REPIGS cannot help themselves, it's in their genes. :)

cheney & the puppet are GUILTY

I have often asked if there is a republican gene.Now I am sure there is one.....or two.

Thanks Americana2.

True, perhaps, in which case, undoubtedly recessive from all of the Republican inbreeding.

me to...Palin seed is to your right...republican asshats calling Latino judge racist...well that's to the right as well...Christians supporting killing abortion doctors...to the far right...republican governors calling for succession...thats the left right these days...lol

(themman, not aimed at you, just fell here as a wee riff going off your thought is all ;)

Except for the fact that a white male did say the same thing and now sits on the SC. Name's Alito. For that matter, a white female, appointed by Reagan and confirmed also said the same thing. Her name: O'Connor. Is it only when a minority says it that it's wrong? You're down two strikes. Wanna try again?

"oh, and nice one about the abortion doctor murder, but what about the murder at the army recruitment office?"

What about it? It was terrible. Horrible. But how do you compare that ONE incident to the ongoing abortion struggle? Have newly-converted Muslims been protesting outside of recruitment offices for nearly four decades, threatening people going in and out? Have they tried to overturn amendments so that people can no longer serve in the army? Have they dedicated websites to exposing the names and addresses of recruitments officers in the hopes that a nut might go and kill them? Have most of them stood silently by while their recruitment officers have been shot at and their offices bombed many times throughout the past four decades?

No. But all of the above is why people are sick and tired of the anti-woman/anti-choice radicals.

Except for the fact that a white male did say the same thing and now sits on the SC. Name's Alito. For that matter, a white female, appointed by Reagan and confirmed also said the same thing. Her name: O'Connor. Is it only when a minority says it that it's wrong? You're down two strikes. Wanna try again?

Sure...but could you post those racist quotes so we can see them? I'd like to take your word for it, but I don't know you well enough and frankly...you're a liberal.

hmm, racist latinA (she is a female you know) is on the far left. the far left also justifies it. you know that if it was a white male who said that his career would be over.

Under what circumstance would a white male need to say something like this? (since we know what is being referred to here.) Taken in context, it would mean the white male would have to have been asked if his white-male life experiences would help him make better decisions that affect white people. If he answered that, he would be better equipped to make the decision based on his experiences as a white person, than say a latina who never lived that life, that would be a fair answer

The question was posed to Sotomayor if her latina experiences made her better at making decisions that effect latinos/latinas. She said yes that it did. That was a fair answer.

Does the answer from Sotomayor or the fictional white male make either of them racist? No.

It would be racist if they stated they were better equipped to make decisions that affect another ethnic group. Hence the reason why judges try to keep their life experiences out of their decisions and stick to the word of the law. (We could have a whole other argument about the fairness of some laws.)

The point being that it's important she approves cases that are best for the marjority and not the minority of people.

Great Greg,

Educate yourself---please. Some cases that come before the Supreme Court actually affect minorities specifically. It's not always all about us white folks. Besides, if you bother to inform yourself about U. S. demographics even just a little bit, you'll discover that in a few short years, we white folks will be the minority in this country. If I were you, I'd use my time wisely learning how to get along with people that are different from you, rather than acting so powerful. You might have an easier time of it when the inevitable population shift occurs.

Raven, who said anything about color, if you can read: minority of people means (less then majority)

Greg said:

The point being that it's important she approves cases that are best for the marjority and not the minority of people.

Not ever. Not on my life and not on your life should she approve cases for the benifit of the majority, minority or whomever the interest group is at hand.

Her job, should she be confirmed, is to vet the laws of the United States of America against the Constitution of the same, using legal precedent, logical and legal reasoning to the best of her ability.

B.S.

That which benefits the majority..

it's important she approves cases that are best for the marjority and not the minority of people.

That statement represents a stunning misunderstanding of our country's founding principals and system of government.

I agree wholeheartedly with jawill11 on that one.

B.S.

Peach wrote:

Sure...but could you post those racist quotes so we can see them? I'd like to take your word for it, but I don't know you well enough and frankly...you're a liberal.

