We all know by now that one thing the Obama’s family is good at is: SPENDING America Tax payers money. Don’t you agree?

According to recent reports, the Obamas, in total, have spent just a smidgeon over $44 million on private family vacations.

According to Daily Mail:

Our president vacations a lot — we’re talking $44,351,777.12 worth of “a lot,” with most expenses charged to the American taxpayer.

As of March 2014, Obama has spent more time traveling internationally than any other president, taking 31 trips since assuming office in 2009. The 119 days spent overseas have cost taxpayers millions of dollars.

At the same point in their respective presidencies, George W. Bush had spent 116 days on 28 trips, Bill Clinton had spent 113 days on 27 trips and Ronald Reagan had spent 73 days on just
14 trips.

In 2010, Obama flew aboard Air Force One 172 times, nearly every other day. Just the cost of flying aboard Air Force One to Obama’s hometown of Chicago reportedly hovers around $180,000 per hour.

In addition to all of his international travel, the president spends a significant amount of time traveling with his family. The Obama family has taken vacations to exclusive beaches in New England, private clubs in Key Largo and, of course, luxurious beaches in Hawaii.

According to the government watchdog group Judicial Watch, beginning with the infamous New York “date night,” the Obamas have spent $44,351,777.12 in taxpayer cash on travel expenses.

When is Obama going to take care of America? Did he have enough vacation so far?

http://conservativepost.com/embarrassing-and-scandalous-44-million-obama-family-purchase-exposed-to-the-public/

Travel is just one of the perks that come with the job. Funny that Republicans weren't bothered by travel costs until this President.

Maybe you should write your representative and demand a change to the executive compensation package, if it bugs you so much.

The problem is that there are so many "perks" to the job, and Congress won't do anything about it because half of them want to be President, and because it will shine a light on their own perks. To justify this President's actions by pointing out what the previous President did doesn't make it ok for this President.

You don't seem to understand that President Obama cannot simply hop in a car and drive to another state. He's still the President of the greatest nation on Earth. He's got a security detail. He's got places to be and a country to represent. You're complaining about him using the service that's already purchased for his use. It hasn't cost $44 billion to fly the President and his family around. That's the cost spent on the entire executive transportation budget. Even if Obama never left the White House, it would only be a few $million less, because even just sitting still, those planes, helicopters and limousines still have to be paid for. Fuel burnt during the trips are a small percentage of the total cost.

As far as vacation days, President Obama is still using far fewer than average, and there's no actual limit. The OP is just a crass criticism of Obama, as if he's the first President to fly on Air Force One.

And, maybe we should look more at why the hell Congress needs so many vacation days.

No, you're the one who is clearly not understanding my point, which is not that he can find other means of transportation. The point is, this President, and every President in our lifetimes has been afforded certain perks, necessary or not, and some have abused those perks. The problem is that the politicians, who work for We The People, make the rules regarding their own pay and benefits as they ignore their oaths of office.

Sorry, MadDog. I just don't see this president, or even the last one, with whom I rarely agreed, ignoring their oaths of office. I guess you're holding every dollar sacred, and every dollar spent by government a tragedy. You're missing that there's a cost of doing business, even when that business is running the country. We only pay the President about $450K/year, plus some expenses. A major corporation could pay their CEO >$100 million. The President's compensation is a relative bargain, even with transportation costs.

The difference is, the corporate CEO is not paid with tax dollars. You're comparing apples to skyscrapers with that analogy. Government, by its very nature, is wasteful and inefficient because there is no incentive for the bureaucrats, and the politicians receive their salaries and benefits for life, even if they are fired by losing an election. Why are you more concerned with a private citizen's pay than that of a public official?

How do you know the corporate CEO isn't paid with tax dollars? You don't think any of those corporations get government contracts? How about corporate welfare? Tax exemptions?

It seems, from this thread and others that you're simply trying to be contrary and combative. It must upset you that a Liberal dare state his position on this forum. LOL

Also, you seem to have a very narrow view of what business is. It's certainly not restricted to the private sector. We've got a big old country, here, and it doesn't just run itself. If you let the corporations take over, then it's no longer a democracy, or even a republic, but rather, Fascist state. If you think it's bad, now, imagine how it'll be when everything has to make a profit, or support the making of a profit, at the expense of our rights and freedoms.

