Michelle Obama has worked....for 300K !

[Dick Tuck]

Realty check for our intellectually bankrupt and willfully ignorant neocon/teabagger punditry and bloggers:
On Jan. 9, 2009, the University of Chicago Medical Center officially announced that Michelle Obama had resigned from her post as vice president for community and external affairs to join her husband, then-President-elect Barack Obama, in the White House as the new first lady of the United States.

Michelle Obama had been promoted in 2005 to vice president for community and external affairs after three years as the executive director for community affairs. It’s true, as the e-mail (and National Review column) says, that she received a sizable pay raise that year. She went from earning $121,910 in 2004 as an executive director at the hospital to making $316,962 in 2005 as a vice president, according to tax returns filed by the Obamas for those years. But the suggestion made by the email’s author – and not made by the National Review – that she was being paid more than $300,000 for a "20 hour a week job" is not true.

University of Chicago Medical Center spokesman John Easton said Mrs. Obama didn’t reduce her work schedule from full time to part time until 2007 when it became clear that her husband would run for president. "As she reduced her hours, beginning early in 2007, her salary decreased proportionately," Easton told us in an e-mail. "She switched to half time shortly before her husband formally announced his campaign, then to 20% later that year and to 0% in 2008."

In fact, Mrs. Obama’s income in 2006, a year after her promotion, had decreased to $273,618. And for 2007 (the year she actually started working part-time), her income was $103,633, according to the couple’s tax return for that year. She took an "unpaid leave of absence to work on her husband’s presidential campaign" in 2008, but still received $62,709 from the hospital. However, Easton noted that her final reported salary "consists of accumulated but unused vacation time plus the final payout from a supplemental executive retirement plan."

Easton said the nearly $317,000 figure is "misleading" anyway because it includes more than just her salary. He said the figure "also includes a performance bonus, a one-time signing bonus (she had other, competing offers at the time), and a one-time mandatory payout from a terminated retirement plan." This is reflected in the fact that her 2006 earnings were less than in 2005.



Second, the column implies that her "networking" was what caused her then-senator husband to request a "$1 million earmark for the UC Medical Center" back in 2006. But that’s unsubstantiated also. He did request the funds for the "construction of a new hospital pavilion" at the University of Chicago, but both Obama and hospital officials denied that the request was influenced by his wife’s position. And during the campaign, Obama’s aides were quick to point out that the request was one of many projects that the former senator made in 2005 and 2006 that were killed by Congress.

FactCheck.org : Michelle Obama’s Salary

How can that be, if the work she did was vital enough to be worth $317,000?" It’s true that after her departure, the hospital did not fill the position of vice president for community and external affairs.
She did at one time make $300k. Ok so the story was off by dollar figures, but she made $100k for nothing? AND they didnt fill the position? Why not? It's amazing that you find no issue with this. Liberals complain about this stuff all the time. Conservatives dont really care, if it's a private business.

You have proof? Or do you just rely on the lying OP?

 

[Dick Tuck]

I thought liberals hated those that make more than $200k

Bullshit. Liberals just want them to pay their fair share of the tax burden.

Funny how people like the Obamas, Gates, Buffets, Soros are willing to pay significantly more in taxes because they love this country and want to see it strong.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

If you're one of the little people, you're making yourself feel that way. She isn't.

well for sure her working a job making 300 grand a year doesn't qualify her as a AVERAGE American worker, now DOES IT.
I'm having to work under this woman's interference and I can tell you I don't make ANYTHING close to what this woman made..but hey, she be smart and knows what's best.

Yeah, she be smart..

She be a cutthroat bitch. Face reality. Yea she puts on a good face at times; but you can't discount what she does in the shadows.

 

[Dick Tuck]

How can that be, if the work she did was vital enough to be worth $317,000?" It’s true that after her departure, the hospital did not fill the position of vice president for community and external affairs.
She did at one time make $300k. Ok so the story was off by dollar figures, but she made $100k for nothing? AND they didnt fill the position? Why not? It's amazing that you find no issue with this. Liberals complain about this stuff all the time. Conservatives dont really care, if it's a private business.

Once more for the mentally challenged:

Easton said the nearly $317,000 figure is "misleading" anyway because it includes more than just her salary. He said the figure "also includes a performance bonus, a one-time signing bonus (she had other, competing offers at the time), and a one-time mandatory payout from a terminated retirement plan." This is reflected in the fact that her 2006 earnings were less than in 2005.

