121
Post by: Relapse
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-trip-to-africa-poses-special-challenges-enormous-costs/2013/06/13/29d9270a-cd29-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_print.html
It's nice to know he can't keep the White House open for tours, but can shell out this kind of cash to take his whole family , mother in law included, to Africa.
18698
Post by: kronk
Seems like a lot of money...
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
And what about the millions upon millions that are wasted by congress debating stupid laws, the millions that go into the military. But no everyone complains about 1 trip.
So what? the president is just supposed to sit around and not talk to the rest of the world?
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
I bet all those furloughed staff feel so much better for reading that
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Every time a large number gets quoted for a president traveling, it's because they counted the cost of the nearby military as though those troops would not be paid otherwise.
I assure you, those airplanes would have flown somewhere else. The carriergroup and medics would have just been in another region at the same cost per day.
It's a sure bet that this trip was entire digits cheaper than 100 mil.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
The Washington Post wrote:
...the preparations appear to be in line with similar travels in the past...
121
Post by: Relapse
 hotsauceman1 wrote:And what about the millions upon millions that are wasted by congress debating stupid laws, the millions that go into the military. But no everyone complains about 1 trip.
So what? the president is just supposed to sit around and not talk to the rest of the world?
At 100mil a pop, he can send a rep for far cheaper than taking his whole family.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kilkrazy wrote:The Washington Post wrote:
...the preparations appear to be in line with similar travels in the past...
Previous administrations weren't making cuts to military, stopping children's white house tours, etc., citing money shortages while making these kind of family trips. It would be nice to have a dollar amount to also see what is meant by "In line".
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Kilkrazy wrote:The Washington Post wrote:
...the preparations appear to be in line with similar travels in the past...
And I didn't like those either! I believe the issue at hand is that we're in this "financial crisis" and people are being given mandatory unpaid vacation days because of the straits the government is apparently in with it's lack of money.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Do you think international diplomacy should be cancelled for the duration of the financial crisis?
I wonder how much it cost to get the President over to Europe during WW2.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Kilkrazy wrote:Do you think international diplomacy should be cancelled for the duration of the financial crisis? I wonder how much it cost to get the President over to Europe during WW2.
No I don't think it should be cancelled, but the President should be forced to experience the TSA and international travel like the citizens he represents/leads   He can plop down 2 grand for the ticket and sit in between a woman that refused to pay for 2 seats because she couldn't put down the milkshake and fries, and a screaming baby going through teething.
18698
Post by: kronk
SouthWest is cheaper.
Also, he could stay at a Motel 6 or something.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Kilkrazy wrote:Do you think international diplomacy should be cancelled for the duration of the financial crisis?
I wonder how much it cost to get the President over to Europe during WW2.
No, but that is why we have Ambassadors, and why the mother-in-law needed to be flown out on a diplomatic mission is beyond me. And WWII as a comparison? Really??
121
Post by: Relapse
Kilkrazy wrote:Do you think international diplomacy should be cancelled for the duration of the financial crisis?
I wonder how much it cost to get the President over to Europe during WW2.
Roosevelt didn't take his whole family on a vacation tour during WW2 to the tune of that decade's equivelant of that much cash.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
The environmentalists wouldn't be happy with that. Leaving a light on for Obama just wastes electric
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
The price difference between just obama and obama and family is likely miniscule. Most of the expenses for this sort of thing kick on just the same no matter how many people are going.
121
Post by: Relapse
 Dreadclaw69 wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Do you think international diplomacy should be cancelled for the duration of the financial crisis?
I wonder how much it cost to get the President over to Europe during WW2.
No, but that is why we have Ambassadors, and why the mother-in-law needed to be flown out on a diplomatic mission is beyond me. And WWII as a comparison? Really??
This right here, is on the money.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Relapse wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Do you think international diplomacy should be cancelled for the duration of the financial crisis?
I wonder how much it cost to get the President over to Europe during WW2.
No, but that is why we have Ambassadors, and why the mother-in-law needed to be flown out on a diplomatic mission is beyond me. And WWII as a comparison? Really??
This right here, is on the money.
The problem with that argument is that it implies that there is a time when we can afford to send a president.
If it costs that much more and ambassadors are just as good, then we should never send the president, logically.
121
Post by: Relapse
The only reason they canceled their little 2 hour side safari was that people heard about what the rest of the vacation trip was costing and got royaly pissed.
6872
Post by: sourclams
We've seen, repeatedly in history, that when US presidents' approval drops they do a round of 'foreign affairs' to give themselves some relatively softball media exposure on the global stage.
Of course, the horrible flatness of his reception in Europe and the poor timing of the Snowden revelations shot that one in the face.
One could also argue, easily, that US-Africa relations don't necessarily need to be a priority right now (as they have not been for the last half dozen years). What're we going to do? Take sides in the Egyptian uprisings? Provoke Russia over meddling in the Syrian civil war (that we absolutely don't want to bother with anyways)? Something something Libya something? And with Mandela on his deathbed, and another round of potential 'uncertainty' between Xhosa and Zulu looming, question mark. Hey, maybe Obama's incidentals spending will stop the progress of Boko Haram, right?
If Africa was going to be a priority, then this is awfully late to the party for little/no tangible gain. We're not even dependent upon them for natural resource/energy security as we continue to discover that North America was built upon one gigantic energy deposit.
This is like spending twelve hundred dollars to get a monthly fruit basket subscription.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
 Rented Tritium wrote:The problem with that argument is that it implies that there is a time when we can afford to send a president.
There is - when the country is not in the red, when benefits for military families aren't being scaled back because of budget issues, when unemployment is massively high, when public assistance programs are in huge demand, and when federal employees don't have to take unpaid leave (furloughs)
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
I think it would be productive to talk about the value of ANY presidential trips, not just ones during a recession. If you are mad that this cost a lot, you should not be less mad when we spend that in good times. Waste is waste, right?
I mean, unless you're just gunning for obama, which about half of you probably are.
121
Post by: Relapse
Rented Tritium wrote:Every time a large number gets quoted for a president traveling, it's because they counted the cost of the nearby military as though those troops would not be paid otherwise.
I assure you, those airplanes would have flown somewhere else. The carriergroup and medics would have just been in another region at the same cost per day.
It's a sure bet that this trip was entire digits cheaper than 100 mil.
Those planes and carrier groups get diverted at a fairly sizable cost. We already have administration statements about Bengazi, that it was too hard to send assets that far to save lives.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Relapse wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:Every time a large number gets quoted for a president traveling, it's because they counted the cost of the nearby military as though those troops would not be paid otherwise.
I assure you, those airplanes would have flown somewhere else. The carriergroup and medics would have just been in another region at the same cost per day.
It's a sure bet that this trip was entire digits cheaper than 100 mil.
Those planes and carrier groups get diverted at a fairly sizable cost. We already have administration statements about Bengazi, that it was too hard to send assets that far to save lives.
But not at the costs quoted. The 100 million is very likely counting their entire cost, not just the diversion cost.
The real cost of the trip might still be high, but it's probably not ACTUALLY 100 million in practice. Accounting is complicated.
121
Post by: Relapse
Rented Tritium wrote:I think it would be productive to talk about the value of ANY presidential trips, not just ones during a recession. If you are mad that this cost a lot, you should not be less mad when we spend that in good times. Waste is waste, right?
I mean, unless you're just gunning for obama, which about half of you probably are.
When your family is running out of money, you don't make trips to Disneyland. Automatically Appended Next Post: Rented Tritium wrote:Relapse wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:Every time a large number gets quoted for a president traveling, it's because they counted the cost of the nearby military as though those troops would not be paid otherwise.