Not to steal FrJack's thunder, and to prove that liberal thinking is not a bar to the truth (though I hear that opinion expressed all the time here on the Vine and usually not in an attempt to amuse, as I'll generously assume you meant it above) here you go:

Sam Alito on considering personal history and ethnicity

Sandra O'Connor on gender

None of these comments were "racist" comments, however. What they were for Alito and O'Connor as well as Sotomayor, was acknowledgement that a person's background and experiences necessarily color their thoughts and opinions. Classifying them as "racist" or "reverse racist" is a rhetorical trick intended to frighten and divide...

"But but but, they should be impartial!" I keep hearing. True, letter-of-the-law neutrality would take some form of computer (leaving aside the biases of the programmers for the moment...), but I don't think anyone seriously thinks we should take all human agency out of the judiciary. Better to acknowledge, as Oliver Wendell Holmes did (and Obama quoted in the Sotomayor announcement)

"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy, avowed or unconscious, even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow men, have had a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed. The law embodies the story of a nation's development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics."

As a bonus, and just to clear away some of the other talking points:

Antonin Scalia, from a SCotUS opinion, noting that courts do, indeed, make policy

GHW Bush praises Clarence Thomas's "empathy"

People seem to forget that the CRA said nothing more than all applicants 'had to be considered equally.' This isn't the Dem or Rep burdeon. It rests with the banks. In the end, after all the finger pointing is done and over with, it was the banks money, and the banks who decided to give it to them. The blame for their woes lies with them. I can say 'all applicants must be considered equally' or 'there will be no government regulations' but that doesn't change who holds (and who opens) the pursestrings.

No. Orielly will always be loathsome.

Nope--Bill O will always be a divisive, reactionary trouble-making hypocrite.

Killfile,

Understood, but my bigger concern is that without blaming past presidents for their spending, how does one reconcile the "need for sacrafice" comments with the need for a date (that ends up costing our contry 75 grand)?

To a teenager who wants to do everything this president asks to make the world a better place, isn't this sending a slightly different message than the "sacrafice" message being delivered a few weeks ago? Costs for protection are understood, but knowing that any significant travel will add costs, couldn't this have been done in conjuction with another trip or postponed until the country isn't in such financially tough times?

Smyth, I would hope that you meant to explain it to her rather than spin it to her.

First we must ask, "How much is spent on a normal evening to protect the president and how does that differ from the cost of the trip?"

Secondly you need to know how much air force one costs to operate, and if it had not been in direct usage of the president, would it have been used for some other purpose.

with that info, then you need to ask her if she thinks that the money was well spent.

B.S.

Smyth,

Phrase it along the lines of the importance of keeping a promise. If you make a promise to someone, anyone..you have to keep it, or at least do your best to do so. Obama promised his wife a trip to New York. The only thing we each have any lasting value is our word. Without it, you're worthless...no matter what your bank account says.

The remaining money (about 73, 000) was spent to protect our President. Unfortunately many people don't like the US , and would kill the President not so much because they hate him, (though some do) but because of the symbol he represents. They mistakingly believe that killing him would somehow dismantle the country.

Ironically everytime a President or another famous politician has been attacked or assassinated, it has unified the nation, not dismantled it.

The one time speniding is nothing.

The Trillions will cost us our economy for years to come.

Big deal if the stars came out in NY on a dinner date. Pork is Pork!, us little guys will pay for the Trillions (for several generations).

kirk,

Whose trillions? Bush's 7 trillion, or the 3.8 trillion Obama needs to fix the last 8yrs?

Obama-Fan - 21.2

Why can't you fans admit that he is spending far more than Bush ever did? Read this and tell me that this is just a "right-wing" position. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html

How does spending far more than Bush did "fix" the last 8 years? Cutting spending is one way to fix it. Not raising taxes to avoid stifling growth is another. I know it sounds like the same old refrain to you, but it seems to be a formula that works. Do some research and you will see that during times of tax cuts, etc., tax revenues actually increased. Why? Because during growth more people work, more people working means more taxes, more people working with more money in their pocket means more spending means need for more production, etc. It's really a simple formula, but I suppose that Obama and his band of merry social engineers don't know anything about basic business principles. Guess you wouldn't when your undergrad degree was in political science.

