This isn't really Wall Street-related per se, but it could speak to some of the perceived abuses that the Street always seems to be accused of. I'm talking about First Lady Michelle Obama's vacation on the coast of Spain. The trip is reportedly costing U.S. taxpayers $75,000 per day, but I'm wondering if this really is an outrage or if it's more of a tempest in a teacup.
Here's what bothers me about it: I understand the need for vacation (hell, I just took a month off myself), but why would you travel to a foreign country and spend all that money there when your own country is in the middle of the worst recession in 100 years? Doesn't she realize that California, Hawaii, and Florida have some of the best beaches in the world?
Wall Street took a lot of heat for doling out record bonuses the year after being rescued by taxpayers, and rightfully so. Shouldn't the First Lady of the United States be a little more sensitive to the struggles at home? At the very least, it's bad form. But if she is completely tone deaf to the plight of fellow Americans, maybe people have a point when they refer to her as a "modern day Marie Antoinette".
Or is it much ado about nothing? I just find the double standard curious. Everything Wall Street does is evil, but look the other way while we stick the taxpayer with a hefty bill for our vacation. Is there something I'm not seeing? Is this really no bid deal? Or is it just do as I say and not as I do?
I think the whole Obama family is being treated like the Kennedy's rather than elected officials. Vacations are fine, but there really needs to be a little common sense. Taking off on a trip costing 75k a day while we have serious financial issues at home is a little callous.
Why exactly are we paying for this either? This is not related to the job Obama was elected for. He isn't even doing the traveling. I think too many people are sucking this guys ass way too much.
I blame the American people. Everyone got whipped into this frenzy like 12 year old little girls. How a nation of educated people could lose their mind over the word "change" is beyond me. Mind you I am not saying he should not of been elected or that he didn't run a better campaign, just saying that he should of had to try harder than he did.
She's the First Lady of the United States. I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that considering you have absolutely no idea what that 75K consists of. For example, if 30K is for Air Force One, 40K is for security detail, etc... obviously.... its not that outrageous.
I have never in my life seen reports on the Clinton's or Bushes estimates of what their vacations are costing. I remember when the Obamas went on a date in NYC to watch a show and the papers were reporting how much it cost. Obviously not a valid argument considering:
1- there is a fixed amount of overhead associated with the President and his family going ANYWHERE
2- we've never seen estimates of what vacations have cost past Presidents and their family
3- there's no breakdown of what that actually consists of; more likely than not, $73K of that is security expenses
So then the question becomes, is it responsible for a President and his family to take vacations where there needs to be such extensive security precautions? And to answer that, you would really need to have a quite sophisticated understanding of what types of security precautions are necessary and what the costs are; which is impossible for anyone other then a few people within the government to know.
I would argue that the President and his family deserve to vacation just like the rest of us. If we can go to the Maldives and the South of France, so too can they. And the heightened security expenses associated with their vacations should be footed by the U.S.
Like just about everything in the media, its a bunch of smoke and mirrors and sensationalist bullshit.
Also the person saying that as First Lady she doesn't have a real job and is probably pretty bored, is pretty fucking dumb.
The 800 lb. Gorilla in the room: white liberal guilt.
I wonder what it would have done for the economy if she vacationed somewhere here in the United States? Most Americans are vacationing in their backyards while she is vacationing in Spain on our dime.
Problems with an casino en ligne happen just as much as they do in a regular casino but the staff here is quick to offer help with the gambling machines.
So it's August 2010... are we pulling most of our troops out of Iraq or Obama is full of sh!t just like any other politician?
I could have swore Michelle Obama pays for her own personal expenses...
Put that aside, I think Michelle was making +$200K prior to resigning and becoming first lady. I know plenty of friends who are going to Europe, Hawaii, Mexico, etc. for vacation so why should Michelle Obama and her daughter not go on vacation? I don't see what the major issue is? Every first family has taken vacation and it seems like a no win situation.
If they went to Cape Cod, Martha's vineyard, or any other area people would be crying about how they're vacationing in areas only meant for the wealthy. So what is it? Are they expected to go to Lousiana and chill at the beach to instill confidence in that area again? As long as they're not going overboard with it, I have no issue.
