Washington Post - Classified Docs Reveal Obama Upcoming Africa trip cost up to 100 Million $$

White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes says the president will get "great bang for the buck" out of his Africa trip later this month:

Rhodes says there'll be "a great bang for the buck" for US foreign policy as a result of Pres Obama's trip to Africa at month's end.

Maybe it will be that "assassination attempt" you hear whispered about?

All that money wasted on security, what would America do then in light of all these scandals?

Source

I would really like to be wrong in thinking that was a possibility, but even all that surveillance couldn't stop the Boston Bombing, but to their credit, they did plan on a drill months later with backpacks.

And you can never be too safe in this world, when you are trying to control it.

Originally posted by Trueman

Originally posted by flyswatter
Many of the people that complain about the cost of a trip like this also seem to complain about any money going to other countries in general. They scream "take care of the problems at home, give all foreign aid money to people here."

Well, we see how well non-intervention and isolationism has worked for the US in the past. (Here's a hint - not at all).

Look man...., the guy sucks and everybody can see that. Pointless to deny it......, and this is one of those with lots of evidence.

For some reason, I believe if other guy do the same things he did, will have better results. If he wants to go vacations with the family, he got to pay for it. If he is taking the family with him in a business trip, he got to pay for the family too.

I personally believe he is dropping resumes and filling applications around the world, do you know what I mean??

What are you talking about? What I said has nothing to do with Obama himself, unless you're just putting words in my mouth.

He does pay for some of it. Not a large amount, granted. Dont ask me for details on what, because I dont have them and wont attempt to make them up, though you can probably fish around and find information about what types of expensese the President has to cover.

reply to post by Indigo5


travelocity for the flights came up with a range of flights from 1800 (one stop over) to in excess of 2500. I used 2k as it was on the lower end of the cost. This is a flight from DC to Africa. Long flight, large cost.

The hotel they stay at is going to be the same as the POTUS. Granted, not the same room but the president doesn't stay at holiday inn when he travels. In NYC the president stays at the Waldorf Astoria. Rooms range from $325 to $800 (much higher but I doubt we're getting the secret service those 8k a night suites). It's doubtful the secret service are scattered throughout the hotel as they are probably stationed on the same floor as the president and the floors above and below so they will be renting out whatever rooms are on those floors.



All presidents travelled, many times taking family members along for the ride. I don't have issues with that but I do have a problem with a president taking expensive trips on the taxpayers' collective dime when we are cutting salaries for gov't employees, and cutting programs because the current group of politicians can't control the epic debt this country is in.


It's really very simple. Let's say you are self-employed and you need to travel to Asia for business. Normally, you take your wife and kids along for the ride because it's an opportunity for them to see a country they might not normall get to see. Now let's add that the current economic atmosphere has resulted in your income going down while your expenses have stayed the same, or gone higher. Do you bring them along? No.

Whether he pays for some part of the trip, or not, it's a bad move by the president. It shows the rest of the country, the folks struggling, the employees you furloughed, that you're different from them, more important. He should have, instead, put the money the gov't is spending to cover his wife and children towards the programs he's cut, the employees he's furloughed or the rampant debt he, and the rest of DC, can't get under control.

Originally posted by Indigo5
..FLOTUS and KIDS and Personal expeditions...all re-imbursed to gov., except for Secret Service, cuz they can't tell Sec Service to stay home...their presense is mandatory.

The FLOTUS and kiddos are going on the trip because it's a family vacation disguised as an official visit. Goodwill ambassadors or whatever. There is no way that Obama is going to reimburse the US Government 60-100 million to pay for this boondoggle, nor the family vacation to Germany and Ireland that are also this month.

Originally posted by IAMTAT
THIS is a purely diplomatic mission to Africa; as the HuffPost says: to raise AIDS awareness.

Lovely. Spending 60-100 million of our tax money just to supposedly raise 'AIDS awareness in Africa?
1 - My tax money is better spent HERE in the USA.
2 - Everyone already is aware of AIDS. It's been around for 40 years.
3 - It's a family vacation with a flimsy cover story.

reply to post by FlyersFan


but he cancelled the safari. doesn't that count for something?

Originally posted by Crakeur
but he cancelled the safari. doesn't that count for something?

