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.

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.

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.

I wonder if we can send 28mm versions overseas instead...

 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.

Once we develop really high end telepresense robots, we should just campaign to end all presidential trips to solve the argument.

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.

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.

 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...

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.

 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.

 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/

Relapse wrote:

 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/

Only if you're listening to partisan hacks.

 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.

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?

Relapse wrote:

 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/

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).

 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.

 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.

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

 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.

 kronk wrote:
Seems like a lot of money...

remember when he took a trip last time and it cost 20 million a day?

then it turns out it didnt?

 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!

 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?

 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.

 Alfndrate wrote:
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

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.

 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."

 Frazzled wrote:
We got by for a hundred years without any.

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.

 agnosto wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
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

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.

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

 Rented Tritium wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 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/

Only if you're listening to partisan hacks.

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/t/blogEntry?id=18717340&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fwhite-house-dogged-tour-cancellation-critics-091606238.html

 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.