Does Michelle Obama need this much staff?

#27
#27
lawgator1 said:
What I do know is that SOJ came in here, as usual, with incomplete and errant facts and with misleading conclusions.

You should admit your real error here (which is allowing your mindless allegiance to anything anti-Obama to once again get the best of you), apologize for the thread, and ask the mods to remove it. If you had any sense of integrity you would do that. But you don't. And so you won't.
Click to expand...
Holy. ****.
 
#29
#29
lawgator1 said:
No more so than it did when Laura Bush had 18. Where was SOJ's or the uber-right's outrage then?

This story appeared on FOX News' website. Curious in that they did not carry a similar story when Laura Bush had just a few less than Michelle.

I'll ask you -- as our econokmy tanked in 2001 and again for the last year or so of the Bush presidency, where was the outrage at the size of her staff?




I do not recall any promises to reduce the number of staffers for the first lady.




Again, I do not pretend to know whether they need these people or whether they are earning their salaries. I am just taking issue with the snideness of the observation and the flat out total pretense that this is something peculiar to Obama, which is what the promoters of the story hope you take from it.
Click to expand...

No, but we were promised less wasteful government spending. We were promised change. 22 staffers for a woman who has no government responsibility is not change. It is government waste and a slap in the face of every person struggling to make ends meet. Anyone defending this is in need of a reality check.
 
#31
#31
Some points:

Fact check is an instrument of the Annenberg foundation which employed Billy Ayers who thinks we need only slaughter 25 million Americans before we can reeducate the rest and who also employed Barry Hussein Soetoro Obama as a community organizer.

Welcome to the community.

Michelle Obama really has 26 rather than 22 personal servants, let's not try diminish her claims as to royalty status.

michelle20antoinette.jpg


The annual cost to taxpayers for such unprecedented attention is approximately $1,750,000 without taking into account the expense of the lavish benefit packages afforded to every attendant.

We suggest at least one more attendant with the title; "keeping me awake during the funerals of old worn out, no more useful idiot, dumb white cracker MFers."

In her defense Mark Hession can't even approach the racial hatred ferver preached by Jeremiah Wright that really perks you up.

What with the upcoming demise of Chris 'sweet deals' Dodd, Robert 'KKK' Byrd and Ruth 'ACLU' Bader Ginsberg, an additional assistant elbow thrower may be required, let's not try to overwork anyone.

We suggest a salary or around $75 grand would be appropriate.
 
#33
#33
superdave1984 said:
No, but we were promised less wasteful government spending. We were promised change. 22 staffers for a woman who has no government responsibility is not change. It is government waste and a slap in the face of every person struggling to make ends meet. Anyone defending this is in need of a reality check.
Click to expand...


I'm not defending it at all -- see my above posts wherein I say I really don't know whether it is appropriate or not, too many, overpaid, etc.

My only complaint is that the outrage over it seems to be targeting Michelle when in all practical terms Laura did the same thing. And the people suddenly aghast at Michelle's entourage shrug off and rationalize why they didn't say a word at the size or cost of Laura's party.
 
#34
#34
lawgator1 said:
I'm not defending it at all -- see my above posts wherein I say I really don't know whether it is appropriate or not, too many, overpaid, etc.

My only complaint is that the outrage over it seems to be targeting Michelle when in all practical terms Laura did the same thing. And the people suddenly aghast at Michelle's entourage shrug off and rationalize why they didn't say a word at the size or cost of Laura's party.
Click to expand...

I, like most others was unaware of the amounts of personal staff the first ladies have (the last two anyway). What makes this offensive to so many (especially those on the right) is that Bush and his administration was held up by Obama as a blue print of what not to do and he actively campaigned by promoting the change he would bring to the office.

The economy and the state of our country makes this entourage even worse. At a time when Obama has told the public they must tighten up and sacrifice he and his family do not. In fact he has expanded the size of government, this is just another example.

When Laura had her personal staff the economy was in much better shape, save the last 4 to 6 months. The difference between Michelle and Laura's personal staff is minimal, the only real difference here is the state of the economy during which the staff was put together.
 
#35
#35
superdave1984 said:
No, but we were promised less wasteful government spending. We were promised change. 22 staffers for a woman who has no government responsibility is not change. It is government waste and a slap in the face of every person struggling to make ends meet. Anyone defending this is in need of a reality check.
Click to expand...

what he said
 
#36
#36
KB5252 said:
I, like most others was unaware of the amounts of personal staff the first ladies have (the last two anyway). What makes this offensive to so many (especially those on the right) is that Bush and his administration was held up by Obama as a blue print of what not to do and he actively campaigned by promoting the change he would bring to the office.

