Photo Op

[RkFast]

$328,835.00

 

Unless the money for this flight was not already set aside in a "publicity" budget or the like, what does the cost have to do with ANYTHING?

[erynthered]

Unless the money for this flight was not already set aside in a "publicity" budget or the like, what does the cost have to do with ANYTHING?

 

Regardless of whether or not the money was set aside for this, its a waste of tax payer money. Either way, its a waste, IMO.

[Wacka]

It cost millions with all the lost work from the people that ran outside in panic.

[Wacka]

Here is a post from another board I am on:

 

If this happened during the Bush Administration, the media would be falling over themselves to get answers to the questions below. They would also be getting teary interviews with anybody who was terrified by this incident. They would be interviewing Manhattan schoolchildren, asking them how scared they were of "Mr. Bush's plane."

 

But since this occurred during Dear Leader's Administration, they are only interested in how quickly they can make this issue disappear, with no harm done.

 

If there's a single journalist left in the White House briefing room, I would suggest some, or all, of the following questions be asked:

 

* Who, specifically by name, approved the use of one of the Air Force One planes for this operation?

* Who, specifically by name, gave this person the ability to authorize such use of this plane.

* Who, specifically by name, approved the use of the military jets for this operation?

* Who, specifically by name, gave this person the ability to authorize such use of military jets?

* What was the specific purpose of the photos?

* Who, specifically by name, requested, approved the request and who took these photos?

* Where are the photos and why haven't we seen them? We paid for them.

* Who, specifically by name, was on the plane? Both crew and passengers.

* What was the FAA told about this flight before hand?

* Who, specifically by name, at the FAA approved the flight plan beforehand?

* Were all pilots in the area of NYC told about the flight?

* Why was secrecy demanded? Why was it provided?

* Who, specifically by name, is going to get fired for this incident?

* Will the firms that lost revenue as their buildings emptied by compensated?

[IDBillzFan]

Here is a post from another board I am on:

I enjoy yelling about something Obama just like the next conservative, but it's hard -- if not impossible -- to convince anyone who pays attention to politics that the administration really knew about this. When you stop to consider how hard Obama is working to reduce the American concept of terrorism, it makes absolutely no sense that they would do something that even remotely reminds everyone about 9/11 or you'll start to remind people why they had no problem with words like "terrorist" or "terrorism" and things like "torture." Obama needs people to forget what happened on 9/11, not remember it. So I suspect this was just a low-level administrative !@#$ up.

 

Also, what's done is done. He said it won't happen again. People need to let this go and focus on the bigger picture.

[kegtapr]

Also, what's done is done. He said it won't happen again. People need to let this go and focus on the bigger picture.

 

Like how many carbon credits it will take to offset the melting glacial ice from this flight?

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

I enjoy yelling about something Obama just like the next conservative, but it's hard -- if not impossible -- to convince anyone who pays attention to politics that the administration really knew about this.

 

Obama needs people to forget what happened on 9/11, not remember it. So I suspect this was just a low-level administrative !@#$ up.

 

Also, what's done is done. He said it won't happen again. People need to let this go and focus on the bigger picture.

Dammm I never knew you had it in you!

[DC Tom]

Dammm I never knew you had it in you!

 

LA's right-wing...but he's fundamentally honest. And smart.

 

 

You should try it sometime.

[Nanker]

I enjoy yelling about something Obama just like the next conservative, but it's hard -- if not impossible -- to convince anyone who pays attention to politics that the administration really knew about this. When you stop to consider how hard Obama is working to reduce the American concept of terrorism, it makes absolutely no sense that they would do something that even remotely reminds everyone about 9/11 or you'll start to remind people why they had no problem with words like "terrorist" or "terrorism" and things like "torture." Obama needs people to forget what happened on 9/11, not remember it. So I suspect this was just a low-level administrative !@#$ up.

 

Also, what's done is done. He said it won't happen again. People need to let this go and focus on the bigger picture.

 

So you don't think it was a cynical attempt to desensitize the public to the terrorist attack on 9/11?

I believe this administration has contempt for the military and that it would do nothing to prevent it from being portrayed in a bad light.

