What Happens In Vegas Is Only For The Feds

Barack Obama is in a bit of hot water with Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman after the sainted one leveled his scorn at companies that have received taxpayer bailout money taking their employees to Las Vegas for business meetings. Goodman said it makes no sense for them to cancel and move the meeting to San Francisco based on what Obama said.

I have to agree that it makes no sense to force a company to cancel a meeting because it is a waste of money if they are only moving to another location.

I imagine that Obama was upset that taxpayer money was wasted on a meeting in Las Vegas. He had to make an example of the companies so that people would understand that he would not allow their money to be wasted.

The only problem with that is that about 220 of his employees will be going to Vegas for a meeting in May and the entire trip will be paid for by taxpayers. In these tough times it is inconceivable that taxpayer money would be used so that employees can go to Vegas for a meeting. All this at a time when record amounts of money are being borrowed to waste on a recession and while people are losing their jobs.

The employees in question are those who work for FEMA, the much maligned organization that made a cursory visit to Kentucky during the recent ice storms that killed about 50 and left half a million or so without power in the dead of winter.

Can anyone, even Dr. Joan maybe, explain how it is bad for businesses that have received taxpayer money to go to Vegas for their meetings but not bad for taxpayer money to pay for government employees to go there? Couldn’t FEMA use those modern methods of communication that Obama is all in favor of to have a virtual meeting? VTC, web collaboration, stuff like that.

I bet it would save a bunch of taxpayer money and demonstrate that the Obama government is no better than the private businesses he chooses to scold. It would also show that he wants to be as good a steward with our money as he expects the bailout recipients to be.

Then again, if that were the case he wouldn’t be spending a TRILLION dollars of money we do not have. It is the cost of the plan plus the interest that makes it over a TRILLION dollars. Just wanted to point that out to those who don’t understand a budget, financing, and business.

Source:
Federal Times

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

10 Responses to “What Happens In Vegas Is Only For The Feds”

  1. Barbara says:

    Everyone should swamp Obama with letters and emails. I have already emailed him about issues. Even if he doesn’t directly read them, I’m sure he will hear about them.

  2. Adam says:

    I see your little quip about budget, financing, and business. Guilty as charged.

    I wonder though, what is the cost of the Iraq war is plus interest? I haven’t seen you much concerned with that or concerned with the deficit spending to date that is paying for that war.

    Why is it you’re so opposed to spending a “TRILLION” dollars at home to create jobs, invest in infrastructure and modernization projects, and boost unemployment benefits and food stamps…yet you have no problem spending what some project to cost us a “TRILLION” dollars for the people of Iraq?

    You just keep saying “it won’t create jobs, it won’t stimulate” blah blah. Remind me, what the Iraq war doing again that it’s so important we go into massive debt for?

    You can’t stand the idea of our grand kids footing the bill for this stimulus package yet you have no problems with your grand kids footing the bill for Bush’s stupid war?

  3. Big Dog says:

    I imagine the war will end up costing quite a bit but no where near as much as this stimulus.

    The bill does not create jobs. Government is not in the business of creating jobs. The private sector is what creates jobs. I am opposed to spending that is for pet projects. They can keep saying there are no earmarks but that does not make it so. Pelosi has her project to save mice. Tell me how that stimulates.

    This was not Bush’s stupid war. This is America’s war. The Congress voted for it and gave the authority. At the time, a lot of people supported it. They have as much responsibility in this as does Bush. It would do you well to remember this.

    This bill will be more costly than both Iraq wars, Vietnam, Korea and WW II.

    I do not think Iraq will cost a Trillion but it might. You assume I have no problem with the cost. I don’t like it but we are there, Congress sent us there and we should not leave until we are done. I know this, Iraq was a cost we bore over time. If the stimulus were done over time with each part debated on its merit it might be more accepted by the people. Then an infrastructure bill would be just that. It would not contain STD prevention or condom give aways… This is just a bunch of stuff thrown together and it is so massive that they hope people will not notice. I also believe that we could still reap the benefits of oil profits. Maybe the Iraqis will pay some of the debt in the future. That remains to be seen.