I assure you, those airplanes would have flown somewhere else. The carriergroup and medics would have just been in another region at the same cost per day.
It's a sure bet that this trip was entire digits cheaper than 100 mil.
Those planes and carrier groups get diverted at a fairly sizable cost. We already have administration statements about Bengazi, that it was too hard to send assets that far to save lives.
But not at the costs quoted. The 100 million is very likely counting their entire cost, not just the diversion cost.
The real cost of the trip might still be high, but it's probably not ACTUALLY 100 million in practice. Accounting is complicated.
It appears Obama has no problem with accounting if he can find cash for that kind of family vacation with all of the cutbacks on needed things he's initiated.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Rented Tritium wrote:I think it would be productive to talk about the value of ANY presidential trips, not just ones during a recession. If you are mad that this cost a lot, you should not be less mad when we spend that in good times. Waste is waste, right?
I mean, unless you're just gunning for obama, which about half of you probably are.
 So we can't say that a foreign trip for the Obama family (complete with mother-in-law) costing the tax payer up to $100,000,000 is not the wisest expenditure in a recession because we didn't criticise it when we could afford it (I still think a lot of Presidential trips are just money sinks), and half of us are just out whine about Obama anyway so our opinions can just be discounted in case we are in that magically arbitrary 50%.....
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Relapse wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:I think it would be productive to talk about the value of ANY presidential trips, not just ones during a recession. If you are mad that this cost a lot, you should not be less mad when we spend that in good times. Waste is waste, right?
I mean, unless you're just gunning for obama, which about half of you probably are.
When your family is running out of money, you don't make trips to Disneyland.
I would hardly classify Africa as Disneyland But I get your point, and agree! We didn't go on a vacation this year because cash is tight...
34644
Post by: Mr Nobody
He's going to Africa to meet his true, secret family. Donald Trump said so. 
25220
Post by: WarOne
The price to send the president overseas along with staff and security...
6872
Post by: sourclams
Does anyone really think he's going for reasons other than to just get away from his lack of any real progress towards anything domestically?
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
 sourclams wrote:Does anyone really think he's going for reasons other than to just get away from his lack of any real progress towards anything domestically?
He walked from Nelson Mandela's village to the prison he was in... That's progress right?
If it cost 100 million to ship the president overseas, how much would it cost to send the rest of the politicians overseas? Will we get bulk cargo discount rates?
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
I would refute the "running out of money" point, but I don't suppose you guys actually know anything about macro.
I don't suppose you guys were around for the last 300 times people got mad about how much a presidential trip cost. You know, back during the every single administration.
6872
Post by: sourclams
I'm a practicing economist and market trader, actually.
But flash back to four months ago when school children were shut out of the White House because tours cost $16,000/day for additional security.
It's pretty specious to simultaneously claim CANNOT POSSIBLY SEQUESTER CUTS while playing one gak load of golf on the taxpayer's dime and going on family trips to every-damn-where.
25220
Post by: WarOne
I wonder if we can send 28mm versions overseas instead...
121
Post by: Relapse
Rented Tritium wrote:I would refute the "running out of money" point, but I don't suppose you guys actually know anything about macro.
Glad you're so much smarter than all of us who don't understand why the administration that closes White House tours because of lack of money can afford to shell out over $100,000 a year for somebody to watch the family dog.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Once we develop really high end telepresense robots, we should just campaign to end all presidential trips to solve the argument.
28305
Post by: Talizvar
Outsider looking in:
During a time of financial crisis the accepted policy of Americans is a more Republic (US-centric? within country focus?) approach: focus on internal rather than foreign affairs.
Expenses of the president on foreign diplomacy is viewed similar to the royal family in Britain as a waste of public money.
It is smart to look at exterior trade because revenue IS needed but the trip did not seem to meet that role.
Usually a major diplomatic agreement is made on these trips. Nothing concrete was stated from this visit.
At first glance, I would agree with our southerly neighbors that it was an expensive trip with no publicly visible returns.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Relapse wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:I would refute the "running out of money" point, but I don't suppose you guys actually know anything about macro.
Glad you're so much smarter than all of us who don't understand why the administration that closes White House tours because of lack of money can afford to shell out over $100,000 a year for somebody to watch the family dog.
Apparently I am, since I'm clearly the only one in this thread aware that congress closed the tours, not the administration.
121
Post by: Relapse
 Alfndrate wrote: sourclams wrote:Does anyone really think he's going for reasons other than to just get away from his lack of any real progress towards anything domestically?
He walked from Nelson Mandela's village to the prison he was in... That's progress right?
If it cost 100 million to ship the president overseas, how much would it cost to send the rest of the politicians overseas? Will we get bulk cargo discount rates?
I have about $100 I could chip in to ship over Biden, Pelosi and Frank...
6872
Post by: sourclams
Actually it was the Administration that got to 'pick' where to cut once it was known that cuts would occur, and what they cut was the White House tours. Further, they then turned down independent donors who were willing to donate money for the specific purpose of keeping those tours open.
And this largley ignores that Sequestration is not even a cut, it is a reduction in the amount that spending was going to increase.
So, yeah, something something Congress something.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
 Talizvar wrote:Outsider looking in:
During a time of financial crisis the accepted policy of Americans is a more Republic approach: focus on internal rather than foreign affairs.
Expenses of the president on foreign diplomacy is viewed similar to the royal family in Britain as a waste of public money.
It is smart to look at exterior trade because revenue IS needed but the trip did not seem to meet that role.
Usually a major diplomatic agreement is made on these trips. Nothing concrete was stated from this visit.
At first glance, I would agree with our southerly neighbors that it was an expensive trip with no publicly visible returns.
The trouble is that basically no presidential trip will ever have returns. That's why it's dumb to say "we're running high deficits so this trip sucks". Either these trips are always pointless or never pointless. Suggesting that the current economic situation changes their value is an exercise in not understanding the numbers.
I'm pretty open to the argument that these trips are almost always politics and cannot possibly return enough to be worth it. But I think that's true all the time, not just because we're in a recession.
121
Post by: Relapse
Rented Tritium wrote:Relapse wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:I would refute the "running out of money" point, but I don't suppose you guys actually know anything about macro.
Glad you're so much smarter than all of us who don't understand why the administration that closes White House tours because of lack of money can afford to shell out over $100,000 a year for somebody to watch the family dog.
Apparently I am, since I'm clearly the only one in this thread aware that congress closed the tours, not the administration.
That's debatable
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/14/obama-opens-door-to-resuming-white-house-tours-in-face-outcry/
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Only if you're listening to partisan hacks.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Rented Tritium wrote:I think it would be productive to talk about the value of ANY presidential trips, not just ones during a recession. If you are mad that this cost a lot, you should not be less mad when we spend that in good times. Waste is waste, right?
I mean, unless you're just gunning for obama, which about half of you probably are.
OK. no presidential trips. We got by for a hundred years without any. As stated, thats what ambassadors are for.
34390
Post by: whembly
meh...
He's the President... they all travel.
*shrugs*
I do admit that the "political optics" of this make him look bad.
Hey... for every day he's golfing or "vacationing"... he ain't governing... would that be a good thing to some folks?
21196
Post by: agnosto
I hope you didn't quote fox news with a straight face. You would think that the right would love spend-thrifting but I guess they get to choose what gets cut (i.e. education, read the latest house bill on reauthorization).
