Michelle Obama does her part to help unemployment

[California Girl]

You are correct.

But you should question why Michelle Obama and her husband did not do anything to change it.
Afterall, it was HE who said "no more of the Washington of the past" and was was SHE who said "we are just like everyday people"...

Do they truly not see how the executive branch is broken? Does she truly not see that she does not need a staff so large?

Or is she falling back the old "well, if it were good for Laura, then what is wrong with it being good for me"

Was that the Image the Obamas gave out about themselves while campaigning? Didnt you vote for him based on his promise to not be like every other president?

Why are you trying to diminish the responsibilities of First Lady?

Is it only because Michelle Obama holds the job?

Responsibilities? Let's not get carried away.

She does have 'responsibilities'. Her role is to support her husband, our POTUS. While I didn't vote for Obama and have no particular fondness for Michelle (in fact, what I do know of her, I do not like) but.... she has a responsibility, and she is fulfilling her duties. I see no reason why she should not have the same staff requirements as previous First Ladies.

 

[mudwhistle]

You are correct.

But you should question why Michelle Obama and her husband did not do anything to change it.
Afterall, it was HE who said "no more of the Washington of the past" and was was SHE who said "we are just like everyday people"...

Do they truly not see how the executive branch is broken? Does she truly not see that she does not need a staff so large?

Or is she falling back the old "well, if it were good for Laura, then what is wrong with it being good for me"

Was that the Image the Obamas gave out about themselves while campaigning? Didnt you vote for him based on his promise to not be like every other president?

Why are you trying to diminish the responsibilities of First Lady?

Is it only because Michelle Obama holds the job?

lol...no....I happen to like MIchelle Obama.

I personally think that the amount our elected officials spend to do their job is ludicrous...and yes, I know Michelle is not an elected official, but she is in the same category....

We are in serious debt...like the auto companies were...yet they had no issue reprimanding the auto execs for their excessive spending to do THEIR job....yet they overspend themselves as well...

And I find it hard to believe that you dont agree with that.

Yup....they want to institute a salary cap of half a mil and tax the hell out of anyone who makes over a quarter of a mil.

I think they should control their spending. I know it would decrease the GD deficit.

 

[California Girl]

You are correct.

But you should question why Michelle Obama and her husband did not do anything to change it.
Afterall, it was HE who said "no more of the Washington of the past" and was was SHE who said "we are just like everyday people"...

Do they truly not see how the executive branch is broken? Does she truly not see that she does not need a staff so large?

Or is she falling back the old "well, if it were good for Laura, then what is wrong with it being good for me"

Was that the Image the Obamas gave out about themselves while campaigning? Didnt you vote for him based on his promise to not be like every other president?

Why are you trying to diminish the responsibilities of First Lady?

Is it only because Michelle Obama holds the job?

lol...no....I happen to like MIchelle Obama.

I personally think that the amount our elected officials spend to do their job is ludicrous...and yes, I know Michelle is not an elected official, but she is in the same category....

We are in serious debt...like the auto companies were...yet they had no issue reprimanding the auto execs for their excessive spending to do THEIR job....yet they overspend themselves as well...

And I find it hard to believe that you dont agree with that.

Yep. That's all really valid. We should be questioning the whole system, not hounding Michelle for doing exactly what her predecessors did.

 

[GHook93]

Laura Bush had 24-26 on her staff. The rest of them had about the same. Why is this all of the sudden a problem?

Glad you didn't back that up with anything!

 

[mudwhistle]

Why are you trying to diminish the responsibilities of First Lady?

Is it only because Michelle Obama holds the job?

Responsibilities? Let's not get carried away.

She does have 'responsibilities'. Her role is to support her husband, our POTUS. While I didn't vote for Obama and have no particular fondness for Michelle (in fact, what I do know of her, I do not like) but.... she has a responsibility, and she is fulfilling her duties. I see no reason why she should not have the same staff requirements as previous First Ladies.

She has a larger staff. There wouldn't be many complaints if she stayed within the limits of the previous first lady. To be honest...she needs to reduce her staff and tighten her belt because of the deficit.

 

[Jarhead]

When I hear our congresspeople talk about their "staffers" it bugs the hell out ofme. Yes, their jobs are difficult. So is mne....but Idid not hire my first employee until I fouind myself working 7 days a week. I did not hire my second until my first had to work 6 days a week....

So now I work 6 days a week (half on Saturday's)..and have been doing sofor years....and my employees work 5 dyas a week.

And at best I get a total of maybe 2 weeks off during the year....

Does anyone on here believe any congressperson actually works 6 days a week?

How many weeks off a year do they take?

And dint they get a raise during a recession? How many people in the private sector got a raise during the recession?

 

[Jarhead]

Why are you trying to diminish the responsibilities of First Lady?

Is it only because Michelle Obama holds the job?

Responsibilities? Let's not get carried away.

She does have 'responsibilities'. Her role is to support her husband, our POTUS. While I didn't vote for Obama and have no particular fondness for Michelle (in fact, what I do know of her, I do not like) but.... she has a responsibility, and she is fulfilling her duties. I see no reason why she should not have the same staff requirements as previous First Ladies.

True...but we are in a recession and our debt is growing.....what does the private sector do in a recession when their corporate debt is increasing?

They lay off and take on more of the responsibility themselves....and work longer hours and take lss time off.

Wonder what kind of message it would send.

 

[Jarhead]

Look at it this way....

"Worst economic climate since the great depression"

Exactly how did that affect the lifestyles of our elected officials?

 

[mudwhistle]

When I hear our congresspeople talk about their "staffers" it bugs the hell out ofme. Yes, their jobs are difficult. So is mne....but Idid not hire my first employee until I fouind myself working 7 days a week. I did not hire my second until my first had to work 6 days a week....