75k / day is a LOT of money, but the problem is that nobody knows the breakdown of this figure. I bet a large chunk of these costs would have occurred wherever they would have been (i.e. bodyguards, staff, etc). So I think it's a bit populist to blame her for going to Spain.
I completely agree. When I started to hear about these expenses I said to myself the same thing. She costs us a ton of money anyway, whether she is in Louisiana, Chicago, Spain whatever. This thing is a populist crap and frankly many so "smart" people are feeding into that frenzy crap. I want to hear about policy decisions, taxes, serious stuff.
So would we want the First lady of America not to be protected or what? The silliness is beyond me
My problem with it is that this is one of 8--8!--vacations that Michelle Obama has taken or will take in the summer of 2010. Sure, the first lady needs a vacation, but EIGHT? And to stick the tax payer with the cost of 8 vacations in a single summer is repulsive. I haven't taken an actual vacation since 2002.
If it were the President I would actually be pissed, but when you're the first lady and you don't actually have a real job I guess all you're really doing is taking vacation. I think she doesn't really play a role in any substantial policy making. I just imagine myself in the role, slightly bored and willing to get out of America and all the crazies. At least outside the country she can escape it all
Hah And throwing out insults is what..a sign of maturity and intelligence? Maybe saying the First Lady position wasn't a real job might have been a bit of a stretch, but when you look at her background which included corporate law, several executive positions in public services and managing services for University of Chicago Hospitals...the First Lady job pales in comparison.
I mean this is the same job a former librarian, Laura Bush, was able to do and do well. (Nothing against her...) Any policy she has touched for the most part has been critic proof like fighting obesity. I imagine she would want to do more considering her background and law degree, but probably doesn't want to take the Hillary Clinton route and get a ton of backlash. She's under a magnifying glass all the time by the media and constantly has to censor herself for fear of things being taken out of context. Doesn't exactly seem like an amazing "job" to me but I'd be interested in hearing your argument instead of calling me fucking dumb.
Marcus, the president and his family deserve a vacation, but not 8 in a summer plus constant entertainment events at the White House, much to the expense of the tax payer.
I frankly think there are much more important things to worry about than how many vacations the President's wife is taking. This is absolutely everything that is wrong with the American political system. We saw it when Bush was in office, we see it now.
If you take any given member of the Taliban, even if its a 16 year old illiterate kid with a hole in his boot that rats climb in and out of, he's costing us $1 Billion a year, that billion with a B. Afghanistan is costing us $1 Billion per year per Taliban member. The fact that we're spending $1 billion per person on an organization that continues to elude us, is frankly a bit more concerning than Michelle Obama lounging on the Spanish Riveirra with a swam of men in black hiding in the bushes. We have one First Lady thats costing us $75K a day... net that against what it costs us if she's reading to deaf kids in Wichita... thats our incremental expense for her taking a vacation... and I frankly couldn't care less. If she took these vacations 365 days a year, it would cost me 9 cents a year... which is likely less than a drop into the cracks in the waiting room at the dentist office every year (thats assuming the cost of her reading to deaf kids in Wichita or lunching with the First Lady of Bhutan to discuss humanitarian issues is ZERO).
And the guy who followed-up his first statement by saying that working in corporate law is more demanding than being the First Lady of the United States continues to be a fucking moron. What planet are you from?
populist bullshit
Easy to answer, please build another arguments for explane your things.
Yes, please make explain to make benefit glorious nation of Kazakhstan
http://trueslant.com/christopherthomas/2009/06/03/perspective-obamas-da…
From last year when Obama and Michelle went on the date...just an eye-opener for comparison to the Bush administration on costs. Enuff said.
I found it kind of absurd too when I first read about it, but someone here made a good point that most of the costs are sunken costs for security and whatnot.