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
 Frazzled wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:I think it would be productive to talk about the value of ANY presidential trips, not just ones during a recession. If you are mad that this cost a lot, you should not be less mad when we spend that in good times. Waste is waste, right?
I mean, unless you're just gunning for obama, which about half of you probably are.
OK. no presidential trips. We got by for a hundred years without any. As stated, thats what ambassadors are for.
I'd be on board. I mean, big summits and treaty signing type things notwithstanding.
21196
Post by: agnosto
Frazzled wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:I think it would be productive to talk about the value of ANY presidential trips, not just ones during a recession. If you are mad that this cost a lot, you should not be less mad when we spend that in good times. Waste is waste, right?
I mean, unless you're just gunning for obama, which about half of you probably are.
OK. no presidential trips. We got by for a hundred years without any. As stated, thats what ambassadors are for.
Agreed! But it has to stick, no repeal after a Republican gets in office. No trips until we see a balanced budget.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Look! A Non-Fox News Link! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/george-holding-white-house-tours_n_3467951.html Edit: I don't really care about the tours thing, I just wanted to post a different link
55659
Post by: pities2004
Alfndrate wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Do you think international diplomacy should be cancelled for the duration of the financial crisis?
I wonder how much it cost to get the President over to Europe during WW2.
No I don't think it should be cancelled, but the President should be forced to experience the TSA and international travel like the citizens he represents/leads He can plop down 2 grand for the ticket and sit in between a woman that refused to pay for 2 seats because she couldn't put down the milkshake and fries, and a screaming baby going through teething.
He's the freaking president of the united states.
19377
Post by: Grundz
remember when he took a trip last time and it cost 20 million a day?
then it turns out it didnt?
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
 pities2004 wrote: Alfndrate wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Do you think international diplomacy should be cancelled for the duration of the financial crisis?
I wonder how much it cost to get the President over to Europe during WW2.
No I don't think it should be cancelled, but the President should be forced to experience the TSA and international travel like the citizens he represents/leads He can plop down 2 grand for the ticket and sit in between a woman that refused to pay for 2 seats because she couldn't put down the milkshake and fries, and a screaming baby going through teething.
He's the freaking president of the united states.
Ya so? He's a citizen of the United States, why does he get to avoid the backscatter machine and friendly TSA groping? Are you saying that he should get preferential treatment just because he's the President? HOGWASH AND FLIM FLAM BOY!
34390
Post by: whembly
Alfndrate wrote: pities2004 wrote: Alfndrate wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Do you think international diplomacy should be cancelled for the duration of the financial crisis?
I wonder how much it cost to get the President over to Europe during WW2.
No I don't think it should be cancelled, but the President should be forced to experience the TSA and international travel like the citizens he represents/leads He can plop down 2 grand for the ticket and sit in between a woman that refused to pay for 2 seats because she couldn't put down the milkshake and fries, and a screaming baby going through teething.
He's the freaking president of the united states.
Ya so? He's a citizen of the United States, why does he get to avoid the backscatter machine and friendly TSA groping? Are you saying that he should get preferential treatment just because he's the President? HOGWASH AND FLIM FLAM BOY!
Um... ya don't wanna piss off a dude who has the nuclear launch code...eh?
55659
Post by: pities2004
Alfndrate wrote: pities2004 wrote: Alfndrate wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Do you think international diplomacy should be cancelled for the duration of the financial crisis?
I wonder how much it cost to get the President over to Europe during WW2.
No I don't think it should be cancelled, but the President should be forced to experience the TSA and international travel like the citizens he represents/leads He can plop down 2 grand for the ticket and sit in between a woman that refused to pay for 2 seats because she couldn't put down the milkshake and fries, and a screaming baby going through teething.
He's the freaking president of the united states.
Ya so? He's a citizen of the United States, why does he get to avoid the backscatter machine and friendly TSA groping? Are you saying that he should get preferential treatment just because he's the President? HOGWASH AND FLIM FLAM BOY!
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tinfoil-Hat-Alex-Jones-Edition-/261237286196?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3cd2f4a534
Sounds like you need this.
21196
Post by: agnosto
Yeah, I'd be more irate about the Army suspending tuition assistance than a cessation of white house tours but if your priorities are with the kiddies gettin to ooh and ahh at an old house.... ;-)
I get it. I have fun poking at people too. 
Seriously. Sequestration and its consequences are completely due to both parties inability to act like adults and do their freaking jobs. Blaming the president for taking his, what 30th state trip to Bush's more than 40 is just silly.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 agnosto wrote: Frazzled wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:I think it would be productive to talk about the value of ANY presidential trips, not just ones during a recession. If you are mad that this cost a lot, you should not be less mad when we spend that in good times. Waste is waste, right?
I mean, unless you're just gunning for obama, which about half of you probably are.
OK. no presidential trips. We got by for a hundred years without any. As stated, thats what ambassadors are for.
Agreed! But it has to stick, no repeal after a Republican gets in office. No trips until we see a balanced budget.
Deal.  
Remember, 2016 is coming up. Vote WienerDog/Ctulu for 2016. We promise no wasteful foreign boondoggles. All our boondoggles will be in the US!
"And now it appears El Presidente Frazzled is escorting the President of Brazil on a tour of the new presidential gun range, olympic sized hot tub and swim up bar."
241
Post by: Ahtman
We were a world joke for those 100 years, just some backwater farm country full of ex-colonists. We aren't that anymore though, we are the Leader of the Free World™. Diplomats are fine for the most part, but there are times when you need a leader to meet another leader so I don't think saying we never send the President anywhere really works. I am for limiting it in some fashion, but that has nothing to do with making decisions based on current economic situation, and as stated before, it shouldn't matter which party or President is in office*.
*This part is fantasy of the highest order of course.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
agnosto wrote:
Yeah, I'd be more irate about the Army suspending tuition assistance than a cessation of white house tours but if your priorities are with the kiddies gettin to ooh and ahh at an old house.... ;-)
I get it. I have fun poking at people too.
Seriously. Sequestration and its consequences are completely due to both parties inability to act like adults and do their freaking jobs. Blaming the president for taking his, what 30th state trip to Bush's more than 40 is just silly.
Damn straight. The tuition assistance cut is easily one of the worst ones.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
whembly wrote:Um... ya don't wanna piss off a dude who has the nuclear launch code...eh?
Nah, if he saw how the other side lived, he might actually try to accomplish something pities2004 wrote:http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tinfoil-Hat-Alex-Jones-Edition-/261237286196?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3cd2f4a534
Sounds like you need this.
99 cents?! Fething sold! I have my trusty Alex Jones tin foil hat on it's way to me between now and July 15th. And from Ohio too, hell I could drive there faster! Seriously, you're missing out on the large amounts of sarcasm in my posts Automatically Appended Next Post: agnosto wrote:Seriously. Sequestration and its consequences are completely due to both parties inability to act like adults and do their freaking jobs. Blaming the president for taking his, what 30th state trip to Bush's more than 40 is just silly.
He's got 3 more years to get another 10
23
Post by: djones520
hotsauceman1 wrote:And what about the millions upon millions that are wasted by congress debating stupid laws, the millions that go into the military. But no everyone complains about 1 trip.
So what? the president is just supposed to sit around and not talk to the rest of the world?
The Billions that go into the military largely as a whole goes back into our economy, while providing a practical function for our nation, such as keeping it safe.
The 100 million that the Obama's spent on this trip is going to accomplish nothing that couldn't have been handled with a video conference.
