It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

See The Salaries Of Michelle Obama’s 26 Servants, Paid With Your Taxes

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 05:56 AM
link   
most of them should be fired especially it would seen the higher paid ones. they aren't doing their jobs well. if they were, they wouldn't let her speak at all in public. that or they are really incompetent and the idiotic stuff that comes out of her mouth is their "brilliant" ideas.




posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 06:09 AM
link   
hey guess what?...she also has people drive her around in a big limousine....and people cook and clean for her, too!!.......ooooohhh!!!



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 06:09 AM
link   

elouina

hellobruce

AlphaHawk
reply to post by elouina
 


26 salaries to 26 American citizens who will spend their money in America (mostly).

Why is this a problem?


Because it is Obama's wife....


GoodbyeBruce, that was the biggest fail I have seen to date. This is a presidency, not a fairytale kingdom. Then again, all Snow white got was 7 politically incorrect dwarfs and a few helpers that worked for bird seed. Oh wait, they were birds....

According to my article, Hillary Clinton had exactly 1/2 of the staff of Michelle and didn't seem to suffer any. Then again, Michelle is a much harder sell to the public.
edit on 7-3-2014 by elouina because: (no reason given)


Did you forget Laura Bush? At one point she had 24 staffers but at the end of hubbys term it was 18. And with only 18 she still spent almost as much as Michelle so just guess how much she was paying for 24 you can bet it was even more. Looks like your bias is blinding you to facts.

Michelle Obamas staff



Lelyveld said that Michelle Obama’s staff was actually no different than that of her predecessor, Laura Bush. “[W]e have exactly the same staff number as Mrs. Bush and our office organization reflects a similar staffing model, so insinuations otherwise are wrong,” she said. Lelyveld said that the White House’s “personnel records indicate” that there were 24 staffers for Laura Bush at some point. We were able to verify at least 18 staffers for Laura Bush, as of June 30, 2008, via the 2008 White House staff list published in The Washington Post’s White House Watch column. Sixteen people were specifically referred to as a “first lady” staffer, and Amy Zantzinger and Dorothy Thornton served as White House social secretary and deputy social secretary, respectively. It’s possible that someone with the title of “staff assistant” was assigned to the Office of First Lady as well, as is the case with Michelle Obama’s staff.

edit on 7-3-2014 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Meanwhile, those who seek welfare to prevent their families starving to death are told they are scroungers and a burden to the tax payer!

And people wonder why we use the word "sheeple".



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 06:19 AM
link   

JHumm

hellobruce

elouina
I know this was exposed last July,


Last July? July 2009, you mean. Why repost a 4 1/2 year old story?

urbanlegends.about.com...

www.factcheck.org...

Is this the best Obama bashers can do, repost stories that are 4 1/2 years old?

It was also posted here in 2011
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Why not post it again ? Now its 4 years old so that's almost 8 million dollars more that has been wasted on a woman that thinks that most of us are bewildered knuckle heads ....and we must be to let this keep going on .


Most of the people are still voting Republican or Democrat if that doesn't prove they are bewildered knuckle heads then nothing does.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 06:31 AM
link   

elouina
Oh I got it and your number. Rational isn't purporting that the Kim Jong-un lives a life of extravagant leisure just to provide jobs. So how is this any different? Gottcha, and bye bye now!



I'm not going to defend the Obamas here but really?

Comparing to Kim Jong-un to Michelle Obama.



Walks off scratching head, Needs more coffee....



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


I found it interesting that the FLOTUS has a full time make up artist and full time hairdresser - paid for by our tax money. I'm sure that both dems and republicans have given themselves this little perk. I'm wondering why a woman that age needs someone else to comb her hair and put lipstick on for her every day. If they can't deal with putting their own lipstick on each day, then they should pay for their own 'makeup artist' ... out of their own money. Not ours.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 06:40 AM
link   

VoidHawk
Meanwhile, those who seek welfare to prevent their families starving to death are told they are scroungers and a burden to the tax payer!

And people wonder why we use the word "sheeple".

Precisely...
In 2012, she came to Hollywood fund-raiser (sparsely attended) did a "sob story con job" then went to Rodeo Drive to spend poor Progressives loot...including Busters!!!



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


Aren't people entitled to work? To have a job? What's wrong with that?
So some people 'lucked' out and got good paying jobs- geez
They work for the President and his family, who else is going to pay them?
It's a government job!!
The more that are employed, the more people have work!! Isn't that a good thing?
Can't you see this in a good light?
Whatever happened to being happy for other people's good luck?



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 07:15 AM
link   

AlphaHawk
reply to post by elouina
 


26 salaries to 26 American citizens who will spend their money in America (mostly).

Why is this a problem?


Because this entourage is taxpayer funded--you know by a country with massive debt building up and we are told that we must eat more taxes to bolster the failing country by the very people who spend our money on a huge entourage. Remember--she was not elected, she holds no real position, and she has no Constitutionally granted powers nor privileges.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 07:27 AM
link   

buster2010

JHumm

hellobruce

elouina
I know this was exposed last July,


Last July? July 2009, you mean. Why repost a 4 1/2 year old story?

urbanlegends.about.com...

www.factcheck.org...

Is this the best Obama bashers can do, repost stories that are 4 1/2 years old?

