hhfarang Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 The US is not the most indebted nation in the world, especially when considered at a percentage of GDP:http://en.wikipedia...._by_public_debt Now I feel a lot more comfortable about the debt as that shows we are doing better than Zimbabwe, Lebanon, Portugal (barely), Italy, Ireland, and Greece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harrry Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 What a huge cost to have to carry your own car everywhere you go, 2nd plane, flight crew, avgas et al, but I guess that is not of concern to the Govt. I am sure, whoever you support, would have taken a taxi from the airport! Probably cheaper to bring your own car if in Phuket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moe666 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) The US is not the most indebted nation in the world, especially when considered at a percentage of GDP:http://en.wikipedia...._by_public_debt Now I feel a lot more comfortable about the debt as that shows we are doing better than Zimbabwe, Lebanon, Portugal (barely), Italy, Ireland, and Greece. The thing to remember is that most of the debt is owed to the citizens of the US, the China debt is way over blown. The continous compareing the US debt to the above countries is a waste of time as California has a bigger economy than a few of them, prespective, prespective also the US isn't Greece. Edited November 20, 2012 by moe666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 What a huge cost to have to carry your own car everywhere you go, 2nd plane, flight crew, avgas et al, but I guess that is not of concern to the Govt. do you realize how much wealth would be destroyed if the leader of the free world was to be attacked? the costs of security are a tiny drop in the bucket. use your brain, kid. the leader of the free world? hyperbole much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asiantravel Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 What a huge cost to have to carry your own car everywhere you go, 2nd plane, flight crew, avgas et al, but I guess that is not of concern to the Govt. What do you suggest? A locally made Ford Fiesta hatchback from Rayong? The point is does any other president or politician anywhere in the world engage in this kind of extravagance of using 2 huge planes to transport a president ? I'm sure there could be more cost-effective ways of overcoming security concerns if they really tried - if they really wanted to? At the end of the day this is money if the USA doesn't have and wouldn't have without the ability to create it from thin air. All part of the the illusion of grandeur that is USA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fookhaht Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) What a huge cost to have to carry your own car everywhere you go, 2nd plane, flight crew, avgas et al, but I guess that is not of concern to the Govt. What do you suggest? A locally made Ford Fiesta hatchback from Rayong? No, I think he prefers the open-roofed limo (like Kennedy used) so that the president can wave to all the snipers... Edited November 20, 2012 by Fookhaht 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunshine51 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 The Hummer might have worked for G.W. Bush. It worked pretty good for Clinton! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) What a huge cost to have to carry your own car everywhere you go, 2nd plane, flight crew, avgas et al, but I guess that is not of concern to the Govt. What do you suggest? A locally made Ford Fiesta hatchback from Rayong? The point is does any other president or politician anywhere in the world engage in this kind of extravagance of using 2 huge planes to transport a president ? I'm sure there could be more cost-effective ways of overcoming security concerns if they really tried - if they really wanted to? At the end of the day this is money if the USA doesn't have and wouldn't have without the ability to create it from thin air. All part of the the illusion of grandeur that is USA Yep - that would be a great look would it? An assasinated president as the result of 'cost saving measures'. Damned if you do, even worse if you don't. The problem with Asiawatchers post is that it is disingenuous. Imagine if Obama did arrive by flying coach and got the airport bus to KSR for his stay - the Obama haters would scream that he's downgrading US pre-eminence in the world by doing so. The bloke can't win in their eyes. No matter - he's won the thing that counts. An election. Again. Edited November 20, 2012 by samran 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Honestly, I think protecting our president very well even if it's over the top is about as non-controversial political issue as I can imagine. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Honestly, I think protecting our president very well even if it's over the top is about as non-controversial political issue as I can imagine. You're right. The level of hatred directed at this President by dis-enfranchised Americans is at an astounding level. We all know and expect world leaders to travel as appropriate. This is frankly, beyond silly the complaining about his "ride." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferangled Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I think a few people are taking the comments a bit too personally here. I'm glad Obama won the election, in a best of a bad bunch sort of way... To be perfectly honest the alternative was pretty worrying. I don't believe the sentiments expressed here are directed negatively towards Obama as a president but more at the ludicrous show of wealth and extravagance given the current economic climate, which let's face it the US have a considerable amount of accountability for. The US, as a lynch pin of the global economy but also a country with debts spiralling out of control, would do well to make a public show of taking the economic situation seriously and any jaunt like this with the obvious show of extravagance is OTT and will attract criticism. It is to be expected. No one seriously expects the US president to fly coach class and take a taxi to his engagements but perhaps some appropriate middle ground could be considered... I have worked for some of the most rich, powerful and influential people on this planet and none have this ludicrous show of extravagance when travelling. In fact most opt for the complete reverse, low key and off the public radar. The clip from the Dublin visit just shows how incredibly ridiculous all this expenditure and OTT security measures are when the "Leader of the Free World" is defeated by something as basic as ground clearance, making a complete mockery of all the extra security precautions as they drive off into the sunset leaving the president exposed to all manner of attack and ridicule until what appears to be a passenger coach is moved in to hide his blushes... farcical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 No one seriously expects the US president to fly coach class and take a taxi to his engagements but perhaps some appropriate middle ground could be considered... What would you suggest? take a few millimeters of armour protection off his Caddy limo to improve MPG performance? Give a day off for a couple Secret Service guys to chase skirts? During my life, I've witnessed one President's assassination (JFK), his Presidential candidate brother (Bobbie Kennedy), and one attempted assassination (Reagan). Your suggestion to find some cost-saving middle ground sounds a bit stingy for the leader of the free world don't ya think? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferangled Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 No one seriously expects the US president to fly coach class and take a taxi to his engagements but perhaps some appropriate middle ground could be considered... What would you suggest? take a few millimeters of armour protection off his Caddy limo to improve MPG performance? Give a day off for a couple Secret Service guys to chase skirts? During my life, I've witnessed one President's assassination (JFK), his Presidential candidate brother (Bobbie Kennedy), and one attempted assassination (Reagan). Your suggestion to find some cost-saving middle ground sounds a bit stingy for the leader of the free world don't ya think? For the leader of the world debt...er... no, seems quite appropriate! Perhaps just the one private jet, couple of armoured cars and moderate security detail would be more appropriate?! I used the "leader of the free world" tag in jest, let's face it, it's a US title that holds absolutely no relevance or significance in the real world, and lost all credibility under the Bush administration/s when it became clear that junior had about as much geographical knowledge as an eggplant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I think a few people are taking the comments a bit too personally here. I'm glad Obama won the election, in a best of a bad bunch sort of way... To be perfectly honest the alternative was pretty worrying. I don't believe the sentiments expressed here are directed negatively towards Obama as a president but more at the ludicrous show of wealth and extravagance given the current economic climate, which let's face it the US have a considerable amount of accountability for. The US, as a lynch pin of the global economy but also a country with debts spiralling out of control, would do well to make a public show of taking the economic situation seriously and any jaunt like this with the obvious show of extravagance is OTT and will attract criticism. It is to be expected. No one seriously expects the US president to fly coach class and take a taxi to his engagements but perhaps some appropriate middle ground could be considered... I have worked for some of the most rich, powerful and influential people on this planet and none have this ludicrous show of extravagance when travelling. In fact most opt for the complete reverse, low key and off the public radar. The clip from the Dublin visit just shows how incredibly ridiculous all this expenditure and OTT security measures are when the "Leader of the Free World" is defeated by something as basic as ground clearance, making a complete mockery of all the extra security precautions as they drive off into the sunset leaving the president exposed to all manner of attack and ridicule until what appears to be a passenger coach is moved in to hide his blushes... farcical. Nothing is fool proof, but that doesn't mean you go low key or go for a middle ground like you suggest. Sure, some very rich people get away with low key. One of the richest guys I know doesn't own a car. The president of the US will never be able to be low key. Safety issues aside (and I think they are very real) there is a diplomacy aspect. Turn up to a negotiation in anything but the most impressive ride, and you are already half a step behind the other bloke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferangled Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I think a few people are taking the comments a bit too personally here. I'm glad Obama won the election, in a best of a bad bunch sort of way... To be perfectly honest the alternative was pretty worrying. I don't believe the sentiments expressed here are directed negatively towards Obama as a president but more at the ludicrous show of wealth and extravagance given the current economic climate, which let's face it the US have a considerable amount of accountability for. The US, as a lynch pin of the global economy but also a country with debts spiralling out of control, would do well to make a public show of taking the economic situation seriously and any jaunt like this with the obvious show of extravagance is OTT and will attract criticism. It is to be expected. No one seriously expects the US president to fly coach class and take a taxi to his engagements but perhaps some appropriate