|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rainbowfied Mouse Vice Captain
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:37 am
 |
|
|
 |
cherrydarlin999 I would really like to see proof of when Bush took vacations the most. As I recall, if Bush took a vacation, it was one week and it was back to the ranch in Texas.
You asked for it x
Quote: Thank you, Mr. President, for using America's money to have luxury vactions with your family as the unemplyment rate goes higher and our economy gets worse! biggrin (sarcasm)
Present me facts.
Yeah, he get's a salary, like all other federal political seats... and by my above information, he's used a lot less than Bush.
biggrin Thanks for misinforming the world on nonfactual information /sarcasm
Quote: And no, I care about those people in Africa. But Africa should not be the U.S's first priotrity. our pritority should be to get the troops out of the Middle East.
As I stated, they're working on this!
Quote: Hilary should be meeting with leaders in the Middle East.
LMAO! Oh, sure, we should dress her up in a veil too, or she might get beat up, and imprisoned for showing her face in public.
Yeah... I seriously hope that was sarcasm...
Quote: Find out if there is anyway we could end the war, and get the Hell out of there as soon as possible.
As already stated, they're working on it!
Quote: And I do not stand for "banning" gays. I simply do not accept their lifestyle and think they should not be able to marry.
Who said that? I didn't. Besides, there's already a thread that states your fundamentalist outcry against them.
Quote: And what is wrong with saving babies?
And what's wrong with oppressing woman? Don't answer that, there's yet another thread for this debate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:01 am
|
|
|
|
In all fairness, the "European Vacation" was taken mainly by Michelle and the children, and much of it involved state a goodwill gestures from France and England. The president went over with then on June 5th to attend the 65th anniversary of the D-Day landing in France, that was an official state visit. They spent some days in France as guests of President Sarkozy (again, this is a common function of state), and the President returned to the US. It was Michelle and the children that spent the extra time visiting London (where, as the first family sans president, they got to meet with the Queen, this is not generally a function of state, but is something you receive as a goodwill gesture between nations), and various sites. Some travel agents interviewed about the trip itself said that the tour they took, aside from meeting heads of state and royalty, could have been purchased by your typical American family and actually were all fairly common tourist destinations. It wasn't as lavish as you suggest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:11 pm
|
Rainbowfied Mouse Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:10 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 8:23 pm
|
Rainbowfied Mouse Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 2:04 pm
|
|
|
|
Rainbowfied Mouse Pumona I have a little issue with this also. Yes the president should be alowed to take a vacation or two but, it does look bad when he is going on luxury vacations over and over. Unemployment is going up and all in all he is spending too much. Everyone seems to act like the economic crisis just happened, it's been here for a couple years... Bush still took vacations. Obama has taken/is taking/will take vacations! There's nothing wrong with it... s**t happens, the president shouldn't have to be constantly preoccupied with problems that started before, s/he should be worried, but every human deserves a sabbath!
I agree everyone deserves a vacation including the president. I did say I can see other people thinking he is spending too much and gone too much. I do not care if he decided to be on vacation months at a time. If needed they can always get a hold of him. Sorry I didn't elaborate on this more the first time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 2:08 pm
|
|
|
|
Lord Bitememan In all fairness, the "European Vacation" was taken mainly by Michelle and the children, and much of it involved state a goodwill gestures from France and England. The president went over with then on June 5th to attend the 65th anniversary of the D-Day landing in France, that was an official state visit. They spent some days in France as guests of President Sarkozy (again, this is a common function of state), and the President returned to the US. It was Michelle and the children that spent the extra time visiting London (where, as the first family sans president, they got to meet with the Queen, this is not generally a function of state, but is something you receive as a goodwill gesture between nations), and various sites. Some travel agents interviewed about the trip itself said that the tour they took, aside from meeting heads of state and royalty, could have been purchased by your typical American family and actually were all fairly common tourist destinations. It wasn't as lavish as you suggest.
I guess I must be really poor, since I'm part of a typical American family and there is no way I can afford to tour France and England. Sorry but, I do get your point. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rainbowfied Mouse Vice Captain
|
Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 9:23 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:39 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:02 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:09 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:54 pm
|
|
|
|
Rainbowfied Mouse Pumona I have a little issue with this also. Yes the president should be alowed to take a vacation or two but, it does look bad when he is going on luxury vacations over and over. Unemployment is going up and all in all he is spending too much. Everyone seems to act like the economic crisis just happened, it's been here for a couple years... Bush still took vacations. Obama has taken/is taking/will take vacations! There's nothing wrong with it... s**t happens, the president shouldn't have to be constantly preoccupied with problems that started before, s/he should be worried, but every human deserves a sabbath!
Translation:
"WAAHHH I hate Bush. WAHHH."
1-800-555-waah
Call collect.
