I'm sure many have heard of Mrs. Obama's vacation to Spain and I thought it would be an interesting topic to discuss in the current world situation.

 

Article: Mrs. Obama's Vacation

 

With the US having almost a 10% employment rate is it really right for Mrs. Obama to be taking a private vacation in a foreign country at a lavish instead of at least traveling locally and boosting local economy? It is right for her to be using hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars for her own pleasure? Quite frankly this is where I see a republic no better than an absolute monarchy because she is not even an elected official and yet she is harvesting obviously lavish benefits from the backs of the laborers. Should she have shown a little bit of restraint or is this acceptable?

 

Discuss.

Course it's not acceptable but what are we going to do.

Even politicians should be able to go on holiday. Altho she's more of a "face".

Anyways, instead of supporting the rotten economy of USA she supports the rotten economy of Spain. I agree tho, that spending the holiday in the U.S should be enough and would also provide better pr.

She's paying for everything herself, except security which she'd have no matter where she goes, and the airfare. Seriously, it's not a big deal at all.

I couldn't care less what they do. My voice in a democracy where only 1% of the population hold any real sway or power is nonexistent. Getting worked up over something so insignificant is not worth the added stress and wasted time. I've got bills to pay.

Who gives a crap?

 

If she wants to go on holiday so Spain, let her. It's not like she's burning through Government money to do it. You wouldn't tell your friend not to go on holiday to Spain because they should stay in the country and boost the economy.

How is it not acceptable? Just because she's the President's wife, she's not allowed to go on lavish vacations? I have several very rich friends who go on excessive vacations to Europe, Australia, etc constantly, nobody complains about them.

I myself go to Europe frequently, stay at the best and have no objections. But that's because I'm using my parents money who are voluntarily paying not my fellow countryman's. And I wouldn't tell my friend to stay in America instead of going to a foreign country because they'd be using their own money so I'd have no right to tell them so. Plus the President receives a wage and generally is a man of wealth, so I think he should pay all expenses for his wife. Do you get national financial assistance with your vacation costs?

 

And its the type of attitude that 'its only a few hundred thousand dollars and not much so it doesn't make a difference' that causes a country to have debt. Every drop counts and in a country that emphasizes its equality of all people and lack of a monarch I find it funny someone who isn't an elected official can consume so many funds for their own enjoyment.

Mrs. Obama visiting an American destination wouldn't help increase job opportunities and it is a private trip so she isn't going somewhere to speak. I think this comes down to, are we ok with the cost of protecting the first lady? I think most of us would agree that it is.

She's paying for everything herself, except security which she'd have no matter where she goes, and the airfare. Seriously, it's not a big deal at all.

I don't know the intricacies of the situation, but this seems perfectly acceptable to me.

 

Under no situation ever, should any public official use tax dollars for personal vacations. Mrs. Obama is no exception - so if she's really paid for this herself I wish her a happy holiday :P

And its the type of attitude that 'its only a few hundred thousand dollars and not much so it doesn't make a difference' that causes a country to have debt.

 

I'm fairly confident that the President is wealthy enough without dipping into tax funds to cover ten vacations such as this at once. In the season, even! I think your argument, while logically sound, is kind of coming from a completely different direction.

I don't see why she wouldn't pay for it herself. I'm pretty sure the president's salary is more than enough to fund a vacation. Though, security for vacations should come out of their pockets as well, I highly doubt its going to hurt our economy much. We're trillions of dollars in debt, yet we still flourish. :P

 

EDIT: lady_ninane , beat me to the punch there, lol.

Edited August 7, 201015 yr by lady_ninane
It's how I roll YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH

How is it not acceptable? Just because she's the President's wife, she's not allowed to go on lavish vacations? I have several very rich friends who go on excessive vacations to Europe, Australia, etc constantly, nobody complains about them.

I myself go to Europe frequently, stay at the best and have no objections. But that's because I'm using my parents money who are voluntarily paying not my fellow countryman's. And I wouldn't tell my friend to stay in America instead of going to a foreign country because they'd be using their own money so I'd have no right to tell them so. Plus the President receives a wage and generally is a man of wealth, so I think he should pay all expenses for his wife. Do you get national financial assistance with your vacation costs?

 

And its the type of attitude that 'its only a few hundred thousand dollars and not much so it doesn't make a difference' that causes a country to have debt. Every drop counts and in a country that emphasizes its equality of all people and lack of a monarch I find it funny someone who isn't an elected official can consume so many funds for their own enjoyment.

