[Autumnleaf]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Good for him. It must be exhausting to trash the economy at such a quick pace. Its no wonder he golfs so much.

[JTG]

Attempt at presidential smear?

Originally Posted by OP's link

It is also, as I think anyone who has covered in the past, either in this administration or others, there is no such thing as a presidential vacation. The Presidency travels with you. He will be in constant communication and get regular briefings from his national security team as well as his economic team. And he will of course be fully capable, if necessary, of traveling back if that were required. It is not very far.

Fail.

[Arcanist]

Good. We will be spared his tedious speeches for a while.

In before: LOLOLOL! Bush went on vacation like a million times more!!11!1!

[Cooper]

And how many days did Bush spend on vacation? *eyeroll*

[LaoTzu]

At least the first 6 months of his Presidency...

[Arkeph]

	Originally Posted by LaoTzu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	At least the first 6 months of his Presidency...

Mark Knoller (a White House reporter for CBS)
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

From the article

	Mr. Knoller helped earn President George W. Bush his reputation for frequent trips outside Washington, counting that over two terms Mr. Bush made 77 trips to his ranch in Texas, spanning all or part of 490 days; spent 43 full or partial days at the family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, and 487 full or partial days at the presidential retreat in Camp David, Md.

Obama, by contrast, took 26 days of vacation in his first year, and reached 48 by August, 2010. By now, he's probably taken ~75 days total, though I couldn't easily find an exact number.

As JTG noted, of course, vacation days don't mean a whole lot when the responsibilities of the job never go away. More importantly, however, and in response to the OP, saying the president is trashing the economy is putting the cart before the horse. All he can do for the economy is talk about how to change it and veto or sign legislation that changes it. No matter how bad his ideas are, a (super-)majority of congress still has to agree to make them happen. No matter how bad the bills coming out of congress are, he can only sign or veto, not edit them. He is one cog in a massive, complex political machine, albeit a big one.

[JTG]

Geez, i did not realize it was that much. Almost three years of his eight in office were spent on vacation.

That's pretty unreal

[mllebrie]

I think there's a difference between a lot of the Bush trips to his own home in Texas, vs. the Obama get-aways to luxury hotels in upscale resorts. I would hope that Bush would have been smart enough to not take a vacation on, say, September 12, 2001. Obama and his team are tone deaf, to say the least. With all this crap going on, he's leaving?! Really?

[blueback]

What would Obama being physically at the White House do to help the situation? The Fed just threw up its hands and publicly admitted that the recession is going to last at least the next couple years. The problem is spread out through every developed nation. Basically, "all this crap" is so long-term and far-reaching that spending a few days in another state isn't going to make any difference.

[dungeonguy88]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What would Obama being physically at the White House do to help the situation? The Fed just threw up its hands and publicly admitted that the recession is going to last at least the next couple years. The problem is spread out through every developed nation. Basically, "all this crap" is so long-term and far-reaching that spending a few days in another state isn't going to make any difference.

Very true. With networking and the growing presence of technology in our personal lives, one must wonder why it would matter at all, barring cases when the President needs to physically sign something.

[Autumnleaf]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What would Obama being physically at the White House do to help the situation? The Fed just threw up its hands and publicly admitted that the recession is going to last at least the next couple years. The problem is spread out through every developed nation. Basically, "all this crap" is so long-term and far-reaching that spending a few days in another state isn't going to make any difference.

Maybe he should be out there talking with business men and women about how to get Americans more jobs. Just a suggestion. I'm sure Obama needs a vacation more than Americans need jobs.

[JTG]

It's hilarious when conservatives blame the president for not boosting our employment rate and then simultaneously claim that the government cannot create jobs. Which is it?

[Nemesis]

	Originally Posted by JTG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's hilarious when conservatives blame the president for not boosting our employment rate and then simultaneously claim that the government cannot create jobs. Which is it?

Similarly, it's odd to see things like this:

	Originally Posted by Autumnleaf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Maybe he should be out there talking with business men and women about how to get Americans more jobs.

Coming from people who often talk about how awful it is for government to have any influence in the affairs of the free-market.

Obama's damned if he do, and damned if he don't, it would seem.

[Tristan]

	Originally Posted by JTG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's hilarious when conservatives blame the president for not boosting our employment rate and then simultaneously claim that the government cannot create jobs. Which is it?

The paradox derives from an adage that those who do not desire power are most fit to wield it.

I'm sure what this nebulous body of conservatives mean is that the government cannot create jobs by expanding. I agree that by accepting smaller goals and by shrinking down to within its means, the government will be able to sustain itself. The current price of gold indicates overwhelming lack of confidence in the fundamentals, with overspending and the resultant downgrade being the government's share of the problem and probably the leading cause of low confidence. This is the level on which the president can operate. But while I type this, he's in Michigan talking about new spending initiatives for green jobs. He's either an idiot who's convinced himself of the need for rising debt, or he's guided by a desire for power. I wish he was on vacation. If the president had spent these last three years loosening his grip rather than tightening it with expensive legislation, he could have boosted employment. Or perhaps more accurately, suffered employment to increase as government power waned. Those who do not desire power are most fit to wield it.

