Barack Obama tells Americans 'don't go to Las Vegas'

QFIT

Well-Known Member
#2
Mayor Goodman is an idiot. He could clearly state that Obama was merely pointing out that Vegas is synonymous with vacation and having a good time. Clearly people out of work should not be flocking to Vegas. OTOH, when they are doing better, Vegas should be in their minds as the place they've been waiting to visit.

But it is funny to hear a man that says he is serious when he calls for children's thumbs to be cut off for defacing signs, and telling a class of 4th graders that if he were trapped on a desert island, he would take with him a a showgirl and a bottle of Bombay Sapphire Gin, and then call Obama, who graduated magna cum laude from Harvard, a "slow learner." Tell me which one of these makes Veags look bad.
 

Katweezel

Well-Known Member
#3
QFIT said:
Mayor Goodman is an idiot. He could clearly state that Obama was merely pointing out that Vegas is synonymous with vacation and having a good time. Clearly people out of work should not be flocking to Vegas. OTOH, when they are doing better, Vegas should be in their minds as the place they've been waiting to visit.

But it is funny to hear a man that says he is serious when he calls for children's thumbs to be cut off for defacing signs, and telling a class of 4th graders that if he were trapped on a desert island, he would take with him a a showgirl and a bottle of Bombay Sapphire Gin, and then call Obama, who graduated magna cum laude from Harvard, a "slow learner." Tell me which one of these makes Veags look bad.
Sounds like Mayor Goodman got too much desert sun on his noggin. How did he get to be mayor? This sign below was probably his idea too. This is an example of a sign that needs defacing by children... :grin:
 

Attachments

#4
I think the point is the President should not be badmouthing any city or state in America. It's beneath the dignity of the office. Lots of LV locals are out of work too.

Besides, Las Vegas is one of the cheaper vacation destinations in the US if you are short of money. Maybe he should have said "This is the time to be going to Vegas instead of Martha's Vineyard, where I go."
 

21gunsalute

Well-Known Member
#6
Obama isn't a slow learner...he's a no learner! He's following in Jimmy Carter's footsteps to totally destroy our economy! He should have said when times are tough, don't pay taxes. It's more important to keep spending money and grow the economy than to grow the government into an even bigger bureaucracy so he and his cronies can dictate every aspect of our lives. Obviously unemployment isn't one of his concerns or he'd lower taxes for businesses that hire people.

Obviously the economy isn't a big concern or he'd lower taxes so people would have more money to spend and reinvigorate the economy. Instead he's going to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire and penalize those who earn over $250,000 a year...the same class that contributes the most to our economic development and does the vast majority of hiring employees. Meanwhile this jackass made 160 trips on Air Force One at taxpayer expense in his first year in office. Not exactly a role model for cutting expenses during hard economic times is he? Obviously his only real concern is to exert more and more control over other people's lives and to totally destroy our economy so he can impose socialism across the board. And Vegas is obviously his biggest enemy and target because it represents capitalism at it's highest level.
 

QFIT

Well-Known Member
#7
Hmm. A few points.

1. Our newest Senator claims the stimulus package has not created "one single job." But, you and the Republicans keep claiming cutting taxes creates jobs. Well, the stimulus package included $350 BILLION in tax cuts. And they were for businesses and workers, not rich folk.

2. He has further planned to lower taxes more for small businesses giving them tax breaks for hiring new workers. And the Republicans came out against it. Republicans against lower taxes. They will say NO to ANYTHING Obama proposes, even if they were in favor of it a week earlier.

3. How does cutting taxes for rich people help the economy? Do you really think they won't try to make their businesses grow if they have to pay a couple more percent of their additional income?

4. How has Obama actually increased "bureaucracy?" The health care reform bill calls for non-governmental organizations to run health care. Do you like insurance company bureaucracies that so many people have to argue with to get payments? He is even privatizing space exploration.

5. Where has Obama done ANYTHING to bring about socialism -- placing the means of production under control of the gov't? Do you mean the bailouts? That was Bush. How did Obama ruin the economy? It was Bush that turned record surpluses into record deficits. It was Bush that passed the largest new entitlement in decades, without paying for it. It was Bush that started a war with Iraq, for no reason, and without paying for it. The recession started under Bush, the worst since the Great Depression. The deficits started under Bush.


And you call Obama a "jackass" for taking trips? At least these are working trips. Not continual trips to Texas for vacation.
 

