Obama "visit" to India costs 200 million. Per day.

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by Curiousisall

 

Well, if you can give me an accurate count of how many troops we have in Afghanistan, and how many "troops" we have protecting Obama,
and some numbers on the military hardware in action in the two theaters in question,
I will give you an answer.

Why would you need a breakdown. We are discussing totals here and as has been posted more than once, the war in Afghanistan costs around $190 Million a day. Feel free to check that out. I know you are eager to find the truth and get to the real facts on this issue so I do not doubt you will.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


The reason is because revealing costs could give away security information and that is why they never release the totals before the trip. This is not something Obama invented.

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Complete myth...


ac360.blogs.cnn.com... rss%2Fcnn_ac360blog+%28Blog%3A+AC360%29


Bachman is a liar

Okay, I read the Anderson Cooper article.

Where does it say how much this trip is costing per day?

It does say that the $200 million/day number is 'likely inflated'.

Not a total debunking in my definition of the term. What is it going to cost?

It does say what a Clinton trip to Africa cost some years ago(5.2 M/day) but that really doesn't tell us what this trip is costing, does it?

edit on 5-11-2010 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

From CNN:

For example, an 11-day trip by then-President Bill Clinton to Africa in 1998 involved about 1,300 people cost $5.2 million a day, according to the federal Government Accountability Office, which adjusted for inflation.

The press she was referring to is the Press Trust of India, one of the largest news organizations in that country. Its source for Tuesday's article on the cost of Obama's trip was based on a single anonymous source: "a top official of the Maharashtra government privy to the arrangements for the high-profile visit."

Source: www.cnn.com...

*Clinton took 1,300 people (well more than Obama is taking)
*Clinton's trip encompased 6 countries (Obama's will only cover 5 countries)
*Clinton's trip was 11 days (Obama's is going to be 10 days)
*Clinton's spent $5.2-million a day (adjusted for inflation)

Using the information above, one can surmise that Obama's trip will cost about the same. Even if he spends twice that amount, it's still 1/20 of the $200 million/day that has been alleged by a lone anonymous source that reported this to the India press.

Perfect!

See 200 is a bit ridiculous as the bush administration sources have pointed out...

Originally posted by Curiousisall
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

The reason is because revealing costs could give away security information and that is why they never release the totals before the trip. This is not something Obama invented.

edit on 11/5/10 by Curiousisall because: (no reason given)

I realize Obama didn't make the rules.

costofwar.com...

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

I realize Obama didn't make the rules.

You mean the rule you just learned about when I responded with it? Um...ok.

costofwar.com...

edit on 023030p://bFriday2010 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

What's all this now?

Originally posted by Curiousisall
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

The reason is because revealing costs could give away security information and that is why they never release the totals before the trip. This is not something Obama invented.

edit on 11/5/10 by Curiousisall because: (no reason given)

Obviously it was for security reasons, that still doesn't tell me why revealing the cost of a trip is a security risk.

You just repeated to me what I said before you,

my quote,

For some reason it is classified information, they well not tell us how much it actually cost, for security reasons?

What!? you got an itch that need scratched today?



costofwar.com...

reply to post by Curiousisall


No, I'm not saying it's costing more than Afghanistan. I'm saying it stinks. I'm saying him, his family, and 800 of his buddies are taking the most opulent vacation anyone could dream up. I'm saying that for all intents and purposes spending the amount of cash they are spending for one man to globe hop no matter what the reason is ridiculous. I'm saying a conference call would suffice. I'm saying I'm pissed to be on the hook for him to go see the festival of lights and so Mrs. can go get some tips from prostitutes.

Edit to add:

The argument that it costs less than something is silly. It's like me going out and buying a Mercedes and justifying it by saying I did good because it would have cost more to buy a Maserati.

reply to post by Stormdancer777

What!? you got an itch that need scratched today?

No, that is just Curiousisall.

Always with the itch, that one.

I am sure that Obama will have fun, whatever the cost. While the rest of us wait for inflation to kick in.

reply to post by PayMeh

and so Mrs. can go get some tips from prostitutes.

Thanks for that.

reply to post by PayMeh


You clearly missed the point. In order for you to believe he is spending this money on this trip, you have to admit you beleive he is spending more on this trip than the war costs. I would just like to know how logic fits in there. Please break down the costs for me that you feel could possibly add up to such a number given the expense of fighting a war and what that actually costs.

You want to dismiss reality and just go on being mad about all this money being spent. Why do you not realize that it kind of needs to be true in order for it to be a valid complaint? How is this not getting through? Why do some of you seem to feel that it is ok to criticize the amount of money being spent on this trip even if you know for a fact it is nowhere near the number you are complaining about. I had to hear so much about Bush derangement syndrome but whatever this is it is a whole new strain and it is stronger and scarier. There are plenty of non internet rumor real world things to complain about.

Why waste energy ranting against a rumor that does not even make sense to anyone that can do math?

reply to post by Curiousisall


Are you daft? So as long as he goes on trip after trip, as long as each one costs less than the war effort, it's ok? Compare wars to wars and wasteful spending to wasteful spending. Comparing the two is simply a weak stance to take. Weak I tell ya. Seriously, have the shills ran out of ways to justify his actions? Grasping at straws I tell ya. Let me head you off before you come back with your next retort. The answer is YES I would be complaining just as much if he were a middle aged white Republican.

BTW. I am complaining about this because it does affect me. This country is on it's last thread before something goes POP in a big way. I'd rather some common sense be applied by those in politics right now to step back from the ledge. If they continue to go like they have been, they're going off the deep end and dragging the rest down with them.

Originally posted by PayMeh
reply to post by Curiousisall

 

Are you daft? So as long as he goes on trip after trip, as long as each one costs less than the war effort, it's ok?

No but I am starting to think you are. This will be about the 4th time I have had to state this so forgive me if I seem more terse than succinct.

LOGISTICALLY HOW DOES IT MAKE ANY SENSE TO BELIEVE THIS TRIP CAN COST MORE THAN THE WAR??????

I am not sure why this is not getting across. Do you have any idea what is going on in Afghanistan right now? Costs are pretty high. Around $190 Million. So my question is, how the hell can you even begin to suggest that Obama is going to able to spend even more money than that on a trip?

Do you get what I am comparing? HUGE EFFORT = HUGE COST. How huge do you really think the effort that is this trip is? Realistically? Do you really believe it is even possible that it could be greater than the war? Be sincere now.

Compare wars to wars and wasteful spending to wasteful spending. Comparing the two is simply a weak stance to take. Weak I tell ya. Seriously, have the shills ran out of ways to justify his actions? Grasping at straws I tell ya. Let me head you off before you come back with your next retort. The answer is YES I would be complaining just as much if he were a middle aged white Republican.

I really do feel baddly that you do not get what I am trying to relate to you. Logistics to costs. It is really that simple.

BTW. I am complaining about this because it does affect me. This country is on it's last thread before something goes POP in a big way. I'd rather some common sense be applied by those in politics right now to step back from the ledge. If they continue to go like they have been, they're going off the deep end and dragging the rest down with them.

edit on 5-11-2010 by PayMeh because: (no reason given)

No, this does not affect you. It does not even effect you. It is made up. Fantasies cannot hurt you and made up stories about costs do not actually cost you.

reply to post by Curiousisall


First the English lesson. Affect is used when it's a verb. Effect is used when it's a noun.

Next, I never said the figures were right. If you read back, I said I'm not claiming to believe the numbers and believe that whatever the amount this is really costing is TOO MUCH. My issue isn't so much with the President going over there, it's how many friggen people he feels the need to invite with him on the tax payers dime WHO AREN"T even elected officials. Most are private corporate leaders.

Really has it come to the point where we think this is OK simply because it's a drop in the bucket compared to something else?

It does affect me and you because if this becomes the straw that broke the camels back, our way of life is done, gone, destroyed. I'd rather not jump off a cliff whether it be toward socialism or revolution. I'd much rather turn around and take the long but safe trail back that led us to this point.

Edit to add:

Your figures are off by a few 0's too. It's billions, not millions. The estimated cost for THIS YEAR of the total Iraq/Afghan war is 138.6 BILLION. Your whole argument is flawed.
www.infoplease.com...

Originally posted by PayMeh
reply to post by Curiousisall

 

First the English lesson. Affect is used when it's a verb. Effect is used when it's a noun.

For someone who has tripped over himself to miss the point again and again, you are kind of not in a position to hand out English lessons. I know exactly how the words are used. Saying it effected you is absurd...JUST LIKE SAYING SOME MADE UP NONSENSE AFFECTS YOU is. Get it? If you want to roll around in absurdity, expect to see a little of it get on your sleaves.

Next, I never said the figures were right. If you read back, I said I'm not claiming to believe the numbers and believe that whatever the amount this is really costing is TOO MUCH. My issue isn't so much with the President going over there, it's how many friggen people he feels the need to invite with him on the tax payers dime WHO AREN"T even elected officials. Most are private corporate leaders.

Yes I know. We have gone over this alread several times. You are mad because it is costing too much even though you have NO CLUE WHAT IT IS COSTING. How silly of me to find that absurd.

Really has it come to the point where we think this is OK simply because it's a drop in the bucket compared to something else?

Can you read English at all? That is not even remotely the case I was making. Not even close. I spelled it out for you in plain ENGLISH - remember what a fan of that you are - in several posts and you still get it completely wrong. You must be doing it on purpose just to try and twise the conversation to your prescheduled talking points.

It does affect me and you because if this becomes the straw that broke the camels back, our way of life is done, gone, destroyed. I'd rather not jump off a cliff whether it be toward socialism or revolution. I'd much rather turn around and take the long but safe trail back that led us to this point.

No, it does not. It is made up. You have yet to make the case that a fake story affects anyone anywhere ever.

Edit to add:

Your figures are off by a few 0's too. It's billions, not millions.
www.infoplease.com...

edit on 5-11-2010 by PayMeh because: (no reason given)

Which figures would those be?

Originally posted by Curiousisall
No, this does not affect you. It does not even effect you.

Hey you started in with the proper use of English language, I was just correcting your false correction of my correct use of the words.

I edited the above to include the numbers for those not willing to click the link. Total cost of the Iraq/Afghan war for 2010 is estimated at $138.6 billion. Yes, billion. Not millions.

Your "argument" if you can call it that, was based on the fact that $200 million is a crazy number because the war effort was only costing $190 million. I see your argument. The numbers you spew are wrong. Your argument is based on the faulty numbers which means your argument is invalid. This year we set aside $200 million for enhanced security alone. Yes $200 million is what we're paying the private security forces this year.

I'll wait for you to come up with a new stance based on factual numbers.

Originally posted by PayMeh

Originally posted by Curiousisall
No, this does not affect you. It does not even effect you.

Hey you started in with the proper use of English language, I was just correcting your false correction of my correct use of the words.

Then you went off into happy land with your fantasies about how made up stories about fake numbers somehow had an impact on your life. I was trying to follow along.

I edited the above to include the numbers for those not willing to click the link. Total cost of the Iraq/Afghan war for 2010 is estimated at $138.6 billion. Yes, billion. Not millions.

Gosh, I thought you were Mr. English. Apparently you skipped over some rather salient points. Your chart actually completely confirms the numbers I suggested but it seems you got stumped on the math.

Your "argument" if you can call it that, was based on the fact that $200 million is a crazy number because the war effort was only costing $190 million. I see your argument. The numbers you spew are wrong. Your argument is based on the faulty numbers which means your argument is invalid. This year we set aside $200 million for enhanced security alone. Yes $200 million is what we're paying the private security forces this year.

Nope. Go back and do the math and try again.

I'll wait for you to come up with a new stance based on factual numbers.

Considering your chart confirms my numbers, you might be waiting a while.

Can someone else come and explain when a chart header says "In billions of budgeted dollars" and gives a figure of $138.6 in a column it means $138.6 billion?

This is why I could never be a teacher....

Originally posted by PayMeh
Can someone else come and explain when a chart header says "In billions of budgeted dollars" and gives a figure of $138.6 in a column it means $138.6 billion?

This is why I could never be a teacher....

Please tell me what period of time that $138.6 Billion covers
according to your chart.

Thank you.

reply to post by Stewie


Whatever the costs, I think the stakes are pretty high?

The $12 billion 126 x new fifth gen' fighter jets, plus new transport planes/support/weaponry deal the USA and Russia (and previously France and Sweden and Eurofighter (UK/Germany...) are all competing in. In October India announced they had decided to go with Russia's jets and transport planes, but simultaneously appeared to leave some wiggle room about loose ends and details needing to be sorted out.

Russia's Prime Minsiter, Medvedev, visits in December (23rd?), but I think India have had issues with previous Russian aerospace deals going awry (cost escalating post sign-off), so perhaps Obama will be attempting to reassure India to do a Walmart 'one-stop-shop' route - although buying USA made not Chinese made, of course....

My suspicion is that this may turn out to be a defining moment in establishing how lonely, or not, the USA may become in defending the continuance of US dollar reserve status and forthcoming military challenges from BRIC... adversaries over the next decade or so?

I think most people would say go do whatever you have to do to win back that $12 billion jets deal, maintain intelligence and influence on their nuclear activities, secure a key strategic alliance inside BRIC and coincidentally the second largest nation on earth, especially if it may halt or slow any moves by the other BRIC nations to remove the USAs hold on default reserve currency status (before the USA has found a way out of the existing recession)...?

Hence massive effort I think?

reply to post by Curiousisall


I already have!! lol.. That's the amount allocated for the FY (fiscal year) of 2010. The grand total as of 2010 is estimated at $1.08 trillion.

You're giving me bald spots I swear. lol