I highly doubt any terrorists would be put in with the general population. And if they were, I don't think they'd last a day.

:lol:

I don't know. I'd like to point out that I've now traveled from a standpoint of wanting the detainees tried in civilian courts and released if necessary to agreeing to a need for non-civilian courts in some cases. I'm still not exactly 100% comfortable with where we stand with these folks, though I am glad that they finally released the students, farmers and taxi drivers.


These people need a reality check, then. There are plenty of higher-value and lesser-defended targets out there for the terrorists. Plus, I would assume (and hope) that prisons on U.S. military bases (and the bases themselves) already have plans in place to repel terrorist attacks. And I would assume that ADX Florence has some sort of contingency scenario in place.


The "worst of the worst" will end up in solitary 23 hours a day and have no contact with other inmates. Current detainees sentenced to lesser sentences would, I'd assume, be separated from the general prison population for a) their own protection and b) to avoid this kind of scenario.

I was speaking to the possibility of moving these prisoners to public facilities. If they're going to military prisons, then I agree with you.

One, I would assume that most, if not all, prisons already have some sort of contingency planning in effect for external threats. These will need to be enhanced, but it's not exactly a new concept.

Two, I guess I don't see the value proposition for Al Qaeda in storming a U.S. SuperMax facility to free some of their own members, given the difficulty involved in getting into the facility, and the very, very unlikely chance of success (in getting away). Especially when compared to missions to hit other targets of value that are comparatively much less guarded.

How does a guy who believes that painting everyone's roof white would help in the global warming fight got a Nobel Peace Prize?

Obama's green guru calls for white roofs - Telegraph

Even #2 is taking pot-shots at his boss's reliance on teleprompters.

RealClearPolitics - Video - Biden Jokes About Breaking Obama's Teleprompter

facts, dont let them get in the way of anything.

dude, i sell new homes with roofs too. Its a fact that different colors on objects absorb or reflect heat. I mean, crap, I learned that in day school.

So, this is proof that he's correct that white roofs will reduce the effects of global warming? Interesting.

Oddly enough the answer is in the first two paragraphs.


But I'm sure you know more than Dr. Chu.

The point about air conditioning is a relative no-brainer. The point concerning the overall effect on the greenhouse effect when rays are deflected is based on a study by three of Mr. Chu's friends that hasn't come anywhere close to being widely accepted as fact.

What kind of world do we live in when a scientist can believe in research conducted by other scientists? Just another step in the slow march to sociafacism.

sometimes MBBF hangs his hat on an argument that makes him lose credibility....

Yes, group think is always a good thing, especially in a situation such as global warming.

wow

Burn the books!!2!1!

But wait, three posts earlier the problem was that not enough people believed.

Too little groupthink is the new too much groupthink.

Dizzy spin there.

We'll just agree to disagree. I have a major issue with a 'leader' in our country deciding that painting houses is the way to slow global warming.

Because you are an expert?

Funny that your original post states "would help" but now you say it's THE way.

The white roof plan does work depending on where you live. Doesn't make a lot of sense here (Chicago) to have it year round, but down South I know it lowers energy bills by 10-20%.

My old office building use to paint it white in April and then back to black in September. It probably cost thousands to paint so I imagine they were saving much more than that in cooling bills. They were one of a bunch that added solar panels and wind turbines this year though so I'm not sure if they are still doing the painting thing.

Regardless of whether it prevents global warming, it does lower energy costs a lot in hotter climates and thus the emissions we are putting in the air.

And I agree with that as I stated several posts ago.

So what's the problem then? The guy has a cool plan that will lower energy costs and the amount of shit we pump in the air.

But it sounds funny. It's like someone suggesting that keeping your tires properly inflated could reduce gasoline consumption.

Ha-ha-ha!

I know you meant that as a joke, but that's exactly the point. However, I'll fully admit that I regularly overestimate the common sense of the average American citizen, so perhaps we need leaders that can dumb it down for the common citizen.

The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.

