The Republican Thread

[StrangeSox]

No doubt about that. I personally think it may not have been even worth responding to, but since the blogosphere has a hold of it, I suppose they had no choice. Should have been obvious it was a ridiculous number.

 

 

$4.5M sounds about right.

 

Wasn't just the blagosphere, now it's in the cable news and conservative radio echo chamber, having accusations made by a sitting member of Congress. It is now Truth in those circles, and even when corrections come out, they are never noticed. The lie remains firmly in place.

[NorthSideSox72]

Wasn't just the blagosphere, now it's in the cable news and conservative radio echo chamber, having accusations made by a sitting member of Congress. It is now Truth in those circles, and even when corrections come out, they are never noticed. The lie remains firmly in place.

Just so absurd. I mean, the number is silly on its face to any thinking person. Hell, even if its 3000 people and 40 plances (which it may or may not be), the variable costs associated with the trip still shouldn't even be on that order of magnitude.

 

[Soxbadger]

3,000 /$200,000,000

 

$70,000 a person per day.

 

That would be a hell of a trip, youd be knee deep in bollywood strippers.

[StrangeSox]

Fox News running with the story. Shocking. The first half is dedicated to how lavish and expensive the trip is. The second, to everyone who would possibly have a clue refuting it. "Fair & Balanced"

 

If you want your brain to hurt, read the comments. It is now a fact that Obama is spending $200M a day to go to India in the conservative world.

Edited November 4, 2010 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

Fox News running with the story. Shocking. The first half is dedicated to how lavish and expensive the trip is. The second, to everyone who would possibly have a clue refuting it. "Fair & Balanced"

 

If you want your brain to hurt, read the comments. It is now a fact that Obama is spending $200M a day to go to India in the conservative world.

Pentagon spokesman FTW...

 

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell also outright rejected the claim that 34 warships would patrol the Mumbai coast while Obama is in town.

 

"I think there has been a lot of creative writing that's been done on this trip over the last few days," he said. "We obviously have some support role for presidential travel ... but I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd, this notion that somehow we are deploying 10 percent of the Navy, some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier in support of the president's trip to Asia -- that's just comical.

 

"Nothing close to that is being done, but the notion that president would require security as he travels to India and elsewhere should not come as a surprise to anyone," he said.

[StrangeSox]

This story has single-handily restored my cynical view of American politics. Really, when a significant portion of the country falls for this sort of bulls***, and some of the biggest media outlets only reinforce it, what can you do?

[Chisoxfn]

This story has single-handily restored my cynical view of American politics. Really, when a significant portion of the country falls for this sort of bulls***, and some of the biggest media outlets only reinforce it, what can you do?

And when other people actually state that the outlandish number was an acceptable cost? Than what? Hmmmmm?

[Balta1701]

And when other people actually state that the outlandish number was an acceptable cost? Than what? Hmmmmm?

Then maybe we should judge these sorts of trips as a bargain, because like I said, I wouldn't have a problem with it if it was a billion dollar trip, given the security, economic, and cultural ties and issues here. $10 billion, you might have a point and I might start complaining.

[StrangeSox]

And when other people actually state that the outlandish number was an acceptable cost? Than what? Hmmmmm?

 

Then that's a separate discussion to have, as I've said multiple times. That doesn't excuse the bulls***->rumor->fact transition and burden-shifting and how quickly it's picked up by conservative media and ingrained in their listeners, including sitting Congress members.

[Soxbadger]

And when other people actually state that the outlandish number was an acceptable cost? Than what? Hmmmmm?

 

Those people would be foolish for not qualifying the statement. But im pretty sure that in every instance of my argument I qualified my stance saying that "If it is true" or "assuming that it is true" and further followed up with "I assume that the govt wont spend lavishly just to spend" and statements like "its hard to tell what is reasonable without the facts."

 

I just sincerely doubt anyone said "An outlandish number is acceptable". I think the crux of the argument was, that whatever the number may be, it is likely an acceptable number, given the fact that there is no incentive for the administration to excessively spend. That if the number was $200mil, there was most likely a legitimate reason for that spending.

