Chisoxfn

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:50 PM) This has been, imo, an excellent of microcosm of how conservative talk radio/Fox News operates. Random, unconfirmed and/or fabricated rumors and speculation quickly turn to fact. Rumors and speculation are used to support other rumors. Claims are given credulity unless disproved. Seriously? Get the f*** out. You seriously are going to go out and post this and act as if your blessed democratic party is just perfect and that its just the big bad conservative pundits. Give me a freaking break.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:44 PM) It's a valid point to bring up, and should be answered in some light (how detailed they can get I have no idea). But to take some low-level, county official in India as a valid source is ludicrous. I'm sure the 15th district of Illinois representative knows intimate details on how much it costs for the President to travel. It's all about analyzing the source, and making claims like it is legit. If you want answers, fine, ask the questions! That guy threw out a hypothesis and you took it as fact before it was even proven. At one point did I ever say it was fact? I said it begs questions to be answered and given that it is being bantied about by significant news outlets (and not that doesn't make it a fact) makes it something that the current administration should consider talking about.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:43 PM) 1. You honestly think that some regional government hack in India has ANY idea what this costs, when you said yourself that even government commissions couldn't get that number? Seriously? If you do, then really, there is no chance of reasonable discussion on this, because I could tell you that I think the next lottery number in Finland's jackpot is 1234, and I'd have an equal chance of getting it right. 2. I would not expect Bush, Obama, or any other President to "answer" to something so obviously ridiculous. Whoah, at what point did I ever say this number was pure fact. You all are just assuming I did. I did say show me something which disputes it or proves it to not be true. And as far as I'm concerned that is a valid argument. I'm just not going to take this article and throw it out and ignore what could be a potentially staggering nugget. 200 million per day!!! Balta at least answered one of my questions and he personally has no issue with that cost. That is fine and I think there is a bigger debate that could be had on that issue. But all I hear are posters (and you are not one of them) being pompous, sarcastic, jackasses acting as if myself or Mike isn't entitled to our opinions.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:35 PM) You're evading the issue and furthering my point. You and Mike are getting mud because you're failing basic logical reasoning. Speculation isn't evidence. Expensive trips for Michelle Obama that may or may not have been picked up under the government tab (more speculation! more unsupported assertions!) is not evidence for the cost of Obama's trip to India. Conservative talking heads and blogs calling her names isn't evidence for the cost of Obama's trip to India. A sitting President traveling to an important foreign country isn't "flashing around money and wealth". This is another meaningless partisan attack, and, again, unsupported. You've done a phenomenal job of demonstrating just how quickly random bulls*** with little or no support gets moved into cold, hard facts. The expensive security coverage of traveling abroad was at the very least picked up by Obama. And if you look at the itemized portions of that trip it was insane. So ya, there are quite a lot of facts to back me up on Michelle's luxurious spanish vacation.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:36 PM) And you think Joe Schmo in India knows? This is the USSS, they are in my experience the most competent and precise of the federal LE branches. They don't f*** around and they don't change their security schemes based on Presidential desires. They follow protocols. There is basically no chance that Obama has changed any of their procedures or costs in any material way. Now, is it possible that the Obamas are bringing a few more friends along for the ride? Maybe, I have no idea. But they would not be getting Presidential security protection on their own. The added costs would be mircoscopic on this scale. If you told me, Obama brings 50% more buddies with on his 5-6 int'l trips a year, costing the taxpayers a million extra dollars, I'd believe it. And it would annoy me, and set a bad example. It would not, could not possibly, cost a 9 figure number per day more. I have done some research on the number of people coming along and I've found some random commentaries talking about the bigger groups that come with Obama versus Bush but I haven't been able to quantify it to a large extent. But I will say this, if you double the size of staff/advisors or whomever the hell is coming on this trecks and the government is paying for it, well that would have a significant impact on the costs. Sure, there are sunk costs, but the more people the more involved the security has to be and the larger the security costs.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:27 PM) No there haven't been. One random nobody claimed this "fact" and all the right wing pubs are parroting it as some sort of confirmed fact. Whoah, I'm not confirming it as fact. I flat out think it is ridiculous to even come close to spending 200 million. But you know what, when this came out, I damn well want to hear a comment from our white house confirming, denying, talking about it. This number is staggering and you guys are all here either saying it didn't happen or try to defend the actual cost. If this did happen (whether Bush or Obama) and we are spending this much to travel internationally, than as far as I'm concerned we need to take a serious look into how much international travel we want to get our president into. Do you guys realize what 1 billion dollars (5 day trip x 200 million per day) could do in this world. Think about those dollar a day you can feed a child advertisements. It is absolutely ridiculous. So what I want to know is for those of you defending the costs, do you really feel that it is worth it for us to spend this much money for our president to travel abroad? And for those of you telling me and Mike that we are making up s***, I ask, since it made public print media and evidently came from someone with at least some authority in India (whether that is very little or a lot, I'm not getting into that), don't we as citizens deserve to hear and get a straight answer? Personally, until I get a straight answer I will only have to assume that there could potentially be some truth to this.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:30 PM) The Air Force was spending something like $75 million/trip at the end of the Clinton years. That came out in one of the many, many, many investigations of the Clintons. What did that 75 million per trip cover? Did that cover security and everything or was that just the airfare portion?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:27 PM) Ya know, if it really does cost $200M a day, I'd have no problem with someone looking into it. But the very idea is absurd. I mean, do the math. The President travels probably 20% of the time, so that's about 70 days a year. Are you telling me it costs $14B a year for the President to travel? Do the math. The USSS Presidential detail, the ENTIRE detail, probably has 100-200 people in it, and that number can't magically be reduced because the President travels less often. So its a sunk cost. Same with AF1, it has to be there and in working order under any circumstances. So what are the variable costs? --Fuel and basic service on AF1 --Personnel specifically attached to AF1 and other travel vehicles --Accomodations on location for said staff Look at those three bullet points and tell me, with a straight face, how that could possibly cost $200M per day. Come on, some of you guys work in the real business world, you have some idea what things cost. The very idea that the number is accurate is ridiculous on its face. Actually a government commission as well as a reporter tried looking into this very thing earlier in Obama's administration but were unable to get very far because the secret service would not release figures as to how much they have been spending. They felt it would be a threat to the presidents security.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:23 PM) When there is manufactured outrage over (completely unsubstantiated) travel expenditures and claims that Obama is doing something uniquely expensive, why isn't it fair to examine if that claim has any merit by comparing him to the only comparable President? You guys have done a much better job of demonstrating my point of rumor passing into fact better than I could have ever imagined. And it only took a handful of posts! One big problem. This isn't the first time people have complained about the Obama administration having excel travel costs. Michelle Obama happened to have a huge trip to Spain where she brought out 40 of her best friends and did everything in 10 star style. A lot of people have speculated how much the government picked up the tab because there are lots of loopholes to that matter. For pete sake people were calling her a modern day Marie Antoinette. And no, that isn't a compliment. When people in this country are struggling to find jobs, etc, I find it ignorant to go flashing around you money and wealth when you are living in a home provided by us taxpayers (the white house). But instead I see people flinging mud at Mike and I and comparing us to Carl Everett (who doesn't believe in dinosaurs).

