jackson33

DH; The rupee comment was brought up by swansont, as a misunderstanding of the American Media, which if you figure the differences (44-1) makes sense. I certainly hope I never infered this trip would cost up to 2B$, which I have heard. Post 33, swansont;

nec; Since somebody is using their added positive rep point, to undermine your comments, I'm going to surprise you and agree, albeit for different reasons. Yes, media, what most of rely on for factual information generally quote from scientific reports, many times funded by Government or interested Business/Groups concerned with an agenda, and many reports are in time will be declared false. It's the nature of news and what folks are interested in, on any given day. Looking at your list, I'd suggest those issues are political in nature and not worth your concerns. In most cases they are unconfirmed, highly arguable and no consensus has been established or if there is a consensus it's a result of the society.

I suppose around here it just might be me, but when I started this thread I figured it was extravagant based on the current US economy, giving modest estimates for cost on very little information. I've changed my personal opinion, to now an unprecedented show of arrogance, extreme self importance OF ONE, person on the worlds stage and your paying for it...

swansont; Can't really argue with you on your research. It's bad, but at the now reported cost to the tax payers of 200M$ per day (Mumbai), not including a pre and post activity, I'd suggest the Bush party paying their own way made a difference ("All the 600 rooms of the hotel have been booked by the Americans accompanying Bush on his maiden visit as the President," sources said"., I seriously doubt it took 40 planes to get them their and in 2006 the economy was not in a free fall. Additionally there is no mention of him taking his wife or the twins, but for him the trip was no less dangerous and IMO NOT necessary.

Well the thread emphasis was on the Asian Tour, the extreme cost and the safety, then primarily for the first three days. I don't think, including adjusting the dollar value, there has been any other trip that would come anywhere close to those first three days in Mumbai. Now here is one comprehensive list of Presidential trips made by Presidents and I can find nothing remotely close in cost or extravagance (renting 800 rooms, hundreds of people, 40 planes, etc), not mentioning the potential dangers involved to himself or his family. You can check out all trips, with a description of why it was made from this link; http://wapedia.mobi/en/International_travel_by_the_United_States_president

swansont; With all due respect, do you really understand how childish your sounding as a respected moderator and expert on a Science Forum. As said earlier, you knew darn well what was meant, basically having no answers. Rhetorical means to emphasize (Given to rhetoric, emphasizing style at the expense of thought), which was exactly my intent. With out the emphasis, there are hundreds of examples of "being in bed with"and I'm sure some have embellished their opinions in the same or in some other manner. As to the thread, remember, you have said other Presidents have done the same and I've seriously looked for some examples, but I can't seem to find anything going to this level. If you can give me an example or two, any party, it might be helpful. Then if you wish to continue the Union Ploy, used by Obama, in YOUR offered link please respond to Pangloss's post #17, which should pretty well have put any discussion to rest. If you have a defense for this planned trip, I'd really like to hear it or anybodies. If I'd wanted and probably should have, IMO the total cost for Obama's trips to date, not including the Asian Trip, would far exceed any Presidents traveling expense, most probably during their entire tenure in 20 months....He is getting into 2012 Campaign mode (if ever left it) and this might become very expensive to the taxpayers. Your thoughts appreciated....

swansont; Yes and it was meant to be rhetorical, worked and you know the point...Obama doesn't walk the walk and opposes free trade, regardless what he says. John; He chose others to represent the US (an Ambassador/Secretary of State), but yes wishes to visit for some reason and his absolute right. Back to the OP then, does this require taking his wife, kids, hundreds of people, renting 800 rooms including a complete hotel and 40 Aircraft. Keep in mind India also has an ambassador IN WASHINGTON DC and the normally used procedure is to call in that person to the White House. I'd go further and suggest, normally the diplomats on the ground have worked out some agreement in advance of any "Head of State" visit, which is possibly true here, but this still does NOT require the expensive and dangerous program being planned.

swansont, I'm sorry when it comes to this administration, I prefer to talk in performance (action)not rhetoric. Obama is literally in bed with the Unions, even in some campaign speech denounced NAFTA, then calling the Canadian PM to explain, "it's politics". I don't question, under some circumstance he might attempt an agreement/treaty, but I seriously doubt it would pass Democratic Senate approval. Unions oppose anything free trade, but may agree on a "one way" agreement and why I mentioned it above "... From you July article, now nearly the end of this Congress;

If the trip goes as explained/described in my link (not comments), which I seriously doubt the Secret Service, would allow, then most of you have no problems with the expense or in fact taking his wife and children into the apparent environment, amazing to say the least... Swansont, I'd need an example of anything comparable and it would likely have to had been in the early 80's or maybe during the depression. I had no problems with Michelle Obama's Spanish vacation or any Presidents business trip, but this seems a little lavish for the purpose, forgetting safety. diva; I hadn't wanted to discuss the political agenda, but will; Any economical issue, must be some kind of ploy. We already have outsourced jobs to India, Obama has no control over this or any real power to generate business products into any other Country. Since Obama opposes Trade Agreements (supports Unions), I doubt he has one on his mind. As for India, their concerns are not buying US products, for the most part their too expensive for comparable products made in their own Country or China. Microsoft and other technology Companies are already there, using cheaper labor to build products for US Consumption and Tata Motors (Indian), dominates the small Truck/Auto industry. As for the purpose of the trip, India is concerned with US plans in Afghanistan, the War on Terror and relations with Pakistan. With out satisfactory answers to the Indian Government on these concerns there are no economical gains to be made. IMO, I believe Obama really believes he is a diplomat, he is not and the fact his administration is "deeply divided" (Woodward) tells me there are few in the Administration that are qualified diplomats....From a referenced link, your link;

Is there some one here, that would like to defend President Obama's planned Asian tour, in particular the first three days in India. The purpose, as I understand it is to encourage one way 'Free Trade" or exports from the US into India. Several big name CEO's are planning on being there, including the CEO's of Boeing and GE, which to my knowledge already do a great bit of business with India. I'm not sure the purpose of taking Mrs. Obama, other than her planned trip to Mumbai's red light district and I' really not sure their two daughters should be going at all...The Taj Mahal, has already been hit once by terrorist and Mumbai is the most densely populated city in the WORLD, a couple minor points.

Correct...Delaware, must have had a recent blog entry elsewhere on my mind where Loughlin® has a fighting change to beat Cicilline(D) in RI, too many races to keep everything straight. Pangloss, do you honestly believe Bill Clinton tried to get Meeks to drop out of the race and endorse Crist for the fun of it, or better yet that the Florida Democratic BASE, was properly handled. Crist may NOW say he would HAVE caucused with the Republicans, but ALL signs point otherwise....

Pangloss; I believe Karl Rove is an asset to Conservatives, on the other hand IMO he is the essence of the problems with in the Establishment Republican Party, the old guard so to speak. His political slamming of RI's Republican choice for O'Donnell, the best example, favoring Mike Castle over the "Tea Party" backed candidate. Since Rove, knows Crist personally, I do not and at the time Rove thought the Republicans would take the Senate and if I agreed with that, then I might agree. I have never thought, Republicans would win the Senate, this cycle. As for how Crist would have caucused, I can only offer my previous opinion, that he would caucus with the party that gave him the biggest voice, that likely being the Party in control of the Senate. However this begs the "question", in NOT declaring his intent, do you see this as fair to the Democrat Candidate (Meek) who is losing support to Crist, this election, if indeed he would caucus with the Republicans??? By the way, did you know that the winning candidate Tuesday in RI, will in fact have a vote in the lame duck session, the election is to fill Biden's seat and term, only....