• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

national debt

A

Anonymous

Guest
Chart on national debt by different administrations:

Wish I knew how to post the chart for discussion:
http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html
 

Steve

Well-known member
hurleyjd said:
Chart on national debt by different administrations:

Wish I knew how to post the chart for discussion:
http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

sure is expensive to clean up the messes the dems leave behind.. :roll: :roll: :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Notice how the chart stopped with Bush Two and didn't show Obama's first year spending IT"S OFF THE CHARTS in more ways than just One :wink:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Tam said:
Notice how the chart stopped with Bush Two and didn't show Obama's first year spending IT"S OFF THE CHARTS in more ways than just One :wink:

while it would still show obscene spending, why doesn't the charts show who is in charge of writing the bills that spend the money... congress...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg


spending usually happens during growth periods, it only makes sense. During a recession, you should be maintaining or decreasing, not increasing spending.

wapoobamabudget1.jpg
 

Tam

Well-known member
Steve said:
Tam said:
Notice how the chart stopped with Bush Two and didn't show Obama's first year spending IT"S OFF THE CHARTS in more ways than just One :wink:

while it would still show obscene spending, why doesn't the charts show who is in charge of writing the bills that spend the money... congress...

Funny how hurley even brought this chart up since it was he that pointed out the President doesn't write the bills the Congress does and that is how the Constitution is written. :wink:
With that in mind let's look again at the charts
The Democrats lost control of the Congress in 1994 to the Republicans and look what happen. Spending nose dived. It did go back up under Bush but he had the terrorist attacks that resulted in two wars. But the interesting part is look at what happen in 2008 after the Republicans lost control to the Dems. The largest spike in history which was only out done by the spending in 2009 when the Dems had total control of the government. :roll:

What say you hurley was it Clinton the Democrat President that held down spending or the Republican control Congress? If it is the Democrats then why didn't the spending go down when they controled all three branches of Government?

You made the statement and then brought the chart so explain Please.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I know that the debt will be higher in the next few years. It will take spending cuts and more tax revenue to make the ends meet. Yes Tam it takes a lot of courage to show something on here that I thought someone would be interested in. Got any ideas where to cut the spending and also what taxes to raise. I noticed you were very quiet on my post about Browns statements and also the out rage you showed about the teaching hospitals in Canada when I posted the guidelines for teaching hospitals. Yea I like the torture you give me,. You know how I feel about every thing. I will try to post interesting articles for you to pick apart. Just think if I was not on here you guys would not have any one to goad into an argument to salve you egos.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I know that the debt will be higher in the next few years. It will take spending cuts and more tax revenue to make the ends meet. Yes Tam it takes a lot of courage to show something on here that I thought someone would be interested in. Got any ideas where to cut the spending and also what taxes to raise. I noticed you were very quiet on my post about Browns statements and also the out rage you showed about the teaching hospitals in Canada when I posted the guidelines for teaching hospitals. Yea I like the torture you give me,. You know how I feel about every thing. I will try to post interesting articles for you to pick apart. Just think if I was not on here you guys would not have any one to goad into an argument to salve you egos.
 

Tam

Well-known member
hurleyjd said:
I know that the debt will be higher in the next few years. It will take spending cuts and more tax revenue to make the ends meet. Yes Tam it takes a lot of courage to show something on here that I thought someone would be interested in. Got any ideas where to cut the spending and also what taxes to raise. I noticed you were very quiet on my post about Browns statements and also the out rage you showed about the teaching hospitals in Canada when I posted the guidelines for teaching hospitals. Yea I like the torture you give me,. You know how I feel about every thing. I will try to post interesting articles for you to pick apart. Just think if I was not on here you guys would not have any one to goad into an argument to salve you egos.

First the article was interesting but not in the way a liberal would think. :wink: The Chart only said who the President was as if it was his fault for the spending . BUT Was it not you that said the president doesn't write the bills it is the Congress? So why doesn't the chart you posted point out who was in control of the Congress? Could it be because the author wants to blame the Republican Presidents for the Dems spending habits? :?