It probably also would have eased the furlough that the military is suffering right now. Our civilian employees are taking a pretty massive cut in pay, and our uniformed members are having to work a lot of extra shifts to make up for the short falled man hours. I'm sure that the Obama family trip to Africa is more important though. There is also the fact that a massive amount of USAF assets had to be redirected to handle this trip, when they could have been used for things like making the withdrawel from Afghanistan go smoother.
30830
Post by: Purple Saturday
Like Rented Tritium keeps saying, the figure of 100,000,000 is incredibly misleading and presented as such by people with political motives.
The article states that the trip COULD cost between 60-100 million, but again, how many of these costs would have been incurred regardless is debatable to a certain extent.
Whether or not you think these trips are worth it, I tend to think they are not, it's important to approach these bald figures with skepticism.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
It's likely to have been too expensive and it almost assuredly won't pay for itself, but I'm betting on it actually costing quite a bit less than 100m.
21196
Post by: agnosto
 djones520 wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:And what about the millions upon millions that are wasted by congress debating stupid laws, the millions that go into the military. But no everyone complains about 1 trip.
So what? the president is just supposed to sit around and not talk to the rest of the world?
The Billions that go into the military largely as a whole goes back into our economy, while providing a practical function for our nation, such as keeping it safe.
The 100 million that the Obama's spent on this trip is going to accomplish nothing that couldn't have been handled with a video conference.
It probably also would have eased the furlough that the military is suffering right now. Our civilian employees are taking a pretty massive cut in pay, and our uniformed members are having to work a lot of extra shifts to make up for the short falled man hours. I'm sure that the Obama family trip to Africa is more important though. There is also the fact that a massive amount of USAF assets had to be redirected to handle this trip, when they could have been used for things like making the withdrawel from Afghanistan go smoother.
Except that the majority of the cost is military related....so by your argument, it's going back into our economy.... You know, I say that and I have to think about all of the pay that's going to be wasted by the involved military personnel on their next shore leave so I take back the part about it helping our economy.
23
Post by: djones520
Considering the majority of the military involved in this is AF, and not Navy, your shore leave comment means nothing.
21196
Post by: agnosto
djones520 wrote:Considering the majority of the military involved in this is AF, and not Navy, your shore leave comment means nothing.
Recent secret service agents' antics prove you wrong.
121
Post by: Relapse
agnosto wrote: djones520 wrote:Considering the majority of the military involved in this is AF, and not Navy, your shore leave comment means nothing.
Recent secret service agents' antics prove you wrong.
Exalted.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
agnosto wrote: djones520 wrote:Considering the majority of the military involved in this is AF, and not Navy, your shore leave comment means nothing.
Recent secret service agents' antics prove you wrong.
LOOOOOL
5534
Post by: dogma
Obama’s trip could cost the federal government $60 million to $100 million based on the costs of similar African trips in recent years, according to one person familiar with the journey, who was not authorized to speak for attribution.
Truly a definitive, unambiguous statement.
sourclams wrote:
But flash back to four months ago when school children were shut out of the White House because tours cost $16,000/day for additional security.
It's pretty specious to simultaneously claim CANNOT POSSIBLY SEQUESTER CUTS while playing one gak load of golf on the taxpayer's dime and going on family trips to every-damn-where.
An appearance by the President of the United States in a foreign country is not equivalent to the appearance of a child in the White House.
Moreover, do you honestly think this was a vacation?
12313
Post by: Ouze
I have an anonymous source, at least as reputable as the anonymous source quoted in this article, that said the whole trip only cost $300; and hell, when you get that many frequent flier miles, it practically made money.
djones520 wrote:The Billions that go into the military largely as a whole goes back into our economy, while providing a practical function for our nation, such as keeping it safe.
I suppose if I was the recipient of the largest socialist program in the world, I'd want to delude myself too about how I "keep America safe". Seriously, it's sort of amazing people can say stuff like this with a straight face in 2013.
To the previous point, look guys! We're dumping money into our economy! Yay!
6872
Post by: sourclams
 dogma wrote:
An appearance by the President of the United States in a foreign country is not equivalent to the appearance of a child in the White House.
Just name the big ticket advantages that this trip will have in store for America. We got a promise of 'electricity' for African cities which, to the US, is little more than up-front cost and Obama got a photo op with Mandela.
5534
Post by: dogma
sourclams wrote:
If Africa was going to be a priority, then this is awfully late to the party for little/no tangible gain.
AFRICOM was founded in 2007.
Shocking though it may be, the priorities of the United States of America extend beyond Presidencies.
sourclams wrote:
Just name the big ticket advantages that this trip will have in store for America.
When did less than 100 million USD become "big ticket" for an economy worth 15 trillion USD?
32618
Post by: IronWarLeg
Alfndrate wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:The Washington Post wrote:
...the preparations appear to be in line with similar travels in the past...
And I didn't like those either!
I believe the issue at hand is that we're in this "financial crisis" and people are being given mandatory unpaid vacation days because of the straits the government is apparently in with it's lack of money.
People like me! I have one coming on the 5th. I wanna go to Africa 
I don't believe that he shouldn't go anywhere at all but when we are told we need about 77 million a day to take away a furlough day one can do the math....
50512
Post by: Jihadin
1. When did Secret Service become a US military branch? I can see why the Coast Guard fall under DHS. Granted a few do go to Afghanistan...RC South...they have a huge lake down there
2. I can say I protect America with a straight face and with seriousness. From my view point. I rather have them mostly focus in fighting us in Iraq and Afghanistan instead focusing on hitting us somewhere else on Mainland US. After ten years though I say let the Darkside (SpecOps) take over and drone strike them
3. Think the 100mil is total. The Safarie trip got cancel due to the fact if I remember recently was there would be sniper teams involve on the Safarie trip. If I can't shoot a lion..cheetah..oh hell a big cat...then no one else can legaly. Unless the Cat in my backyard.
4. Didn't Bush push a major HIV/Aid awareness program in Africa? Didn't Bono from U2 praise Bush for that recently?
5. Lost my chain of thought
12313
Post by: Ouze
 Jihadin wrote:4. Didn't Bush push a major HIV/Aid awareness program in Africa? Didn't Bono from U2 praise Bush for that recently?
Yes, also so did Obama on this trip. Bush doesn't really get credit enough for the program, which has saved the lives of millions.
5470
Post by: sebster
Alfndrate wrote:I believe the issue at hand is that we're in this "financial crisis" and people are being given mandatory unpaid vacation days because of the straits the government is apparently in with it's lack of money.
The 'issue at hand' is a load of made up, pundit driven nonsense with no relation to the real world. The government doesn't 'lack money'. There is nothing curtailing expenditure other than the political belief that you have to curtail expenditure. Automatically Appended Next Post: Rented Tritium wrote:The real cost of the trip might still be high, but it's probably not ACTUALLY 100 million in practice. Accounting is complicated.
Absolutely.
Or, to put it another way, accounting should be pretty simple, but people lie, and they use lies buried in accounting to tell those lies, and so accounting becomes complicated.
And this is a classic example. There isn't 60 to 100 million in overtime, fuel and bullet proof glass being used up here. There is 60 to 100 million in salaries and capital wear and tear on navy ship so those boats can be in proximity to the president... ships that would otherwise use up 60 to 100 million doing whatever else they'd be doing in the region.
70214
Post by: Disciple of Fate
One could argue that Obama inherited this crisis and the budget defecit from his predecessor. But at least he is trying to fix some of the problem. The government in my country is slowly pushing it onto the backs of my generation instead of fixing it with the generation that was somewhat responsible. Either way sometimes you have to suffer budget cuts, but its the choice between you or your children's generation mostly.