 

 

[Chisoxfn]

Those people would be foolish for not qualifying the statement. But im pretty sure that in every instance of my argument I qualified my stance saying that "If it is true" or "assuming that it is true" and further followed up with "I assume that the govt wont spend lavishly just to spend" and statements like "its hard to tell what is reasonable without the facts."

 

I just sincerely doubt anyone said "An outlandish number is acceptable". I think the crux of the argument was, that whatever the number may be, it is likely an acceptable number, given the fact that there is no incentive for the administration to excessively spend. That if the number was $200mil, there was most likely a legitimate reason for that spending.

So we are now trusting the government to spend efficiently? Interesting concept?

 

Regardless of the cost, it still begs the question why are we having so many more people their. And I don't believe for one minute this 4.5 million number either. That is way too small of a number and taking the rupee exchange rate as some of you are doing is actually hypocritical since you were the same people discounting the fact that he could not possible know that information.

 

Not to mention Balta's blurb about the airforce spending 75M alone per trip during the Clinton admin. Maybe we just look at it as this is going to be the most people traveling on any one international voyage and I would be curious what the need is for that many people. Could be very valid reasons and to an extent I'm sure we'll find out when we see all the various appearances Barack makes. I just wonder what the need is to have all these other people.

[Rex Kickass]

Not to mention Balta's blurb about the airforce spending 75M alone per trip during the Clinton admin. Maybe we just look at it as this is going to be the most people traveling on any one international voyage and I would be curious what the need is for that many people. Could be very valid reasons and to an extent I'm sure we'll find out when we see all the various appearances Barack makes. I just wonder what the need is to have all these other people.

 

I did a 2 minute google search on this last night and found GAO cost estimates of Clinton travel in the last parts of his presidency, and it was more like 2-5 million in airforce costs per trip.

 

http://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/ns00209.pdf

 

Table 26: DOD Fixed-wing Aircraft Support Costs for President’s Trip to Turkey,

Greece, Italy, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, and Kosovo

Source: White House Military Office, Transportation Command, Office of the Under Secretary of

Defense (Comptroller), and Air Force (Financial Management and Comptroller).

 

VC-25 Passengers 2 51.0 $54,100 $2,759,100

C-20C Passengers 1 29.0 3,705 107,445

C-141 Cargo 6 110.9 5,074 562,707

C-5 Cargo 20 382.0 14,598 5,576,436

C-17 Cargo 45 654.8 6,664 4,363,587

C-130 Cargo 9 72.8 3,768 274,310

KC-10 Aerial

refueling

13 91.0 2,921 265,811

KC-135 Aerial

refueling

38 292.4 2,255 659,362

Total 134 1,683.9 $14,568,758

 

Further if these business people are flying on their own and are flying on private jets, its very likely that the government isn't picking up the tab for their travel either.

[Balta1701]

I did a 2 minute google search on this last night and found GAO cost estimates of Clinton travel in the last parts of his presidency, and it was more like 2-5 million in airforce costs per trip.

 

http://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/ns00209.pdf

 

 

 

Further if these business people are flying on their own and are flying on private jets, its very likely that the government isn't picking up the tab for their travel either.

Which I guess tells me how much I should trust data that comes out of partisan hearings on travel expenses when they happen next year.

[mr_genius]

Pardon if this has been posted already.

 

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11...deo.php?ref=fpa

 

Factcheck.org calls the claim "highly doubtful," and points out that the entire war in Afghanistan currently costs about $190 million a day

 

[mr_genius]

A user comment in the article I linked:

 

I was actually thinking the guy meant to say 200 million rupees a day.

[KipWellsFan]

So we are now trusting the government to spend efficiently? Interesting concept?

 

Regardless of the cost, it still begs the question why are we having so many more people their. And I don't believe for one minute this 4.5 million number either. That is way too small of a number and taking the rupee exchange rate as some of you are doing is actually hypocritical since you were the same people discounting the fact that he could not possible know that information.