Yeah .. he and the family were going out on a safari to raise AIDS awareness.
Someone wanna' tell me how the first family going on a safari in Africa on our tax money
would in any way 'raise AIDS awareness'?

I'm pretty sure everyone in Africa is very aware of AIDS and how it spreads.

Side note ... anyone see the Southpark episode where Eric Cartman gets AIDS and tries to have a fundraiser for himself but finds out that AIDS awareness is passee (it's soooo 80's) and everyone is into cancer awareness now? Irreverent ... but gets the point across.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Indigo5
..FLOTUS and KIDS and Personal expeditions...all re-imbursed to gov., except for Secret Service, cuz they can't tell Sec Service to stay home...their presense is mandatory.

The FLOTUS and kiddos are going on the trip because it's a family vacation disguised as an official visit. Goodwill ambassadors or whatever. There is no way that Obama is going to reimburse the US Government 60-100 million to pay for this boondoggle, nor the family vacation to Germany and Ireland that are also this month.

Originally posted by IAMTAT
THIS is a purely diplomatic mission to Africa; as the HuffPost says: to raise AIDS awareness.

Lovely.

Spending 60-100 million of our tax money just to supposedly raise 'AIDS awareness in Africa?
1 - My tax money is better spent HERE in the USA.
2 - Everyone already is aware of AIDS. It's been around for 40 years.
3 - It's a family vacation with a flimsy cover story.

That is what you want to believe

You ignore the fact that Africa could add a whole new revenue stream to the American economy which is currently being hoarded by Chinese interests.

Originally posted by Crakeur
All presidents travelled, many times taking family members along for the ride.

Funny how this trip just HAD to happen after the kids got out of school.
Ditto the Ireland and Germany trips.
Obama couldn't do this 'aids awareness' trip a month earlier and so cut the cost??
pfffft ..... it's a free family vacation for them to Africa. Nothing more.

Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by Indigo5

 

travelocity for the flights came up with a range of flights from 1800 (one stop over) to in excess of 2500. I used 2k as it was on the lower end of the cost. This is a flight from DC to Africa. Long flight, large cost.

The hotel they stay at is going to be the same as the POTUS. Granted, not the same room but the president doesn't stay at holiday inn when he travels. In NYC the president stays at the Waldorf Astoria. Rooms range from $325 to $800 (much higher but I doubt we're getting the secret service those 8k a night suites). It's doubtful the secret service are scattered throughout the hotel as they are probably stationed on the same floor as the president and the floors above and below so they will be renting out whatever rooms are on those floors.



All presidents travelled, many times taking family members along for the ride. I don't have issues with that but I do have a problem with a president taking expensive trips on the taxpayers' collective dime when we are cutting salaries for gov't employees, and cutting programs because the current group of politicians can't control the epic debt this country is in.


It's really very simple. Let's say you are self-employed and you need to travel to Asia for business. Normally, you take your wife and kids along for the ride because it's an opportunity for them to see a country they might not normall get to see. Now let's add that the current economic atmosphere has resulted in your income going down while your expenses have stayed the same, or gone higher. Do you bring them along? No.

Whether he pays for some part of the trip, or not, it's a bad move by the president. It shows the rest of the country, the folks struggling, the employees you furloughed, that you're different from them, more important. He should have, instead, put the money the gov't is spending to cover his wife and children towards the programs he's cut, the employees he's furloughed or the rampant debt he, and the rest of DC, can't get under control.

Its not really right to try and compare this to a self-employed guy taking or not taking his family with him on a trip to Asia for business. AF1 is doing the people moving for the President, his staff, assigned press corps, and other high-vis and high-importance personnel ... there's space available for the rest of the family. As far as the hotel goes ... I'm sure its different now (as in more secure), but my personal experience with this was in Chicago at the Sheraton. Bush Sr. was staying on the floor above where I was spending a lot of time, and they had that whole floor locked down. And that was for a FORMER President, his service detail, and any people there for whatever purpose the trip was for (I dont know why he was in Chicago). You can imagine that with Obama in Africa, more than just a floor is going to be shut down, and there will be some unused space. So hotel space isnt a factor, either.

