Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

Seems like a lot of money...

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?

I bet all those furloughed staff feel so much better for reading that

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.

The Washington Post wrote:

...the preparations appear to be in line with similar travels in the past...

 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".

 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.

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.

 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.

SouthWest is cheaper.

Also, he could stay at a Motel 6 or something.

 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??

 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.

 kronk wrote:
Also, he could stay at a Motel 6 or something.

The environmentalists wouldn't be happy with that. Leaving a light on for Obama just wastes electric

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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

 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)

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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%.....

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...

He's going to Africa to meet his true, secret family. Donald Trump said so.

The price to send the president overseas along with staff and security...

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?

 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?