It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Spends Nearly Half His Presidency Outside Washington - Plans to Travel More

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Wherewe.ed
Your forgetting that the above visits were over the course of 8 years in office. Not two years...
Big difference.


So, even if we extrapolate and say that Obama will spend 35 days per two-year stint at camp David (as he has in his first two years), that's still only 140 days for an eight year period, as opposed to Bush's 487.

So I ask again, in what weird universe is 487 half of 140?


So i ask you, is it alwright that the country keeps crumbling to shambles regardless who is in office as the potus takes his luxury voyages-trips, and average Americans cannot


Very nice leadership by example the last several presidents have been




posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
What I find repugnant was his insistence that he was in DC every moment.

Just another lie upon a mountain of lies.

Tell you what there Obama, stay on the Golf Course the rest of your remaining time in government (2012). That would be the best thing for the country. Just sign the bills that come across your desk and DO NOT attempt to subvert the government restrictions by implementing actions through the agencies.

Do you think you can handle that Barry?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike.Ockizard
that said i agree that too much time and money is spent on travel... by all politicians.

Yep .. that's what I said ... Gave both Obama and Bush43 as examples. Glad someone acknowledged that.


reply to post by whatukno
 

Thar she blows .. just as I said it would happen
... deflection and childish personal flames against me ...


Originally posted by freedish
Those numbers don't look right to me...

Take it up with CBS (see b.s.) (or debunk the numbers ... fine by me).
I'm bringing the information forward as it was printed.

Originally posted by whatukno
This thread is simply a political hack job. It has no reality to it, just someone who has some personal beef with this particular president (we all really know why) and has made yet another attack thread based on that beef.

1 - The thread is based upon reports by CBS.
2 - The thread isn't just about 'this particular president' ... I included informatin about Bush43 to compare.
3 - I stated my dislike about Bush43 excessive travels as well.

*snip*
Mod Edit: Removed an attack on a member.




edit on 1/3/2011 by FlyersFan because: fix spacing

edit on 1/3/2011 by seagull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Bush spent 1,020 days of his presidency on vacation.
...
Bush spent 487 days at Camp David, 490 days at his Crawford ranch, and 43 days in Kennebunkport. George W. Bush spent 69 days in Crawford during his first year in office.


Source

According to the OP source, Obama spent 35 days at Camp David and 58 days on vacation in his first two years. Multiply that by 4 (to extrapolate a two-term presidency) and you have a total of 372 vacation days in an 8-year term.

Bush = 1020 Vacation days
Obama 372 Vacation days.

Now, what are people whining about again?
edit on 1/3/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Don't waste your time. That person clearly cannot conjure up a constructive thought. Let alone, make statements by comparison in regards to past Presidents and their expenditures of the tax payers monies.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Don't you think using an article pertaining to a President who was killed not only before his term was up, but also not accounting for the days for his second term, ( widely speculated that JFK would have won his second term ) is a bit premature?

That comparison is bit " off " considering. But the numbers, regardless of the President is staggering.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by allprowolfy
So i ask you, is it alwright that the country keeps crumbling to shambles regardless who is in office


No, it's not alright. And the country would still be crumbling if either spend 100% of their time in Washington. I suggest an assumption that the president could do a better job if he was physically in Washington is a complete and utter crock!



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I agree, I think any president would be a crock at this point! I have to assume that there is no " help " coming in the near future.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by allprowolfy
So i ask you, is it alwright that the country keeps crumbling to shambles regardless who is in office


No, it's not alright. And the country would still be crumbling if either spend 100% of their time in Washington. I suggest an assumption that the president could do a better job if he was physically in Washington is a complete and utter crock!


Yes, i agree, but would you not agree that the millions that have been spent on lavish trips could be spent on shovel ready projects to Americans

Not much to argue here Benny, as you either feel its ok for any president to leave on taxxxxx payers back or you dont, regardless of the Potus



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Now, what are people whining about again?[

"Whining', eh? So next time someone states that they dislike GITMO being still open or that Cheney has Haliburton connections , guess we'll classify that as whining as well.
DISLIKE - Excessive cost of travel ... excessive time out of DC ... what exactly the travel is for .... (do you really think all those domestic trips are necessary, considering how many are really for campaigning for cronies, etc??). Bush43 spending all that time in 'The Western Whitehouse' when he could have been working in DC and not costing the taxpayer so much money. True .. it didn't cost as much as a vacation to a private estate (ala Obama in Hawaii), but it still wasn't necessary.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I suggest an assumption that the president could do a better job if he was physically in Washington is a complete and utter crock!

