Has Obama had 'more than he needs?'

D

Dixie - In Memoriam

New member
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/26/t...amily-last-year-perks-questioned-in-new-book/

The First Family cost taxpayers roughly $1.4 billion on staffing, housing, flying and entertaining last year. This, for a man who still has a pretty significant day job, who doesn't really have time for leisure and relaxation. So I am wondering, you liberals are always yammering about "the rich have more than they need" but it seems, if they aren't blowing $1.4 billion per year, they are getting by on less than Obama. So now, again... exactly HOW MUCH is enough? At what point does a rich person have "all they need?" Obama certainly isn't super-rich, I imagine he is pretty well off, but there are probably a lot of people who have more wealth than him, but it took $1.4 billion to service his apparent needs for the year. When you consider, his home is completely furnished and paid for, he has transportation and security provided, and doesn't have to really worry about a retirement pension or anything like that, he is in much better shape than your average millionaire or billionaire, in terms of tangible financial obligations.

Now this $1.4 billion was spent in a year when our unemployment was at record highs, and our economy was lackluster. While millions of American families were struggling to put food on the table. While America had more people on food stamps than ever before in history. And while he paraded around the country telling us how he represents the middle class... in between his golfing jaunts, vacations abroad, and partying with the stars, that is. Yes, here's a man who is working hard everyday for the American people, he doesn't have nearly as much time to enjoy wealth as some rich fat greedy capitalist. So it got me to thinking, and I am just curiuos, do you folks think Obama had more than he needs, or just about enough? And what about people who are wealthier and have more time on their hands to enjoy the finer things in life? Would this have been just about enough for them too, or would they maybe require more since they have more time and no worrysome job to have to deal with?

I guess I'm just trying to wrap my mind around it, I am fairly well-off, and I know some people who are super wealthy, but I doubt all of us combined could spend $1.4 billion a year on fun stuff, even with all the free time in the world to do so. I live comfortably and do the things I enjoy, I don't really 'do without' anything, but my annual expenses are less than the INTEREST on $1.4 billion, and this is the case with most of my wealthy friends as well. So how much is too much? How much is "more than they need" when it comes to this sort of thing? Or is Obama exempt from this principle entirely, due to the fact he is a black liberal president? I just want to know where YOU stand on this?
 
Dixie said:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/26/t...amily-last-year-perks-questioned-in-new-book/

The First Family cost taxpayers roughly $1.4 billion on staffing, housing, flying and entertaining last year. This, for a man who still has a pretty significant day job, who doesn't really have time for leisure and relaxation. So I am wondering, you liberals are always yammering about "the rich have more than they need" but it seems, if they aren't blowing $1.4 billion per year, they are getting by on less than Obama. So now, again... exactly HOW MUCH is enough? At what point does a rich person have "all they need?" Obama certainly isn't super-rich, I imagine he is pretty well off, but there are probably a lot of people who have more wealth than him, but it took $1.4 billion to service his apparent needs for the year. When you consider, his home is completely furnished and paid for, he has transportation and security provided, and doesn't have to really worry about a retirement pension or anything like that, he is in much better shape than your average millionaire or billionaire, in terms of tangible financial obligations.

Now this $1.4 billion was spent in a year when our unemployment was at record highs, and our economy was lackluster. While millions of American families were struggling to put food on the table. While America had more people on food stamps than ever before in history. And while he paraded around the country telling us how he represents the middle class... in between his golfing jaunts, vacations abroad, and partying with the stars, that is. Yes, here's a man who is working hard everyday for the American people, he doesn't have nearly as much time to enjoy wealth as some rich fat greedy capitalist. So it got me to thinking, and I am just curiuos, do you folks think Obama had more than he needs, or just about enough? And what about people who are wealthier and have more time on their hands to enjoy the finer things in life? Would this have been just about enough for them too, or would they maybe require more since they have more time and no worrysome job to have to deal with?

I guess I'm just trying to wrap my mind around it, I am fairly well-off, and I know some people who are super wealthy, but I doubt all of us combined could spend $1.4 billion a year on fun stuff, even with all the free time in the world to do so. I live comfortably and do the things I enjoy, I don't really 'do without' anything, but my annual expenses are less than the INTEREST on $1.4 billion, and this is the case with most of my wealthy friends as well. So how much is too much? How much is "more than they need" when it comes to this sort of thing? Or is Obama exempt from this principle entirely, due to the fact he is a black liberal president? I just want to know where YOU stand on this?
Click to expand...


Tell ya what...when you can provide documentation proving the claim above is the truth and that the $1.4 Billion is a much larger number than was spent on Presidents before him, then we'll believe you.

Til then however, this is just more petty Dixie grousing.
 
Damocles said:
Somebody didn't read the article.
Click to expand...


Well, if you read the article, then you should have no problem showing me where precisely in the article are the comparisons to past administrations.

