The $200 million dollar per day myth - DEBUNKED

United States
November 5, 2010 10:41pm CST
Just by fact checking. This explains how the rumour started, and how the conservative media perpetuated it, when they could have easily done some research. But, they needed something to make up about Obama. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/05/anderson-cooper-slams-con_n_779557.html
1 person likes this
9 responses
@sedel1027 (17846)
• Cupertino, California
6 Nov 10
Media like Fox News drives me nuts! They are always releasing stories that are so one sided. The media gets paid off much to often in the US. On top of that people are so gullible! Why would you not research something that sounded weird that you heard on the news?
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
6 Nov 10
That's funny. If either of you actually WATCHED Fox News you'd know that they didn't hesitate to show Obama's side of this story. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Hannity and possibly Beck jumped on this number without checking their facts, but that's what commentators like them on BOTH SIDES do. The actual reporters covered the entire story from both angles. I know this because that is where "I" heard that the $200 million dollar was bogus.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
6 Nov 10
Here's an example of the supposedly one-sided reporting. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/04/security-entourage-earning-epic-reputation-ahead-obama-india-visit/ Just to be thorough, here's what Glenn Beck said about it. "The president's upcoming trip to India, and other points from there. Report came out that has made rounds on the Internet about the high cost of this trip. Some people say that it is up to $2 billion for 10 days. Is that true? I don't know! The media is bickering back and forth about what the real cost is and how many ships will be there — 34 warships possibly. I don't know. Two hundred million dollars a day while in India. I don't know. The president has blocked off 800 hotel rooms. Do we still — do even know if he's travelling with 3,000 people? Do we know if that's true? No one knows any of the details of this trip, the real cost of the trip. One thing we can say for certain is, it's going to be quite expensive." You'll note that even HE made it clear that he didn't know if the reports were true and did not present them as facts, but rather as something the media is bickering about. He also said this: "You protect the president at all costs. I don't care if it costs them $10 trillion. Mumbai is a very dangerous place. Massive terror attack — only two years ago, 166 were killed. More 300 wounded during the three-day rampage. The president is staying at that hotel." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,602104,00.html So perhaps you guys may want to check YOUR facts on the issue from time to time.
• United States
6 Nov 10
People take it at face value. It's almost saddening. Either they are lazy thinkers, or completely trusting. Faux News makes me sick - they are highly irresponsible in their reporting. More people are catching on, but some won't hear you point out their major lies, and parrot what the pundits say. It's scary.
@afarrell1 (258)
• United States
6 Nov 10
We all know Huffington is such a reliable source too, completely unbiased. But what is the purpose of the trip, is this just another vacation? That's what people are so pissed about. Like Michelle's Spain trip while he to a trip out west. It was reported she paid for the expenses from her own money - I doubt she pulled out the visa card to pay for the fuel for the air force to fly her and forty of her friends and staffers over there. I don't think she told the secret service she wouldn't need her entourage. It's things like that, repeatedly, that turn people off and are so willing to believe that the Obama's are spending tax payer money like kids in a candy store. And how do we know that the 200 mil figure reported by the Indian paper wasn't what the Indian Government is paying each day for them to be there?
1 person likes this
• United States
6 Nov 10
I am almost certain he said he was going to India to see what trade options we have in Asia so we can start exporting our goods. Don't just read the article, if you think it is slanted - watch the facts displayed on Anderson Cooper's show. He debunks it very easily, as Clinton's trip was longer with more countries, and cost so much less. Officials also went on air debunking this, so you would benefit from seeing them on the show before kneejerking - "It's Huffington Post". People are just using this to word something against Obama and know that people are willing and gullible enough to believe it.
• United States
6 Nov 10
I am one of them. My party got shellacked.
• Philippines
6 Nov 10
Me too,, I'm one of you
1 person likes this
@Aussies2007 (5336)
• Australia
6 Nov 10
How could you possibly spend 200 million a day? That's what anyone with a brain would be asking itself. But an interesting fact in the article is... 190 million a day in Afghanistan for 9 years. Add to that the war in Iraq. And you wonder why your country is broke? The terrorists did a lot more than destroy the WTC. They destroyed you economically, which was their real objective all along.
