Obama trip to Africa June 26 could cost $60 to $100 million

[AmyNation]

And there is nothing to suggest that Obama will "out trip" Bush, because the majority of Obamas international travels happened very early in his 1st term, in what the right commonly refers to as his "apology tour".

 

[Foxfyre]

You're right. I picked up the number from the second column. Obama should be 27 taken to date with 3 more scheduled on the calendar so far.

 

[Desperado]

Nothing good ever came out of Africa

 

[Foxfyre]

But then again, I don't think many here have complained about the number of trips, though I do think Obama is on track to exceed GW Bush's travels. The question is whether the President should treat his family to a super mega expensive vacation during a period of extreme economic stress, high unemployment, and uncertainty.

 

[AmyNation]

Didnt you just say its not the number of countries but the number of trips?

This trip is as much a work related trip as a family vacation. The vast majority of costs are security and travel, and that is unavoidable for any POTUS.

 

[Synthaholic]

Compared to Bush and Clinton, Obama is a slacker. GW and Bill spent 8 years traveling the world, each managed to visit well over 70 different countires in their two terms. Obama has less than half that amount.

The number of countries isn't the issue as much as the number of trips. GWB did visit a lot of countries but he only took 47 international trips during his eight years. Obama already has taken 55 in less than 4-1/2 years and has the best chance of breaking Clinton's record that dwarfs everybody else's. GHWBush did take a lot of trips during his four years though - comparable to Obamas.

According to Wikipedia:

FDR - 52 international trips
Truman - 6
Ike - 37
Johnson - 27
Nixon/Ford - 62
Carter - 31
Reagan - 49
GHW Bush - 60
Clinton - 133
GWB - 47
Obama 55
List of international trips made by the President of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You just cannot post without lying, can you, Foxfyre?


27 for Obama. It's right there on the left hand side of the table!

 

[Amelia]

But then again, I don't think many here have complained about the number of trips, though I do think Obama is on track to exceed GW Bush's travels. The question is whether the President should treat his family to a super mega expensive vacation during a period of extreme economic stress, high unemployment, and uncertainty.

^^
That

Conspicuous consumption of taxpayer money during hard economic times by a president who acts like other well-off people aren't giving enough money to Washington, while much of the rest of America tries to be happy with staycations if they're that lucky and can afford to take time off work

 

[AmyNation]

On a side note, I don't specifically care if Obama "exceeds" GW's number as I seem to recall Bush being not exactly welcome internationally toward the end of his presidency.

Bush senior took nearly 50 trips in 4 years, Clinton surpassed that, and Obama is on course to be no where near their numbers.

 

[Synthaholic]

Where are you getting 55 for Obama? It only 30 on your link.

Because she's a liar.

It's 27 for Obama - future trips make it 30. But they cannot be counted yet. They may be cancelled for one reason or another.

 

[Synthaholic]

But then again, I don't think many here have complained about the number of trips, though I do think Obama is on track to exceed GW Bush's travels. The question is whether the President should treat his family to a super mega expensive vacation during a period of extreme economic stress, high unemployment, and uncertainty.

Oh, but it's OK for a president to treat his family to a super mega expensive vacation when it's on borrowed Chinese money, to be paid back by the taxpayers with interest?

 

[rightwinger]

Where are you getting 55 for Obama? It only 30 on your link.

Because she's a liar.

It's 27 for Obama - future trips make it 30. But they cannot be counted yet. They may be cancelled for one reason or another.

But it is different when Obama takes a trip

We all know the reason

 

[Synthaholic]

Any trips to Canada or Mexico shouldn't be counted - for any president.

 

[Desperado]

We all know the reason

And it is called sequester:

se·ques·ter
/səˈkwestər/
Noun
A general cut in government spending.

No one branch should be immune from it.

 

[Katzndogz]

But then again, I don't think many here have complained about the number of trips, though I do think Obama is on track to exceed GW Bush's travels. The question is whether the President should treat his family to a super mega expensive vacation during a period of extreme economic stress, high unemployment, and uncertainty.

Oh, but it's OK for a president to treat his family to a super mega expensive vacation when it's on borrowed Chinese money, to be paid back by the taxpayers with interest?

Yeah that describes the first heifer's trip to Spain with 40 of her closest friends.

 

[tap4154]

If he was going to stay, it would be well worth 10 times that amount!

Then we could get back to being a constitutional representative republic, as founded.

He can start his own little tin pot dictatorship over there, where Michelle calls his homeland.

 

[AmyNation]

Since when does a spending cut mean the president is no longer required to do his job?

International trips are an important part of the presidents job, and arguably have been since Reagan was POTUS. Now, if someone wants to show some evidence that the President is only going on a vacation, and does not need to take his 1st trip to Africa for any diplomatic reasons, then I'd be happy to see it.

 

[rightwinger]

We all know the reason

And it is called sequester:

se·ques·ter
/səˈkwestər/
Noun
A general cut in government spending.

No one branch should be immune from it.

Sequester is an artificial crisis created because Congress can't do it's job. To pretend that it reflects an actual financial crisis is laughable

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

On a side note, I don't specifically care if Obama "exceeds" GW's number as I seem to recall Bush being not exactly welcome internationally toward the end of his presidency.

Bush senior took nearly 50 trips in 4 years, Clinton surpassed that, and Obama is on course to be no where near their numbers.

On a further side note, the non-issue of presidential ‘vacations’ is idiocy.

A given president ‘vacations’ with his staff, gets the same briefings, is in constant contact with various administration officials, and is making the same decisions as if he were in the Oval Office.

The only ‘vacation’ a given president realizes is from the more ceremonial aspects of the job.

 

[Dot Com]

But then again, I don't think many here have complained about the number of trips, though I do think Obama is on track to exceed GW Bush's travels. The question is whether the President should treat his family to a super mega expensive vacation during a period of extreme economic stress, high unemployment, and uncertainty.

Oh, but it's OK for a president to treat his family to a super mega expensive vacation when it's on borrowed Chinese money, to be paid back by the taxpayers with interest?

Yeah that describes the first heifer's trip to Spain with 40 of her closest friends.

the green eyes of jealousy rears its ugly head I bet michelle is in WAAAY BETTER shape than you Tubby.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We all know the reason

And it is called sequester:

se·ques·ter
/səˈkwestər/
Noun
A general cut in government spending.

No one branch should be immune from it.

Sequester is an artificial crisis created because Congress can't do it's job. To pretend that it reflects an actual financial crisis is laughable

Correct.

It’s the consequence of the radical fiscal right unwilling to engage in responsible governance; it’s the TPM and other like House republicans adhering blindly to rightist fiscal dogma, and not accepted economic facts.