And since the job described is hardly "nothing", I dare say it's amazing how willfully ignorant neocon parrots like yourself have NOTHING to say about the exhorbitant salaries and golden parachutes of bankers and insurance company CEO's who FAILED THEIR CUSTOMERS (the people of the USA, bunky).

Now STFU, go back and READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY THE ENTIRE ARTICLE....then grow a pair and deal with the FACT that the OP was WRONG!

mentally challenged? I'm so glad you brought that up. Liberals never parse a salary when talking about those evil rich republicans, they just kind of throw it all in one big pot. Interesting on how you now break down the salary.

and how about that $100k for part time work, just an average part time job, eh?

The fact remains that the OP lied, and you, amongs other wingnuts, were suckered in. Does that make you an Einstein?

 

[Dick Tuck]

well for sure her working a job making 300 grand a year doesn't qualify her as a AVERAGE American worker, now DOES IT.
I'm having to work under this woman's interference and I can tell you I don't make ANYTHING close to what this woman made..but hey, she be smart and knows what's best.

Yeah, she be smart..

She be a cutthroat bitch. Face reality. Yea she puts on a good face at times; but you can't discount what she does in the shadows.

Your pathetic use of Ebonics shows where your envious head is. Must suck for you that she's a successful woman, who was able to get into the best schools and land good jobs.

 

[BlindBoo]

Open season on candidates wives now?

 

[Listening]

The fact remains that the OP lied, and you, amongs other wingnuts, were suckered in. Does that make you an Einstein?

You guys are laughable.

The whole point of the thread has been explained quite clearly.

The OP did not lie in that she made 317 one year and 275 the next.

That is all I care about in this discussion.

The left is so open minded and fact based my ass.

 

[Dick Tuck]

The fact remains that the OP lied, and you, amongs other wingnuts, were suckered in. Does that make you an Einstein?

You guys are laughable.

The whole point of the thread has been explained quite clearly.

The OP did not lie in that she made 317 one year and 275 the next.

That is all I care about in this discussion.

The left is so open minded and fact based my ass.

Bullshit. It was based on clear lies of omission. What a bunch of filth you people are.

 

[Full-Auto]

The fact remains that the OP lied, and you, amongs other wingnuts, were suckered in. Does that make you an Einstein?

You guys are laughable.

The whole point of the thread has been explained quite clearly.

The OP did not lie in that she made 317 one year and 275 the next.

That is all I care about in this discussion.

The left is so open minded and fact based my ass.

Bullshit. It was based on clear lies of omission. What a bunch of filth you people are.

So you are confirming you are an idiot.

 

[Listening]

The fact remains that the OP lied, and you, amongs other wingnuts, were suckered in. Does that make you an Einstein?

You guys are laughable.

The whole point of the thread has been explained quite clearly.

The OP did not lie in that she made 317 one year and 275 the next.

That is all I care about in this discussion.

The left is so open minded and fact based my ass.

Bullshit. It was based on clear lies of omission. What a bunch of filth you people are.

Great retort there DICK.

You can't run from the fact that she made 317 K one year and 275 the next...working full time. Then she went part time and then she left and her position was not replaced.

Please call BS on those facts. Show me what a mindless idiot you really are.

 

[Listening]

Once more for the mentally challenged:

Easton said the nearly $317,000 figure is "misleading" anyway because it includes more than just her salary. He said the figure "also includes a performance bonus, a one-time signing bonus (she had other, competing offers at the time), and a one-time mandatory payout from a terminated retirement plan." This is reflected in the fact that her 2006 earnings were less than in 2005.

And since the job described is hardly "nothing", I dare say it's amazing how willfully ignorant neocon parrots like yourself have NOTHING to say about the exhorbitant salaries and golden parachutes of bankers and insurance company CEO's who FAILED THEIR CUSTOMERS (the people of the USA, bunky).

Now STFU, go back and READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY THE ENTIRE ARTICLE....then grow a pair and deal with the FACT that the OP was WRONG!

mentally challenged? I'm so glad you brought that up. Liberals never parse a salary when talking about those evil rich republicans, they just kind of throw it all in one big pot. Interesting on how you now break down the salary.

and how about that $100k for part time work, just an average part time job, eh?