Pssst. The econamy didn't go bat s**t until President Furor Czar King Obama started spending non-existent money on useless programs we don't need.
I don't need an Obama Motors, thank you very much |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:33 am
|
|
|
|
XSean HirukiX Rainbowfied Mouse Pumona I have a little issue with this also. Yes the president should be alowed to take a vacation or two but, it does look bad when he is going on luxury vacations over and over. Unemployment is going up and all in all he is spending too much. Everyone seems to act like the economic crisis just happened, it's been here for a couple years... Bush still took vacations. Obama has taken/is taking/will take vacations! There's nothing wrong with it... s**t happens, the president shouldn't have to be constantly preoccupied with problems that started before, s/he should be worried, but every human deserves a sabbath! Translation: "WAAHHH I hate Bush. WAHHH." 1-800-555-waah Call collect.
Correct Translation:
"Quit blaming things on Obama that you wouldn't blame on Bush."
You might want to redo your Mouseian 101 class.
Quote: Pssst. The econamy didn't go bat s**t until President Furor Czar King Obama started spending non-existent money on useless programs we don't need. I don't need an Obama Motors, thank you very much
So, why exactly were these programs made? Oh right, the Auto Industry collapsed, the Housing industry collapsed... right, and why did they collapse? Oh, right, because the economy was rough previous to their collapse. When was this package made... around February, one month after he stepped into office, which means what? Lemme hear it? Oh, right, it was bad under Bush as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rainbowfied Mouse Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 1:16 pm
|
|
|
|
You're both missing the mark. This economic crisis has been over a decade in the making. There's a reason Alan Greenspan was called to testify about this. Here's a quick little anatomy of how we got here:
Back in the 1990s the country was rip-roaring economically. At least, we thought we were. The tech sector was new and nobody had a clue what drove it and what led to profitability. We engaged in all sorts of free trade agreements, and we were outsourcing a lot of our basic manufacturing goods to China, so we could buy cheaper stuff at Wal Mart. Property values kept going up, because the economy had so much capital flow and people were buying. People were getting into the habit of refinancing mortgages en masse, and often times using the money to live it up. We got some really bad consumer spending habits in the 1990s, and we didn't get rid of them. By the time Clinton was leaving office the Dot Com bubble went bust; people were learning that many tech sector companies weren't making money, and got a nasty lesson in what drives tech stocks. Meanwhile we went into a mini recession, no doubt the trajectory we were under by the end of the Clinton administration, but finally in recession when Bush took office. Bush's response? A stimulus act, that encouraged further spending. In fact, throughout Bush's time in office the government was constantly driving the consumer sector to spend and spend. Interest rates were cut, and cut, and cut which just reinforced debt accumulation. Meanwhile, the downward pressure on prices in the market drove more and more manufacturers to outsource to China, which was demonstrating in greater and great capacity that it was a business friendly environment. In the meantime, prices started rising in the oil market, driving fuel prices up, while economic opportunity was drying up, and people were having to start making cutbacks. Eventually there simply wasn't enough capital flow in the system to sustain home buying. So, prices finally stopped escalating. Meanwhile, due to our penchant to rely on refinancing, we had spent years steering people into loans with high interest and adjustable interest rates because their credit was bad. The idea was to allow them to build credit by making payments on the high interest loans, then refinance at better rates. Well, with economic prospects drying up, people were desperate to refinance, only to discover that property values had fallen dramatically. People couldn't refinance, and started defaulting. And, once people start defaulting, you have to recoup the money. Normally you could do this through foreclosure, but with property values tanked, that was inadequate. So, they had to start raising interest rates, and they hit the adjustable rate mortgages. This just drove more of them into default. Meanwhile the spiraling fuel prices were undercutting the market for something people couldn't get enough of 10 years prior, SUVs. Now they were more of a status vehicle. And, with the lending industry getting hit hard by the housing crisis, people were having harder times procuring auto loans as well. That drove them away from status vehicles and towards more fuel efficient compact cars, mostly produced by foreign competitors. The auto industry behaved in two different ways. GM tried to compete for market share. Ford trimmed down and aimed to drive up profitability. GM overreached. Meanwhile the banking industry was overloaded with defaults. That led many leading lending industries to finally teeter over the edge into bankruptcy. With the lending industry collapsing, the economy as a whole convulsed. Auto staggered next. That's when we got TARP, and Bush funneling some of TARP into the auto industry. Then enter Mr. Obama.
So, yes, the economy went to the shithouse before Mr. Obama got into office, but in all fairness the wheels that set it into motion started long before either Bush or Obama were in office. Even Greenspan, who had presided over most of the early stage, said he didn't see this coming. The issue is, what do we do going forward. The answer on that is we have to break many of our bad spending habits and live more within our means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
