No Sequester For obamas Daughters

[nextJin]

I really don't think any of you have any idea how much money is spent on the what and where. The money is already allocated, it's the same thing as the Army sitting in barracks doing nothing or having to go out to the field. It's not like the girls are buying lavish items with tax payers money. Their old man didn't goto the IRS take out a few million to give them to blow on whatever.

Not seeing the outrage here, and I'm a conservative.

 

[sunzt]

As long as his kids are being paid for by the taxpayer I have a problem.

OMG! Did you know that we, the taxpayers, pay for their House! Did you know that we, the taxpayers, pay for the security of those lollygagging kids to run outside the white house and go into other buildings to talk and socialize with other kids and learn about devil teachings like evolution and math??? OMG DID YOU KNOW THAT!!!!!

 

[NoStateofMind]

Because they don't have a choice other than never leaving the White House? Security for the first family is mandated. They don't get a choice in the matter.

And the figures being quoted are also severely bloated and don't lend anything to common sense.

Granted theres going to be a slant through whichever lense you look through. Yet the issue is the expense of money for a vacation when that money could have been saved instead. The problem is not that they need security, thats a foregone conclusion, its the very fact of the expense itself. I'm not arguing against a vacation either, in case you were going to take it there. Many people in this country are lucky to have one vacation on their own dime let alone two on the "taxpayers" back. To not complain is to be complicit in it IMO.

 

[NoStateofMind]

I really don't think any of you have any idea how much money is spent on the what and where. The money is already allocated, it's the same thing as the Army sitting in barracks doing nothing or having to go out to the field. It's not like the girls are buying lavish items with tax payers money. Their old man didn't goto the IRS take out a few million to give them to blow on whatever.

Not seeing the outrage here, and I'm a conservative.

Yet how does that stop one from NOT SPENDING IT?

"Mr. President, why when you had a million dollars to spend on whatever travel, lodging and security, did you decide to stay home and not spend it"? "Well I felt spending frivolously when most Americans can't even afford a vacation would be like a slap in the face, I wasn't going to do that."

He would be applauded. But no, its been "allocated" so that makes it okay....

 

[sunzt]

Yet the issue is the expense of money for a vacation when that money could have been saved instead.

Saved for what exactly? More vacations next year? Once money gets appropriated it doesn't get given back....

 

[NoStateofMind]

Saved for what exactly? More vacations next year? Once money gets appropriated it doesn't get given back....

So where does it go? Evaporate?

EDIT: Give it back. Bring down a little bit of that debt. Lessen a little of the "taxpayer" burden. Hell just to make a fucking point.

 

[SheHateMe]

Lets play the guessing game:

How much of the budget do you think is allocated towards vacations/family visits/taking Bo across the country to check out the cute lady dogs walking along South Beach?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Op's on a troll today.

 

[nextJin]

Yet how does that stop one from NOT SPENDING IT?

"Mr. President, why when you had a million dollars to spend on whatever travel, lodging and security, did you decide to stay home and not spend it"? "Well I felt spending frivolously when most Americans can't even afford a vacation would be like a slap in the face, I wasn't going to do that."

He would be applauded. But no, its been "allocated" so that makes it okay....

Because it's not his to say not too?

 

[sunzt]

So where does it go? Evaporate?

EDIT: Give it back. Bring down a little bit of that debt. Lessen a little of the "taxpayer" burden. Hell just to make a fucking point.

if I have a mortgage that i can't afford 95% of the payment then saving a few dollars on my expenses is not going to address the expenses or revenue streams that would actually allow me to afford the full payment.

In other words, its like an obese person trying to lose weight by drinking one less diet soda a day when the person is actually consuming 3 times the amount of calories, carbs, and fat than normal. Sure the person can gloat that they set an example and gloat about drinking one less soda, but that isn't actually the problem.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Because it's not his to say not too?

Because someone makes his children take vacations?

 

[NoStateofMind]

if I have a mortgage that i can't afford 95% of the payment then saving a few dollars on my expenses is not going to address the expenses or revenue streams that would actually allow me to afford the full payment.

In other words, its like an obese person trying to lose weight by drinking one less diet soda a day when the person is actually consuming 3 times the amount of calories, carbs, and fat than normal. Sure the person can gloat that they set an example and gloat about drinking one less soda, but that isn't actually the problem.

So let me see if I get what you're saying.

Since the amount of spending is so paltry compared to the national debt we should just say "Oh what the hell"? You see this is what everyone seems to be missing. Its the principle not the amount. This just shows you they do not care what burden they place on your shoulders no matter the size of the fucking rock on your back as it is. Whats a few more dollars? Right? smh

 

[IronWing]

Yet how does that stop one from NOT SPENDING IT?

"Mr. President, why when you had a million dollars to spend on whatever travel, lodging and security, did you decide to stay home and not spend it"? "Well I felt spending frivolously when most Americans can't even afford a vacation would be like a slap in the face, I wasn't going to do that."

He would be applauded. But no, its been "allocated" so that makes it okay....

Oddly enough, under our Constitution the President does not have the authority to simply not spend appropriated funds. To do so would amount to a line item veto, an authority the Constitution doesn't give the President. In the context of Presidential vacations it seems a bit daft but it makes sense in the bigger picture.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Oddly enough, under our Constitution the President does not have the authority to simply not spend appropriated funds. To do so would amount to a line item veto, an authority the Constitution doesn't give the President. In the context of Presidential vacations it seems a bit daft but it makes sense in the bigger picture.

Lets suppose you're right. What happens if that money is not spent? Is he impeached? Does he get yelled at? What happens in your opinion?

 

[SheHateMe]

Lets suppose you're right. What happens if that money is not spent? Is he impeached? Does he get yelled at? What happens in your opinion?

