Obama mustachianism

[jambongris]

Obama speaking out about excessive consumption.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/07/31/u-s-infatuation-with-celebrity-lifestyle-killing-the-american-dream-barack-obama/

[ender]

This amuses me greatly.

[mpbaker22]

I don't think any president, except maybe before Roosevelt, can say anything about excessive consumption of others.

[renbutler]

I don't think any president, except maybe before Roosevelt, can say anything about excessive consumption of others.

Agreed.

The article touches on the hypocrisy of calling out the celebrity lifestyle while his fundraising relies so much on it. But add to that his extraordinarily opulent vacations.

No, he's certainly not the only president ever to do that. But if he's going to call out consumption, it's imperative that he reverse that trend and start setting a strikingly opposite example.

The new pope is living up to his similar message. Let's see the president do the same.

[DoubleDown]

I haven't seen any "extraordinarily opulent" vacations -- going home to Hawaii for a week and eating shaved ice, or a few days golfing in New England??? And certainly not excessive for a multi-millionaire with a $400k annual salary.

Maybe the costs of "official travel" are being confused with his own personal spending on vacations. That official travel is incredibly expensive, but he's also the President. With the necessity of more security than anyone on the planet. Far more than the pope (whose own security didn't do so well just recently).

[Sparafusile]

If you ignore the messenger and focus on the message you get more out of it. Just like when your parents said "do as I say, not as I do". The bottom line is that people two or three generations ago did not need to spend thousands on cars, clothes, and crap in order to achieve their dreams. Today, that seems to be the norm and it's actually hurting people's ability to live. Sure, Obama doesn't follow his own advice, but he's also not living paycheck to paycheck and buried in consumer debt.

[matchewed]

If you ignore the messenger and focus on the message you get more out of it. Just like when your parents said "do as I say, not as I do". The bottom line is that people two or three generations ago did not need to spend thousands on cars, clothes, and crap in order to achieve their dreams. Today, that seems to be the norm and it's actually hurting people's ability to live. Sure, Obama doesn't follow his own advice, but he's also not living paycheck to paycheck and buried in consumer debt.

There you go robbing me of my outrage. ;)

[mpbaker22]

If you ignore the messenger and focus on the message you get more out of it. Just like when your parents said "do as I say, not as I do". The bottom line is that people two or three generations ago did not need to spend thousands on cars, clothes, and crap in order to achieve their dreams. Today, that seems to be the norm and it's actually hurting people's ability to live. Sure, Obama doesn't follow his own advice, but he's also not living paycheck to paycheck and buried in consumer debt.

And that he's using celebrities to push Obamacare.  I don't want to talk about Obamacare being good or bad, just the hypocrisy of telling everyone not to listen to celebrities while using celebrities as the advertisement for obamacare.

[Sparafusile]

If you ignore the messenger and focus on the message you get more out of it. Just like when your parents said "do as I say, not as I do". The bottom line is that people two or three generations ago did not need to spend thousands on cars, clothes, and crap in order to achieve their dreams. Today, that seems to be the norm and it's actually hurting people's ability to live. Sure, Obama doesn't follow his own advice, but he's also not living paycheck to paycheck and buried in consumer debt.

And that he's using celebrities to push Obamacare.  I don't want to talk about Obamacare being good or bad, just the hypocrisy of telling everyone not to listen to celebrities while using celebrities as the advertisement for obamacare.

He doesn't ever say don't listen to celebrities. He says not to act like one when you cannot afford to. He's using celebrities because he knows his audience. The average American spends more time glued to the boob tube than any other leisure activity. Of course he's going to ask celebrities to speak for him, that's the only way to get through.

[renbutler]

I haven't seen any "extraordinarily opulent" vacations -- going home to Hawaii for a week and eating shaved ice, or a few days golfing in New England??? And certainly not excessive for a multi-millionaire with a $400k annual salary.

Maybe the costs of "official travel" are being confused with his own personal spending on vacations. That official travel is incredibly expensive, but he's also the President. With the necessity of more security than anyone on the planet. Far more than the pope (whose own security didn't do so well just recently).

Are you sure about that? http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07/29/316241/obama-planning-vacation-at-76m-resort/

Now, I'm not going to make this an us-vs-them argument. And, sure, even a president deserves vacation time. It would be one thing if we knew he was covering his portion of the travel and lodging out of his own pocket (though not covering his staff and security, of course).

Anyway, the point is that even week-long golf outings at posh resorts are contrary to the message he's trying to communicate.