    It is certain that the cost of the “stimulus” will be a burden and we will have no income to pay for it except taxes…

    This is a problem because it contains too much and it is nearly all pork. You and I, as politically different as we are, could sit down and write a better bill.

    Bush’s tax cuts probably generated enough money to at least partially offset Iraq costs but when Congress spends on things it has no business being in…Paying for the military is a Constitutional expense. Mouse preservation is not.

    The financial bailouts and stimulus will cost nearly 3 trillion when it is all added together. We cannot sustain that.

  4. Schatzee says:

    That is one point I don’t think anyone understands or wants to acknowledge – military costs are indeed afforded by the Constitution. Food stamps and the like are not. STD prevention and overseas abortions are not in the Constitution.

    None of this stuff is going to stimulate anything but more liberal spending and entitlements. This is ridiculous and I find it hard to believe that anyone can justify it. The War in Iraq, regardless of how you feel about it, is serving to save lives. That is a cost I can live with, personally. Paying more for people feeding off the government pump, I really cannot.

  5. Adam says:

    Don’t try and pass the buck on Bush’s stupid war. Congress may have voted but the war was Bush’s policy from an early date, forwarded by him and his administration of lunatics and it will cost us trillions.

    “This bill will be more costly than both Iraq wars, Vietnam, Korea and WW II.”

    Not even close to true unless you skip counting the future costs of Iraq and don’t adjust for inflation on the other wars.

    You say that we can’t sustain 3 trillion dollars but we that will be paid off over a long time. What we can’t sustain is double digit unemployment right now and it’s headed that way. We’ve shed over 3 million jobs in the last few months and we haven’t even reached the bottom of the recession yet. You want to tax cut our way to rosy employment?

  6. Adam says:

    Schatzee:

    Yes, tell us more about the evils of food stamps. Don’t stop there. Rail on unemployment benefits too.

    I guess to say the stimulus bill won’t stimulate is to admit tax cuts don’t work either. Both put more money back into the hands of the people and stimulate demand. The real debate is whether tax cuts work better than spending or if the debt created by tax cuts is any better or worse than the debt created by spending. Or maybe we can debate whether the government should intervene at all or simply let 4 and 5 million more jobs be lost until the market corrects…

    • Big Dog says:

      What debt created by tax cuts? Every time taxes are cut the revenue to the Treasury increases. Cut spending and half the battle will be won. Spending is absolutely the way to put us in debt.

      Every time a president cut taxes the revenue to the Treasury went up. People have more money to spend and they do so. Increase taxes or have economic collapse and people get tight with their money.

      You get more of what you subsidize. More welfare means more people on welfare. Adam, if you want to debate the bill fine. Just explain how STD prevention, mouse habitats, and condoms stimulate the economy. Most of the bill has nothing to do with jobs. Most of it will not be spent until next year or the year after and the economy will be recovering or have recovered. Is there a provision NOT to spend the money if the economy rebounds or do they get to keep spending?

  7. Angi says:

    And yet, Obama is apparently okay with Harry Reid upping the Vegas railroad allotment in the “stimulus” to $8 billion…that’s taxpayer money, too…

  8. mgordon says:

    I don’t suppose you have considered the fact that government agencies like FEMA are funded by tax payer dollars because they perform a service for the TAX PAYERS have you?

  9. Big Dog says:

    Certainly they perform a service for the taxpayer (though according to libs not a good one) and they get paid with tax dollars to perform the service. I never stated otherwise. Having worked with FEMA a number of times I am well aware of what they do.

    What I did say is that if we are in such a bad economic time that companies cannot spend taxpayer money in Vegas (but San Fran is OK) then agencies that get paid with tax dollars should not be wasting money in Vegas.