The fact remains that the OP lied, and you, amongs other wingnuts, were suckered in. Does that make you an Einstein?

And Easton's claims of it being misleading are somewhat funny too....he never bothered to state her base or how she got a signing bonus for going to a job within an org she already worked for.

 

[taichiliberal]

mentally challenged? I'm so glad you brought that up. Liberals never parse a salary when talking about those evil rich republicans, they just kind of throw it all in one big pot. Interesting on how you now break down the salary.

and how about that $100k for part time work, just an average part time job, eh?

The fact remains that the OP lied, and you, amongs other wingnuts, were suckered in. Does that make you an Einstein?

And Easton's claims of it being misleading are somewhat funny too....he never bothered to state her base or how she got a signing bonus for going to a job within an org she already worked for.

What would be funny if it weren't so damned pathetic is your insipid stubborness. The FactCheck article proved the OP WRONG, so NOW you're trying to nit pick to find any type of disparaging information against the First lady. If you were so demanding of the OP, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.

The article names her salary, other sources of income what went down on her tax returns.....and it all shows misleading and dishonest the OP was. FACTS that the OP left out. Deal with it, bunky.

 

[taichiliberal]

Posts #102, 103 and 104.

Neocons, teabaggers all demonstrating willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty in their stubborn parroting of the disproven OP contention. Small wonder why the GOP powers use them to get into power and then screw them over.

 

[Listening]

What would be funny if it weren't so damned pathetic is your insipid stubborness. The FactCheck article proved the OP WRONG, so NOW you're trying to nit pick to find any type of disparaging information against the First lady. If you were so demanding of the OP, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.

The article names her salary, other sources of income what went down on her tax returns.....and it all shows misleading and dishonest the OP was. FACTS that the OP left out. Deal with it, bunky.

Actually jackass, it showed I was right. I only posted saying that she made over 300K

That is a fact.

Or let's see you post that she never made that much money working full time in one year. That is all you need to do.

You deal with it moron.

 

[taichiliberal]

What would be funny if it weren't so damned pathetic is your insipid stubborness. The FactCheck article proved the OP WRONG, so NOW you're trying to nit pick to find any type of disparaging information against the First lady. If you were so demanding of the OP, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.

The article names her salary, other sources of income what went down on her tax returns.....and it all shows misleading and dishonest the OP was. FACTS that the OP left out. Deal with it, bunky.

Actually jackass, it showed I was right. I only posted saying that she made over 300K

That is a fact.

Or let's see you post that she never made that much money working full time in one year. That is all you need to do.

You deal with it moron.

You are an actual jackass if you think you can BS the readers when the chronology of the post shows how intellectually dishonest you are.

The OP and subsequent supporters of the OP claimed that the First Lady pulled a PAYCHECK total of 300k, along with claiming that she made over $100k doing a part time job.

I produced a link to FactCheck.org that PROVES who misleading and incorrect the OP was, as she was NOT making a $100k on a part-time job and that the $317k was a cumulation of several sources re: income, investment cash outs and bonus payments....but YOU stated that "it doesn't matter" because the First Lady made 300k.

So essentially you wasted time and effort to bitch about the fact that at one time TOTAL income for the First Lady when she was an executive administrator in the PRIVATE sector was $317k....but you said NOTHING about the erroneous assertions and accusations of the OP regarding that information. Seems YOU'RE as much a joke as Mitt Romney saying his wife is a good reference about women and the economy.

As I said, posts #102, 103 and 104 tell the tale. And when it comes to having a rational discussion based on facts and the truth, YOU are indeed NOT "listening". Carry on, my intellectually impotent Obama-hating parrot!

 

[Stephanie]

I wonder if Tiachiliberal is on Michelle's payroll,?

maybe she has her own so called, "truth goon squad"? of course it would be paid by the taxpayers.

it still rages on and on and on, and over WHAT? a few hundred thousand dollars..

 

[taichiliberal]

I wonder if Tiachiliberal is on Michelle's payroll,?

maybe she has her own so called, "truth goon squad"? of course it would be paid by the taxpayers.

it still rages on and on and on, and over WHAT? a few hundred thousand dollars..

Translation: another intellectually bankrupt neocon/teabagger toadie frustrated that I took apart yet another piece of neocon/teabagger propaganda for all to see. Poor baby Steph, reality is a real bitch for her to handle.