[renbutler]

Sure, Obama doesn't follow his own advice, but he's also not living paycheck to paycheck and buried in consumer debt.

The people on this board aren't living paycheck to paycheck either, but there's an entire section dedicated to shaming people who live an "Anti-Mustachian" lifestyle.

[matchewed]

Never mind, my outrage is alive and well.

[DoubleDown]

Are you sure about that? http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07/29/316241/obama-planning-vacation-at-76m-resort/

Anyway, the point is that even week-long golf outings at posh resorts are contrary to the message he's trying to communicate.

I still don't see staying at a house on Martha's Vineyard as even remotely excessive. It's not like he and the family can just get a room at the Motel 6 in Abilene. He needs a large degree of privacy and security, with enough of a buffer between him and the many people who would like to do him harm. I also don't see any hypocrisy in him having a nice vacation and the message to people (who can't afford it) about worshiping wealth and celebrity to their own detriment, but I can see where there's a bit more gray area there for others to see that differently.

[renbutler]

I still don't see staying at a house on Martha's Vineyard as even remotely excessive.

Okay. :)

I doubt that the typical American will agree with you though.

[renbutler]

I also don't see any hypocrisy in him having a nice vacation and the message to people (who can't afford it) about worshiping wealth and celebrity to their own detriment, but I can see where there's a bit more gray area there for others to see that differently.

BTW, if you look at his quotes, they're directed at the middle class and the "wealthier." He doesn't really say anything about whether people can afford those things.

It's an anti-consumerism message, not an affordability message.

Also, I don't have a major problem with the message itself. I just think it will go completely ignored, because talking is far less influential than setting an example is.

[5oclockshadow]

"A house of Martha's Vineyard"... fine.  But it's a $7.5 million dollar house, and they're renting out over 70 rooms at a 4 star hotel for all their staff. 

Their last vacation "home" to Hawaii cost taxpayers an estimated $8-14 million ($7 million dollar house).

The recent trip to Africa cost taxpayers $90-140 million (some business, some vacation).

Michelle is averaging some 40 vacation days annually.  With a security detail of about 70 and the use of government jets, plus her affinity for 5-star hotels ($3,300/night in Dublin, $2,300/night in Vail, etc.)... these trips get expensive, more than $1 million/day on average.

All this is to say, any man who can urge those under his leadership to control their consumption while paying someone $102,000 of their money annually to have his dog walked should not be surprised to see a dwindling audience.

[BlueMR2]

I still don't see staying at a house on Martha's Vineyard as even remotely excessive.

Okay. :)

I doubt that the typical American will agree with you though.

Indeed.

As a typical American, I find the frequent vacations to expensive places pretty annoying.  Especially with all the extra cost incurred for protection and transport.  I get that he is under a lot of pressure and needs extra protection.  However, there are so many people out of work, and those of us that are working that are doing lots of extra work for less money and haven't seen a vacation in years.  Well, it's a good thing he already go re-elected, nobody I know would vote for him again at this point after he's been rubbing our faces in it for so long...  The first 4 years were rough, but he at least showed some promise, now his "leadership" (or lack thereof) is turning into a full-fledged train wreck.

[Jamesqf]

"A house of Martha's Vineyard"... fine.  But it's a $7.5 million dollar house, and they're renting out over 70 rooms at a 4 star hotel for all their staff.

Sorry, but it's not "their" staff, it's the US government's staff, which has been deemed necessary for the guy to do his job.  Sure, I think a lot of it probably falls under the heading of wasteful government spending, but it's not as though he (or previous Presidents) actually insisted on having all those people along.

[yahui168]

This seems anti-mutashian

President Obama on Wednesday announced a plan that would prohibit individuals from reaping tax advantages on IRAs and other tax-preferred retirement accounts when funds exceed a certain threshold.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/10/retirement/obama-retirement-saving/index.html

[davisgang90]

I miss GW's vacations to his ranch.  His idea of opulence was clearing brush or mountain biking.

[renbutler]

I miss GW's vacations to his ranch.  His idea of opulence was clearing brush or mountain biking.

And it also forced the media to slum it up in flyover country. I'm sure they loved that. :)

[mpbaker22]

This seems anti-mutashian

President Obama on Wednesday announced a plan that would prohibit individuals from reaping tax advantages on IRAs and other tax-preferred retirement accounts when funds exceed a certain threshold.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/10/retirement/obama-retirement-saving/index.html

I think I disagree with the decision, but not as strongly as other decisions (I'm not even sure I disagree).  I mean, $3M is a shit-ton of money.  That's a $120,000/year at a SWR of 4%.  $120,000 is far beyond a mustachian style of living, and that assumes the IRA is the only retirement vehicle being used.

