yea the obama's really care

[USsil80]

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652

Written by Dr. Paul L.Williams "In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much," she said. "See, that's why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service, " ... Michelle Obama

No, Michelle Obama does not get paid to serve as the First Lady and she doesn't perform any official duties. But this hasn't deterred her from hiring an unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession. Just think, Mary Lincoln was taken to task for purchasing china for the White House during the Civil War. And Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary from her husband's salary.Total Personal Staff members for other first ladies paid by taxpayers:Mamie Eisenhower : 1 paid for personally out of President's salaryJackie Kennedy: 1Roseline Carter: 1Barbara Bush: 1Hilary Clinton: 3Laura Bush: 1Michele Obama: 22 How things have changed! If you're one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and then come to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Ms Michelle are the same as members of the national security and defense departments and the bill for these assorted lackeys is paid by YOU, John Q. Public:Michele Obama's personal staff: 1. $172,200 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff) 2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Dep Asst to President and Dir of Policy And Projects for First Lady) 3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Spec Asst to the President and WH Social Sec for Mrs. Obama) 4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Spec Asst to President and Dir of Communications for First Lady) 5. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Spec Asst to President and Dep Chief Of Staff to the First Lady) 6. $90,000 - Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady) 7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady) 8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady) 9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady) 10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary) 11. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary) 12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Dep Director of Scheduling & Events Coord For The First Lady) 13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady) 14. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady) 15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Assoc Dir and Dep Press Secretary To The First Lady) 16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Spec Asst for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady) 17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady) 18. $43,000 - Tubman, Samanth a (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office) 19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady) 20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary) 21. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant) 22. $35,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Dep Assoc Dir of Correspondence for the First Lady) (Total = $1,591,200 in annual salaries) Paid by taxpayers! There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense. Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to Europe .

Copyright 2009 Canada Free Press.Com canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652

Yes, I know... The Canadian Free Press had to publish this perhaps because America no longer has a free press and the USA media is too scared that they might be considered racist, or suffer at the hands of Obama. "Sorry America" !

[AZhitman]

Holy hell.

If this is true:

Barbara Bush: 1Laura Bush: 1Michele Obama: 22

...then her elitist a$$ should be sent packing.

We'll keep the POTUS, we're stuck with him. But I didn't vote for no spoiled-a** gold digger.

[Pwnin O'Brien]

I doubted this at first (maybe speculation), but the first Google result (from FactCheck.org) supports the claim... http://m.factcheck.org/2009/08...taff/

The number of staff for the Bush's were a bit off but it's still pretty ridiculous.

[srellim234]

It's that sense of entitlement you guys have spoken about that is killing the country. The lower class feels it's entitled and the upper class feels it's entitled. The middle class is dying in the process.

[audtatious]

You mean the lower class feel they are entitled to what the upper class have worked for and the upper class feel entitled to keep their money or give it to which charity they desire without it being taken?

[srellim234]

No, actually the upper class feels it's entitled to run it's business without any sense of the ethics and moral responsibility it should have. That, plus a sense that the ability to buy out nyone in the government entitles them to legal impunity, too.

[audtatious]

Without business there would be no jobs. Without profit there would be no businesses. The ability of businesses to "buy" something from politicians is directly the fault of politicians being greedy and allowing it to happen. Both are guilty but IMO the politicians are more so as they are supposed to be working for the people and not themselves nor special interest groups.

[USsil80]

Without business there would be no jobs. Without profit there would be no businesses. The ability of businesses to "buy" something from politicians is directly the fault of politicians being greedy and allowing it to happen. Both are guilty but IMO the politicians are more so as they are supposed to be working for the people and not themselves nor special interest groups.

like the tax on health care being exempt to unions

[nissangirl74]

(Total = $1,591,200 in annual salaries) Paid by taxpayers!

f*** that noise. Michelle Obama does not need 22 assistants. She does, however, need to quit breathing my good goddamn air. That amount of money will pay 105 minimum wage workers full time salaries for an entire year ....with change to spare.

[AZhitman]

No, actually the upper class feels it's entitled to run it's business without any sense of the ethics and moral responsibility it should have.

Translated into Libby-ese: They shouldn't make so much money when other people aren't.