middle ground could be considered... I have worked for some of the most rich, powerful and influential people on this planet and none have this ludicrous show of extravagance when travelling. In fact most opt for the complete reverse, low key and off the public radar. The clip from the Dublin visit just shows how incredibly ridiculous all this expenditure and OTT security measures are when the "Leader of the Free World" is defeated by something as basic as ground clearance, making a complete mockery of all the extra security precautions as they drive off into the sunset leaving the president exposed to all manner of attack and ridicule until what appears to be a passenger coach is moved in to hide his blushes... farcical. Nothing is fool proof, but that doesn't mean you go low key or go for a middle ground like you suggest. Sure, some very rich people get away with low key. One of the richest guys I know doesn't own a car. The president of the US will never be able to be low key. Safety issues aside (and I think they are very real) there is a diplomacy aspect. Turn up to a negotiation in anything but the most impressive ride, and you are already half a step behind the other bloke. I'm afraid you are just perpetrating the very style (read gross extravagance and vulgar, shameless display of wealth) over substance thinking that has led to the current economic climate and the sickening class divides we see in many societies. Personally I couldn't give a flying cr@p what car the "other bloke" turned up to the meeting in, I'd be more interested in what they actually had to say... I know that's an alien concept to the American mindset as evidenced by the entire election farce. We should call the next one "President Idol" and run the entire election campaign as a televised popularity competition based on the format of the pop version. As far as the safety concerns go I'd hazard a guess that US foreign policy (read bomb the sh@t out of them and steal their stuff) might have a little something to do with that... and let's face it, if someone really wants someone dead in this world, there's very little anyone can do to stop them - how thick the armour on your caddy is or how many jets you fly your entourage around in is somewhat irrelevant if someone really is committed to killing you. Fear of assassination is not what prompts this OTT show, it's just that - a show, and who's better at putting on a big, brash show than the Americans?! Just a suggestion that perhaps a big show of wealth is not appropriate when you're responsible for a global economic crash... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impulse Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) During my life, I've witnessed one President's assassination (JFK), his Presidential candidate brother (Bobbie Kennedy), and one attempted assassination (Reagan). You forgot the attempt on Ford. Most people forget Ford was ever president. Squeaky Fromme (sp?) comes to mind, but maybe that's wrong? (Googled it, correct) Ooh, forgot the attempt a few days later by Sara Jane Moore.... Edited November 20, 2012 by impulse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaleySabai Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 In a peaceful utopia of course you do net need this sort of thing. No doubt you live in one, but the rest of us do not. ...... Ya,especially if you are an American Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fookhaht Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 I have worked for some of the most rich, powerful and influential people on this planet and none have this ludicrous show of extravagance when travelling. In fact most opt for the complete reverse, low key and off the public radar. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiangmaikelly Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 What a huge cost to have to carry your own car everywhere you go, 2nd plane, flight crew, avgas et al, but I guess that is not of concern to the Govt. I take it as a sign of a sad world we live in when leaders are singled out for death by idiots. Not exactly like there was any other choice other than stay home. Abraham Lincoln just wanted to see a play. Sad times for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferangled Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) I have worked for some of the most rich, powerful and influential people on this planet and none have this ludicrous show of extravagance when travelling. In fact most opt for the complete reverse, low key and off the public radar. Exactly, plenty of room, a certain rustic charm and environmentally aware to boot... and most importantly small bump in the road proof! Edited November 21, 2012 by Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Payboy Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) I have worked for some of the most rich, powerful and influential people on this planet and none have this ludicrous show of extravagance when travelling. In fact most opt for the complete reverse, low key and off the public radar. Exactly, plenty of room, a certain rustic charm and environmentally aware to boot... and most importantly small bump in the road proof! Let me guess, thats the original Lamborghini. Edited November 21, 2012 by Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fookhaht Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) I have worked for some of the most rich, powerful and influential people on this planet and none have this ludicrous show of extravagance when travelling. In fact most opt for the complete reverse, low key and off the public radar. Exactly, plenty of room, a certain rustic charm and environmentally aware to boot... and most importantly small bump in the road proof! Let me guess, thats the original Lamborghini. If it was a Lamborghini, the ox would be pushing from behind. Edited November 21, 2012 by Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.png.76be522b3b43e7458166b9dac9e422ed.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now