Jack_Black

Well-Known Member
#8
21gunsalute said:
Obviously the economy isn't a big concern or he'd lower taxes so people would have more money to spend and reinvigorate the economy.
Wow, ditto what qfit said. I would've pegged you for a republican qfit, what with NY and guiliani and wtc and all.

but anyway, I don't know why republicans have a knee jerk reaction to thinking the economy problem is an easy fix. "Just lower taxes!" It's a akin to a mantra like "oooomm," "the power of christ compels you!" or "drill baby drill!"

I hear the argument of lowering taxes will solve the problem to about everything that comes out of the right wing. bad economy? lower taxes. iraq war? lower taxes. gay marriage? lower taxes. The believe that lowering taxes will be the biggest help to the economy is dated thinking. In the early 20th century, lowering taxes did help the economy quite a bit. changing the tax rate had an effect akin to an accelerator on a ferrari. The more you cut back, the economy would respond in kind. but those days are long gone. people lived simple lives, kept one job for their entire life, and most people were salaried. If you knew that you going to make the equivalent of $50k/yr for the rest of your life, well a tax break would surely put more more money in your pocket to spend.

But people don't live like that anymore. Some people are salaried, others check to check, freelance, commission. How many people nowadays have worked one job their whole life? not to mention how many people switch careers midlife. because of this uncertainty, people will tend to horde money to save for a rainy day, and the forecast right now is for a monsoon. remember the stimulus check from bushy? did that help? I remember taking a quick look and throwing it into my savings account.

The economy today is much MUCH MUCH more complex than it has ever been. a simple lowering of taxes will have little effect on it.
 
#9
Jack

Jack_Black said:
Wow, ditto what qfit said. I would've pegged you for a republican qfit, what with NY and guiliani and wtc and all.

but anyway, I don't know why republicans have a knee jerk reaction to thinking the economy problem is an easy fix. "Just lower taxes!" It's a akin to a mantra like "oooomm," "the power of christ compels you!" or "drill baby drill!"

I hear the argument of lowering taxes will solve the problem to about everything that comes out of the right wing. bad economy? lower taxes. iraq war? lower taxes. gay marriage? lower taxes. The believe that lowering taxes will be the biggest help to the economy is dated thinking. In the early 20th century, lowering taxes did help the economy quite a bit. changing the tax rate had an effect akin to an accelerator on a ferrari. The more you cut back, the economy would respond in kind. but those days are long gone. people lived simple lives, kept one job for their entire life, and most people were salaried. If you knew that you going to make the equivalent of $50k/yr for the rest of your life, well a tax break would surely put more more money in your pocket to spend.

But people don't live like that anymore. Some people are salaried, others check to check, freelance, commission. How many people nowadays have worked one job their whole life? not to mention how many people switch careers midlife. because of this uncertainty, people will tend to horde money to save for a rainy day, and the forecast right now is for a monsoon. remember the stimulus check from bushy? did that help? I remember taking a quick look and throwing it into my savings account.

The economy today is much MUCH MUCH more complex than it has ever been. a simple lowering of taxes will have little effect on it.
Right on Bro.

You should run for office.:)

CP
 

21gunsalute

Well-Known Member
#10
Here are some facts. These figures are all verifiable via The US Dept of Labor website and the IRS website, among others. In Jimmy Carter's last year in office in 1980, the top tax rate was 70%, the unemployment rate was 7%, the inflation rate was 10.4% and interest rates topped out at 21%! In Reagan's last year in office in 1988 the top tax rate was slashed to 28%, the unemployment rate fell to 5.4%, the inflation rate fell to 4.2% and interest rates fell to 9%! Despite the dramatic slashing of tax rates during the Reagan years, tax receipts virtaully doubled! And it was the so-called "rich" who were responsible for most of this increase. The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988! What does this mean? It means the working class bore less of the tax burden!

Kennedy/Johnson cut the tax rates back in the early 60's and encountered similar results! When George HW Bush raised the marginal tax rates, the economy suffered. The answer is clear: cutting taxes for everyone benefits everyone, including the government! Penalizing people for "being rich" chokes the economy and hurts everyone! If you need further evidence of this, the top income tax bracket was around 25% during most of the 1920's but jumped to 63% and then to 79% during The Great Depression!
 

21gunsalute

Well-Known Member
#11
QFIT said:
Hmm. A few points.