But I understand the sentiment, some (me included) feel the same way about the spending of 'our' royal family.
12313
Post by: Ouze
 sebster wrote: There is 60 to 100 million in salaries and capital wear and tear on navy ship so those boats can be in proximity to the president... ships that would otherwise use up 60 to 100 million doing whatever else they'd be doing in the region.
My anonymous source say's they're building a special carrier, the USS Socialism, which is shaped like a mosque, uses up almost all of the money being allocated to the trip, is forged wholly from the AR-15s the ATF seized from taxpayers and smelted; and which will then be scuttled the moment the President leaves Africa. So, I don't know where you heard the crazy mumbo-jumbo you're talking, but it's probably lies from the liberal media.
5470
Post by: sebster
Alfndrate wrote:Ya so? He's a citizen of the United States, why does he get to avoid the backscatter machine and friendly TSA groping? Are you saying that he should get preferential treatment just because he's the President? HOGWASH AND FLIM FLAM BOY!
If Obama got randomly selected for a pat down, do you think he'd claim it was racial profiling?
70214
Post by: Disciple of Fate
 Ouze wrote: sebster wrote: There is 60 to 100 million in salaries and capital wear and tear on navy ship so those boats can be in proximity to the president... ships that would otherwise use up 60 to 100 million doing whatever else they'd be doing in the region.
My anonymous source say's they're building a special carrier, the USS Socialism, which is shaped like a mosque, uses up almost all of the money being allocated to the trip, and which will then be scuttled the moment the President leaves Africa. So, I don't know where you heard the crazy mumbo-jumbo you're talking, but it's probably lies from the liberal media.
Its true in part, most of these costs include maintenance costs which would have been incurred either way. Other part of the cost is transporting, providing security and paying the salaries of people involved. Obama could quite possibly have done it with about +/- $10k for just his family, but he wouldnt be making a return trip most likely.
33125
Post by: Seaward
agnosto wrote:Except that the majority of the cost is military related....so by your argument, it's going back into our economy.... You know, I say that and I have to think about all of the pay that's going to be wasted by the involved military personnel on their next shore leave so I take back the part about it helping our economy.
"Holy gak I'm looking forward to liberty in Africa," said no US sailor ever.
5470
Post by: sebster
djones520 wrote:The Billions that go into the military largely as a whole goes back into our economy, while providing a practical function for our nation, such as keeping it safe.
The 100 million that the Obama's spent on this trip is going to accomplish nothing that couldn't have been handled with a video conference.
Yeah, the only thing keeping your nation safe is that 7th carrier group. Uh huh. Whereas face to face diplomacy and having a presence in the rest of the world, well that isn't a key element of soft power at all.
And money spent on military assets flows back in to the economy in that wonderful multiplier effect. But money spent on stuff you don't like, like presidential trips, well that money just disappears entirely without creating jobs or being respent in the economy. And the reason the effect is so different is through the magic of really, really not thinking about this at all. Automatically Appended Next Post: Jihadin wrote:4. Didn't Bush push a major HIV/Aid awareness program in Africa? Didn't Bono from U2 praise Bush for that recently?
Bono was praising Bush for that while Bush was still President. And I'm pretty sure he praised Bush for his work in bringing forward debt forgiveness schemes to African nations.
One of the strangest things about the perception of Bush post-presidency - from both sides - is the inability to recognise that he did more or less exactly what you'd expect a modern evangelical President would do. Especially on Africa, because evangelicals have never given up the missionary spirit when it comes to Africa. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Disciple of Fate wrote:Its true in part, most of these costs include maintenance costs which would have been incurred either way. Other part of the cost is transporting, providing security and paying the salaries of people involved. Obama could quite possibly have done it with about +/- $10k for just his family, but he wouldnt be making a return trip most likely.
But the point is those costs would be incurred anyway. If the Secret Service and naval flotilla weren't being used to provide protection for the president, those people would still be getting paid.
It's like in one of my first jobs, as an accountant for a small town local government. Needing to deal with a budgeted blackhole of about $150,000, the town President wanted to cut road maintenance. It took me about an hour of explaining to get him to realise that if we didn't do the roads maintenance we'd still have to pay the roads crew.
34390
Post by: whembly
That's one thing you can of Bush despite his flaws...
He's a classy, humble Texas dude.
Back on topic... guys, is this really worth trying to ding Obama? All modern Prez do this... o.O
Focus! FOCUS!
IRS!
PRISM!
Benghazi!
All this griping about O's Africa trip seems just weaksauce.
241
Post by: Ahtman
The only part of that sentence that people would probably agree on is that he does indeed live in Texas.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Jihadin wrote:
4. Didn't Bush push a major HIV/Aid awareness program in Africa?
Yes, and it is without doubt the best thing he's done in his entire life. It saved literally millions of lives. As far as presidential legacy programs go, it was a slam dunk and I really don't like the guy.
34390
Post by: whembly
 Ahtman wrote:
The only part of that sentence that people would probably agree on is that he does indeed live in Texas.
Seriously?
That man get criticised up and down the political sphere... and he doesn't defend himself.
Obama fething brutalized bush during his campaign... certain news network interviewing Bush would ask him about that... his reply? "Pshaw... that's politics".
He especially make efforts to comfort the troops privately...
So... go ahead and ding the man. It'll be empty in the face of these things.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Rented Tritium wrote: Jihadin wrote:
4. Didn't Bush push a major HIV/Aid awareness program in Africa?
Yes, and it is without doubt the best thing he's done in his entire life. It saved literally millions of lives. As far as presidential legacy programs go, it was a slam dunk and I really don't like the guy.
Exactly.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Thats not correct. No Texan is humble. We don't have to be. 
34390
Post by: whembly
ha! Touche!
Regardless... Obama's trip to me is much ado about nuthin.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Do you really think you can get universal agreement that Bush is 'humble and classy'? I'm not even criticizing his administration or him, I just think that 'That's one thing you can [say] of Bush despite his flaws...He's a classy, humble Texas dude.' is a absolutely ridiculous statement.
Ignoring that, it could easily be argued that an ex-President that was villified and hated while in office not responding to attacks on his administration during an election was more pragmatic than classy.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
I think that as an actual person he probably is. Most presidents have excellent social skills. If you met him at a party, you would find him friendly, polite and probably charming.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Oh I think he's humble for a Texan.
"Miss me yet?"
-Miss your dad anyway.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Rented Tritium wrote:I think that as an actual person he probably is. Most presidents have excellent social skills. If you met him at a party, you would find him friendly, polite and probably charming.
Probably, but my issue isn't with whether he is actually humble or not, but that you probably won't get most to agree to 'humble' as being a word they would use to describe him. The idea that it is something we all can agree on is what I took issue with.
Frazzled wrote:Oh I think he's humble for a Texan.
"Miss me yet?"
-Miss your dad anyway.
His dad was a pretty cool guy that I think history is going to be far kinder to then it will be to Jr.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
sebster wrote: Alfndrate wrote:Ya so? He's a citizen of the United States, why does he get to avoid the backscatter machine and friendly TSA groping? Are you saying that he should get preferential treatment just because he's the President? HOGWASH AND FLIM FLAM BOY!
If Obama got randomly selected for a pat down, do you think he'd claim it was racial profiling?
That'd be good for a larf
34390
Post by: whembly
Ahtman wrote:Rented Tritium wrote:I think that as an actual person he probably is. Most presidents have excellent social skills. If you met him at a party, you would find him friendly, polite and probably charming.
