Honestly? It is because they don't give a crap about us. We are only useful when it is time to get elected, then after that they can give a crap about us. As long as they proportion enough money to provide some entitlements to their base that is all that matters.

I have the same question on why congress keeps voting themselves pay raises, and doubling the size of their petty cash.

It is sicking.

Well with the stimulus bill passed now, I am still wondering why the president is flying to Denver to sign this bill. Why can he not do it from the white house and save us the money that is going to be spent on using air force one.

It seems there is no change here just the same old same old. Although he talks a good talk he is not really doing his share to cut back on spending.

Oh he will be getting plenty of use of Air Force One. Barack's only experience thus far is campaigning. It worked so well for him he decided to continue doing it after being sworn in. He went to Florida and Indiana to "campaign" for the stimulus pckg. I suspect we will see plenty more of the same.

Honestly, At least if he's going somewhere its not wasting money...

let me explain how it was explained to me while I was in the Air Force...

Air Force 1 is actually a collection of 3 identical aircraft... one of the three, is perpetually in the air... all the time, president or no president on board, its flying... I guess this is a strategic thing, because the country can literally be ran from AF1... I dunno...

So at least if the president is in the plane, its not just doing circles in the air somewhere... either way... even if he stayed in washington, the money is going to be spent...

And the POTUSEs have always used AFO for touring the country. What is your point?

Whether the POTUS is in the white house or afo, I am sure the operating costs would be the same.


All the presidents have always campaigned to sell their ideas.

If were not to take afo, and say drive instead. I am sure the cost of security and securing every gas station or train station along the way would even be more costly.

While I understand the frustration with our government expenditures, I must say that this looks like just an excuse to continue to complain when we have OH SO MUCH to go after. It seems rather silly.

I'm not trying to put down the OP. AFO is a big expense. But it has been used by every president since FDR, and though the make, model, and technology has changed over the decades, it is still a privilege of the US president, and he should have it. Just like he should have Marine one, and an advanced presidential limo. There are reasons for all of these things almost all of them strategic.

Originally posted by projectvxn
It seems rather silly.

Yeah, it's silly alright. Why should any opposition party tax dollars finance a President and Vice-President going around campaigning for their own party candidates? They shouldn't. And further, it's about time that was outlawed. The top officials in this land need to be concentrating on our problems, not on who is getting elected. There's plenty of people doing that already just fine.

6 to 10 million more taxpayer dollars to fund this, when the people they are campaigning for are the very opponents of 50% of taxpayers paying for it? What is wrong with this picture? It sucks.

[edit on Mon Feb 16th 2009 by TrueAmerican]

I wanted to say I do kinda understand where you are coming from.

Last night I was watching a show about AFO ( I Want a TOUR! pout...)

And it showed GW in Africa for a week, a different spot every day. Then on the last day, they stop at a village to visit a community center or something, the little airport didn't have gas, so the military had to ship in three tankers to fill AFO.

I am thinking, how much did that *&^%$#@ cost? Why didn't they save the trip, save the environment, and just give them the money?