It was also posted here in 2011
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Why not post it again ? Now its 4 years old so that's almost 8 million dollars more that has been wasted on a woman that thinks that most of us are bewildered knuckle heads ....and we must be to let this keep going on .


Most of the people are still voting Republican or Democrat if that doesn't prove they are bewildered knuckle heads then nothing does.



That is a true statement ...hat off to you



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 07:36 AM
link   

NavyDoc

AlphaHawk
reply to post by elouina
 


26 salaries to 26 American citizens who will spend their money in America (mostly).

Why is this a problem?


Because this entourage is taxpayer funded--you know by a country with massive debt building up and we are told that we must eat more taxes to bolster the failing country by the very people who spend our money on a huge entourage. Remember--she was not elected, she holds no real position, and she has no Constitutionally granted powers nor privileges.


The First Lady is expected to fulfill certain duties when her spouse is elected into office. Modern times has encouraged all of them to be productive role models during their term as First Lady. If anything, this should be a wake up call that one should consider the next candidates spouses when voting. It is a package deal, whether one realizes it or not. They do have their own agendas and are not just going to sit in the background demurely, male or female.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


Rep or Dem, this crap needs to stop.

It is highly ironic and just plain funny, to see an assclown like 0bama and his asshat wife, bantering on about how peole don't have jobs and just how unfair life is, while they spend TAX payer money to pay people to serve them.

While they are the current crop of Tyrants sitting in the White House, the rest of those in politics pretty much act the same way.

Just another reason to want a smaller Govt.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   

jimmyx
hey guess what?...she also has people drive her around in a big limousine....and people cook and clean for her, too!!.......ooooohhh!!!


At what point in time was it deemed acceptable that those in Govt were to be catered to and served???

Yeah, this is crap and you know this.

Remove 0bama, and insert what ever hated GOP'er you like, and your outrage would be off the charts.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 



Is very interesting also to read the replies here in the post, while bashing the OP exposure of the outrageous lavish lifestyle of those that call themselves leaders in the nation, nobody defending these spending have the time to add two and two together and see the irony and hypocrisy here, you have, and thanks for that.

Meanwhile we hear how much the nation is in debt and how much we should sacrifice for the good of the nation, like cutting benefits for veterans and social services, but then again the elite in power have not problem with keeping the waste and abuse and bailing out their cronies when they have wasted and abused other peoples money.

Like I said already in another thread, Americas leaders do not behave any different that those dictatorships in third world counties (now called developing countries), but here the propaganda makes sure that it look right and is all good for the tax payer.

People believe it, that is the scary part of it.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 09:18 AM
link   

CynConcepts

NavyDoc

AlphaHawk
reply to post by elouina
 


26 salaries to 26 American citizens who will spend their money in America (mostly).

Why is this a problem?


Because this entourage is taxpayer funded--you know by a country with massive debt building up and we are told that we must eat more taxes to bolster the failing country by the very people who spend our money on a huge entourage. Remember--she was not elected, she holds no real position, and she has no Constitutionally granted powers nor privileges.


The First Lady is expected to fulfill certain duties when her spouse is elected into office. Modern times has encouraged all of them to be productive role models during their term as First Lady. If anything, this should be a wake up call that one should consider the next candidates spouses when voting. It is a package deal, whether one realizes it or not. They do have their own agendas and are not just going to sit in the background demurely, male or female.


And this trend is not only wrong, but unConstitutional.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 




You think this is more or less.... or different from any other President?
Why is this news?

Get figures for Lobbyists or Corporate donations and make a worthwhile thread on that.
This is like something out of some gossip magazine... who cares?



I always complain that world leaders have to go around in lavish cars and stay at the fanciest hotels and fly on private jets and all the rest of it.... until the world changes, then this wont change either.
Either people rise up and demand that world leaders live a modest life, or they do what leaders have always done.

I'd like to see the figures for the CEO of Barclays or Exxon Mobil or Toyota.
I'd imagine corporate waste and expenditure absolutely blows politicians out of the water

edit on 7/3/14 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


It would seem to me that those people went to school and university to obtain jobs like this and it would seem to me that denying them this salary just because you don't like the first family is not right. They do work for this money and they work damn hard. There would be people doing these jobs no matter what. Why shouldn't they be paid. Or are you saying what they do is unnecessary ? That Michelle should be doing this herself? Which is it. They are not necessary or Michele should do it herself? Because what they do doesn't carry the option of not being done. Someone is paid to do it or she does it herself. No saying it doesn't get done. That is not an option so pick yours. She does it or someone else gets paid to do it. Her or someone else who does it.?



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   

blupblup
reply to post by elouina
 




You think this is more or less.... or different from any other President?
Why is this news?


It seems to be a trend that points to the fact that the spending on lavish lifestyle of our elected politicians keeps growing.



Get figures for Lobbyists or Corporate donations and make a worthwhile thread on that.


I myself did thread on that in ATS many year ago.



This is like something out of some gossip magazine... who cares?


Actually I do as a wife of a veteran, I see the irony and the hypocrisy of what the government attempts to do in order to cut around corners to keep wasting an abusing tax payers dollars.

Next time we are forced into more taxes just remember for whom and what we have to sacrifice in nation.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by generik
 


Why should they be fired? Because they earn a good living? Because they went to school to qualify for the job? Because you said so?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join