Then it most likely gets allocated to family travel for the next year.

 

[IronWing]

Lets suppose you're right. What happens if that money is not spent? Is he impeached? Does he get yelled at? What happens in your opinion?

Reagan tried it with the EPA budget. Congress sued. The case went to the Supreme Court and the court ruled against Reagan. Reagan complied with the ruling. If he had chosen to defy the ruling presumably Congress would have found grounds for impeachment. Whether Congress would have the courage to defend the Constitution and impeach and remove a President for such conduct is certainly up for debate.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Then it most likely gets allocated to family travel for the next year.

Do you not see a problem with that? The whole principle of spending "taxpayer" money when they don't have it themselves?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Reagan tried it with the EPA budget. Congress sued. The case went to the Supreme Court and the court ruled against Reagan. Reagan complied with the ruling. If he had chosen to defy the ruling presumably Congress would have found grounds for impeachment. Whether Congress would have the courage to defend the Constitution and impeach and remove a President for such conduct is certainly up for debate.

Ah so Congress goes after a president for showing financial restraint but looks the other way when misappropriation of funds for a libyan war. Think theres something wrong with this picture? Who's side are they on anyways?

 

[sunzt]

So let me see if I get what you're saying.

Since the amount of spending is so paltry compared to the national debt we should just say "Oh what the hell"? You see this is what everyone seems to be missing. Its the principle not the amount. This just shows you they do not care what burden they place on your shoulders no matter the size of the fucking rock on your back as it is. Whats a few more dollars? Right? smh

Is credit given when the administration makes cuts? Is the president not trying to reduce the debt?

The principle that is important is that there is genuine effort to have a sustainable budget that brings down debt and control costs. That is the burden for Congress and the President right now.

Having the president take his vacation to his home state is something we can't really be outraged about because
1) Everyone should be able to take a vacation since it can ultimately make us better prepared for work, replenish our energy, and refocus.
2) anything the president or ex-presidents do requires a security detail. Should other living presidents be restricted in their vacations since the taxpayer has to foot their security detail as well?
3) "Presidents don't get vacations — they just get a change of scenery. The job goes with you"
4) he is no-where near abusing his vacations and is nowhere near what other presidents spends on vacation time: "George W. Bush spent 32 months at his ranch (490 days) or Camp David (487 days) — an average of four months away every year."

 

[NoStateofMind]

Is credit given when the administration makes cuts? Is the president not trying to reduce the debt?

The principle that is important is that there is genuine effort to have a sustainable budget that brings down debt and control costs. That is the burden for Congress and the President right now.

Having the president take his vacation to his home state is something we can't really be outraged about because
1) Everyone should be able to take a vacation since it can ultimately make us better prepared for work, replenish our energy, and refocus.
2) anything the president or ex-presidents do requires a security detail. Should other living presidents be restricted in their vacations since the taxpayer has to foot their security detail as well?
3) "Presidents don't get vacations — they just get a change of scenery. The job goes with you"
4) he is no-where near abusing his vacations and is nowhere near what other presidents spends on vacation time: "George W. Bush spent 32 months at his ranch (490 days) or Camp David (487 days) — an average of four months away every year."

Listen I agree. Everyone should get a vacation. However in the real world, where most of us peasants live, we don't always have that luxury. Why would it be a bad thing for a president to exercise the same restraint the people do? This is NOT a partisan issue. I don't care how many presidents from whatever side of the isle spent money that wasn't theirs to go on vacation especially during times of economic downturn.

So why do presidents since forever continue to do it? Because they can. No one can stop them and even if they wanted to stop, even for principled reasons, as Iron Wing pointed out, they'll take you to court for it. WHAT?! Do you not see how ludicrous it is?

 

[Incorruptible]

Ah so Congress goes after a president for showing financial restraint but looks the other way when misappropriation of funds for a libyan war. Think theres something wrong with this picture? Who's side are they on anyways?

Just shows how corrupt those idiots are.

 

[IronWing]

Ah so Congress goes after a president for showing financial restraint but looks the other way when misappropriation of funds for a libyan war. Think theres something wrong with this picture? Who's side are they on anyways?

Congress had its say in the President's vacation budget when it passed the appropriations bill allocating funds to that purpose. Congress has the opportunity to zero out the President's vacation budget each and every year.

 

[nextJin]

Because someone makes his children take vacations?

Like my above example, it wouldn't matter if the Secret Service was watching them in the House or abroad thier funds are already set aside and the POTUS does not tell Service how to spend their money.

He can't say "I won't be taking vacations for the next 4 years, so USSS and WHMO, just cut your budgets and give it to the Treasury"

 

[CrackRabbit]

Op's on a troll everyday.

FTFY.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Taxpayer Bill for Obama’s Hawaii Vacations: $20 Million

by Keith Koffler on January 4, 2013, 10:07 am

Michelle Obama recently revealed that she and President Obama don’t give Christmas gifts to each other. They merely say, “We’re in Hawaii,” and that’s Christmas gift enough.

But actually the present is from taxpayers, and it’s an expensive one.

The total cost to taxpayers of Obama’s vacations to Hawaii since becoming president is likely in excess of $20 million, and possibly much, much more. During a time of budget deficits that threaten the nation’s security and its future, the Obamas have chosen to maintain a “family tradition” and vacation halfway around the world instead of finding far cheaper alternatives closer to home.

The $20 million figure is based on estimates of the cost of the four Hawaii vacations the Obamas have taken during Christmastime 2009-2012. According to a detailed breakdown by the Hawaii Reporter, the annual excursions in 2009, 2010, and 2011 cost about $4 million, much of it attributable to the expense of taking Air Force One, at an hour rate of about $180,000, on an eighteen-hour roundtrip journey to Honolulu and back.

you have no links or proof to support your bloviations.