Whos paying the bill for obummers $4 million vacation?? Guess?? Aint him.

[powderman]

Who‘s Footing the Bill for the Obama Family’s $4 Million Hawaii Vacation?

• Posted on December 19, 2011 at 7:46am by Billy Hallowell

So, just how much will President Barack Obama’s Hawaiian vacation cost this year? That‘s a question that can’t be definitively answered until the costs are in and the trip has concluded, but an assessment of the numbers shows that it will likely be the 44th president’s most expensive vacation to date.


The Hawaii Reporter has estimated that travel, alone, will cost $3,629,622 — a startlingly large figure considering the length of the trip. And, yes, in case you were wondering: Taxpayers will be footing a chunk of the bill. After all, it‘s not cheap to ensure that the world’s most powerful leader is safe as he travels and enjoys time away from the grind.


To begin, the family is traveling separately, as Obama has had plenty to wrap up in Washington, D.C. before the holidays (i.e. the payroll tax cut drama). So, First Lady Michelle Obama already left for the family’s tropical getaway — a $100,000 expenditure, including personnel, travel and security.


Obama’s round-trip flight to Hawaii on Air Force One is estimated to be the largest expense associated with the vacation. According to the Air Force, it apparently costs $181,757 per flight hour to run the nation’s most secure (and probably its most lavish) aircraft. Thus, the total for the nine-hour trip from Washington to Hawaii and then back again will come in at $3,271,611.


And let’s not forget that a USAF C-17 cargo plane is also needed to bring Presidential limos, helicopters and other essentials along. This, too, comes at the tune of thousands of dollars. Plus, there’s security for the president and his family. A team of between four and six Marine Corps will travel along on a separate flight and require per diem and hotel, coming in at $258,000 (estimated).


The Obamas do cover the expense for their own private beach-front home in Kailua, Oahu, which costs up to $3,500 per day ($75,000 per month). However, taxpayers are responsible for housing monies associated with the U.S. Secret Service, Coast Guart and Navy Seals. There are seven houses needed to accommodate these individuals, which amounts to about $21,600 per home.


And these are only some of the costs. There are plenty of other numbers that can be crunched as well — including the local taxpayers‘ burden for services needed during the president’s stay — but the total expense for the vacation, according to the Reporter, will be $4,113,038 (estimated).
You can read more about the associated expenses that taxpayers will foot here. 

[Junior1942]

Who paid for all those trips GWBush took?  If Obama has to stay in DC, so will the next non-Democrat president.  Whenever that might be many years down the road, however :-)

[teamnelson]

Total cost will be 2-3x that once local costs are factored in. Its been that way every year I lived in Hawaii during his Presidency.
 
Yes, its true, much of the types of costs associated with this trip would be the same for any other President.
 
However, there are several choices involved in their desired location that raise costs significantly. We did pay for similar types of support for the previous President, however his family made choices that reduced the cost to the taxpayer, to include a location that was far easier to secure, and far less costly in per diem, smaller entourage, etc. I am certain that there are many other places in the US that would be very very nice for an Obama family vacation, that would cost the taxpayers considerably less. It might've been thoughtful to make the gesture as the leader of a nation whose citizens are all feeling some serious economic burdens right now. Its not the cost that bugs me so much, as what it says about his character.
 
If you remember back to the days of dating when men picked up the tab; did you ever pay attention to what the lady ordered to get some insight into her character? If she ordered the most expensive item, which was certainly within her ability to do, what did you think? The gal that confidently ordered not too cheap but not too expensive was telling you she respected your ability to pay, but didn't want to take advantage of you either. Them's the kind we married, probably.

[teamnelson]

... so will the next non-Democrat president.  Whenever that might be many years down the road, however :-)

If we have 2 more terms of progessive Democrat leadership in the WH, there will be no more elections.

[mcwoodduck]

Who paid for all those trips GWBush took?  If Obama has to stay in DC, so will the next non-Democrat president.  Whenever that might be many years down the road, however :-)

When Bush went on vacation, he did not bring an entouage, his wife did not bring stylists, make up artists, and she did not take a seperate plane.
But I understand the President needs things while on vaccation and that he is never fully on vaccation.  I heard the other day the press secratary mention that Obama has not taken as many vacations as Bush did, but he was in for 8 years.  Obama has equaled the vacations taken by Bush the 8 years he was in office in just 3 years.
Now add in the golf and Obama has Bush beaten, hands down.  Once the War started Bush 43 stopped playing golf oput of respect for the troops serving in a war zone.
I understand that you hate Bush and that you are supporting Obam because he is a Democrat and all Democrats ralley around the leader like good little sheep.  I have alwasy found it strange that when a Republican does something wrong, the Republicans chastise him for it, when a Democrat does something wrong we have to change the dictonary, that the Democrats defend bad behavior.  And in doing so try to make others look bad.  During the Clinton fiasco, Kattie Currick, actually changed the status of the Jefferson family and included people that were related to his brother, that slept with the slaves.  Kattie was on the board of the Jefferson foundation and did it to protect Bill by saying even the founding fathers cheated, when no proof can be found of Thomas doing so.
 
