Obama’s Busy Last Day of Vacation
EmailFrom ABC News’ Jon Garcia:
As his emissary, Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan, hit the Sunday morning talk shows to discuss White House anti-terror efforts, Obama, still on island time, had his usual workout the nearby Marine Base and then went for a 6+ hour round of golf at the course on the base.
His afternoon included a family visit to Punchbowl, the Department of Veterans Affairs-run National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific. Obama’s maternal grandfather is entombed there. And then a swing by the Honolulu Zoo, where Obama made his first appearance of the day. There the First Family–First Lady Michelle and daughters Malia and Sasha–viewed, among other exhibits, the white-handed gibbon exhibit, ring-tailed lemur exhibit and the Francois monkey.
With the sounds of screaming animals in the background, the family walked by members of the press and President Obama called out, “Are you ready to go back?” referring to Washington DC.
Reporters responded with a question of their own: “Are YOU ready to go back?”
Obama and his wife called out with a resounding “No!”
The First Lady went so far as to try to rally the traveling staff and press to remain in Hawaii a bit longer.
“Let’s stay!” she said “Are we all in? I’m trying to mount a coup here!”
The Obamas left Hawaii late Sunday night, back to freezing or sub-freezing temperatures in the nations’ capital.
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Interesting how the Right never ceases to bash the president for taking a “vacation” yet Obama still has yet to actually get a low-key one. Crises happen and he keeps working, so I’m not sure where the GOP gets the idea that this is “time off.”
Posted by: matt | January 4, 2010, 7:41 am 7:41 am
I do not blame the first lady for wanting to stay in Hawaii. It is cold here on the East coast and I would prefer to be snorkeling right now.
Posted by: Denbo | January 4, 2010, 7:56 am 7:56 am
I am quite sure Michelle Obama longs for nothing less than a coup.
Posted by: Citizen | January 4, 2010, 7:59 am 7:59 am
“I’m not sure where the (the American people) get the idea that this is ‘time off.’”
Maybe this part:
“(Obama) went for a 6+ hour round of golf at the course on the base.
Or, this part:
“Reporters responded with a question of their own: ‘Are YOU ready to go back?’
Obama and his wife called out with a resounding ‘No!’”
Posted by: The Audacity of Golf | January 4, 2010, 8:49 am 8:49 am
Michelle, a coup?
Sounds good to me. You at least, seem to be a decent person, unlike your husband who betrayed those who voted for him.
The perfect occasionally may be the enemy of the good. The really bad always is.
Posted by: Miri | January 4, 2010, 9:17 am 9:17 am
I’m not sure where the GOP gets the idea that this is “time off.”
Posted by: matt
maybe because Bush ended up with around 2.5 years of vac time out of 8
When President Bush spent his 879th day at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, .. Bush broke former President Reagan’s record for taking vacations from the White House…..
It’s interesting to recall, all these years later, that George W. Bush did not decide to buy the ranch near Crawford until after he decided to run for president.
Apparently, after Ronald Reagan’s example, it seemed presidential to cut brush on a ranch, and Bush was seeking a brush with history.
Or something.
Posted by: Yowsa | January 4, 2010, 9:55 am 9:55 am
===so I’m not sure where the GOP gets the idea that this is “time off.” ===
From the same store selling Bush took x number of days vacation.
Posted by: Axey | January 4, 2010, 11:13 am 11:13 am
DO US ALL A FAVOR AND STAY IN HAWAII FOR GOOD!
Posted by: Kelley | January 4, 2010, 11:31 am 11:31 am
From the same store selling Bush took x number of days vacation.
Posted by: Axey
but then again you wouldn’t bother to check to see if it’s accurate…. remember..
denial.. ain’t a river
Posted by: XX | January 4, 2010, 12:33 pm 12:33 pm
The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration and
only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.
OMG… Bush’s record is worse the Carter’s,
look out for falling republicans from rooftops
Posted by: Oh Yeah | January 4, 2010, 12:35 pm 12:35 pm
Poor Malia. She looks embarrassed walking in front of the cameras. I hope she’s ok with all of this. Being her age is so hard even out of the public light.
Posted by: MayBee | January 4, 2010, 1:46 pm 1:46 pm
As long as he’s on vacation, he’s not doing significant harm by pushing insane Leftist policies. Let him spend the next 3 years in Hawaii. It will be better for us all.