Since you asked the first cut I would make is to the fuel budget for Air Force One. :wink: Let Obama stay in Washington to sign bills and make his speeches. It is not like they are not all televised for the whole nation to see anyway. :roll: And let him date his wife on his dime not the tax payers with flights to NY for dinner and a play with the Secret Service and media in tow. :roll:
Then I would fire about half the radicals in Obama's Administration, No other President in History has had as many czars and advisor as Obama. But then if you would have voted for a guy with some business experience maybe he wouldn't need so many advisers. :wink:
Then I'd cut the First Lady's staff in about half. or is there a competition on who can waste more money on Press Secretaries and event coordinators? :???:
Then would be Pelosi's booze and flower budget, she seems to think she is spending her money and not the money of the struggling tax payers. :roll:
And last I would go line by line of any bill crossing the President's desk and veto any earmark in it. Hey wasn't that one of Obama's broken promises. :wink:

As far as raising Taxes I'm one that believes that if you cut taxes employers will hire more people that will be paying taxes and in turn will not be collecting government unemployment or welfare. But hey I think history has proven this works but you libs are just to stubborn to learn from history. Or have the libs written that part out of US History books already. :?

As far as Brown, with me the jury is still out. I'm glad he won as now maybe the Dems in Washington will stop and think if they can loose a seat they have held for decades then no seat is safe in 2010. They better wake up and take the Tea Parties and town hall meetings seriously and stop the name calling of voters that just want to be heard. So in my eyes Brown did his job by beating Coakley even after Obama campaigned for her. All the rest of what he does is what he will be judged on by the Mass electrate if he plans on being re-elected in 2012. Talk is cheap, Lies are costly and Actions are what counts. Obama and the Dems should remember that.

BTW I didn't know it was torture to defend your party. :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
hurleyjd said:
I know that the debt will be higher in the next few years. It will take spending cuts and more tax revenue to make the ends meet. Yes Tam it takes a lot of courage to show something on here that I thought someone would be interested in. Got any ideas where to cut the spending and also what taxes to raise. I noticed you were very quiet on my post about Browns statements and also the out rage you showed about the teaching hospitals in Canada when I posted the guidelines for teaching hospitals. Yea I like the torture you give me,. You know how I feel about every thing. I will try to post interesting articles for you to pick apart. Just think if I was not on here you guys would not have any one to goad into an argument to salve you egos.

First the article was interesting but not in the way a liberal would think. :wink: The Chart only said who the President was as if it was his fault for the spending . BUT Was it not you that said the president doesn't write the bills it is the Congress? So why doesn't the chart you posted point out who was in control of the Congress? Could it be because the author wants to blame the Republican Presidents for the Dems spending habits?
:?

(Yes I did post this one to highlight that the Democrats are not the only big spenders. I could have found charts from other areas that were more official and said the same thing.)

Since you asked the first cut I would make is to the fuel budget for Air Force One. :wink: Let Obama stay in Washington to sign bills and make his speeches. It is not like they are not all televised for the whole nation to see anyway. :roll: And let him date his wife on his dime not the tax payers with flights to NY for dinner and a play with the Secret Service and media in tow. :roll:

(President will have to fly 60 more times in the next 5 months to equal the flights of another president that used the big plane for 114 trips in 17 months. President Obama needs to pick up the pace to catch up.)

Then I would fire about half the radicals in Obama's Administration, No other President in History has had as many czars and advisor as Obama. But then if you would have voted for a guy with some business experience maybe he wouldn't need so many advisers. :wink:

(Here is a business person from IBM: reasons for czars. Also you might do a search on Presidential czars through past administrations and see if he might need to appoint some more so he will have had his fair share.)

Analysis: Czars and the Bureaucracy
By Mark A. Abramson [email protected] May 29, 2009

On the campaign trail Barack Obama vowed to change the way Washington does business. As president, his management reform agenda still is evolving, but there are signs he is beginning to fundamentally transform the way government approaches big problems. As Obama appoints a series of strategic czars, the outline of a 21st century government is emerging.

The czar phenomenon is reflected in the rising number of White House special assistants for "x, y and z," as well as special envoys, special representatives and special advisers at the State Department. While there has long been a statutory czar at the Office of National Drug Control Policy, for example, recent appointments have followed suit. To name a few, Steve Rattner was named lead adviser on auto industry issues -- better known as the car czar. Nancy-Ann DeParle was appointed counselor to the president and director of the White House Office of Health Reform -- aka health czar. And on Friday, the president announced a new White House cyber czar would be named to work on the threat to national security from hackers or terrorists.