Probably, but my issue isn't with whether he is actually humble or not, but that you probably won't get most to agree to 'humble' as being a word they would use to describe him. The idea that it is something we all can agree on is what I took issue with.
Okay... that's your opinion brah.
In the meantime, Bush is in Africa as well...
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/07/george-w-bush-in-africa.php
If that's not humble/classy... then, I can't help you.
241
Post by: Ahtman
 whembly wrote: Ahtman wrote:Rented Tritium wrote:I think that as an actual person he probably is. Most presidents have excellent social skills. If you met him at a party, you would find him friendly, polite and probably charming.
Probably, but my issue isn't with whether he is actually humble or not, but that you probably won't get most to agree to 'humble' as being a word they would use to describe him. The idea that it is something we all can agree on is what I took issue with.
Okay... that's your opinion brah.
Not really, we already have demonstrable proof that not everyone would describe him that way, so it pretty much negates the idea that everyone would.
34390
Post by: whembly
Ahtman wrote: whembly wrote: Ahtman wrote:Rented Tritium wrote:I think that as an actual person he probably is. Most presidents have excellent social skills. If you met him at a party, you would find him friendly, polite and probably charming.
Probably, but my issue isn't with whether he is actually humble or not, but that you probably won't get most to agree to 'humble' as being a word they would use to describe him. The idea that it is something we all can agree on is what I took issue with.
Okay... that's your opinion brah.
Not really, we already have demonstrable proof that not everyone would describe him that way, so it pretty much negates the idea that everyone would.
I know.. but we all have our opinions. that's all I was saying.
21196
Post by: agnosto
 Seaward wrote: agnosto wrote:Except that the majority of the cost is military related....so by your argument, it's going back into our economy.... You know, I say that and I have to think about all of the pay that's going to be wasted by the involved military personnel on their next shore leave so I take back the part about it helping our economy.
"Holy gak I'm looking forward to liberty in Africa," said no US sailor ever.
Touché but you realize that this is a relatively short trip and the boats go to other, more interesting ports of call, right?
12313
Post by: Ouze
Well, I don't know if you could get universal agreement Mr. Bush was a humble or classy Texas dude. I will say that his nearly unwavering refusal to comment on the current President struck me as classy, anyway. Yes, I know you're going to say it's just pragmatism as he has ever been less popular than Mr. Obama, and hell, it might be just in contrast with Mr. Cheney running a nonstop campaign of being the worst human being in the country, but on the whole my respect for him definitely went up a few notches when his only answer to questions asked about Mr. Obama's policies were "the President deserves my silence".
YMMV
34390
Post by: whembly
Ouze wrote:Well, I don't know if you could get universal agreement Mr. Bush was a humble or classy Texas dude. I will say that his nearly unwavering refusal to comment on the current President struck me as classy, anyway. Yes, I know you're going to say it's just pragmatism as he has ever been less popular than Mr. Obama, and hell, it might be just in contrast with Mr. Cheney running a nonstop campaign of being the worst human being in the country, but on the whole my respect for him definitely went up a few notches when his only answer to questions asked about Mr. Obama's policies were "the President deserves my silence".
YMMV
Exactly...
Back to O's Africa trip... I hope he's flying in style for that kind of jack.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Ouze wrote:Well, I don't know if you could get universal agreement Mr. Bush was a humble or classy Texas dude.
Which is all I was arguing.
Ouze wrote:I will say that his nearly unwavering refusal to comment on the current President struck me as classy, anyway. Yes, I know you're going to say it's just pragmatism as he has ever been less popular than Mr. Obama, and hell, it might be just in contrast with Mr. Cheney running a nonstop campaign of being the worst human being in the country, but on the whole my respect for him definitely went up a few notches when his only answer to questions asked about Mr. Obama's policies were "the President deserves my silence".
I never argued that I felt that, just that it could be argued, as it has been. It could also be argued that it was general burnout from being in the public eye and in politics for so long that he just wanted to avoid it altogether. I never said 'these are my feelings'. I don't think of Bush as some horribly evil man, and imagine history won't vilify him quite as much as many assume, though it will also not be quite as kind as others hope either. Cheney will probably be remembered as our Putin though.
5534
Post by: dogma
Jihadin wrote:1. When did Secret Service become a US military branch? I can see why the Coast Guard fall under DHS. Granted a few do go to Afghanistan... RC South...they have a huge lake down there
The Secret Service came under the authority of Homeland Security in 2003, though that does not make it military.
whembly wrote:
That man get criticised up and down the political sphere... and he doesn't defend himself.
Which President of the United States of America defended his Presidency after he ceased to be President, aside from Nixon?
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
My eyes glazed over and this was disregarded as being part of the "6 billion dollar a day trip to India" rubbish pile. Such is the problem with the polarized media; even if there is a story now, I assume it's just campaigning.
37231
Post by: d-usa
The Ex-Presidents seem pretty consistant in this.
They might have all been at each others throat during the campaigns, but it seems like the "been there, done that, know how crappy the job really is" club sticks together for the most part.
33125
Post by: Seaward
agnosto wrote:Touché but you realize that this is a relatively short trip and the boats go to other, more interesting ports of call, right?
I have a biiiiiiiiiiit of experience with the Navy, yeah.
It depends entirely on where they got pulled from.
49775
Post by: DIDM
if you honestly think bringing his mother in law along "raised" the price of this trip ANYTHING, please get help, you need it
when the President travels it ain't cheap, and he also had plans on meeting with Mandala, but he took a turn for the worse.
how much of that $100 million is going to aid for Africa?
23
Post by: djones520
 DIDM wrote:if you honestly think bringing his mother in law along "raised" the price of this trip ANYTHING, please get help, you need it
when the President travels it ain't cheap, and he also had plans on meeting with Mandala, but he took a turn for the worse.
how much of that $100 million is going to aid for Africa?
Extra vehicles, extra security personnel, extra rooms. Yeah, that extra DV added to the price tag.
And the 100m is for the trip. 6.5M for AF One alone. Not the numerous (can't share actual number) of C-17's, and smaller aircraft that were involved. Hundreds of personnel who come along need places to sleep, food, transportation, gas, etc... moving the Pres is not cheap, not at all.
12313
Post by: Ouze
dogma wrote:Which President of the United States of America defended his Presidency after he ceased to be President, aside from Nixon?
Clinton defended some elements of his presidency; notably when it was attempted to pin Osama Bin Laden on him. That's the first one that leapt to mind. Do you mean something more encompassing than that?
26674
Post by: Slarg232
DIDM wrote:if you honestly think bringing his mother in law along "raised" the price of this trip ANYTHING, please get help, you need it
While I am neutral on the idea of Obama going over to Africa, I find it hard to believe that his mother in law doesn't need to eat, sleep, bath, or shop for anything while in a foreign country.
how much of that $100 million is going to aid for Africa?
How much of it could be going to help us, the Americans who are in debt ourselves?
5470
Post by: sebster
 Slarg232 wrote:While I am neutral on the idea of Obama going over to Africa, I find it hard to believe that his mother in law doesn't need to eat, sleep, bath, or shop for anything while in a foreign country.
No single person could possibly eat so much food and sleep in so many beds that they could make a material difference to a $100 million budget.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Everybody seems to be missing the point about this, and the point is this: the trip was a disaster!
During his token stops, he failed to visit more populous, rapidly growing countries such as Nigeria.
Despite the presence of the US military in at least 6 countries, African countries are looking to China for their weapons and ammo.
On the non-military side, African countries are still looking to China, and where was Obama's strategy to combat this? We don't know!
Despite his faults, GW Bush invested more in Africa than Obama has to date.