1. Our newest Senator claims the stimulus package has not created "one single job." But, you and the Republicans keep claiming cutting taxes creates jobs. Well, the stimulus package included $350 BILLION in tax cuts. And they were for businesses and workers, not rich folk.

Are you talking about the $400 tax cut for individuals that simply takes less out of our paychecks? Wow! That frees up less than $8/week! People can buy a few more boxes of maccaroni and cheese. Kraft will be happy. Bush gave the tax cuts in a lump-sum so people could go out and buy new tv sets or put a down payment on a car. But thanks for reminding me about this. It was such a pittance I'd completely forgotten about it

2. He has further planned to lower taxes more for small businesses giving them tax breaks for hiring new workers. And the Republicans came out against it. Republicans against lower taxes. They will say NO to ANYTHING Obama proposes, even if they were in favor of it a week earlier.

Documentation please.

3. How does cutting taxes for rich people help the economy? Do you really think they won't try to make their businesses grow if they have to pay a couple more percent of their additional income?

Have you ever worked for a poor person? Small businesses are failing left and right! Lowering taxes frees up more money allowing them to hire more people and lowering taxes for individuals allows the individuals to buy more products from these small businesses. It's a win-win situation

4. How has Obama actually increased "bureaucracy?" The health care reform bill calls for non-governmental organizations to run health care. Do you like insurance company bureaucracies that so many people have to argue with to get payments? He is even privatizing space exploration.

The government is bigger than it ever has been. It's exerting more control and taking over more and more businesses.

5. Where has Obama done ANYTHING to bring about socialism -- placing the means of production under control of the gov't? Do you mean the bailouts? That was Bush. How did Obama ruin the economy? It was Bush that turned record surpluses into record deficits. It was Bush that passed the largest new entitlement in decades, without paying for it. It was Bush that started a war with Iraq, for no reason, and without paying for it. The recession started under Bush, the worst since the Great Depression. The deficits started under
Bush.

Yeah, they started under Bush, but Bush isn't our president anymore, so why bring that jackass up? Obama's our president now. And Bush's bailouts pale in comparison to the Obama bailouts. Same with the deficts. Bush was wrong. Obama is really wrong!

And you call Obama a "jackass" for taking trips? At least these are working trips. Not continual trips to Texas for vacation.

What about when he flies off with his wife to Paris just to have dinner there? Less that half of those 160 Air Force One trips were official business trips. Where's his fiscal responsibility? He should be spending money here, not abroad, especially when it's our money he's spending. And once again why do you keep comparing one jackass to another, especially when the jackass you keep comparing him to is less of a jackass then the jackass you're defending?
;)
 

QFIT

Well-Known Member
#12
You are cherry-picking figures. The marginal income tax rate, ignoring all other taxes and deductions and credits has little meaning in a vacuum. Reagan lowered taxes in 1981, and the end result was a massive decrease in revenues. To make up for this, he raised taxes in 1982 (tax equity and fiscal responsibility act), 1983 (social security), 1984 (deficit reduction act), 1985, 1986 and 1987. Under Reagen, the AMT was expanded to cover the middle class in addition to the rich and is now thought by many to be the single worst problem in the federal tax code. Republicans like to say capital gains tax must be eliminated. But, the capital gains tax was higher under Reagan than it is under Obama and Obama is eliminating it for many small businesses. Obama has been in office only one year. Unemployment in Reagen's second and third year was over 10% -- higher than now. Compared with the prior three presidents, the unemployment rate averaged higher under Reagan (6.75% vs. 6.35%), average productivity growth was slower under Reagan (1.38% vs. 1.92%) and private investment as a percentage of GDP also averaged lower under Reagan (16.08% vs. 16.86%).

No wonder George Bush called Reaganomics voodoo economics.http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/
 

21gunsalute

Well-Known Member
#13
QFIT said:
You are cherry-picking figures. The marginal income tax rate, ignoring all other taxes and deductions and credits has little meaning in a vacuum. Reagan lowered taxes in 1981, and the end result was a massive decrease in revenues. To make up for this, he raised taxes in 1982 (tax equity and fiscal responsibility act), 1983 (social security), 1984 (deficit reduction act), 1985, 1986 and 1987. Under Reagen, the AMT was expanded to cover the middle class in addition to the rich and is now thought by many to be the single worst problem in the federal tax code. Republicans like to say capital gains tax must be eliminated. But, the capital gains tax was higher under Reagan than it is under Obama and Obama is eliminating it for many small businesses. Obama has been in office only one year. Unemployment in Reagen's second and third year was over 10% -- higher than now. Compared with the prior three presidents, the unemployment rate averaged higher under Reagan (6.75% vs. 6.35%), average productivity growth was slower under Reagan (1.38% vs. 1.92%) and private investment as a percentage of GDP also averaged lower under Reagan (16.08% vs. 16.86%).