 

[powderman]

TEAMNELSON, MCWOODDUCK. Good posts as always. I wonder how many homeless could be fed, clothed, and sheltered with the money imam obama wastes?? POWDERMAN. 

[mcwoodduck]

TEAMNELSON, MCWOODDUCK. Good posts as always. I wonder how many homeless could be fed, clothed, and sheltered with the money imam obama wastes?? POWDERMAN. 

So far we the tax payers had been stuck with over $10 million in Booze alone for his nightly parties.
Add another 8 million for food and flying in famouse chefs for their private dinners.  From what I remember of the details of the office, if it was not a function dinner, you were billed for it.  And billed as if in a restaraunt.  The Clintons left owing a few hundred thousand.  Did we ever get paid for that?  Did we ever get the items that he, his wife and his staff stole back?  China, funtiture,  Items from Air Force 1, gifts to the country, not to mention the damage the staff did to the computers and the offices?
Do you think we are going to get the 18 Million Obama has spent on food and booze back?  When he is only worth 12 Million?

[Alaska Dave]

You need to remember that Obummer advised the members of Congress to watch wastefull spending. He did not mean himself. Looks like he's money hungry and power drunk.

[powderman]

When he is only worth 12 Million? 

     Oh yeah, who says he's worth 12 mil?? POWDERMAN. 

[gypsyman]

mcwoodduck, there is a very contagious disease going around Washington,D.C. And, the Democrats have it very bad, and I'm afraid it's spreading to the Republicans. It's called lackanuts, or, over in Hawaii, they call it Nocahoonies. It's where politicians don't have enough guts to admit that they are screwing up. And, when caught, they blame somebody else. The disease starts out in children, when caught coloring the walls, or breaking the expensive vase, when they were told not to throw the football in the house. If treated properly, parents administer punishment, usually in the form of a spanking, and the disease usually goes away by the childs early teenage years. Unfortunatley, in the last 30 or so years, this treatment has been slowly pushed aside, for what has been cruel and unusual punishment, and counseling has taken it's place. Where kids are taught it's ok to mess up, cause it's not their fault, and somebody will fix the mess. In the case of todays politicians, it's the taxpayers that will fix the mess, even if it means putting the burden on our kids. gypsyman

[magooch]

Give em an inch and they take a mile.

[Junior1942]

... so will the next non-Democrat president.  Whenever that might be many years down the road, however :-)

If we have 2 more terms of progessive Democrat leadership in the WH, there will be no more elections.

Over several years of membership in gun forums I’ve seen many Republican members call for the end of the federal government by any means necessary. To the best of my knowledge not once has a Democrat member called for such treason. You’re barking up the wrong political tree.

[NWBear]

I always laugh when I hear people compare how much presidents spend and how ALL predecessors were very conservative in their spending and vacations.
According to Mark Knoller of CBS GW Bush had taken 225 days to Obamas 70, at this point in his term. Clinton took less time, and GHW Bush took more than Obama but less than his son.
A really funny one is a local boat designer in the Northwest, where I live, was experiencing a lull in boat sales during Reagan's term.  He designed a smaller sail boat and named it "Nancy's China" because it cost about the same as ONE PLACE SETTING of Nancy Reagan's new White House china.  LOL

[mcwoodduck]

... so will the next non-Democrat president.  Whenever that might be many years down the road, however :-)

If we have 2 more terms of progessive Democrat leadership in the WH, there will be no more elections.

Over several years of membership in gun forums I’ve seen many Republican members call for the end of the federal government by any means necessary. To the best of my knowledge not once has a Democrat member called for such treason. You’re barking up the wrong political tree.

