Jump to content
jackson33

Obama's 10 Day Asian Trip

Recommended Posts

Well the thread emphasis was on the Asian Tour, the extreme cost and the safety, then primarily for the first three days. I don't think, including adjusting the dollar value, there has been any other trip that would come anywhere close to those first three days in Mumbai.

 

Now here is one comprehensive list of Presidential trips made by Presidents and I can find nothing remotely close in cost or extravagance (renting 800 rooms, hundreds of people, 40 planes, etc), not mentioning the potential dangers involved to himself or his family. You can check out all trips, with a description of why it was made from this link;

 

http://wapedia.mobi/en/International_travel_by_the_United_States_president

 

 

President Obama's 10 trips to 24 cities in his first calendar year are more than double President G.W. Bush's 5 trips to 11 nations. President Clinton went overseas only 2 times to 3 nations in his first calendar year as president. Prior to the presidency of H. Bush there were no VC-25s to serve as Air Force One, and logistics made frequent presidential travel much more difficult. President Obama's International travel has considerably diminished in his second year in office.[/Quote]

 

http://wapedia.mobi/en/List_of_international_trips_made_by_the_President_of_the_United_States#1.

 

I'm not a particular fan of Bush 43's, fiscal responsibility either but in his first 2 years, he had made 11 trips compared to Obama with the Asian trip 14 (two trips canceled)

http://wapedia.mobi/en/List_of_international_trips_made_by_the_President_of_the_United_States#2.

 

If it helps, the cost to fly AF One per hour is about 60K$ per hour, based on a Henry Waxman report, complaining about Bush 43's travels, that covers about 600 miles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Bush visited India in 2006.

 

From the airport, Bush drove down to Maurya Sheraton Hotel, which has been completely taken over by the US administration for Bush's maiden visit to South Asia.

http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/mar/01bush25.htm

 

"All the 600 rooms of the hotel have been booked by the Americans accompanying Bush on his maiden visit as the President," sources said.

http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=63504

 

I guess he had a big entourage, too. And it wasn't just that one one hotel.

 

Some 17 dogs belonging the K-9 squad of the US Secret Service have also been put up at top Delhi five-star hotels, Indian media reports say.

 

Special rooms have apparently been booked in the Sheraton hotel, where Mr Bush is staying, and at the equally plush Le Meridien hotel.

 

The German Shepherds and Labradors are staying in rooms which cost more than $200 a night.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4766670.stm

 

Whaddaya say — remotely close?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

swansont; Can't really argue with you on your research. It's bad, but at the now reported cost to the tax payers of 200M$ per day (Mumbai), not including a pre and post activity, I'd suggest the Bush party paying their own way made a difference ("All the 600 rooms of the hotel have been booked by the Americans accompanying Bush on his maiden visit as the President," sources said"., I seriously doubt it took 40 planes to get them their and in 2006 the economy was not in a free fall. Additionally there is no mention of him taking his wife or the twins, but for him the trip was no less dangerous and IMO NOT necessary.

 

About 3,000 people including Secret Service agents, US government officials and journalists will accompany the president.

 

Several officials from the White House and US security agencies are already in Mumbai for the past one week with helicopters, a ship and high-end security instruments.[/Quote]

 

http://dailypaul.com/node/148219

 

 

I would suggest the Bush Indian Trip, expense wise was more in line with Michelle's Spain vacation and a toss up (per hour) for Obama NYC date.

 

Even the Obama loving BBC noted in the second sentence that some were criticizing the Obamas for the “insensitive and wasteful” spending which puts the criticism much higher in the story than any of the American press where it usually appeared at the tail of the story if at all. AFP followed the BBC model by putting the Republican complaint in the top half of its story, unlike the U.S. media for the most part did.[/Quote]

 

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11610

 

At some point this incremental increase in the cost of the Federal Government in the US (by both major parties), for silly and unnecessary extravagance, be it this threads issue, Federal Employment, Individual Welfare Benefits or what have you, has got to come to an end. We can do it ourselves or pay dearly for what will happen under restructuring or worse INFLATION. Think about it 19 MILION existing homes in the US are now vacant, 15 MILLION cannot find a job (unemployment) and an additional 10 Million are looking for work or under employed to their talents, we over spent 1.3T$ in 2010 (FY), looking at ten more years of the same.....and I DO mean on and on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

swansont; Can't really argue with you on your research. It's bad, but at the now reported cost to the tax payers of 200M$ per day (Mumbai), not including a pre and post activity, I'd suggest the Bush party paying their own way made a difference ("All the 600 rooms of the hotel have been booked by the Americans accompanying Bush on his maiden visit as the President," sources said"., I seriously doubt it took 40 planes to get them their and in 2006 the economy was not in a free fall. Additionally there is no mention of him taking his wife or the twins, but for him the trip was no less dangerous and IMO NOT necessary.

