President Obama told a New Hampshire town hall meeting:
“When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash in Vegas when you’re trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices and it’s time your government did the same.”
Amazing, I wonder how Obama talks about Vegas when he’s not on TV?
Maybe this is why HUD Dissed Las Vegas In The Housing Stimulus Lottery, or Florida got their high speed Disney World Train and Las Vegas didn’t.
Either way, at least we know exactly what Las Vegas can expect when the President speaks about “Jobs” being his top priority in 2010.
And the Mayor’s reaction:
Speaking of blowing a bunch of money on trips….
Al Lorenz says:
Mark, by November the opportunity will come where the People of Nevada can send Obama and Harry Reid a similar message back.
February 3, 2010 — 3:51 pm
Tom Johnson says:
Chicago rules.
Dirty Harry Reid didn’t deliver Obamacare. Dirty Harry and his voters pay the price.
Questions?
February 3, 2010 — 6:54 pm
Mark Madsen says:
True to both of your comments.
I loaded this little post with several links to very fitting articles. My favorite is the “tough choices” link to a SNL skit about Obama deciding which companies should survive or die.
In relation, I guess Vegas didn’t make the government’s “keep” list either.
February 3, 2010 — 8:25 pm
Don Reedy says:
Mark,
We met about a year ago. You’re doing the work of the people, as our most of the folks in Las Vegas. Just take a minute and half to watch how the lie got started.
Can we understand the anger you and the people of Las Vegas have?
YES WE CAN
February 3, 2010 — 8:55 pm
Pat Mitchell says:
As a real estate professional, I have been very impressed with your site over the past few weeks as a source of interesting industry information and educated commentary. Good job. I did not realize until recently however how much your obvious political leanings would overshadow the real estate content that brought me here. I made the mistake of thinking that this was a real estate blog.
I did not come here for political opinions.
Pat
February 4, 2010 — 2:03 am
Greg Swann says:
> I did not come here for political opinions.
First day on the internet? You’ll get used to it.
In any case, as a matter of policy, I don’t let anyone push us around. If you will stop to reflect, you will realize that your own comment is a species of subtle coercion: “I did not come here for political opinions” translates to: “Either conform to my demands or I’m leaving.” First, to acquiesce to that kind of pressure would be to make ourselves slaves to everyone who wishes to make a public claim of having been offended — and to hell with that. Second, weblogs that pander to the lowest common denominator are insipid and dull.
I expect there is nothing I can do that will please you, but I offer this much as a palliative: If you like, you can join the legions of people who insist they don’t read BloodhoundBlog and who redline our dedicated server for twenty hours a day.
February 4, 2010 — 7:01 am
Mark Madsen says:
@Don – I’m getting involved in political discussions for the first time in my life as a result of the President’s damaging remarks to our city. But, I don’t think Obama started the lie, I believe he just perpetuated it with a different approach and target audience.
I woke up at 5:30 am yesterday as my wife was watching the news about the Obama Vegas bashing, and the first thing that I said to Aly – “I can’t wait to write a post on Bloodhoundblog about this today”
Thanks for your continued support and participation in my posts.
—
@Pat – A multi-contributor weblog like this offers many different opinions.
Since you appear to be new to the Internet, I’ll go easy on you and offer a quick navigation tip:
If you click on “Post Archive” next to each author, you’ll get a good feel of what type of content or “political leanings” each contributor has.
My most recent articles include a tribute to Vietnam Veterans, a three year innovation recap and a joke or two.
I was very timid about engaging in any political discussions on this blog as well in the beginning, but I’ve realized that education through open conversation and debate is vital to my survival as an industry professional.
If you were to click through and read some of the stories linked to my article, you’d see that Obama’s remark last Feb resulted in a proven loss of $131 million to Vegas hotels (not casinos) within 45 days.
Loss of city revenue = loss of jobs = bad for local real estate market.
Politics and Real Estate are married, whether you like it or not.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/business/yourmoney/05view.html?_r=1&ref=yourmoney
—
@Greg – “redline” fitting word to use, especially since it a political term that can be tied to the subprime lending standards which led to the current pain in my city.
February 4, 2010 — 8:29 am
Michael Cook says:
Perhaps I am the only one not in the pocket of Las Vegas lobbyist.
Why is this statement unreasonable? Should you be going to Vegas if you can barely pay your mortgage? Should businesses be booking trips to Vegas if they need bailouts? Of course not. I would say that mayor is an idiot, but he is simply pandering to his people. I am perfectly fine with Obama’s comments and I personally dont think he went far enough.
Vegas shouldnt blame anyone, but themselves for their troubles. When those chose their rebranding from family fun to What Happens in Vegas…, they should take the good and the bad. It strikes me as irrational to be upset with these comments.
February 5, 2010 — 2:35 pm
Tony Sena says:
@Michael
“Perhaps I am the only one not in the pocket of a Las Vegas lobbyist.”
Your point and this is pertinent information how???
What right does the government have to say where someone should spend their money! Obama can barely control his spending so what right does he have to tell the American people where they should spend their money. There was no need to use Las Vegas or any other city for that matter to make his point.
February 5, 2010 — 7:32 pm
Mark Madsen says:
When did it become acceptable for the Federal Government to tell American Citizens which American cities they should or shouldn’t spend their American dollars in?