[DC Tom]

I believe this administration has contempt for the military and that it would do nothing to prevent it from being portrayed in a bad light.

 

So they chose the one plane in the military that most visibly represents the president? Yeah, that makes sense.

 

Did you know the flu is a bioweapon intended to desensitize us to socialized medicine, too?

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

LA's right-wing...but he's fundamentally honest. And smart.

 

You should try it sometime.

I am fundamentally honest. What's are your fundamental's based on? Party politics?

 

100 days and he's a failure?

 

Hell you more than likely had him a failure at day 10.

 

6 months ago my 401K was losing hand over fist.

 

The last month it's steadily climbing. That's one of my benchmarks for success.

[bills_fan]

I am fundamentally honest. What's are your fundamental's based on? Party politics?

 

100 days and he's a failure?

 

Hell you more than likely had him a failure at day 10.

 

6 months ago my 401K was losing hand over fist.

 

The last month it's steadily climbing. That's one of my benchmarks for success.

 

 

Good. I'll hold you to that when the S&P is trading at 550 in October.

[DC Tom]

I am fundamentally honest. What's are your fundamental's based on? Party politics?

 

100 days and he's a failure?

 

Hell you more than likely had him a failure at day 10.

 

6 months ago my 401K was losing hand over fist.

 

The last month it's steadily climbing. That's one of my benchmarks for success.

 

You're fundamentally brain-damaged.

 

I haven't judged Obama at all. He hasn't had time to do much of anything - in fact, I've said as much when other people have judged him (like the G20 summit, when people complained he didn't get everything he wanted from the Europeans. And I rationally pointed out "A new president on his first diplomatic mission overseas, what do you expect?")

 

And your benchmark for success is retarded. The president doesn't manage your 401k. You do. He also doesn't manage the stock market in real-time - what the president does can't impact market fundamentals immediately, there's lag time in between, probably about 3-6 months (I don't know, I'm just guessing). By your retarded little measure of success, Bush's lame-duck economic policies would be the real success. (Which I don't believe, it's just a reducto ad absurdum argument to point out how idiotic your judgement is.)

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

You're fundamentally brain-damaged.

 

I haven't judged Obama at all. He hasn't had time to do much of anything - in fact, I've said as much when other people have judged him (like the G20 summit, when people complained he didn't get everything he wanted from the Europeans. And I rationally pointed out "A new president on his first diplomatic mission overseas, what do you expect?")

 

And your benchmark for success is retarded. The president doesn't manage your 401k. You do. He also doesn't manage the stock market in real-time - what the president does can't impact market fundamentals immediately, there's lag time in between, probably about 3-6 months (I don't know, I'm just guessing). By your retarded little measure of success, Bush's lame-duck economic policies would be the real success. (Which I don't believe, it's just a reducto ad absurdum argument to point out how idiotic your judgement is.)

 

You haven't judged Obama at all????

 

Saying most of what he does wrong is what?

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Good. I'll hold you to that when the S&P is trading at 550 in October.

 

The S&P is where it was 6 months ago.

 

http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/6m/_/_gspc

 

There was a panic whne Obama took over, now the markets are running at what should be their typical slow growth pace.

 

Whats that saying ??? if you invest in the stock market you are in it for the long haul?

[IDBillzFan]

Saying most of what he does wrong is what?

It's call objectively observing.

[Kelly the Dog]

You're fundamentally brain-damaged.

 

I haven't judged Obama at all. He hasn't had time to do much of anything - in fact, I've said as much when other people have judged him (like the G20 summit, when people complained he didn't get everything he wanted from the Europeans. And I rationally pointed out "A new president on his first diplomatic mission overseas, what do you expect?")

 

And your benchmark for success is retarded. The president doesn't manage your 401k. You do. He also doesn't manage the stock market in real-time - what the president does can't impact market fundamentals immediately, there's lag time in between, probably about 3-6 months (I don't know, I'm just guessing). By your retarded little measure of success, Bush's lame-duck economic policies would be the real success. (Which I don't believe, it's just a reducto ad absurdum argument to point out how idiotic your judgement is.)