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:12 PM) This totally reminds me of religious arguments... Not really seeing it. There is actually articles talking about this being the case and no article saying that it isn't the case. Science is something completely different. There is a lot of evidence available to prove people that science and evolution exists. They just choose to ignore it. No one has shown me any evidence to tell me that I'm being ignorant here.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:01 PM) itt further proof of unsubstantiated claims passing into fact What unsubstantiated claim am I making? Why don't you please enlighten me. I didn't write the article stating the 200 million and I haven't seen you get off your ass and show me something to prove it wrong.

Think about it, people talk about how much of her personal fortune Meg Whitman pissed away during her campaign (between 160 and 170 million). And that is still less than going to India will cost in one day. That blows me away. Don't you guys realize just what a great deal of money we are talking about when we say 200 million per day? I swear, I'm starting to think caufield makes some sense with cut back government programs and see which ones we need and don't need. Obviously that is a huge extreme but man, I really am not a proponent of the government having the ability to do this sort of stuff and in general the mass inefficiencies that go on blow my mind. I'd love to see a kaizen-burst down on the government. I realize it is typically something done for manufacturing companies, but man, it would be interesting to see how much waste really exists. The problem is our government is the largest conglomerates in the world so fixing it over night is impossible.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 12:47 PM) $200 million a day isn't "meaningless" That would fund my hometown school system for four years. Its that exact attitude that has put us $14 TRILLION in the hole.