It would have been fine if Obama said not to blow money on “Trips” partying, but he singled out Vegas.
He could have said not to blow money outside our economy at casinos in Macau… Oh nevermind, he needs to be nice to China since they’re the ones enabling his spending spree.
Obama was directing his “don’t blow money in Vegas” lecture at the wrong target audience anyway, which just makes him look like a complete moron or a deliberate and malicious prick.
He could have at least addressed the actual places that the demographic of people saving for college would be more likely to blow their money.
Here are some more appropriate college travel destinations / events Obama could have picked on which promote the same type of adult entertainment Vegas has been criticized for branding itself on:
– Miami / Ft. Lauderdale for Spring Break
– New Orleans for Marti Gras
– New York City for New Years
– Mid West Casing River Boats
– Europe / Amsterdam for anything you want
– Mexico for legalized drinking under the age of 21
– Caribbean Cruises…
– High School Senior Trips…
I agree that no company should be booking trips to Vegas if they need bailout money, but that isn’t what the President said. He could have, but he picked on avg American citizens who are “buying boats instead of paying mortgages.”
Call me crazy, but the people I know who aren’t able to pay their mortgages are too scared, sick and stressed to be out buying boats with cash. That’s right, you can’t qualify for credit to buy a boat if your fico scores are shot due to mortgage delinquencies.
Either way, Obama is the one that said he wanted to spend his way out of this recession… But what, just as long as people don’t help the Clark County economy?
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/politics/obama_plans_to_spend_our_way_out_Swmgz9e2H5RuGgZuBMaWSI
By the way, the bailout companies still booked trips last year, and they probably spent more money in those other cities than they would have in Vegas.
February 6, 2010 — 3:46 am
Michael Cook says:
Interesting. You work so hard to make Vegas synonomus with excess and lavish living, but when the president uses that same symbolism you are up in arms. That makes absolutely no sense at all.
Are you suggesting that if I cant pay for my mortgage I should be going to Vegas? I am with you on the governments outrageous spending, but I dont see how encouraging people to take trips to Vegas is smart? Saying there should be belt tightening and singling out over spending is a good thing.
Ironically, people criticized George W. Bush quite heavily after his post 9/11 speech of “take vacations, go to Disney World, etc.” because they say he was encouraging people to spend money they didnt have. Obama does the exact opposite and you criticize him for that.
If people in Vegas would take a second and honestly think about what was said I really dont think they can have issues with it. Because he singled out Vegas, a symbol for all the excess of American Life, does that make his statement egregous? Of course not. You created the symbol and profited from it, so now dont complain because it is a double edge sword.
I would also like to see some emperical evidence on companies spending more other places than in Vegas. Hotels are cheap everywhere.
February 8, 2010 — 3:05 pm
Mark Madsen says:
>>”Are you suggesting that if I cant pay for my mortgage I should be going to Vegas?”
Sure Michael, if that’s where you’d like to derail this conversation.
No one is claiming that it makes sense to suggesting that someone should spend their money in Vegas if they can’t pay their mortgage. Besides, I highly doubt that people who don’t have mortgage money are going to spend enough in Vegas to make up for the major corporate events and conventions that were discouraged by Obama.
—
>>”a symbol for all the excess of American Life”
Here’s another symbol of excess in American Life that caused more financial pain than Vegas ever could:
http://ebooks.realtor.org/F9AA74F1-60C0-4D00-834E-2AD2E5B265DD/10/369/en/ContentDetails-Cover.htm?ID=E4E631B5-974F-4938-BEF1-7240E8D53BFC
—
My position is this:
Bush / Obama… it doesn’t matter. The President of the United States is out of line for influencing American Citizens on where and how they should spend their money. Period.
—
>>”You created the symbol and profited from it, so now dont complain because it is a double edge sword.”
Here is an article that addresses your issue with the Las Vegas PR campaign:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/08/jillette.obama.vegas/index.html
February 9, 2010 — 1:06 pm
Michael Cook says:
“Bush / Obama… it doesn’t matter. The President of the United States is out of line for influencing American Citizens on where and how they should spend their money. Period.”
This statement makes no sense to me. If I am electing someone to represent my interest, I most certainly want them championing my opinions and influencing others. Isnt that the whole point of electing officials. I believe its stupid for corporations taking government money to spend any money on trips to Vegas, Hawaii, etc. They should be paying the government money back with interest.
So why would I not support him for making a statement that is prudent. Furthermore, I should be happy that corporations decided to pay smaller bonuses and instead repay the tax dollars they borrowered.
While I would agree with you if he made it a law, but the mere suggestion of avoiding Vegas seems smart in my opinion. I disagree with your premise.
To make it very simple, I believe that my elected offical should verbalize my views. I voted for Obama for a variety of reasons. His common sense approach to people reasonates with me and so did this statement. I didnt vote for Bush and I didnt like him sending my family members to war, but that was his right and I dont begrudge him that. Same situation in my opinion.
February 10, 2010 — 2:34 pm
Mark Madsen says:
Fair enough, Michael.
I certainly respect your right to voice and hold your own opinion about what the government’s role should be.
In this particular case, it’s apparent that we are passionate about two different points of view.
Either way, I appreciate the open and civil debate.
February 10, 2010 — 2:56 pm