Political Discussions
No wonder she's finally proud.. 1.2 million to serve Michelle Obama
Posted by csiunatc • 8/23/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: raping the people
canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652
Michelle Obama needs 20 staffers,
Barbara Bush had 4....
"The People need bread"... "Let them eat cake " seems strangely appropriate.
User Comments
-
Considering she doesn't draw a salary, she should be the one complaining, not you.-
5 times as many staffers as B. Bush, and who do you think is paying their salary?
B. Bush didn't draw one either. So that argument hardly works. -
Seeing as how there were two first ladies who served between Barbara Bush and Michelle Obama (also with no compensation), your comparison doesn't say anything at all. How about the numbers for Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush?
And it really is a cheek that we have these first ladies work for us for free. Denying them the resources they need to do this work would be even more stingy. Or do you object more to the notion that she has the ability to use a bully pulpit, instead of playing the good (read: silent) housewife? -
1. I object to the notion that an unelected "official" is drawing a staff of 1.4+ million (seems there are 22 not 20)
2. I object that her "chief of staff" is drawing the highest possible salary tier of 178k a year
3. I object that she should be treated as anything but the presidents wife, which carries some perks, But a 1.5 ish million dollar staff is NOT part of what i consider normal spending.
Seems that L bush had 17 staffers, and H clinton had 20 all WAY too many.
L Bush at 4 even 5 would be acceptpable, even though i don't think that they add that much...
I definately don't think they need 17+ just fricking ridiculous.
-
-
20 staff positions? That is job creation! Certain states pay millions of dollars per job, so this is sure a bargain
-
wp
-
-
Yeah, If we just follow her example, the government will quintuple in size. Lot's of jobs created there...
Now to find real jobs that we can tax to death so that she can have personal @ss wipers too.-
Right, we're going to measure the growth of government based on the first lady's personnel. That makes sense.
*rolls eyes* -
Which was of course not what i said. But as usual, even three lines of text is too much for you to digest.
Sigh. -
maybe I should have been more specific, and said "Certain Republican governed states"
-
1. You asked for "facts" regarding the N.O. evacuations, how about providing some of your own. Preferably ones that show this is not going on in Democratic states as well....
-
well, it happens at state and federal levels...
www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8230
...and I know it happens in liberal WA, but primarily to retain perpetual corporate-welfare-queens like Boeing.
Interstate Protectionism tends to be particularly rife in the southern states though. This article is a bit old, but little has changed what with ironically labeled federalists like Barbour, Sanford and Perry
www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3659
-
-
Here's the FactCheck article: m.factcheck.org/2009/08/michelle-obamas-staff/
"The combined annual salaries for the 22 staffers we can specifically identify as working for Michelle Obama come to $1.6 million. For the 18 we could identify as working for Laura Bush in 2008, the total is $1.4 million."
Oh, and "That piece was also posted on the conservative Web site CanadaFreePress.com under the byline of Dr. Paul L. Williams, who runs TheLastCrusade.org."
And what is TheLastCrusade.org? "a Web site that describes itself as a place 'where you can engage in the life and death struggle against the forces of Islam, apostasy, moral complacency, cultural relativity, and the New World Order'"
So? That's the sign of a government gone wild? $200,000? And good luck in your struggle against Islam!-
Any facts on what Michelle is doing with her staff vs. what Laura did? I can't really remember Laura doing much but her objectives could have been very different from my interests. -
I know Laura Bush was behind the National Book Festival here in DC, though I don't know how much of that was actually done from her office.
-
they managed to teach Georgey how to read a childrens book, right?
-
-
According to Yahoo Answers, it looks like Laura Bush had 10 staffers. (Yes, I know you said Barbara, but the 1st Bush presidency is a couple of decades old and really doesn't apply anymore, so I used something more recent) I'll spot you the five for Michelle Obama and come back on the heels of it with: who really gives a rat's backside?
And don't use the old argument about "things like this are representative of a bigger pattern." If she had 50 staffers more, then maybe, but not 5.-
it's probably best not to get your information from Yahoo answers.
At some point LB had 24 staffers, her average I believe was 22. So I am not sure what the difference is. I imagine in the end it depends what they do, and id she gets rid of some eventually, as LB did. -
Show some better info instead of just spitting out numbers then?
-
There are 15 First Lady staff members on the Washington Post's White House staff list for 2007 www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/graphics/2007stafflistsalary.html and 16 for 2008 www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/graphics/2008stafflistsalary.html. The lowest position mentioned is the executive assistant. The 2009 list isn't out yet. You can see the salaries of each position listed on these pages. This Post feature goes back to 2003.
-
In this day and age of government contractors, it's also quite possible that there were people who worked for the first lady, but who were not officially White House Staff. Hard to say. Given all of Laura Bush's education and literacy projects, she could have had people working for her in other agencies as well. But I have no idea how you would measure that. All we've got are these White House staff salary lists.
-
So could M. Obama, so that is then a question of guesswork.
So being that not that much has changed in how we do business in 7 months, it would stand to reason that M. Obama would have contractors as well, and since her staff is larger, probably more of them...
Seriously, ridiculous sidestep of the fact that we are paying the FIRST LADY a staff of 17-20-or however many. There is NO reason for that.
As an example, a normal top level CEO of a F500, would have anywhere from 2-5 people that are concerned with making the most out of their time. As opposed to be working for the entire company.
Now, if they can make due with 5 @sswipers, I find it hard to understand why Any first lady would need 20. -
@csi...if she only had 5 staffers, who would help her pick out those awesome(ly ugly) $540 sneakers? You remember, the ones she wore to the homeless shelter? They probably live on less in a year than what she spent on those shoes.
-
-
For information on what Laura Bush was interested in, check out this White House page: www.whitehouse.gov/about/first_ladies/laurabush/ You can find out a little bit about all the first ladies here. The activities on Laura Bush's page convey a fair idea of why a first lady in our times would need staff.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