So now I work 6 days a week (half on Saturday's)..and have been doing sofor years....and my employees work 5 dyas a week.

And at best I get a total of maybe 2 weeks off during the year....

Does anyone on here believe any congressperson actually works 6 days a week?

How many weeks off a year do they take?

And dint they get a raise during a recession? How many people in the private sector got a raise during the recession?

Well you probably don't need a makeup artist to fix your face in the morning and do your hair. And even though she doesn't have a real job she does need a staff to keep her appointments and make sure she's prepped for whatever she has to do that day. Without that filter that a staff offers she'd be constantly in a state of confusion.

 

[topspin]

If they had a spec of class beyond the we're due, they would cut that budget by 50%. It's stealing. It was stealing under Bush and it's stealing under Obama.

 

[Sallow]

4 years of office?

Link to this?

Where have you been...under a rock?

This was reported last year.

Over $1.5 million per year.

President Obama been in office for 2 years.

So again. Four years of this?

And it seems this is nothing new.

snopes.com: First Lady Requires More Than Twenty Attendants

 

[judyd]

Laura Bush had 24-26 on her staff. The rest of them had about the same. Why is this all of the sudden a problem?

Glad you didn't back that up with anything!

Just look it up. I do that when I question something that's posted. I did it this morning, perhaps you should try "google" yourself, instead of sending me messages demanding proof. Jeez!

 

[rightwinger]

Why are you trying to diminish the responsibilities of First Lady?

Is it only because Michelle Obama holds the job?

Responsibilities? Let's not get carried away.

She does have 'responsibilities'. Her role is to support her husband, our POTUS. While I didn't vote for Obama and have no particular fondness for Michelle (in fact, what I do know of her, I do not like) but.... she has a responsibility, and she is fulfilling her duties. I see no reason why she should not have the same staff requirements as previous First Ladies.

As First Lady, she has responsibilities to represent the US both at home and abroad. To do this, she needs a certain number of staff to manage her office, reply to requests, schedule appearances, write speeches...

What is troubling is the attempt by the rightwing misinformation patrol to label these functions as "attendants" as if they were personal servants

 

[California Girl]

Laura Bush had 24-26 on her staff. The rest of them had about the same. Why is this all of the sudden a problem?

Glad you didn't back that up with anything!

It's all in the link I provided earlier. The most famous of our First Ladies, Jackie Kennedy, had 40 staff.

 

[Jarhead]

Responsibilities? Let's not get carried away.

She does have 'responsibilities'. Her role is to support her husband, our POTUS. While I didn't vote for Obama and have no particular fondness for Michelle (in fact, what I do know of her, I do not like) but.... she has a responsibility, and she is fulfilling her duties. I see no reason why she should not have the same staff requirements as previous First Ladies.

As First Lady, she has responsibilities to represent the US both at home and abroad. To do this, she needs a certain number of staff to manage her office, reply to requests, schedule appearances, write speeches...

What is troubling is the attempt by the rightwing misinformation patrol to label these functions as "attendants" as if they were personal servants

Actually, as I see it....every elected official in Washington, Michelle included, have exactly that....personal servants.
None of them require the size staff they have. When they are working 6 days a week, then we can say they are understaffed.
Right now? Not a single member of congress works even 5 days a week.
They are overpaid....and overstaffed.....and underworked......in my opinion.

 

[G.T.]

Responsibilities? Let's not get carried away.

She does have 'responsibilities'. Her role is to support her husband, our POTUS. While I didn't vote for Obama and have no particular fondness for Michelle (in fact, what I do know of her, I do not like) but.... she has a responsibility, and she is fulfilling her duties. I see no reason why she should not have the same staff requirements as previous First Ladies.

She has a larger staff. There wouldn't be many complaints if she stayed within the limits of the previous first lady. To be honest...she needs to reduce her staff and tighten her belt because of the deficit.

Except she doesn't have a larger staff, so no.

 

[Avatar4321]

Laura Bush had 24-26 on her staff. The rest of them had about the same. Why is this all of the sudden a problem?

1. Beause we are broke
2. Because people are now finding out about it.
3. Because the First Lady isn't royalty. Heck, she isn't really expected to do anything. Any thing she does need should come out of the President's Salary and not the tax payers.

 

[Avatar4321]

She does have 'responsibilities'. Her role is to support her husband, our POTUS. While I didn't vote for Obama and have no particular fondness for Michelle (in fact, what I do know of her, I do not like) but.... she has a responsibility, and she is fulfilling her duties. I see no reason why she should not have the same staff requirements as previous First Ladies.

She has a larger staff. There wouldn't be many complaints if she stayed within the limits of the previous first lady. To be honest...she needs to reduce her staff and tighten her belt because of the deficit.

Except she doesn't have a larger staff, so no.

She shouldn't have a staff paid for by taxpayers period.

 

[California Girl]

Laura Bush had 24-26 on her staff. The rest of them had about the same. Why is this all of the sudden a problem?

1. Beause we are broke
2. Because people are now finding out about it.
3. Because the First Lady isn't royalty. Heck, she isn't really expected to do anything. Any thing she does need should come out of the President's Salary and not the tax payers.

A lot of her work is on behalf of 'We, the People'. So it is entirely fair and reasonable that she should have staff to run assist.

 

[G.T.]

Laura Bush had 24-26 on her staff. The rest of them had about the same. Why is this all of the sudden a problem?

1. Beause we are broke
2. Because people are now finding out about it.
3. Because the First Lady isn't royalty. Heck, she isn't really expected to do anything. Any thing she does need should come out of the President's Salary and not the tax payers.

What year did the "Debt" start?