- This topic has 5 voices and 10 replies.
-
Posts
-
I am critical of Obama in many regards, but I think this whole firestorm over his “anti-Vegas” remarks is really over something quite petty.Obama responds to ire over 2nd anti-Vegas remarkHere's the "inflammatory" part of what he said:
"When times are tough, you tighten your belts," Obama said, according to a White House transcript of his appearance Tuesday at a high school in North Nashua, N.H."You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage," Obama said. "You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices."
I think that both Republicans and Democrats who are upset over his words need to settle down. I don't think that putting someone's off-the-cuff remarks under a microscope is always a great thing to do. What is interesting is that Harry Reid is one of the people criticizing the president for this, only weeks after the president brushed off Harry Reid's "Negro dialect" comment.
Although not a member of either organized political party, I tend to lean much more to the conservative side. That being said… I didn't see these as “anti-Vegas” comments as much as “anti-irresponsibility” commetns. And nothing upsets Congress more than words, actions, and campaigns against irresponsibility!The President is telling people to be responsible with their money decisions and choices - and I think Congress is insulted and threatened. Congress (either party for that matter) being held responsible for how they handle money! No wonder they're upset. ;D
Hannity was all over this today and I had to turn it off because he was annoying. Obama was correct on this. In tough times, just don't spend foolishly. Nothing wrong with that. Now if only the federal government would listen. :-
I think the politicians from Nevada weren't mad because they disagreed with the premise, but that they didn't like that he insinuated that going to Las Vegas to gamble is something wasteful or negative. I didn't hear what Hannity said, but I don't think he should be jumping on Obama for this. Even if there was some impropriety in Obama saying this (which is questionable in the first place), the effect is so small that it's pointless to make this into an issue. I remember when W was in office that people jumped on him because he was exercising "too much". Those petty kinds of attacks are kind of ludicrous, and so I don't like them when they are aimed at politicians on the right or the left.
The point Obama is trying to make here is sort of a corollary to Ricardo's Iron Law of Wages; besides workers never earning more than just above survival mode due to increasing population that will keep said wages low, consider this. Many workers, knowing the won't amass much in the way of savings after feeding, clothing, and housing needs are met will often seek immediate gratification by purchases or life style choices that have short term returns Rather than adjusting goals for the long term. Example follows…A friend of mine bought a nice and very slightly used ski boat many years ago. He worked and also had a couple of side jobs which allowed his wife to stay home and raise the little one. While not a tea-totaler he didn't smoke and they had a relatively calm home life will paying off their home. He paid case to the tune of several thousand dollars for the boat and they enjoyed it hugely. Should have been the happy ending, right? Read on...Not too long after he was over at one of his rentals (which I managed for rent) and looked rather down in the mouth. The problem? A long time friend had taken him to task over the boat; the friend was pi$$ed of that he and his wife couldn't buy such a fine boat and berated my friend because he couldn't understand how he (the friend) and his wife couldn't afford something similar... after all the both worked at well paid jobs, lived in a house that one of their parents owned (little or no rent, eh?), and had no kids to worry about. My friend was bummed out and a bit put out as well. The rest of the story...The next time I saw my friend he was much happier; he had explained to his buddy just why they couldn't buy the boat and he could. They both smoked... an expensive name brand, something on the order of 2 packs a day for her and 2 1/2 to 3 for him. The (king of) beer was consumed at the rate of 1 to 1 1/2 cases per night and perhaps double that on weekends. The lady dressed very well and had hair and nails done often... fast food or dinners out regularly. Reno trips several times per year with all the trimmings. New cars and pick-ups regularly. After figuring the cost of the asmokes and adding in just 1/2 the beer my friend showed them in just over a year they would have banked enough to buy a similar boat... brand new.Basically stated the worker will never have much more than is needed for survival if the waste what they do have that is above that level. Comes down to choices... all Obama is asking thatwe think about that.Reno and Las Vegas are fine in moderation... if everyone won though, the towns would dry up and blow away. Far too many folks have no moderation impluse. 😉This is one of very few things I think Obama has right... but he's really right on this. I also agree that the Congress needs to get a moderation impulse transpant. 😮
So let me get this straight….they smoked a total of about 4 packs of cigarettes a day (x $3 each = $12) and drank roughly a case of beer a day ($7)…roughly $20/day = $600 being plenty for a monthly boat payment. Man, that is a lot of smokes and beer…..I can imagine that some people do it, but I just don't know how. I am glad I never got interested in smoking cigarettes as I have seen many a people become slaves to them, and obviously they're quite costly.
Obama was correct on this. In tough times, just don't spend foolishly. Nothing wrong with that. Now if only the federal government would listen. :-
I hate to agree with Obama but he is right that people should not spend what they can't afford, that is what got us into this mess in the first place. Sadly Obama needs to look in the mirror and he will see someone that is doing what he says we should not, only he is doing it with taxpayer dollars and not his own. Political hypocrisy sits in both sides of the ideological divide. Ski hits the nail on the head here. Iressponsible spending is bad for everyone but even worse when the government is doing it in an effort to buy the vote of the people. Bread and circuses indeed. >:( Obama is a typical do as I say, not as I do post-modern liberal in the Al Gore model.
So let me get this straight....they smoked a total of about 4 packs of cigarettes a day (x $3 each = $12) and drank roughly a case of beer a day ($7)...roughly $20/day = $600 being plenty for a monthly boat payment. Man, that is a lot of smokes and beer.....I can imagine that some people do it, but I just don't know how. I am glad I never got interested in smoking cigarettes as I have seen many a people become slaves to them, and obviously they're quite costly.
Smokes are more like $4.50 a pack or even more depending on which state you live in. My wife and I just quit smoking last year although for her health reasons rather than economics. I do see some great savings out of it though, the money we used to spend is fenced off and invested, now is a great time to be buying into the market anyway.
... that is a lot of smokes and beer.....I can imagine that some people do it, but I just don't know how. ....
I assure you, having witnessed it that these folks found many ways to poop away their $. If one doesn't watch it just evaporates; this couple was just an over-the-top example.
....Bread and circuses indeed. >:( Obama is a typical do as I say, not as I do post-modern liberal in the Al Gore model.
Yup. Keep us thinking about what they want us to think: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...."
Man, that is a lot of smokes and beer…..I can imagine that some people do it, but I just don't know how.
That is the difference between a responsible and irresponsible person. I can understand it, I had to put myself in a position where I faced bankruptcy in my early twenties before I learned the lesson. My personal irresponsibility and that of my ex-wife almost put me under, luckily I wised up and payed off my debts without making more but it was a hard several years there. It really sucked sending 2/3 of my check to pay for stuff I mostly did not have anymore. That is the lesson those in Congress need to learn, America needs to make hard choices if we don't want to end up like Argentina a few years ago or even worse Japan in the 90's.
Imagine how the uproar might have been different if the President had substituted “Atlantic City” for “Las Vegas”!