 

 

I don't see where that says that the people who accompanied Bush paid their own way.

 

As far as the economy goes, if there's a chance the president can open up new markets for US exports, isn't this in fact the best time to go on such a trip?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose around here it just might be me, but when I started this thread I figured it was extravagant based on the current US economy, giving modest estimates for cost on very little information. I've changed my personal opinion, to now an unprecedented show of arrogance, extreme self importance OF ONE, person on the worlds stage and your paying for it...

 

 

Obama's Trip to India Will Cost U.S. Taxpayers $200 Million a Day.

 

In the middle of a recession, the country grimaces under the weight of 10% unemployment and Obama wants to take a holiday.

 

The President and First Lady Michelle will wing their way to India on the incomparable Air Force One, by the way, it is only the first stop on Obama’s upcoming ten day Asia trip.

 

Obama’s upcoming ten day trip to Asia is supposed to be another attempt related to Obama’s international leadership skills...for this he needs an entourage of 3,000 personnel including 200 of his own ‘people’.

 

The estimated daily cost of the High Prince's jaunt is around $200 million.

A $200 MILLION a day trip, funded by your taxpayer dime.[/Quote]

 

http://www.waltonandjohnson.com/showarchives.html?n_id=1003

 

I have no idea what the pre-arrival cost have been, but it's probably not being included in these figures and now with 34 Warships, assume just passing time (not serving any purpose) are now there for some unexplained reason. I have no idea when extravagance turns to irrational behavior, but this operation must be close.

 

The King Commandeers 34 Warships for India Excursion

 

For a mere two-day pop-in to India, his Highness has deemed it necessary to be protected by a fleet of 34 warships, including an aircraft carrier, which will patrol the sea lanes off the Mumbai coast during his two-day stay there beginning Saturday.

 

Two jets, armed with advanced communication and security systems, and a fleet of over 40 cars will be part of Obamas convoy.

 

Around 800 rooms have been booked for the President and his entourage in Taj Hotel and Hyatt.

Sources said 13 heavy-lift aircraft with high-tech equipment, three helicopters and 500 US security personnel have arrived in India ahead of Obama's visit.

 

The US security has also brought interception and obstruction device, sniffer dogs, rescue gadgets.

 

Apart from Obama's Air Force One, a few private luxury jets carrying top American corporate leaders, who are part of Obama entourage, are also expected to arrive in India in next 2-3 days.

 

The President will have a security ring of American elite Secret Service, which are tasked to guard the President, along with National Security Guards (NSG) and personnel from central paramilitary forces and local police in Mumbai and Delhi. [/Quote]

 

http://www.waltonandjohnson.com/showarchives.html?n_id=1011

 

 

swansont; The article your linked said "Americans booked room". Admittedly reading between the lines, this tells me they then paid for them,

 

As far as the economy goes, if there's a chance the president can open up new markets for US exports, isn't this in fact the best time to go on such a trip? [/Quote]

 

I went over this before, however in my opinion short of a US Government project in India (better not be), he has no power over Indian or US trade, or would India likely agree to IMPORT American products (One way trade agreement) under any circumstances. As for business, American business is having trouble selling American Products in this Country and India has easier access to all Chinese or other Countries products, not to mention products they produce for about half the price done in the US. And NO, this is not the time; Any Corporation based in the US that wishes to do business there, many already do, will go on their own. As in the US there is a concern over uncertainty in India's future, based on Pakistan, which is based on US dealings in Afghanistan and their main concern today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

swansont; The article your linked said "Americans booked room". Admittedly reading between the lines, this tells me they then paid for them,

 

 

I've booked rooms for official government travel many times. The government paid for them.