Posted by: sara@st.pete | January 4, 2010, 3:31 pm 3:31 pm
As long as he’s on vacation, he’s not doing significant harm by pushing insane Leftist policies.
________________________________
Wait a second, has Obama sold out to Wall Street, or is he a communist? Has he sold out to Big Pharma or is he redistributing wealth to the poor?
You’re going to have to make up your minds.
Is he in the pocket of big banks or what?
Posted by: tierra | January 4, 2010, 4:21 pm 4:21 pm
tierra:Wait a second, has Obama sold out to Wall Street, or is he a communist? Has he sold out to Big Pharma or is he redistributing wealth to the poor?
You’re going to have to make up your minds.
Is he in the pocket of big banks or what?
========
When one person says something, you are not impeaching their statement by telling them someone else disagrees with them.
Having said that- and this is not about Obama- surely you’ve noticed that in the history of communist states, the well-connected get the money funneled to them by the politicians.
It is the people who are working and getting their wealth redistributed who do not become wealthy. They get the basics, and a limited share of them.
So this isn’t the dichotomy you seem to think it is.
Posted by: MayBee | January 4, 2010, 4:40 pm 4:40 pm
“OMG… Bush’s record is worse the Carter’s,
look out for falling republicans from rooftops”
Just a reminder: The Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress for the last 6 years of the Clinton Administration. And it was the Republican-controlled Congress that passed the surplus budgets.
Some additional facts:
When the Republicans took control of both Houses of Congress in January 1995 the unemployment rate was 5.6%. When President Clinton left office in January 2001–with Republicans having the majority in both Houses of Congress–the unemployment rate was 4.2%.
When the Republicans relinquished control of both Houses of Congress in January 2007 the unemployment rate was 4.6%. When President Bush left office in January 2009–with the Democrats having the majority in both Houses of Congress–the unemployment rate was 7.6%.
Those are the FACTS! Wake up America! VOTE REPUBLICAN IN 2010!
Posted by: James Danley | January 4, 2010, 5:54 pm 5:54 pm
James Danley | Jan 4, 2010 5:54:54 PM posted: Those are the FACTS! Wake up America! VOTE REPUBLICAN IN 2010!
Sorry James, I still don’t understand how you believe the Bush era created jobs – the worst numbers on record.
The “Lost Decade”: a combo of declining incomes, stagnating wages, weak job creation, and rising prices with an increase of more than 8 million Americans living below the poverty line in 2008. Are you claiming the mess our country finds itself in has NOTHING to do with those Republican Supply Side economic policies?
Posted by: CenterOne | January 4, 2010, 7:06 pm 7:06 pm
President Bush inherited the dot.com recession of 2000-01. The Bush tax cuts of 2001 were beginning to take effect when the attacks of 9/11/2001 occurred. THAT was a major hit to our economy, especially since all airlines were grounded for a time. The Bush 2001 & 2003 tax cuts turned the economy around. Between Sept 2003 and Dec 2007 FIVE MILLION jobs were created–in spite of the 2006 housing market downturn and skyrocketing energy prices.
I contend that it was the wealth redistribution rhetoric during the 2008 campaign that caused the wealthy to change their spending habits. THAT started the decline in jobs. When Sen. Clinton bowed out of the race in May 2008, making it clear that then Sen. Obama was going to win the Democratic nomination, with his continued rhetoric about taxing those making at least $250,000 to pay for healthcare, the wealthy began preparing for the tax hikes (pulling their money out of the stock markets and drastically cutting back on their spending). THAT resulted in even greater job losses. This decline in the job market exposed the flexible sub-prime mortgage problem and the economy snowballed downhill from there.
So to answer your question directly…YES supplyside economics worked. Cutting taxes raised revenues and created jobs. And the rhetoric of raising taxes caused a change in spending and a decline in the economy. Just imagine what will happen when the Obama-Democratic tax hikes (and there are plenty of them–even for the middle class) are actually implemented!
Posted by: James Danley | January 4, 2010, 7:48 pm 7:48 pm
I’m having trouble with your theory. The differences between the last two presidencies were dramatic – under Clinton there were tax increases, but also increased benefits, increased revenues + budget surpluses. Under Bush – even after 9/11 – it should have been Supply Side heaven. There were tax cuts, but also benefit cuts, decreased revenues, budget deficits and major increases in the National Debt.
From a macroeconomic perspective, changes in tax rates for the wealthy are just ONE of many factors that drive our nation’s GDP, savings, investment, and employment.
Posted by: CenterOne | January 4, 2010, 8:28 pm 8:28 pm
Contrary to the Left’s mantra, the 2001 & 2003 tax cuts were across-the-board tax cuts. In addition, the total federal income tax share for the top 1% and top 5% increased.
In 2000, the top 1% of the nation’s wage earners accounted for 21% of the total income; and accounted for 37% of the total federal income taxes paid.
In 2005, the top 1% of the nation’s wage earners accounted for 21% of the total income; and accounted for 39% of the total federal income taxes paid. That’s a 2 percentage point increase in their share of the federal income taxes paid.
In 2006, the top 1% were 22.83% and 40.42%, respectively. That’s a 1.83 percentage point increase in their share of total income over 2005; and a 1.42 percentage point increase in their share of federal income taxes paid over 2005.
In 2000, the top 5% of the nation’s wage earners accounted for 35% of the total income; and accounted for 56% of the total federal income taxes paid.
In 2005, the top 5% of the nation’s wage earners accounted for 36% of the total income; and accounted for 60% of the total federal income taxes paid. That’s a 1 percentage point increase in their share of the total income; and a 4 percentage point increase in their share of the federal income taxes paid.
In 2006, the top 5% were 37.44% and 60.63%, respectively. That’s a 1.44 percentage point increase in their share of the total income; and a 0.63 percentage point increase in their share of the federal income taxes paid.
Posted by: James Danley | January 4, 2010, 9:02 pm 9:02 pm
Posted by: James Danley | Jan 4, 2010 9:02:47 PM
The per centage the top 1% and the top 5% paid of their income actually WENT DOWN.
The got to keep MORE of their income.
Posted by: tierra | January 4, 2010, 11:17 pm 11:17 pm
Posted by: James Danley | Jan 4, 2010 9:02:47 PM
p.s. – Bush’s tax cuts ended up being a terrible mistake for the country. By the end of the Bush administration there had been vast overspending and correspondingly insufficient tax collected – resulting in the doubling of the national debt – much of that owed to China.
Posted by: tierra | January 4, 2010, 11:20 pm 11:20 pm
Tierra, yes the Republicans abandoned their principles and allowed the federal government to grow with massive spending. However, the tax cuts were not the reason for the economic collapse of 2008. The 2001 & 2003 tax cuts spurred economic growth in spite of the massive growth in the federal government, in spite of the 2006 downturn in the housing market and the skyrocketing energy prices. Check out the numbers between January 2003 and December 2007. Not just the unemployment figures, but the revenue receipts. In 2006 there were record revenues and even a couple of quarters where revenues exceeded spending.
It is wrong to categorize tax cuts as federal government spending. Instead it is allowing the people to keep more of their own money. Consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of the U. S. economy. When the people have more money, they spend it. Thus the economy grows. Thus jobs are created. Thus more people are paying federal income tax. Thus federal revenues increase.
Now as for the top 1% and top 5%, yes they got to keep more of their money. But they invested it and made even more money, so they paid more in taxes. That is until they changed their spending habits in 2008, thanks to the wealth redistribution rhetoric and the talk of letting the 2001 & 2003 tax cuts expire for those making at least $250,000.
Posted by: James Danley | January 5, 2010, 1:24 am 1:24 am
Posted by: James Danley | Jan 5, 2010 1:24:20 AM
James the stock market started its fall in 2007. You’ll also note it has risen substantially since President Obama took office.
And Bush’s tax cuts had almost exactly the same effect as the Reagan’s tax did – hugely increased the national debt.
Carter, WITH A DEMOCRATIC HOUSE, kept the increase in the national debt below $85 Billion and as low as $56 billion.
Under Reagan, that yearly increase in the national debt ballooned to $283 Billion in one year – in other words, over 300%.
Posted by: tierra | January 5, 2010, 1:54 am 1:54 am
The Dow Jones Industrial Average was on an fairly steady upward trend from Jan 3, 2005 (closed at 10,603.96) through Oct 8, 2007 (closed at 14,093.08). On Dec 31, 2007 it closed at 13,264.82–campaigning in Iowa had already begun in earnest by October 2007. The Iowa caucuses took place on Jan 3, 2008.
Posted by: James Danley | January 5, 2010, 2:38 am 2:38 am
Posted by: James Danley | Jan 5, 2010 2:38:51 AM
James the stock market is up 25% since Obama took office – not down. It fell under Bush, not Obama.