1 person likes this
• Australia
6 Nov 10
I got the number from the article link provided in the question. And really, it did not surprise me. I heard of those figures before.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
6 Nov 10
"How could you possibly spend 200 million a day?" How could you possibly spend 2 million a day as that's probably a more accurate number. When you're dealing with a government that overpays for everything it's just not that hard. They don't look for good deals or discounts. The federal government just asks for the most exorbitant price for anything and pays it without question. By the way, do you have a valid source for your Afghanistan numbers?
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
6 Nov 10
This number is just a little off if you look at some of the facts on 34 battleships even if he isn't using that many as I said in another post it is unlikely as well an aircraft carrier group would be able to protect him with the ships in that group as he would also be able to stay on an aircraft carrier where the president actually has a place to sleep that is the nicest the Navy has to offer. Also a carrier group has the experience to defend the president and do a good job at it. As for the cost $200 Million that isn't a really high number I mean the "wars" have cost us $1.103 Trillion and rising. Also the to Operate a Naval ship is expensive but not near enough to make it $200 Million and the cost of the Navy is already paid for through the Department of Defenses earning so that would mean the $200 Million couldn't be including Navy Equipment or wages of the Navy men at sea or even the cost of running the ships as those are all paid for by the taxpayers whether the president is taking a trip on them or not. Same with Airforce 1 for that matter we already pay for that so the president and congressmen can at anytime use Military transport at anytime for any reason. It is already paid for. So this $200 Million would have to come from just the Obama staff which are paid whether he is leaving the country or not so this doesn't make any sense why it would really matter to someone how much it cost because we have already paid for it with our tax dollars whether he is using the money or not its is being spent or has already been spent ;). But $200 million per day for lets just say the number came from the Washington people that are non-military okay just for a second. So lets SS, and his staffers and well the President so the President earns $400,000 a year so that is $33,333 so it cost us $1,111 per day. He is going their for so lets say a week thats $7777 for a week. Lets through out a number for the Hotel $100,000 for a week. The cabinet to the president gets paid $193,400 per year so that means they cost $537 per day. $3759 so lets say he takes the whole group with him total for that $56,385 That would come to a total of $164,162 No where near that number as well the only thing I don't know for sure is the cost of a whole Hotel. But most of the Expenses are already paid for by us as the President uses the Military to transport him. We would need to spend 500 Billion plus on our Military if we had to spend more just to move the highest person in the Military around. I mean really that would mean an Admiral would cost us a bunch of Money for having a whole fleet he moves around with. And what about the Admiral of the whole navy would we charge the whole navy for moving him around every time he needed to go somewhere? Or The Commander of the Airforce add him and the people he travels with if he had to go to Germany to the USAF base their? IF we started to do that then Wars would be to expensive as we would be thinking their is a cost in raising those forces when their are cost in moving forces of any kind they are already being paid for the group the President is going with is being ordered by the President to port in India. If he wasn't they would of been ordered to go somewhere else so we are already paying for the Naval Fleet. Didn't cost us extra for them to make a stop in India.
1 person likes this
@irishidid (8687)
• United States
6 Nov 10
I suspect Ariana will go back to being a republican when it's popular. Sorry, fact checking with a biased gossip column doesn't count.
• United States
6 Nov 10
You may not like huffpo, but actually read the article, and watch the anderson cooper video. It brings things to light.
• United States
6 Nov 10
It has also been debunked on snopes, too. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/india.asp
• United States
6 Nov 10
And from factcheck.org http://factcheck.org/2010/11/ask-factcheck-trip-to-mumbai/
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
6 Nov 10
This is catch-22 politics at its finest. Obama plans a trip. People supposed to ask then ask how much it will cost. No answer or the runaround is given. A figure pops up, and some take it as gospel because they can't get an answer. They think, "WOW! No wonder they're keeping silent about it; it's going to cost that much!" So the people supposed to ask then ask yet again. Again, no answer or the runaround is given. Then it drops with the drama of solving the Kennedy assassination that it's all a sham - the $200 million/day number isn't right and those mean, cruel, stupid, ignorant Obama bashers just wanted to criticize the President. It's like they want this stuff to happen. They, of course, being you, the HuffPo, the White House, and anyone else playing the long con for a BOOYA moment to rub somebody's nose in sht. If poor, sensitive President Obama wants to avoid those vicious and racist and ignorant right-wing attack dogs, here's an idea - show the transparency promised and--either you or your exorbitant staff--answer questions when asked. Rocket science? I think not.
