fish82;545558 wrote:Then instead of just saying the number is "wildly exaggerated," the WH should just state what the real number is.

$199,999,000. See...those bastards in India got it all wrong. :rolleyes:

The reason I heard they could not state the number is because of security reasons. That makes sense if you are detailing what you are spending the money on. Thus giving away possible security procedures. No reason why they can't give a total cost without the details. Methinks security is not the reason.

majorspark;545607 wrote:The reason I heard they could not state the number is because of security reasons. That makes sense if you are detailing what you are spending the money on. Thus giving away possible security procedures. No reason why they can't give a total cost without the details. Methinks security is not the reason.

Precisely. They can give the dollar amount for security without disclosing any details. It would be a five minute job for someone to give a simple daily breakdown:

Security
Transportation
Lodging
Food/Drink
Security
Entertainment
Miscellaneous
= Daily Total

The reason that they don't is clear. While $200 million/day might not be the actual number...the actual number would still be less than flattering.

fish82;545558 wrote:Then instead of just saying the number is "wildly exaggerated," the WH should just state what the real number is.

If you pander to every outrageous claim then you become beholden to them.

(I think they could say "it's costing nowhere near that" or "think a quarter of that...total" or something in this case)

I Wear Pants;545699 wrote:If you pander to every outrageous claim then you become beholden to them.

(I think they could say "it's costing nowhere near that" or "think a quarter of that...total" or something in this case)

No you don't...assuming you possess a functioning spinal column, anyway.

If every time some crazy person says "Obama is from Kenya" or "his birth certificate is a fake" or "he didn't really go to college" or "he's a Muslim" they take the time and give said crazy person the satisfaction of a public response then that's all they'd be doing.

Ehh, I agree the WH should publish at least the total number. No specifics, jsut say it will cost x amount and then say previous Presidents spent around y amount.
But, they have responded, sort of.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/11/05/attacks-president-obama-going-asia-a-long-trip-reality

jhay78;545381 wrote:That's all well and good, but with all those details- why over there and not here? I could see a trip there as a formal gesture/goodwill trip, and then meet in the US to hammer out all the details with all the cabinet, staff, etc. Still doesn't make sense all the way through to me.

It is 1. a show of assurance and 2. Probably the easiest, best way to do timeline wise. Since the President is going on this trip in addition to the typical stuff, they are adding other things are well. It is also not very diplomatic to hold all the negotiations or talks with an ally in one country. It is just not how geopolitics is played.

They've said that the cost is equivalent to what it has cost to protect previous presidents on foreign trips, and i believe them. Have no reason to believe that it isn't. I mean, i guess they could give a number, now that the ignorant masses have went nuts in response to a number from some random Indian official, but i have no problem if they simply say it is in line with the costs of previous administrations, and leave it at that.

Things in life cost money. Trips like this are a very significant and real part of the job of the President of the United States. So he goes on the trip, and spends what is needed to ensure his safety while there. Every single fucking President has done the same thing. Seems quite simple. He has a job to do, and he is doing it, and his staff is working to ensure his safety while there. Wouldn't fault Bush for it, and i'm not going to fault Obama for it either.

Yeah, like no administration has ever lied to the public before.

Produce the NUMBERS. For God's sake it's tax money and the public has a right to know how much is being spent.

They won't and shouldn't produce the numbers. Because when they give a figure you'll balk at it even if it's the same as every other presidential trip in history and you'll want to know exactly what they spent it on which includes security things that they cannot tell us for clear reasons.

You don't see me asking exactly how many bombs and of what type we're exploding in the two wars simply because it's tax money.

I Wear Pants;545993 wrote:They won't and shouldn't produce the numbers. Because when they give a figure you'll balk at it even if it's the same as every other presidential trip in history and you'll want to know exactly what they spent it on which includes security things that they cannot tell us for clear reasons.

You don't see me asking exactly how many bombs and of what type we're exploding in the two wars simply because it's tax money.

