Corporate Jets

[thegladhatter]

Obama berates corporate highrollers for their use of corporate jets yet Okay so his own family can go for fish 'n' chips and a movie on OUR dime? Something just aint right here!

[MagicRat]

I do not see a problem here.

The US is getting massive amounts of favorable international publicity (for once) from Obama's family going on tour. A nation cannot buy that kind of positive image-building... and frankly, the White House needs to build good-will from foreign populations as much as possible.

Indirectly, it helps to build markets for US-sourced goods and services, and promotes the US as a tourist destination, amongst other benefits.

Such goodwill is built-up in big ways (ie G8 summits etc) and little ones, like this.

Whatever money the US spends ferrying them around is well-spent.... and they are actually doing this for free....

[thegladhatter]

It is NOT in the nation's best interest to go around Europe kissing the hems of the garments of those socialist countries. It is crazy to think it is not okay for the corporate leaders of the automotive industry to use corporate jets to get to official business affairs then send your wife and kids on a shopping boondoggle for fish 'n' chips and a movie to London on the tax payers' tab. There was nothing in that trip to benefit anyone but the Obama clan.

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by thegladhatter

It is NOT in the nation's best interest to go around Europe kissing the hems of the garments of those socialist countries. It is crazy to think it is not okay for the corporate leaders of the automotive industry to use corporate jets to get to official business affairs then send your wife and kids on a shopping boondoggle for fish 'n' chips and a movie to London on the tax payers' tab. There was nothing in that trip to benefit anyone but the Obama clan.

Absolute nonsense. First off, Europe is far too integrated in the world economy to be considered 'socialist' anymore.

Next, I stand by my first post... and if you cannot understand the benefits of good public relations with America's vital trading partners..... then I am wasting my time here.

[thegladhatter]

Yeah....I guess you are wasting your time here. Anyone with half a brain realizes the socialism rampant in Europe. Liberalism in the US is rapidly pushing us that way as well. The Marxist in the Whitehouse is hopeful that capitalism will be destroyed.

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by thegladhatter

. Anyone with half a brain realizes the socialism rampant in Europe. Liberalism in the US is rapidly pushing us that way as well. The Marxist in the Whitehouse is hopeful that capitalism will be destroyed.

With reasoning like this, I can see why nobody else wants to contribute to your threads.

[thegladhatter]

Truth prevents contribution? I think not. My threads get plenty of traffic. The political forums as a whole are a bit slow right now. Has nothing to do with my posts.

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by thegladhatter

Truth prevents contribution?

what truth?
this?

Originally Posted by thegladhatter

Anyone with half a brain realizes the socialism rampant in Europe. Liberalism in the US is rapidly pushing us that way as well. The Marxist in the Whitehouse is hopeful that capitalism will be destroyed.

How is that truth?
Is it truth because you say so?


I can play that game too.

Anyone with half a brain realises that being on friendly terms with your global trading partners is good for your country as trade with other countries is what encourages markets and tourism. The President is doing all he can to remedy what rampant capitalism has destroyed.

[mudslinger88]

Originally Posted by thegladhatter

Obama berates corporate highrollers for their use of corporate jets yet Okay so his own family can go for fish 'n' chips and a movie on OUR dime? Something just aint right here!

I agree with you. I don't find it right either. Why should I have to save my every dime just so I can put food on the table when the Obama family gets to spend my hard earned money on flying around Europe?

I give you an example of the money being spent. The fuel capacity of Air Force One is 53,611 Gallons. http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...1/af1spec.html The current price of jet fuel per 50 gallon barrel is $71.80. http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/economi...itor/index.htm I'm going to round this out to 50,000 gallons since the aircraft isn't being landed empty and I'm going to round the price to $70.00 per 50 gallons. That comes up to $70,000 per refuel on average. That's just fuel. That doesn't include any repairs that might need required, or the cost of all the other government employees that are on board the aircraft. The dollar signs start flying every where (pun intended). When Obama flew to Chicago and back to DC in June it cost roughly $236,000!!! http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,2483578.story ( I put this in here as a reference to the cost of operating Air Force One. ) Yet he's going to sit there and trash talk the corprate highrollers for doing the same damn thing? How can you lead when you don't do what your telling everybody else to do? I'm right there with you gladhatter. Just read these articles and be amazed at the money being used for his recreation.

[drunken monkey]

In case you missed it, the Obama family followed the President to Paris on his official visit.

[blazee]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

In case you missed it, the Obama family followed the President to Paris on his official visit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8090072.stm

"Mrs Obama stayed in Paris on Sunday for sightseeing after her husband, President Barack Obama, returned to the US following an official visit."



Considering that this was purely pleasure, I hope that Barrack picked up the tab for their return trip, as he is required to do, and this wasn't paid for by the tax payers.

Whether or not this was paid for by the tax payers is a valid concern. I find it amusing that the only ones so far claiming that the American tax-payers should be paying for his family's sightseeing trips are the guys from Canada and the UK..... who wouldn't have to pay for it. Both of you send 40% of your income over here and then we'll let you give your input on how US tax money should be spent.

[drunken monkey]

By the same token, we pay for our Prime Minister's trips.
What's the difference?

My point is, the Obama's holiday didn't cost the American Taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars as is being implied; they tagged along to coin a phrase.

[thegladhatter]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

By the same token, we pay for our Prime Minister's trips.
What's the difference?

As was mentioned previously (if you'd care to actually read) after the Diety in Chief visited France, he returned to the US and his clan decided to extent their jaunt to Europe at a considerable cost to the US taxpayer. Fish 'n' chips and a movie in London was NOT what the US taxpayer wants to spent 100s of thousands of $ for. It is criminal and should NOT be tolerated. BHO would have a fit if the CEO of GM, Ford, or Chrysler did it. Who does he think he is?!?

[drunken monkey]

and they didn't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for it.

The President was flying to Paris.
The flight was going to happen.
They tagged along.
They didn't charter (or whatever the term is) the flight just to fly for their holiday.
It's not that difficult to understand is it?

The rest of the expenses that were incurred after the Paris flight is an unknown and you can speculate all you want but I hardly think it was hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[blazee]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

By the same token, we pay for our Prime Minister's trips.
What's the difference?

My point is, the Obama's holiday didn't cost the American Taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars as is being implied; they tagged along to coin a phrase.

The difference is that noone here is telling the UK how to spend their funds. Also, the part that you are trying to ignore is that they only rode with him one way and skipped the ride home. I've seen no mention of how they got home, so we don't know how much it cost or who paid for it. I doubt that they flew commercial, but don't know for sure, so I left it open ended and simply stated that taxpayers shouldn't pay for it.