Marcus, with all respect (and I mean that honestly), your comments are what's wrong with the political system--as the son of federal bureaucrats and as a native and current Washingtonian, I can tell you that your attitude pervades this area. What's $400,000 here or there? It's just a rounding error! No big deal. It's that overall attitude of waste that pervades this capital city which is why the economies of Northern Virginia, suburban Maryland and the District of Columbia are booming to the detriment of everyone else. That overall attitude is the reason we have a 95+% incumbent re-election rate because the cost of pork is relatively low--in fact, what politicians spend on pork is a rounding error on the federal budget, but they use that money to ingratiate themselves with voters as a means of incumbent protection.
In my view, it's immoral for the first lady to take 8 vacations in a summer that cost the tax payers several hundred grand each trip, irrespective of the relative cost. We don't have a monarchy, we have a constitutional republic, a nation whose founders rejected several designs of the White House and U.S. Capitol because of their obscene oppulence.
I think part of the issue here is that, while the fixed costs of her gallivanting don't change much by location ($75,000 a day), where that money gets spent is another issue entirely. The bulk of the expense is her security detachment, their accommodations, their meals, and their per diem.
In the middle of the worst recession in 4 generations, the argument could easily be made that that money should have stayed in the U.S.. Now it is benefiting a Spanish hotel, Spanish restaurants, waiters, etc...
I'm not saying she shouldn't take vacations. Frankly, the more time they both stay away from the White House, the better off the country will be. But when you're the leader of a nation in dire straits (or his wife), I think there's some obligation to forgo the international travel and keep that money in your own economy.
I could be wrong.
Marcus, you're way off on your calculation of the cost of the Afghan war. So far, it's cost about $325 billion. By your estimate, that would mean there are only 325 members of the Taliban. Maybe you meant a million per. In any case, it's certainly more profound than the cost of her vacation, but I think we're talking apples and oranges.
http://costofwar.com/
[quote=Edmundo Braverman]I think part of the issue here is that, while the fixed costs of her gallivanting don't change much by location ($75,000 a day), where that money gets spent is another issue entirely. The bulk of the expense is her security detachment, their accommodations, their meals, and their per diem.
In the middle of the worst recession in 4 generations, the argument could easily be made that that money should have stayed in the U.S.. Now it is benefiting a Spanish hotel, Spanish restaurants, waiters, etc...
I'm not saying she shouldn't take vacations. Frankly, the more time they both stay away from the White House, the better off the country will be. But when you're the leader of a nation in dire straits (or his wife), I think there's some obligation to forgo the international travel and keep that money in your own economy.
I could be wrong.
Marcus, you're way off on your calculation of the cost of the Afghan war. So far, it's cost about $325 billion. By your estimate, that would mean there are only 325 members of the Taliban. Maybe you meant a million per. In any case, it's certainly more profound than the cost of her vacation, but I think we're talking apples and oranges.
http://costofwar.com/[/quote]
I think you are right; yes all expenses should be evaluated, but the whole argument is misguided. Why are we complaining that the First Lady costs that much when most people don't even know how much she costs us for being there in the first place, as you said the fixed costs. The Obamas are probably less delicate in their political judgments. They tend to take lavish vacations in middle or recessions, but at the end of the day, it makes us talk about things that are useless to begin with. I am not a fan of these arguments because all Presidents' entourage will command a huge cost.
Incidentally, there were reports circulating that we killed only 100 Talibans and there were fewer than 1,000 in Afghanistan, however I am no expert in these things.
I think the political debate has become so trivial that I wonder if we are doing this because we have nothing else to discuss, like policy/economic decisions. Obama won the White House without a meaningful discussion on policies, and I feel it will be the same ordeal in 2012 whether he wins or not.
[quote=Edmundo Braverman]I think part of the issue here is that, while the fixed costs of her gallivanting don't change much by location ($75,000 a day), where that money gets spent is another issue entirely. The bulk of the expense is her security detachment, their accommodations, their meals, and their per diem.
In the middle of the worst recession in 4 generations, the argument could easily be made that that money should have stayed in the U.S.. Now it is benefiting a Spanish hotel, Spanish restaurants, waiters, etc...
I'm not saying she shouldn't take vacations. Frankly, the more time they both stay away from the White House, the better off the country will be. But when you're the leader of a nation in dire straits (or his wife), I think there's some obligation to forgo the international travel and keep that money in your own economy.