• United States
6 Nov 10
Well, for one, they've already revealed a lot of that. That's the stuff I'd rather them STFU about. So that's not the point. We're in a bad financial situation. Presidents always catch flak about travel due to cost. We fully understand and expect that all possible angles must be covered and that protecting the President is a spare-no-expense situation. But then you have the hangers-on folk, the state department, and everyone else going along on the trip serving no real purpose but to go along. The tab shoots through the roof and many people want to know, as taxpayers, feeling it is their right to know, how much is being spent. And as this administration promised to be the most transparent in history, it is not a big request to ask. An exact dollar amount? No. An answer better than "that's ridiculous" or "I'm not getting into that"? Why the F not? To quash rumors before they get out of hand, speak up on day 1 and give a loose estimate of what the trip is going to cost. Don't give the runaround until day 3. Unless... ...it's actually a political gain to let people run wild with the rumors. Coming back with a "look at these loons exaggerating" I-told-you-so moment just turns most people's stomach. Not yours, I suspect, and certainly not the ilk 'round HuffPo. But constant back-and-forth political games are turning America inside out. I'm not saying it was an intentional play on the WH's part, however. I'm just saying it sure does look like it when you stay silent or deflect while letting a rumor spread like wildfire.
• United States
6 Nov 10
Rightyfish - for security reasons, they can't reveal all of their accommodations or travel plans.
@mattic (282)
• United States
6 Nov 10
Yep materfish, it looks like another "let them eat cake" moment from the elitist, effete, Metrosexual-in-Chief. Not a real smart PR move while everyone is still so angry over Princess Perma-grin', "we'll know what's in the bill after we pass it." Interesting, but one reason for soooo much security is that Obama has basically declared "economic" war on India with his asanine assertions about American companies outsourcing. Besides showing his ineptitude and ignorance concerning actual business matters, it looks like a frontal assault on the nation seen as the number one point of outsourcing.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
6 Nov 10
Your source is left wing garbage, but that doesn't really matter because I read about this yesterday. President' Bush's chief of staff said the $200 million figure is a complete lie. He said when Bush made a similar trip with 1300 people (I think Obama has 2000) it was more like $1.6 million. It's still a high number, but not even close to what this Indian media source said. I'm wondering if the source that originally reported that meant Indian Rupees instead of dollars. 200 million rupees is about 4.5 million dollars and that sounds closer to the real number.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
6 Nov 10
I check the facts to find the truth. Bush's chief of staff was the best equipped to answer that question which is why Fox News spoke to him. Unlike the fatmouths and bloggers, he has firsthand knowledge of what such trips cost. In addition to that the fact he certainly has no bias in favor of the Obama administration so him taking their side wouldn't likely happen unless he really did believe they were telling the truth.
• United States
6 Nov 10
Watch the article within the source, though who does not read nor watch anything I post in full, but summarizes it all with "left wing garbage", making for a wonderful and knowledgeable librarian. While Bush's chief of staff said it is a lie, so did Obama's administration. But, is Bush where you go for the truth?
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
6 Nov 10
Actually, everyone i saw on Fox was calling the 200 million a day figure as "without basis", "rumor", "unfounded", "likely not true", "exaggeration", "speculation" and other words and phrases equating it to nonsense. In fact, the first question I heard asked of Gibbs at a press conference about it was from CNN.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
6 Nov 10
I expect that from right wing blogs just as I expect left wing blogs to do it to republicans. Much like X I learned that the whole figure was bogus on Fox News when they spoke to the former chief of staff to president Bush that flat out said the number being circulated was roughly 100 times the actual cost.
• United States
6 Nov 10
Taskr - if you learned the truth that way, why did the FOX pundits not also spread that same truth?
• United States
6 Nov 10
Everyone I saw on FOX was touting the figure as if it were true. Right wing websites are all over it being true.
@mattic (282)
• United States
6 Nov 10
The people of India must not realize that Obama is the messiah, and just like he promised to stop the oceans rise, heal all the sick, etc., he can certainly stop the coconuts from falling out of the trees. In case you haven't heard, all the coconuts have been removed from the trees along his route. Several people are injured, some even killed, by falling coconuts each year.
@irishidid (8687)
• United States
7 Nov 10
Made perfect sense to me! LOL
• United States
7 Nov 10
I hadn't realized Glenn Beck stole his bit.
• United States
6 Nov 10
Is your post sensible in some way? Wait a minute. Did you get an early start on the moonshine? Or, were you hit by a falling coconut?