Obama's 10 Day Asian Trip

[jackson33]

Is there some one here, that would like to defend President Obama's planned Asian tour, in particular the first three days in India. The purpose, as I understand it is to encourage one way 'Free Trade" or exports from the US into India. Several big name CEO's are planning on being there, including the CEO's of Boeing and GE, which to my knowledge already do a great bit of business with India. I'm not sure the purpose of taking Mrs. Obama, other than her planned trip to Mumbai's red light district and I' really not sure their two daughters should be going at all...The Taj Mahal, has already been hit once by terrorist and Mumbai is the most densely populated city in the WORLD, a couple minor points.

 

Barack Obama and his traveling delegation have book at least 800 rooms for the president's trip to Mumbai, according to reports, including the entire Taj Mahal hotel.

 

"Obama's contingent is huge," a senior Indian security official told the newspaper. "There are two jumbo jets coming along with Air Force One, which will be flanked by security jets. The President's convoy has 45 cars."

 

The Economic Times also reported that Mr Obama's delegation is so large that another 300 rooms have reportedly been booked in other luxury Mumbai hotels. The scale and cost of the visit is certain to provoke criticism from Mr Obama's Republican foes in the US at a time when the country is mired in economic difficulties, with unemployment standing at nearly 10 per cent.

 

The report also claimed Mrs Obama has been invited to visit Mumbai's red-light district, the largest in the world, to meet prostitutes and hear about their lives.[/Quote]

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2613649/posts

 

 

Other reports are saying 40 Aircraft, up to 800 rooms and hundreds personnel are involved and just running some preliminary figures, these first three days will cost over 100M$, of the planned 10 day Asian tour. But then I have no idea how a Red Light District, can even be made secure for the First Lady...

[cypress]

I think it is generally unwise to defend the indefensible.

[divagreen]

This is one of the responses to your "sourced" article...

 

That black elite jackass is just playing without money. He will spent over 10 billion of this lottery like spending before we can kick his as@ out.

 

Uhm...okay...you might want to double check the article to be sure it comes from a credible source, rather than spew the remnants of hyperbolic diarrhea that centers around an already confirmed opinion. Sorry, but I dislike the spreading of misinformation.

 

This one was interesting though...

 

Trip to India and the politics behind it...

 

VVVVVVVV Thank you Mr. Skeptic! That is weird...why did it come up that way?/divagreen

Edited November 5, 2010 by divagreen

[Mr Skeptic]

This one was interesting though...

 

Trip to India and the politics behind it...

 

Here's the fixed link:

http://blogs.reuters.com/afghanistan/2010/10/23/obama-in-india-next-monthripples-in-the-region/

 

---

 

Hm, interesting trip. I hope we get our money's worth. India is advancing nicely and with 1 billion people there they would make a very valuable trading partner.

[swansont]

Does anyone care to defend all of the trips made by previous presidents?

[cypress]

I doubt that many take issue with presidential trips in general. The issue seems to be the excesses of arrangements and amenities associated with this trip relative to the current economic environment.

[John Cuthber]

The president of a relatively small country went to talk to the government of a bigger one.*

I don't see what the issue is.

 

*(the population is 3 or 4 times bigger)

[Sisyphus]

Well, you didn't explicitly attack it, so what is it that needs defending? I'm assuming you're implying it's especially extravagant (and dangerous?). How much does a major Presidential diplomatic tour of Asia usually cost? I don't see any comparative figures. I also don't see any substantive argument that it isn't worth the cost. (Not saying it is, necessarily, just that I haven't seen anyone say anything relevant to the contrary.)

[jackson33]

If the trip goes as explained/described in my link (not comments), which I seriously doubt the Secret Service, would allow, then most of you have no problems with the expense or in fact taking his wife and children into the apparent environment, amazing to say the least...

 

Swansont, I'd need an example of anything comparable and it would likely have to had been in the early 80's or maybe during the depression. I had no problems with Michelle Obama's Spanish vacation or any Presidents business trip, but this seems a little lavish for the purpose, forgetting safety.

 

 

diva; I hadn't wanted to discuss the political agenda, but will; Any economical issue, must be some kind of ploy. We already have outsourced jobs to India, Obama has no control over this or any real power to generate business products into any other Country. Since Obama opposes Trade Agreements (supports Unions), I doubt he has one on his mind.