Can someone tell me something. Why is it that we, and Obama, blast the CEOs for flying private jets, but it's okay for Obama to spend hundrends of thousands of taxpayer on his "date night" trips?

I was actually wondering about that myself. The First Couple took a smaller jet than the usual Air Force One, so good for them for that. At the same time, this is one of those items that I think presidents should be paying for themselves.

I'll leave it up to an environmentalist to try and figure out what the carbon footprint of the date night was.

I believe this is his second or third "date" trip (does he know that DC is a pretty solid restaurant city) since he took office. Throw in the Statue of Liberty photo mess, it amazes me.

Apparently the D.C. area is only good for trips to burger joints (Hell Burger and Five Guys so far).

Please, that's just not as a big a deal as Sarah Palin's wardrobe.

It's a recurring lesson that covers everything from wasteful spending, to military tribunals. "If Obama does it it's OK".

I agree that he shouldnt be doing this. ITs a bad precedent although it's a good example that people should make time for "date nights" but it's not the right time for this...maybe 3 years ago.

The idea of "date night" doesn't bother me. I actually kind of find it a little refreshing in a way.

I just don't why he has to load up the jet with fuel and the SS and go to NY or Chicago just for dinner and a date. It's even worst in this economy. I mean, DC is a becoming a top-notch restaurant town. They can't get in the limo and stay close to home?

As someone noted earlier, Palin got flacked for her clothes (paid by donations, where this is taxpayer money). Why shouldn't he get it?

Even so, I wouldn't object to a date night in Baltimore or Washington or even NYC if he was already there on business previously. Were it three years ago, I still would have objected had GWB and Laura done the same thing and the opposition definitely would have considering they thought the economy was crap pretty much the entire Bush presidency.

It's a little worse IMO for Obama to do this because one of his negatives is that he's generally been considered an elitist of some stripe regardless of whatever background he truly has and this sort of thing only seems to reinforce that point. Were Bragelina (or another Hollywood/NYC power couple) to do a "date night" like this, it'd be a story on ET (and applauded, even, because that's just what big stars do and we want to have a peek into such glamorous lifestyles, after all).

Are you an idiot? Seriously?

The pathword ith "Penith"

While I'll agree with the argument that Obama probably shouldn't be jetting off to New York on the taxpayer dollar, I do think that even a date night in D.C. is probably going to run 10K for the taxpayers at a minimum. It's not cheap to have a dedicated Secret Service troop running around inspecting every person entering and exiting a given location and monitoring the joint for the whole night. Tack on security means to and from the location, and it's a pretty big operation that's needed to keep our commander-in-chief safe.

At some level, Obama made his own bed here. His criticisms of other people's excesses now have come back to roost when he does the same thing, whether it's a trip to Vegas or New York on the taxpayer dollar.. It's definitely hypocritical at a minimum.

Really, this is what we get worked up about? Bush would fly out to Texas for his vacations, least Obama's staying local.

Uh, that's apples to oranges at its finest. Crawford was Dubya's home. No one's going to complain when Obama goes home to Chicago for a week. Even Hawaii is perfectly understandable since he has family there. That's much different than going off for an evening date night.

It's still time off from work, and Crawford wasn't really Bush's favorite spot, that's why he moved to Dallas after his term was up.

I'm more inclined to have Obama stay in D.C.

It's not apples and oranges, it's just nitpicking over nothing.

I'm not a fan of it during these economic times but it's hard to say a President isn't allowed to go out and entertain themselves (and act like normal people). I think all Presidents have done personal things that have cost the taxpayers money. Whether it's going out to dinner and a play or attending a sporting event. I don't really think it's a big deal to be honest with you, although I can see how some would get their feathers ruffled.

Ultimately it probably plays out pretty well with women who think it's romantic that a husband is taking his wife out on the town for a date.

We agree. He can certainly go elsewhere besides home if he chooses, but he should pay for it out of his own pocket.