I know of no Republican or Conservitive that has called for hte end of Government, we have asked that it be scalled back. That redundant agencies be eliminated.  The the elected officials follow the Constitution they have sworn to defend for all enemies, not be come one of those enemies.
We ask that the Government not over spend by 40+ percent.
We expect a governemnt to treat the tax money like it was their own and spend it wisely, and not buy votes with it.
We expect the people making the laws, would have to abide by those same laws.
We expect a government to provide an envoroment for business to thrive, not to regulate every aspect of production and product.  From the forms needed to be filled out to the pencil you use the government is involved in what, when and how.  Not what has made this country great.
We expect to pay taxes, we do not expect to be punnished for a great idea, or working hard.  If 10% is good for God why is Obama at 34% and asking for more?
Had Edison tried to invent the light bulb today, 8 angecies would desend on him with a reem or two of paper (much conflicting)  of rules and regulations explaining why he could not develope such a thing for enviromental, safety, and labor reasons.
 

[teamnelson]

... so will the next non-Democrat president.  Whenever that might be many years down the road, however :-)

If we have 2 more terms of progessive Democrat leadership in the WH, there will be no more elections.

Over several years of membership in gun forums I’ve seen many Republican members call for the end of the federal government by any means necessary. To the best of my knowledge not once has a Democrat member called for such treason. You’re barking up the wrong political tree.

You must not be familiar then with the numerous Democrat politicians who are calling for the laws to be changed so that Obama can serve 3 terms; who have made comments to the effect, "why do we need elections anyway?" You may also not be aware that the philosophical school of thought currently running the Democrat party is pushing for the removal of popular elections, to be replaced by self-elected rule under the intellectual elite, believing they know what's best. Its all there to be found for those interested.


Republicans have not called for the end of government; in fact most of them want more government, just of a different sort.


Some conservatives have called for a reduction in the size and scope of government to something along the lines of what was proscribed (not suggested) by the Constitution, and returning much of what is done at the federal level to the state. This is not the end of government, this is the reform of government to a leaner, less costly and more effective state. Nature and Business have demonstrated the rationale of this. I believe natural law demands it.


I stand by my statement; if Obama gets another term, and he is replaced by another Democrat, there will not be anything resembling an election following.

[powderman]

I stand by my statement; if Obama gets another term, and he is replaced by another Democrat, there will not be anything resembling an election following.

 
Agreed Sir. I truly believe  that several here know this to be true, and support it. Shame on em. POWDERMAN. 

[nw_hunter]

... so will the next non-Democrat president.  Whenever that might be many years down the road, however :-)

If we have 2 more terms of progessive Democrat leadership in the WH, there will be no more elections.

Over several years of membership in gun forums I’ve seen many Republican members call for the end of the federal government by any means necessary. To the best of my knowledge not once has a Democrat member called for such treason. You’re barking up the wrong political tree.

I stand by my statement; if Obama gets another term, and he is replaced by another Democrat, there will not be anything resembling an election following.

 If we don't get a Ron Paul type elected to the Presidency and to the House and Senate it will matter not. There isn't enough difference in the Neo-Cons and Democrats to make a difference.

The outcome will be the same!

[Junior1942]

....... I stand by my statement; if Obama gets another term, and he is replaced by another Democrat, there will not be anything resembling an election following.

I quoted only the above because it's the deepest pile of BS in a post filled with BS.

[gypsyman]

Junior1942, I truely hope your right! In the mean time, I'll prepare for the worst. gypsyman

[magooch]

I'll go one step further.  If the majority of citizens of this country haven't realized what a predicament the Dumbycrats and yes, some rino's have put us in and determined to try to make a major change in the next election, we're already doomed to some very, very trying times.  I'm hoping that as was the case when Jimma Carter failed nearly as miserably as the present failure, the majority had their fill and chose a new direction. 
 
It's pretty clear that this country is very deeply divided between people who believe in Constitutional government, liberty and personal responsibility and those who are determined to have a nanny state and womb to the tomb statism.  I don't think it is exaggerating a bit to say that the choice has come down to Americanism, or communism.  There is also a very good chance that it's already too late and complete chaos will be where we're headed.

[nw_hunter]

Who paid for the vacations of Presidents before Obama?Who will foot the bill for the next one? We know the answer to that.



http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20094576-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

[powderman]

I wonder how many more days obummer would have if we added in all of his bowing, scraping, and ring kissing trips, his dates back to Chicago, all of  his pr trips worldwide and I don't believe micheles vacations to Spain and London were included, those were big bucks trips. Everything obummer has done has been for the purpose of bleeding and destroying our economy and the destruction of America as we know it. POWDERMAN. 