Ok, so I got this info from the news but If Obama had built bridges and secured billion-dollar contracts for America firms, then 100 million would have been loose change. That's the scandal here - the missed opportunity, not the cost of flying his mother in law to Africa.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
That was the reason for his trip though, to try to rebuild the bridges between America and African nations that have been undermined by Chinese influences. We don't really know if it's been a failure or may lead to new contracts and a revitalizing of the eroded relationship.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
 MeanGreenStompa wrote:That was the reason for his trip though, to try to rebuild the bridges between America and African nations that have been undermined by Chinese influences. We don't really know if it's been a failure or may lead to new contracts and a revitalizing of the eroded relationship.
With all due respect, we do know! It has been a failure!
Obama seemed to spend most of the trip hanging around Robben island and talking to former ANC members. Fair enough, Mandela is a big influence on Obama, and he would want to pay his respects, but in terms of geo-political, socio-economic objectives, it was a failure.
Chinese influence is steadily increasing in Africa for the sole reason that they don't care about human rights or democracy, they just want raw materials. When you consider that a lot of African countries are corrupt dictatorships, this works out fine for them. The Chinese throw money at them, build an airport and get whatever they need in return.
Western aid always comes with strings attached, a concept that is not appealing for many African countries. Now I'm sure there are lots of smart people in Washington who can come up with a strategy to boost American appeal, but none has been coming so far. Very short sighted from Washington.
5394
Post by: reds8n
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
During his token stops, he failed to visit more populous, rapidly growing countries such as Nigeria. .
That's hard to arrange though.
Their finance minister is incredibly busy judging by the number of emails he sends out on a daily basis.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
 reds8n wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
During his token stops, he failed to visit more populous, rapidly growing countries such as Nigeria. .
That's hard to arrange though.
Their finance minister is incredibly busy judging by the number of emails he sends out on a daily basis.
I must be the luckiest person on this planet - I've won the Nigerian lottery 17 times!
How many times have you won it?
Back OT, I was just watching an Al-Jazeera documentary. Looks like the Chinese have finished building another airport in Africa.
5534
Post by: dogma
I should have included the phrase "the whole of" prior to the phrase "his Presidency", fair point.
I do mean something more encompassing (the Nixon Interviews), as many Presidents have defended individual decisions they made in office after they have left office; including the President who most recently left office.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
sebster wrote: Slarg232 wrote:While I am neutral on the idea of Obama going over to Africa, I find it hard to believe that his mother in law doesn't need to eat, sleep, bath, or shop for anything while in a foreign country.
No single person could possibly eat so much food and sleep in so many beds that they could make a material difference to a $100 million budget.
A material difference, no. But a difference none the less.
Being a little facetious here
23
Post by: djones520
sebster wrote: Slarg232 wrote:While I am neutral on the idea of Obama going over to Africa, I find it hard to believe that his mother in law doesn't need to eat, sleep, bath, or shop for anything while in a foreign country.
No single person could possibly eat so much food and sleep in so many beds that they could make a material difference to a $100 million budget.
As I pointed out earlier... extra security personnel will be required, more quarters will be required, which won't be cheap. Extra vehicles will be brought over because of her. I'd be very much willing to wager that her price tag came close to 1 mil.
5470
Post by: sebster
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Despite the presence of the US military in at least 6 countries, African countries are looking to China for their weapons and ammo.
On the non-military side, African countries are still looking to China, and where was Obama's strategy to combat this? We don't know!
You seem to be working under the impression that international relations are decided with a presidential trip. It doesn't work that way. Obama's visit is just laying the groundwork for diplomatic efforts by the State Department.
And even then, there's a basic limit to how much that diplomacy can effect. African countries are looking more and more to China because the Chinese economy is growing. That's how it works, your economy grows and you have a bigger economic footprint, your influence expands. That Chinese influence is expanding in Africa isn't evidence of anything but the inevitability of an economic reality.
Despite his faults, GW Bush invested more in Africa than Obama has to date.
Bush should receive all due credit for the charitable work he did in Africa, but we shouldn't confuse that charity with expanded diplomatic ties. Note that Chinese influence in Africa first began expanding rapidly during his term, after all.
9217
Post by: KingCracker
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The environmentalists wouldn't be happy with that. Leaving a light on for Obama just wastes electric
Ha, good show exalted
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
sebster wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Despite the presence of the US military in at least 6 countries, African countries are looking to China for their weapons and ammo.
On the non-military side, African countries are still looking to China, and where was Obama's strategy to combat this? We don't know!
You seem to be working under the impression that international relations are decided with a presidential trip. It doesn't work that way. Obama's visit is just laying the groundwork for diplomatic efforts by the State Department.
And even then, there's a basic limit to how much that diplomacy can effect. African countries are looking more and more to China because the Chinese economy is growing. That's how it works, your economy grows and you have a bigger economic footprint, your influence expands. That Chinese influence is expanding in Africa isn't evidence of anything but the inevitability of an economic reality.
Despite his faults, GW Bush invested more in Africa than Obama has to date.
Bush should receive all due credit for the charitable work he did in Africa, but we shouldn't confuse that charity with expanded diplomatic ties. Note that Chinese influence in Africa first began expanding rapidly during his term, after all.
Fair point about the state department, but a presidential visit is about perception. Given that this is Obama's first trip and given that he gave the impression he couldn't wait to get home, African leaders will rightly, IMO, take that as a sign that Obama has Africa at the bottom of the list of his priorities. It's unlikely Obama will return in his second term. There is truth in this, as the focus of the USA has shifted to Asia.
Bill Clinton was good at these trips, but I can't help feel that this is a wasted opportunity for the Yanks. The Chinese economy is growing, but the American economy is starting to recover as well.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Obama on his second term.....
1206
Post by: Easy E
The Chinese economy is in trouble too.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/06/20/chinas-economy-is-freezing-up-how-freaked-out-should-we-be/
I have heard this type of news from a few sources, but this is the first one I found, dateline 6/20/2013.
Thursday was a very bad day for China’s economy, the world’s second-largest and a crucial pillar of the global economy, with credit markets freezing up in an unnerving parallel to the first days of the U.S. financial collapse. The question of how bad depends on whom you talk to, how much faith you have in Chinese leaders and, unfortunately, several factors that are largely unknowable. But we do know two things. First, Chinese leaders appear to be causing this problem deliberately, likely to try to avert a much worse problem. And, second, if this continues and even it works, it could see China’s economy finally cool after years of breakneck growth, with serious repercussions for the rest of us.
Things got so bad that the Bank of China has been fighting rumors all day that it defaulted on its loans; if true, this would risk bank runs and more defaults, not unlike the first days of the U.S. financial collapse. There’s no indication that the rumors are true, and no one is running on China’s banks. But the fact that the trouble has even gotten to this point is a sign of how potentially serious this could be.
Here’s what has happened: China’s credit market has been in a bubble for years, with too much lending and borrowing, similar to what happened in the United States during the financial crisis. All that lending helps grow the economy until, one day, the bubble bursts, and it all comes crashing down, as happened the United States. China’s economic growth has been slowing, making a similar a crisis more likely. Chinese leaders seem to be trying to prevent a disaster by basically popping the bubble, a kind of controlled mini-collapse meant to avoid The Big One.
