Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

1 Bump

34 war ships? Is this overkill or something else?

Link text

Answer Question

Asked by itsmesteph11 at 10:50 AM on Nov. 4, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 39 (113,405 Credits)
Answers (9)
  • they ensure our security. Floating military bases. And yes there are threats out there willing to kill us all just for being Americans.

    Answer by Zoeyis at 10:52 AM on Nov. 4, 2010

  • Someone not get their drugs today or what? Meth causes paranoia... just sayin.

    Answer by Anonymous at 10:57 AM on Nov. 4, 2010

  • that seems like a lot and the whole trip is costing us money we don't have..but..since that's what he's about I suppose I wouldn't expect any less. Does anyone know why we're there? Anyway, if he's going to go he needs protection. Even though I am not a fan of the president, I want him secure. With the terrorist attacks that happened recently in Mumbai (sp?) (at the Taj Hotel I think..the same one he's staying in?) there are real threats in that area and security is of utmost importance. Which is again why I ask, "why is he there?"

    Answer by kittieashy at 10:59 AM on Nov. 4, 2010

  • um... ok, at least now I understand the price tag, but doesn't advertising all the security seem a little dumb?

    Answer by lovinangels at 11:08 AM on Nov. 4, 2010

  • My DH was in the Navy for 20 years and has never heard of that many ships and AN aircraft carrier going with the President. Seems excessive to me and is costing the taxpayers a lot.

    Answer by SophiaofLight at 11:42 AM on Nov. 4, 2010

  • 34 warships - probably not as they go as a battle group. I'm not too sure about the 40 aircraft and the 3000 people to stay in the 500 room hotel at a trip cost of $200 million a day. We are worried about inflation coming, they are monitizing our debt and the rock stars are off to see - what?

    Answer by jesse123456 at 12:48 PM on Nov. 4, 2010

  • Been listening to the radio. The press states he is going to India because he has always wanted to see "The Festival of Lights".
    ....It is coming from the press yes.

    I remember when Nancy Reagan wanted to buy new China for the White House when the economy was so bad....... She was shut down for wanting to spend $5,000.00 on China. Because we were facing recession and such.

    You forgot to mention that he also has about a 3,000 entourage going, they have rented 800 rooms, and is a total cost right now at about 2 Billion Dollars. That does include the fully loaded jets.

    Must be a really nice vacation.

    Answer by gr-mom2 at 12:52 PM on Nov. 4, 2010

  • I remember Nancy Reagan's china debacle. There was such an uproar by the public, that it was not approved. Gee, that $5,000 doesn't seem so bad now does it? Not compared to this president's spending. At least the china was tangible, and would still be able to be used in the future. But let me not be so hasty. I need to be more democratic about this...I bet that this trip will bring as many good results as his previous ideas about stimulus spending did...

    Answer by SweetLuci at 2:26 PM on Nov. 4, 2010

  • And if Bush had taken a trip like this, the media would still be harping on it and Obama would be giving speeches about how America is stuck with GW's bill. The Festival of Lights will be there in 2 years when he's out of office, and his buddy George Sorros can pay for the trip. I totally understand the need to protect the President when he's on foreign soil. I get it, but at a cost of $2 billion dollars, I don't understand why the trip is necessary now. My husband works in the hospitality industry, which has taken a hit because businesses aren't allowing a whole lot of travel right now. Again, Obama is out of touch with reality and doesn't understand the concept of cutting back or simply saying "not this time."

    Answer by Journey311 at 3:05 PM on Nov. 4, 2010

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.