[oldtoyota]

I miss GW's vacations to his ranch.  His idea of opulence was clearing brush or mountain biking.

Should Obama buy a ranch then? To be fair, Obama does not have his own ranch to visit unlike Reagan and Bush. He also does not have a place in Kennebunkport owned by his father. So, where would you prefer he vacation?

Edited to Add: Obama does have access to Camp David, so you could definitely ding him for not visiting that more often. I am assuming it would cost less -- or at least not cost as much additional money as Hawaii.

[renbutler]

This seems anti-mutashian

President Obama on Wednesday announced a plan that would prohibit individuals from reaping tax advantages on IRAs and other tax-preferred retirement accounts when funds exceed a certain threshold.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/10/retirement/obama-retirement-saving/index.html

I think I disagree with the decision, but not as strongly as other decisions (I'm not even sure I disagree).  I mean, $3M is a shit-ton of money.  That's a $120,000/year at a SWR of 4%.  $120,000 is far beyond a mustachian style of living, and that assumes the IRA is the only retirement vehicle being used.

Yeah, my initial instinct was to roll my eyes at another "bash the rich" policy. But I was careful about reading the details before I reacted. I agree that there's a certain point at which tax advantages should be phased out. That's certainly a lot better than raising taxes sky high on the wealthy.

[yahui168]

and that assumes the IRA is the only retirement vehicle being used.

I believe it's capped across all tax-preferred retirement accounts, IRA, ROTH IRA, 401k, etc. I agree 3 million is a lot but what if you have medical issues? What if your child has medical issue and will never be able to support themselves? Your parents rely you for their retirement? At least with income there are deductions. We'll need another entire industry to track retirement contribution deductions (if the government allows it).

[renbutler]

and that assumes the IRA is the only retirement vehicle being used.

I believe it's capped across all tax-preferred retirement accounts, IRA, ROTH IRA, 401k, etc. I agree 3 million is a lot but what if you have medical issues? What if your child has medical issue and will never be able to support themselves? Your parents rely you for their retirement? At least with income there are deductions. We'll need another entire industry to track retirement contribution deductions (if the government allows it).

I don't know if the government would have to actively track it. It seems like the fund managers could easily stop applying the tax advantages when the threshold is reached.

Also, if you have medical or other issues, there's nothing preventing you from continuing to save additional money -- just not in a tax shelter.

[yahui168]

The point is that there's itemized deductions for income. Will we need itemized deductions for savings? The fund managers will have to know the value across all your different accounts across different providers on a daily basis as market fluctuation changes the value. That doesn't sound easy or cheap.

[Jamesqf]

I miss GW's vacations to his ranch.  His idea of opulence was clearing brush or mountain biking.

But you'll notice that nobody ever seems to have added up the cost of flying all his government-mandated support staff out to Texas, and housing them there.

[renbutler]

The point is that there's itemized deductions for income. Will we need itemized deductions for savings? The fund managers will have to know the value across all your different accounts across different providers on a daily basis as market fluctuation changes the value. That doesn't sound easy or cheap.

Okay, I see your point. It wouldn't be a problem with any single fund, but it's a mess when you add them all up.

The funds would probably have to report your balances to a central database daily. (shudder)

[renbutler]

I miss GW's vacations to his ranch.  His idea of opulence was clearing brush or mountain biking.

But you'll notice that nobody ever seems to have added up the cost of flying all his government-mandated support staff out to Texas, and housing them there.

Well, the point is that the trip itself wasn't extravagant, not whether he was entitled to travel for vacation. Housing people at his own property is quite a bit different than picking one of the priciest destinations in the country.

However, I DO recall people keeping a tally on how many days the president played golf back then. Seems like those people aren't as interested in that these days...

[mpbaker22]

I miss GW's vacations to his ranch.  His idea of opulence was clearing brush or mountain biking.

But you'll notice that nobody ever seems to have added up the cost of flying all his government-mandated support staff out to Texas, and housing them there.

Well, the point is that the trip itself wasn't extravagant, not whether he was entitled to travel for vacation. Housing people at his own property is quite a bit different than picking one of the priciest destinations in the country.

However, I DO recall people keeping a tally on how many days the president played golf back then. Seems like those people aren't as interested in that these days...

Reported Bush played 24 times in 8 years.  According to this website of all things crazy, Obama is at 133 times in less than 5 years.

[renbutler]

Reported Bush played 24 times in 8 years.  According to this website of all things crazy, Obama is at 133 times in less than 5 years.