 

I'm just guestimating on the numbers here, and maybe GG can pitch in with his own guess at them, but I would imagine that the market lost as much as 1000 points over a few weeks simply because Obama gave Geithner such a big build up and then the Wall Street guys didn't like what Geithner had to say because there wasn't any detail to it. They jumped the gun on bringing out "the plan" when they hadn't finalized the plan. That was a direct result of a President or an administration doing something that caused the market to react severely.

 

When you're around 8000, that 1000 points is a significant amount. Since then, I believe they have gained all of those 1000 points back because the wall street guys heard a little more about the plan and other plans and allayed a lot of their fears on the not enough details.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

It's call objectively observing.

As did I with Bush. Yet we can all see by his very bad approval rating that he must have really frakked up. Only the die hard R's still are devoted to him.

 

He left gracefully and for that I credit him. I just wish Dick less Cheney would do the same.

[GG]

I'm just guestimating on the numbers here, and maybe GG can pitch in with his own guess at them, but I would imagine that the market lost as much as 1000 points over a few weeks simply because Obama gave Geithner such a big build up and then the Wall Street guys didn't like what Geithner had to say because there wasn't any detail to it. They jumped the gun on bringing out "the plan" when they hadn't finalized the plan. That was a direct result of a President or an administration doing something that caused the market to react severely.

 

When you're around 8000, that 1000 points is a significant amount. Since then, I believe they have gained all of those 1000 points back because the wall street guys heard a little more about the plan and other plans and allayed a lot of their fears on the not enough details.

 

In a normal situation, Presidential actions take some time to filter through the markets. The few exceptions are announcing new tax, trade or commerce directives that will affect the profitability of US-listed companies. Sometimes, novice government officials make off the hand comments that temporarily cause wide swings, until a retraction is made and the markets settle down.

 

Of course, we don't live in a normal situation now, nor do we have a normal POTUS.

 

Our buddy Dwight keeps talking about market technicals providing support to the stock market at a certain level. Yet, he soundly ignores fundamentals of the market, which is simply a sum of the investors' expectations of future profits to be earned and allocated to the shareholders. The technicals have been computed based on the historic market returns and hypercharged by countless PhDs to predict investor behavior. Another important factor to consider is that the equity returns come after the bondholders and lenders have been paid out, and the order of these payouts have been well time tested in bankruptcy courts. Thus, the expected equity returns for every company factor in a level of risk to the shareholders based on that company's capital structure and the probable distribution of cash flows.

 

What is happening now is an unprecedented attack on the legal and contractual structure of corporate profits. It's easy to blame Geithner for the uncertainty in the markets, but he's only playing the hand that a vacillating POTUS is giving him.

 

As this crisis was and continues to be centered around the sanctity of the financial system, all energies and focus should be paid to fixing what is broken. That was the rationale of TARP, when Lehman's collapse triggered the meltdown. But whatever fixes Geithner is throwing out to the market are immediately cut out at the knees by Obama's populist rantings.

 

If you throw $200 bn at AIG to prevent another meltdown, you don't vilify the employees you need to help you get that $200bn back. If you want to stabilize the financial system, you then should let bankers do what they need to do to earn a profit. You do not throw billions into the hole and then kill the industry.

 

Which brings us to yesterday's actions. Note that the market had a nice day to start and then tanked at the end. Chrysler's Ch. 11 obviously drove the news. But the action behind the scenes is chilling. The markets have already largely factored in a GM & Chrysler filings.

 

But Obama's comments blaming the company's secured creditors for derailing the plan should be frightening to anybody holding any piece of corporate debt. Put simply, he's willing to cast aside unambiguous laws to favor a political constituency. This in turn will further keep the private capital on the sidelines, because now everyone will have to recalibrate their return expectations. Without private capital returning, there will be no recovery in the financial sector and you will see a mountain of bankruptcies in 2010. In effect, you will have aided the Depression you were trying to avoid by pouring trillions into the economy. Except that now you're sitting in a Depression after having thrown trillions into the sink hole, with an aging population and no growth for a decade.

 

Still waiting for amateur hour to end.

[KD in CA]

Good post.

 

 

Still waiting for amateur hour to end.

Hope you brought a magazine.