[Tin Knocker]

Originally Posted by some boring guy

Boy you're right on the nose! It's a good thing no past/present republican leaders would ever dream of campaigning for their fellow party members!

That makes it right? Wow! Its not about Republican or Democrat, its about responsibility & responsible leadership. Here we have a man telling us we need to tighten our belts yet he is spending more than anyone before him.
We need to stop thinking its ok for our leadership to burn money like its going out of style. Let them pay their security bills & fund their travels and see how fast they start staying in the office instead of cavorting around.
Most people sadly seem too stupid to realize exactly who is the problem, its our leadership & our complacency. The man has an office, I'd expect him to put in 8 hours 5 days a week in that office if he worked for me, and he does.

[Stratford, Ct. Resident]

Originally Posted by Tin Knocker

The man has an office, I'd expect him to put in 8 hours 5 days a week in that office if he worked for me, and he does.

What would you expect a president to do/accomplish if the job consisted entirely of sitting in the Oval office M-F 9-5?

[Kristin85]

Originally Posted by Stratford, Ct. Resident

What would you expect a president to do/accomplish if the job consisted entirely of sitting in the Oval office M-F 9-5?

A President should spend most of his time making decisions--signing off on or vetoing bills, pardoning inmates (that goes for governors, too), examining & tweaking the country's current tax structure, making decisions as commander-in-chief, meeting with foreign officials to improve trade relations, etc., etc. None of this needs to be done in the Oval office but these are certainly "office-like" tasks. The unofficial policy of the President to spend weeks on the road campaigning for people within his party & then to spend the last 2 years of his 1st term campaigning for himself is out of line. If the task does not involve running the country, the President shouldn't be involved--for decades (more than a century?) the President has wasted time on issues he shouldn't be involved with. Once the President is off the clock and out of office he can do whatever he wants.

[wavehunter007]

Originally Posted by Kristin85

The unofficial policy of the President to spend weeks on the road campaigning for people within his party & then to spend the last 2 years of his 1st term campaigning for himself is out of line. If the task does not involve running the country, the President shouldn't be involved--for decades (more than a century?) the President has wasted time on issues he shouldn't be involved with. Once the President is off the clock and out of office he can do whatever he wants.

…like when Bush Sr spent 45-minutes in South Dade County after Hurricane Andrew (1992) killed 500 Americans, left 100,000 people homeless, and left woman and children with no food or water for a week (he called himself a compassionate conservative – lol). Bush Jr was out there campaigning for his party/McCain in 2008... while the country was collapsing underneath him.

Now suddenly its unfair for the President Elect to help his own party. Typical double standard of the right.

[Rich Lee]

Originally Posted by wavehunter007

…like when Bush #41 spent 45 minutes in South Dade County after Hurricane Andrew (1992) killed 500 Americans, left 100,000 people homeless, and left woman and children with no food or water for a week (he called himself a compassionate conservative – lol). Bush #43 was out there campaigning for his party/McCain in 2008... while the country was collapsing underneath him.

Now suddenly its unfair for the President Elect to help his own party. Typical double standard of the right.

...that's when he wasn't on vacation at his ranch in Texas...

[AaronCT1]

Originally Posted by Tin Knocker

No I dont think he is conducting business on his trips. I dont think he's conducting business when he is home. I never said other Presidents didn't do the same thing either, does that make it right? Their primary job it seems is to promote other politicians in their party.

As far as protection I figure no president is any more valuable than another so theres no reason it should cost us one dime more for Obama than earlier presidents. Also once his family decides to go cavorting around it should be on their dime not mine. A politician is elected, not his family.

Obama has received more threats than any president has to date. It is only normal for them to increase the security based on these details. If a president's family is not secured the same way and something happens to them then how would a president be able function? Are you that blind and see no reason for these measures?

[Kristin85]

Originally Posted by wavehunter007

…like when Bush Sr spent 45-minutes in South Dade County after Hurricane Andrew (1992) killed 500 Americans, left 100,000 people homeless, and left woman and children with no food or water for a week (he called himself a compassionate conservative – lol). Bush Jr was out there campaigning for his party/McCain in 2008... while the country was collapsing underneath him.

Now suddenly its unfair for the President Elect to help his own party. Typical double standard of the right.

I hope that wasn't a dig at me; I'm not right wing and I did not vote for Bush when I had the chance. All Presidents in recent history have taken advantage of their position to campaign rather than getting their job done--that goes for Bush AND Obama. Americans should ask their political leaders to get back to work instead of holding self serving rallies.

[brasscitybluenwhite]

Originally Posted by Tin Knocker

That makes it right? Wow! Its not about Republican or Democrat, its about responsibility & responsible leadership. Here we have a man telling us we need to tighten our belts yet he is spending more than anyone before him.
We need to stop thinking its ok for our leadership to burn money like its going out of style. Let them pay their security bills & fund their travels and see how fast they start staying in the office instead of cavorting around.
Most people sadly seem too stupid to realize exactly who is the problem, its our leadership & our complacency. The man has an office, I'd expect him to put in 8 hours 5 days a week in that office if he worked for me, and he does.

I can name a few presidents that spent out of their means in a recession and it worked out for them. Google John Maynard Keynes, Keynesian economics, and "mixed economy".

[nep321]

Originally Posted by brasscitybluenwhite

I can name a few presidents that spent out of their means in a recession and it worked out for them. Google John Maynard Keynes, Keynesian economics, and "mixed economy".

Keynsian economics? Seriously? Most economists agree that this is not a reliable way to boost and recover a failing economy. Because America is a free enterprise economy, what needs to happen is tax cuts for ALL classes. Not just the middle class, because the middle class are typically not job creators/providers. By only cutting taxes for the middle class, the upper class will still be swamped with tax liability and unable to hire or create jobs. U.S. corporations have the highest tax rate in the world (35%). Had McCain won the election in 2008, he wanted to gradually decrease this rate to 25%. Just imagine the potential for job creation there. Corporations are strapped. Tax and spend doesn't work. Carter tried it, and Obama is doing it too, and it's not working; never did in America. Epic fail.

[goldenband]

Originally Posted by nep321

Keynsian economics? Seriously? Most economists agree that this is not a reliable way to boost and recover a failing economy.

As Wikipedia would say, {{citation needed}}. Don't presume to speak for "most economists" unless you can cite a specific, credible source.

Originally Posted by nep321

U.S. corporations have the highest tax rate in the world (35%).

I'm not sure that any part of this statement is true -- for one, Japan's is higher -- but even if it were true, you're not mentioning any of the myriad ways that corporations have of shirking that obligation and/or passing it on to their shareholders instead, such as setting up shop as an S corporation.

As a side note, I'm always amused at the number of posters here who think the answer to our problems is to give freer rein to rich people and/or corporations: take away regulations, remove their tax obligations, and generally allow them to accrue more power and influence, so that the rest of us might somehow benefit from their benevolent tricklings-down. It's all a bit "be nice to Daddy and maybe he won't beat you today" for my taste. Personally, I think corporations should be absolutely stripped of all "personhood" rights. Corporate personhood is an unequivocal perversion of the constitution, yet strangely most ardent originalists are generally silent on the topic...