The Republican Thread

[southsider2k5]

If you want to support an assertion, yeah, you kinda do.

 

 

 

I'm asking you to support a claim. Why is that so unreasonable?

 

 

 

I'm asking you to do the exact same thing. You tell me why it is unreasonable for you to do it too.

[Rex Kickass]

I'm asking you to do the exact same thing. You tell me why it is unreasonable for you to do it too.

 

I would wager that a cost of 2 million dollars a day is probably closer to the cost than 200 million dollars a day. It's not like the Presidential security team is a per hour job.

[StrangeSox]

I'm asking you to do the exact same thing. You tell me why it is unreasonable for you to do it too.

 

Because I'm not making a positive assertion, I"m asking you to support yours. Shifting the Burden is a logical fallacy.

Edited November 4, 2010 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

It sure seems self-evident to me that you're going to need a much larger security contingent in Mumbai than in the UK.

 

Sure, just not 10 times over. In fact, you want fewer people that aren't security or military, so that you can get out more quickly. And I doubt that 2500 of those people are USSS, because I'm not sure the USSS even has that many agents.

 

I thought you guys already knew it was 3,000 people? That is why I was talking about the ridiculously large entourage. I wasn't making that up guys. I thought you all had read a couple of the articles talking about how many people and planes he was taking?

 

Well, what you said was that Obama was taking much larger contingents overseas. Except, as was illustrated, his trip to London was in the more reasonable 200-500 category. Its this trip specifically that, apparently, is larger (if that number is even accurate, which we don't know, though I'd say the chances of Dude India being right on that are far higher than having clue one about the cost).

 

So really, this is not about Obama - its about what Presidents do, and then seperately, about this particular trip.

 

[southsider2k5]

Because I'm not making a positive assertion, I"m asking you to support yours. Shifting the Burden is a logical fallacy.

 

So basically you can just say prove it to every single person who posts something, and you have nothing to prove ever. Sure that makes perfect sense.

[StrangeSox]

So basically you can just say prove it to every single person who posts something, and you have nothing to prove ever. Sure that makes perfect sense.

 

Do you really not get that this is a logical fallacy? Seriously?

[southsider2k5]

Do you really not get that this is a logical fallacy? Seriously?

 

Do you really not get the fallacy in your logic? Basically you are taking the Glen Beck side of things, where you have no burden of proof, but everyone else does.

[StrangeSox]

Do you really not get the fallacy in your logic? Basically you are taking the Glen Beck side of things, where you have no burden of proof, but everyone else does.

 

Seriously, what are you talking about? Have I made a positive claim here that I need to support? No. You have. And, when it was pointed out that there really isn't any support for the $200M figure, you tried to shift the burden of proof. This was pointed out by multiple people, not just me or BS.

 

If I make a claim, then I have the burden. Asking someone else to support their claim does not give me any burden. What you're doing here, what Beck does, is to make a claim and assume it's true unless it's refuted. I haven't actually made a claim, so your argument makes no sense. And you still haven't, by the way, supported the original assertion in question.

 

Just to expand a bit, if I can show that a statement I disagree with is wrong, if I can find reliable counterfactuals or contradictory evidence, I'll provide it. But in this case, my point is that we really have no source for the costs of these trips. We've a rough idea of how many people went, and that's really it. Which is why, if you want to use the $200M to make an argument or criticize spending, I'm going to ask you to support it with something reliable. We can discuss the merits of expensive overseas travel, of his family coming with, or other factors without the "ZOMG OBAMA WASTES $1B!" figure. It's not necessary and it's not grounded in reality.

Edited November 4, 2010 by StrangeSox

[Cknolls]

200-500 is more the scale I was assuming here.

 

So now the question shifts a bit... why do they need 10 times as many for India? This angle isn't Obama versus Bush, its UK vs India. Did Bush take a lot more people to India than he did other places too? I really don't know, and I am not sure why it would be that way.

 

 

I heard a blurb yesterday that a bunch of business people will be on the trip so as to be present when India announces a boatload of contracts for a variety of items. These contracts,for all intents and purposes, are already signed save for the p.r., pictures and other b.s. If so the businesses should be reimbursing for some portion of the trip..FWIW..