 

 

 

Is there any credible source for the $200 million a day number? No. The White House is the only source that could, and they say it's wrong.

 

"The numbers reported in this article have no basis in reality," said White House spokesman Tommy Vietor. "Due to security concerns, we are unable to outline details associated with security procedures and costs, but it's safe to say these numbers are wildly inflated."

 

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/11/obamas-india-trip----not-as-expensive-as-you-may-have-heard/1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've booked rooms for official government travel many times. The government paid for them.[/Quote]

 

And I've taken hundreds of bookings for two Motels, Kingsville Texas and couldn't tell you if one was from a third source, that usually involves an expense report. I don't think either of our experiences, give the answer.

 

"The numbers reported in this article have no basis in reality," said White House spokesman Tommy Vietor. "Due to security concerns, we are unable to outline details associated with security procedures and costs, but it's safe to say these numbers are wildly inflated."

 

....

 

One other thing to keep in mind: The Secret Service is not going to let anything happen to a president overseas if they can help it. They're going to do -- and spend -- whatever it takes. That's just a fact of life.[/Quote]

 

From you link; Sounds a little too much like any results reported, will validate his comments... "CYA" so to speak. Aside from that WH spokes people, tend to say lots of things on script. Tony Snow, was always invoking his "opinion", to stay out of trouble. Another thought if the 200M$ per day came from an Indian source, I wonder if the movement of people, goods, personal and war ships was correctly estimated into the cost, or even if considered.

 

Since India will also be the G-20 Meeting in South Korea and many times Presidents have used these types of gatherings (G7-G8) to discuss issues, wouldn't you agree that would have been a more practical and cheaper setting.

 

Trivia; Did you know Mumbai, was once known as Bombay? The people I rent from today are from near there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also speculation that the "200 million" was actually rupees, which is plausible considering the purported source, and the conversion to dollars was an error in interpretation. That would inflate the cost by a factor of ~44

 

 

Edit to add:

Anderson Cooper "You don't have to make stuff up"

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2010/11/04/ac.obamas.india.trip.cost2.mov.cnn

 

(BTW, there's a story using an anonymous source on the internet which claims that Michelle Bachmann spends close to $50 million a day of government money on cosmetics.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that even 200 million can be justified... (regardless of whether it's rupees or dollars) for 3 reasons

 

1) India and Pakistan hold the key to the conflict in Afghanistan... so this trip is no minor issue.

If this trip shortens that conflict by 1 single day, then the money is already paid back.

 

2) In addition, a number of big industrial contracts can actually pay the entire sum of money back to the American economy as well... on the long term.

 

3) Obama is the president of America. Shock and awe. American Dream. etc.

Bringing the whole family just makes a big show... American style. It is obvious that the president of the most powerful nation on earth travels in style.

 

 

Why is the president criticized over a little sum of money trying to establish world peace and economic growth, when significantly more is spent on advertisements for a mid-term election?? Talk about a waste of money. I think this trip has a LOT more added value than those advertisements that only try to convince the population that the other candidate is a douchebag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's also speculation that the "200 million" was actually rupees, which is plausible considering the purported source, and the conversion to dollars was an error in interpretation. That would inflate the cost by a factor of ~44[/Quote]

 

swansont; Actually that's a pretty good point, explaining many things. 4-5 Million a day for internal cost while in India, makes a little more sense. I don't know about all the preparations and other cost, which I doubt an Indian author would even consider.

 

(BTW, there's a story using an anonymous source on the internet which claims that Michelle Bachmann spends close to $50 million a day of government money on cosmetics.) [/Quote]

 

I thought that was Polosi's 'Cosmetic Surgery Cost', but get the point and one I often use....

Assuming you feel the trip is justifiable, including under the safety and necessity angles (you seem not to want to discuss), I'll just agree to disagree.

 

CP; Wish you had joined in earlier, since your points on more on target, though I still disagree.

 

1) India and Pakistan hold the key to the conflict in Afghanistan... so this trip is no minor issue.

 

If this trip shortens that conflict by 1 single day, then the money is already paid back.[/Quote]

 

Not really; India and Pakistan are having their own problems, especially over Kashmir which is 80% Muslim and most there, want to be part of Pakistan. Unless it's just not announced (proper way to handle) Obama is not planning on visiting Pakistan and our KEY, to getting out of Afghanistan.