While the term "czar" is getting ubiquitous, these positions are a far cry from the czarist Russia image. Today's government czars lack such dictatorial authority. It is more correct to call them collaborators, since their role is to bring together people from different agencies, sectors and nations. These jobs are nonhierarchical and have no direct control over anyone. Modern-day czars must instead use persuasive, partnership skills.
E-MAIL THIS ARTICLE PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION COMMENT ON THIS STORY
RELATED STORIES

* Stimulus czar is well-prepared for new role 03/25/09
* Observers worry White House 'czars' have too much power 03/13/09
* Interior chief names 'recovery czar' 03/09/09
* Obama taps Sebelius, DeParle to oversee health reform 03/02/09
* With two jobs comes big balancing act for performance chief 01/09/09

We are seeing a subtle shift to a two-track government that melds this role of designated problem-solver and the traditional bureaucracy.

Bureaucracies actually are very good for certain functions. They are good at routines, such as sending out monthly Social Security checks. They are good, most of the time, in responding to emergencies for which they have been trained and are prepared. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's effective and rapid response in tracking and analyzing the recent flu epidemic is one example. Bureaucracies are not very good at (and often resistant to) working across boundaries with organizations they do not control and with whom they often compete for resources.

Government czars are designated problem-solvers who are consciously placed outside the traditional bureaucracy, giving them several advantages in getting their job done.

For starters, they aren't bogged down with managing a large organization. Running a department is full-time job in itself and often requires a different set of leadership skills than problem-solving and bringing together disparate groups. Government has seen the emergence of a critical managerial class, which specializes in running organizations. But it's an all-consuming task for executives, leaving little time to focus on a specific challenge.

Designated problem-solvers can focus exclusively on one set of issues until they are resolved. George Mitchell, appointed special envoy for Middle East peace, and Richard Holbrooke, as special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, are prime examples. Middle East peace, it seems, should be the jurisdiction of the assistant secretary for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs or the secretary of State. But those leaders have myriad other responsibilities on their plate.

Government czars have the ability to reach across boundaries to work with the public and nonprofit sectors, state and local governments, and even other nations. This is a far cry from the traditional agency-centric bureaucracy.

But both the bureaucracy and designated problem-solvers have important roles in 21st century government. Without great fanfare, it seems the president Obama is creating the government of the future.


Then I'd cut the First Lady's staff in about half. or is there a competition on who can waste more money on Press Secretaries and event coordinators? :???:

(Here is a break down of staff for First Ladies from Fact Check: Michelle 24 Laura 24 Hillary 19 Nancy 24. Should she not have as many as her predecessors.)

Then would be Pelosi's booze and flower budget, she seems to think she is spending her money and not the money of the struggling tax payers. :roll:

(I do not like Nancy she has become a lightening rod for the democrat party and needs to step down. She is to decisive for America. I have searched and only found that a person in her position can only have a maximum of $40000 for personal expenses and a expense report would have to be filed to be reimbursed. Please point me to any websites that explains the expenses better.)

And last I would go line by line of any bill crossing the President's desk and veto any earmark in it. Hey wasn't that one of Obama's broken promises. :wink:

(We had a line item veto that Bill Clinton signed into law and it was repealed by the supreme court The first case was brought by Democrat senators and one Republican. The supreme court threw their case out because they had no standing, because they could they could not show where it would damage them. New York sued and the supreme court accepted their argument and declared the law not constitutional. In 2003
President Bush asked for a line item veto and the request did not get any where. Yes I think we need a line item veto.)

As far as raising Taxes I'm one that believes that if you cut taxes employers will hire more people that will be paying taxes and in turn will not be collecting government unemployment or welfare. But hey I think history has proven this works but you libs are just to stubborn to learn from history. Or have the libs written that part out of US History books already. :?

(America is living in a different century than when cutting taxes would stimulate the economy, but this is a different time than times in past history when the cutting of taxes would work. For one thing we do not have the industrial base we had in the past. Back at that time you could buy a tractor made in America now the majority of them come from overseas from an overseas company. Some still carrying the American badge that made them so popular in the past. Taxes are as low as they will be for some time. To make a business work you have to have enough income to satisfy the expenses of the business. The government is a big business and will either have to raise taxes or cut spending. Where do you cut that is the hard part, some might suggest social security and medicare. Let us say we cut these out totally, then each of us that has an elderly parent will be saddled with an expense and responsibility of their health care and well fare. Does each and every one of you have the means to do that.)