I think it's stupid that anybody counted for either president...

...but it's even more stupid that you could find criticism of Bush's numbers in mainstream outlets, where Obama's are essentially ignored.

Of course, I can't read or watch every news story, so maybe somebody at a mainstream outlet cares about this topic as much as they did during the Bush administration...

[Jamesqf]

Well, the point is that the trip itself wasn't extravagant, not whether he was entitled to travel for vacation. Housing people at his own property is quite a bit different than picking one of the priciest destinations in the country.

I dunno.  On a purely personal level, I think having a (non-inherited) ranch could be pretty darned extravagant :-)

Then too, we don't (or at least I don't) know what went into housing all that staff at or near his ranch.  Is it more expensive to pay for existing hotel space, as for Obama, or to construct the necessary facilities out there?

[Mr.Macinstache]

I miss GW's vacations to his ranch.  His idea of opulence was clearing brush or mountain biking.

And it also forced the media to slum it up in flyover country. I'm sure they loved that. :)

Haha... yeah, no South American hookers for the SS in Texas, huh.

[oldtoyota]

Well, the point is that the trip itself wasn't extravagant, not whether he was entitled to travel for vacation. Housing people at his own property is quite a bit different than picking one of the priciest destinations in the country.

I dunno.  On a purely personal level, I think having a (non-inherited) ranch could be pretty darned extravagant :-)

Then too, we don't (or at least I don't) know what went into housing all that staff at or near his ranch.  Is it more expensive to pay for existing hotel space, as for Obama, or to construct the necessary facilities out there?

I am glad you brought up this point again. When I brought it up, people ignored the fact that Bush Owns A Ranch.

Why should Obama be punished because he did not have family money to buy a ranch in the middle of nowhere in order to have vacations one day when he became President?

[renbutler]

Well, not exactly. Obama's net worth is over $11 million, and he's earned only about $2 million (gross) as presidential salary in five years. He bought a home worth $1.65 million in 2005.

Maybe not Bush wealthy, but we're talking different degrees of extraordinary wealth. He could easily afford a large ranch.

[renbutler]

BTW, I don't have any problem with a president's having great wealth, regardless of their political background. As long as they earned it ethically, and they're not hypocrites about it, that is.

[Mr.Macinstache]

I have a problem with the $400,000 salary for life we give all the past Presidents after their term is up. As if we need to pay for that.

[Sparafusile]

Seeing former presidents destitute and living in the streets doesn't sound like a good idea either. Not that that would ever happen, but the salary is there to prevent it so we don't look bad as a country.

[Mr.Macinstache]

Seeing former presidents destitute and living in the streets doesn't sound like a good idea either. Not that that would ever happen, but the salary is there to prevent it so we don't look bad as a country.

I don't think that's ever likely to happen. I would be more proud of an honorable Mustachian president who went back to his work after serving his country then one who collects $400k in annual welfare the rest of his life.

[infogoon]

Seeing former presidents destitute and living in the streets doesn't sound like a good idea either. Not that that would ever happen, but the salary is there to prevent it so we don't look bad as a country.

That did happen. I think it was Truman who died in penury, prompting the policy of paying a Presidential pension.

(Alliteration for the win!)

[oldtoyota]

Seeing former presidents destitute and living in the streets doesn't sound like a good idea either. Not that that would ever happen, but the salary is there to prevent it so we don't look bad as a country.

I don't think that's ever likely to happen. I would be more proud of an honorable Mustachian president who went back to his work after serving his country then one who collects $400k in annual welfare the rest of his life.

Since Reagan was so against "welfare queens," I'm sure he never took the $400K. ;-)

[Sparafusile]

Jefferson, Monroe, and Grant each had money problems after leaving the office. My previous statement was more directed at our current presidents who are all multi-millionaires before taking office.

[oldtoyota]

Well, not exactly. Obama's net worth is over $11 million, and he's earned only about $2 million (gross) as presidential salary in five years. He bought a home worth $1.65 million in 2005.

Maybe not Bush wealthy, but we're talking different degrees of extraordinary wealth. He could easily afford a large ranch.

Thank you for the additional information. Obama does not own a large amount of property (that I know about). So, it seems like comparing apples to oranges when people mention Bush went to his ranch to clear brush and Obama goes to Hawaii.

Didn't Bush grow up in Texas?

Didn't Obama grow up at least partly in Hawaii?

Does Bush own a ranch?

Does Obama own a large property similar to Bush's ranch?