True. He (and Bush before him) couldn't do a better job ANYWHERE. They are incapable no matter where they are/were - IMHO. The big issue for me is the excessive and unnecessary expenses of POTUS travel - personal and allegedly professional. Bush could have done the same job in DC with less cost then his frequent travels to his ranch. Obama could do the same job in DC without the cost of his travels. Add to that the fact that the POTUS doesn't really run the country ... and poof ... no need for as much as they do.

As i said .. some travel is necessary. But all the 'vacations' and all the domestic travel just to campaign or push agendas .... all on our tax money ... by WHATEVER POTUS is in office .... it's a waste.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by allprowolfy
Yes, i agree, but would you not agree that the millions that have been spent on lavish trips could be spent on shovel ready projects to Americans


Of course we can always debate how other people live their lives or how the government spends our money. Of course I'd rather they spend our money on what I think is important, but that's not how the system works, unfortunately. They don't ask me.



Not much to argue here Benny, as you either feel its ok for any president to leave on taxxxxx payers back or you dont, regardless of the Potus


I am not claiming anything is OK or not OK. I'm addressing the supposed issue of Obama being away from Washington. I don't see a problem with it. To me, it's not an issue, because of current communications technology.
.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
MOD NOTE.

since this topic is, apparently, somewhat incindiary, I'll say this just as a not so gentle reminder.

You will be polite to each other. No personal attacks will be tolerated.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The big issue for me is the excessive and unnecessary expenses of POTUS travel - personal and allegedly professional.


I thought it was the time spent outside of DC... That's what the thread is about, isn't it? But if the expense of POTUS travel is the issue, why pick on Obama being outside of Washington? Why not make a thread on presidential travel?

In any case, yes, travel is expensive. Presidents travel. They NEED to as part of their job, and they're allowed to. And presidents' travel is more expensive than our travel. And you don't like them traveling. OK.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I think they were just trying to establish the current admin and the out of control spending of tax payers dollars, on vacations. ( let alone the uncontrolled spending that goes on anyhow )



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Ahhhh yes , but what is the POTUS doing while he is here or out and about? Lets see..........

www.impeachobamacampaign.com...

wireupdate.com...

progolftalk.nbcsports.com...

www.washingtontimes.com...


edit on 3-1-2011 by bluemooone2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Obama needs to stop spending all the good

hardworking Americans money on these vacation days.

Hopefully he only gets another 2 years, he will bankrupt

the country so much more with these drunken sailor actions,

it is time for him to go...

edit on 3-1-2011 by thecinic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

But of course to most liberals the Constitution is nothing more than a "living document" which they take to mean it can be interpreted any way they want or need.



Ever give thought to the alternative to "living" document?...Ya know..."dead"

...the rhetort would logically be "right wingers think the constitution is dead".

I might add that this response would easily be supported through evidence.

I am a big fan of the constitution and am beyond certain I cherish it and understand it much more than the childish rhetoric that you cling to.

I keep thinking about Christine O'Donnel when she was shocked during a public debate, in front of a law school class no less, to learn that the constitution forbid government sponsoring religion.

Those that shout the loudest about the constitution are often the ones who understand it least...it's one of those not so funny ironies of life.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wherewe.ed
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I think they were just trying to establish the current admin and the out of control spending of tax payers dollars, on vacations. ( let alone the uncontrolled spending that goes on anyhow )


If that were the case, I would have thought some statistics on tax-payer dollars spent on vacations would have been included in the OP... But hey, what do I know?



Originally posted by thecinic
Obama needs to stop spending all the good hardworking Americans money on these vacation days.


Of course he's being held to higher standards than any other president in history. That goes without saying.

You have yet to address the discrepancy I pointed out about your post here
edit on 1/3/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Well given the powerful modern telecommunications at his disposal there is no problem with him being away from DC. Have you done a cost benefit analysis to weigh the benefits of his travel up against the travel costs. Without it ( i.e. a cost benefit analysis) your OP is on shakey ground.
edit on 3-1-2011 by tiger5 because: Expansion




top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join