If the trip extends the "conflict" one day would you then add an undeterminable amount to the cost of the trip. Obama is a polarizing figure, between Moderate Muslims and the Extremist or traditionalist/terrorist. I'm sure his security crew is concerned, still don't understand the necessity and can picture hundreds of "nutcase's" trying to figure a way to disrupt his visit.

 

2) In addition, a number of big industrial contracts can actually pay the entire sum of money back to the American economy as well... on the long term. [/Quote]

 

Of course I hear this all the time, but short of "Trade Agreements" (which must be ratified by Congress) the President has no power. Those that DO in the US are the Corporations themselves and have been doing a very good jobs for many years. We are still running a pretty big trade deficit with India* and I don't think the Service Industry counts (most all US business use Indian sources). Most often when you ask (phone) a Company for information, your talking to a person in India.

 

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5330.html

 

3) Obama is the president of America. Shock and awe. American Dream. etc.

Bringing the whole family just makes a big show... American style. It is obvious that the president of the most powerful nation on earth travels in style. [/Quote]

 

You need to be a little careful of flaunting the American dream around the World. In fact, many pundits believe Obama himself is trying to display the US as an equal partner in World affairs or not superior. Pick your issue, but Obama's administration and/or Congress has been enacting policy to be like the rest of the World, not superior.

 

Why is the president criticized over a little sum of money trying to establish world peace and economic growth, when significantly more is spent on advertisements for a mid-term election?? Talk about a waste of money. I think this trip has a LOT more added value than those advertisements that only try to convince the population that the other candidate is a douchebag. [/Quote]

 

The private sector money and that of Government (which comes from the private sector) are not the same. People waste there money, every day on all kinds of things, vacation homes to marijuana, gambling etc. but do so by their choice. This attitude should not be Governments attitude, with tax payers money and when you place 3,000 people into a seemingly dangerous situation, to me it seems to show arrogance and some sense of self importance.

 

It's under way and I do hope this event gets pulled off without any incident and some progress is made on something, however I worry that many folks in this Country, think Government is a very deep sink, full of cash to be used at will and for any purpose. IMO, this attitude is self destructive and today, there is not much more I can do than argue that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's bad, but at the now reported cost to the tax payers of 200M$ per day (Mumbai)

Sometimes it is a good idea to put your critical thinking cap on, jackson33. This number is ludicrously out of whack with reality. What, are they sending 100,000 troops to India? No. Even though the claims of this trip become ever more exaggerated with time, the numbers do not come anywhere close to 100,000. The 100,000 troops we have on the ground in Afghanistan today cost about $190 million per day.

 

 

When I first heard this doozy the number of people was about 2000 and the number of hotel rooms was 800 (Obama is a cheapskate! He's making people double, even triple up on rooms!). Let's take these numbers as a given and use a completely over-the-top rate of $1250 per night. Okay, there goes the first million. Where does the remaining 199 million come from? Per diem? That would be quite the extravagant per diem! Renting forty 747s and only putting only 50 people on each plane so they can stretch out and par-tay? The numbers just won't add up to $200 million/day, no matter how many fictional "warships" one adds to the tale. (That 34 warship nonsense is, BTW, more nonsense.)

 

Suppose for the sake of argument the total cost of the ten day trip turns out to be $60 million. Will the promulgators of this nonsense issue a retraction? My prediction: Not a chance. That $200 million / day figure will never be mentioned again. They will simply change gears and attack Obama for his $60 million dollar boondoggle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't realize this thread started with the referencing of a post at Free Republic. Freepers, and their liberal equivalents at Democratic Underground, are pretty abhorrent, and they are generally uninterested in reasoned debate. They are partisan's partisans -- the very worst of the worst.

 

I don't think it's a good idea to ever quote either of those sites here at SFN, except perhaps to point out what the extremists are saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Suppose for the sake of argument the total cost of the ten day trip turns out to be $60 million. Will the promulgators of this nonsense issue a retraction? My prediction: Not a chance. That $200 million / day figure will never be mentioned again. They will simply change gears and attack Obama for his $60 million dollar boondoggle.