Contradictory statement here. In the previous statement, you said it was better for him to stay in D.C. So why is it nitpicking over nothing if he goes on personal date nights at taxpayer expense to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars? He literally spend the entire tax bill of someone making $75K-100K in one evening on a date night. That's not 'nitpicking over nothing'.

I'm sure they have, but does that mean it should be done? Is this the president of change or the president that finally bucks the trend to do what's right? Are we going to argue whether it's been done before or whether it's the proper use of taxpayer money?

I think it's kind of silly to expect a President not to be able to enjoy himself and relax in his downtime. You work much better when you've had time to recharge your batteries from time to time. It's why many high stress jobs have mandatory vacation time for their employees.

I agree. He should be able to do anything he wants, just like you and I do. With that said, don't we pay if we want to drive or fly somewhere else for a night or a vacation that's personal in nature? If Mr. Obama wants to go somewhere, he can pay for the personal outing out of his own pocket. There's a huge difference between him going out in D.C. and him flying to New York.

You really want your President flying coach on American Airlines? Or renting a Toyota Camry for a couple days and making the drive to New York?

Well, it's the only safe and responsible way to do things ;)

Politics is fun. I do so love when we miss the big picture and focus on little stupid crap

SI

Of couse not. Even a symbolic gesture would go a long way. I'll give you an example.

Business class to NYC: $500
Private aircraft: $9,000
Staffing to keep President secure: $15,000

Let's assume the above numbers are accurate for sake of the discussion. The President has to have a staff available to him for security purposes. So we'll assume the $15K is a sunk cost whether he goes out in D.C. or in NYC. He doesn't have to pay any of that. The private aircraft is also a must for security purposes, but I certainly don't expect him to pay that amount. If the business class seat for that flight would have been $500, make him pay $1,000 for the two of them. In that case, he's not paying any more than any other citizen would for a date night trip, while acknowledging that it's a personal elective trip and, security concerns aside, he would pay that amount as a regular citizen. A simple move like that would defuse much of this criticism IMO.

So the issue is that you want him to go to Expedia, figure out what it costs to fly from D.C. to New York and then cut the Treasury a check for a couple hundred bucks?

I love it when people think that $24,000 is stupid little crap and can be spent on personal outings. Two more of those trips and he'll have spend everything that I paid on taxes.

The difference in perception is huge. Don't pretend like you just walked into this whole political thing. Mr. Obama doesn't get a free pass on this nor should anyone else. Pelosi is WAY worse than Obama.

Hell, one of those trips and he spent everything and more I spent on taxes last year. But in the grand scheme of things, it's clearly gotten people disproportionately worked up into a lather. People got more pissed at the auto bailout than the bank bailout despite the latter being a full order of magnitude more than the other.

Any of your congresspeople piss away more than that on most fundraisers but I don't see you beating the drum today for campaign finance reform. Especially when you consider that publicly funded elections take the lobby money mostly out of the system, which leads to billions less of money being spent on "pet projects". And that's just a simple example. We could go into the extreme waste in military spending if we wanted to next.

But, you know, we know it's your thing so just keep going after this all day. It's fun when people fixate on stupid crap. Gives the people who do real work a chance to get stuff done without it taking up the headlines.

SI

I honestly just don't see the big deal about it. The President is in a unique position where they are not able to get around like the rest of us. They aren't able to jump in their minivan and head to dinner and a play. They can't buy box seats to a baseball game and enter with the general public. I think it's part of the deal that when you're President, you have some unique perks. If a President is abusing that by going out every night I'd be pissed, but we're talking about one date with his wife in New York.

If you believe that everytime the President heads out to eat in D.C. he should note the miles on the vehicle and write the treasury a check for the $3 in gas that was used, so be it. I just find it petty and stupid during these times.

Really? I haven't been beating the drum for campaign finance reform? That's certainly not correct at all, but feel free to carry on with that incorrect statement.

Military waste? I bitched about that extensively during the Bush Administration, but don't let that stop you either.

I'm a fiscal conservative. I bitch about waste all day long, regardless of party. It just so happens that liberals are in charge right now, so they'll get the brunt of the criticism. If they don't like the heat, they're more than welcome to move on and let someone else do their job.

Personally, I'd rather him take a one night trip to NYC than numerous multi-week vacations to Texas.

With this and the uproar over him liking grey poupon, Republicans won't be satisfied till the Democrats have control over 80% of Congress.

It certainly seems to be a competition between the two political parties to see which group can make the dumbest decisions in Obama's first days in office. Awful lot of people shooting themselves in the foot thus far.

All that matters is the economy. If it recovers by 2012, he gets re-elected. Grey Poupons and date nights are just fodder for partisians. Has no impact on how people will vote.

ding

I concur.

I concur.

Everything Obama does between now and 2012 has an impact on how people will vote. Obama the candidate was hugely popular, but that doesn't always translate into continued popularity for Obama the president. We're what? 5 1/2 months into a four year term?

Everything from policy decisions to the dumbest pseudo-scandal will have an impact on Obama in 2012, because that's how we apparently want our political system to operate these days.

Personally, I have a minor problem with any president having trips like this fully subsidized by the taxpayer. It may be because I just finished Cokie Roberts' "Ladies of Liberty", and read passages of letters from First Ladies complaining about how official entertaining was leaving them broke. I'm not saying that's the way it should be, but this seems a little excessive.

And, of course, the White House isn't saying how much it cost. Robert Gibbs told reporters to look up the data on how much a day trip like this would typically cost. We know the Air Force One 's buzzing of the Big Apple cost $328,835, but that includes the cost of the fighter jets as well. This time, however, you have to factor in the flight time and cost of transporting Marine One up to NYC as well. It could be that "date night" cost upwards of $250,000. If the White House isn't concerned about the effect this could have on the President's popularity, then why aren't they just telling the taxpayers how much it cost?

:lol: Yeah, Barry's date night pretty well took care of my tax bill for last year. Money wellll spent.

Seriously, to do something like this when unemployment is at a nearly 40 year high, and is still on the rise probably isn't the best PR move...especially since they also footed the bill for the White House press corps to tag along.

Seems Bush pretty much got crucified for playing golf a few weeks after 9-11. Don't see this as much different.

Will anyone be surprised if it ends up coming out that he paid for the trip out of pocket? If/when that happens, will everyone be cool with it or will folks say that he just paid due to the bad publicity?

I don't know why you couldn't be both cool with it and believe the only reason he ended up paying was because of the publicity. I'd be very surprised, however, if he did do that.

If he can cough up the money to pay for these trips, then we have another problem considering his tax returns and salary.

What about his tax returns?

He made close to $3M in 2008 (largely due to book sales).

So he's going to pay 5-10% of his yearly salary for one night? Yeah, I won't hold my breath on that.

Which is somewhat ironic given that some economists believe that the economy will survive in spite of Obama's policies, not because of them.

This is such a stupid non-issue. Of course it costs more for him to do stuff, he is the president of the United States! How much did it cost Clinton to go on those early morning jogs? Why not use a treadmill? How much for Bush to throw out all those first pitches? Why not stay at home? What about Biden and Obama's trip to the hamburger place? Why not eat in? What a dumb issue for either side to be debating.

Costs for a jog are the same whether he's out or in the White House. Secret Service staffing would be the same either way. They're just out rather than at the White House


A public appearance is business. It's your job to be the public face of the U.S. That's much different than a personal trip.


Public appearance. Same reasoning as above. It's part of the job description.


Agreed. I'm not sure why anyone continues to defend this waste of taxpayer dollars given the current economic situation. It's only worse that we find out today that $25K was a gross underestimation of the total costs. The estimated number was at least $200-250K and even that may fall short of the real cost.


Of course you can't do that, can you Mr. Obama? We'll call it a NYC stimulus package instead.

I can't wait to find out what today's outrage will be!

I think wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money for no good reason should keep us busy for a few days.

I am surprised at how stupid some politicians have been of late. The Obama hypocricy concerning NYC has obviously already been noted. Now NYC Mayor Bloomberg comes out to state that the POTUS should make more than $400K. It's pissed off a lot of NYC residents, many of which struggle to get by with the extremely high living costs in NYC. Just unbelievable stupidity. Perhaps some people do need rases, but when unemployment is soaring and the economy is pissing down its leg, it's not a good time at all to make those kinds of statements.

No. He said, "The President is worth a lot more than we pay him." When you look at the corporation that he is basically the CEO of, I can't see how you would disagree. It's far from a call to give him a raise.

But the POTUS said that CEO's get paid far too much. So we should probably cut his salary.

Mr. Obama will get paid $400,000/year for the rest of his life out of the government coffers. I think that's plenty.

Also, anyone who makes a comment like Bloomberg's is knowingly disregarding the side economic benefits to being POTUS. Books, speaking deals, trips to NYC and Vegas, etc........

It's a no-win situation with him and the economy for right-wing partisians. If the economy does well it's in spite of him. If it does bad it's his fault.

Reminds me of the people crying a couple months back about the stock market being down and blaming it on Obama. Now that it's soared up, he has nothing to do with it.

That's all fine and good...I'm just making sure everyone knows that you misrepresented what Bloomberg said. You made it sound like he was pushing for the presidential salary to be raised, which he wasn't.

I'm not sure its possible to isolate the president's impact on an economy. That's something even economic professors wouldn't agree on.

But I don't see how you can say it's a "no-win" situation for Obama when just a few posts up you said that if the economy recovers in 2012, he'll win. Thta's really a win-win for him. The economy would recover if we had a bucket of rusty nails as president between now and then. Maybe Obama's impact on the economy will have made the economy better than it would have been otherwise - there's no way to know, really. But he'll get credit for ANY improvement.

Be honest. If Bush had done the same thing, and Ari Fleisher or Scott McClellan were refusing to disclose the costs to taxpayers, wouldn't you be a little miffed?

As long as it's not a weekly occurrence, no. The President's family has to be given some leeway to make trips.

It's also not much of an expense compared to other ways the executive misspends money. I'm much more upset by the continuing increases in the size of the Presidential staff. Every President ads a few more Senior Advisors and neither party complains because they want those jobs when it's their turn. Or look at the change in rules the Bush admin made concerning fundraising trips. Up to that point the government paid a percentage of the total costs equal to the time spent doing public business, but Bush changed the rules so that the government pays for all expenses if any portion of the trip includes public business. Much to his discredit, Obama hasn't changed those rules.

This outrage about a trip to see a Broadway show is all about controlling the news cycle. For a day or two there will be a lot of negative press about the trip, but in the end the big excesses of the executive remain and nobody but those already opposed to Obama will remember this in a month's time.

I'm saying with right-wing partisians. They have set the stage that if the economy recovers it's in spite of Obama but if it fails it's all his fault. I just don't see how you can have it both ways on these issues. Either he has the power to dictate the direction the economy goes or he doesn't.

So it's not a big deal because there are worse abuses of taxpayer dollars? Fine reasoning there. Who knew we could only point out the worst rather than save money across the line?

Why don't we all get outraged by excessive copying or staff taking home pens?

What you focus your energy on is what you consider important.

Credibility where art thou...

'Some' economists? You leaned heavily on Cato....you think they dont have a dog in the race?

as I stated in the other thread, the recession one that somehow avoided your shitfest, both sides will be able to come out of things claiming victory. Some will say that the policies staved off depression and others will say much of the policies were unneeded and we made it through in spite of them not because of them...

Before any of the economists settle on their opinions.... I GUARANTEE THAT EVERYONE ON THESE BOARDS KNOWS YOURS.

You and your prejudiced verbosity are exhausting and you have only slightly risen above the rung you settled on when you made an ass of yourself on the bowling/shortbus escapade but I wonder if you really care to gain back that which you let go of in regards to credibility.

I asked you in the other thread, you know the one you put out there regarding the doctor vs. the murderer if you recognized how much credibility you lost considering the response you had gotten....have you? I mean you dont have to agree with the conclusions or opinion but the outpouring is stark....have you been able to look into this mirror at all? The forest for the trees? Even in the games thread you move the 'point' around to suit your will and needs at that moment, it must be exhausting running around trying to cover your 'points' by moving 'the point'.

Im fired up today apparently but it seems you never claim youre wrong...or the things your PROVEN to be wrong about because crap, you can always shoot the messenger, discredit the scientist, the science, the poll, the pollster... i mean it never ends.

I consider $200K+ important when it never should have been spent. That's the difference between a conservative and a liberal I guess. I think that $200K is far too much to spend for a night on the town.

I don't understand the difference between this and taking a vacation. It's just a shorter vacation. It seems to me that Obama could take a week off and get less criticism. What if he does this every now and then, but takes fewer vacations,a nd less money overall is actually spent? Would that be okay with everyone?

Let them complain about the trip to New York. It's the reason they are getting slaughtered in every election.

This all goes back to Obama's comment about executives and Vegas. He made his own bed and he's paying for it now.

Captain Generalization strikes again. 'Them' is now anyone who is upset with the misuse of taxpayer dollars, regardless of whether they are Republicans or not. I'm not registered with either party, so I suppose you're technically correct that the Independents didn't fare well in the last presidental election, though I'm quite sure that wasn't the intent of your statement.

And yet you didn't complain about the "Western White House" and the millions spent to allow Bush weeks away from Washington. Or all the money spent to guard the Bush twins as they partied around Austin. Or the money spent to take Jenn's boyfriend to Maine for a weekend family gathering. Or the money spent on Jenna's wedding. Or money spent on the nearly 500 days Bush spent at Camp David. Or....

No, you only complain about the money spent by Obama. That's the difference between you and I, I guess. I see structural expenses that could be trimmed and you see trivial partisan sniping opportunities.

you do the same frickin thing ALL the time, look up on the same page!

It's true that he'll never win with right-wing partisians, but he'll also never lose with his supporters, which makes him similar to most other politicans.

There will be an economic recovery eventually, and Obama supporters will try to take credit for all of it, and the opponents will say it was inevitable and would have been faster/better without Obama. Both opinions are worthless because already know what they are, even before we see the recovery unfold.

It's wasteful spending but when you get a question about how it might not be that wasteful and you don't know how to answer it, you spin back around and say it's just Obama being hypocritical for attacking CEO's.

How many elections have we had since Obama became president? Seriously, in a thread chock full of nonsensical partisan statements (from both sides), this one still stands out.

BTW, I just want to make clear that I'm not "outraged" by this. I would like the White House to disclose how much money "date night" cost, and it's disappointing that they would not.

I must have missed the thread where everyone was up in arms about the cost of all of Bush's trips to Crawford. I know there were some comments made about the frequency of said trips- but that's a different issue, right?

SI

Have you been paying attention to this thread? I stated I'd have no issues with Obama doing work in Chicago or even Hawaii since those are both locations he calls home. But don't let that stop you from trying to insinuate that I have not been even-handed in that regard.

It's not a partisian statement. It's just the stupidiy of Republican politics these days. The country is fighting two wars, has a potential nuclear North Korea, is in the worst recession since the 20's and the big issue is about him going on a date to New York. Do you really think at the end of the day that the people who decide elections actually give a shit about this? It's like the Bill Ayers, Joe the Plumber, Rev. Wright stuff from last year. People don't care about it. They care about their jobs, their family, and their future.

I'm someone who would love to see a strong opposition party. Republicans have better ideas on a lot of issues. But they are stuck with their head up their ass worrying about what kind of fucking mustard Obama puts on his cheeseburger.

Misuse of tax dollars is giving GM billions so they could file bankruptcy. Going on a date to New York is just petty bullshit that belongs on TMZ.