Corporate Jets

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? (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20284029,00.html) Something just aint right here!

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....

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.

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.

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.

. 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. :)

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.

Truth prevents contribution?

what truth?
this?
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.

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? (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20284029,00.html) 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/military/af1/af1spec.html The current price of jet fuel per 50 gallon barrel is $71.80. http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/economics/fuel_monitor/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/local/chi-air-force-one-15-jun15,0,2483578.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.

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

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.

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.

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?!?

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

Thanks.

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.

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.:2cents:

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.

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.

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.

http://politics.randomplayground.net/2009/07/12/white-house-won%E2%80%99t-reveal-how-much-michelle-obama%E2%80%99s-european-vacation-cost-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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. (http://www.cnsnews.com/PUBLIC/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=50528)

I have no guarantee, but it doesn't seem impossible that the Obamas have reimbursed the gov't for the airline tickets. The dark area and what the White House isn't answering is how much more it cost for the security and extra cargo they required. But do they really need to? To me it's an unavoidable expense. We shouldn't have to tell our president that their families will travel at their own risk or can't travel at all, because the US can't protect them when they travel abroad. The Obamas aren't the only family to vacation while in office - all first families rack up expenses when they travel.

The article you linked to has the same quotes as the article I linked to - except yours has even more info than mine -

Travel by an American first lady typically includes the military passenger jet that carries her and the children, Secret Service personnel to provide security, and a separate cargo plane to haul official vehicles....

....“Like previous administrations, the first lady will follow all the rules and regulations that are related to reimbursement for personal travel,” Michelle Obama’s press secretary Katie McCormick Lelyveld told CNSNews.com in a written response.Will the Obamas reimburse...I think so, but I don't know for sure. But the policy is fair imo

I can't believe the triviality of this thread. The First Lady has official duties, a paid staff, and a travel budget. This is nothing new to this administration. Laura Bush did her share of traveling at the taxpayers expense, why is this suddenly an issue gladhatter?

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. Speaking of "Corporate Jets" for private industry, how about the hypocrite's in Congress that voted for this when we are 3-trillion in debt? Time for a "change" in leadership!

The House has approved nearly $200 million for the Air Force to buy three elite jets for transporting members of Congress and other top government officials.
The Air Force had requested one Gulfstream 550 jet, which cost about $65 million. But the House Appropriations Committee added another $132 million to the 2010 Defense appropriations bill for two more jets, and "specified that they be assigned to the D.C.-area units that carry Members of Congress, military brass and top government officials," Roll Call reported.
It was just last year that lawmakers sharply criticized the CEOs of the Big Three automakers for traveling to Washington by private jet for a hearing about a bailout of their companies.
The Gulfstream 550 is capable of flying long distances without refueling. The company's promotional materials say: "The cabin aboard the G550 combines productivity with exceptional comfort. It features up to four distinct living areas, three temperature zones, a choice of 12 floor plan configurations with seating for up to 18 passengers."
Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, told Roll Call that if Congress wants to buy new jets for the comfort of top government officials, "I think that all needs to be justified on the merits . . . Certainly, lawmakers can fly — and many do — coach and business class."
Source (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/house_buys_jets/2009/08/05/244219.html?s=al&promo_code=84D9-1)

WOW VERY LIVELY DEBATE. Heres my 2 cents. I think politicians do this
sort of thing all the time.From the lowly councilman who take trips to attend some conference in "Vegas".To the uppity senator who does the same thing.Im interested
in knowing if you guys have a problem with pols. doing this or what. This has gone on
and will continue to go on as long as we have any type of gov. what so ever!!
Were you guys rasing hell when other pols. do this ? Or just presidents?