The economy and the state of our country makes this entourage even worse. At a time when Obama has told the public they must tighten up and sacrifice he and his family do not. In fact he has expanded the size of government, this is just another example.

When Laura had her personal staff the economy was in much better shape, save the last 4 to 6 months. The difference between Michelle and Laura's personal staff is minimal, the only real difference here is the state of the economy during which the staff was put together.
Click to expand...


If it is excessive to have 22, it is excessive to have 18 and the fact that the economy is so much worse now doesn't enter into it. The thread title should be: "Laura Bush and Michelle Obama: Wasteful spending on first lady staffs."

If you are upset with one, and your position is not purely political, then by definition you are obliged to be just as upset with the other.

If your position is not political, that is.
 
#38
#38
First Lady Staff:
Bush 18 & Obama 22 = 18% increase

Czars:
Bush 26 (in 8 years) & Obama 31 (in less than 8 months) = 16% increase already
 
#39
#39
lawgator1 said:
If it is excessive to have 22, it is excessive to have 18 and the fact that the economy is so much worse now doesn't enter into it. The thread title should be: "Laura Bush and Michelle Obama: Wasteful spending on first lady staffs."

If you are upset with one, and your position is not purely political, then by definition you are obliged to be just as upset with the other.

If your position is not political, that is.
Click to expand...

Why would the economy not factor into it in your eyes?
 
#40
#40
KB5252 said:
Why would the economy not factor into it in your eyes?
Click to expand...


Really?

If 22 is excessive, so is 18. Its when the economy is doing better that we need to be even more vigilant against wasteful government spending. During good times its so easy for it to happen without our realizing it. Then, when times are tough and revenues to the government are down, we miss all the more the money that was wasted when times were good and it could have been saved up for a rainy day.

When you think about it, the waste under Bush is that much more deserving of your condemnation.
 
#42
#42
lawgator1 said:
If it is excessive to have 22, it is excessive to have 18 and the fact that the economy is so much worse now doesn't enter into it.
Click to expand...

why doesn't a 20% increase when the economy is far worse not enter into it? Did anyone say they bush's number was a-ok?
 
#43
#43
lawgator1 said:
Really?

If 22 is excessive, so is 18. Its when the economy is doing better that we need to be even more vigilant against wasteful government spending. During good times its so easy for it to happen without our realizing it. Then, when times are tough and revenues to the government are down, we miss all the more the money that was wasted when times were good and it could have been saved up for a rainy day.

When you think about it, the waste under Bush is that much more deserving of your condemnation.
Click to expand...

i see so obama is greating his own stimulus package with his wife's staff. you are really unbelievable sometimes.
 
#44
#44
I would say that the increase is rather moderate considering the across the board increase in government spending. The increase in the first lady's staff is a model of frugality for the administration.
 
#46
#46
droski said:
i see so obama is greating his own stimulus package with his wife's staff. you are really unbelievable sometimes.
Click to expand...


No, no. I once again remind you that I am by no means defending Michelle Obama having 22 staff people. I once again say I don't know what an appropriate number is. My gut reaction is that 5 or 6 is probably plenty.

By the same token, however, that means that Laura had a dozen or more too many, as well.
 
#47
#47
lawgator1 said:
Really?

If 22 is excessive, so is 18. Its when the economy is doing better that we need to be even more vigilant against wasteful government spending. During good times its so easy for it to happen without our realizing it. Then, when times are tough and revenues to the government are down, we miss all the more the money that was wasted when times were good and it could have been saved up for a rainy day.

When you think about it, the waste under Bush is that much more deserving of your condemnation.
Click to expand...

As I stated before the difference is minimal, but increasing the entourage for your wife during an economic downturn while telling the American people they will need to make sacrifices is pretty nutty don't you think.

Another example of government "do as I say not as I do" mentality. This is not change, it is another example of furthering the policies that have gotten us to this point.

I won't argue that saving money when times are good is a bad thing. But to try and argue it is even more important than when times are tough is rather silly.
 
#49
#49
KB5252 said:
As I stated before the difference is minimal, but increasing the entourage for your wife during an economic downturn while telling the American people they will need to make sacrifices is pretty nutty don't you think.

Another example of government "do as I say not as I do" mentality. This is not change, it is another example of furthering the policies that have gotten us to this point.

I won't argue that saving money when times are good is a bad thing. But to try and argue it is even more important than when times are tough is rather silly.
Click to expand...

the hypocrisy is unbelievable. she'll claim she is a down to earth person because she wears clothes from target or whatever and then they spend $100k of taxpayer money for their "date night." typical do as I say, not as I do mentality.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top