 

Right. A responsible journalist would get confirmation and use credible sources (which was the gist of the Anderson Cooper clip), so anyone running with the $200M number is probably not a responsible journalist (or responsible congresscritter). You can tell who's interested in the truth and facts, and in honest dialogue, with stories like these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
responsible congresscritter

What's that?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sometimes it is a good idea to put your critical thinking cap on, jackson33. This number is ludicrously out of whack with reality. What, are they sending 100,000 troops to India? No. Even though the claims of this trip become ever more exaggerated with time, the numbers do not come anywhere close to 100,000. The 100,000 troops we have on the ground in Afghanistan today cost about $190 million per day.[/Quote]

 

DH; I've pretty well conceded that point, with the mention of the "rupee" which does make sense. Frankly I should have known it to begin with having actually traded the rupee, at a small profit, I might add.

 

Just taking TODAY'S Obama comments, that the trip is designed to open up Indian Imports to American products, which to be polite, IMO is nonsense. I'll simply ask anyone for an explanation on how this can be done or more importantly why the Indian Government would agree to anything of the sort, which I've gone over several times, our labor cost is simply too high to compete.

Now we don't have a formal 'Trade Agreement' with India* and this might have been worked out by our Ambassador but this has not been mentioned. If he want's to increase exports by 'Free Trade Agreements', he has three that could be passed today and setting on his desk. I'll add getting out of the way of the private sector or in some manner giving the business world a little confidence (extending Bush Tax cuts, at least 2-4 years) would be less expensive and far less dangerous than the trip. Frankly the Financial Pundits are thinking there is some activity based on the potential possibility, the new Congress can get these things done. IMO, the Courts will handle the HCB and then watch your HC Insurance cost, come back down.

 

*India is an important trading partner with the United States. Even though the United States and India do not have a free trade agreement (as the United States has with many other countries), these two nations nonetheless have established some strong trading ties in recent years. The growing technology sector in India has greatly contributed to this mutually beneficial trading relationship. Trade between the United States and India is expanding, but is still governed by some important regulations. Learn how your business can comply with U.S.-India trade agreements.[/Quote]

 

Read more: How to Comply With U.S.-India Trade Agreements | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_2061823_comply-usindia-trade-agreements.html#ixzz14S0foAC9

 

Suppose for the sake of argument the total cost of the ten day trip turns out to be $60 million. Will the promulgators of this nonsense issue a retraction? My prediction: Not a chance. That $200 million / day figure will never be mentioned again. They will simply change gears and attack Obama for his $60 million dollar boondoggle. [/Quote]

 

Probably not, but I've yet to hear one Democrat pundit or media outlet, that predicted the House would remain Democratic in 2011, openly admit, they were wrong. What I'm generally hearing from them, is how Palin and the Tea Party lost the Senate majority. It always works both ways...

 

 

Pangloss, I was reluctant to offer this thread but frankly it's been reported on all Networks, all around the Internet and many have questioned the safety issue. I only added the purpose and economical value or maybe the traditional way these things HAVE been handled. If you don't want certain links used, make a list and I'll try to follow, but have used three different ones on this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DH; I've pretty well conceded that point, with the mention of the "rupee" which does make sense. Frankly I should have known it to begin with having actually traded the rupee, at a small profit, I might add.

 

The unnamed Indian source specifically said dollars, not rupees. The extremely mainstream conservative media has not dropped this claim as of yet. I strongly suspect you picked up this tidbit of misinformation from the extremely mainstream conservative media, so I am going to pick at you and at them.

 

I am, or was, one of the more conservative members at this site (just ask Bascule). This lyin' putrid garbage from the mainstream conservative media has as of late really turned me off of the right wing. Given their market share, conservative TV and radio are *the* mainstream media, yet they are acting even less responsibly than ever. If you watch them or listen to them, do keep your thinking cap on.

 

You Tea Party advocates: I truly hope you will like the mess you have just created. Minnesota is stuck with Michelle Bachmann for at least two years. Wisconsin and Kentucky are stuck with Ron Johnson and Rand Paul for at least six years. This is not a good start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DH; The rupee comment was brought up by swansont, as a misunderstanding of the American Media, which if you figure the differences (44-1) makes sense. I certainly hope I never infered this trip would cost up to 2B$, which I have heard.

