Been hard at work figuring out how to turbo empty the treasury , he need a rest.

Article said "While it's unknown exactly how much the Obamas paid, similar properties start at $35,000 a week."   W-E-E-K.

My Son won't make that this whole year while serving for the US Army in Afganistan. By the way, the troops over there do not concider inexperented Obama as their Commander-In Chief. They were told they had to put on a happy face for the drive by media when he visited the Units in Iraq and Afganistan. Hmmm !!!

You show me a modern day Prez. who hasn't taken a vacation on the backs of the taxpayers. It's the perks the position comes with. Even Bush stated how much he missed Airforce one. I don't think he payed a dime to fly back and forth to Texas or anywhere else.

I knew it, I knew it. When I saw this story last night, I said to myself "someone on LP will complain that the Prez and his family are taking a vacation for a week."   George Bush didn't take vacations?

At first I gawked at the home too. I even yelled "I hope that's not with my tax money!" Then I read that the Obamas looked at 2 dozen other properties and each time the Secret Service rejected them. Bush 41 has Kennebunkport and Bush 43 has a large ranch. If John McCain were Prez then he'd have lots of places, like his huge vacation home in Sedona overlooking the mountains. It's not as if the Obamas are buying the $20 million property.   Yes, similar properties rent on Martha's Vineyard in August for about $35,000 a week, so I got annoyed at first. However, when you consider that the Secret Service and other White House staff must be houses while giving the Obama family some privacy, they don't have a lot of other choices.   If he chose a hotel suite on the beach, even at $200 a night, then they'd have to clear out the entire resort.   That could cost $25 or $30,000 just to cover the loss of business.

I wish nobody in WA would take a vacation, but probably for other reasons. I want health care reform NOW.   I want a resolution to the war NOW.   I want the economy to be fixed NOW. So I'll agree with you on that, since these are public servants living on our taxes. However, as long as Obama uses his own money (and he is) to pay for this vacation, then not don't know why it's our business. If the members of Congress cancel their vacations, then maybe the Prez should stick around too. But since The House is scheduled to break for recess on Aug 1 and the Senate is scheduled to break on Aug 8, the Prez taking a vacation in Aug makes sense.

"At the taxpayers expense" is not accurate. He is paying for this vacation. As I said above, his predecessor took many vacations.   It is not unusual for the POTUS to take a short break after 6 months in office. Here is an article from 2003 that might shed some light on this. By Aug 2003 George W Bush had spent 250+ days of vacation since he took office.
http://ask.yahoo.com/20031001.html
CBS reports that he spent 487 days at Camp David, 149 visits before he left office in Jan 2009.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/01/16/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4728085.shtml

Sorry, I meant "I wish nobody in Washington DC would take a vacation" not WA. Just thought I'd correct that in case someone feels like jumping on me. LOL

NP justexploring. I hear what you are saying. I also know that you suffer from alergies. And if you are waiting for health reform from Obama you may be waiting a long time. And if he gets his way you will be on a long waiting list to get to see the doctor of "their" choice. He will have plenty of time to get his little game plan up while chill'in at the "Farm" on our money.

All presidents have done it during the good and bad economic times so be real and remember to walk a mile in the other persons shoes. You would take one too and it's silly to try and make a big deal about it or try to get offended because it's THIS POTUS!!

NBey6, I knew I would get a response from you. Never fails.

Funny, you didn't say that when Bush was President.

And on top of that, I can't afford the shoes he walks in.

Not to go off topic, but since you brought it up, reddog, think about some other run health care. Do you know anyone on Medicare? Are they forced to wait months to see a physician? Are they forced to go to a particular doctor? Nope. Medicare is a PFFS plan, which means that recipients can go to any doctor or hospital that will accept Medicare.   In 2003 during the Bush presidency, the Medicare Modernization Act was signed into law and this allowed private companies (not just insurance companies) to design their own plans and sell them to Medicare recipients. Without writing a novel here, what it did was just the opposite of your claim. By allowing insurers to run the show, there was so much fraud and the administrative costs were so astronomical that taxpayers have been stuck with excess costs of about $15 billion. Thousands of people got hit with unexpected bills and/or couldn't find a physician or hospital that would treat them. Many people had to wait months to get approval for critical surgery or life saving treatment. The people who are against single payer or a public option are trying to scare people who already have insurance into believing they will lose their coverage or won't be able to get good care. My question is "Why not try it?" Why are we the only nation that doesn't offer its citizens health care and has almost $50 million people who can't afford or can't get insurance? The doctors who do not want to treat people on a public option plan can always start a concierge practice, since that's becoming popular anyway.

Just one more note here. Why do all the anti-health reform people keep referring to Canada? Included in the top 10 health care systems worldwide are France, Italy, Austria, Spain, Singapore, Japan, Belgium and others. France has been rated #1 by the WHO.   The USA is #37. Doesn't that bother you just a bit?

Don't know what's wrong with me...have a typo disorder. LOL   Words are disappearing. First sentence should read "think about some other government run health care."

Good point justexploring.

Reddog - The next 3 or 4 Presidents will do the same thing and my response would be the same. They're gonna go on vacations at taxpayer expense until it gets changed. NBD
:-)

NBey6, good point. :>)

Thanks, reddog. NBey - maybe I'm wrong, but I read that the taxpayers only pay for the transportation, not the accommodations.   Wish I could find that article now. Anyway, I'm sure this has been going on since George Washington, except he didn't have a private jet. LOL   In recent years, Reagan and Bush took the most time off. Clinton took very little time off comparatively.   "Time off" is actually a poor choice of words, since they are technically always on the job.   In 2008, George W. Bush was called "The Vacation President" by The Washington Post.   In Aug 2007, the Houston Chronicle wrote "The presidential vacation-time record holder is the late Ronald Reagan, who tallied 436 days in his two terms. At 418 days, and with 17 months to go in his presidency, Bush is going to beat that easily."

Well, I hope while Obama is looking at the sunset, he gets a vision. We really need it!

It's humorous that the media is drawing our attention to the $thousands while quietly ignoring the $trillions.

The current POTUS has been on vacation his entire life. Work has many definitions. One is: producing goods or services in exchange for payment.   Please tell us what this POTUS has done that is worth anything.