Obama's expensive India trip...

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
The $200 per day figure is starting to look more reasonable. A fleet of 34 warships will accompany the President. http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/34-warships-sent-from-us-for-obama-visit-64459
A top official of the Maharashtra government privy to the arrangements for the high-profile visit has reckoned that a whopping $ 200 million (Rs. 900 crore approx) per day would be spent by various teams coming from the US in connection with Obama's two-day stay in the city.

Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/obamas-india-visit-slammed-for-over-the-top-spending-64405?cp

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/obamas-india-visit-slammed-for-over-the-top-spending-64405

This is a three-day trip, not a ten-day trip as was previously reported. Thus the cost of getting the approximately 500 security personnel plus three heavy lift aircraft, forty armored cars, thirty-four warships, numerous Navy and Air Force war planes and tankers, and all their assorted crews and support personnel to the scene ahead of time will be divided into only three days, not ten as I thought, and $200 million per day doesn't seem so outrageous, especially given that India has a severe terrorism problem. Also, although Obama is supposedly taking thousands of people, most of these costs would be the same or at least comparable were it just the first family.

Of course, most of these personnel would be paid the same regardless of whether they are in India, so the actual incremental cost of the trip - overtime, room and board, per diem costs, fuel, Indian contractors - would be much less. Only by counting the total cost of everyone and everything involved would you possibly approach $200 million. And of course that number is pulled straight from someone's ass anyway - the actual cost might be $80 million or $250 million. And the incremental cost probably isn't more than ten or twenty million per day - expensive, but probably not much more so than moving any President to any potentially dangerous area not already controlled by the US military.
 

jhbball

Platinum Member
Mar 20, 2002
2,917
23
81
The $200 per day figure is starting to look more reasonable. A fleet of 34 warships will accompany the President. http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/34-warships-sent-from-us-for-obama-visit-64459


Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/obamas-india-visit-slammed-for-over-the-top-spending-64405?cp

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/obamas-india-visit-slammed-for-over-the-top-spending-64405

This is a three-day trip, not a ten-day trip as was previously reported. Thus the cost of getting the approximately 500 security personnel plus three heavy lift aircraft, forty armored cars, thirty-four warships, numerous Navy and Air Force war planes and tankers, and all their assorted crews and support personnel to the scene ahead of time will be divided into only three days, not ten as I thought, and $200 million per day doesn't seem so outrageous, especially given that India has a severe terrorism problem. Also, although Obama is supposedly taking thousands of people, most of these costs would be the same or at least comparable were it just the first family.

Of course, most of these personnel would be paid the same regardless of whether they are in India, so the actual incremental cost of the trip - overtime, room and board, per diem costs, fuel, Indian contractors - would be much less. Only by counting the total cost of everyone and everything involved would you possibly approach $200 million. And of course that number is pulled straight from someone's ass anyway - the actual cost might be $80 million or $250 million. And the incremental cost probably isn't more than ten or twenty million per day - expensive, but probably not much more so than moving any President to any potentially dangerous area not already controlled by the US military.

hack.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
What I love about that article is how all these people jumped on claiming that it would be 200 million a day before getting any facts. That is what politics has come to. Say it and its the truth until someone proves it a lie.

If any of you have ever watched White Collar there is an awesome episode about a political campaign and this process.

Aside from a very few people the attitude has been skepticism. A few just toss in their digs and the rest express outrage over angst which doesn't exist.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
When Socialists are in power and it's that tax payers money then price is no issue.

At the White House the recession doesn't exist, especially when you are creating jobs like he is.
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
The $200 per day figure is starting to look more reasonable. A fleet of 34 warships will accompany the President. http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/34-warships-sent-from-us-for-obama-visit-64459
This claim has also been directly denied by the White House.

This claim never made any sense either. India has a increasingly large reasonably capable navy that can clearly take over most relevant security related duties. If India's military hypothetically suddenly decided to attack the President, its not like even the rumored force would have been able to stop them from succeeding
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/11/04/white-house-dod-dismiss-asia-trip-s-rumored-price-tag
 

IBMer

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2000
1,137
0
76
Aside from a very few people the attitude has been skepticism. A few just toss in their digs and the rest express outrage over angst which doesn't exist.

Unlike on this message board where most will see the truth when its presented, the mere fact this was mentioned has now caused people to start using it in their rhretoric. Already I see it on comments in articles on the Fox News website. It might as well be true because anyone denying it will just be concidered a Dimocrat/DemoRAT/Maxist.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Following this kind of logic, for Obama to wipe his ass costs millions of dollars because he has all these federal employees working for him at the same time...