 

 

As for India, their concerns are not buying US products, for the most part their too expensive for comparable products made in their own Country or China. Microsoft and other technology Companies are already there, using cheaper labor to build products for US Consumption and Tata Motors (Indian), dominates the small Truck/Auto industry.

 

As for the purpose of the trip, India is concerned with US plans in Afghanistan, the War on Terror and relations with Pakistan. With out satisfactory answers to the Indian Government on these concerns there are no economical gains to be made. IMO, I believe Obama really believes he is a diplomat, he is not and the fact his administration is "deeply divided" (Woodward) tells me there are few in the Administration that are qualified diplomats....From a referenced link, your link;

 

 

The "Great Game" bubbles under Obama's India trip.

 

(Reuters) - Touted as a visit with an emerging economic power, U.S. President Barack Obama's trip to India in November will also be about how New Delhi deals with that elephant in the room - the Pakistan-Afghanistan conundrum....

 

"India thinks that the U.S. is placing too much reliance on Pakistan in Afghanistan, and it's not to be trusted," said Walter Andersen, a former U.S. State Department official now at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies.....

 

WHAT IS OBAMA THINKING?

 

The trouble for India is knowing exactly what Obama plans to do in Afghanistan - when will troops be withdrawn, or how many? What influence could the Taliban have in any peace settlement ?

U.S. journalist Bob Woodward's new book "Obama's Wars" underscored for many commentators that Obama's administration is deeply divided over its Afghan strategy.[/Quote]

 

http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-52421520101025?pageNumber=2

 

The president of a relatively small country went to talk to the government of a bigger one.*

I don't see what the issue is.

 

*(the population is 3 or 4 times bigger) [/Quote]

 

John C; Well the trip is planned for many Governments, not only India, but the cost and safety angle involved here especially in India, seems a little extravagant to me. Normally when a President travels to "talk" he will land in AF One, be picked up by the local Ambassador, usually staying at their home, do his talking and get back on the plane. This would be Timothy J. Roemer whom seems well qualified to speak FOR the President, if not then the President has a Secretary of State, Ms. Clinton (will she be there?) IMO more qualified to speak for the US than Obama, in either case at a fraction of the cost. As for any influence, he will be visiting after basically losing a policy referendum election (my opinion and a few thousands others) and heads of State are going to know and understand this.

 

Sisyphus; Good point, but my comments were based on extravagant (in these times) and dangerous under the current Mumbai environment. I've expanded above somewhat on the economical agenda and area security problems (political).

 

If the trip goes off as suggested, for him to "talk", he will be spending at least 100M$ (my personal rough guess). I am curious how he can explain 4 news conferences during the 10 day Asian Tour, how many has he given in the US over 20 months. Guess the Indonesia Mosque visit is back on the schedule, but I have no problems with that. He will also be visiting the leaders of China, our biggest debt holder, another good thing but I don't think he is taking hundreds of people, 40 planes or renting 800 rooms to talk, there.

 

— Obama plans to speak at four press conferences during his trip to India and Asia.[/Quote]

 

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/1010/asia_briefing_takeaways_6626314d-a22b-4e14-aaf2-6214b169268e.html

[John Cuthber]

"Normally when a President travels to "talk" he will land in AF One, be picked up by the local Ambassador, usually staying at their home, do his talking and get back on the plane."

Some places are not normal.

"If the trip goes off as suggested, for him to "talk", he will be spending at least 100M$ (my personal rough guess). "

If my maths is right that's about 30 cents each.

How long did it take you to post this, and what is the minimum wage where you are?

[Pangloss]

I don't have a problem with this.

[swansont]

I hadn't wanted to discuss the political agenda, but will; Any economical issue, must be some kind of ploy. We already have outsourced jobs to India, Obama has no control over this or any real power to generate business products into any other Country. Since Obama opposes Trade Agreements (supports Unions), I doubt he has one on his mind.

(emphasis added)

 

What?

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/107451-obama-says-hell-submit-trade-agreements-to-congress-as-soon-as-possible

[jackson33]

swansont, I'm sorry when it comes to this administration, I prefer to talk in performance (action)not rhetoric. Obama is literally in bed with the Unions, even in some campaign speech denounced NAFTA, then calling the Canadian PM to explain, "it's politics". I don't question, under some circumstance he might attempt an agreement/treaty, but I seriously doubt it would pass Democratic Senate approval. Unions oppose anything free trade, but may agree on a "one way" agreement and why I mentioned it above "...