 

Post 33, swansont;

There's also speculation that the "200 million" was actually rupees, which is plausible considering the purported source, and the conversion to dollars was an error in interpretation. That would inflate the cost by a factor of ~44[/Quote]

 

 

I am, or was, one of the more conservative members at this site (just ask Bascule). This lying' putrid garbage from the mainstream conservative media has as of late really turned me off of the right wing. Given their market share, conservative TV and radio are *the* mainstream media, yet they are acting even less responsibly than ever. If you watch them or listen to them, do keep your thinking cap on.[/Quote]

 

As for being a "more conservative member of this site" it really wouldn't take that much or at least from the few that will dare post. I see even ParanoiA, has quit posting, which really bothers me, but then banning iNow from Politics also bothered me.

 

I do try to keep an open mind and often disagree with mainstream Conservatives. However, if I have to classify my Conservatism, it's based on my understanding of the Constitution. It also involves reality, I hope, and what's possible in today environment and the main reason I don't go Libertarian. I consider based on the first 18 months or so, the Tea Party as a movement toward a more strict adherence to the intend of that Constitution (not the Libertarian literal version).

 

You Tea Party advocates: I truly hope you will like the mess you have just created. Minnesota is stuck with Michelle Bachmann for at least two years. Wisconsin and Kentucky are stuck with Ron Johnson and Rand Paul for at least six years. This is not a good start. [/Quote]

 

I think Bachmann is an asset to Republicans as will be Johnson, Paul and you forgot Rubio and an untold number of the hundreds entering States Legislatures next year. The problem is not the start IMO, but a chance of stopping the progressive movement which I'm beginning to wonder if the Republican Establishment is interested in stopping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Bachmann is one of your prize assets y'all are in big trouble in 2012.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pangloss, I was reluctant to offer this thread but frankly it's been reported on all Networks, all around the Internet and many have questioned the safety issue. I only added the purpose and economical value or maybe the traditional way these things HAVE been handled. If you don't want certain links used, make a list and I'll try to follow, but have used three different ones on this thread.

 

Can you cite a single source that has done its own fact-checking and/or investigation on this?

 

The Anenberg FactCheck outfit has debunked it. CNN has debunked it. Links below. If there is no credible source on this then it is discredited and the discussion is over, and I'm going to close the thread on the grounds of integrity (essentially making the community look bad).

 

http://factcheck.org/2010/11/ask-factcheck-trip-to-mumbai/

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/05/obama.asia.cost/?iref=obnetwork

 

We have data on how much past Presidential trips have cost. If they say the costs here are comparable and there is no evidence to the contrary, we have to take them at their word, jackson. We cannot accept a single unattributed source as accurate.

 

In the case of some Clinton trips, we have figures from a 1999 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office — now called the Government Accountability Office. The GAO said that Clinton’s trips to Africa, Chile and China in 1998 cost at least $42.8 million, $10.5 million and $18.8 million, respectively — not counting the still-classified cost of providing Secret Service protection.

 

In Africa, Clinton was accompanied by about 1,300 individuals — not including members of the Secret Service — representing the White House, the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. The president visited six countries in 12 days, which means the trip cost $3.6 million per day.

 

Clinton made the five-day Chile trip in order to attend the second Summit of the Americas — a meeting of 34 heads of state or governments from countries in the Americas — and to hold meetings with the president of Chile. About 600 individuals accompanied the president on the trip, which we calculated would have cost $2.1 million per day.

 

When Clinton visited China to conduct talks with the president of China, he brought along about 500 individuals. The trip lasted nine days, which works out to a little less than $2.1 million per day.

 

The total cost including Secret Service protection would of course be somewhat higher, but even doubling or tripling those figures and adding in an adjustment for inflation would not produce anything close to the figure given by the Indian news article for Obama’s trip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's that?

A mythical beast seen in some fictional works.

 

 

Probably not, but I've yet to hear one Democrat pundit or media outlet, that predicted the House would remain Democratic in 2011, openly admit, they were wrong. What I'm generally hearing from them, is how Palin and the Tea Party lost the Senate majority.

 

The difference between a prediction and a fact aside, which pundits or outlets were predicting that?