Heck, since my work phone is a Verizon, that means I have that whole "network" of guys in the ads, following me around everywhere, which costs many millions per day!
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
This claim has also been directly denied by the White House.

This claim never made any sense either. India has a increasingly large reasonably capable navy that can clearly take over most relevant security related duties. If India's military hypothetically suddenly decided to attack the President, its not like even the rumored force would have been able to stop them from succeeding
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/11/04/white-house-dod-dismiss-asia-trip-s-rumored-price-tag

I don't think that India's military is the reason for worry - remember the massive terrorist attack in Mumbai that was launched from the sea? That, and associated threats such as hijacked airliners being flown into the Taj, are the reason for the massive military presence. (How massive is up to interpretation - Gibbs says it is definitely not 34 ships but won't say how many.)

Personally, I'm fine with sending 34 warships if the Secret Service and military security leaders think that's the right number. Hell, I'm fine with 68 warships if he'll take Congress along. Whatever the number, you don't risk the President to save a few million bucks - especially with Biden sitting on deck.
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
That, and associated threats such as hijacked airliners being flown into the Taj, are the reason for the massive military presence. (How massive is up to interpretation - Gibbs says it is definitely not 34 ships but won't say how many.)
The US clearly is not dedicating measurable military assets to protect against a hijacked airliner flying into the Taj. That's the responsibility of the Indian Air Force, which is doing so according to news reports, and is quite capable of doing so with advanced aircraft such as the SU-30MKI.

Realistically speaking, at most the US might send very limited naval assets to fill out a few gaps in Indian patrol patterns, but India is quite capable of handling most of this burden. (The Mumbai attack worked because the Indian Navy was not alert so such a thing as they will be for the limited period Obama is in India.)

Gibbs said the claim was comical and that nothing close to that is being done, he didn't merely deny the claim. Basically operational details are being concealed, but the original costs claims were just plain pure nonsense.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,161
136
I can't believe the "liberal media" wasn't all over that. Maybe they were thrilled he was finally doing something besides clearing brush.

OH MY FRIGGIN GOD!!! You loonie internet (believe anything) crackpots!

Oh.. and the ships are all driven by mice with human BrAiNs. ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,161
136
Well... at least the internet(s) can bring all idiots together to create a new stupid class.
GO Faux GO !!!!
The sad thing... People like Rush know well just how stupid his listeners are. He actually depends on it.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Just read the comments of the foxnewies under it.

OK, but whats wrong with the article? Im sure your tongue was firmly planted in your cheek when you said fair and balanced. So whats the problem with how Fox reported it?
 

IBMer

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2000
1,137
0
76
OK, but whats wrong with the article? Im sure your tongue was firmly planted in your cheek when you said fair and balanced. So whats the problem with how Fox reported it?

My opinion is it shouldn't have been an article at all. What happened to getting the facts first? Its very clear in the comments AND the comments by numerous Fox News analysts AND other conservative media, what the intent of this article is.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
My opinion is it shouldn't have been an article at all. What happened to getting the facts first? Its very clear in the comments AND the comments by numerous Fox News analysts AND other conservative media, what the intent of this article is.
did you even read the article you posted?

it directly contradicted the 200 million/34 warship claim.
 

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,559
8
0
Another lie propagated by the blogoshere and pushed on fox to push an agenda...


Fox's reporting of this story is just another expample of dishonest reporting...
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
My opinion is it shouldn't have been an article at all. What happened to getting the facts first? Its very clear in the comments AND the comments by numerous Fox News analysts AND other conservative media, what the intent of this article is.

The facts are IN the article you linked. It stated some sources stated the "costs", and the White House debunked those costs. Whats the problem with the article again?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Another lie propagated by the blogoshere and pushed on fox to push an agenda...


Fox's reporting of this story is just another expample of dishonest reporting...

So when Fox stated in their article that the White House debunked those costs, thats dishonest of them? :confused:
 

IBMer

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2000
1,137
0
76
did you even read the article you posted?

it directly contradicted the 200 million/34 warship claim.

No it said:

"The Obama administration has pushed back"

"White House spokesman Tommy Vietor shot down"

"Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell also outright rejected"

Which to the vocal watchers of Fox News is like the Germans saying that Nazi's never killed any jews.

THIS IS VERY CLEAR in the comments section of the same article.

What it didn't do is OUT RIGHT say that the source of this information wasn't substantiated in ANYWAY.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
No it said:

"The Obama administration has pushed back"

"White House spokesman Tommy Vietor shot down"

"Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell also outright rejected"

in other words, it directly contradicted the 200 million/34 warship claim.