[Arkeph]

	Originally Posted by Tristan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If the president had spent these last three years loosening his grip rather than tightening it with expensive legislation, he could have boosted employment. Or perhaps more accurately, suffered employment to increase as government power waned. Those who do not desire power are most fit to wield it.

It's like the financial crisis never happened. The economy has been at or near deflation (if one accounts for the decline in wages and employment), banks are sitting on huge cash reserves (they're actually charging people to deposit money now because they won't invest it), and the employment rate is holding steady at ~9%. On top of that, the financial system hasn't undergone any significant reform, making a future financial crisis very likely.

I agree, though. The government is at fault, but in the opposite way. Obama is responsible for not fighting for significant countermeasures to our economic doldrums. To say that he has done too much is to make mountains out of economic molehills and ignore the various counter-indications.

Those who desire power are indeed unfit to wield it. That is not a criticism of power, but of power used--and unused--selfishly.

[Imperator]

	Originally Posted by mllebrie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think there's a difference between a lot of the Bush trips to his own home in Texas, vs. the Obama get-aways to luxury hotels in upscale resorts.

His "own home" is a
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, complete with a 4000 sq ft house, and an 11 acre man-made lake, and you're mad Obama's spending a night at the Hilton?

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What would Obama being physically at the White House do to help the situation? The Fed just threw up its hands and publicly admitted that the recession is going to last at least the next couple years. The problem is spread out through every developed nation. Basically, "all this crap" is so long-term and far-reaching that spending a few days in another state isn't going to make any difference.

Seems to me that Obama went ballistic when the Prez of BP went to some social function during the oil spill because "it didn't look right for a leader to go do that during a crisis."

I guess what's good for the goose isn't so good for the gander.

[Haumea]

	I agree, though. The government is at fault, but in the opposite way. Obama is responsible for not fighting for significant countermeasures to our economic doldrums.

Ask any small businessman: the uncertainty of his initiatives and policies, and hell, the things he says, (Obamacare, regulation, future taxation) has been killing hiring. It isn't as simple as gee, I'll just spend spend spend to create create create jobs. Economics is behavioral as much as it is fiscal, and scaring the shit out of business is not the way to create growth.

Which part of "they are waiting for the asshole to leave the WH to start hiring again" isn't obvious here?

[Cooper]

So, to completely understand, I need to get some clarification....

If you are a Republician: You are pissy because the Democrat President goes on vacation.

If you are a Democrat: You are pissy because the Repulician President goes on vacation.

Makes complete sense.

[dungeonguy88]

	Originally Posted by Cooper To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So, to completely understand, I need to get some clarification.... If you are a Republician: You are pissy because the Democrat President goes on vacation. If you are a Democrat: You are pissy because the Repulician President goes on vacation. Makes complete sense.

Yet, in either case, the ones upset also desire for the sitting President to stop doing whatever they happen to be doing, when not on vacation. Just can't win here.

[thod]

	President Obama going on vacation.

Which president has not taken a vacation whilst in office? The purpose of a vacation is to clear the mind, spend some time with his family, and return to the job refreshed. Your argument is the same as saying he wastes time sleeping each night.

	Maybe he should be out there talking with business men and women about how to get Americans more jobs.

If an emergency arises, the president would be expected to cut short his vacation. I fail to see how how having a chat with some businessmen is an emergency. Nor is it his job to talk to businessmen. He has teams of very well educated people to do that. They will present their findings and ideas to him. His job is to make the big decisions.

I have noticed the right wing showing an almost rabid hatred of Obama. Nasty, vicious, hate filled men using every dirty trick to spread their ideology. Yet if anything he is a weak president, too ready to compromise. He did not trash the economy, it was trashed by Bush and he inherited the mess.

[True Rune]

I don't give a shit. Let the man live his damn life. I want more vacation too.

[subwayrider]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The Fed just threw up its hands and publicly admitted that the recession is going to last at least the next couple years. The problem is spread out through every developed nation. Basically, "all this crap" is so long-term and far-reaching that spending a few days in another state isn't going to make any difference.

I don't understand how people didn't already realize this. They probably just didn't want to believe it. They should call this downturn what it is: a depression.

[Trevor W Miller]

Depressions are depressing.

[TylerRDA]

Who gives a crap. The President has a constant vested interest in the state of the US, so that means
1. its probably to clear his mind to make him work more effectively
or 2. its a working vacation. Bush did plenty of these.

And for the record, he didn't destroy the economy singlehandedly. That's impossible even if that was his goal. And that's coming from someone who opposes most of his platform.