I am just not getting why people compare the two. Would you prefer that 1) Obama never take vacation? 2) that Obama visit a different place?

What would you have him do differently for his vacations?

[oldtoyota]

Reported Bush played 24 times in 8 years.  According to this website of all things crazy, Obama is at 133 times in less than 5 years.

I think it's stupid that anybody counted for either president...

...but it's even more stupid that you could find criticism of Bush's numbers in mainstream outlets, where Obama's are essentially ignored.

Of course, I can't read or watch every news story, so maybe somebody at a mainstream outlet cares about this topic as much as they did during the Bush administration...

I find this interesting because I thought both were introverts. I guess Obama is more outgoing than I realized.

[oldtoyota]

Well, the point is that the trip itself wasn't extravagant, not whether he was entitled to travel for vacation. Housing people at his own property is quite a bit different than picking one of the priciest destinations in the country.

I dunno.  On a purely personal level, I think having a (non-inherited) ranch could be pretty darned extravagant :-)

Then too, we don't (or at least I don't) know what went into housing all that staff at or near his ranch.  Is it more expensive to pay for existing hotel space, as for Obama, or to construct the necessary facilities out there?

That was my question too. Glad you asked it. I read an article about times when Bush would come to town. It obviously changed the character of the tiny town nearby. I doubt they had existing hotels out that way. Not sure how they housed everyone.

[mpbaker22]

oldtoyota - I think most people are just fed up with excessive spending from both parties.  Why is it assumed that either president 'deserves' a vacation.  Sure, maybe once a year you can vacation somewhere.  But even then, it's not like I get a once-a-year trip to Hawaii or my own ranch in Texas.  Hell, my vacations usually consist of camping somewhere in southwest Missouri for $50-$100 for a weekend, all inclusive.

The president is supposed to be a public servant, but the last 50 years they've all been public thieves.

On another note, why is the staff and security even necessary?  Obviously it is to some extent, (especially the security) but I think it's all over-blown.

[renbutler]

Thank you for the additional information. Obama does not own a large amount of property (that I know about). So, it seems like comparing apples to oranges when people mention Bush went to his ranch to clear brush and Obama goes to Hawaii.

I'm not sure I've seen people criticize Obama for going to Hawaii. I wouldn't be surprised if it has happened, but I certainly have no issue with him in that regard.

(The vacation cited earlier was NOT Hawaii, but rather an elite resort.)

EDIT: Okay, one guy here brought up the cost of a Hawaii trip. I don't know if Obama was just visiting family, or if the trip was far more excessive. So I have no comment on that trip personally.

I am just not getting why people compare the two. Would you prefer that 1) Obama never take vacation? 2) that Obama visit a different place?

What would you have him do differently for his vacations?

You can see in reply #9 that I specifically mentioned that there's no problem with presidents taking vacations.

I think the issue is the extravagance of the Obama vacations, compared to the original point of the thread -- that Obama wants people to reject “conspicuous consumption.”

I have no problem with a president taking a reasonable number of vacations, perhaps similar to the amount of time that the average US worker gets. Any president should also pay for his family's lodging (even if it ends up being just a few thousand dollars out of the millions required for the full entourage). That would set a great example.

[Daleth]

I don't think any president, except maybe before Roosevelt, can say anything about excessive consumption of others.

Agreed.

The article touches on the hypocrisy of calling out the celebrity lifestyle while his fundraising relies so much on it. But add to that his extraordinarily opulent vacations.

Are you KIDDING me? GW Bush spent 1,020 days of his presidency on vacation. That's almost 3 years out of the 8 years he served. And he and/or Laura went to Africa seven times on the taxpayer's dime, including one trip that was just Laura and the kids going on safari:
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/06/14/cost-obamas-trip-dwarfed-george-laura-bushs-year-africa-spending-spree.html

And I'm sure most Republicans would come back with "well he was working even when he was in Africa or on his ranch," and the same is true of President Obama. I don't think there's really such a thing as a "vacation" for a sitting president. So let's find actual worthwhile stuff to complain about, shall we?

[Mr.Macinstache]

Seeing former presidents destitute and living in the streets doesn't sound like a good idea either. Not that that would ever happen, but the salary is there to prevent it so we don't look bad as a country.

I don't think that's ever likely to happen. I would be more proud of an honorable Mustachian president who went back to his work after serving his country then one who collects $400k in annual welfare the rest of his life.

Since Reagan was so against "welfare queens," I'm sure he never took the $400K. ;-)

Ha, no. Reagan was very much pro govt welfare, he increased spending and the expansion of govt on many many levels.