First Lady Requires 26 Assistants On USA`s Tab

Submitted by: Nic_Gaybot 7 years ago
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652

She has 26 people working for her costing more than $1.5 million a year. Paid for by the US taxpayers. What recession?
There are 89 comments:
Male 731
"I hear the voices. And I read the front page. And I know the speculation, but I`m the decider and I decide what is best."

"I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at gunpoint if necessary."

"I think I`d be a better president because I was in combat."

- Arrogant Jerks. (Now available in Strawberry!)

0
Reply
Male 15,832
wcclark "For the last time, Obama is not a socialist. He is a liberal."

The difference between a liberal and a socialist is about the same as the difference between vanilla and French vanilla. Throw in progressives, communists, and fasçists, and you have old-fashioned vanilla, natural vanilla, and home-style vanilla.

They`re all arrogant jerks who think they can run your life better than you can.

0
Reply
Male 256
26 Assistants? I can hear the Obama`s now.....

POWER!!!! UNLIMITED POWER!!!!!!!

0
Reply
Female 471
Why does any ONE person need 26 damn assistants? I`m only one person and I have ONE assistant.. ME! So, she has a garden... Does she even work in it, herself? What ever happened to self-sufficients?

What`s next? Hiring someone to wipe her ass for her? "Your moist towelette, M`am."

0
Reply
Female 275
wcclark is my hero
0
Reply
Male 731
For the last time, Obama is not a socialist. He is a liberal. READ THIS.

It makes more sense to say that Ronald Regan was a socialist. After all, he was a supporter of FDR`s New Deal (his father even working as an administrator in the Dixon area), and his taxes on dividends were significantly higher than Clinton`s, Obama`s and both Bushs`.

"It`s far easier to gull people with politically freighted terms than it is to argue actual facts", isn`t it?

Source 1
Source 2

0
Reply
Male 80
Ollie, I disagree. The Obamas are *very* competent at being socialist thugs.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
OldOllie "There are a lot better reasons to dislike the Obamas than this."

wcclark "And what are those, Ollie?"

You mean aside from the fact that they`re incompetent socialist thugs?

0
Reply
Female 275
"Yes why don`t we just employ the entire US population with government jobs? That`ll solve our problems!"

Nice logical fallacy! I didn`t say that. But if the private sector won`t pick up the slack; if capitalism is failing and people are homeless and starving, should the people (since the WE, the people, are the government) just let people slip into poverty?

0
Reply
Male 3,619
lets call it a harem...
0
Reply
Male 174
I don`t think that the words "requires 26 assistants" are anything but inflammatory. I certainly don`t know what being first lady entails, but those "assistants" seemed to be involved with slightly more than answering her beck and call.
0
Reply
Male 334
The amount it works out to per American shouldn`t matter. It`s the principle of the matter. If Obama bought himself a platinum-plated water dish for his dog, are you saying you wouldn`t have a problem with that if it worked out to only .0000001 cents per American?

"Indeed, if you ask me, the notion of more jobs in a time of economic crisis is probably a productive thing; it rings of FDR`s workers programs"

Yes why don`t we just employ the entire US population with government jobs? That`ll solve our problems!

0
Reply
Male 17,512
Hillary Clinton had 3.. Some sources say 19
Laura Bush had 1.. Some sources say 18
Jackie Kennedy had 1.. Again some say 9

I`m guessing it depends on who is defined as an "assitant" or "aide". Either way 26 people is a lot.

0
Reply
Female 407
wow. thats messed up.
0
Reply
Male 409
I imagine that Laura Bush had a staff and budget the same size.
0
Reply
Male 959
Not as bad as Ireland`s ex Taoiseach (prime minister) Bertie Ahern spending 20000 euro ($30000) a year on make up.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
There IS no recession once any financial entity secures a Monopoly.

Good question; did that answer it?

0
Reply
Female 447
The U.S. Government spends tax money on many ridiculous things throughout all levels. I worked for a county Health Department in Maryland and kept track of a $13 million budget for just 1 division. $99 per month for box lunches to feed 12 people at a meeting. Approx. $4000 per year for pens and post-it`s just within that division. Worst of all over $5 million per year to provide ob/gyn and dental care for illegal immigrants that were given pseudo social security numbers in order to have medical files created within the department. This was just for one county within one of the smallest states in the nation. I worked in Annapolis, MD and I specifically remember one illegal immigrant patient that would pull up in her mercedes convertible with her 2 kids and come into our clinic for her free healthcare, it makes me nauseas just thinking about it.
0
Reply
Male 1,505
My household net income is the same whether she has 26 staff members or none at all. This sums it up for me:
http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm...
Aside from that, I don`t think I could give a poo if I tried.
0
Reply
Male 97
The fact that a website may have a slanted viewpoint does not negate the truthfulness of the stated claims. It`s like Fox News network, a conservative website, saying that there are 13 stripes on the American flag. The fact that the statement came from the Fox News Network does not mean that the flag does not have 13 stripes.
0
Reply
Male 4,004
"This site is a slanted conservative publication.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/michell...

