Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

First Lady requires more than twenty attendants

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   
The first lady just called on all Americans to perform community service.Do you suppose she can spare some of her staff to do so as well.



SR

posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 03:56 AM
link   
Welcome to champange socailism my friends in the USA now you will understand the strife and pain alot of the rest of us around the world have had to endure.

I feel sorry for you's as the rest of us try and remove it's choking dead hand from around our necks, that you have been firmly grasped by it's other hand.

All i can say is hang tough during the long and bumpy ride because when you elected champagne socialists little did you know you where electing your new ''deity'' who ''know's best''.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthWithin
Sarah Palin has a larger staff and she is a quitter.

I would hope that if YOUR wife were being attacked, the way you deep south hill-billies are attacking her, you would want some help too.

Give it up and get real.


Hillbillies? Why the need for name calling?

As a Fiscal Conservative I find 20 some staffers for a position with no roles to be simply disgusting. Nothing short of it.

And, in my opinion of course, which because it differs from you, you may remark poorly on it, I believe the Mrs. Obama is wasting away a beautiful opportunity to enact REAL change.

I believe she was placed in a position of immense popularity and power, as First Lady, she COULD do some amazing social works, charities, motivating, starting organizations and working for some kind of goal, and goal. Apparently she's content to sit pretty and have the hand servants feed her from a silver platter. Her non-involvement is the only thing that has surprised me about the Obama's. I already knew the husband was a liar, a thief and a cheat, I expect much more from Mrs. Obama.

But what do I know, I suppose, as a Conservative, I am just a lowly hillbilly, didn't get me no proper edykation.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Please! If you weren't complaining about it back then don't be complaining about it now just for the sake of complaining. geesh.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 05:25 AM
link   
I just have to say this..



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 05:31 AM
link   
'Attendants' and staffers are two different things.
However, it does seem like a HUGE amount of people
considering that Mrs. Obama is nobody except the wife
of the POTUS.


Originally posted by SR
Welcome to champange socailism

OMG. That's so dead on.!


[edit on 7/9/2009 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife

Originally posted by TruthWithin
Sarah Palin has a larger staff and she is a quitter.

I would hope that if YOUR wife were being attacked, the way you deep south hill-billies are attacking her, you would want some help too.

Give it up and get real.


First, what does Sarah Palin have to do with this conversation?

This is about Mrs. Obama, being a hypocrite. I remember her saying, "some people are going to have to give up a piece of their pie in order for other to get a slice."

But yet she keeps taking more of the pie for herself? Can you not see the hypocrisy?



"Let them eat cake".......



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Don't you realize what Michelle is doing? She is "creating jobs!" She is helping to minimize the growing unemployment in this nation. She should be applauded, not attacked. If we could all hire 20+ attendents, there would be no unemployment problem. Pay it forward, people!





posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jadette
All first ladies have large staffs. Hilary had 20, plus 15 interns.

For people complaining about the cost; the monies has been a part of the budget in every administration,

"The staff is salaried by public funds through annual executive branch appropriations approved by Congress."

So to try to first, imply that Michelle Obama is doing something out of the ordinary, is wrong, and secondly, unless you can find me somewhere that states she's spending out of budget, then, it's all business as usual.

If you don't understand that the first lady has a job, one that takes people to accomplish, or if you simply don't want the government to have this long established role, then do something about it and write your congressman.

But don't try and play the 'omg, the obamas are stealing our monies' card.

www.firstladies.org...



Were we in the worst recession since the Great Depression when Hillary was First Lady? Do you ever take the blinders off? Is it acceptable to you when a mass murderer kills 20 people and then says it's okay because Manson did it too?



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Excuse me people or those that are defending the over inflated fist ladies personal servants.

Seems that many are forgetting that we are in a recession so the same sacrifices that we the working class have to do, why the government is not showing examples.

Because in this nation our government is not longer a government of the people but an elite class on their own right.

So the queen needs an entourage of servants so by god she will.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Why do the spouses of our leaders have to attend the G8?

We are all told to reduce our carbon footprint, the spouces and their accompanying entourage will most probably have used up more than each of us make in ten years.

These summits have become another 'jolly' thanks to the tax payer.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Maybe all leaders should have to spend at least 3 months within the poorer sections of society fending for themselves with the same amount of money as those around them before they are allowed to take office. It seems they are all in their little bubbles of priviledge. Might make them more real....I can dream.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by dizzylizzy
 


They are actually reducing their Carbon footprints because it saves the wife a trip on her own latter on during the year.


I like how the poster put it earlier in the thread, Champagne Socialism. That is a really good term for it.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   
This makes me sick and I don't care about the previous first ladies - Obama was elected because the people said they wanted change. I hope people that voted for Obama are starting to wake up and smell the manure that he spread!

Jemison



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by oneclickaway
Maybe all leaders should have to spend at least 3 months within the poorer sections of society fending for themselves with the same amount of money as those around them before they are allowed to take office. It seems they are all in their little bubbles of priviledge. Might make them more real....I can dream.

Good idea, though hard to implement. I guess I didn't realize how isolated they were from us normal people until I saw a politician being asked "how much does a dozen eggs cost?" He had no idea, totally out of touch with us regular people.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
I was under the impressions the the first lady was in charge of scheduling events at the white house. Along with that I am sure that she also does other things that don't get noticed and need to be done.

It's ok though, we can continue to sit here and ignorantly believe that she just sit around all day with 22 people serving her.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Styki
 


Not one person says she sits around all day doing nothing.

What they are saying though is after all of those speeches about cutting back and tightening our belts she has all of these helpers.

She might need a few assistants, but do you reall think that she is so busy that she needs 22 people to help her? Did you look at the list? Did you see how many have the title assistant to the assistant of_________?

I doubt she is so busy that her assistants need assistants.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by jjkenobi
 


I never said that I agreed with spending the money. But then again, I have no idea, and for the record, neither do any of you, just how many people it takes to run the Whitehouse.

What I did take issue with, is the idea that had been implied, that the first lady is being arrogant, or foolish. I never denied that she wasn't being frugal.

In order to understand just why she has so many people, I began by trying to find out the 'norm' for her role, and tried to get a little info on what the responsiblities and duties were. I didn't get the impression that anyone else had, that it was just another excuse. And I so hate a witch hunt.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
An issue that I am personally familiar with... Steven Spielberg has two assistants. TWO. Sure, there are other people who do things for him, as well as for others, but they have a designated postion that is not directly connected to him. I'm sure the White House is set up the same way... normal staffers who have other duties, but who perform some functions for the First Family. I would hazard a guess and say that on the busiest day for the First Lady, it doesn't come close to an "average" office day for Spielberg. If Steve can make it with two, I can't find any justification for the First Lady needing any more than a quarter of what she's already got.

[edit on 7/9/09 by larphillips]



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by larphillips
 


She only has ONE personal assistant, and I'm pretty sure Spielberg doesn't entertain heads of state every other week. If anybody bothered reading the article you'd see that there's 22 staff in the Office of the First Lady, which is part of the Executive Office of the President and has been for over a hundred years. They're not her 'servants'....





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join