No wonder George Bush called Reaganomics voodoo economics.http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/
Sorry, you're the cherry picker. Remember he had a Democratic congress to deal with that kept pushing for higher taxes. The fact is he lowered taxes and the economy thrived. The figures I quoted are for his last year in office there was some flux in the interim.

Anyone with even a basic understanding of economics and logic should understand why it works this way. The more money individuals and businesses are forced to pay to the government the bigger the government gets and the smaller the economy gets. When individuals and businesses are required to pay less to the the government there is more money to spend to stimulate the economy, which in turn creates more revenue for the government, even though individuals and businesses are paying a lower %. You can't fight or change sound economic principles based on logic and history. Yet that is exactly the type of change Obama is trying to force down our throats.
 

QFIT

Well-Known Member
#14
Are you talking about the $400 tax cut for individuals that simply takes less out of our paychecks? Wow! That frees up less than $8/week! People can buy a few more boxes of maccaroni and cheese. Kraft will be happy. Bush gave the tax cuts in a lump-sum so people could go out and buy new tv sets or put a down payment on a car. But thanks for reminding me about this. It was such a pittance I'd completely forgotten about it
Umm,that was Bush. I am talking about the $350 BILLION in tax cuts in Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Tax credits and reductions included:

1. American opportunity tax credit for students
2. Homebuyer's credit
3. Making work pay credit
4. New car sales tax deduction
5. AMT patch
6. Qualified transportation fringe benefit increase
7. Section 529 computer purchases
8.
Child tax credit
9. Increase in the earned income tax
10. Exclusion of $2,400 of unemployment benefits from taxable income

Documentation please.
Umm, it's been all over the news. Obama wants to provide small businesses with tax credits for hiring. Look it up.

Have you ever worked for a poor person? Small businesses are failing left and right! Lowering taxes frees up more money allowing them to hire more people and lowering taxes for individuals allows the individuals to buy more products from these small businesses. It's a win-win situation
Reagan trickle-down economics. Give money to the rich and poor people can pick up the pennies they drop. Does anyone still believe this? Give money to poor people and they will spend it. That gets the economy going.

The government is bigger than it ever has been. It's exerting more control and taking over more and more businesses.
What does this have to do with Obama being a "socialist?" The same could be said about EVERY modern president. Under Reagan, federal outlays grew at an average rate of 7.1% a year for eight years. Now that's a lot of expansion.

Yeah, they started under Bush, but Bush isn't our president anymore, so why bring that jackass up? Obama's our president now. And Bush's bailouts pale in comparison to the Obama bailouts. Same with the deficts. Bush was wrong. Obama is really wrong!
Actually they don't In fact, much of the bailout money has been paid back with interest. The US has little industry left, which is why we have to borrow money from China where our industry has gone. Would you really have let our auto industries die too? If there is a third world war, what industry would we have left to convert to war machinery?

What about when he flies off with his wife to Paris just to have dinner there? Less that half of those 160 Air Force One trips were official business trips. Where's his fiscal responsibility? He should be spending money here, not abroad, especially when it's our money he's spending. And once again why do you keep comparing one jackass to another, especially when the jackass you keep comparing him to is less of a jackass then the jackass you're defending?
Under half.:) That's ridiculous. And constantly typing "jackass" is not useful.
 

21gunsalute

Well-Known Member
#16
QFIT said:
Umm,that was Bush. I am talking about the $350 BILLION in tax cuts in Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Tax credits and reductions included:

1. American opportunity tax credit for students
2. Homebuyer's credit
3. Making work pay credit
4. New car sales tax deduction
5. AMT patch
6. Qualified transportation fringe benefit increase
7. Section 529 computer purchases
8.
Child tax credit
9. Increase in the earned income tax
10. Exclusion of $2,400 of unemployment benefits from taxable income

No, we get a $400 tax credit on 2009 taxes which was implemented via withholding less from paychecks instead of receiving a check for a lump sum or simply claiming the credit when we file taxes. I'll give you that one. The above "tax credits" are specialized and exclusive. IE discriminatory.

