Here's an example of the problem

[reefraff]

Got this e-mail about the number of people we the taxpayer supply to the first lady. This is friggin ridiculous and shows part of the reason our Government is so screwed up financially.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, congressional staff and perks are far worse than this. I edited out the political jabs and inaccurate information about previous FL's number of staff claimed in the e-mail. The point isn't which one had the most, IT'S WHY CAN THEY HAVE THIS MANY

1. $172,2000 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
5. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy 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. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator 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. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant 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, Samantha (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. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/michelle-obamas-staff/

 

[zman1]

Now you take issue with the PERKS of the CEO (staff first lady)of the country and stick up for CEOs else where - The hypocrisy of it

Hardworking Americans getting a paycheck is a bad thing

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3151970
Now you take issue with the PERKS of the CEO (staff first lady)of the country and stick up for CEOs else where - The hypocrisy of it

Hardworking Americans getting a paycheck is a bad thing

Free market capitalism is a wonderful thing. If a company is making such a huge profit that they can offer those type of perks to their officers I don't have to do business with them. Unless I am a shareholder it is really none of my business and even then, I can just sell my stock if I don't like it. On the other hand I am forced to fund all the crap with the government.

 

[zman1]

Laura Bush had a staff of 17 people at a cost of $1.28 million. Michelle Obama has increased that to 22 employees at a cost of $1,495,700 per year.
It is only outrageous for Michelle – where was the elite liberal media issues with Laura? 1.28 million seems like a lot for a conservative…
Looks like the conservatives pay better on average - go figure.
1280000/17=$75294.11 average per total employees - Laura
1495700/22=$67986.36 average per total employees -Michelle

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3151986
Laura Bush had a staff of 17 people at a cost of $1.28 million. Michelle Obama has increased that to 22 employees at a cost of $1,495,700 per year.
It is only outrageous for Michelle – where was the elite liberal media issues with Laura? 1.28 million seems like a lot for a conservative…
Which is why I removed the part about Obamette having the most. My issue isn't with her having more than previous FL's, it's the fact we are wasting millions. You are the one trying to make it a D vs. R thing.

 

[zman1]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3151997
Which is why I removed the part about Obamette having the most. My issue isn't with her having more than previous FL's, it's the fact we are wasting millions. You are the one trying to make it a D vs. R thing.
Well then, me adding the last first lady to the list now makes it inclusive - perhaps both should have been include in the first place . However, having an idea that it came from a ANTI-Obama misinformation email. Why would I think anything else.
Looks like the conservatives pay better on average - go figure.
1280000/17=$75294.11 average per total employees - Laura
1495700/22=$67986.36 average per total employees -Michelle

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3151979
Free market capitalism is a wonderful thing.
In theory as it never actually exists....
However, this post also shows why gov't will just get bigger and bigger unless it is properly checked like capitalism should be. Why does the first lady need any staff? They were not elected... Some change, huh...

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3152002
Well then, me adding the last first lady to the list now makes it inclusive - perhaps both should have been include in the first place . However, having an idea that it came from a ANTI-Obama misinformation email. Why would I think anything else.
Looks like the conservatives pay better on average - go figure.
1280000/17=$75294.11 average per total employees - Laura
1495700/22=$67986.36 average per total employees -Michelle
Whatever. I am not surprised the Obama's think they need more servants considering the level of arrogance they display. I guess they are better at exploiting people with low wages than the Bushes were.

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3151986
Laura Bush had a staff of 17 people at a cost of $1.28 million. Michelle Obama has increased that to 22 employees at a cost of $1,495,700 per year.
It is only outrageous for Michelle – where was the elite liberal media issues with Laura? 1.28 million seems like a lot for a conservative…
Looks like the conservatives pay better on average - go figure.
1280000/17=$75294.11 average per total employees - Laura
1495700/22=$67986.36 average per total employees -Michelle
Are you trying to portray Conservatives as being more geared to supporting the middle class?? Or how the Liberals get over on the middle class and give them less?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
http:///forum/post/3152103
Are you trying to portray Conservatives as being more geared to supporting the middle class?? Or how the Liberals get over on the middle class and give them less?
He is trying to deflect what he assumed was an attack on his boy Obama, which isn't the point of my posting the info.
The whole point is does the spouse of a public office holder need more than 15 people working for them. Next question is does each member of congress need more than 150? Until people get a grasp on exactly how out of control Washington is we can't fix the problem. As irresponsible 40 years of "liberal" Democrat control of congress made Washington's spending habits the Republicans out spent them after about 5 years of fiscal sanity. Now the Democrats are back in control and spending even more recklessly than the Republicans did.
Anyone see a pattern here?

 

[sickboy]

So, do the senators aids get paid by the gov't as well? I would assume so, they probably lobbied for more and more positions. I wonder how much would be saved if only the elected official was paid? It probably wouldn't place much of a dent in the budgetary fiasco that is taking place in Washington (and has been for 30 years or so), but it would be a start...

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3152858
So, do the senators aids get paid by the gov't as well? I would assume so, they probably lobbied for more and more positions. I wonder how much would be saved if only the elected official was paid? It probably wouldn't place much of a dent in the budgetary fiasco that is taking place in Washington (and has been for 30 years or so), but it would be a start...
What Reef is pointing out is that this is a small example of an overall issue. (Sorry Reef - I'm not trying to put words in your mouth - I'm trying to clarify. Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting.)
sickboy
It's not been 30 years, it's been 150 years and then some.
What would be saved on the Representative level is miniscule compared to what those same representatives vote to spend.

 

[fishtaco]

The bottom half of that list has to be part-timers or some other deal, no way are they living in D.C. and working at the White House for that kind of money.
Fishtaco

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3152894
What Reef is pointing out is that this is a small example of an overall issue. (Sorry Reef - I'm not trying to put words in your mouth - I'm trying to clarify. Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting.)
sickboy
It's not been 30 years, it's been 150 years and then some.
What would be saved on the Representative level is miniscule compared to what those same representatives vote to spend.
You pretty much nailed it EXCEPT, all those congressional staff members are additional targets for lobbyists without the what I think we all agree is a pretty dismal level of oversight for the elected official. How may of these staff members are being bribed to sway their boss to support this crap? It is just like a computer, garbage in, garbage out. If the official is spending their time on an important "fact finding mission" in the Bahamas or

[hr]
and when they return the staff tells them they need to support ___________ do you really think they are going to do much toward researching it for themselves?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3152934
The bottom half of that list has to be part-timers or some other deal, no way are they living in D.C. and working at the White House for that kind of money.
Fishtaco
Or the child of some big donor living in DC.