 

From you July article, now nearly the end of this Congress;

 

Democrats are divided over all three deals, but are particularly hesitant about moving forward with the Colombia agreement. The South Korean deal has more support and would be the most important of the agreements for the U.S. economy, but it is opposed by labor groupsand Ford.

 

All three deals have been stalled since Obama became president, leading to criticism from Republicans about his lack of a trade agenda.

Obama has pledged to double U.S. exports over the next decade, which critics have said would be difficult without moving forward with the pending trade deals. [/Quote]

 

On this issue, would you clarify how the President of the US, can personally increase exports into Countries, that have cheaper labor, less cost to build factories, get permits and for the most part less regulation. He, or again the administration seems to be doing EVERYTHING to increase the trade deficit, primarily for oil imports in both the recent moratorium and continued resistance to American exploration, drilling and refinery capacity. By the way I mentioned the Indian Tata Motors above and they build Trucks in S. Korea.

 

 

If my maths is right that's about 30 cents each.

 

How long did it take you to post this, and what is the minimum wage where you are? [/Quote]

 

John, it's the cumulative effect. I'm talking about three days and that .30 per US person is added to an awful lot of other money being spent as IMO, unreasonable expenses.

 

Some places are not normal.[/Quote]

 

Then let those he chose to do a job, do the job...

[swansont]

swansont, I'm sorry when it comes to this administration, I prefer to talk in performance (action)not rhetoric. … in some campaign speech denounced NAFTA, then calling the Canadian PM to explain, "it's politics".

 

So you prefer not to talk in rhetoric, and your one example is rhetoric.

 

Obama is literally in bed with the Unions

 

That must be the biggest bed in the world. Is it located in Washington DC? I might go see it.

 

lit·er·al·ly actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy

[John Cuthber]

"Then let those he chose to do a job, do the job... "

He did.

He chose himself to do that work.

[jackson33]

swansont; Yes and it was meant to be rhetorical, worked and you know the point...Obama doesn't walk the walk and opposes free trade, regardless what he says.

 

John; He chose others to represent the US (an Ambassador/Secretary of State), but yes wishes to visit for some reason and his absolute right. Back to the OP then, does this require taking his wife, kids, hundreds of people, renting 800 rooms including a complete hotel and 40 Aircraft. Keep in mind India also has an ambassador IN WASHINGTON DC and the normally used procedure is to call in that person to the White House. I'd go further and suggest, normally the diplomats on the ground have worked out some agreement in advance of any "Head of State" visit, which is possibly true here, but this still does NOT require the expensive and dangerous program being planned.

[Pangloss]

That must be the biggest bed in the world. Is it located in Washington DC? I might go see it.

 

Ridicule is not an argument.

 

This is an argument:

 

"Pro" (supports jackson33's statement)

# Obama will strengthen unions and workers’ rights. (May 2004)

# Owes unions who endorsed him; that’s why he’s in politics. (Oct 2006)

# Employee Free Choice Act: right to organize harassment-free. (Jul 2008)

# Fight attacks on workers’ right to organize & strike. (Feb 2008)

# Give public safety officers collective bargaining rights. (Aug 2007)

# Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Jun 2007)

 

"Con" (opposes his point)

# FactCheck: Yes, wants to limit secret balloting for unions. (Oct 2008)

 

 

 

And since you bring up the subject of what people think of these arguments, I'll just point out that jackson33 is hardly alone. You are in a much smaller socio-political grouping than he is, actually.

 

 

[swansont]

Ridicule is not an argument.

 

 

But "Obama is literally in bed with the Unions" is?

[Pangloss]

Saying that a politician is "in bed with" a special interest group is a well-recognized means of stating an opinion. Understandably, you asked for substantiation, and I offered it above. Would you like to talk about whether that opinion is valid based on the evidence?

 

If you would like for us to no longer allow the use of obvious figures of speech when stating opinions, you could report the post and we can then take it up on the moderation forum, if you like. Otherwise can we not nit-pick obvious figures of speech, please?

[swansont]

Saying that a politician is "in bed with" a special interest group is a well-recognized means of stating an opinion. Understandably, you asked for substantiation, and I offered it above. Would you like to talk about whether that opinion is valid based on the evidence?

 

 

I understand the metaphor, and I was not asking for substantiation. The problem I was attempting to point out is that the more I have to decipher what someone else says, the harder it is to communicate. If I have to assume that you meant something other than you wrote, then all bets are off. Case in point — your response indicates you did not understand the point I intended to make in my post. Whose fault is that?