[yellowtail3]

I wonder how many more days obummer would have if we added in all of his bowing, scraping, and ring kissing trips... Everything obummer has done has been for the purpose of bleeding and destroying our economy and the destruction of America as we know it. POWDERMAN.

This is terrible - how can we stop this destruction? Will no one rid us of this troublesome imam?

[guzzijohn]

Quote from Mcgooch:
"I'll go one step further.  If the majority of citizens of this country haven't realized what a predicament the Dumbycrats and yes, some rino's have put us in and determined to try to make a major change in the next election, we're already doomed to some very, very trying times.  I'm hoping that as was the case when Jimma Carter failed nearly as miserably as the present failure, the majority had their fill and chose a new direction."


The difference is that the republicans had a viable candidate in Reagan to run against Carter. So far the republicans have no viable candidate to run against Obama. Under the current circumstances Obama has the election won hands down.
GuzziJohn

[dukkillr]

The difference is that the republicans had a viable candidate in Reagan to run against Carter. So far the republicans have no viable candidate to run against Obama. Under the current circumstances Obama has the election won hands down.
GuzziJohn

Acually I think the problem is more significant than that.  I don't think it is possible to find a "viable" Republican candidate right now.  The party is fractured and the various groups are inflexible and inclined to ridiculous rhetoric.  Just look around here and you'll see the Old Guard Republicans vs The Libertarian Republicans.  You'll see the, "I won't vote for a RINO" and the, "A third party vote is a vote for Obama".  There's people openly claiming that if Obama wins he will disolve the government (there were those claiming Bush would disolve the government before he left).  There's grand talk of revolution and of Communism vs. Freedom.  Most of it is wildeyed and only tenously related to reality.
 
Ronald Reagan would be considered a RINO by today's standards and probably could not get out of the primary.

[teamnelson]

The difference is that the republicans had a viable candidate in Reagan to run against Carter. So far the republicans have no viable candidate to run against Obama. Under the current circumstances Obama has the election won hands down.
GuzziJohn

I believe you're right sir, and that doesn't make me happy at all. Its not as if my vote counts any way ... before anyone pounces, let me explain. I am registered in El Paso, which is a liberal county. I along with many other combat deployed active duty military members who voted by absentee ballot all had our ballots lost at the state - straw polling indicates that the vast majority of the votes lost were not for Democrats. All attempts to seek an investigation into voter fraud have been categorically rejected by this President's attorney general.
 
That the Democratic party wants to solidify their hold of power to the point of making the Presidency a 3 term position, redistricting to reduce the impact of conservative voters, and moving the electoral process away from the people are all verifiable facts - no BS. And sadly, many NeoCons are in lock step with them. I'm not a GOP FanBoy, that ended with the Gipper. There's just the Dumb Party and the Dumber Party, and no matter which of them wins, the people lose. If it makes anyone feel any better, if a NeoCon wins, I predict maybe 5 terms before there won't be anything left that looks like a popular election.

[Dixie Dude]

The Dems controlled both houses of congress, and the presidency Obama's first two terms. 
Facts:
1) They spent far more than Bush did.
2) They passed a health care bill that 65% of the American people didn't want.
3) They did NOTHING to stimulate the economy.  The stimulus package only helped state and federal governments in trouble (mostly democrats).  This only kicked the can down the road.
4) The deficit has been ran up to $15 trillion from about $9 trillon when Obama took office, once it reaches $20 trillion, the taxes alone only pay the interest, nothing else.  If this happens, we will either have hyper inflation to pay off government debt, or the government will have to shut down.  Can't anyone see this, from either party?
5) If you tax every penny that ALL millionaires and billionaires make, it will not even BALANCE the budget as is.  CUTS have to be made and drastically.
6) Most presidents used about 50% or MORE of their advisors out of the private sector economy, even Clinton had 50%.  Obama only has 6% of his advisors from the private sector, the rest are KNOWN socialists, communists, elitist liberal college professors and such who don't have a real clue about private enterprise. 
 
Why did Obama push the health care bill instead of focusing on improving the economy his first year in office, when to quote Bill Clinton, "it is the economy stupid"?
 
Hillary Clinton would have had Bill as her main advisor, and he was better at compromising to get things done.  Obama doesn't really know how things are supposed to work.  Even Mitt Romney said "Obama is in over his head".  Obama has never been an executive whether public or private.  Clinton was a governor, Reagan was a governor, Eisenhower was a general, FDR was a governor.  Seems as if the best presidents have been governors or generals, not senators or representatives.