Thread: Quick we need a distraction.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Heres the sick part. They estimate the number of people in poverty in this country at a bit shy of 50 million. So in the middle of a sequester he plans a vacation that could make millionaires out of every person under the poverty level. Thats just wrong.

Millionaires out of everyone? I just wanted to make sure I was reading this correctly. If Obama is spending millions of dollars for his trips, and with all the secret service, pre-planning, and lead time it takes to make sure he's safe, I'm sure the numbers are high. But spending that on the poor gives them all $1-2 dollars. I only point that out because the liberals in here will be far more aggressive and condescending that I am.

It's still bad to spend that much on his vacation at a time when most federal employees are forced to take unpaid leave.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I dont know. I've read that number a few times in different locations but i dont know any real facts on it.

So if don't know for sure and it's just speculation, shouldn't you refrain from posting this?

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

When your talking 60-100 million for a trip dont you think your question is a bit irrelevant? It should be a sign of a problem that a question like yours even got brought up.

Let me expound on my previous post. If this is true, then yes it would be an excessive amount to spend. But this reminds me a lot of a similar accusation that wasn't true.

Obama's Trip Does Not Cost $200 Million a Day - NYTimes.com

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Let me expound on my previous post. If this is true, then yes it would be an excessive amount to spend. But this reminds me a lot of a similar accusation that wasn't true.

Obama's Trip Does Not Cost $200 Million a Day - NYTimes.com

I love how that article simply says there's no evidence it's true and then makes no effort whatsoever to put forward whatever their crack team of journalists have discovered that the real number is. What a great example of partisan hackery.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

Remember though... this IS the POTUS. The guy needs the most sophisticated, up to date, modern airplane money can buy. Military fighters worth hundreds of millions and the expert pilots to fly them, and all the fuel that goes with it. He needs to carry a small army of staff around, all of whom have to have a place to sleep and food to eat, not to mention their salaries. Then he has a small army that goes ahead of him, sometimes weeks in advance, to plan logistically every step he makes. The whole thing is a monumental effort. Its a wonder he goes anywhere.

Now, if they're eating caviar and Live Maine Lobster every night, that's a bit excessive. But otherwise, his "tab" gets pretty high, pretty quickly. It's not a partisan thing.

The demands of the job do entail that the POTUS sometimes be required to travel quite a bit. It's understandable. Or course, if the POTUS is taking his jet to New Orleans for beignets every morning, then we have a problem. But for official trips? Several million is a bargain.

I think the point DG is making is that during a time when the President thinks the country needs to suffer for the GOP allowing the sequester to go through, its looks bad to see these kinds of numbers when it could all be avoided if the POTUS gave government agencies the ability to shift funds around to make the necessary cuts. I believe that's called leadership.

Once again, is there irrefutable proof that the trip costs $60-100 million?

If not, why are we expounding and discussing it?

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

I love how that article simply says there's no evidence it's true and then makes no effort whatsoever to put forward whatever their crack team of journalists have discovered that the real number is. What a great example of partisan hackery.

Where's the outrage at whoever put forward the bogus number to begin with?