Show me where in the article the itemized receipts are that show the $1.4 billion number Dixie pulled out of his ass is fact.
 
Dixie said:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/26/t...amily-last-year-perks-questioned-in-new-book/

The First Family cost taxpayers roughly $1.4 billion on staffing, housing, flying and entertaining last year. This, for a man who still has a pretty significant day job, who doesn't really have time for leisure and relaxation. So I am wondering, you liberals are always yammering about "the rich have more than they need" but it seems, if they aren't blowing $1.4 billion per year, they are getting by on less than Obama. So now, again... exactly HOW MUCH is enough? At what point does a rich person have "all they need?" Obama certainly isn't super-rich, I imagine he is pretty well off, but there are probably a lot of people who have more wealth than him, but it took $1.4 billion to service his apparent needs for the year. When you consider, his home is completely furnished and paid for, he has transportation and security provided, and doesn't have to really worry about a retirement pension or anything like that, he is in much better shape than your average millionaire or billionaire, in terms of tangible financial obligations.

Now this $1.4 billion was spent in a year when our unemployment was at record highs, and our economy was lackluster. While millions of American families were struggling to put food on the table. While America had more people on food stamps than ever before in history. And while he paraded around the country telling us how he represents the middle class... in between his golfing jaunts, vacations abroad, and partying with the stars, that is. Yes, here's a man who is working hard everyday for the American people, he doesn't have nearly as much time to enjoy wealth as some rich fat greedy capitalist. So it got me to thinking, and I am just curiuos, do you folks think Obama had more than he needs, or just about enough? And what about people who are wealthier and have more time on their hands to enjoy the finer things in life? Would this have been just about enough for them too, or would they maybe require more since they have more time and no worrysome job to have to deal with?

I guess I'm just trying to wrap my mind around it, I am fairly well-off, and I know some people who are super wealthy, but I doubt all of us combined could spend $1.4 billion a year on fun stuff, even with all the free time in the world to do so. I live comfortably and do the things I enjoy, I don't really 'do without' anything, but my annual expenses are less than the INTEREST on $1.4 billion, and this is the case with most of my wealthy friends as well. So how much is too much? How much is "more than they need" when it comes to this sort of thing? Or is Obama exempt from this principle entirely, due to the fact he is a black liberal president? I just want to know where YOU stand on this?
Click to expand...
It's good to be the President.

 
ZappasGuitar said:
Tell ya what...when you can provide documentation proving the claim above is the truth and that the $1.4 Billion is a much larger number than was spent on Presidents before him, then we'll believe you.

Til then however, this is just more petty Dixie grousing.
Click to expand...

That's pretty funny, huh! We're supposed to believe Obama spent as much on himself and family than he did on every American veteran via the Recovery Act.

When I read some of Dixie's posts, I think to myself that there's a sucker born every minute.

The Recovery Act provided the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with more than $1.4 billion to improve services to America’s Veterans

  • The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) enabled the VA to improve medical facilities and national cemeteries, provided grants to assist states in acquiring or constructing state nursing homes and extended care facilities, and to modify or alter existing facilities to care for Veterans.
  • VA dedicated ARRA funds to hire and train 1,500 temporary claims processors to speed benefits delivery to Veterans and pursue needed information technology initiatives for improved benefits and services. Funds were also used to oversee and audit programs, grants, and projects funded under ARRA.
  • As part of the President’s Recovery plan, VA made one-time payments of $250 to eligible Veterans and survivors to mitigate the effects of the economic downturn.
  • The President announced the Joint Virtual Lifetime Electronic Initiative. The Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs have worked together to define and build a system that will ultimately contain administrative and medical information from the day an individual enters military service throughout their military career, and into the Veteran phase of life.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Tell ya what...when you can provide documentation proving the claim above is the truth and that the $1.4 Billion is a much larger number than was spent on Presidents before him, then we'll believe you.

Til then however, this is just more petty Dixie grousing.
Click to expand...

The article has it's sourcing noted as well as representative comparissons with other administrations. What you are saying is, unless someone goes and hires a CPA to do a complete audit, and they come to your home and sit down at the coffee table and show you the numbers, you're not going to believe them.... and I'll bet you that's a LIE too, you'd still find some way to disbelieve the facts.

It's amazing how you people can condemn Republicans on nothing more than hearsay and innuendo, rumor and speculation, but when there is documented reports on your guy, you simply bow up and refuse to believe it's true!
 
That's pretty funny, huh! We're supposed to believe Obama spent as much on himself and family than he did on every American veteran via the Recovery Act.
Click to expand...

The report isn't lying about the numbers. And correction in your grammar... he spent more on himself than ALL veterans combined!
 
Dixie said:
The article has it's sourcing noted as well as representative comparissons with other administrations. What you are saying is, unless someone goes and hires a CPA to do a complete audit, and they come to your home and sit down at the coffee table and show you the numbers, you're not going to believe them.... and I'll bet you that's a LIE too, you'd still find some way to disbelieve the facts.