If you want to to a dollar-for-dollar analysis of it, do it based on the actual increase in money needing to be spent rather than just comparing it to Joe Blow taking the wife and kids to Timbuktu. We're talking things like the Safari that they may or may not be going on, the additional cargo plane and the trip associated with the extra vehicles that need to be taken, etc.

Originally posted by hamburgerler
That is what you want to believe

No .. I"m looking at the facts.

You ignore the fact that Africa could add a whole new revenue stream to the American economy which is currently being hoarded by Chinese interests.

You ignore the fact that Africa is not .. and wont' be ... a whole new revenue stream to the US economy. Africa is dirt poor and no visit by any US POTUS has changed that. We pump AID money into Africa and we get nothing in return. It's a financial black hole for us.

Financial black hole ... 60-100 million spent to send the first family over for 'aids awareness'. That's not a revenue income seeking trip for the USA. It's spending tens of millions and we get nothing. And the Africans get nothing as well.

reply to post by FlyersFan

It's a financial black hole for us

Thats true but there are a lot of those after the trillions spent we really don't have anything to show for it, but hey the Potus and family get to 'stay at a really nice Holiday Inn Express'

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by hamburgerler
That is what you want to believe

No .. I"m looking at the facts.

You ignore the fact that Africa could add a whole new revenue stream to the American economy which is currently being hoarded by Chinese interests.

You ignore the fact that Africa is not .. and wont' be ... a whole new revenue stream to the US economy. Africa is dirt poor and no visit by any US POTUS has changed that. We pump AID money into Africa and we get nothing in return. It's a financial black hole for us.

You are going off your hatred for the president, not facts.

You are wrong, Africa is fastest growing emerging market on the planet which is why China is busy trying to sow up the entire continent. Africa is going to do the same thing Asia has done, things do not stay the same forever.
The continent will eventually have a huge amount of disposable income and it behooves America to WTFU and get on it.

Financial black hole ... 60-100 million spent to send the first family over for 'aids awareness'.

That's not a revenue income seeking trip for the USA. It's spending tens of millions and we get nothing. And the Africans get nothing as well.

Oh yes, I forgot, because presidents usual title their trips "Trip to Africa, to start laying the ground work for increased business interactions between America and a strategic business ally that will not remain poor for the rest of human history, business trip" Why don't you write the WH and suggest that they list their entire agenda in the title of said trip???

Well whoever leaked these classified documents is a TRAITOR to this country!

The cost of Obama's trips are classified for a REASON, that reason is the US GOVERNMENT knows whats BEST for you! (and if you betray the trust of that REASON, you are committing TREASON!)

These files are CLASSIFIED because they are a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY and the eyes of the American people ARE NOT, I repeat....ARE NOT allowed to see classified documents.

Anybody who thinks Americans deserve to know when their trust is betrayed is UN-PATRIOTIC. Only the GOVERNMENT can decide what is best for you.








/sarcasm

reply to post by flyswatter


so, you're telling me the cost of the trip, whatever it is, is not impacted by the first lady and the girls tagging along? you're saying there's no added cost for security?

my anaolgy is absolutely fine because he's running this country, which is like a coporation, and he's laying off workers while taking lavish vacations on the company dime.

it's like the head of GE flying, first class, to DC to discuss the bailouts whilst laying off workers and asking for more money from the gov't.

it's wrong. plain and simple.

if these were better economic times, and we weren't in unprecedented debt troubles, I'd have no problem with the president taking a vacation with his family and spending any amount of money on that vacation.

but he's laying off employees and spending needed money on his wife and kids and that is wrong, no matter how you look at it.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I watched a documentary on Bush's 2nd term trip to Africa, and the prep work - due to Africa's complete lack of security infrastructure for any visiting head of state - was mind-boggling. And extremely expensive if you factored in the cost of the advance teams, the security teams, the two Air Force One twin 747s, the military cargo planes that deliver the bullet/bomb proof cars and SUVs, the secure food that the POTUS has to have carried along with him whenever he travels overseas (Secret Service protocols) and just the hundreds of people it takes to pull this off and all their travel accommodations.

That said, no US POTUS would survive a single day in Africa, or any other relatively unstable 3rd world location, if he traveled on the cheap, so there you have it. Then again, whatever Obama wants from any African nation is pretty much assured if he takes the time, money and effort to show up in person. I guess it all depends on how important whatever he's going there for is.