ALL businesses are bound by two things: The laws of the land, and the laws of economics and the free market. THAT'S IT. Anything else is simply unnecessary governmental intrusion and should be punishable by death. I'm a small business owner and I'm sick of it.

[srellim234]

The laws of the land and the free market with a reduction in regulation led to the current situation we are in. A certain amount of regulation is necessary.

It has nothing to do with the amount of money they make. Simply put, in today's world the rich do not play by the same rules the rest of us do. They get preferential treatment.

I agree with aud- politicians and the way our political process has evolved are to blame.

[audtatious]

I agree with aud- politicians and the way our political process has evolved are to blame.

There is a major disconnect on what is to be considered "rich". To someone sweeping parking lots, the person working as a computer tech, making 30k/yr, could be considered rich. To that person, someone making 60k/yr could be considered rich. So on and so on it goes.

There is also the issue with region and location. Someone making 100k/yr in my area, where the median income is 35k/yr, could be considered rich while that same person in NYC or areas in Cali where cost of living and taxes are higher would not be so well off. Personal financial choices are also in effect as well.

I know someone who has already compared their first 2010 paycheck to ones he received in 2009 and he is paying 9% more in taxes on the 2010 paycheck. He makes $50k/yr. That is FAR out of scope of the >$250k that the gov has stated. I'm almost afraid to look at mine to see the difference.

[smockers83]

The laws of the land and the free market with a reduction in regulation led to the current situation we are in. A certain amount of regulation is necessary.

It has nothing to do with the amount of money they make. Simply put, in today's world the rich do not play by the same rules the rest of us do. They get preferential treatment.

Not entirely.

First, unethical and lawless businesses don't survive. They come crashing down at some point, whether due to their own practices or the law. Case in point, the very recession we just went through. Some people call it unethical, I call it just stupid on all parties, the banking/housing crisis that was the source.

However, in those kinds of markets, high profits can be realized, or in other words, high incomes paid to those who participate. This is where the greed factor comes in that everyone talks about that I personally think is over played because one will never get rid of greed.

There were a lot of people who were not or are not rich that were participating in the game that led to all of this. We cannot keep pointing the finger at banks and the rich and ask the government to force them to make changes (in pay). I, like Jamie Dimon, am sick and tired of hearing the vilification of banks and their employees because they get paid (bonuses) for what they do. What about bonuses paid out in every other industry, such as oil, athletics, and the others who have yet to be mentioned who participated in the CDS markets (hedge funds)?

Oh, and the bit about Michelle, outrage. I honestly haven't found one thing that I can't object to yet that comes out of this administration.
Modified by smockers83 at 12:21 PM 1/16/2010

[audtatious]

High salaries for public companies are bad. Those under Gov control is good. That must be the case as the CEO's of Fannie and Freddie will receive upwards of 10 million in pay and 10 additional executives at the two companies are eligible collectively for $30.1 million in compensation.

Didn't they just raise the cap for Fannie/Freddie to take on MORE bad debt for us to pay for?

[dusred]

Not entirely.

First, unethical and lawless businesses don't survive. They come crashing down at some point, whether due to their own practices or the law.

Unless the government comes and bails them out with OUR money. Then even still sometimes they go under.

[audtatious]

It is interesting that this new tax on the banks does not hit GM, Chrysler nor Fannie/Freddie......

[smockers83]

Unless the government comes and bails them out with OUR money. Then even still sometimes they go under.

Some of the Street's most looked up to and biggest firms went under (Lehman's, Bear Stearns, Countrywide, WaMu, Wachovia, etc.). Plus the whole market surrounding mortgages, that came crashing down, too, did it not?

[audtatious]

Here's an interesting "Conservative's" view of the beginning of this whole fiasco.

http://www.city-journal.org/ht....html

It was written in 2000 and targets primarily urban city development under CRA. The last sentence is: "For it is these that will reflect the true threat that CRA poses, a threat to the health of cities."...........Guess he never foresaw that the principals of CRA would be pressed forth for the whole nation and result in a major bubble and imminent collapse.

[srellim234]

Getting back to the OP, the list of Michelle Obama's staffers and the fact that it is excessive and unprecendented is not very accurate. Snopes analyzes it here:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/firstlady.asp