Hippocrates all of them.... esp. Obama

[LJ45]

Hypocrites all of them.... esp. Obama

Hypocrites all of them....

in the news today...They fired up Marine one and the small jet (Gulfstream instead of the normal B747 Air force one) so Obama can go on a date night in New York.

Just lovely after trashing our industry.

 

[Masterplan]

What should he have done got on Amtrak and stayed at a Holiday Inn Express? How do you fault a guy for getting out of the house?

 

[LJ45]

What should he have done got on Amtrak and stayed at a Holiday Inn Express? How do you fault a guy for getting out of the house?

yeah right, If that is your answer I will not waste my time trying to explain it to you so you might understand.
Sorry to be rough with you, but wake up and open your eyes to what is going on.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Well...(In a libtard whine)....THEY didnt take TARP money!...evil CEOS.

(oh nevermind)

 

[HA25]

Hypocrites all of them....

in the news today...They fired up Marine one and the small jet (Gulfstream instead of the normal B747 Air force one) so Obama can go on a date night in New York.

Just lovely after trashing our industry.

When you're the president of the US, your choices are limited to ... no life (And that's not a good thing for any human being).. or use of the Government fleet of jets/limo's to go ANYWHERE.. All presidents have done this, Obama is no different and deserves no less.

 

[LJ45]

When you're the president of the US, your choices are limited to ... no life (And that's not a good thing for any human being).. or use of the Government fleet of jets/limo's to go ANYWHERE.. All presidents have done this, Obama is no different and deserves no less.

That is great in normal times, but with the steps they have taken and things they have said, is that really appropriate at this time. Couldn't he go out in D.C.?
Do you remember what they said about corporate jets, Las Vegas etc.?

 

[BoilerUP]

While POTUS has a right to have a life...

...POTUS is also the ultimate "fat cat CEO".

The appearances are not just bad but awful, especially given the economic situation and how much debt our country just sold last week to pay for all these bailouts & budget items, not to say ANYTHING of the environmental concerns of such a personal trip when cap-and-trade is on the political agenda.

Like Obama or not, this is about as boneheaded a move as hanging a "Mission Accomplished" banner on an aircraft carrier...although MSM will give Obama a pass on this and it won't receive much attention outside of industry and right-wing circles.

 

[ClassG]

It amazes me that STILL so many americans are willing to defend their masters after all that has happened here recently.

Regardless of what anyone else has done in the past, the guy who is the "most concerned" about our current and future deficits should not be adding to it by going to NYC to see a play - nor any other place he is not conducting the People's Business. If he decides to do so, he should drive himself (with an SS escort - the President does need protection at all times).

And, no, I am not a republican. I have been forced into polictical atheism by both parties' non-representing representatives and believe it may be time to clean house. Our government employees at the Congressional and Executive level are all delusional and self-serving. I can think of maybe 3 who prove time and again that they are not.

ClassG

 

[Masterplan]

I'm just saying that yes it is expensive and yes it is unwarranted but he cannot stay holed up in the house all the time.He has to travel and relax. The job is just too stressful to have no down time. At least he took the Gulfstream. Isn't that a good faith gesture? Watching Discovery channel about Airforce One, Bush took the 747 to NY.
So we can all get an idea of what is acceptable over the next 4 years please give us an idea of what is and is not acceptable for the president to do while in office in terms of travel and vacation. I would like to hear your opinion. One trip a year? Two? None? What would you say it is ok?

 

[milky]

The point is that it is none of the government or anybody else's business if a wealthy person (CEO or not) values his time enough to spend money on a private airplane instead of using the airline/bus/train system. They hypocrisy lies in the fact that Obama obviously believes his time and abilities are worthy of the necessary perk of using such expensive transportation to avoid staying home all of the time, but if anybody else in this country wants to do so, he will demonize them as living in excess. A classic example of hypocrisy.

It is obvious that the POTUS cannot just take his hybrid down to the local restaurant. But, what business is it of his if I choose to drive my hybrid or SUV or fly my G-IV to do the same?

 

[HA25]

The point is that it is none of the government or anybody else's business if a wealthy person (CEO or not) values his time enough to spend money on a private airplane instead of using the airline/bus/train system. They hypocrisy lies in the fact that Obama obviously believes his time and abilities are worthy of the necessary perk of using such expensive transportation to avoid staying home all of the time, but if anybody else in this country wants to do so, he will demonize them as living in excess. A classic example of hypocrisy.

It is obvious that the POTUS cannot just take his hybrid down to the local restaurant. But, what business is it of his if I choose to drive my hybrid or SUV or fly my G-IV to do the same?

Once again, I don't think anyone has an issue with liquid and viable corporations spending what ever money their shareholders can stand on jets for CEO's... The problem was GM's execs had the tin cup out.. as did AIG, and several banks..

 

[LJ45]

The point is that it is none of the government or anybody else's business if a wealthy person (CEO or not) values his time enough to spend money on a private airplane instead of using the airline/bus/train system. They hypocrisy lies in the fact that Obama obviously believes his time and abilities are worthy of the necessary perk of using such expensive transportation to avoid staying home all of the time, but if anybody else in this country wants to do so, he will demonize them as living in excess. A classic example of hypocrisy.

It is obvious that the POTUS cannot just take his hybrid down to the local restaurant. But, what business is it of his if I choose to drive my hybrid or SUV or fly my G-IV to do the same?

well said !!

 

[milky]

Once again, I don't think anyone has an issue with liquid and viable corporations spending what ever money their shareholders can stand on jets for CEO's... The problem was GM's execs had the tin cup out.. as did AIG, and several banks..

Still nobody's business how the money is spent. The taxpayer's money should not be given to private companies in this manner. If it is given, and it never should, then the company must be trusted to spend it wisely. We turn into fascist regime when the government has direct control of private sector. Unconstitutional bureaucracies such as the EPA and the like already wield massive power over the private sector with no constitutional backing. Truly, our country is turning into a dictatorial regime not much better than Venezuela. Our government has just been a little less overt in its actions.

 

[milky]

Once again, I don't think anyone has an issue with liquid and viable corporations spending what ever money their shareholders can stand on jets for CEO's... The problem was GM's execs had the tin cup out.. as did AIG, and several banks..

And for the record, the POTUS made many comments on the excesses of ALL private companies when he made statements about private jets and going on business trips to Vegas. The citizens of Vegas are still wondering where their jobs are because the business traffic/conferences nearly dried up this year as companies were afraid of being seen as excessive.

NONE OF THE F'ING POTUS's BUSINESS. PERIOD.

 

[HA25]

I'm sorry, I just find all of this to be silly and smacks of partisan style attack... I'm sure if an audit was done over the past several presidents, during up and down economic times, we will find that he's spending neither more or less than average on this "perk" of the job.. but I do find it funny that you seem to be more defending the "right" of the CEO and less attacking the excesses of the CEO or POTUS... I happen to take the more socialist view point that a CEO needn't earn 100x the average workers salary, nor the government (read the people), need to butt out of the business of business... Frankly, I think a bit of socialism might be just what this nation needs in this time of Godlessness and selfish narcissism.

btw, fascism isn't really an issue I worry about with Obama in office... if I have to explain that any further, then this debate likely not going to get anywhere.

 

[Hawker800]

The government has no business in private business. Socialism can go to hell.

 

[LJ45]

I'm sorry, I just find all of this to be silly and smacks of partisan style attack... I'm sure if an audit was done over the past several presidents, during up and down economic times, we will find that he's spending neither more or less than average on this "perk" of the job.. but I do find it funny that you seem to be more defending the "right" of the CEO and less attacking the excesses of the CEO or POTUS... I happen to take the more socialist view point that a CEO needn't earn 100x the average workers salary, nor the government (read the people), need to butt out of the business of business... Frankly, I think a bit of socialism might be just what this nation needs in this time of Godlessness and selfish narcissism.

btw, fascism isn't really an issue I worry about with Obama in office... if I have to explain that any further, then this debate likely not going to get anywhere.

why don't you move to: Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea etc. if you think it is so great?

You sir are the problem, keep drinking the Kool-aid.

 

[HA25]

why don't you move to: Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea etc. if you think it is so great?

You sir are the problem, keep drinking the Kool-aid.

none of those are what I'm talking about. But that kind of hyperbole sure gets people going, I'm sure! Totalitarian regimes that thro around "Socialism" in their titles, aren't what I'm referring to, but nice try.

Sweden, France, Italy, Spain, for that matter the entire EU is far more socialist than we are, and they tend to have a better quality of life for their average citizen (even with the constant bombardment of US and Chinese free market pressure).. than we do. A balance is what I'd like to see... we can afford universal health care, and we should RE-REGULATE the airlines.. those are the types of changes I'm talking about.

Sure, you're doing find and so are the top wealth holders in the US, but 10's of millions here are on the edge of poverty.. that's unheard of in the EU.

This is why in Europe, they work so they can live.. and we here, live so we can work! The Chinese are giving us a run for our money though, and this is why our productivity has gone up far more than our income since the mid 1970's.. Welcome to the free market, unfettered.

But if you prefer to live in the land of Walmart and McDonnalds over the land of Mom and Pop stores and restaurants, you are on the right track.. we're living the dream here.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Once again, I don't think anyone has an issue with liquid and viable corporations spending what ever money their shareholders can stand on jets for CEO's... The problem was GM's execs had the tin cup out.. as did AIG, and several banks..

Right, because when you force banks to take TARP money you should have the right to tell them what to do.

Quick question...which corporation will lose more money than the government this year?

 

[HA25]

Right, because when you force banks to take TARP money you should have the right to tell them what to do.

Quick question...which corporation will lose more money than the government this year?

The government isn't a for-profit enterprise, but with that said, the revenues taken in by the Government and spent on our welfare are far lower than the GDP of the nation (by 12:1 I believe) so I would argue that the money is well spent.. Granting our private enterprises the environment to make their profits in a safe and orderly society. Or would you have us just disband the government and have anarchy prevail?

 

[ksu_aviator]

none of those are what I'm talking about. But that kind of hyperbole sure gets people going, I'm sure! Totalitarian regimes that thro around "Socialism" in their titles, aren't what I'm referring to, but nice try.

Sweden, France, Italy, Spain, for that matter the entire EU is far more socialist than we are, and they tend to have a better quality of life for their average citizen (even with the constant bombardment of US and Chinese free market pressure).. than we do. A balance is what I'd like to see... we can afford universal health care, and we should RE-REGULATE the airlines.. those are the types of changes I'm talking about.

Well, that is a flat out lie. They don't have a better quality of life. In fact, even when you factor socialism as a positive factor (i.e. socialized medicine) the US Beats everyone except France and Sweden. Throw out the socialized medicine, climate and other things the government can't control...it isn't even a close game. The US rises to the top.

http://www.il-ireland.com/il/qofl2008/

 

[HA25]

Well, that is a flat out lie. They don't have a better quality of life. In fact, even when you factor socialism as a positive factor (i.e. socialized medicine) the US Beats everyone except France and Sweden. Throw out the socialized medicine, climate and other things the government can't control...it isn't even a close game. The US rises to the top.

http://www.il-ireland.com/il/qofl2008/

well rather than site web links, I have actually lived in Germany for 4 years and travelled throughout Europe. They have a higher (average) standard of living, and more importantly their countries are generally cleaner and better kept. Just take a drive thru the US and drive to the small towns and cities that have been ravaged by the demise of industry in our country.. the Walmartization of America.. Then, drive from the coast of France to Prague... you'd have to be brain dead not to notice the start difference.

We have a 3rd world country living with in the US.. you just don't see that in the EU.

On top of all this, the average EU worker gets 30 days of vacation each year or more.. some 60... and works under 40 hours a week.. has far less to worry about in his retirement years, and gets first class medical care no matter what his level of income. Those with more of course have access to private medicine which even further grants them an advantage.

 

[ksu_aviator]

The government isn't a for-profit enterprise, but with that said, the revenues taken in by the Government and spent on our welfare are far lower than the GDP of the nation (by 12:1 I believe) so I would argue that the money is well spent.. Granting our private enterprises the environment to make their profits in a safe and orderly society. Or would you have us just disband the government and have anarchy prevail?

So you are ok with the fact that 56% of the cost of goods that you buy are hidden taxes?

Just as for your information:

The 2008 GDP was $14.2 trillion while the 2009 spending is $3.0 trillion. If 2009 has the same GDP as 2008, we will be spending almost 22% of our GDP on federal government. Of that spending, almost 60% of that is unconstitutional welfare/social spending.

If you want to check my info:
http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2031939/posts

 

[ksu_aviator]

well rather than site web links, I have actually lived in Germany for 4 years and travelled throughout Europe. They have a higher (average) standard of living, and more importantly their countries are generally cleaner and better kept. Just take a drive thru the US and drive to the small towns and cities that have been ravaged by the demise of industry in our country.. the Walmartization of America.. Then, drive from the coast of France to Prague... you'd have to be brain dead not to notice the start difference.

We have a 3rd world country living with in the US.. you just don't see that in the EU.

On top of all this, the average EU worker gets 30 days of vacation each year or more.. some 60... and works under 40 hours a week.. has far less to worry about in his retirement years, and gets first class medical care no matter what his level of income. Those with more of course have access to private medicine which even further grants them an advantage.

Your argument is completely subjective. Come up with something factual.

 

[HA25]

So you are ok with the fact that 56% of the cost of goods that you buy are hidden taxes?

Just as for your information:

The 2008 GDP was $14.2 trillion while the 2009 spending is $3.0 trillion. If 2009 has the same GDP as 2008, we will be spending almost 22% of our GDP on federal government. Of that spending, almost 60% of that is unconstitutional welfare/social spending.

If you want to check my info:
http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2031939/posts

The bottom line.. it costs money to "govern".. without government, there is no law or order... there is no ifrastructure.. you simply cannot substitute it. Enterprise cannot operate in anarchy.

As for the 3.0Trillion, you know that a large (very large) portion of this is due to your friends Chaney and GW's special project: Cost of War in Iraq.

But back to the your other post, which is QOL in EU vs US.. if you look at the data you provided, and parse it... the US has a very low cost of living.. That doesn't necessarily translate to a better standard of living.. As for subjective.. many of the categories in this study strike me as subjective.. at least I'm going off my own personal experience which for me at least is OBJECTIVE.

But sticking to science, if you look Here you will see that the US is #15 in standard of living, but yet it's unarguable the wealthiest nation in the world... if the government of the US was say.. as effective as that of Iceland, Sweden, France or other "socialist" nations... wouldn't we all be better off? (all except for the top 1% of this country which own 90% of the wealth)

 

[ksu_aviator]

The bottom line.. it costs money to "govern".. without government, there is no law or order... there is no ifrastructure.. you simply cannot substitute it.

Enterprise cannot operate in anarchy.

Who said anything about not governing? I said welfare is unconstitutional...meaning the federal government has no expressed or implied power to spend money on welfare programs...I said nothing about just throwing rules out the window.

Your assertion that I advocated anarchy through lack of government is absurd and illustrates just how little you understand on this topic.

As for the 3.0Trillion, you know that a large (very large) portion of this is due to your friends Chaney and GW's special project: Cost of War in Iraq.

My buddies GW and Cheney? I'm a Constitutionalist, I was very much against their spending on Medicaid and the like. Don't make assumptions.

BTW...the cost of the war in Iraq, regardless of how high, was constitutional (we can debate the necessity all you want, but that isn't the point...is it?) while the cost of medicare, medicaid, SCHIP and the like are unconstitutional. If those are programs you like, they should be done on a local level so they can better target local problems. How do you design a health care plan that is affordable and applicable to 320 million plus people? The answer is you don't.

But back to the your other post, which is QOL in EU vs

US.. if you look at the data you provided, and parse it... the US has a very low cost of living.. That doesn't necessarily translate to a better standard of living.. As for subjective.. many of the categories in this study strike me as subjective.. at least I'm going off my own personal experience which for me at least is OBJECTIVE.

Right, your opinion is so "objective" that you won't even accept any other input.

But sticking to science, if you look Here you will see that the US is #15 in standard of living, but yet it's unarguable the wealthiest nation in the world... if the government of the US was say.. as effective as that of

Iceland, Sweden, France or other "socialist" nations... wouldn't we all be better off? (all except for the top 1% of this country which own 90% of the wealth)

And your "objective" opinion goes right back to a survey that weights socialism heavily on the positive side. In fact, you are so "objective" that you even list a government that was a spectacular failure earlier this year: Iceland. Did you not know that the socialist policies of Iceland caused the government to fail and subsequently fall into chaos?

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1421286/bankrupt_icelands_government_fails.html

Did you even look at the survey's methods? Of the 5 factors, three are education related. Of the education related, one is derived from the other two. Giving education a huge weight. Then, they weight life expectancy through a nice little math trick. In all, they barely even account for the economy and they don't account for the cost of living, standard of living or any other factor that is germane to determining the quality of live in a given country.

All of your assertions are subjective and from what I've seen in these few posts, you demonstrate a great deal of cognitive dissonance for any information that does not fit into the neat theory you have been taught and have accepted as the truth. In short, you are like a 5 year old that just realized Santa doesn't exist. Grow up, face reality. No government can effectively control the economy or citizens. It can only create a level playing field and referee.

Back on topic: When the President of the United States over steps his constitutionally mandated bounds and dictates the daily operations of a business, pointing out his hypocrisy is a valid argument. Especially when that same President is going to double the national debt in 5 years (a national debt that took 20+ years to create).