[Cknolls]

I would wager that a cost of 2 million dollars a day is probably closer to the cost than 200 million dollars a day. It's not like the Presidential security team is a per hour job.

 

 

But if the actual figure of 3000 people is correct, the cost of operating the planes alone, which I would think has to be close to 15 or so, would be at least 8-10 million dollars, no?

[Soxbadger]

I heard a blurb yesterday that a bunch of business people will be on the trip so as to be present when India announces a boatload of contracts for a variety of items. These contracts,for all intents and purposes, are already signed save for the p.r., pictures and other b.s. If so the businesses should be reimbursing for some portion of the trip..FWIW..

 

But that is doing business. If I have a very important client and they are going to be signing agreements, I go and meet them. You cant just slap your business partners in the face, every once in a while you actually have to put in the time and effort. Its not like Obama goes to India every month, he doesnt even go there every year. So if over a 4 year period Obama spends $800mil wining and dining the second most populous country in the world, a country who may play a vital role in the war on terror and a country that can help the US offset China, I dont see it as a problem.

 

I think there are plenty of other horrific uses of money. But once in a while we have to keep up good relations.

[NorthSideSox72]

I heard a blurb yesterday that a bunch of business people will be on the trip so as to be present when India announces a boatload of contracts for a variety of items. These contracts,for all intents and purposes, are already signed save for the p.r., pictures and other b.s. If so the businesses should be reimbursing for some portion of the trip..FWIW..

If that is the case, then yes, they should. And maybe they are, I don't know.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

But that is doing business. If I have a very important client and they are going to be signing agreements, I go and meet them. You cant just slap your business partners in the face, every once in a while you actually have to put in the time and effort. Its not like Obama goes to India every month, he doesnt even go there every year. So if over a 4 year period Obama spends $800mil wining and dining the second most populous country in the world, a country who may play a vital role in the war on terror and a country that can help the US offset China, I dont see it as a problem.

 

I think there are plenty of other horrific uses of money. But once in a while we have to keep up good relations.

 

Again, when did our relationship with India suddenly decline to the point where we HAVE to go there OR ELSE? I don't think anyone is arguing that we should give the world the middle finger and tell them to come here or call us, but come on. IF (and it's a big if clearly) we're spending this much money, I'd argue it's not worth the cost.

[Chisoxfn]

Why do we need 3000 members? Why 6 times more than Obama's trip to the UK?

[StrangeSox]

Why do we need 3000 members? Why 6 times more than Obama's trip to the UK?

 

Because Mumbai was the site of a recent, large-scale terror attack and they were woefully incapable of responding to it? And it's a lot closer to areas of concern (read: Pakistan) than Britain?

[Rex Kickass]

But if the actual figure of 3000 people is correct, the cost of operating the planes alone, which I would think has to be close to 15 or so, would be at least 8-10 million dollars, no?

 

Not per day. I'm guessing here that the final total of a per day cost would have about 2 fewer zeros before the decimal point. It might be 3 mil a day or even 4 million a day. I just can't see, even at a woefully bloated budget, how it would cost 200 million dollars of US money to have the President hosted in India.

[Balta1701]

Why do we need 3000 members? Why 6 times more than Obama's trip to the UK?

I think the answer here is pretty simple...there's lots of reasons to expect larger groups. First, you obviously need a much stronger security plan for India than you do for the UK if you're a U.S. president. Second, the economic/trade delegations are likely to be much larger, because unlike the UK where we have long-established trade ties and agreements, we're in the position of negotiating and establishing trade ties with a rising partner. That seems like a much more complicated scenario to me. Although the U.S. has a strong strategic relationship with the UK, if you're in the national security apparatus and you need to go to the UK, you can do so with ease tomorrow. It's going to be substantially more complicated to do that in India, in terms of security arrangements, so it would make sense to go with a much larger group. Finally, the U.S. has an active combat situation in the neighborhood of India that complicates everything.

[StrangeSox]

But if the actual figure of 3000 people is correct, the cost of operating the planes alone, which I would think has to be close to 15 or so, would be at least 8-10 million dollars, no?