Posted by: tierra | January 5, 2010, 2:49 am 2:49 am
I like the new present Obama .
Posted by: Christy | January 5, 2010, 7:20 am 7:20 am
Tierra, SINCE WHEN is going from the post-9/11/2001 low of 7,702 on July 23, 2002 to the all-time high of 14,164 on October 9, 2007 (one day later than the date I showed in my previous comment) GOING DOWN? That is an 83.9% INCREASE in the Dow Jones Industrial Average–IN SPITE of the War on Terror; IN SPITE of the downturn in the housing market; IN SPITE of the skyrocketing energy prices.
Then the Dow Jones steadily fell, bottoming out at 7,062 on February 27, 2009. Yes! That fall occurred on President Bush’s watch. But the Democratics and Candidate Barack Obama were telling the electorate that they were going to “spread the wealth,” “tax the wealthy,” and “let the Bush tax cuts expire for those making at least $250,000″ during the 2008 campaign. And the wealthy responded by preparing for the federal tax hikes! WHICH BY THE WAY, have yet to be implemented. Hold on to your hats when the taxes are finally raised (if ALL proposed tax increases–federal, state & local taxes–are implemented some of those making over $1 million could see a 40-50% increase in their taxes).
Posted by: James Danley | January 5, 2010, 10:09 am 10:09 am
Posted by: James Danley | Jan 5, 2010 1:24:20 AM
I find you overstate the positive economic effects of tax cuts and ignore how the Bush era regressive tax cuts placed a greater burden on the middle-class and the poor than on the wealthy.
Our country just lived through 8 years of Supply Side economics, a time when tax cuts allowed massive transfers of wealth into the hands of a privileged few. And, during that same time, income among working-age households FELL. Census data show that among households headed by someone under age 65, median income in 2006, adjusted for inflation, was $1,300 BELOW the 2001 recession level.
The CBO says the single largest contributor to budget deficits during the Bush years was tax cuts. For example, legislation since 2001 added about $3 Trillion to US deficits, with about HALF due to tax cuts. (One third was for security spending, and roughly one sixth was more domestic spending.)
So this massive movement of wealth, according to your theory, should have resulted in a massive number of new jobs… “IN SPITE of the War on Terror; IN SPITE of the downturn in the housing market; IN SPITE of the skyrocketing energy prices.” In fact, it was the worse job creation record ever.
It is a myth that tax cuts somehow “pay for themselves” or that they “create jobs”. For example, after reviewing studies of how investors responded to capital gains tax cuts, the CBO also found: “taxpayers’ response to changes in the capital gains rate do NOT suggest an increase large enough to offset the losses from a lower rate.”
Regardless of your “supply side economics worked” theory, the majority of Americans were already experiencing supply side failure by the end of the GW Bush era. We found ourselves with less income, outsourced jobs, and heavily in debt. So if in fact the tiny percentage of wealthy Americans have so much power over Wall Street and our economy as you suppose, it truly IS time to “re-distribute” wealth.
Posted by: CenterOne | January 5, 2010, 4:39 pm 4:39 pm
CenterOne, with all due respect, 5 million jobs were created in a 52-month period (Sept 2003-Dec 2007). And the tax cuts DID NOT shift the tax burden to the middle class and the poor. The top 5% actually saw their tax share go up (more in a moment). Tax cuts are not government spending–regardless of what the CBO and Democrats say. Tax cuts are letting the people keep more of THEIR OWN MONEY–NOT GOVERNMENT MONEY BACK–for them to spend as they see fit. Tax credits, on the other hand, ARE spending.
Everyone who paid taxes in 2000 received a tax cut in 2001 & 2003. All of the tax brackets were lowered. And more of the bottom 50% actually paid NO TAXES at all.
In 2000, the tax share (the percentage of the total federal income tax revenue) for the top 5% was 56%. Their tax share increased to 60% in 2005 and 60.63% in 2006. I don’t have the tax share for the bottom 50% in 2000. But in 2005 the bottom 50% had a tax share of 3%. In 2006 the bottom 50% (those making less than $32,879) had a tax share of 2.89%. So their tax share decreased from 2005 to 2006.
