New York Times questions timing of Obama family Australia/ Indonesia

mg wrote:

On Mar 12, 5:56 pm, "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep
furiously)" wrote:
mg wrote:

On Mar 12, 5:20 am, "ODONOVAN, Himself" wrote:
New York Times questions timing of Obama family Australia/ Indonesia
trip: No real diplomatic reason to go but it is the kids' spring
break. Date night was cheap by comparison , but this?

http://preview.tinyurl.com/714zEvleths

Excerpt:

"..The trip is unusual, experts say, in that there is no economic
summit or other multinational gathering for the president to
attend..."

IOW just a taxpayer funded junket for the kids and the whole Obama
entourage?

A president can go anywhere he wants, just ask Bush and Reagan, and
that even includes a president who happens to be a Democrat, by the
way.

"Bush on track to become the vacation president

Because Bush went to his private ranch, that has something to do
with Obama taking trips to Asia with his family? And a president is
never on "vacation" so this tally is just stupid. When Bush went to
his ranch in Texas, he used that as a jumping off point to visit
farther west than would usually be easy on a day trip. This is a
good thing.-

So, when Bush and Reagan went on vacation, they weren't really going
on vacation, but when Obama goes on vacation, he is really going on
vacation. Is that correct?

Stop lying.




--
"It is illuminating for purposes of reflection, if not for
argument, to note that one of the greatest 'fictions' of our
federal system is that the Congress exercises only those powers
delegated to it, while the remainder are reserved to the States or
to the people. The manner in which this Court has construed the
Commerce Clause amply illustrates the extent of this fiction.",
Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining, 452 U.S. 264, 307 (1981)

Mxsmanic wrote:

mg writes:

Don't you believe that a president is entitled to take his family with
him when he goes on vacation?

No. It costs taxpayers too much to transport him and his family anywhere. I
believe Presidents should take their vacations at home. If that's not
acceptable to them, they can resign.

It's a bit like asking if people working at the South Pole during the winter
should be entitled to take vacations back home. The answer is no, because it's
too expensive and impractical. Anyone who cannot live without a home vacation
should not apply for a job at the South Pole.

Too expensive? The president needs to go around the country and be
seen, he shouldn't be locked in the White House all the time. When
Bush left the White House, he often went to his home in Texas. That
provided a *shorter* jump point to places farther west so he could
get out about the people. This is good.



--
"It is illuminating for purposes of reflection, if not for
argument, to note that one of the greatest 'fictions' of our
federal system is that the Congress exercises only those powers
delegated to it, while the remainder are reserved to the States or
to the people. The manner in which this Court has construed the
Commerce Clause amply illustrates the extent of this fiction.",
Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining, 452 U.S. 264, 307 (1981)

Earl Evleth wrote:

On 13/03/10 16:27, in article ,
"Mxsmanic" wrote:

I
believe Presidents should take their vacations at home.

Taking vacation at home is not taking a vacation!
A vacation is when you go to someplace special.

So all those times Bush went to his *house* in Texas, that didn't
count as "vacation"? Better tell that to Holman.



What I objected to is putting on the back of the
taxpayers huge permanent changes in the home address
to make it suitable for a President to stay at.
It started pretty much with Nixon and his San Clemente
"home".

Obama did in fact go home, Hawaii, for one vacation.

Does he have a house in Hawaii? Was he a senator from Hawaii? No
and no.




--
"It is illuminating for purposes of reflection, if not for
argument, to note that one of the greatest 'fictions' of our
federal system is that the Congress exercises only those powers
delegated to it, while the remainder are reserved to the States or
to the people. The manner in which this Court has construed the
Commerce Clause amply illustrates the extent of this fiction.",
Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining, 452 U.S. 264, 307 (1981)

On Mar 12, 4:01*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

The current President has regularly demonstrated that he wants to take his
family on vacations paid for by taxpayers no matter how many millions of
dollars they may cost. Since it has burned through trillions of dollars in
taxpayer money to keep rich bankers rich, it should come as no surprise that
he would waste taxpayer money to give his wife and kids a succession of exotic
luxury vacations.



Hammer meets head of nail.