What? I don't think they're using tax dollars to fund it. I think that the Obamas (who bring $400,000/year, which I think is perfectly acceptable seeing as he probably has the hardest job in the world) are paying for it themselves. The only thing that is being paid with tax money is air fare and security, and we pay for that whenever the president or his wife go anywhere.

 

We pay for that for the Bush family, the Clinton family, and all of the other still living Ex-President's families as well.

 

On top of that, all of the coverage of them shows a plus side to americans and helps to promote us in a way in spain. They see the Obama women walking around, viewing their shops, eating their food with their king and queen. Hopefully not further portraying the american stereotypes.

I don't see what the big deal is. She probably needs the vacation more than the rest of us here.

Seems like the media is blowing this whole thing up. Perhaps they've been planning to go to Spain for years? Or perhaps it was her daughter's desire - even before being in the spotlight. I know that if I had the money, I would be spending the next few weeks on the beaches in Spain.

Let her go, only 2 years left and then it won't matter anymore. Good riddance.

How is it not acceptable? Just because she's the President's wife, she's not allowed to go on lavish vacations? I have several very rich friends who go on excessive vacations to Europe, Australia, etc constantly, nobody complains about them.

I myself go to Europe frequently, stay at the best and have no objections. But that's because I'm using my parents money who are voluntarily paying not my fellow countryman's. And I wouldn't tell my friend to stay in America instead of going to a foreign country because they'd be using their own money so I'd have no right to tell them so. Plus the President receives a wage and generally is a man of wealth, so I think he should pay all expenses for his wife. Do you get national financial assistance with your vacation costs?

 

And its the type of attitude that 'its only a few hundred thousand dollars and not much so it doesn't make a difference' that causes a country to have debt. Every drop counts and in a country that emphasizes its equality of all people and lack of a monarch I find it funny someone who isn't an elected official can consume so many funds for their own enjoyment.

 

The first family did in fact pay for the vacation - public funds are used only in relation to official duties on behalf of the United States Government. Costs relating to things such as the security detail are incurred regardless of where she goes.

Hell, as long as she doesn't play Palin and spend our money on jetting herself and her kids around the country, I'm fine with it.

Just another media hype over nothing. Smear the Obamas.

Seriously, what would be different if she didn't take the trip.

 

Who cares.

I see nothing wrong with this trip whatsoever, being the first black first lady is a lot of damn pressure, I can only hope to imagine.

 

 

Its not like this is new... *the idea of royalty taking trips that is*

If we shouldn't live life because there are people who are unemployed/hungry/dying we'd live in a very depressed world. It's good to be charitable or empathetic to people's needs but Michelle Obama is still a person (although well off) like everyone else and people go on vacation during the summer. I don't think I could constantly make myself feel guilty after eating a meal or going out because someone somewhere isn't.

With the US having almost a 10% employment rate is it really right for Mrs. Obama to be taking a private vacation in a foreign country at a lavish instead of at least traveling locally and boosting local economy?

It's called consumer choice. If the US is going to be remotely capitalist, it has to accept that principle.

 

 

It is right for her to be using hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars for her own pleasure?

Ah, this is the problem. You've got an expenses kerfuffle to go through, like we did in the UK. I'd deal with it.

 

Quite frankly this is where I see a republic no better than an absolute monarchy because she is not even an elected official and yet she is harvesting obviously lavish benefits from the backs of the laborers. Should she have shown a little bit of restraint or is this acceptable?

I don't consider the US to be much of a republic, to be frank. The US constitution invests so much power and focus on one person that it's no wonder that it draws parallels with absolute monarchies. I'd deal with that too.

I see nothing wrong with this trip whatsoever, being the first black first lady is a lot of damn pressure, I can only hope to imagine.

Unless you mean being fearful of her life by misogynist white supremacists, Michelle Obama's job is not made any harder because of the color of her skin.

I don't consider the US to be much of a republic, to be frank. The US constitution invests so much power and focus on one person that it's no wonder that it draws parallels with absolute monarchies. I'd deal with that too.

 

lol? as many faults the us has, seperation of power isnt something they lack esp. compared to england

I see nothing wrong with this trip whatsoever, being the first black first lady is a lot of damn pressure, I can only hope to imagine.

Unless you mean being fearful of her life by misogynist white supremacists, Michelle Obama's job is not made any harder because of the color of her skin.

 

But there's a line drawn whether we want or not.

 

Barack Obama is the first black president, he's setting a standard that may or may not help other black officials become elected and Michelle Obama is part of setting that standard as well.

 

If you've got a problem with it, then after 6 more years and the Obama's will be out of the office.