President Obama is catching heat from Nevada lawmakers and business leaders regarding his comments Tuesday criticizing trips to Las Vegas.
During the president's town hall meeting in Nashua, New Hampshire, he discussed the need to curb spending during tough economic times. "When times are tough, you tighten your belts," the president said. "You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college."
Rest of story HERE
(Italics and bolding mine)
10 comments:
He says one thing and does the opposite.
And gets away with it... in the lamestream media.
Very good - I've never heard that before, "Lamestream Media".
Hmm, I don't see what's ironic about what he's saying.
'Buying a boat' implies frivolous spending on things that aren't needed and only exacerbate the problem that you're already in.
The spending that the US government is doing is part of a long-term plan to stabilize and then restore the economy. Or do you think that the money spent thus far has been spent frivolously? Did you have a plan for how to get out of debt without first spending money?
I'd be interested to hear what it was.
PS. I'll tell you what is ironic, my word verification is 'loses'!
I'm not to bright when it come to economic theories and tax and spend governments versus cutting taxes and letting Americans spend as they wish.
But this seems to make sense to me......
Government spending means the government has to get its money from somewhere: It must be taxed from the people or borrowed from them.
Run away government spending (taking or borrowing from tax payers) will never 'buy' the USA out of anything. It will only enslave us furthur to the machine in Washington.
"Did you have a plan for how to get out of debt without first spending money?"
Basic budget rules apply even to the mighty government.
*Never spend more than you take in.
*Never borrow money to pay for things you already can't afford.
*Never take on new debt while still buried under the old debt.
*Pay off the old debt and balance your checkbook.
*Make hard choices and cut spending in areas that are not popular.
*Cut up all the credit cards.
It's not much of a plan but it is the basics that can work in any budget.
The irony is he says one thing and does another himself.
Yes, actually, when already in trillions of dollars in debt, choosing not to spend trillions more is a good idea, Matt.
But hey, the Federal Reserve can always alleviate that debt through inflation, as they have been substantially for the majority of their time with us since 1913. We've only lost over 96% of the dollar's value since the Fed's creation.
And if you think the 1-3% inflation numbers we're shown are accurate, please consider that they intentionally do not include food and energy in their calculations, which raises the inflation number by multiples. But that's other issue, albeit a cousin.
Wayne,
I appreciate that none of us are economists (I think), but look at what you're saying;
"Government spending means the government has to get its money from somewhere: It must be taxed from the people or borrowed from them.
Run away government spending (taking or borrowing from tax payers) will never 'buy' the USA out of anything. It will only enslave us furthur to the machine in Washington."
This is bad, right?
But then you say, as part of your plan;
'*Pay off the old debt and balance your checkbook."
So how do you plan to do that? Where is that money to pay off the debt going to come from?
National finances are not really comparable to personal finances, I think. Perhaps they should be and maybe that is a model we should be moving towards. But at the minute, the best plan is to spend big in the short-term to provide stability in the medium-term that will allow growth in the long-term.
Obama is doing nothing that McCain wouldn't have done if he'd have won the election.
Cheers,
"So how do you plan to do that? Where is that money to pay off the debt going to come from?"
It comes from us, the US taxpayers.
Not only this generation; but my children's children. And, more than likely, their children's children.
But it has to stop now....and it may already be too late.
This is why, along with other items I mentioned above, we have to make hard choices and cut spending in areas that are not popular.
The debt is already there...and now trillions more of it.
"Obama is doing nothing that McCain wouldn't have done if he'd have won the election."
Yes, maybe, more than likely.
Maybe not as bad...but still not good.
Like I've always said:
If you want your country to go to pot real quick, elect a democrat.
If you want your country to go to pot real slow over an extended period of time, elect a republican.
Interesting that you seem to assume that your audience automatically clings to the Republican party. Oh well. It's a shame the two major parties have had so much prominence for so long here.
I'm still eagerly waiting for the day when two "evils" are not the severely limited choices the U.S. has in a sense forced upon it as presidential candidates each election. Being realistic, though, it's not likely.
Also, we're not going to pay off the debt, especially if we increase it. Let's not forget the unfunded liabilities of the grand government pyramid scheme known as social security and its relations. That's been estimated at around $50 trillion.
Ya, I find truth in the rhetoric of this question, to be frank: "Is America a society of law or is it simply one more corrupt and crumbling oligarchy about to collapse into the dustbin of history?"
Totally agree with Joe.
My main beef previous to this comment was the feeling that Obama was in some way doing something wrong in relation to how a Republican would have done it.
It's amazing how easily your mind can slip into a black/white paradigm, isn't it? I'll have to work on that.
Cheers, Joe.
Ah, well, I wasn't really cutting you down for that; it's just the black/white paradigm as you say. It's likely a safe assumption that Random Person A fits into one of these categories, especially if he/she hardly delves into economics or politics at all.
In reality (as far as economics go) the differences between the two major parties are exaggerated. It's akin to what Dawg said about one method being a quicker way in the same direction that the other. Honestly, even a slower pace can build up comparable or worse civil unrest than the quicker pace. Bush comes to mind, although he isn't the best example as he doesn't qualify as "slow" in terms of government spending, socialization, and nation-building.
It's easy to come off with a rude tone on the internet. I need to work on that.
Post a Comment