 

[Stephanie]

I wonder if Tiachiliberal is on Michelle's payroll,?

maybe she has her own so called, "truth goon squad"? of course it would be paid by the taxpayers.

it still rages on and on and on, and over WHAT? a few hundred thousand dollars..

Translation: another intellectually bankrupt neocon/teabagger toadie frustrated that I took apart yet another piece of neocon/teabagger propaganda for all to see. Poor baby Steph, reality is a real bitch for her to handle.

Dear little one, you wouldn't know reality if it bit you in the ass...and if you think calling people the same stupid names all the time makes you look smart, think again.
Now carry on about how you are right and EVERYONE else is wrong...just wake us when you're done, K

 

[Too Tall]

All that matters is FactCheck.org PROVED the contentions of the OP to be MISLEADING AT BEST, DEAD WRONG AT WORST.

Learn to READ, genius....the $317k was CUMULATIVE, NOT LUMP-SUM.

But neocon/teabagger parrots can't handle details....they just take a big number or headline, kiss Rove's/Limbaughs/Murdoch's/Moon's/Armey's ass, and run with it.

Run, my non-LISTENING little parrot, RUN!

Buh-bye!

It may have been cumulative, but what does that have to do with this?

She went from earning $121,910 in 2004 as an executive director at the hospital to making $316,962 in 2005 as a vice president, according to tax returns filed by the Obamas for those years.

She got paid $316,962 in one year according to the IRS. Perhaps it was cumulative in January, June and July, but the facts are what they are.

Ahhh, but YOU don't include ALL the FACTS, do you bunky? Instead, like all 3rd rate neocon/teabagger parrots, you just excerpt bits and parts of information and slap on your bogus supposition and conjecture. For those interested in the TRUTH, observe (from FactCheck.org):

Easton said the nearly $317,000 figure is "misleading" anyway because it includes more than just her salary. He said the figure "also includes a performance bonus, a one-time signing bonus (she had other, competing offers at the time), and a one-time mandatory payout from a terminated retirement plan." This is reflected in the fact that her 2006 earnings were less than in 2005.

The truth, the WHOLE truth, and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH! Deal with it.

I don't need to use fact check to understand that Michelle Obama claimed an income from the hospital of $316,962 on her income tax return in 2005.

 

[Listening]

What would be funny if it weren't so damned pathetic is your insipid stubborness. The FactCheck article proved the OP WRONG, so NOW you're trying to nit pick to find any type of disparaging information against the First lady. If you were so demanding of the OP, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.

The article names her salary, other sources of income what went down on her tax returns.....and it all shows misleading and dishonest the OP was. FACTS that the OP left out. Deal with it, bunky.

Actually jackass, it showed I was right. I only posted saying that she made over 300K

That is a fact.

Or let's see you post that she never made that much money working full time in one year. That is all you need to do.

You deal with it moron.

You are an actual jackass if you think you can BS the readers when the chronology of the post shows how intellectually dishonest you are.

The OP and subsequent supporters of the OP claimed that the First Lady pulled a PAYCHECK total of 300k, along with claiming that she made over $100k doing a part time job.

I produced a link to FactCheck.org that PROVES who misleading and incorrect the OP was, as she was NOT making a $100k on a part-time job and that the $317k was a cumulation of several sources re: income, investment cash outs and bonus payments....but YOU stated that "it doesn't matter" because the First Lady made 300k.

So essentially you wasted time and effort to bitch about the fact that at one time TOTAL income for the First Lady when she was an executive administrator in the PRIVATE sector was $317k....but you said NOTHING about the erroneous assertions and accusations of the OP regarding that information. Seems YOU'RE as much a joke as Mitt Romney saying his wife is a good reference about women and the economy.

As I said, posts #102, 103 and 104 tell the tale. And when it comes to having a rational discussion based on facts and the truth, YOU are indeed NOT "listening". Carry on, my intellectually impotent Obama-hating parrot!

Hahahahaha....

Another Monty Python "Black Knight".

All flap and yap......Michelle Obama made 317 K in one year. End of story.

A real hard luck case.

I'll let people decide just how that works for them.

You on the other hand have gone from the moron category to the rodent category.

Keep digging through the trash in the hopes that you'll find something good to chew on.