 

Not to mention Balta's blurb about the airforce spending 75M alone per trip during the Clinton admin. Maybe we just look at it as this is going to be the most people traveling on any one international voyage and I would be curious what the need is for that many people. Could be very valid reasons and to an extent I'm sure we'll find out when we see all the various appearances Barack makes. I just wonder what the need is to have all these other people.

 

 

Are you really surprised that Democrats and sane people get upset when the rightwing punditocracy smears Obama over some crap all Presidents do? This is the video of Obama's motorcade in Canada. Now put them in a more dangerous country, that's a lot farther away. Just relax everyone. I'm sure the cost is so completely insignificant in the larger picture... I mean everyone's gotta do belt tightening but this debate is a lot of bollocks.

 

[jasonxctf]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/....mov.cnn?hpt=C2

[jasonxctf]

<!--quoteo(post=2281398:date=Nov 4, 2010 -> 04:39 PM:name=Chisoxfn)-->

<!--quotec-->So we are now trusting the government to spend efficiently? Interesting concept?

 

Regardless of the cost, it still begs the question why are we having so many more people their. And I don't believe for one minute this 4.5 million number either. That is way too small of a number and taking the rupee exchange rate as some of you are doing is actually hypocritical since you were the same people discounting the fact that he could not possible know that information.

 

Not to mention Balta's blurb about the airforce spending 75M alone per trip during the Clinton admin. Maybe we just look at it as this is going to be the most people traveling on any one international voyage and I would be curious what the need is for that many people. Could be very valid reasons and to an extent I'm sure we'll find out when we see all the various appearances Barack makes. I just wonder what the need is to have all these other people.

 

 

Are you really surprised that Democrats and sane people get upset when the rightwing punditocracy smears Obama over some crap all Presidents do? This is the video of Obama's motorcade in Canada. Now put them in a more dangerous country, that's a lot farther away. Just relax everyone. I'm sure the cost is so completely insignificant in the larger picture... I mean everyone's gotta do belt tightening but this debate is a lot of bollocks.

 

 

 

i also see a lot of local, Canadian vehicles in there too. along with the press pool clearly at the back of the line.

[southsider2k5]

After it took two days to declare a winner, I don't want to see anyone complain about the Republicans calling this election a mandate. This from the worst governor in the entire country.

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-11...e-tax-pat-quinn

 

Quinn says he has 'mandate' for tax increase

Democrats in legislature still appear reluctant

November 06, 2010|By Rick Pearson and Monique Garcia, Tribune reporters

 

Gov. Pat Quinn may have won the governor's race by the narrowest margin in nearly three decades, but he's not letting that stop him from claiming he now has a "mandate" from voters to raise the state income tax for schools.

 

"I think our message of investing in education was supported by the people," Quinn told the Tribune. "I think that is a really strong mandate that I got. I know from the campaign, people made that pretty clear to me, and I think the election returns said the same thing."

 

But there is little evidence in Springfield that the Democratic governor will get his tax hike soon. Some Democrats say powerful House Speaker Michael Madigan, who was unenthusiastic about Quinn's plan before the election, has seen little indication that lawmakers have changed their mind.

 

House majority leader Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie, D-Chicago, said she has not polled House members since the election, but noted that earlier this year, only 47 of the needed 60 votes were there.

 

"We cannot get ourselves out of this fix without a combination of cuts and revenue increases," said Currie, a tax-increase supporter. "I don't know that (the mood) is better, but I don't think it's any worse."

 

Facing a state budget deficit that is forecast to climb as high as $15 billion and a stack of unpaid bills to state service providers that is expected to reach $8 billion, Illinois government is rapidly running out of the kind of financial gimmicks that have kept the state afloat, some lawmakers acknowledge privately.

 

Quinn wants to raise the personal income tax rate by 1 percentage point, a 33 percent increase that he has dubbed a "surcharge for education," adding that it also would provide local property tax relief. On Friday, Republican governor candidate state Sen. Bill Brady said he is willing to work with Quinn on budget matters, but remains firmly against a tax hike.