 

[gret]

"Welfare is unconstitutional"? What about the space program, HUD, FAA, DOT, FCC, FDA, etc? Let's shut the suckers down and see what happens.

Love or hate 'em, Congress and the President are elected (we put them there) and things have turned out pretty well for the past 233 years.

Questioning whether the President should fly private is nonsense.

Also, the companies that got TARP could have said no and some of them did so, until they figured out it sounded like a pretty good deal. Once they got it, they didn't like the restrictions on their pay and that is why they want out now.

I'm a Republican by the way, but the party's leadership have lost their minds and need to pull their heads out of their butts. I'm willing to see what this administration can do.

 

[HA25]

All of your assertions are subjective and from what I've seen in these few posts, you demonstrate a great deal of cognitive dissonance for any information that does not fit into the neat theory you have been taught and have accepted as the truth. In short, you are like a 5 year old that just realized Santa doesn't exist. Grow up, face reality. No government can effectively control the economy or citizens. It can only create a level playing field and referee.

That's quite an analysis of someone whom you neither know, or know anything about. My age, my life experience, and my political evolution from Right wing to Left wing to no wing.. I don't pretend to fit a label such as "Constitutionalist" nor do I feel that such a self righteous label even has any meaning to me.. it smacks of "I was there son when Ben, George and the boys were debating the future of this nation". I've read the constitution and federalist papers as part of my college studies, and I've formulated my opinion on the subject over the years as to what was intended by those men who lived in a time before medical technology, computers, airplanes or international corporations..

So while in a perfect world, we can live by the bare bones of the constitution and allow no powers to the government that aren't enumerated therein, in reality, the Justices of the Supreme court have been manipulating this document since Marbury v. Madison and certainly since Dred Scott v. Sandford to fit the political agendas of the times. The whole strict constructionist idea while admirable in theory relies on the fact that those who are doing the strict construction are in fact human, with all the failings and emotion of being such.

So until you can find a stoical supercomputer that is able to legislate and interpret law as it is and isn't allowed under the constitution as it was originally intended (heck, we can't even agree on whether the 2nd Amendment relates to the militia or individuals).. I think you'll just have to accept the current system and vote for the man that best represents your world view.

No method of government, or economic policy is perfect, but sometimes a little bit of the one and a little bit of the other might be the correct answer.. sort of like cooking. So it's not only salt, or only pepper.. but a pinch of both. Some socialism is a good thing, I stand by it. Excessive of anything is bad.

 

[LJ45]

That's quite an analysis of someone whom you neither know, or know anything about. My age, my life experience, and my political evolution from Right wing to Left wing to no wing.. I don't pretend to fit a label such as "Constitutionalist" nor do I feel that such a self righteous label even has any meaning to me.. it smacks of "I was there son when Ben, George and the boys were debating the future of this nation". I've read the constitution and federalist papers as part of my college studies, and I've formulated my opinion on the subject over the years as to what was intended by those men who lived in a time before medical technology, computers, airplanes or international corporations..

So while in a perfect world, we can live by the bare bones of the constitution and allow no powers to the government that aren't enumerated therein, in reality, the Justices of the Supreme court have been manipulating this document since Marbury v. Madison and certainly since Dred Scott v. Sandford to fit the political agendas of the times. The whole strict constructionist idea while admirable in theory relies on the fact that those who are doing the strict construction are in fact human, with all the failings and emotion of being such.

So until you can find a stoical supercomputer that is able to legislate and interpret law as it is and isn't allowed under the constitution as it was originally intended (heck, we can't even agree on whether the 2nd Amendment relates to the militia or individuals).. I think you'll just have to accept the current system and vote for the man that best represents your world view.

No method of government, or economic policy is perfect, but sometimes a little bit of the one and a little bit of the other might be the correct answer.. sort of like cooking. So it's not only salt, or only pepper.. but a pinch of both. Some socialism is a good thing, I stand by it. Excessive of anything is bad.

I get it now, you are smarter than everyone else.

 

[lookin4better]

well said !!

LJ45,

I remember when you were upset that our most recent President took a 747 to Crawford TX for his personal vacations..... or maybe not... because you didnt seem to care, I hope you cared about that being on your " dime " too..... you did right?

If its wasting money, its wasting money.... doesnt matter who does it right?

President Bush can do it for fun, so can this President.

Humorus try though...

for the record, I think Presidents of BOTH current parties can use the planes for stuff like this. Like em' or not.