QFT

0
Reply
Male 731
And what are those, Ollie?
0
Reply
Male 294
@OldOllie

Agreed.

0
Reply
Male 294
@studentofman

The author is grousing because it`s not his party on PA. Ave.

That`s all. He wasn`t whistleblowing on Laura Bush, in fact, he`s deliberately misconstrued the facts to make it seem like other first ladies had almost none and that simply isn`t the case. See the factcheck link.

No. It isn`t the government`s job to sacrifice with us. It doesn`t work like that. It hasn`t worked like that since before FDR. Government`s job in a sluggish economy is to pump the primer through deficit spending and recollect through taxes later.

0
Reply
Male 15,832
There are a lot better reasons to dislike the Obamas than this.
0
Reply
Male 345
Seems to me the author is trying to make the point that a) the first lady is not a political position, b) as it is not a political position it does not warrant support staff, c) even if it did warrant staff, these numbers (for any presidency) are excessive, and d) throughout times of crisis in our nation in which the citizenry is expected to sacrifice so to has our government been held to the same standard.

The idea that our government is spending well over 1.4 million dollars per year for 22 handlers for non-critical personnel period, let alone during these times is ludicrous. And as far as FDR`s economic policies, independent of the revisionist history that they were effective, such policies are mere governmental diversions as such employment cannot be maintained and provides false data for key indicators. This isn`t about partisanship, all of these jackasses are spending your money indiscriminately and Americans continue to give them passes because they`re on "our team&qu

0
Reply
Male 8,302
> Baalthazaq
> Laura Bush evidently paid them more though (even though she had less of them)

You know, a logical conclusion is that more of Michelle`s would be African Americans than Laura`s, because she herself is black. If that is true, and overall they get paid less than Laura`s staff did even though there are more of them, then the President needs to address some pay equity issues right in his own office.

0
Reply
Male 4,547
Unless you have information contradicting factcheck, feel free to shut up now.

Michelle has 24, Laura Bush had between 18 and 24.
Laura Bush evidently paid them more though. Thus suggesting you paid more for Laura Bush`s assistants than you pay for Michelle`s (by about 260k).

Now that we know this, I`m assuming everyone who was complaining about Michelle will now complain about Laura instead?

After all, what you say is generated by facts, not mindless rage at an opposing viewpoint right?

0
Reply
Male 294
Darn it, Cagel beat me to it.
0
Reply
Male 294
There`s a bunch of false data in the forums.

Mrs. O. has the same number of staff that Mrs. B. had, and in fact the current staff was based on the previous one.

Check FactCheck.org
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/michell...

0
Reply
Female 275
This site is a slanted conservative publication.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/michell...

And whether or not a first lady should have a staff isn`t partisan either, as Laura Bush had a staff of 24 at one time.

Indeed, if you ask me, the notion of more jobs in a time of economic crisis is probably a productive thing; it rings of FDR`s workers programs. Indeed, cutting back will not generate more revenue nor pay the people who are alive and need to be clothed, fed and sheltered. So maybe knee-jerk protests against people having jobs just because they happen to be for the first lady aren`t really logical.

Maybe they`re just partisan and a little bit sexist.

0
Reply
Male 734
A lot of these are simultaneously working for the president, so I think it`s a stretch to say that they wouldn`t be here without the first lady.

And besides, judging by the job titles, almost all of them are doing something of valid importance to the government, and therefore the tax payer.

0
Reply
Male 999
this is soo stupid.
0
Reply
Female 1,441
Wow she`s really stirring things up in the White House isn`t she? The first ladies have NEVER had this many assistants before!

/sarcasm.

0
Reply
Male 228
So, 26 more people have jobs. This is a problem?
0
Reply
Male 8,302
What a fuss over nothing! Sheesh, you walk the streets and no-one says nothing, but put 27 ho`s and a pimp in the White House and suddenly everyone`s a critic...

J-O-K-I-N-G-!!! :-)

0
Reply
Male 505
"you would be able to buy 0.00369993101 cans of cheap, generic soda per year."

It`s still 1.5 million that can be put to better use don`t you think?

0
Reply
Male 347
I don`t see the problem. The First Lady is essentially the American Princess. It`s not what I would prefer, but given the current state of affairs, having about 2 dozen assistants does not seem inappropriate.

Think about what harm she could cause if she said/did the wrong thing. Thank goodness that there are people to look after and help her. That it costs what it does is truly trivial compared to the cost of what her husband does.

