Kelly the Dog Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Like the salaries of the military personnel is basically the same whether they're stationed in Jacksonville or Baghdad. No, nothing whatsoever like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 My point is that all of those staffers are likely paid salaries and not hourly. With or without the trip they are getting paid the same amount, so how is that an extra cost to the taxpayer? I could be wrong and they get overtime but that doesn't seem reasonable to me. Staffers at the White House work 7 am to 10 at night on a regular basis. It's a budgeting thing. Their salaries, working on the trip, would probably go against a different expense account than if they were doing their "regular" job. It basically amounts to opportunity cost. Plus, I wouldn't be at all surprised if a lot of that was outsourced to contractors, in which case it becomes a hard cost. The short of it is that I really don't know, but I can think of a dozen different ways expenses can be a lot more than just the flight. Hell, the cheapest part of the trip was probably the show itself - at the price, the production couldn't buy the exposure they'd get for discounting the tickets to the White House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 It's a budgeting thing. Their salaries, working on the trip, would probably go against a different expense account than if they were doing their "regular" job. It basically amounts to opportunity cost. Plus, I wouldn't be at all surprised if a lot of that was outsourced to contractors, in which case it becomes a hard cost. The short of it is that I really don't know, but I can think of a dozen different ways expenses can be a lot more than just the flight. Hell, the cheapest part of the trip was probably the show itself - at the price, the production couldn't buy the exposure they'd get for discounting the tickets to the White House. It would be interesting to find out. I don't know why they would use outside contractors when staffers have to plan trips like this all the time, for town halls or fundraisers or speeches or pleasure or whatever. I do assume there are hard costs I am not thinking about. The show they went and saw got triple the number of tickets sold in the next couple days. It's all part of the stimulus plan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted June 3, 2009 Author Share Posted June 3, 2009 My point is that all of those staffers are likely paid salaries and not hourly. With or without the trip they are getting paid the same amount, so how is that an extra cost to the taxpayer? I could be wrong and they get overtime but that doesn't seem reasonable to me. Staffers at the White House work 7 am to 10 at night on a regular basis. Stuff like catering would be a hard cost, yes. Is it your view that if these people didn't go to New York, they would be spending those days in their cubicles staring at the ceiling? I didn't think they were UAW... By your logic, it would have cost no more to have an armored division escorting him - they are on the clock anyway, and they have their own tanks. It is mind boggling that you don't think of this as a cost. Modern business practice - even salaried employees, even in government - has people charging their time to various activities. It is the only way to get a grip on your allocation of resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Is it your view that if these people didn't go to New York, they would be spending those days in their cubicles staring at the ceiling? I didn't think they were UAW... By your logic, it would have cost no more to have an armored division escorting him - they are on the clock anyway, and they have their own tanks. It is mind boggling that you don't think of this as a cost. Modern business practice - even salaried employees, even in government - has people charging their time to various activities. It is the only way to get a grip on your allocation of resources. No, it's my view that these people were thrilled to go to New York on a Gulfstream 500 for the night, and probably couldnt stop talking about it to their friends and loved ones the next day. And if they didn't spend time planning it during their 12-16 hour work days, each one would have been planning something else or doing another one of the 128 small and big tasks they had that day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 It would be interesting to find out. I don't know why they would use outside contractors when staffers have to plan trips like this all the time, for town halls or fundraisers or speeches or pleasure or whatever. I do assume there are hard costs I am not thinking about. They probably contract a lot of that out, too. Again, I don't know they do, but I do know that a lot of stuff is contracted out in the government that you wouldn't necessarily expect to be. Case in point: Blackwater. The show they went and saw got triple the number of tickets sold in the next couple days. It's all part of the stimulus plan! Although jetting off to Broadway for a weekend getaway isn't entirely consistent with an avowed populist. Though I suppose FDR would have done it, had he had jets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 No, it's my view that these people were thrilled to go to New York on a Gulfstream 500 for the night, and probably could stop talking about it to their friends and loved ones the next day. And if they didn't spend time planning it during their 12-16 hour work days, each one would have been planning something else or doing another one of the 128 small and big tasks they had that day. I wouldn't bet on the bolded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Stuff like catering would be a hard cost, yes. So is jet fuel and gas for the fleet of Escalades Not sure if the Fed's are responsible for re-imbursing NYC for use of any local law enforcement (motorcade escort or Secret Service/Local PD buddy system), or of NYC eats that cost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 I wouldn't bet on the bolded. I almost guarantee all the females thought it was an awesome idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 And if someone ripped Bush for taking AF1 to Crawford 77 times I'm sure you'd throw a hissy fit and dismiss them as Bush-haters. Hey, I just found the partisan hit site you grabbed that talking point off of. You actually make it sound stupider. If Obama wants to vacation in his Chicago town home 77 times through the course of his two-term administration (though why he'd want to, I'm not sure. It IS Chicago, after all), you won't hear me complain. Hell, I'm not even complaining about THIS trip, you bonehead. At most, I find it unusual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 So is jet fuel and gas for the fleet of Escalades Not sure if the