I could be wrong.
Marcus, you're way off on your calculation of the cost of the Afghan war. So far, it's cost about $325 billion. By your estimate, that would mean there are only 325 members of the Taliban. Maybe you meant a million per. In any case, it's certainly more profound than the cost of her vacation, but I think we're talking apples and oranges.
http://costofwar.com/[/quote]
I disagree with the whole spending money in the US argument, I just think it's a populist one (but that's a personal view). Because then where do we set the limits? Should she drive a GM car? Should she eat food only produced in the US? What about clothes? You get the drift...
To some extent, yes. The presidential (and first ladies) motorcade is composed of american vehicles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_State_Car_(United_States)
Also, Obama made it a point at his inauguration that he would wear an American suit (I think it was Hart Schaffner Marx).
Point is, the First Family should, to some extent, support American businesses. Obama was adamant about 'Buy American' provisions in the stimulus, yet his own wife is stimulating another economy (to some extent) when she could easily chose an American destination to go to on vacation.
Unless this is some attempt to inject some money into the Spanish economy, which could probably use a stimulus more than us. (I think we can all agree that a stimulus for Spain is probably good for us anyway, although this is by no means enough of a stimulus to make that economy bounce back lol)
By estimation of our Generals, there are 100 active Afghan Taliban members against which we are fighting. The $225 billion differential is the difference between dollars spent on general Afghan support and ware vs. direct anti-Taliban activities.
Also... to the other poster... since when does living in Washington make you an expert on anything other than crack and prostitution (of both the sexual and political variety)? I wasn't saying the dollar value was weighty enough to warrant my concern, I was saying the issue itself (i.e. where and how the first lady is vacationing is not).
"By estimation of our Generals, there are 100 active Afghan Taliban members against which we are fighting. The $225 billion differential is the difference between dollars spent on general Afghan support and ware vs. direct anti-Taliban activities."
Right, and in Vietnam we were only fighting the North Vietnamese...
If you hear it from a military rep or general on fix, cnbc, cnn, whatever, its piss and wind.
Ronald Reagan's second Presidential Nomination acceptance speech where he is talking about government spending:
"You know, we could say they(the federal government) spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors."
I can tell you from experience(and lots of it) within the United States Military that there was without a doubt more than 100 Taliban killed, and far more then 1,000 total members.
We are not fighting against JUST Afghanistan Taliban groups but from all over the world. This is not even taking into consideration uh, their means of supply? Some of those guys have better gear than us(where did it come from???), no I'm not joking.
I have seen a multitude of people either
A. Buy their own SAPI(Small Arms Protective Insert) plates due to a shortage B. Get issued one that was cracked.
Nothing people hear back home regarding the wars will be accurate as to what the truth may be, I can guarantee it.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/06/michelle-obamas-lavish-spain-va…
"According to CBS News, the tax dollar part of the vacation include an estimated $146,000 round-trip cost for the U.S. Air Force 757 aircraft, not counting ground time; about $95,000 in hotel costs for an estimated 70 security personnel -- Secret Service and military -- who get a $273-a-day government per diem, plus costs for the dozen or so cars in her motorcade. I'm told that three shifts of agents are needed for a trip of this magnitude."
FYI... First Lady's 8 vacation's versus Bush's 77 vacations in 8 years... and thats a sitting US President, not a First Lady. And those are only trips to his Crawford ranch.
http://trueslant.com/christopherthomas/2009/06/03/perspective-obamas-da…
[quote=Marcus_Halberstram]FYI... First Lady's 8 vacation's versus Bush's 77 vacations in 8 years... and thats a sitting US President, not a First Lady. And those are only trips to his Crawford ranch.
http://trueslant.com/christopherthomas/2009/06/03/perspective-obamas-da…]
Umm, 8 vacations in 3 months is a pace of 256 in 8 years, a little more than 77. Nevertheless, this has ZERO to do with George Bush and everything to do with the fact that our politicians and political families act like royalty and are in the process of bankrupting our nation and bringing us shame rather than bringing us progress and glory that a Charlamagne or Julius Caesar royal brought.