In a real, uncontrolled credit crisis like the U.S. financial meltdown, credit suddenly freezes up, particularly between banks, meaning that the daily loans banks were relying on to do business are suddenly no longer affordable. Banks with too many unsafe loans suddenly owe more money than they can get their hands on, sometimes leading them to default or even collapse. And that means that it suddenly becomes much tougher for everyone else – companies that want to build new factories, families that went to buy a home – to borrow money. That’s an uncontrolled credit crisis, and a number of China-watchers have been worried that China, in its pursuit of constant breakneck growth, could be headed for one.
China’s central bank, which is likely to tamp down all that unsafe lending and over-borrowing before it leads to a crash, appears to have forced an artificial credit crisis. (It tested a more modest version just two weeks ago.) It looks like the People’s Bank of China has already tightened credit considerably, making it suddenly very difficult for banks to borrow money. Something called the seven-day bond repurchase rate, which indicates “liquidity” or the ease of borrowing money, shot way up to triple what it was two weeks ago.
This pair of charts, from the economics site Zero Hedge, shows the eerie parallels between today’s freeze-up in the Chinese interbank lending market and what happened in the United States when Lehman Brothers collapsed, setting off a global crisis that we’re still recovering from:
(Source: Zero Hedge)
That second chart shows something called the TED spread, a key indicator of credit risk and how easy it is for U.S. banks to lend to one another.
Money markets in China have also skyrocketed to what the Financial Times’ David Keohane called “silly levels.” This chart, via Keohane and Reuters’ Jamie McGeever, shows the money market rates way, way, way beyond any high of the last five years:
China’s money market lending rates since 2008. (Source: Reuters’ Jamie McGeever)
Here’s where things get a little confusing. Bloomberg News reported Thursday evening Beijing time that, as panic moved through the Chinese financial system, the country’s central bank stepped in and offered $8.2 billion in “relief” to the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, which just happens to be both state-owned and the largest bank in the world. What does this mean? Maybe that Chinese leaders got cold feet and are trying to walk back the self-imposed crunch, maybe that China’s largest bank managed to negotiate some preferential treatment, maybe that leaders are worried their most important bank might actually be less healthy than they thought and want to protect it from default. Or maybe this is just part of the process of easing down the markets. But then the Chinese Web portal Sina announced that the reports were false (thanks to Bill Bishop for this link), adding some unnecessary confusion and uncertainty to an already volatile situation.
So what happens next? There are four categories of outcome. The first is that Chinese leaders back off on the credit crunch and nothing happens, in which case they’ll probably just try the strategy again later. The second is that they press on and it works miraculously, cleaning out the financial system without causing too much pain. The third is that this spirals out of control, maybe because Beijing underestimated the risk or acted too late, potentially sending the global economy lurching once more. The fourth, and probably most likely, is that this works but is painful, averting catastrophe but slowing the Chinese economy after 20 years of miraculous growth.
China-watchers, who tend to vary widely in their assessments of the country’s economic health, seem to be converging on that fourth scenario, of a painful but necessary slowdown. Nomura, a Japanese investment bank, recently issued a note (via the Financial Times) addressing fears that China could face a financial collapse. Their less-than-comforting caveat: “This is a tricky issue, as the definition of ‘financial crisis’ can differ among investors.” The bank predict that China will not slip into a full-on crisis, citing Beijing’s control over the financial system and unwillingness to let it go under. But the Japanese bank warned: “Nonetheless, we expect a painful deleveraging process in the next few months. Some defaults will likely occur in the manufacturing industry and in non-bank financial institutions.”
If that happens, China’s growth would slow even more. HSBC just cut their prediction for Chinese GDP growth rate from 8.4 percent in 2014 to 7.4 percent, still high but a major drop that could plunge farther. This would be difficult for China, which has built its economy – and political stability – on keeping high economic growth. Recall that the U.S. financial collapse was disastrous for America’s already unhealthy economic sectors: city budgets, real estate, news media. Something similar could happen in China, which is also facing a massive property bubble. All of this could also be dire for the rest of the world, which is heavily linked to China’s economy and is still struggling to recover from the U.S. and European crises. Japan could be particularly vulnerable.
But believe it or not, if all of this occurs, it might actually be good news. It could well avert a much more serious, uncontrolled Chinese financial collapse. The nation’s central bank has been successful in controlling market shocks like this, throwing around lots of money when it needs to. Officials seem to know what they’re doing; an experienced China-watcher I talked to called it “one step back, two steps forward.”
Still, we’ve got to step back before we can step forward, and the time between steps could be tough on a global economy that doesn’t need any more strain.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
You mean the market for cheap knock offs, and tacky plastic crap is shrinking? Automatically Appended Next Post:
I was just thinking that too
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Fine you knew that I meant Obama is unlikely to return to Africa during his second term! Nobody likes a smart ass!
Anyway, why should I care, it's your economy, your jobs, and your women who will suffer from this, as America loses 50 million jobs and a Trillion dollars of investment! Was watching the Fox news reaction to Obama's trip
12313
Post by: Ouze
If the Chinese do suffer a recession, it would be interesting to see how they handle it. I suspect that if their banks took on outrageous risks as ours did*, they will handle it differently than we did (taxpayer bailouts, they all keep their jobs, and get bonuses as well).
I know when they had the tainted powdered milk scandal, the head of their version of the FDA had a trial for corruption that lasted a day, was found guilty, he made a big apology, and they executed him 2 months later.
*among other causes of our recession
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Part of me hopes they let banks fail and don't bail anyone out, just so we can have an example case of what happens when you don't.
I suspect a worse but much shorter recession.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Fine you knew that I meant Obama is unlikely to return to Africa during his second term! Nobody likes a smart ass!
Anyway, why should I care, it's your economy, your jobs, and your women who will suffer from this, as America loses 50 million jobs and a Trillion dollars of investment! Was watching the Fox news reaction to Obama's trip
Yes, because America's trading partners won't feel the impact at all....
Rented Tritium wrote:Part of me hopes they let banks fail and don't bail anyone out, just so we can have an example case of what happens when you don't.
I suspect a worse but much shorter recession.
The mass execution of bankers by the state?
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Ouze wrote:If the Chinese do suffer a recession, it would be interesting to see how they handle it. I suspect that if their banks took on outrageous risks as ours did*, they will handle it differently than we did (taxpayer bailouts, they all keep their jobs, and get bonuses as well).
I know when they had the tainted powdered milk scandal, the head of their version of the FDA had a trial for corruption that lasted a day, was found guilty, he made a big apology, and they executed him 2 months later.
*among other causes of our recession
I'm strangely drawn to the idea of bankers getting the firing squad! Overdraft charge this
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
That was George Carlin's idea to stop the drug trade: start executing the rich bankers who are laundering the money for the cartels.
5470
Post by: sebster
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Fair point about the state department, but a presidential visit is about perception. Given that this is Obama's first trip and given that he gave the impression he couldn't wait to get home, African leaders will rightly, IMO, take that as a sign that Obama has Africa at the bottom of the list of his priorities. It's unlikely Obama will return in his second term. There is truth in this, as the focus of the USA has shifted to Asia.
Bill Clinton was good at these trips, but I can't help feel that this is a wasted opportunity for the Yanks. The Chinese economy is growing, but the American economy is starting to recover as well.
Fair point on this trip not achieving a great deal for Obama. That said, Obama had a quite a few successful trips in his first term - and Obama's other recent stopovers were similarly flat to the African trip. I think Obama's domestic troubles have taken a bit of the shine off of his international celebrity, and also likely caused him to focus his attentions towards home.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:Part of me hopes they let banks fail and don't bail anyone out, just so we can have an example case of what happens when you don't.
I suspect a worse but much shorter recession.
The mass execution of bankers by the state?
I'll get my good hangin' rope!
|
|