0
Reply
Female 850
this isnt even the stupidest thing that taxpayers pay for.
0
Reply
Male 731
StphnHrrll, it says she had at least 18. Anita McBride, Laura Bush`s former Chief of Staff states that she has between 24 to 26 workers.

Source

0
Reply
Male 3,014
@The_Maddog: Erm... I don`t get it?
0
Reply
Female 434
ryano actually according to snopes she had 18 I litereally was just there.
0
Reply
Female 434
She can pay for those assistants out of her own pocket then. NOT WITH TAX PAYER DOLLARS! This country spends money like it`ll always be there. We are never going to leave this recession if we don`t cut back on spending. Plain and effing simple. If I had a mortgage of $1200 a month and my husband lost his job and we couldn`t afford to pay our mortgage anymore we wouldn`t upgrade to a bigger house!
0
Reply
Male 1
Laura Bush had between 24 and 26 according to snopes.
0
Reply
Male 3,369

0
Reply
Male 7,378
Cat5 Complaining like he`s losing tax dollars. What are you anyway the Rush Limbaugh Winnipeg? Don`t worry about it dude.
0
Reply
Male 1,141
Oh you mean the first lady has assistants!? I bet Laura Bush had them too. But suddenly it`s such a concern? There are a lot more unnecessary things that our money is paying for.
0
Reply
Male 9,306
"OH NO!!! This corruption will not stand! Time to revolt against all liberals! Who`s with me?
This article has incited my rage!"

Doesn`t it go "We the people" somewhere? I remember hearing that a long time ago...where was it...

0
Reply
Male 36,509
[quote]One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense, when even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush ONE[/quote]
This is from the link Avalon provided. The list there is just a reprint, below it (in red) is this info about former First Lady`s assistants.
idk if it`s accurate or what, just correcting the idea that Laura Bush had 22 "staff", she apparently had ONE.
0
Reply
Male 3,431
Eh it could be 20 more people on the unemployment line.
0
Reply
Male 3,081
Well i guess that`s kinda expected when you give an unelected spouse of a politician an official title like `first lady`....there comes with it an expectation of duties, and therefore why not expect a staff to help with those duties?

We in the UK have it a slightly different way.... we don`t give the spouses of our politicians any title or expect them to perform an official role alongside their partner. yet they still always seem to find a way of getting taxpayers money via the back door - and not doing anything for it.

At least your politicians seem to be a bit more open about what their family members are getting out of them being elected....and what is expected of them in return for it.

0
Reply
Male 98
You would think they`d get more pay...
0
Reply
Male 1,190
Michelle Obama can do no wrong, move on.

-2 to IAB for even beginning to question the Consort to The One!

0
Reply
Male 12,365
I think spouses of elected officials should have no official position and no publically funded assistants. If they want that, they should stand for election themselves.

Joachim Sauer has the right approach, in my opinion.

If you`re thinking "who?", that`s my point. His wife is Angela Merkel, arguably the most powerful person in Europe. He deliberately doesn`t get involved in politics - she was elected, not him.

0
Reply
Male 601
Also, it`s not like she hired people to do her shopping or tuck her kids in at night or anything, they are actual assistants that help her deal with the media and political pressure that accompany being the spouse of the leader of the free world...
0
Reply
Female 1,566
I think she inherited most of those people anyway. Plus, has anyone checked out those titles? They`re kinda necessary. "Director of Press for the First Lady" is obviously useful, plus some of them are for her and the President. & I say this as a Republican.
0
Reply
Male 601
Oh my...One of the busiest women in the world needs assistants. What will people be crying about next?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
It`s nice, in a way, to see that other countries do politics the same way as here in the UK. Although here you would expect at least 1 of her staff to be a member of her own family, employed with public money to do nothing.
0
Reply
Male 1,406
OH NO!!! This corruption will not stand! Time to revolt against all liberals! Who`s with me?

This article has incited my rage!

0
Reply
Male 11
The current population of the US is 304,059,724.

If the First Lady requires $1.5 million for her servants and we, the taxpayers are paying for it, then each one of us 304,059,724 Americans is paying $0.00493324134 per year.

That means that if you didn`t have to chip in for her servants, you would be able to buy 0.00369993101 cans of cheap, generic soda per year.

well seeing as how there are only about 156.3 mil taxpayers, its twice that. but thats not the point. point is that is just part of the frivolous spending from the gov. keep looking the other way as politicians take away your standard of living, one .0097 at a time.