Please get over yourself.

Typical liberal. The government is the answer to everything, despite the private sector having built this country for most of its history. If your socialistic outlook is so great, why did the Soviet Union collapse? And I know how business works under the cronyist system we have now. But just like any liberal, any challenge to your views must be from an inferior mind, and therefore a threat. Yet, you're the one upset by your opinions being challenged. If you don't like me challenging your opinions, I would advise posting them where I can't respond. Who needs to get over himself?

If that's the case, why do you keep changing the subject? Nothing I posted above even begins to hint that government is the answer to everything. I may have implied that your reasoning is inferior, but not your mind. For all the nonsense you've typed, you've at least spelled correctly and presented your points cogently. However, let me clear up something.

Government only covers the job of enforcing the rules we all use and providing the commons, such as infrastructure and the money system. In spite of perceived benefits of privatization, government should employ as many people as it takes to get those jobs done. Sure, cost reduction is a goal, there, too, but it makes sense to socialize services we all use. Military, police, fire and, getting back to this thread, medical care. Ideally, we should have a single-payer system, to further reduce costs and even prevent the trouble mentioned above about those hospitals closing. It doesn't have to be about the choice of "take it or leave it."

so,you think it is right for the American people to have to support two Arch-Moochers like those two?
They are giving Parasitism a bad name!

yep,as the Soviet-Government did!
You are preaching pure Statism!
3/4 of what you claim the Government's Job is,is pure unconstitutional Collectivist Drivel by an Administration gone Bananas!

Ha. It looks like you learned all you know about the Soviets from Fox News or maybe the Drudge Report. We pay for our Executive branch. If we paid more for it, we might get better service, but that's just the system we've got, now.

So you're not a big government liberal? You just advocate in favor of big government liberalism.

Sunshine!
I was born in the early forties in Europe,and had a Front-Seat watching the Soviets and their Satellites!
Don't need FOX or Drudge to tell me about the Soviets!
You are obviously barking up the wrong Tree!
And I definitely don't need you to try school me on Collectivism,Statism and Socialism!

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/18/139744854/obama-takes-a-vacation-getaway-or-gaffe
Like Obama, Bush received criticism for his vacationing ways. But, according to Stanzel, the 43rd president continued to receive the daily security briefing from CIA and National Security Council officials; he conducted secure video teleconference discussions with foreign leaders, White House staff and members of his Cabinet; and he used the August congressional recess time to invite foreign leaders " British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah and others " to the ranch to discuss world issues and develop deeper diplomatic relations.

A typical "vacation" day for President Bush, Stanzel says, went something like this: When the president didn't have a foreign visitor at the ranch, he usually received a security briefing early in the morning as he did while at the White House. Then he cut brush on his ranch for a few hours. After lunch, he would receive additional briefings and participate in as-needed meetings with his staff. In the afternoon, he would often go for a mountain bike ride on the ranch or fish in a pond near his home. He spent evenings with his family.

"Getting outside of the bubble of Washington, D.C., can be helpful to any president," Stanzel says. "A change in perspective is always welcome."

But it's the symbol more than the reality of Obama's vacation that sticks in the craw of Stanzel and others. Stanzel points out that Bush took summer breaks on a family ranch in Texas and not a traditional vacation destination. Obama, on the other hand, "likes to travel to the upscale Northeastern island of Martha's Vineyard where common activities include yachting and wine tasting."

Fine. You think you know because you watched TV growing up. You still type some ignorant replies. Where in the Constitution does it say that government cannot pay for the general welfare? Just because you know words like statism and collectivism doesn't make you a Constitutional lawyer or a political scientist.

So what? You're angry at President Obama for not choosing a ranch in Texas as his chosen vacation destination? Why should we really care where they go for vacation? You do know that the Obamas pay for their own airfare, room and board when going out, right?

You are clearly not paying attention or you are willfully ignoring that he said he didn't just watch it on television. Pay attention. He was born during WWII in Europe. He saw communism first hand.

Bush didn't just go to some ranch in Texas. He went to his home. Since when is going to your own home a vacation destination? And you conveniently ignore the part about Bush getting his daily national security briefings. There have been several people who have left the Obama administration who have said he doesn't bother with daily national security briefings. Are they all liars?