As far as Brown, with me the jury is still out. I'm glad he won as now maybe the Dems in Washington will stop and think if they can loose a seat they have held for decades then no seat is safe in 2010. They better wake up and take the Tea Parties and town hall meetings seriously and stop the name calling of voters that just want to be heard. So in my eyes Brown did his job by beating Coakley even after Obama campaigned for her. All the rest of what he does is what he will be judged on by the Mass electrate if he plans on being re-elected in 2012. Talk is cheap, Lies are costly and Actions are what counts. Obama and the Dems should remember that.

(I think that you will see Brown as an independent that will weigh each item on the nations agenda as to what is right and fair. Will he hunt with the democrats or the republicans. no one knows that at this time. Only time will tell right now he looks very promising to me. In six months his voters may be hollering lier lier pants on fire. As far as TEA party candidates it will be very hard to marshall anyone to run as the two major parties have pretty well stacked the deck against any third party by making it hard and expensive by creating petitions that are nearly impossible to fulfill. Ask Ross Perot he spent a fortune becoming a third party candidate.)

BTW I didn't know it was torture to defend your party. :wink:

(I guess if it was to much torture I would give up but I am not. Right now I have to get out and do my feeding chores. See you later Darling.)
 

Tam

Well-known member
hurleyjd said:
(President will have to fly 60 more times in the next 5 months to equal the flights of another president that used the big plane for 114 trips in 17 months. President Obama needs to pick up the pace to catch up.)

hurley your numbers don't match those of the CBS and we all know CBS wouldn't tell a lie about Obama. :wink:
Obama's First Year: By the Numbers
CBSNews.com Special Report: Obama's First Year

SPEECHES, COMMENTS & REMARKS: 411
• Includes 52 addresses or statements specifically on his health care proposals.
• He used a TelePrompTer at least 178 times. (Technically, it was 177 ½ . On July 13, 2009, one of the teleprompter screens on the left side of his lectern fell to the ground and broke shortly after he began speaking. So he was left with half a TelePrompTer.)


(CBS)NEWS CONFERENCES: 42
• Of which 5 were formal, solo White House Q&A sessions. Four were in prime time. His last one was July 22, 2009. (seen at left)
• Nearly all of the other press availabilities were joint appearances with foreign leaders at which as few as 1 question was taken by Mr. Obama.
• Predecessor George W. Bush did 21 news conferences his first year of which 4 were formal, solo White House sessions. Only 1 was in prime time.

INTERVIEWS: 158.
• This is a striking number of interviews and far more than any of his recent predecessors in their first year. Ninety of the sessions were TV interviews. Eleven were radio. The rest were newspaper and magazine. The number reflects the White House media strategy that Mr. Obama can best respond to questions in an interview setting.

TOWN HALL MEETINGS: 23
• Includes 1 in Strasbourg, France and another in Shanghai, China

DOMESTIC TRAVEL: 46 out-of-town trips to 58 cities and towns in 30 states
• Most frequently visited state by Mr. Obama: New York* (excluding Maryland & Virginia, which border DC and to which visits are more local than out-of-town).
• President George W. Bush made appearances in 39 states during his 1st year.
• President Clinton visited 22 states in 1993, his first year.

FOREIGN TRAVEL: 10 foreign trips to 21 nations (4 of them twice).
• Mr. Obama made more trips abroad in his first year than has any other U.S. President.
• Next most frequent foreign traveler during first year in office was President George H.W. Bush: 7 trips to 14 countries.

FLIGHTS ON AIR FORCE ONE: 160

FLIGHTS ON MARINE ONE: 193

POLITICAL FUNDRAISERS: 28
• The events raised at least $27.25 million. (3 of the events Mr. Obama attended declined to disclose how much was raised.
• George W. Bush did 6 fundraisers his 1st year raising over $48 million.

CAMPAIGN RALLIES: 7
• The rallies were for Gov. Jon Corzine, D-N.J., gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds, D-Va, and U.S. Senate Candidate Martha Coakley, D-Mass. All of them lost.

MEETINGS WITH FOREIGN LEADERS: 74 (several multiple times)
• This counts meetings with chiefs of state or heads of government
• George W. Bush met with 115 his first year (many more than once)

NATIONAL DEBT: On day Mr. Obama took office: $10.626 trillion
• One year later: $12.319 trillion
• Increase on Mr. Obama's watch: $1.693 trillion

BILL SIGNINGS: 124 of which Mr. Obama did 13 bill-signing ceremonies.