0
Reply
Male 2,229
Canada Free Press my ass! The editors are all to mostly right wingers that are venomous supporters of the Conservative party or the CRAP (Conservative Reform Alliance Party)
This is another lunatic (right wing) mouth piece. The CBC, Canadian Press, and the AP are "real" news agencies. The others are either part of the media cartel, or are some mouth piece for a rich `guy` with an (political) agenda.
Rather funny/sad how one agency will quote another with out verifying the source material.
0
Reply
Male 1,063
Last summer, the Senator Ensign of Nevada has a little get together a the beach I work at. He had 41 assistants. I saw 10 of them blowing up ballons.
0
Reply
Female 4,376
wow...i`m soooo schocked.
0
Reply
Male 674
Um, Considering that nearly every first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt has been her own damn Charity organization, having a staff is perfectly understandable. Sure, I suppose the two people on the top could have their salaries halved and still do pretty well, but meh.

Besides, if you look around that site some more, you will find tha they are one of those ultra conservative "LIBERALS ARE EVILLLL!!!!!!" sites... The first lady could have a singular assistant making minimum wage and they would complain...

0
Reply
Female 1,963
1) It says "by the staff of thelastcrusade.org", a very very right wing religious blog. Hardly a reliable source.
2) Most of those seem to say they are also (and probably primarily) assistants to the president. Not just the first lady.
0
Reply
Male 2,514
***If any believes this to be unusual for a First Lady, you are beyond naive.***

BINGO!!!

0
Reply
Male 187
Here was laura bush
http://scienceesl.blogspot.com/2009/10/f...
most of the names are the same, granted there are an additional 4 people, but hey....
0
Reply
Male 195
If putting a $0.00493324134 amount on it makes you feel better, we are all doomed. I personally am upset about the assistant vice principal in my school district that is pulling in 6 figures!
0
Reply
Male 9,306
"Because without America there is no free world."

...yeahhh about that...I have some serious disagreements with your tagline sir...

0
Reply
Male 309
just because she doesnt have any official duties doesnt mean shes not important to america. the press would be all over her if she looked homeless and did nothing but sit around the house all day, even though she has no official duties.

The 1.5 million dollars that goes to thoes people gets injected into the economy, as they spend that money. and think about honestly lowering their wages, you dont just have your average assistant off the street in the white house, do you really want thoes people around the president and assisting the country?

also, half their job titles were assistant to the president AND first lady, its not like she has someone to tie her shoes for her

0
Reply
Male 527
If any believes this to be unusual for a First Lady, you are beyond naive.
0
Reply
Female 525
Thank you for putting it in prospective. I`m sure other presidential wives had hired staff as well; I doubt this is a new concept. Very slanted article. :/
0
Reply
Male 7,933
"That means that if you didn`t have to chip in for her servants, you would be able to buy 0.00369993101 cans of cheap, generic soda per year.

Just thought I`d put things in perspective."

True, but with that said, its 58k a year for servants....I`m pretty sure you could drastically lower their wages and higher more people at possibly more useful positions. Create employment in all the right places

0
Reply
Male 496
Can you please take my $0.00493324134 and put it towards a tomahawk missile to insert into the rectum of a terrorist via GPS and detonate? Kthxbye.
0
Reply
Male 1,550
What, me worry?
0
Reply
Male 14,330
F*ck that I want my $0.00493324134 damn it!!!!
0
Reply
Male 1,002
The current population of the US is 304,059,724.

If the First Lady requires $1.5 million for her servants and we, the taxpayers are paying for it, then each one of us 304,059,724 Americans is paying $0.00493324134 per year.

That means that if you didn`t have to chip in for her servants, you would be able to buy 0.00369993101 cans of cheap, generic soda per year.

Just thought I`d put things in perspective.

0
Reply
Male 226
What?? You asked us to make jobs! ;)
0
Reply
Male 25,416
Its good being the boss. these are the perks that come with!
0
Reply
Male 1,931
That`s creating jobs!
0
Reply
Male 2,440
[quote]When did we start calling it "The Great Recession" as if it was some sort of unforgiving god of hell-fire![/quote]

Because "Cthulhu" was already taken.


Praise him!

0
Reply
Male 964
When did we start calling it "The Great Recession" as if it was some sort of unforgiving god of hell-fire!
0
Reply
Female 15,763
Surprise surprise, our government has a lot of useless positions!
0
Reply
Male 2,440
The government wasting our money? No way!
0
Reply
Male 365
It only listed 22 assistants and it says she has 26. Also at least one of them works for Barack as well.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
I`ve heard it through the grapevine from workers of a reasturant she frequents or used to that she`s an A class b!tch.
0
Reply
Male 2,148
I`m sure she`s not the first first lady to spend a bunch of money, but that`s seriously retarded. I suppose we should all have expected this from Michelle Obama, but whatever.
0
Reply
Female 40
More politics. Yay. Still bored.
0
Reply
Female 230
Link: First Lady Requires 26 Assistants On USA`s Tab [Rate Link] - She has 26 people working for her costing more than $1.5 million a year. Paid for by the US taxpayers. What recession?
0
Reply