 

Brady's continued opposition indicates the intense partisanship that marked the two years before last week's election hasn't lessened.

 

Quinn said he believes post-election bipartisanship is needed to deal with the state's money problems, saying it was time for serious discussions between Democrats and Republicans "to come to the fore." At the same time, Quinn added, "I am not naive to think that's necessarily going to happen."

 

House Republican leader Tom Cross of Oswego picked up six seats from Democrats last week. He's now got 54 members to Madigan's 64. Cross said bipartisanship in dealing with the budget is possible if Democrats make it "full-time" and listen to Republicans, not just search for GOP votes on tough issues at the end of the legislative session.

 

"It's up to the speaker, (Senate) president and governor whether they want to include us or not," Cross said. "We acknowledge we have huge problems, but we're not going to run from them."

 

Senate Republican leader Christine Radogno of Lemont, who picked up two seats to take away the Democrats' veto-proof 37 member majority, said many Democratic lawmakers would "look pretty bad" in pushing through a tax increase after running an anti-tax campaign to gain election.

 

"My hope is that we really will have a serious discussion about cutting state government back," Radogno said. "Is cutting going to be easy? No, because people are going to be dependent on those programs to one degree or another. But we have a responsibility to look at them and get rid of the stuff that we can do without, without jeopardizing the core mission of the state. That (review) has not happened in several years."

 

Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, whose chamber approved a tax increase even larger than the one sought by Quinn, only to have it stall in the House, said he had "no idea" whether maintaining Democratic control of the legislature and governor's office would embolden lawmakers to approve an income tax hike.

 

Even Quinn wasn't offering any predictions on Friday, saying he's not sure if he will push lawmakers to vote on a plan before or after the new year.

 

"We'll see," Quinn said. "I'm not going to make a decision on that at this moment. We'll have to talk to the legislators. … We'll see them in a week or two."

 

With an immediate tax increase questionable, lawmakers are expected to once again turn to various proposals to expand gambling as a way to generate new revenue. But such ideas as extending video gambling to horserace tracks have traditionally become so overloaded with related gambling giveaways that they become too heavy for lawmakers to support.

 

Quinn previously has said he's not a fan of a widespread gambling expansion, but said he would study a proposal if lawmakers put one forward. He begrudgingly approved legalizing video gambling last year as a way to pay for a massive statewide construction program.

 

"That has to have microscopic scrutiny," Quinn said of a possible gambling proposal. "But I'm not enthusiastic."

[BigSqwert]

After it took two days to declare a winner, I don't want to see anyone complain about the Republicans calling this election a mandate. This from the worst governor in the entire country.

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-11...e-tax-pat-quinn

Meh. You have no say in Illinois politics since you don't live here.

[southsider2k5]

Meh. You have no say in Illinois politics since you don't live here.

 

I pay taxes there, actually more than I do to Indiana.

[mr_genius]

After it took two days to declare a winner, I don't want to see anyone complain about the Republicans calling this election a mandate. This from the worst governor in the entire country.

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-11...e-tax-pat-quinn

 

I really hate this guy. Wasn't there talk about implementing a recall apparatus in Illinois? If so, begin the recall campaign soon.

[StrangeSox]

I really hate this guy. Wasn't there talk about implementing a recall apparatus in Illinois? If so, begin the recall campaign soon.

 

It was on the ballot.

 

I'm glad Brady didn't win, but I'm sad that Quinn did. Also, politicians should not be allowed to use the word "mandate" anymore, or they get automatically impeached.

[mr_genius]

It was on the ballot.

 

I'm glad Brady didn't win, but I'm sad that Quinn did. Also, politicians should not be allowed to use the word "mandate" anymore, or they get automatically impeached.

 

Ah yes and it passed

 

 

RECALL

[Balta1701]

RECALL

Having lived in California during that...let me just say...good luck with that!

 

California; you have to be really, really stupid to emulate our politics.