Umm, it's been all over the news. Obama wants to provide small businesses with tax credits for hiring. Look it up.

I meant this part of your blurb (although I'd still like some documentation for the tax credits themselves):

2. He has further planned to lower taxes more for small businesses giving them tax breaks for hiring new workers. And the Republicans came out against it. Republicans against lower taxes. They will say NO to ANYTHING Obama proposes, even if they were in favor of it a week earlier.

That's called a strawman argument.



Reagan trickle-down economics. Give money to the rich and poor people can pick up the pennies they drop. Does anyone still believe this? Give money to poor people and they will spend it. That gets the economy going.


Yes, it does work. It's been proven throughout history, although the term trickle-down is nothing but a blatant misrepresentation. Trickle down is just one component. You lower taxes for everyone and everyone benefits. You give everyone more money to spend. Poor people don't buy houses, boats, airplanes or a lot of electronic equipment. Poor people don't start up businesses and hire people. Poor people don't spend a lot of money in Vegas. There is no trickle up component if you just give poor people tax breaks. Furthermore, poor people pay very little if any taxes to begin with. They spend money on basic needs type items which may very well help a small segment of the economy but does nothing to benefit the economy as a whole.

Interesting that you brought up George HW Bush and the term "voodoo economics". He's also the jackass that said "read my lips...no new taxes", then turned around and raised taxes anyway. As a result the economy floundered and everything the economy gained under Reagan via the tax cuts was lost.


What does this have to do with Obama being a "socialist?" The same could be said about EVERY modern president. Under Reagan, federal outlays grew at an average rate of 7.1% a year for eight years. Now that's a lot of expansion.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by federal outlays, but Reagan did spend a lot of money on defense and building our military back up, which was decimated by the policies of Jimmy Carter. He also took office during a period of high inflation again due in no small part to the policies of Jimmy Carter, which I would imagine would have an effect on that 7.1% figure. Then again I don't even know if that figure is accurate or not because once again you provided no documentation.

But make no mistake about it, Obama is a socialist through and through. Actually I'd say he's more of a communist wanting to control every aspect of every business and every facet of people's lives. Taking over banks, car companies and health care is just a start.


Actually they don't In fact, much of the bailout money has been paid back with interest. The US has little industry left, which is why we have to borrow money from China where our industry has gone. Would you really have let our auto industries die too? If there is a third world war, what industry would we have left to convert to war machinery?

Ha. Ford refused bailout money and they're doing very well now, much better than the government run GM and Chrysler. GM and
Chrysler would not have died w/o the bailouts. They may have had to file bankruptcy but that would have been for restructuring purposes. And the deficit in Obama's first year and the projected deficits in years to come are no laughing matter. Go ahead and blame Bush all you want for his deficits, but 2 wrongs don't make a right and the deficits under Bush are barely a fraction of what the Obama administration has done so far and is proposing in the future:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703906204575027181656362948.html
(excerpts)
Whether or not Americans choose to believe him, there's no denying the fiscal reality created by the rollout version of President Obama last year, as detailed in the Congressional Budget Office report released yesterday. For the second year in a row, fiscal 2010 will see a trillion-dollar deficit—an estimated $1.35 trillion, or 9.2% of GDP, which is down slightly from last year's post-World War II record of 9.9%.

As for the deficit, CBO shows that over the first three years of the Obama Presidency, 2009-2011, the federal government will borrow an estimated $3.7 trillion. That is more than the entire accumulated national debt for the first 225 years of U.S. history. By 2019, the interest payments on this debt will be larger than the budget for education, roads and all other nondefense discretionary spending.


Under half.:) That's ridiculous. And constantly typing "jackass" is not useful.

What's ridiculous is that he took 160 flights on Air Force One and 193 flights on Marine One in his first year in office. He made 10 foreign trips to 21 countries and 46 domestic trips to 58 cities. I don't know exactly how that breaks down but he took his wife and/or his family on many such trips and many were just for dinner or "getting out of the White House".
;)
 

QFIT

Well-Known Member
#18
I'll give you that one. The above "tax credits" are specialized and exclusive. IE discriminatory
Seems Republicans are for any tax cuts, unless a Democrat proposes them.:) Then they are somehow discriminatory. The fact is that Obama's bill cut taxes by $350 BILLION.
That's called a strawman argument.
No, it was a characterization. It may notbe always, but you gave a good example yourself at the start of your post.

