Anytime WC wants to argue about anything numbers related I think I'll just bump this thread. If you're an asshole who can't figure out that a trip isn't going to cost 2 ing billion dollars then you should never be taken seriously in any kind of discussion dealing with money.
1. Where in did you read all this nonsense
2. Not everything on the internets is true
3. Stop relying on fake news organizations for ALL of your information
4. They can't disclose how much they're spending due to Security
5. Where in the did you get all this crap...
Willful stupidity
Let's hope to Buddah that they don't levy an import tax on motorcycle parts.
So let me get this straight, they're NOT using 40 jets every day for ten days? Crazy!
Sorry that you're too stupid to see I was questioning that number from the start.
No, you blindly accepted that number from the get go. Later, to your credit, you backed off the 2 billion and somehow settled on the $200 million or above line in the sand....which is equally ludicrous.
The central point you keep dancing around in some bizarre, passive-agressive display of bovine incomprehension, is this:
It's a matter of state. Cost is ulitmately, irrelevant. There is no cost/benefit ratio to compare with other trips of state...Get over it.
Nonsense! If Obama got a ranch and stayed there instead of doing all this dip-lo-matic horse , it would save the taxpayers approximately 1.3T/yr.
Bull ! Them chainsaws don't grow on trees, ya know!
I was hungry, until I ate. (inference: I stopped being hungry after I ate)
I was sleepy, until I slept. (inference: I stopped being sleepy after I slept)
You were skeptical until you read something. (inference: You stopped being skeptical)
You weren't questioning the number. That is the problem. You stopped questioning it after you read something that vaguely fluffed it out. Then, instead of applying some modi of rational skepticism, you went off and treated it as real enough to post this thread.
I was less skeptical, seeing it was possibly real. Never accepted it as fact. My le with the question mark should be enough for anyone with intelligence.
Anyone with intelligence knows that a question mark is relative to either a statement or intent. Keep it up tho! I'll be your enabler!
So your statement "God... This is getting ridiculous." really meant that you were questioning why the amounts were not correct. Ok, I get it now.
The central point you keep dancing around in some bizarre, passive-agressive display of bovine incomprehension, is this:
It's a matter of state. Cost is ulitmately, irrelevant. There is no cost/benefit ratio to compare with other trips of state...Get over it.
"Where's the pretty lady?"
Sorry that we speak different languages. I know what I meant. If the sum of my posts elude you all, then what am I to say.
Until of course, you stated precisely the opposite in your OP.
Anyone of intelligence would interpret the statement "I was skeptical, until I read something" as saying you stopped being skeptical, yes or no?
My God. I went from skeptical to open minded of the possibility. Why is that so ing hard to understand?
Why is that so ing hard to understand?The central point you keep dancing around in some bizarre, passive-agressive display of bovine incomprehension, is this:
It's a matter of state. Cost is ulitmately, irrelevant. There is no cost/benefit ratio to compare with other trips of state...Get over it.
Cost is relevant.
Ok, I'll play another round of passive/agressive theater.
Relevant to what?
Debunking the myth: The cost of Obama's trip to Asia
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/...ex.html?hpt=C1
(CNN) -- It's a story that originated from a single, unnamed sourced in India -- but it quickly gained momentum, spreading like wildfire among critics of the Obama administration in the United States and eventually, the airwaves.
The claim: The United States will be "spending a whopping $200 million per day" on President Barack Obama's trip to Asia.
That's roughly the amount the federal government spends each day on the war in Afghanistan. The figure has been dismissed by the White House as "wildly inflated."
What's more, the claim doesn't appear to hold water.
The former chief of staff for George W. Bush told CNN's Anderson Cooper in a Thursday interview that it doesn't pass the "sniff test."
"It doesn't to me, but I think the White House is appropriate in saying they don't talk about what it costs for the president to travel," said Andrew Card. "We want our president to be safe wherever he goes. I can't imagine it would cost $200 million a day.
"If it costs anywhere close to that number, the president should be asking tough questions of the Defense Department and the Secret Service and the State Department. But he should also be paying attention to keeping his entourage as small as credibly possible and still do the job that he has to do for the country as he travels."
While the White House has not released specifics on the cost of the trip, citing security concerns, White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage has said, "It's safe to say these numbers are wildly inflated."
Those numbers, according to Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, are: $200 million a day, $2 billion total, 34 diverted Navy ships, a 2,000-person presidential entourage, and 870 hotel rooms in India.
"And these are five-star hotel rooms at the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel," Bachmann told CNN's "AC 360" Wednesday night.
Pressed by Cooper to back up her numbers, Bachmann said, "These are the numbers that are coming out in the press."
The press she was referring to is the Press Trust of India, one of the largest news organizations in that country. Its source for Tuesday's article on the cost of Obama's trip was based on a single anonymous source: "a top official of the Maharashtra government privy to the arrangements for the high-profile visit."
The Press Trust article was picked up by The Drudge Report and other sites online and quickly made its way into conservative talk radio, sparking outrage by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and others.
The White House and Pentagon have fielded questions about the Indian report and have dismissed the claims in the article.
"I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd this notion that somehow we're deploying 10 percent of the Navy, some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier in support of the president's trip to Asia," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told reporters this week. "That's just comical. Nothing close to that is -- is -- being done."
While the exact cost of Obama's 10-day trip to Asia is not known to the public, an examination of similar presidential excursions in the past support the likelihood that the $200 million-a-day figure is exaggerated.
For example, an 11-day trip by then-President Bill Clinton to Africa in 1998 involved about 1,300 people cost $5.2 million a day, according to the federal Government Accountability Office, which adjusted for inflation.
Obama's trip, which kicks off Friday, is intended to expand export markets and strengthen security cooperation in what he considers a region vital to U.S. interests.
The trip to India, Indonesia, South Korea and Japan encompasses a G-20 summit, an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, major holidays in India and Indonesia, and bilateral talks with Chinese President Hu Jintao and at least five other leaders, as well as four presidential news conferences.
It's all part of an administration focus on Asia as a strategic region in the 21st century, said Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.
The president's itinerary in India includes a speech to the Indian parliament, a state dinner and a wreath-laying at the grave of Indian independence leader Mahatma Gandhi.
It's out tax dollars at stake, and we are already deep in the red.
I'm done with you making this about me. Move on to better relevance, or facts about the trip.
Oh, don't pussy out now. Let's explore this.
We are spending tax dollars on a great many things. Why is a matter of state suddenly relevant to the rest of our tax expenditures?
Like I said, it is a concern if it is costing near a total of $200 million. I agree we want to show up are a rich country. , an idea of the White house was to be a grand setting.
I'm curious why you would possibly defend such spending.
Because the cost of diplomatic travel is the same Saigon that bit the USSR's nose* off!!!
* And by nose, I mean economic viability.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