Ok, but first you admit that the Bush administration lied us into war and 4,000+ servicemen, not to mention god knows how many others, are dead because of neocon lies directly from the leader of the republican party and who is therefore the leader of conservatism...

You then take the responsibility for the more thousands and thousands maimed forever and for the trillions lost in this god dam mess...

And step up and say loud and clear that conservatism is a broken sick poisoned ideology run by insane demagogues from a position of the incredibly obvious failure of each and every stinking thing they profess to give a damn about...

Step up and admit the anti gay thing is unadulterated bigotry and hate...

Acknowledge that your Christian Reich is a menace to all of America and an obviously hostile inbred form of a fifth column....

Start with that sport and I'll get back with ya on the rest like Palin is a dumb ass and 20% of the country are bigoted morons fearful of a black man in the white house...

Yeah I’d like to see some fans of some horse@!$%# admit a few things...that would be nice alright....

and you know what else...if they passed out degrees in anything but poison, hate and horror in these right wingery for idiots training sessions then maybe...just maybe...a few of them would see that supporting our president in war and crisis is better then picking at every little god damn thing until it bleeds us all to death...

But hey thats just what I wish...so no worries...

Wow.....very nice. Bit harsh but to the point.

I doubt this restaurant was having any trouble being booked BEFORE the annointed one's ass stepped inside, and this is not the type of restaurant that needed his help

Earlier in the week, Obama was the center of the Right's anger for going out for a simple hamburger...now he's going to places that are too nice?

Just admit you hate everything he does and be done with it.

I'm not saying that he is going to places too nice; you miss the point. I am sick of someone finding a reason to justify every single thing this guy does. The import of the writer's statement is that it was good for him to go to this restaurant because despite what it costs the US taxpayer, it generated business for this restaurant. And my point is that this is b-s; his visit had nothing to do with the restaurant's business.

Why can't any of his supporters admit that he might be a little hypocritical? He tells us we have to make sacrifices, we need to pay more taxes, GM execs can't use their private jets because it looks bad in light of their company's financial troubles. Well, our country could be compared to a company with financial troubles, and what Obama did is akin to what he chastised the execs for. It's not only his ineptness but his hypocrisy and smugness that annoys me. He needs to start thinking about the phrase "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

. I am sick of someone finding a reason to justify every single thing this guy does.

I am sick of Repubs finding the most inane petty drivel to criticize Obama. Really, do you think this raises your status in the eyes of moderates or just makes you look really extremely petty?

It's not only his ineptness but his hypocrisy and smugness that annoys me.

Now you know how millions of us felt under Bush.

And I think Obama is as far from inept as one can get.

Well BLD, I am sick of the people who complain EVERY SINGLE DAY that our President can do nothing right! How about that? One can't even come onto a seed anymore that doesn't have someone sniping about something. It's really a disgusting waste of time having TO justify. BTW you sound as if you have some mommy and daddy issues too. Look back at your posts. Hello Rush!

Bush 468 billion in debt over 8 years

No, it's "Bush 5 Trillion in debt over 8 years". Bush inherited a debt from Clinton, added to it and when he left office the debt was 10.8 TRILLION dollars.

I suspect you are confusing his budget deficit (which I thought was 485 billion) with the debt.

I suspect you are confusing his budget deficit (which I thought was 485 billion) with the debt.

The projected deficiit is a lot higher, (based on the inclusion of the 787 Billion in stimulus) the Fiscal 2009 deficit is going to be very high...because the fiscal year runs October to October I believe a large portion of the original 700 billion bailout falls into this fiscal year as well.

The CBO has 1.845 trillion as the estimated deficit for the year...but as said...that's because most of the 700 billion authorized last fall fell into this years deficit, and the 787, together that's 1.487 trillion...the "real" deficit is actually smaller than last year...459 Billion in 2008, our "real" shortfall is 358 Billion.

(Which is why the president can promise a reduction of the Fed deficit by 1/2 in 4 years...the 2012 Fiscal budget deficit is estimated at 658 Billion, less than half of 1.845 trillion...)