I actually think they should list a total budget of what it costs for Presidential trips. Just an overall number is fine. I fully support the trip and the cost, but I'm also for full transparency.
And actually, yes if you look in the massive, over 1,000 total pages of the defense budget, you'll see how many bombs/ F-18s, etc we produce and their unit cost.

If the cost figure is so far wrong, all they have to do is say the actual number is in the range of, say $20 million a day, and leave it at that; it's pretty simple. But it's the continued lack of transparency over nearly 2 years that has many people rightfully incensed.

Yea, i would have no problem with them doing that, though they gain nothing from it because folks will still go off the deep end if the number is more than what it cost them to fly to Orlando for vacation last year.

Produce a number, don't produce a number, doesn't matter to me, i'm happy the president is going on this trip, and hopefully it will prove very beneficial. Just as i was always pleased when President Bush represented us overseas.

Why does it take 34 ships, including an aircraft carrier, to protect the President? That's what I want to know. Are they expecting the Indian army to attack during their trip?

cbus4life;546002 wrote:Yea, i would have no problem with them doing that, though they gain nothing from it because folks will still go off the deep end if the number is more than what it cost them to fly to Orlando for vacation last year.

Produce a number, don't produce a number, doesn't matter to me, i'm happy the president is going on this trip, and hopefully it will prove very beneficial. Just as i was always pleased when President Bush represented us overseas.

I'd produce a number and then produce a basic number from past Presidents.

tk421;546007 wrote:Why does it take 34 ships, including an aircraft carrier, to protect the President? That's what I want to know. Are they expecting the Indian army to attack during their trip?

34 ships, most of them are in a Carrier battle/ attack group. Plus, add in shallow water surface ships and ships that patrol along with Indians the port of Mumbai. It is not unrealistic. Plus, we keep around twice that many in the region anyways.

tk421;546007 wrote:Why does it take 34 ships, including an aircraft carrier, to protect the President? That's what I want to know. Are they expecting the Indian army to attack during their trip?

Pretty sure that has been disproved.

Pentagon spokesman:

We obviously have some support role for presidential travel. We don't speak to that in detail for security reasons. But I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd this notion that somehow we were deploying 10 percent of the Navy -- some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier -- in support of the president's trip to Asia. That's just comical. Nothing close to that is being done.

cbus4life;546020 wrote:Pretty sure that has been disproved.

Pentagon spokesman:

Makes sense.

cbus4life;546002 wrote:Yea, i would have no problem with them doing that, though they gain nothing from it because folks will still go off the deep end if the number is more than what it cost them to fly to Orlando for vacation last year.

Produce a number, don't produce a number, doesn't matter to me, i'm happy the president is going on this trip, and hopefully it will prove very beneficial. Just as i was always pleased when President Bush represented us overseas.

I agree...I do think it's a worthwhile trip to make. I just marvel at how out of touch this WH is...like you said, they could put this to bed in the span of five minutes if they wanted to.

fish82;546036 wrote:I agree...I do think it's a worthwhile trip to make. I just marvel at how out of touch this WH is...like you said, they could put this to bed in the span of five minutes if they wanted to.

Fair enough. I would hope that, if they do produce a number, the matter is put to bed.

cbus4life;546044 wrote:Fair enough. I would hope that, if they do produce a number, the matter is put to bed.

Assuming it's backed up with a number from a previous administration, I don't see why it wouldn't be.

Almost 1/3 of the Navy's floating force to supports a Presidential trip?? I don't think so.

Glad the Pentagon closed that little snippet up.

he must be talking about gov. quitter???? they dont even vote for her candidates in alaska!!! lol!!

Spiegel Online has a great commentary on the Obama/Dem meltdown: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,727235,00.html

tk421;545235 wrote:200 million a day is indefensible for the President going anywhere in the world. What is this, the 1920s? Jesus, you'd think the secret service and the President had never traveled outside the U.S. with the amount of people and support they are sending. Like was said above, are we planning on invading India for god's sake? This kind of government waste is the perfect example of the mentality of those in power in D.C.

this story is filled with nothing but lies , fox took that story and ran with it knowing it was completly false. but fox knows their viewers are so stupid they will believe anything.