 

 

——

 

 

Action, not rhetoric

 

WH announces $10 billion in trade deals with India

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying that a politician is "in bed with" a special interest group is a well-recognized means of stating an opinion.

 

Something tells me the only person Obama is literally in bed with is Michelle Obama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
President Obama is on an official visit to India. This is the longest visit of Obama to a single country of his presidency. President Obama at the US-India Business Council Summit announced $ 10B trade deals with India. Obama also mentioned the Boeing and General Electric deals. Boeing will sell dozens of commercial and cargo aircrafts to India,while General Electric will sell over 100 advance jet engines.[/Quote]

 

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7256521-president-obama-announces-10b-trade-deals-with-india

 

I do find it interesting that those that felt/feel, the Bush Administration was in bed with Haliburton and those terrible Oil Companies cannot see the comparisons to this Administration and the Unions.

 

Now try and put some perspective on what 10B$ in POTENTIAL (is there an obligation) purchases. There are really only two major producers of Jet Engines for Aircraft or Aircraft in the World and I doubt Rolls Royce (UK) and Airbus will hold back their bids for the suggested work. For the nit pickers, I'm aware of the minor players but both Airbus (EU) and Boeing, primarily use both the major engine builders.

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

While I don't know the years involved or the specifics, Boeing does about 65B$ worth of Business annually and GE over 151B$ annually (not sure what is in A/C engines or Electric Locomotive Engines) but I doubt their shares of the so called added business, will amount to much if anything since surely they would have bid for the business anyway. Anyway the suggested "adding of 50K jobs, Obama" (where have I heard this type of prediction used before) is about 1/3rd what's needed annually to just keep up with the new entries to the US work force. IMO, scrap the current Health Care Program, Extend the Bush Tax Cuts indefinitely (can always be changed later) and reduce Corporate Taxes (there just passed on anyway) and 2M Jobs will suddenly appear overnight!!!

 

A related issue; Rail Locomotives are very expensive, often leased over years and both Boeings larger Passengers 757 and 767 can cost over 200M$ each. We're talking years, since both GE and Boeing have holdings in India, it wouldn't take much more business for either, to build/assemble their products in Europe or Asia, where it's cheaper and where the business is.

 

DH; Michele Bachmann, may not be the total answer, however she is a respected member of her Tea Party followers. The 54 yo attorney, former Democrat is a late comer to national politics and pretty well fits the description of what I feel the founders wanted to see, coming to the House from States, a person with vested interest in the Country and this covers many areas. While she earned her law degree from William and Mary Law School, she did attend Oral Roberts University which might upset some Moderates/Independents, it has not yet shown.

 

I figure if Mr. Reid, Ms. Polosi represent the Democratic Party at the highest level and now for an additional 2-6 years, she has nothing to worry about and as a FORMER Conservative, I find your concern puzzling. In fact, what this TP movement is claiming, is an extension of Reagan philosophy and no Conservative could or should, IMO object to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMO, scrap the current Health Care Program, Extend the Bush Tax Cuts indefinitely (can always be changed later) and reduce Corporate Taxes (there just passed on anyway) and 2M Jobs will suddenly appear overnight!!!

 

Well to the extent that there's a perception problem amongst small business owners and operators those things might have some impact. It's my understanding though that the lack of available credit is a more significant stumbling block to short term growth at the moment. Though I suppose is small businesses began to show a little growth and solvency they might find it easier to obtain credit, since small-business lending is also influenced by perception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well to the extent that there's a perception problem amongst small business owners and operators those things might have some impact. It's my understanding though that the lack of available credit is a more significant stumbling block to short term growth at the moment. Though I suppose is small businesses began to show a little growth and solvency they might find it easier to obtain credit, since small-business lending is also influenced by perception. [/Quote]

 

Pangloss: No doubt many smaller/medium business are hurt by there property value/ business value having depreciated to the point Banks won't finance as they had. The problem IMO and a few others is that there are trillions of dollars out there, including my meager amount, that would in some manner be invested, with some sense of certainty coming from Government. Said another way any business that had already been doing well, done things right cutting back at an early point (I sold most of my stocks, early in 2008) would take advantage of the low markets values and start investing, which includes business investment and labor. Employers have never had the selection (quality) available today for workers, yet remain reluctant to invest without knowing what to expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.