Mrs. Obama's trip to Spain was a bargain by comparison http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...it-picked-US-taxpayers.html?ito=feeds-newsxml $200,000,000.00 a day All this just to avoid having to talk to the press about having his agenda rejected by the American people.
It wouldn't surprise me if that number is either wrong, inflated, or including costs that are common place. Or, and I bet this is the case, it's 200 million in India's money.
I know, right? The number is so crazy it almost feels like it has to be a mistake. As I understand it, much of the money is for security, but in that case why stay at the hotel in the first place? Certainly, there must be an isolated estate. I'm fine with spending money on the Office of the President to keep our chief executive secure, but the spending choices seem extravagant especially given our current economic circumstance.
I don't see how you can spend $200 million a day on security. Don't we already own the equipment and don't we already pay the salaries of the people? Shipping it over there might cost a bit, but nowhere near that much. Anything purchased locally is going to be pretty cheap, especially labor. Doesn't pass the smell test. Especially since the link just says "it was reported that". Reported by who, from what source? barfo
It's a good question. I'll continue to look. I think much of the cost has to come from renting the hotels and paying the Indian jurisdictions for security is a bill we will foot.
Here's a bit more: http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/us-to-spend-200-mn-a-day-on-obama-s-mumbai-visit-64106 It looks like that figure was from an Indian official.
My point is that I think it's possible to keep him safe and spend less money. Replace the Taj Mahal hotel with a private residence, for example. Meet the Indian PM in more private locations. I'm sure there are many others. Given our economic circumstances and the necessity of this trip (which is pretty low), it just seems profligate.
Why don't you arrange a meeting with the Secret Service and ask them if the trip can be made more economical? I understand your anger at wasteful government spending, maxiep. I agree with it in principle. But getting worked up about it does no good, since there's absolutely nothing a single person can do about it. And the apathy of the average American voter tells me that there's no "groundswell" of support for doing anything about it.
An interesting response. I could swear we had an election last night that resulted in the largest republican gain in 62 years, primarily on the back of "the average American voter". I wonder where the apathy is? I'm hardly worked up. I just found the scope and scale of this trip poorly timed and tone deaf.
Please. Elections are cyclical. I'm talking CHANGE. You seem to cling to this notion that Republicans are any better than Democrats and vise versa. American voters have been conditioned to think within this little box of ability to choose between two groups, neither of which has any real interest in rocking the boat. The Tea Partiers are delusional if they think that anyone that has been elected yesterday will facilitate real, bonafide CHANGE. It'll be business as usual, minus the occassional Fox News soundbite. That may sound defeatist, but it's the truth. Neither aisle has any interest in fundamental government reform. Why would they, when pockets are being lined from all sides? When incumbent campaign "war chests" are overflowing, and the only ones with the financial abilty to run against them are themselves beholden to corporate and special interests with fat bank accounts? Sad to say, and I hope I'm wrong, but the only real change will happen in this country when: a) people get hungry and rise up with the weapons they've stockpiled, or b) the Chinese loan notes default.
I think no such thing. I prefer small government to large government. I'm not a Republican. What I'm trying to say is that last night wasn't a vote for the GOP, it was against the Obama agenda. Change occurred last night and will need to occur in 2012, 2014, 2016, etc. Government needs to live within its means and the baby boomers need to stop demanding we pay for their standard of living.
Lets call it highly suspect, then. Why would the US even share with an Indian official how much the US was spending? barfo
So you think hiding and cowering in fear is the correct response to terrorists threats. I'm more of a flip-em-off kind of guy. A large reason for these trips is to give the people around the world to see and hear our leader, probably the most effective thing for us long term.
You worked for the government and now are an externality to a simple transaction. In other words, you've spent your life spending other people's money. It doesn't bother you when the government wastes money we don't have because that's been your life. It bothers me.
I wonder how much of that is $$ already spent on their salaries (as was asked earlier in the thread). And along with barfo, I wonder why the US would tell India how much they would spend, as if it's any of their concern. Sounds trumped up to me. I have no doubt they spent a fair amount on trips, nor do I doubt all presidents have. What I do doubt, or at least have a hard time believing, is that it cost 200 million a DAY. Maybe it was 200 million for the TEN days, and it was lost in translation.
Oh, well, there ya go. Their call centers can't help me fix Windows 7, why should I believe them on this?
