Before vacation, Obama will probably aim to set economic table for fall
August 9th, 2013
10:38 AM ET
11 months ago

Before vacation, Obama will probably aim to set economic table for fall

Washington (CNN) – Friday's White House news conference is likely to be an exercise in what President Barack Obama wants to talk about - his economic message - and what he feels he has to talk about - terrorism and the U.S.-Russia relationship - before he leaves Washington for a family vacation.

For the last few weeks, Obama has traversed the country to push his economic message that the White House says will be its focus going into the fall. And if the White House had its way, that's how Obama would open the news conference.

FULL STORY

Filed under: President Obama
soundoff (18 Responses)
  1. Gurgyl

    Way to go, Obama. I am so confident of you.

    August 9, 2013 10:41 am at 10:41 am |
  2. rs

    Cue the faux outrage from the Righties on the first family taking vacation while Congress is out of town. They fail to recognice Republicans have been on vacation for 5 years!

    August 9, 2013 10:54 am at 10:54 am |
  3. peppy

    Economic table = I am so lost and have no idea what to do but go on vacation and spend your money.

    August 9, 2013 11:03 am at 11:03 am |
  4. Rudy NYC

    He can set the table with roasted Republicans, stuffed with sour grapes.

    August 9, 2013 11:04 am at 11:04 am |
  5. Data Driven

    Sounds like the media wants a firm commitment from Obama that he'll inaugurate WWIII by dropping nuclear bombs on Russia before he goes on vacay.

    August 9, 2013 11:05 am at 11:05 am |
  6. bill

    dont you people have something a little more constructive to do than troll all day long? at least it keeps alot of stupid in one place.

    August 9, 2013 11:46 am at 11:46 am |
  7. tom l

    Let's just sum it up pretty easy. He wants to tax more and spend more.

    August 9, 2013 12:14 pm at 12:14 pm |
  8. tom l

    People are aware that when the Bush tax cuts went into effect in 2002 that revenues to the US govt went up every single year until the recession hit in 2008, aren't they? Oh, and you had 25% of senate democrats that voted for that.

    August 9, 2013 12:18 pm at 12:18 pm |
  9. Abbey

    More leftovers from 2009,2010,2011,etc.

    August 9, 2013 12:29 pm at 12:29 pm |
  10. Rudy NYC

    tom l

    People are aware that when the Bush tax cuts went into effect in 2002 that revenues to the US govt went up every single year until the recession hit in 2008, aren't they? Oh, and you had 25% of senate democrats that voted for that.
    ----------
    Sorry, your historical is getting called out. First of all, had 25% of Senate Democrats voted for the 2001 cuts, then why did Republicans have to reconcilliation to get it passed. Revenues may have went up, but annual spending increased by 7-9% every year, too. The federal government hired a lot of workers, mainly in the Dept. of Homeland Security. Bush grew the size of government.

    BTW, at the time of the vote, the Heritage Foundation had predicted that the Bush Tax Cuts would erase the national debt within a decade, by 2010 to be exact.

    August 9, 2013 12:36 pm at 12:36 pm |
  11. tom l

    @Rudy,
    "Sorry, your historical is getting called out. First of all, had 25% of Senate Democrats voted for the 2001 cuts, then why did Republicans have to reconcilliation to get it passed. Revenues may have went up, but annual spending increased by 7-9% every year, too. The federal government hired a lot of workers, mainly in the Dept. of Homeland Security. Bush grew the size of government.

    BTW, at the time of the vote, the Heritage Foundation had predicted that the Bush Tax Cuts would erase the national debt within a decade, by 2010 to be exact."

    And I appreciate this response so much. Bush is the reason I'm a libertarian. He spent waaaay too much. The revenues did indeed go up, but so did the spending. Medicare Part D? Without funding? Passed with democrat support.

    12 of 48 democrat senators voted for the Bush tax cuts. That's a fact. And, now that you bring it up, do you think it's wrong that it was passed through "reconciliation"? Because if you do, which I think is wrong, then perhaps we could talk consistently about ANOTHER bill that was passed through reconciliation. Can you name that bill? :)

    August 9, 2013 01:09 pm at 1:09 pm |
  12. Gunderson

    Hum What,
    You economic message? With my money and you brains we go places? Gunderson see 2 problems with that. Gunderson have no money and you have no brains. What plan B? Rich no pay fair share? Who rich these days?

