Why Are We Paying for Michele's Vacation? She Wasn't Elected

madmac5150
"We The People" should not have to bear the burden of any elected official's unofficial travel. Period. The President, like every other government employee gets a paycheck... he can pay for his own damned vacations and for his family's travel as well. I understand the need for the Secret Service to travel with the President and his family... for them it is official travel, and I am quite OK with that...

You see there lays the problem. Security for the president is more than just a couple secret service agents. Security are in teams, squads back ground checks, bomb detection, extraction teams, pre arrival teams that clear the airports, so even if the president or his family paid their way the cost would still be there. It isn't like they can just rent a room at the Hilton or fly coach with you and I.

The cost is in the security for them. Having them assassinated or worse taken hostage is not an option.

reply to post by Grimpachi


I guess the totally secure presidential vacation spot at Camp David is just too pedestrian for the royal couple...

reply to post by Grimpachi


They can pay for the hotel, can't they? Or is that too much to ask?

It's $8000+ per night!

madmac5150
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

I guess the totally secure presidential vacation spot at Camp David is just too pedestrian for the royal couple...

Well said. How often has he been there? Twice?

madmac5150
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

I guess the totally secure presidential vacation spot at Camp David is just too pedestrian for the royal couple...

So I guess you are saying the only place that the presidents or their families should be "allowed" to vacation would be Camp David.

You do realize there is a cost involved for security there as well don't you?

Edit to add

I just looked up what has accompanied a presidential tour before.

250 members of the Secret Service, 150 advisers from the National Security Department, 200 representatives of other government departments and 50 political aides.

There will also be approximately 100 journalists travelling with him. There are also his personal chef, personal assistants, four cooks, medics and the presidential 15-strong sniffer dog team.

Restricted
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

They can pay for the hotel, can't they? Or is that too much to ask?

It's $8000+ per night!

edit on 3/24/2014 by Restricted because: (no reason given)

What is $8000+ per night?

As I have looked over you OP a few times I have not seen any breakdown of cost nor have I seen any links to said breakdown in cost. Seeing how this is a rant then that is fine but if you pulling numbers out of your behind you should say so.

Travel for the president or family rules and guidelines have been set for a long time. This is not something new to this presidency.

Presidential Travel: Policy and Costs

The travel policies of specific Administrations concerning the reimbursement of expenses for
unofficial travel generally are not publicly available. However, the Reagan Administration
established written guidelines in 1982 to determine when the President, Vice President, and any
assistants accompanying them on military aircraft travel at government expense and when they, or
the political organizations on whose behalf they travel, are to reimburse the government with the
equivalent of the airfare that they would have had to pay had they traveled on commercial
airlines.4

The guidelines, which also cover the
First Lady and the Vice President’s spouse, apply only to trips in the United States and its
territories, since all foreign travel is considered official. It appears likely that subsequent
Administrations have used the Reagan Administration guidelines as a foundation for their own
travel policies.

Why are you even paying for any of there vacations? Why not make them pay for it themselfs!

reply to post by Grimpachi


No, I don't think that Camp David is the only place that the royal family should be allowed to go on vacation. Yes, a vacation to Camp David isn't free to the taxpayers, but it is a helluva lot cheaper than dragging the royal entourage all over the world. The security is built in... If Obama is the LEAST bit concerned about cutting unnecessary government spending, the lavish vacations should be the first to go... instead we have a president that sees his lavish family vacations as an entitlement that "We The People" should be happy to pay for.

Restricted
reply to post by buster2010

 

Nobody said anything about going to war. Stop putting words in my mouth.

In the war of words they are waging Obama is the clear loser.

Then explain what you are implying. You cry that he is a weak president but can't seem to explain why he is a weak president.

reply to post by madmac5150


Well seeing as how I do not even know what vacation you are ranting about with the current president I cant really compare it. If it is something new that the networks are spouting on about then I wouldn't as I do not have cable or watch talking heads. I can however give you some statistics to put things in perspective.

With the attention Michelle Obama has received for her various trips – and they no doubt have cost taxpayers some significant chunks of change – you might be surprised at the results of National Taxpayers Union Foundation’s (NTUF’s) peek into our two most recent First Ladies’ international travelling habits.

Michelle Obama has already travelled 72 days abroad up to this point. Certainly not an insignificant total, and her first term tally of 55 days abroad is more than President Reagan spent abroad in his first term.

