Corporate Jets

[drunken monkey]

I'm not ignoring it.
I'm not mentioning it because as you point out (as did I before our previous posts were sent) that it is an unknown element and would purely be conjecture.
Again, my point is, however they flew back, it wouldn't cost the hundreds of thousands as it is trying to be made out to be.

Actually, the government here is doing a good deal of telling large corporations to rethink how they deal with pay (and bonuses and other work related benefits), pensions and invenstments.

Incidentally, with the recent crack down on our MPs' expenses, all of their actually spending has all come under review. Is it possible to see what any of your country's Government is claiming on expenses?

[blazee]

My last reply is for DM's 9:02 est post. Can't quote with my phone.

[drunken monkey]

not a problem, I saw it after I hit reply and got the gist of the time/posting difference.

edit: and fixed it for you.

[blazee]

Thanks.

[thegladhatter]

I heard on local radio that the family flew on an AF#1 flight from Paris to London only without the AF#1 designation.....then from London home. ALL at the US taxpayers' coin. Private flight + the entourage adds up to quite a chunk of unnecessary change. Secret service alone was a butt-load.

I honestly doubt it is a good idea for the presidencial clan to be flying around the world on commercial flights. It just seems to be an extremely arrogant attitude to be globe hopping around on our dime when the economy is so crapped out. GWB took a few vacations....but to Crawford Texas and to Camp David. That's a bit less expensive than dining and movies in UK.

[mudslinger88]

The point is that the Obama family vacationed on the US Citizens tax dollars. With the incredibly unpredictable economy right now, the concern is that the tax dollars that could be, and very well should be, being used to improve the economy is being used for the vacationing pleasure of the Obama clan. I find that a little disturbing. Yes, they went with Mr. President to France, but stayed back for some vacation time. Now, I don't actually know, but I highly doubt that they flew back on a comercial flight. Now after Obama told the corporate high-rollers it was wrong to do it, why is right for him to do it? Just because he's President, does not put him above what he's asking others to do. It doesn't matter if it's Joe down the road or a CEO of a corporation or president of the US, it ain't right to use the hard-earned tax dollars of the US citizens' check to fund a get-away to France. Even if it is only a few days.

[drunken monkey]

In other words, you're making assumptions.
How do you know they didn't pay for the other expenditures?
How do you know it was taken out of the President's various allowances?

Until you know 100% that it was simply written off as general expense you can't do anything but assume and we all know what they say about assuming things.
As I asked before, is it possible for any of this sort of information to be gotten hold of in the public domain?

And another incidental point.
Less than 20% of people pay more 50% of your country's taxes.
Not all US citizens tax dollars are hard earned.

[mudslinger88]

With the way the President has been spending the government money, I find it hard to believe he would pull that out of his own pocket. He has shown that the only thing he's trying to do is turn America into a communist country. With the government being in control of the major car manufacturers, and now with him trying to change the way medical system works into a government operated system, it's proven that he doesn't now how to spend government money. The thing that I would expect him to do would be to allow the American people the information that says that he is NOT using government money for his families vacations. It would prevent the assumptions and guess work. It starts with the small stuff, like taking a vacation on taxpayer money. What else could be next??? I don't know if he used goverment money for his vacation, but you don't know if he used his own personal wallet to pay for it. Do you know if he did? If not, then I would say your assuming as well. The point that I'm trying to say is that he doesn't have a good track record for spending money right. That doesn't say much since he barely has a track record. I don't like what I'm seeing so far, and I doubt that I ever will. The American people, being the paranoid people they are, and rightfully so, need to know where the money for this vacation and others like it are coming from.

[drunken monkey]

If he didn't take control of your country's major car maunfacturers, they would be dead.
i.e you wouldn't have any major car manufacturers.
If you can't see why he had to rescue your country's largest employers then I know for certain that this is not worth my participation.
If you can't the possible benefits of having a state run medical service (we can discuss whatever failins of the proposal right now, I'm talking about the idea of one) instead of having only private medical care where only those with money can afford care, then again, I'm wasting my time.

And onceagain, he has an expense account for travel and for "entertainment".
All Presidents have.
All Presidents holiday on your money.

[Gohan Ryu]

http://politics.randomplayground.net...ost-taxpayers/

Here's a quote from the link above:

Though White House rules for vacations, or unofficial travel, requires reimbursing the government the equivalent to the cost of what a commercial flight would have been, such a reimbursement would amount to only a fraction of the total cost of the first lady’s European trip.

For example, it would not include the cost of the security detail and the cargo plane that had to be deployed. Moreover, the cost of a commercial airline ticket is substantially less than the cost of operating a military passenger jet.

So the Obamas will reimburse the gov't for the cost of flying to Europe on a commercial flight - and the rest is on the taxpayers dollar. That seems fair to me - the Obamas are forced to have the entire security entourage travel with them so IMO it's fair that they don't have to pay for it. Even if we don't agree with the president's politics, we should be responsible for protecting him and his family.

I'm assuming the Secret Service would not allow the First Family to travel by commercial jet for security reasons. I'm also assuming that the reason AF1 was used is because it is already loaded with electronics and anti-terrorism countermeasures not found on commercial jets, and it's crew already has whatever security clearance needed for the duty.

It is unfortunate that the Pres had to come down on the CEO's for using corporate jets for their own luxury, but most CEO's don't have to worry about some terrorist shooting a shoulder launched rocket at their plane.

[drunken monkey]

Don't forget that the figures in that article are for the total costings of the flights of AF1 for the round trip.
The questionable cost here would be for the Obama family's return flight from London which they did on their own.

[Gohan Ryu]

According to the article I posted - the Obamas will pay for the cost of a commercial flight and the expenses incurred for security are paid by the taxpayers.

[drunken monkey]

but the thing is, as far as I was aware, the Obama family didn't fly back with the President on AF1.
How they got back is part of the mystery.
Did they fly commericial first class or did they charter a jet?
It looks to me that the policy around their reimbursement only expects them to pay for the commercial equivilant of the trip. Chartering a jet will cost much more than what they would have to reimburse.

[Gohan Ryu]

It doesn't matter if they flew in AF1 or rode on the Hindenburg, they will pay for the cost of a commercial flight. The rest is paid by the taxpayers. Obviously they will pay less than the actual cost of the trip. We are responsible for their security no matter how they flew back.

[thegladhatter]

Originally Posted by Gohan Ryu

It doesn't matter if they flew in AF1 or rode on the Hindenburg, they will pay for the cost of a commercial flight. The rest is paid by the taxpayers. Obviously they will pay less than the actual cost of the trip. We are responsible for their security no matter how they flew back.

IF that were so....and I doubt seriously that it is, then why would the Whitehouse not tell the public that? They have refused to answer the question.
Seems to me the taxpayers deserve to know.