Yes, it does work. It's been proven throughout history, although the term trickle-down is nothing but a blatant misrepresentation. Trickle down is just one component. You lower taxes for everyone and everyone benefits. You give everyone more money to spend. Poor people don't buy houses, boats, airplanes or a lot of electronic equipment. Poor people don't start up businesses and hire people. Poor people don't spend a lot of money in Vegas. There is no trickle up component if you just give poor people tax breaks. Furthermore, poor people pay very little if any taxes to begin with. They spend on money on basic needs type items which may very well help a small segment of the economy but does nothing to benefit the economy as a whole.
You claim that "Anyone with even a basic understanding of economics and logic should understand why it works this way." I gave you an example of a Nobel Prize winning economist that doesn't believe it. One of numerous economists.
Interesting that you brought up George HW Bush and the term "voodoo economics". He's also the jackass that said "read my lips...no new taxes", then turned around and raised taxes anyway. As a result the economy floundered and everything the economy gained under Reagan via the tax cuts was lost.
The world is not that simple. And as I pointed out, Reagan raised taxes many times.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by federal outlays, but Reagan did spend a lot of money on defense and building our military back up, which was decimated by the policies of Jimmy Carter. He also took office during a period of high inflation again due in no small part to the policies of Jimmy Carter, which I would imagine would have an effect on that 7.1% figure. Then again I don't even know if that figure is accurate or not because once again you provided no documentation.
Gee, where are all your footnotes.:) The Federal budget increased by over 50% during the Reagan years.
But make no mistake about it, Obama is a socialist through and through. Actually I'd say he's more of a communist wanting to control every aspect of every business and every facet of people's lives. Taking over banks, car companies and health care is just a start.
Now you are way overboard. He has not taken over ONE SINGLE company. He is not even on the board of any companies. The gov't owns stock in three companies and is unwinding those positions. He is not taking over ANYTHING related to health care. Calling him a socialist is downright silly.

Ha. Ford refused bailout money and they're doing very well now, much better than the government run GM and Chrysler. GM and
Chrysler would not have died w/o the bailouts. They may have had to file bankruptcy but that would have been for restructuring purposes. And the deficit in Obama's first year and the project deficits in years to come are no laughing matter. Go ahead and blame Bush all you want for his deficits, but 2 wrongs don't make a right and the deficits under Bush are barely a fraction of what the Obama administration has done so far and is proposing in the future:
So, you are saying Bush was a socialist too?:) Your statement that GM would have made it through restructuring counters what all the analysts said. You are now claiming to know more than the analysts about business and more than a Nobel prize winning economist about the economy.
Whether or not Americans choose to believe him, there's no denying the fiscal reality created by the rollout version of President Obama last year, as detailed in the Congressional Budget Office report released yesterday. For the second year in a row, fiscal 2010 will see a trillion-dollar deficit—an estimated $1.35 trillion, or 9.2% of GDP, which is down slightly from last year's post-World War II record of 9.9%.

As for the deficit, CBO shows that over the first three years of the Obama Presidency, 2009-2011, the federal government will borrow an estimated $3.7 trillion. That is more than the entire accumulated national debt for the first 225 years of U.S. history. By 2019, the interest payments on this debt will be larger than the budget for education, roads and all other nondefense discretionary spending.
Yes. It is very expensive to save the country from a depression. Too bad Obama wasn't elected earlier.

What's ridiculous is that he took 160 flights on Air Force One and 193 flights on Marine One in his first year in office. He made 10 foreign trips to 21 countries and 46 domestic trips to 58 cities. I don't know exactly how that breaks down but he took his wife and/or his family on many such trips and many were just for dinner or "getting out of the White House".
Are you serious? Any idea how many trips Bush made? Most were to Texas where he spent one-third of his presidency vacationing. Most of the remainder were fund-raisers. I'm glad we finally have a president that works for his salary.
 

QFIT

Well-Known Member
#19
21gunsalute said:
Yasser Arafat, Al Gore and Barrack Obama have also won Nobel Prizes. That's one award that has no credibility whatsoever.
Are you actually saying that a Nobel prize in a science has no credibility?
 
Top