 

"40 planes" cited here:

 

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/n...how/6845435.cms

 

But we'd have to know how many are sunk-cost anyway. How many are military planes already in the area?

[Soxbadger]

Again, when did our relationship with India suddenly decline to the point where we HAVE to go there OR ELSE? I don't think anyone is arguing that we should give the world the middle finger and tell them to come here or call us, but come on. IF (and it's a big if clearly) we're spending this much money, I'd argue it's not worth the cost.

 

Where did I say we had to or else? I dont recall anywhere in my posts suggesting that there was some sort of ultimatum or that the US had to do this.

 

Ive merely stated that I believe it is a good business practice to every so often visit your business partners. And that when you visit, you generally spend some money, show them a good time, to keep relations good.

 

The point is that you dont let the relations go bad, and then try and win the back. You have to take steps to make sure that the relationship never gets to a strained point. India is far to important to risk on $800mil. They are a country of 1billion, it is the equivalent of less than $1 per person spent on India. It is the equivalent of every American spending $5 to make sure that we keep good relations with a country who could become very important in the next few years.

 

We can disagree on whether the costs are worth it. I think spending $800mil on India is worth far more than spending $800mil on new military toys, but who knows which is the right answer. The $800mil could be worth far more in goodwill in the future, or it could be worth nothing. There is no good way to predict the future.

 

What I do believe is that the US has to have good relations with India, and if that means we take them out and show them a good time, then so be it. I am not going to lose any sleep over trying to make sure that we have India in case there are problems in the Asia or the Indian subcontinent.

 

Why do we need 3000 members? Why 6 times more than Obama's trip to the UK?

 

Well once again I will just concede(arguendo) that they are taking 6x more than the British trip.

 

Why?

 

Because after the attack on Mumbai the US can not rely on Indian security the way the US could rely on British security.

 

Obama in India is very close to major centers of terror. It also is in a country that has shown a complete lack of ability to respond to a terrorist situation. Given that information, it would stand to reason that to be safe the US would require Obama to travel with a larger security force to India (considerably more dangerous) than England (considerably less dangerous with far more skilled security).

 

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

FWIW, it costs about $160M/year to operate a Nimitz-class carrier, which has, coincidentally, a crew of about 3,000. So, I'm a little skeptical of the $200M figure.

[mr_genius]

guys, be realistic here, India is not going to cut any ties with the US. 70% of their IT outsourcing money comes directly from the US. That would be like me refusing to sell to our biggest client because they didn't come over and spend thousands of dollars on us.

 

anyways, bottom line is that 200 million a day is way too much. i think Obama going to India is a good idea, but no need to go over the top on cost.

Edited November 4, 2010 by mr_genius

[StrangeSox]

I'm still skeptical that it costs more for a single day on this trip than it does to operate an entire aircraft carrier for a year.

Edited November 4, 2010 by StrangeSox

[mr_genius]

FWIW, it costs about $160M/year to operate a Nimitz-class carrier, which has, coincidentally, a crew of about 3,000. So, I'm a little skeptical of the $200M figure.

 

yea it has to be way too high. still haven't seen what i would consider a legit source on the cost.

 

himm, if we find out that the cost is more like 5 million a day, will people will still argue that 200 million a day was a reasonable cost?

[Balta1701]

I'm still skeptical that it costs more for a single day on this trip than it does to operate an entire aircraft carrier for a year.

I'm skeptical that $200 million is the operating costs for an aircraft carrier. (Are you including fuel? Salaries of the people on board? Cost of planes? What is included in that number? That sounds way too low)

[Soxbadger]

I dont think anyone believes that India will cut ties with America. But I dont think its a good idea to snub them either. I also dont believe that the US is spending money just to spend money, and that if it is $200mil a day, there is a justifiable reason.

 

What would be the incentive to spend lavishly in India for no reason?

 

And we rely on India too. India will become one of the largest markets in the world. The US will need the Indian markets. Its just not a risk Im willing to take. And because I doubt the US is spending money just to spend money, than the $200mil, $200bil or whatever it may be is worth it.