It's amazing how you people can condemn Republicans on nothing more than hearsay and innuendo, rumor and speculation, but when there is documented reports on your guy, you simply bow up and refuse to believe it's true!
Click to expand...


What's wrong with that?

That's the criteria you've set when anyone else presents evidence that contradicts what you post.

You've said yourself there isn't anything that anyone can post here that will change your mind.

There was no "representative comparisons" in the article, just more bullshit backed by a heaping helping of OPINION...nothing more.
 
Dixie said:
The report isn't lying about the numbers. And correction in your grammar... he spent more on himself than ALL veterans combined!
Click to expand...


Then by all means show everyone some of the "representative comparisons with other administrations" you said are in the article...
 
Dixie said:
The report isn't lying about the numbers. And correction in your grammar... he spent more on himself than ALL veterans combined!
Click to expand...

You shouldn't depend on this one-world government, survivalist claptrap site for info. "Dog handler", gimme a break. The man has no straight facts, just numerous links to other rabid righty websites.

The Truth: Exposing The Truth About Our World One Story At A Time
 
christiefan915 said:
You shouldn't depend on this one-world government, survivalist claptrap site for info. "Dog handler", gimme a break. The man has no straight facts, just numerous links to other rabid righty websites.

The Truth: Exposing The Truth About Our World One Story At A Time
Click to expand...

Well, the posted article is actually based on a book.

Presidential Perks Gone Royal: Your Taxes Are Being Used For Obama's Re-election by Robert Keith Gray

I'd be careful about making wildly false accusations against Gray, a former Eisenhower staffer, he's been known to sue for defamation.
 
Dixie said:
Wow Christie... from your own posted link, they are asking the same exact question I have asked: So how much is too much?
Click to expand...

And my answer is that when the writer gives full and complete back up for his statements, and everything he says is factual and unprecedented, then I'll say it's too much.
 
christiefan915 said:
And my answer is that when the writer gives full and complete back up for his statements, and everything he says is factual and unprecedented, then I'll say it's too much.
Click to expand...

Well okay, so far we have the writer of the article I posted from DailyCaller, and whe have the writer of the book that the article was about, and we have the writer on the site you posted a link to, who also cites the book and other sources, like Newsmax and the Daily Mail, as well as credible government accounting offices who have to report this stuff as a matter of public record. AND then we have you and Zaptard, refusing to accept facts and details until someone comes to your home and lays out spreadsheets on the coffee table and shows you precisely where every penny was accounted for and spent. Something tells me, even if we went to such ridiculous measures, you'd still find some way to 'refute' the information and refuse to accept the facts, because you've made up your minds already on this.
 
Dixie said:
Well okay, so far we have the writer of the article I posted from DailyCaller, and whe have the writer of the book that the article was about, and we have the writer on the site you posted a link to, who also cites the book and other sources, like Newsmax and the Daily Mail, as well as credible government accounting offices who have to report this stuff as a matter of public record. AND then we have you and Zaptard, refusing to accept facts and details until someone comes to your home and lays out spreadsheets on the coffee table and shows you precisely where every penny was accounted for and spent. Something tells me, even if we went to such ridiculous measures, you'd still find some way to 'refute' the information and refuse to accept the facts, because you've made up your minds already on this.
Click to expand...

Ha ha, you struck gold here. Gray is a conservative writing about a liberal and using conservative sources as his back up. How about some liberal sources in the mix, or better yet, all non-partisan sites? Here are two from the public record, bet Gray didn't quote them in his polemic.

"The president's White House office staff members -- who enjoy compensation beyond what most Americans can begin to dream about for themselves -- work under an Obama-ordered pay freeze designed to show fiscal restraint. The morning after his inauguration, Obama halted raises for senior White House aides earning $100,000 or more. At the time, the president's team said the pay freeze would "enable the White House to stretch its budget to get more done for the country. The president and his staff recognize that in these austere times, everyone must do more with less, and the White House is no exception."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar..._released_141_earn_100000_or_more_110454.html

And:

"The White House payroll of $37.8 million has declined since Obama first entered the Oval Office in 2009, when a staff of 487 employees earned total wages of $39.1 million. But how does this compare to George W. Bush's administration? After adjusting for inflation, Bush's White House staff -- consisting of 431 employees -- collected $35.2 million in total wages in the fourth year of his presidency, 2004. Bush wasn't necessarily more frugal, however, as his staff expanded to 447 employees by 2008 at a cost of $35.4 million to taxpayers (adjusted for inflation)."

 
...and using conservative sources as his back up.
Click to expand...

His sources are the Government Accounting Office and public records from the various departments obligated to report this information.

Yes, Gray is a conservative, he served under President Ike, as a matter of fact... your point there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top