Isn't that why businesses use video conferencing a lot more in general. It is because it is a major cost and time savings versus flying everywhere. Sometimes you need to fly, sometimes you don't. I wonder if the oval office will eventually re-evaluate this stance and travel less or if in general the president is a figure that needs to always be flying places for pure appearance standpiont? And I am ok with him flying within the US and to big sumitts. Also, at this point I'm speaking more generally, not just in terms of Obama but more just the president position in general. It is an interesting debate if it costs that much to send him places, imo.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 10:16 AM) Jeffrey Dahmer did some interesting things. Nice, comparing a CEO to a serial killer.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 10:15 AM) You're about the only person I've ever heard describe her tenure at HP as anything other than a debacle. I never said she was a good CEO. I said she did some interesting things, whether they worked or not is a whole other story.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:48 AM) Fiorina was terrible candidate. She ran on a business-savvy platform, which is a joke because she was so incompetent as an executive. I don't know, Fiorina moved up in ATT, took over Lucent, and did some interesting things at HP. I'd say in general she had a pretty successful life and accomplished a hell of a lot. Was she the best CEO ever, no, but you know what, she did what most of us will never do and did it against more odds as a women (especially in the mid 90's).

Seriously, if we are spending 200 million per day, than I'd rather pay to have the other countries presidents visit us in the US. We can pick up the tab.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:40 AM) And she spent like $150 million of her own money to do it. Wrong candidate, that was Meg Whitman who ran for governor.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:32 AM) GOP establishment candidate Fiorina lost pretty bad too. A bunch of tea party candidates won. Overall, the tea party helped the GOP in the midterms, that much is obvious. If they don't vote, or vote third party no big swing in seats. Fiorina made serious headway against a long-term senator in Boxer in a state where democrats have a 13% advantage in registered voters versus republican. California is as blue of a state as it gets. And well, it could be construed as a microcosym of what happens when you have an entirely blue state (I'm not going to count the governator). And Fiorina got smeared out of the election. 2 weeks ago she had a chance but Boxer hit her below the belt late.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:11 AM) Now here I agree. Hell, as much as I despise both Clinton and Gingrich as people, they were both very smart and very adept at their jobs, and both understood they needed to compromise to make things better. Unfortunately, that relationship was really the last time the Prez-Congress relationship was that effective. Hell, look at Illinois. When Thompson and Edgar were Republican governors, working with Michael Madigan and a heavily democratic legislature, Illinois was actually held up as an example of a state that got things done better than most. Then under Blago and his predecessor, things went to s***. I think Obama needs to decide at this point who he wants to be. Does he want to be a moderate, compromising leader, like a Clinton or an Edgar/Thompson, or does he want to try to fight tooth and nail? And by the way, Boehner and his crew have the SAME question to answer for themselves. I agree with this. And in case you guys haven't seen, in the middle of all my ranting/raving I'm not stating the republicans would have done things differently.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Nov 2, 2010 -> 05:36 PM) Well, the Des Moines Register said there has been no decision on any punishment yet, though initially, Iowa was told none of the players involved would be able to play at Iowa. I read to the contrary on ESPN.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:06 AM) The Democrats aren't a fractured party right now, why would Feingold try to make it one? The GOP is going to have a harder time reconciling the more sane part of their base with the tea party crazies. And out of work Feingold is going to make things very uneasy.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:05 AM) Tea Party can't grow without viable candidates for national office, which they don't have. Also, its been co-opted, and I think it will look different in a couple years than it does now. And I sincerely doubt the GOP makes another jump in 2012. Possible, but unlikely. I mean, despite the fact that we are in a deep recession and the President is not well-liked, the GOP was still not able to take both houses. People realize that the GOP isn't some magic fix, any more than the Dems were in 2008. What will fix this country is compromise and that can only happen when you have a nice split power system. And I fully admit when the republicans got power happy they made massive mistakes too.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:03 AM) Why were there so many Dem targets? Why could they pick up so many House seats? Oh, right, because the Dems had such a strong majority. It was a big night for the GOP, pretty much across the board. There's no doubt about that. And if you guys don't think that Obama and the democrats didn't notice where the republicans took power again, you guys would be niave. It was in the significant swing states or even historically democratic states. I'm curious to see if Feingold sticks his nose out and tries to run for the democratic nomination 2 years ago. He just might and that could really make things crazy.