They do act like Royalty, but do you really think that electorate does not like it. They all fell in love with Chelsea Clinton getting married as a princess. I don't care frankly that George Bush took 77 vacations, or that Mrs. Obama is taking 200, I don't care. What matters is if they are doing something meaningful, which clearly both administrations failed and are failing to do.
As for Mrs. Obama, and any other First lady, this job was designed to act like a Queen. First Ladies do not do anything and are supposed to take care of the "white house." So we should have been used to that silly title for awhile
Arithmetic is a bitch, aint it? Honestly, I really don't give a shit about any of this. The fact that we even elected this guy shows that we do not have the will to educate ourselves, so we can properly govern ourselves. Ironic, our experiment is not brought to ruin by civil war, depression, or other cataclysmic event, but the people's willingness to follow entertainment instead of politics.
"It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom— and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
The Obama family takes more vacations than Reagan and Eisenhower combined. He vacations more like a European than an American.
Goddamn it, does anyone know American history in this country anymore? The first lady's job IS NOT to act like a queen! What do you think the patriot revolution of the 1770s was all about? Why did George Washington turn down the title king? Why were plans for the White House and Capitol rejected due to their outrageous luxury? Why are there strict constitutional limits on the executive's power? The fact that our political families act like royalty is a shame on our nation, and a shame to the American media.
Calm the fuck down, they were referring how the First Lady takes on the role of a figure head... reading to deaf kids... meeting with other first ladies/foreign dignitaries/figureheads to discuss diplomatic/humanitarian issues, etc...
Bring shame to our nation? Maybe you need to fall on your sword if so much shame has been brought to you. This ain't the far east Hokie, I don't know WTF you're talking about bringing shame to the people.
I specifically did not mention Bush in my comments because 1) I know Bush took a lot of vacations to Crawford and 2) Bush is gone, lets compare the here and now.
Bush went to TX. It is his home. He fucked around on the ranch. He had his advisors there, the news was there. It was fucking Texas, not Europe. Who cares though, Bush is not the standard bearer for things. I don't care if Bush took a vacation to Mars, we are not talking about him.
I am sure that most of the 75K per day is because of the security the First Lady needs when she travels. She has to take up a floor, fly on Air Force 2 and have a phalanx of secret service. That is fine. Not saying she is popping bottles and going hog wild. The problem is it is still costing tax payers 75K a day for her vacation.
I am not saying that Obama and her are not entitled to a vacation and if they take one it will obviously not be cheap, but you are an elected official. You need to use common sense and envision how things will be looked at. Regardless of how we all feel about the common man, his life is sucking kind of hardcore right now and Obama and his wife are living it up. He is playing golf, basketball, meeting with Oprah, having the time of his life. Michelle is going all over, shutting down beaches, life is good. Well that sends a shitty message to everyone else.
I stand by my statement and say I think it is bullshit.
Welcome to American people. You acted like you were seeing Britney Spears for the first time and elected a king, not a president. I am sorry, but Obama did not even have to break a sweat to get elected. Race 100% had to do with it and this is apparent by the normalizing of public opinion for Obama vs the still outrageously high opinion among certain groups.
http://www.factcheck.org/
Great website for a pretty unbiased opinion on things.
Marcus, the fact that our politicians have bankrupted our very nation brings shame to our nation and to the electorate. The fact that you believe several hundred grand per vacation (8 in a summer) is acceptable means you belong living in Washington, D.C., suckling at the teat of the hard labor of the rest of the nation just like most of my neighbors do. "Washington" as a political community is totally pathetic, totally cut off from reality, believing it knows best for everyone else, believing that it's ok to pay 22-year-old contractor administrators $150 per hour. Washington believes $100 million is a rounding error, that it's beneath the president to go on a conference call, that the speaker of the House is entitled to a military jet more luxurious than most corporate jets.
Me calm the fuck down? Why don't you wake the fuck up?
VaTech... yes, all your neighbors, but not you the Enlightened One.
Do you fail to understand that $75K a day is not being spent on spa treatments? The President should not be forbidden from vacationing because his security has to be ensured. Rather, he should be able to enjoy the same luxuries afforded to everyone else in the US and its the US Government's job to protect him while he enjoys those same liberties.
As the author of that article wrote, the Obama Broadway date may have cost $75,000 but they very well could have flew commercial, taken a cab to Broadway and walked to the show and dinner... but they likely wouldn't be alive after. The extravagant cost of the President and his family's personal affairs (i.e. dates, vacations, etc...) is 99.999% comprised of security costs, costs that would be incurred whether they're going on vacation or visiting the Queen for the anniversary of the Dutch monarchy.
I bring up Bush first to demonstrate that the cost isn't extravagance, it is necessary security precautions. If it costs $17 million to take Bush to his private god knows how many thousand acres ranch in Texas, its obviously because of security costs. Secondly I mention it to demonstrate the fact that this is a purely political-fueled outrage. None of you were bitching up a storm when Bush was going on vacation every 2 weeks, nor were you counting how much it was costing US tax payers.
What part about 8 vacations in the summer don't you get? Are they entitled to 8 vacations in the summer to the tune of millions of dollars to the tax payers? No one here has stated the president isn't entitled to a vacation, but EIGHT IN ONE SUMMER?
I just don't get it. The White House has to be considered one of the top, say, 200 grandest, most luxurious homes in the history of mankind. I've barely left D.C. for a real vacation in 8 years and I live in a crappy, cheap apartment. Why can't the people expect their president to enjoy the luxuries of the White House and NW Washington, D.C. for the overwhelming majority of the year? Why do we as a nation consider it OK for the president to spend exorbidant public funds on personal travel and entertainment? The president lives like a mega-millionaire on public funds, presidents of both parties. The so-called public servants--president, speaker, majority leader--live like royalty while tens of millions of people are unemployed or underemployed. It's a sham and a shame. And it's the first time I truly understand where the venom of the French Revolution came from--the Michelle Obamas of the time lived in extravagence while the people suffered, and then the Michelle Obamas were arrogant and derisive about the fact.
So if I understand correctly, its not the associated costs of necessary security you object to, its the fact that she's take 8 vacations this summer alone?
I think that the First Lady should be able to enjoy her vacation because part of the reason Obama was elected was to repair foreign relations. How can you heal a rift between international states if you never spend time there? Yes, I realize there is a recession going on but the President and First Lady can't be encapsulated by domestic issues. The trip to Spain is a master stroke. Think about it, how much press does a foreign leader get when they visit the US? By visiting Spain, she is endearing the US with the Spanish citizenry by showing an active interest in their nation.
Not to mention, she is footing the bill for her own expenses. The $75,000 is in security costs. She would incur these costs whether she vacationed in Spain or Spartanburg. Granted it may be incrementally more due to it being a foreign trip, I still think she is above board considering the circumstances.
Also, you might not have noticed that although the Obama's have been taking a number of recent vacations, they have been taking vacations in different states. One trip its NC( http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20100423/OBAMA/100423009/BLOG-Live…), the next its Arizona, then Maine, and so forth. I find it patriotic and warms my heart to see a leader wanting to be out in the nation, meeting with everyday people, and visiting local businesses .
1) He is just stumping for embattled Dems who are in danger of losing their congressional seats
2) Repairing foreign relations? I guess you haven't been following the news. Obama's fanfare has faded a lot since taking office. I am pretty sure he isn't Israel's on the top of Israels list.
Yes, my issue is the 8 trips. Both parties are sickening to me.
Where are you seeing these 8 vacations anyway? I've been unable to see them anywhere... even on Rush Libaugh's site... who claimed that she flew her and 40 friends out to Spain and rented out 60 villas on the US Taxpayer's dime.
.
Michelle is perusing the system just like all of the individuals in close proximity to power.
Congress -- 11% approval rating. All worthless.
.
