|
Mercnbeth -> Is Obama really as smart as he's reputed to be? (2/3/2010 10:23:29 AM)
|
"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." ~ President Obama
I just returned from four days in Vegas. I stayed in the best room a non-gambler could get at the Encore. It was going for 1/3 of what it was at the exact same time last year. The shows were 1/2 full. At 11pm on a Saturday night you can make it from the Encore to the Mandolin Bay in 15 minutes; it would have been 10 if the Miss America pageant 'crowd' wasn't letting out. The shops were empty. Two hotel towers of the Sahara are closed. You can buy a condo at the massive, and beautiful, 'New City' complex for 10% of its original market price. You'd still be foolish to so so, because after 1 year your CAM will be proportionate to the property owners and 100 owners in building model designed for 1500 means that you may get a $2 Million condo for $200k but be prepared to pay $100k/month in CAM.
Vegas is capitalism. It's dying. Vegas has gone from being the #1 destination for construction workers to having one of the highest city unemployment rates in the country. The President decided in a speech given in NH to use it as an example of where not to go.
Forget for a moment that the entire speech was yet another example of the President believing that he and his government know better what to do, and where to spend the money you earn than you do. The US boat industry is already just about gone, but be assured they too got another bullet shot at them by the reference.
President Obama is the de facto CEO of the umbrella corporation known as the USA. As any CEO, when he speaks regardless of the audience or the market he's addressing, he must appreciate the impact of his words on the entire corporate entity.
Why do these faux pas seem to always occur at town hall meetings? Is it possible that it's a function of the President being off TelePrompter? Is he really as smart as those who voted for him thought he was?
It was only one year ago that the Vegas collapse started as a result of this comment:"You can't go take that trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on taxpayers' dime,"In another life, I organized conventions for my employer, the now defunct Security Pacific Bank. We ran a convention every year in Vegas as at cost of about $500k for 1500 employees of all ranks. My guess is they spent a minimum of $200-300 each in Vegas. All that money came from private sectors and went to private sectors. It paid hotels and their employees, as well as for all the other service personnel such as taxis, waiters, bellmen, strippers, and club bouncers. They ALL paid taxes adding to the local, State, and Federal revenue stream. With the CEO telling you not to go, no 'President' of a corporate entity would ever put him or herself in the cross-hairs of potential public scrutiny and ridicule. They won't be going to Vegas. Vegas will continue to die. Is the President incapable of appreciating that situation?
Frankly Vegas, and all the other convention spots are a great place to go on the taxpayers' dime. The money spent goes into the pockets of local private individuals, companies, and ultimately comes back in again as taxable earnings. Encouraging a successful entity, corporate or individual, to go to Vegas is a path to increasing tax revenue. The major problem with the economy is that most successful entities are afraid to spend and/or invest. The reason is there is no confidence that this administration knows what they are doing or has projected out the consequences of their actions, and rhetoric to date.
As it's the second occurrence of this reference; either the President has no understanding of how the private sector works, or is insensitive to it believing in confidence that he and his administration know better how each individual and corporation should spend their money. Either choice results in zero growth, business closings, contraction in the market, and increased unemployment.
There is only one growth sector in the economy - public employees. Every one added increases the problem. It requires more taxation to pay the bill, accelerating the deterioration of the economy.
The era of big government has returned with a vengeance, in the form of the largest federal work force in modern history.
The Obama administration says the government will grow to 2.15 million employees this year, topping 2 million for the first time since President Clinton declared that "the era of big government is over" and joined forces with a Republican-led Congress in the 1990s to pare back the federal work force.
Most of the increases are on the civilian side, which will grow by 153,000 workers, to 1.43 million people, in fiscal 2010.
The cost of these burocrates does two things. It adds to the cost of government and need for increased tax revenue; it perpetrates the exact problem that the bureaucracy was set up to solve. In this economy, the combination of those situations also adds to those needing the services. Unless you are a Federal, State, or Local public employee your job is in jeopardy.
To those who advocated against the bail out of corporate entities, do you support the bail out of public entities? They are only operating now because, unlike the private sector failures, the public sector can always count on more taxes, more printing of money. You didn't want your money going to corporate entities and there was a lot of fuss made about the perks, bonuses, and abuses of corporate executives. Do you believe the 'good intent' propaganda rhetoric? Is it because, unlike the corporations, when scrutiny is places on the public employee 'executives' they trot out the posters of 'starving children', homeless war veterans, and struggling one parent families? Whenever there is talk of cuts, the focus is never on the government duplicity, mismanagement, or failed attempts of social engineering. Instead it's always the firemen and police put on the front lines.
Bottom line is - even in this economy those bureaucratic 'executives' may not be going to Vegas - but they are still going...
Although the climate summit in Copenhagen took place in December, it has recently emerged that the large congressional delegation headed by Nancy Pelosi charged taxpayers some $1 million for the trip.
Newly filed congressional expense reports indicated that more than 150 people-including legislators, staff and even some family members-made the trip at a cost of $2,200 a day, CBS News reported.
Further CBS investigation found that 59 House and Senate staff flew commercial to the Danish capital, costing taxpayers $408,064, while the rest used three military jets, which cost $168,351 for the flight time
Leading by example doesn't seem to be a function of this Administration.
"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." ~ President Obama
No - but obviously there's no problem when elected officials, their entourage, and burocrates travel to Copenhagen on the backs of the taxpayers and with revenue going, not to a struggling US city and its citizens, but out of the USA; to pay tribute to a fraudulent, religious hypothesis.
Is the President incapable of appreciating the power of his words or the image conveyed by him, his Administration, and the leaders of failing corporate entity trading as the USA?
|
|
|
|