Fed's are responsible for re-imbursing NYC for use of any local law enforcement (motorcade escort or Secret Service/Local PD buddy system), or of NYC eats that cost Totally agree. That's why my original statement was it cost for gas and that it probably cost NYC as much or more than the US taxpayer. Maybe they do reimburse them. I guess it would be logical they do but perhaps not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 They probably contract a lot of that out, too. Again, I don't know they do, but I do know that a lot of stuff is contracted out in the government that you wouldn't necessarily expect to be. Case in point: Blackwater. Although jetting off to Broadway for a weekend getaway isn't entirely consistent with an avowed populist. Though I suppose FDR would have done it, had he had jets. The NBC Brian Williams peek in the White House show that aired last night was pretty interesting. From what they showed, I'd bet that all that planning stuff was done by young White House Staffers taking care of his day. They showed a number of them doing that very thing. A good portion of the security they may contract out but I'm not even sure how much, I assume they want as much of their own guys doing that as is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 So is jet fuel and gas for the fleet of Escalades Not sure if the Fed's are responsible for re-imbursing NYC for use of any local law enforcement (motorcade escort or Secret Service/Local PD buddy system), or of NYC eats that cost Jet fuel and gas are all but trivial in comparison to other costs. The mileage deprecation on the Escalades was probably more than the gas for them. They both also amount to moving numbers around a ledger - the AF has the jet fuel already, they just have to make sure they type the cost to the White House in the right spreadsheet column. Ditto gassing up the fleet cars. I am pretty sure - almost positive - that local law enforcement bills the federal government for overhead related to presidential security. Although it's probably cheaper in NYC than, say, Cheyenne, since NYC is used to having both VIPs and strong federal presence in town, so preparation is comparatively easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Jet fuel and gas are all but trivial in comparison to other costs. The mileage deprecation on the Escalades was probably more than the gas for them. They both also amount to moving numbers around a ledger - the AF has the jet fuel already, they just have to make sure they type the cost to the White House in the right spreadsheet column. Ditto gassing up the fleet cars. I am pretty sure - almost positive - that local law enforcement bills the federal government for overhead related to presidential security. Although it's probably cheaper in NYC than, say, Cheyenne, since NYC is used to having both VIPs and strong federal presence in town, so preparation is comparatively easier. I'm sure there are all kinds of stories about this kind of stuff, and I just didn't think much about it in this degree, but I had a conversation with an old-timer friend of mine yesterday who said that when President Reagan used to go for dinner over to a close friend's house, Steve Dart, which was often, the Secret Service used to come in and completely rewire Dart's entire phone system through the massive house, and they did it each and every time. Just on the chance that the Prez had to be reached in an emergency during the hour long dinner and talk on a secure line. I wonder how secure they can make the wireless these days so they don't have to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 I'm sure there are all kinds of stories about this kind of stuff, and I just didn't think much about it in this degree, but I had a conversation with an old-timer friend of mine yesterday who said that when President Reagan used to go for dinner over to a close friend's house, Steve Dart, which was often, the Secret Service used to come in and completely rewire Dart's entire phone system through the massive house, and they did it each and every time. Just on the chance that the Prez had to be reached in an emergency during the hour long dinner and talk on a secure line. I wonder how secure they can make the wireless these days so they don't have to do that. It's stuff like that that was crossing my mind earlier. Communications can probably be made pretty secure through satellite links...but it still takes time and preparation and room to get everything set up. And a decent portion of that ends up being "hard" costs (i.e. not opportunity costs; schlepping communications equipment to a Broadway theater and setting it up in a spare room in back of the theater is not a cost that would be incurred elsewhere). And a decent portion probably ends up being contract labor as well (at least, the infrastructure work is the kind of work the government LOVES to contract out). On 9/11, when Bush was in communication with senior staff and military officials within five minutes (that delay everyone complains about), it probably cost a good chunk of money getting him in communication that fast, even with his limo already there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Lieutenant Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Hey, I just found the partisan hit site you grabbed that talking point off of. You actually make it sound stupider. Actually it's not a "partisan hit site" but rather a "left-wing hate site." Get your talking points straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Where to begin??? Umm in a sense YES. Why NOT? When a good portion of the right blamed Obama for the market drop from Jan 20 to March 9th. They also blamed him for the near double digit unemployment rates too. Rome wasn't built in a day. Companies will rebound. They always have. The Market ALWAYS fluctuates. 3 months of Gains IS a good thing compared to last year 9 months of DECLINE!. Pending sales of previously owned U.S. homes shot up by 6.7 percent in March, the biggest monthly gain in 7-1/2 years, according to a report on Tuesday that buttressed views the U.S. recession was easing. The National Association of Realtors said its Pending Home Sales Index, based on new sales contracts, rose to 90.3 in April from 84.6 in March. It was the third straight monthly increase and the largest jump since October 2001. The gain took the index 3.2 percent above its year-ago level, compared with economists' expectations for a rise of just 0.5 percent. Banks are NOT havding out loans like they did. The are issuing them if the borrower meets the tougher regulation standards. Any logical person wouldn't of fully blamed Obama for the decline in the stock market when he first came to office. Initially, Maybe the lack of clarity of the "bad bank" plan from Tim Geithner made things worse, but things were coming down regardless. But now to the real issue. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, because most people are clueless in regards to the effects of policy decisions from the Federal Reserve and the Obama administration. To be able to logically make an assessment to what has happened we have to understand what the Federal Reserve and Obama administration have done to tackle the housing problem. Obama administration 1. Forclosure relief program: The thinking behind this was to mitigate the amount of forclosures so more people could stay in their homes and have more affordable mortgage payments and help stop the decline in housing prices, because the thinking was that there won't be as many forclosures hitting the market helping the slide in decline in housing prices. This plan is failing. Over 50% of the people that have done a loan modification have all ready defaulted and it hasn't even been 4 months yet. I had been advocating for months that this wouldn't markedly stem the decline in people having their homes forclosed on them because it isn't so much the high mortgage payment that is hurting homeowners, it is a part, but the main issue is the value of their home has declined so much, to where many people feel that they are severely under water by being upside down in their loans, and are making logical business decisions in letting their home go under. Another words they don't want to stay on board on a sinking ship. The other reason why people are defaulting on their loans is because of job losses, if you don't have a job, it doesn't matter what the payment is, it is extremely difficult to pay it. 2. TARP program: The rational behind it is that if you recapitalize the banks, they will have more money to lend. I don't understand why they think this would work, it didn't work for Japan and it won't work for us. Banks will not lend freely if the value of the underlying product that they are providing lending for is decreasing or not increasing. It's as simple as that. They also won't lend if they believe that the person they are lending to may lose his job. In last months figures, despite what Jamie Dimon said, the figures showed that there is less lending now than at any point of the crisis, so lending is constricting not expanding. So this initiative isn't working. 3. Stimulus Bill: This plan isn't directly targeted for the housing market, but you could argue that if implemented correctly that there would be a ripple effect, creating more new jobs which in turn would allow banks to lend more. Considering only 10% of the Stimulus bill is on infrastructure projects, which is where the majority of the jobs are supposed to be created and only 25% of that 10% is supposed to be implemented this year, another words 2.5% of the total "stimulus" bill, I would say that hasn't had much effect at all. So to sum up the Obama administrations policies, they havn't helped the housing market. THE FEDERAL RESERVE: 1: Federal Reserve printed trillions of dollars to lower the LIBOR rates, which are the rates that banks loan to one another, and they have loosed up the commercial paper markets. This is a big reason for the recent bounce we have had. Banks weren't even lending to one another, which caused a huge demand for dollars since it wasn't readily available, causing the US dollar to spike. Now that LIBOR rates have been lowered the level of panic has decreased and some of the confidence has been restored to the banking industry. 2: Federal Reserve made the decision to print 1.75 Trillion dollars to buy back mortgage backed securities and US treasuries, in essence they have monetized our debt. What this had done is that it brought down mortgage rates from 6.25% to under 5%. This has had a substantial impact on the amount of people that are looking to refi their homes and has caused a further demand in people trying to buy homes. To sum up everything, after the collapse of Lehman brothers, credit markets locked up. Which means that credit was pretty much entirely restricted. So the prices of all asset classes severely dropped, from commodities, stocks to houses. There was virtually no demand for hardly anything, manafacturing was pretty much non existant, no one was buying cars and the same thing for homes. So everything was tremendously over sold and the level of demand was at such a low level, that it was natural that were going to rise from those levels. So the 7% increase you saw in new homes reflects two things. It reflected a 3rd straight month of increases from tremendously low levels and it also reflected mortgage rates at close to 4.6%. But recently, investors have been dumping treasuries and rates are starting to go back up and that is why in today's mortgage application numbers you saw a 16% decline from last week. So it's about what the Federal Reserve has done, not the Obama administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 .....a side note to the bankruptcy filings. Interesting read, enjoy. http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2009/06/02/gms-...its-against-gm/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Another "unintended consequence" of the governments actions of bailing out GM. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=awL36kf4vk5c This is the gist of it: Ford Motor Co. is telling lawmakers it is concerned that federal support for GMAC LLC is giving the rival auto lender cheaper borrowing costs. Ford has been lobbying lawmakers for a level playing field as it competes against General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, which are slashing costs through U.S.-sponsored bankruptcies, according to three people familiar with the effort. In recent competing bond offerings, Ford paid $107.5 million more than GMAC for every $1 billion it borrowed, according to Bloomberg data. Reward and enable the companies with failed business models. Genius!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chump Change Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Another "unintended consequence" of the governments actions of bailing out GM. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=awL36kf4vk5c This is the gist of it: Ford Motor Co. is telling lawmakers it is concerned that federal support for GMAC LLC is giving the rival auto lender cheaper borrowing costs. Ford has been lobbying lawmakers for a level playing field as it competes against General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, which are slashing costs through U.S.-sponsored bankruptcies, according to three people familiar with the effort. In recent competing bond offerings, Ford paid $107.5 million more than GMAC for every $1 billion it borrowed, according to Bloomberg data. Reward and enable the companies with failed business models. Genius!! That is disturbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts