I am concerned why the President takes our money for the use of the poor and He enjoys spending his budget on himself. Why in the world did he have to go to Las Vegas to give a thirty minutes speech and then get back on the plane and fly back to Washington DC? That speech did not contain any information that could not have easily been given from the Oval Office as a press conference. My only conclusion is that he was paying Harry Reid a debt or favor, so that Harry would look good in the eyes of the people. My observation is, that he is acting like an authoritarian leader that can do just waht he wants. That was an expensive thirty minute speech when you consider the cost of the plane, salaries, and additional people and press corp.
Although I have no hard evidence at hand to support it, my feeling is that the amount of money that goes to the poor is small (and basically an accident, as large as it is only because the more money in a program, the more powerful those who control the program become) relative to the money involved in the administration of the "programs for the poor."
Are Obama's travels significantly more numerous or expensive in total than those of his recent predecessors? Somehow, I doubt it. Is Obama traveling to Nevada to make "Harry ... look good in the eyes of the people" spending money on himself or on his political supporters?
Is the White House budget used to defray the costs of bringing the press corps with the President? I would think the news organizations for whom the press staff work would pay for that.
There's a lot about Obama to criticize Obama but I'm thinking that this ain't one of the most important things upon which it is really worth spending much venom!
This guy has a disdain for America, our freedom, and our wealth. Everything that he does seems to be aimed at destroying our Constitution and our country. It's not possible for anyone to be so wrong on everything unless it's intentional. Any normal person in his position would not be able to sleep knowing what the increasing national debt was going to do to us in the near future. He only concerns himself with spending more money and increasing his hold on power. You are right "Oldman", he is acting like an authoritarian.
I wonder why our politicians do not use zero based budgeting ? Corporations do. Our Country seems to start with last years budget spending and add 7%. Then they cry like babies when asked to "cut" 2.5 ? % of the 7 % they just added. Great work if you can get it. Let them start at zero and justify every amount, including the junkets>
I wonder why our politicians do not use zero based budgeting ? Corporations do.
<snip>
Simple, Kent -- corporations have owners (for public corporations, they're called stockholders) who hold the executives and managers accountable for the value of their share of the ownership. The nearest thing politicians have to corporations' owners are voters, and we the voters generally do not do a very good job at holding our politicians accountable. To be fair, one reason for that may be that if we replaced one lying politician with another politician, even one who speaks the right language (Republican) there's a good chance that things won't change all that much.
when asked to "cut" 2.5 ? % of the 7 % they just added. Great work if you can get it. Let them start at zero and justify every amount, including the junkets>