depending upon where the limits stop,,,do we prevent any american from traveling outside the us until the economy is 'fixed' ? if so, do we also prevent them from purchasing or owning anything that wasnt american made? IF we insist everyone stop spending any money that will leave america,, might it follow that those outside of america may decide not to spend money that will leave their country?

who decides where it will stop? America is part of a big world, and americans are free to spend their money anywhere in that big world that they choose,,,,

its actually a GREAT example, of how free market and global economy flourish,,

I saw a good movie last night.

The American president (fictional) argues with a journalist in private, about elections and other processes.

"We want the truth," says the journalist.

"Bull!" Answers the President. "Nobody wants the truth. Internet, one click, bang, you got the truth. But nobody makes any decisions based on the truth. Especially in elections. Why bring it up then? It's a waste of breath."

Humans do more on faith, belief and fantasy, than on facts, solid opinions and decisions based on logical deductions. Once you realize that, life becomes two mini-notches easier to bear.

So... if the American President this, or the American president that, people who oppose the colors of the ruling party (or the ruling president's party) like in a football match, they will scream blue murder no matter what they do.

I find politics as related to some individual humans futile. It does not matter who the president is. It is one man or one woman. But his being Black will incite fear, loathing and hatred on one hand, and love, protection and affection on the other. His being a Democrat will incite fear, loathing and hatred on one hand, and love, protection and affection on the other. Her being a woman will incite fear, loathing and hatred on one hand, and love, protection and affection on the other. Her being an MIT Ph.D. and a Harvard-educated lawyer will incite fear, loathing and hatred on one hand, and love, protection and affection on the other. His being an ex b-movie actor will incite fear, loathing and hatred on one hand, and love, protection and affection on the other.

No end. This is America. The celebrities' paradise, where they are God, but don't enjoy the privacy and unapproachability of the absolute celebrity, of God.

So what am I saying here. Nothing, actually, no opinion, I offer no solution, I propose no change. Just stating my observation.

if we dont buy theirs, they dont buy ours

Id love to shut down global economy and just restrict all american money to america,, but that is not how the so called 'free market' works and nothing I have heard the Obamas promote,,,

from washington post


'If Michelle and Sasha had hung out at home, not one more American would have a job, not one-hundredth of a decimal point would be added to the gross domestic product. Yes, her travel required a government plane and Secret Service resources, but that would be true wherever she went. It was true when George W. Bush made 77 visits to his ranch in Crawford and spent all or part of 490 days there during his presidency, according to CBS News' Mark Knoller, official tallier of presidential downtime. '


...very well put

Well, she stated that she did...It all came out of thier personal pocket she was very gracious about it. However I can only imagine the size of that bill. It was amoung other expenses I had no idea they payed out of pocket.

Well, That also included state dinners, visiting dignataries etc. It was an interview with Laura Bush

she may be mistaken or paraphrased incorrectly

from cbsnews

'Who pays for the costs of the State Dinner? We taxpayers, naturally. The money comes from the "K Fund," a special line of appropriations administered by the Office of the Chief of Protocol at the State Department. Former Chief of Protocol Don Ensenat once told me he never learned why it was called the "K Fund." The cost of a State Dinner is not disclosed. Experts surmise it could run as high as half a million dollars. '

I dont hold them to a different standard than I do myself. They are lawyers , probably accustomed to taking international trips, and they shouldnt have to STOP because they are the first family.

is crawford in texas or europe?

just wondering...

do you think our tax dollars are well spent overseas?
she is supposed to be setting an example for everyone.
with all the money issues, businesses closing down, people losing their jobs, i think any money spent in America is a good thing.
i do think it is poor taste for her to do this.
her and her husband do not understand the concept of America first.

"America First" is a nationalist philosophy, closely related to German National Socialism and Italian Fascism, FYI.

Oh no, dear girl ... NEITHER of them are 'lawyers' anymore - they both VOLUNTARILY RELINQUISHED their license to practice law. Do the research - I'll start you off with this ... http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/10/lawyers_without.html ... now they're just 'regular corrupt politicians'. What, btw, does being a 'lawyer' have to do with mis-spending outrageous amounts of TAXPAYER dollars on PRIVATE trips WITH an entourage ... ?

she may be mistaken or paraphrased incorrectly

from cbsnews

'Who pays for the costs of the State Dinner? We taxpayers, naturally. The money comes from the "K Fund," a special line of appropriations administered by the Office of the Chief of Protocol at the State Department. Former Chief of Protocol Don Ensenat once told me he never learned why it was called the "K Fund." The cost of a State Dinner is not disclosed. Experts surmise it could run as high as half a million dollars. '

they are still american citizens, being a lawyer means they worked for a certain status which allowed them to travel to other countries before they ever entered the white house

if thats where they like to vacation, and thats the type of vacation they would have taken regardless of their white house status, I dont see why they should be restricted from doing so... in fact, with all the added responsbilities and blame the presidential position comes with, I think if it were a perk of the position, it would still be warranted

i don't see why to vote for him again, either...

thats what is great about elections, we can vote or not vote and if we vote we can choose whomever we wish

the scary thing is most voters arent really aware of solid reasons for voting their candidate ,, just all the reasons NOT to vote for the other,,,

lol, so did I, but I also knew I preferred Gores intelligence over the , for lack of another word, babbling of Bush


as to why I will vote for OBama again(at this point anyhow)

the campaign issues which were important to me he has been extremely busy trying to accomplish something about

he came into an impossible situation and I am impressed with the integrity and logic he has used to handle it

his priorities are in line with mine, in regards to healthcare, education, the economy, and the war in iraq


this Time magazine article sums it up pretty well

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1984460,00.html

yea, it was a pleasent article, told mostly the truth... but i can get 10 right now that talk about how bad he is doing...lol
i'm just mad at him for two things... that stupid healthcare bill, and his lack of reasoning on the illegal immigration.

i feel ya,,, its all subjective to what issues are priority issues for the voter,,, and each voter has their own prirorities