I still don't see why you're all so outraged, its pretty much in-line with what was going on in the Bush administration... where were you then VaTech4Ever? Bush took about 230 vacations in his 8 year tenure (or about 30 trips per year) http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008050054. Why weren't you bitching and complaining then? That wasn't wasteful and immoral apparently? Forget about recession, that was perhaps some of the most vulnerable points in US history... the financial crisis, 9/11, etc.... Not to mention Condi Rice flew to New York to go shoe shopping and watch a Broadway show during Hurricane Katrina... I don't see any posts from back then on here either.
And FYI... people happen to vacation more in the summer time. So while I may have taken 16 days off in the last 2 months, that doesn't annualize to me taking 96 days off per year. Yes, arithmetic is a bitch but so is common sense.
I'm not defending the Obama's as much as I'm calling all of you out on being completely full of populous, media brainwashed, conservative vitriol bullshit.
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under. - H.L. Mencken
How many people here even read the article? 75k/day to make sure the first lady is not abducted by terrorists or assassinated is not a lot of money. The article clearly states.
"The first lady is paying for her own room, food and transportation, and the friends she brought will pay for theirs as well. But the government picks up security costs, and the image of the president's wife enjoying a fancy vacation at a luxury resort abroad while Americans lose their jobs back home struck some as ill-timed. European papers are having a field day tracking her entourage, a New York Daily News columnist called her "a modern-day Marie Antoinette" and the blogosphere has been buzzing."
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10219/1078491-84.stm?cmpid=news.xml#ixzz…
This should seriously not be news. When Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton went to Africa to go on a safari I wonder what the costs were for those trips? The fact that they met dignitaries in some of these countries made it seem more official, but at the end of the day they were quasi-vacations a la Michelle's trip.
No wonder she wanted to get out the country, every where they do go the American public accosts them. If they had gone to Baton Rouge, Louisiana and ate at a fancy restaurant, people would have been shouting about their preference for "fine dining" when Red Lobster is down the street..or how a vacation should not have been taken at all. She's the First Lady, not the President and there are more important things going on like what economic policies are in the pipeline that will affect us all. She obviously tried to hedge any PR risk by reimbursing hotel, food and flight expenses for everyone and it's still not good enough. Get off the populist bandwagon.
Fugit repellendus excepturi nesciunt exercitationem optio pariatur. A harum eaque saepe est. Corrupti odio sunt magni earum corporis. Dolorem molestiae repellat autem est nobis rerum et consequatur.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Aperiam inventore enim aut impedit. Velit quam porro et non. Quod modi et nesciunt iure qui quisquam explicabo. Perspiciatis possimus consequuntur deleniti aut numquam in ipsa nihil. Quia quam sint veniam eligendi.
Autem non ut suscipit molestiae itaque beatae veritatis. Consequatur tempora sit a debitis aperiam. Enim suscipit non qui autem dolorem ut. Dolor molestiae vitae et quia est nemo. Aspernatur nisi nemo pariatur iure alias omnis autem. Ex dicta nihil aspernatur sit ullam non. Consequatur possimus aut accusamus enim odio.
Sapiente ipsum odit sunt quos. Cupiditate assumenda ipsa ut. Perspiciatis est aut quia dolorum consequatur et iste. Et et dolorum corrupti sit.
Voluptatem impedit porro omnis voluptatem vel. Quia facere animi iure ut quia et. Quia officia ullam ducimus voluptas est provident omnis praesentium. Dolor aliquid voluptatum ut molestiae. Perferendis consectetur maiores placeat ipsum id optio provident. Aliquid voluptate expedita adipisci dolores vitae ut.
Sunt quis sit expedita voluptatum voluptates fugiat corporis. Aut totam et dolores ut voluptatem recusandae minima. Est incidunt repellendus quis non. Dolores quae molestiae qui beatae.
Et dolores porro quia dolore est explicabo ut. Sed animi ducimus dolores ut consequatur. Quia qui accusamus veritatis reiciendis quo iure quis. Voluptas debitis at officiis amet ut. Mollitia ut sit et dolorem et fuga ipsa. Mollitia non voluptatibus nobis iure dolores eius. Molestias nemo illum corporis soluta neque cum distinctio.
Est rerum eos delectus neque sit dolorem. Corrupti ut eos qui repellendus a doloremque. Est sit voluptatem voluptatum.