Now as for the financial collapse of 2008. That had NOTHING to do with the 2001 & 2003 tax cuts. It was years of the financial institutions being forced (by government in the form of extortion–threatening fines if they didn’t comply; and by organizations, like ACORN, also using extortion–threatening lawsuits to comply or filing lawsuits only to eventually settle) to lower their lending standards in order to giving high risk loans to individuals who could not afford them. It was greed on the part of some individuals and lending companies who after pushing the flexible subprime mortgage rates on individuals, and after the values of the homes plummeted, jacked up the mortgage rates (in some cases doubling or tripling the mortgage payments) forcing massive foreclosures.
But what got the “snowball” rolling was the wealthy changing their spending habits. This resulted in job losses. In anticipation of higher taxes (due to the campaign rhetoric of the Democrats and specifically Barack Obama) they began selling off their stocks. As the election draw nearer and as the prospects of Obama (who championed wealth redistribution and having the wealthy pay for his programs) winning the election grew, the spending by the wealthy decreased exponentially causing massive job losses.
Posted by: James Danley | January 5, 2010, 8:31 pm 8:31 pm
James, I’m curious to discover where you find your data. Are you implying the CBO is making up the history of Bush era tax cuts? CBO data shows that the wealthiest 20% (incomes ~$182,700 in 2001) found their share of federal taxes dropped from 64.4% of total tax payments to 63.5%. And, during that same year, it was the Middle Class that did not “keep more” of their money. Households earning ~ $75K saw their tax burden jump from 18.7% to 19.5%.
The wealthy were making a massive 49.7% of the total wages by 2007! The top earners in America pulled in more total wages than any other year since 1917 – even surpassing 1928, the peak of Great Depression stock market bubble (according to a recent study by UC Professor Emmanuel Saez.) So why didn’t this massive shift of wealth create more than a paltry 5 Million jobs over the past 8 years?
Because the supply side theory that the rich create jobs does not hold water. During the Clinton administration, an era with higher taxes on those higher incomes, 23 Million new jobs were created.
You and I do agree about some probable causes of this mess – such as a country that did not fully understand the risk in unregulated banking schemes. But sub-prime mortgage deaults cannot account for the severity this current recession. Junk mortgages may have fueled a fire that spread through the entire financial system, but IMO, the origin of this recession can be traced back to America’s massively indebted US economy – with $1.5 Trillion as the direct result of Bush era tax cuts. Plus, easily available credit, inadequate regulation and oversight, AND increasing income inequality.
That’s not to say I think all tax cuts are “bad” – they simply need to be equitable and reasonable. For example, what would have happened if we had been told that 2 pre-emptive wars required an upfront $multi-TRILLION tax increase while a tiny percentage of the population received selective tax benefits? Today one of the equitable tax cuts proposed by President Obama is to eliminate capital gains tax on ALL start-up companies to encourage more venture capital investment in new businesses. Our nation must find innovative ways out of debt by creating new tax payers; returning to Bush era tax cuts will simply NOT build enough healthy family wage jobs.
Posted by: CenterOne | January 6, 2010, 5:23 pm 5:23 pm
The 2000 and 2005 information comes from The Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal dated Dec. 17, 2007 citing data from the Treasury Department (Oct. 2007). What I had cited as 2006 information, turns out it was actually for 2007 (the last time I used this chart they had the 2006 data showing and I failed to notice the update to 2007). This was from the Tax Foundation dated Jul 30, 2009 with charts using data directly from the Internal Revenue Service.
According to this 2007 information, the top 10% of the nation’s wage earners (the 14,107,097 returns reporting above $113,018 in Adjusted Gross Income) accounted for 48.05% of the total AGI; and paid 71.22% of the total federal income tax. The bottom 50% of the nation’s wage earners (the 70,535,485 returns reporting less than $32,879 in AGI) accounted for 12.26% of the total AGI and paid 2.89% of the total federal income tax.
Now as for the CBO, over 10 years ago they were assigned a task of determining how much revenue would be generated over 5-10 years if the top federal income tax brack was 100%. They came back with trillions of dollars of revenue for the 5-10 years. YET, common sense tells us that, in reality, there would be a spike in revenue for the first year ONLY. AFTER that 99% of the wealthy would impose a voluntary cap on their income to not exceed that top tax bracket. So not only would the federal government not receive that massive amount of revenue, but they would also LOSE the 39.6% (the top tax rate at the time) of the revenue above that threshold since the wealthy would no longer be making anything above that threshold. So I consider anything coming from the CBO as suspect.
Posted by: James Danley | January 9, 2010, 5:14 pm 5:14 pm