    August 9, 2013 01:20 pm at 1:20 pm |
  13. Sniffit

    "People are aware that when the Bush tax cuts went into effect in 2002 that revenues to the US govt went up every single year until the recession hit in 2008, aren't they?"

    And you seem to be unaware that the two share absolutely no causal relationship. Correlation is NOT causation. Are you aware that from September 11, 2001 through the beginning of the recession that revenues went up? Or hey, are you aware that from Clinton's last crap in the Oval Office bathroom in 2001 through the beginning of the recession, that revenues went up? We can do this all day.

    Oh and hey, guess what, even more fun: revenues went DOWN from 2000-2003 as follows (in billions): $2,025.2, $1,991.1, $1.853.1 and $1,782.3. The first tax cuts were in 2001, not 2003. At the time, revenues were predicted to increase based on the bubble AND WITHOUT THE TAX CUTS, which is precisely why the GOP wanted to get tax cuts passed...they both argued the cuts were justified by saying that revenue was predicted to increase anyway AND wanted to set up the baseless argument for later that revenues increased BECAUSE OF the tax cuts. Your "analysis" is fundamentally broken and an effort to gloss over the details in a manner that misinforms people.

    August 9, 2013 01:22 pm at 1:22 pm |
  14. rs

    tom l

    Let's just sum it up pretty easy. He wants to tax more and spend more.
    _________________________
    As opposed to the GOP/TP that wants to cut taxes and spend more...?

    Let's face it- that's pretty simplistic, although accurate as far as broad trends. What the President needs is for the GOP (who effectively can block in the Senate and dictate in the House) to come up with a way to raise the debt limit and pass budgets, without shutting down the government in some adolescent hissy fit. That apparently is a very tall order given the wretched state of the GOP these days.

    August 9, 2013 01:52 pm at 1:52 pm |
  15. rs

    tom l

    People are aware that when the Bush tax cuts went into effect in 2002 that revenues to the US govt went up every single year until the recession hit in 2008, aren't they? Oh, and you had 25% of senate democrats that voted for that.
    __________________
    Sorry Tom, Revenues took a huge hit the instant the Bush tax cuts took effect, dropping from $2 trillion to $1.78 Trillion in just 3 years while spending increased by albout the same numbers. In terms of GDP, federal revenues in 2000 were 20% of GDP, in 2003 the number dropped to 16.2%. So, in fact, revenues did not go up each year under Bush before the economy tanked in '08. This is from a variety of sources including: OMB, Brookings, and CBO.

    August 9, 2013 02:03 pm at 2:03 pm |
  16. GI Joe

    I can hear it now: Clinton caused the mess by handing W a surplus and giving him the email that said al Quaida was going to attack.

    When W messed up, they now blame the black buy for all W did wrong.

    August 9, 2013 02:16 pm at 2:16 pm |
  17. Sniffit

    " Medicare Part D? Without funding? Passed with democrat support"

    Vote Tally;

    Passage: 216-215
    For: 207 GOP, 9 Dems
    Against: 19 GOP, 195 Dems, 1 Indy

    More GOPers voted AGAINST it than Dems who voted FOR it, so the more "bipartisan" side of the equation was against it, not for it. Your statement is classic Faux News/Red State style gloss-over deception.

    August 9, 2013 02:27 pm at 2:27 pm |
  18. Rudy NYC

    Sniffit

    " Medicare Part D? Without funding? Passed with democrat support"

    Vote Tally;

    Passage: 216-215
    For: 207 GOP, 9 Dems
    Against: 19 GOP, 195 Dems, 1 Indy

    More GOPers voted AGAINST it than Dems who voted FOR it, so the more "bipartisan" side of the equation was against it, not for it. Your statement is classic Faux News/Red State style gloss-over deception.
    --------------------–
    You can find that vote count and any other facts about Presidents, the bills they signed, the speeches they made, trips they took, etc., by visiting " The American Presidency Project ". A web search for it should find it at UCSB.

    August 9, 2013 03:38 pm at 3:38 pm |