So let me see if I've got this correct:
You take as having veracity a statement that a Presidential visit has a cost out of ALL proportion to any OTHER Presidential visit EVER--EVER!!!!--and yet, you dismiss my breakdown even though:
A) I admit that the numbers I'm working off of are dated (they are from the Bush the Younger administration)
B) I take those numbers and then, just to see if I can get anywhere NEAR the numbers mentioned in that article, double them.
In order for this logic to work, what one would have to believe is that the cost of an overseas Presidential visit has gone up by a *full* order of magnitude in a space of less than a decade. To communicate the sense of proportion, that means that the Toyota you bought in 2002 for $25,000 would now be a $250,000 car. In less than ten years. Now, do I have all the numbers? No. I don't. I admit that. But I'll bet you dinner, at any restaurant in this country, that my numbers are CLOSER to reality than the numbers that you think have some veracity.
I'm sorry but how that logic works is *utterly* inescapable to me. How anyone could believe that this trip could cost anywhere *near* $200 million per day is absolutely beyond my ability to comprehend.
The point of the numbers I ran was not to give an absolutely accurate picture of what the Presidential trip would cost--even if I HAD access to that information I wouldn't publish it for the reason I already elucidated, to do so would give a reasonably talented intelligence analyst enough information to begin building a picture of the security arrangements. I wouldn't do that because I would not want the Secret Service showing up at my door wanting to have a conversation about Presidential security and how I'm making their job harder--something I think that they take a rather dim view of. No, my point was to demonstrate that this $200 million figure is
patently ridiculous. If the figure were, say, $25 million or $50 million a day okay I wouldn't quibble but we're talking about a sum of money that is keeping the best part of 100,000 soldiers in the field in combat operations. That is a non-trivial amount of money.
You can dismiss my back of the envelope math if you wish and accept as being true a figure that was created out of sheer prestidigitation but please don't try to pretend that there is a *logical* reason for doing so because, quite plainly, there isn't. AT LEAST the numbers I was working with had some tenuous connection to reality and, as I stated, I was generous and assumed that the cost of everything had doubled so I took the 2002 figures, took the high-end number and then doubled it.
Since this Indian official has no BETTER access to the information than I do why is it that you consider his figure of $200 million to be at all plausible while you dismiss my more conservative figures out of hand?
Cheers
Aj
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jess
Ya know, I was merely commenting on the article(s) provided. You can decide that I am "conservative" if you choose to even while I have freely and openly admitted being bi-partisan and have stated repeatedly in threads that I TRY to look at all sides and read all information provided.
There are some of us out here who do not agree with one another and that's fine. I have however not chosen to name call and behave as demeaning as what I just saw above. I can appreciate your position and not bash you even when I might see it as very biased and not at all logical based on the information that was being discussed.
If AJ were perhaps working for the White House and presenting known numbers based on this trip, instead of saying..."Figure this.". or "let's say that", because to me, those are guesses. Even if loosely based upon an article she came across from some former presidential envoy, they are not current, not based on this trip, so to me they hold no water.
The article that was linked clearly states that the comment was made from inside officials within the government of India. I don't know Bachman from Eve, however, I can read an article without extrapolating words or innuendo that isn't in print. So, while you may feel justified in making snide snarky comments, I feel quite justified in pointing out that A) I was responding directly to a specific post B)I was responding based purely on the article presented, C) Snide comments hold no merit.
Sorry I didn't hit quote, but this post in in response to this:
MsDemeanor " Plus, it's not like the government is coughing up fresh cash to hire those folks. Most everyone involved is getting paid the same amount whether they are on the trip or sitting on their ass in some office playing solitaire on the computer.
Enough of this silliness, though. I'm sure that our local drive-by conservative got a big thrill by dropping yet another bit of baseless crap in a thread just to stir up the liberals. Let's get back to the important stuff. Like why the repugs haven't fixed everything yet. Come on slackers, where are all the new jobs?"
This is the type of post that does not create discussions or debate, it just promotes further division between folks who could be allies.
|