VISITS TO CAMP DAVID: 11 visits totaling all or part of 27 days.
• George W. Bush made 26 visits his first year spanning all or part of 81 days

VETOES: 1
• Mr. Obama's only veto to date killed a bill to keep Defense Dept operating in case Appropriations measure wasn't passed, which eventually it was.
• George W. Bush – 0 vetoes in first year. In fact, he didn't cast his first veto until his 5th year in office.

PARDONS or COMMUTATIONS: 0*
* Not counting 2 turkeys he pardoned at Thanksgiving.
(A White House aide says first year presidents are inundated with pardon petitions and usually don't grant any until after "an extensive review process is conducted at the Justice Department.")
• George W. Bush granted no executive clemency his first year either, except for turkeys.

VACATIONS: All or part of 26 days over 4 trips
• George W. Bush spent 69 days at his Texas ranch over 9 trips to his ranch his 1st year.

GOLF: 29 rounds of golf
• Most frequent courses: Fort Belvoir 11 times; Andrews AFB: 8 times.
• George W. Bush played golf 7 times his first year.

OUT OF THE PUBLIC EYE: 21 days on which Mr. Obama did not have a public or press appearance.

Interesting he did 52 addresses on Health Care but according to him he didn't do a very good job at explaining it. Just how many times will it take to pound it down US citizens throats? :?

Looks like by these number Bush was a better bet for fund raising, BTW If I were a Dems and running for office the last person I would have talking for me is Obama :wink: :lol:

About pardons I doubt he will have to pardon anyone as Holder will just drop the charges. :roll:

About the vacations Bush's were at his ranch in Texas, Obama's were at million dollar rental properties and a tour of national parks can you imagine the cost of security for a tour of several National parks. :roll:

And he said he was busy getting things done. 29 rounds of golf and how many men only basketball games, he was busy alright. :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Here is a business person from IBM: reasons for czars. Also you might do a search on Presidential czars through past administrations and see if he might need to appoint some more so he will have had his fair share.)

Echoing Fox News, Dobbs downplays Bush's use of czars

DOBBS: Yeah, and to be clear, we should point out that that number in the Bush administration, the number of czars -- in point of fact, the highest number of czars that we were able to document in our own reporting here on this broadcast for the number of czars previous to the 34, 35 czars appointed by President Obama in his first eight months in office was during the Clinton administration, and he had only 10 czars -- a remarkable change of emphasis on czardom, if you will.

SYLVESTER: Yes. You know, if you take a look at the numbers that the DNC put out, one of the things that they do is they count all of the czars that President Obama had as opposed to counting the positions. So if you really want to compare apples to apples here, you know, if President Obama is starting with 30 czar positions right now, well just think how many individuals might flow in and out of those positions.

So you could well have over 60 czars -- double or triple the number of czars -- if they're going to be comparing it to the same way that they came up with the numbers under President Bush.

DOBBS: So, in other words, they were counting the number of people who rotated in over two terms?

SYLVESTER: Over -- exactly. Over eight years. That's exactly what they were doing --

DOBBS: Well, that's --

SYLVESTER: -- as opposed to the positions.

DOBBS: How open and transparent of the DNC. Thank you very much, Lisa. Lisa Sylvester.


A little playing with the numbers according to Lou Dobbs on the side of the DNC. :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
hurley wrote
(Here is a break down of staff for First Ladies from Fact Check: Michelle 24 Laura 24 Hillary 19 Nancy 24. Should she not have as many as her predecessors.)

Mr. Gore launched his investigation of the First Lady’s staff in the wake of an article that appeared on thelastcrusade.org and Canada Free Press on July 7.

The article, which became a chain letter viewed by millions of Americans, reported that Michelle Obama requires more than twenty attendants - - more than any First Lady in U.S. History. It provided the following list of White House staff members assigned to the First Lady:

$172,2000 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
$140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
$113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
$102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
$102,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
$90,000 - Medina, David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
$84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
$75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
$70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
$65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
$65,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
$62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
$60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
$60,000 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
$52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
$50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
$45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
$45,000 - Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
$40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
$36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
$36,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
$36,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
Readers throughout the country expressed outrage that Mrs. Obama would hire an unprecedented number of staffers in the midst of the Great Recession
Does Mrs. Obama have an unprecedented number of staffers in a time when 34 million Americans - - a record number - - rely on food stamps to feed their families?
The answer, as D’Angelo Gore of factcheck.org discovered, is yes.