Yet, Michelle’s two-term travel record will almost assuredly fail to keep pace with Laura Bush’s record-setting feat.

The former First Lady racked up a two-term total of 212 days abroad. Her second term included 135 days of international travel, which is more time than her husband, George W. Bush, spent abroad during the same time period!

In fact, if you compare Laura Bush to the Presidents, she is currently the third most internationally traveled of that group, behind Bill Clinton and her husband – though President Obama will likely push her back to fourth in a few years.

Michelle Obama's international travel stats:NTU

If your issue is with presidential policy throughout the years pertaining to vacations then we can agree but if you are trying to say things now are different than before (as in worse) pertaining to the policy of those vacations then I would have to say you have political blinders on. I hope your stance is on the former not the latter.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Since you have trouble with comprehension and clearly haven't been watching the news, the hotel is $8000+/night. That's just the old lady's suite.

And why is the taxpayer footing the bill for her mother?

reply to post by Grimpachi


It shouldn't matter whether the president is an "R" or a "D"... ALL of our recent presidents have strutted around like royalty... and THAT is the damned point- we souldn't be paying for ANY unofficial travel for these bastards. Period. The Obamas are just the latest in a long line of "presidential royalty"...

buster2010

Restricted
reply to post by buster2010

 

Nobody said anything about going to war. Stop putting words in my mouth.

In the war of words they are waging Obama is the clear loser.

Then explain what you are implying. You cry that he is a weak president but can't seem to explain why he is a weak president.

In case you haven't noticed, our president is the laughingstock of the planet.

reply to post by Restricted

Since you have trouble with comprehension and clearly haven't been watching the news, the hotel is $8000+/night. That's just the old lady's suite.

And why is the taxpayer footing the bill for her mother?

Thank you for clearing up where you got your numbers. I guess you heard it on the boob tube.(they never lie) I would think her mother would fall under the same protection as the kids when it comes to security and is probably within the same guidlines previous administrations set.

As explained in the link I supplied named "Presidential Travel: Policy and Costs "(just scroll up a bit to see the post) I guess you missed that. Reagan Administration established written guidelines in 1982 which presidents after that have used.

Any other questions?

reply to post by Grimpachi


I was postulating in another thread that we have become a society based on legality rather than morality... just because something is legal doesn't mean that it is right thing to do. The presidential travel guidelines as spelled out certainly makes such unofficial travel legal... it's also legal in WA state to have sex with an animal weighing less than 40lbs... sure as hell doesn't mean it's moral behavior, just permitted behavior...

madmac5150
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

It shouldn't matter whether the president is an "R" or a "D"... ALL of our recent presidents have strutted around like royalty... and THAT is the damned point- we souldn't be paying for ANY unofficial travel for these bastards. Period. The Obamas are just the latest in a long line of "presidential royalty"...

Well I am glad it isn't about a R or D. I have to agree that we shouldn't pay for unofficial travel. Not for the president, his family nor should we be paying for the congressmen and senators travels either but we do. Thing is, is that all overseas travel for the presidential family is considered official as set by the Reagan administration and congressmen and senators both use official status when traveling by attending a function or having a meeting of political nature which qualifies it as official travel but for all intents and purposes they are vacations.

It is only when we stop bickering over the left right did this or that when we can unite to tackle the government waste that go on daily from both sides.

reply to post by Grimpachi


What reason would the media have to lie about the cost of the hotel rooms?

madmac5150
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

I was postulating in another thread that we have become a society based on legality rather than morality... just because something is legal doesn't mean that it is right thing to do. The presidential travel guidelines as spelled out certainly makes such unofficial travel legal... it's also legal in WA state to have sex with an animal weighing less than 40lbs... sure as hell doesn't mean it's moral behavior, just permitted behavior...

Yes I know you want to blame Darwin for societies woes per your other thread but Darwin has nothing to do with governments waste.

Restricted
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

What reason would the media have to lie about the cost of the hotel rooms?

Did they volunteer the information that immediate family falls under the protections afforded to the president? Did they volunteer the information that all overseas travel fall under official business for the first lady and her family? Do you really think the media does not have access to a computer like myself to where the information wasn't available to them?

Maybe they didn't lie but they sure didn't give you a complete picture.



If you depend on the Boob tube for your information then don't be surprised when you find out you have become dependent on them about how to feel about said information.

reply to post by Grimpachi


It is ridiculous to define anything the unelected do as official business. That's the problem right there.