As someone else so succinctly said on the web:

"..The systemic faults created by the gross incompetence and
corruption of governments (1) have been exploited by the bankers to
raid the bank. When reality check came and real estate values crashed,
governments bailed out the malefactors and fanned the flames of fear
to implement “solutions.” Such solutions took two forms: “bailout,”
i.e. the transfer of toxic debt from the banks’ balance sheets to the
governments’ balance sheets, or “stimulus,” i.e. throwing easy money
at the hoi polloi and further inflating the governments’ balance
sheets..."

mg writes:

Don't you believe that a president is entitled to take his family with
him when he goes on vacation?

No. It costs taxpayers too much to transport him and his family anywhere. I
believe Presidents should take their vacations at home. If that's not
acceptable to them, they can resign.

It's a bit like asking if people working at the South Pole during the winter
should be entitled to take vacations back home. The answer is no, because it's
too expensive and impractical. Anyone who cannot live without a home vacation
should not apply for a job at the South Pole.

On 13/03/10 16:27, in article ,
"Mxsmanic" wrote:

I
believe Presidents should take their vacations at home.

Taking vacation at home is not taking a vacation!
A vacation is when you go to someplace special.

What I objected to is putting on the back of the
taxpayers huge permanent changes in the home address
to make it suitable for a President to stay at.
It started pretty much with Nixon and his San Clemente
"home".

Obama did in fact go home, Hawaii, for one vacation.

On 13/03/10 13:41, in article , "Bill Bonde
{Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
wrote:

Does he have a house in Hawaii?

He rented a place. Lots of people do that. We prefer a long stay
in a hotel, so that they make the beds and we eat out,
No cooking no dishes.

Next to the ocean.

That is a vacation.

We have a Greek friend who owns a hotel, he rents us a room
with kitchen and bath for a fair rate. We have outside
table and chairs in a nice garden and hear the birds
leave and return each day and talk about it.

Occasionally one of the garden land tortoises dashes by
(comparative, the animal is more active than we are on
vacation).

Mxsmanic wrote:

Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) writes:

Too expensive? The president needs to go around the country and be
seen, he shouldn't be locked in the White House all the time.

He may have official business that requires travel, but it should be kept to
an absolute minimum. There are very few legitimate and unavoidable needs for
travel. Entire cities are brought to a standstill to move His Holiness from
place to place, costing untold millions of dollars for every trip.

I think that a president should go around the Untied States and
speak and see the situation first hand. He can do that without too
much disruption in most cases. I would avoid the disruption as much
as possible.




When Bush left the White House, he often went to his home in Texas. That
provided a *shorter* jump point to places farther west so he could
get out about the people. This is good.

The President is never "out about the people." No matter where he goes, the
people are kept away from him, and when he moves, their lives are disrupted
until he returns to the White House. Therefore he should not move at all.

Kook Alert.




--
"It is illuminating for purposes of reflection, if not for
argument, to note that one of the greatest 'fictions' of our
federal system is that the Congress exercises only those powers
delegated to it, while the remainder are reserved to the States or
to the people. The manner in which this Court has construed the
Commerce Clause amply illustrates the extent of this fiction.",
Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining, 452 U.S. 264, 307 (1981)

Mxsmanic wrote:

Earl Evleth writes:

Taking vacation at home is not taking a vacation!
A vacation is when you go to someplace special.

Life is tough. If you want to be President, you can forego away-from-home
vacations for four years.

Jimmy Carter locked himself in the White House.




--
"It is illuminating for purposes of reflection, if not for
argument, to note that one of the greatest 'fictions' of our
federal system is that the Congress exercises only those powers
delegated to it, while the remainder are reserved to the States or
to the people. The manner in which this Court has construed the
Commerce Clause amply illustrates the extent of this fiction.",
Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining, 452 U.S. 264, 307 (1981)

Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) writes:

Too expensive? The president needs to go around the country and be
seen, he shouldn't be locked in the White House all the time.

He may have official business that requires travel, but it should be kept to
an absolute minimum. There are very few legitimate and unavoidable needs for
travel. Entire cities are brought to a standstill to move His Holiness from
place to place, costing untold millions of dollars for every trip.

When Bush left the White House, he often went to his home in Texas. That
provided a *shorter* jump point to places farther west so he could
get out about the people. This is good.

The President is never "out about the people." No matter where he goes, the
people are kept away from him, and when he moves, their lives are disrupted
until he returns to the White House. Therefore he should not move at all.