When questioned by Mr. Gore, Katie McCormick Lelyveld, Michelle Obama’s press secretary, said that the First Lady does retain a staff of more than twenty who remain at her beck and call. But the actual number is 24, not 22, as the article reported.

Mrs. Lelyyeld failed to provide the names of the two additional attendants to Mrs. Obama. But she did confirm that six staffers who do not have “first lady” in their title but are a part of the First Lady’s office staff, such as Desiree Rogers, who bears the title “Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary,” and Natalie Bookey, who is listed as a “staff assistant.”

What’s more, even a list of 24 would be incomplete since it would fail to include the names of makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and “First Hairstylist” Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom travel aboard Air Force One and provide Mrs. Obama with daily attention.

This adds up to a whopping $1,600,700.00 and the amount doesn’t include the elite benefit packages granted to the White House staff and their significant others (include same-sex partners). Nor does the figure take into account the salaries for the two additional full-time staff members mentioned by Mrs. Obama’s Press Secretary nor the full time hair-dresser and makeup artist assigned to her. A guesstimate of the total salaries for Mrs. Obama’s attendants is $1,750,00.00 plus the additional benefits.
For comparison, let’s remember that poor Bess Truman and Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salaries for 5 of their personal secretaries from their own pocketbooks. Stephen Plotkin, reference archivist for the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, says that Jacqueline Kennedy’s office was “headed” by one person who supervised a staff of approximately nine full and part time workers (including the White House cooks and chambermaids).

Kim Coryat, an archives technician at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library, says that it is difficult to nail down a precise count of staff because “White House staffing for all offices ebbs and flows with time.” But she points out that a White House telephone directory indicates that Hillary Clinton had a staff of thirteen in 1993 - - this is telling since Mrs. Clinton intended to serve as a co-executive in the Oval Office by spearheading a health care reform program.

Laura Bush was far from a fiscal conservative during her time in the White House and, like her husband, served to bloat the White House budget. A list of Mrs. Bush’s staff attendants is as follows:

McBride, Anita B. assistant to the president and chief of staff to the first lady $168,000.00
Harder, Cherie S. Special assistant to the president for domestic policy and director of project of the first lady $108,000.00
Niemiec, Sally M. Press secretary to the First Lady $90,000.00
Miller, Sonja M. Deputy chief of staff to the first lady $84,700.00
Ballard, Deanna M. Director of scheduling for the First Lady $75,000.00
Underwood, Carrie P. Deputy director of policy and projects for the First Lady $65,000.00
Wallace, Charity N. Director of advance for the First Lady $65,000.00
Marshall, Misty C. Director of correspondence for the first lady $59,700.00
Etter, Marisa L. Deputy director of scheduling for the First Lady $50,000.00
King, Kristin N. Deputy director of advance for the first lady $50,000.00
Lineweaver, Lindsey M. Special assistant and personal aide to the first lady $47,500.00
Rawson, Kimberly D. Executive assistant to the chief of staff to the First Lady $46,200.00
Donoghue , Tarah C. Deputy press secretary to the First Lady $43,000.00
Vogel, Campbell B. Deputy director of correspondence for the First Lady $42,500.00
Block, Jonathan F. assistant press secretary to the First Lady $39,000.00
This amounts to a total of $1,083,700.00. Laura was no piker when it came to spending. But she pales in comparison with Miz Michelle, who requires eight to ten additional attendants at an extra cost to taxpayers of $700,000 and change - - the only change American taxpayers can believe in.

So what is with the Should she not have as many as her predecessors. according to this factcheck.org article she has 8 to 10 more than Laura and twice as many as Hillary?

sorry it was a Canada Free Press article using Fact Check info. :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
hurley wrote
(We had a line item veto that Bill Clinton signed into law and it was repealed by the supreme court The first case was brought by Democrat senators and one Republican. The supreme court threw their case out because they had no standing, because they could they could not show where it would damage them. New York sued and the supreme court accepted their argument and declared the law not constitutional. In 2003
President Bush asked for a line item veto and the request did not get any where. Yes I think we need a line item veto.)

Obama in the first presidential debate : "Absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."
Tell me again why Obama did not veto a bill that contained 9000 earmarks? If he can't go line by line and veto the earmarks then live up to his promise and veto the entire bill and send it back until the earmarks are OUT. He Promised.
:x
 
Top