 

Obama is not literally in bed with unions.

[jackson33]

swansont; With all due respect, do you really understand how childish your sounding as a respected moderator and expert on a Science Forum. As said earlier, you knew darn well what was meant, basically having no answers. Rhetorical means to emphasize (Given to rhetoric, emphasizing style at the expense of thought), which was exactly my intent. With out the emphasis, there are hundreds of examples of "being in bed with"and I'm sure some have embellished their opinions in the same or in some other manner.

 

As to the thread, remember, you have said other Presidents have done the same and I've seriously looked for some examples, but I can't seem to find anything going to this level. If you can give me an example or two, any party, it might be helpful. Then if you wish to continue the Union Ploy, used by Obama, in YOUR offered link please respond to Pangloss's post #17, which should pretty well have put any discussion to rest. If you have a defense for this planned trip, I'd really like to hear it or anybodies. If I'd wanted and probably should have, IMO the total cost for Obama's trips to date, not including the Asian Trip, would far exceed any Presidents traveling expense, most probably during their entire tenure in 20 months....He is getting into 2012 Campaign mode (if ever left it) and this might become very expensive to the taxpayers. Your thoughts appreciated....

[Mr Skeptic]

Yes, what you said is that you wanted to not talk in rhetoric, and followed that up immediately with a rhetorical statement that is false. Yes, we all understood what you mean but what you said is still false. Figures of speech aren't literal. Someone who is literally in bed with someone is, in fact, in a real bed with them; someone who is metaphorically in bed with them just has some sort of agreement with them.

 

If you would like us to not take you at your word but rather try to guess at what you really mean then I guess this isn't much of a problem. But then don't go complaining when people read into what you are saying things that you didn't intend.

 

As to the topic of the thread, is there any evidence that this trip costs more than the benefits it is expected to bring?

[Pangloss]

And maybe you're focusing on nit-picking a figure of speech because you don't like what he has to say. This is getting us nowhere, and you know full well I'm not going to let you gang up on him like that.

 

By all means you can address the question you put in bold above, or if you want to talk about the unions angle, here is an argument in support of the allegation that President Obama is, figuratively and not literally speaking, "in bed with the unions". Please discuss this or the cost of the Asia trip, and let's move on from the figure of speech deal.

 

---

http://ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

 

"Pro" (supports jackson33's statement)

# Obama will strengthen unions and workers’ rights. (May 2004)

# Owes unions who endorsed him; that’s why he’s in politics. (Oct 2006)

# Employee Free Choice Act: right to organize harassment-free. (Jul 2008)

# Fight attacks on workers’ right to organize & strike. (Feb 2008)

# Give public safety officers collective bargaining rights. (Aug 2007)

# Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Jun 2007)

 

"Con" (opposes his point)

# FactCheck: Yes, wants to limit secret balloting for unions. (Oct 2008)

[swansont]

If you have a defense for this planned trip, I'd really like to hear it or anybodies. If I'd wanted and probably should have, IMO the total cost for Obama's trips to date, not including the Asian Trip, would far exceed any Presidents traveling expense, most probably during their entire tenure in 20 months....He is getting into 2012 Campaign mode (if ever left it) and this might become very expensive to the taxpayers. Your thoughts appreciated....

 

As I indicated earlier, I'd like to see a defense of earlier trips by other presidents. Why is this one being singled out? Because it's 10 days long? Is it more efficient to fly to Asia once or more than once? Should he break the trip down into separate trips to India/Indonesia and South Korea/Japan?

 

By all means, investigate the itineraries and expenses and compare. Here are the trips

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_trips_made_by_the_President_of_the_United_States

 

In his first two years, Obama looks like he will have made 16 international trips. GW Bush made 11. Clinton made 8. GHW Bush made 15.

[Pangloss]

I agree with the above.

 

If the cost is the issue, okay, I think it's valid to complain about cost, but it has to be weighed against benefit and that's not something that's easily dismissed with a wave of the hand. If he were flying to Australia every weekend for a round of golf that would be a valid complaint. But justifications for this trip have been provided. We can't know if those justifications are completely valid, but we can't know if they're invalid either. Therefore we have to trust that they are and that the people we put in charge will handle things appropriately.

 

And everyone knows this. So this story is actually just politicizing something for the sake of building anger, and when you do stuff like this you support bascule's case that Fox News is misleading voters who don't know what they're doing when they get to the polls. It's making things worse, and I can't support it.