I've been too hard on O'bama

Where CNN gets their information
-PC-Taishar
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA

I've been too hard on O'bama

Postby -PC-Taishar on Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:42 pm

After all he DID win the Nobel Peace Prize...

Perhaps it's time for me to roll up the first lady instead.
Thanks Canada!! At least your press isn't afraid of her.

awp-killer
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Silver Spring, MD

Re: I've been too hard on O'bama

Postby awp-killer on Tue Oct 13, 2009 12:27 am

Regarding Michelle's staff: Sure it seems like a lot. But there is a lot of work to do, and the size of the staff isn't "unprecedented". She actually has the same or less help staff than Mrs.' Bush, Kennedy, Johnson, etc. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl944

-PC-Taishar
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA

Re: I've been too hard on O'bama

Postby -PC-Taishar on Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:32 pm

Holy crap AJ defending Michelle Obama? NO WAY!!!!

LOL. Anyway I did some more research. I reject your yahoo article it is clearly biased. That particular writer is all over her nuts...erm...labia...whatever.

However I DID take the information from it (sometimes one has to separate the facts from the editorializing). The facts were in the washington post article based on Fromkins yearly white house salary report. It is indeed true according to the Fromkin report both Laura Bush and Michelle Obama have the same number of jobs on the list (16). Michelle's staff gets paid $21000 more than Laura's staff. I get that mark up for inflation (especially with what the Obama's have in store for us...hell in inflation dollars they'll be making LESS than Mrs. Bush's staff).

The key difference is, according to the Canadian report (and confirmed by Mrs. Obama's staff), Mrs. Obama has an additional 8 members on her staff. That's an increase of 50%. They won't even disclose how much they are paying the extra staffers. But let's say it's 8 more people paid the same as the lowest reported paid on her staff 36000. That's another $288000 per year. Now I know, that's peanuts when it comes down to it. Especially considering that we've approved back to back recovery funds of trillions of dollars. The problem isn't the 288000 dollars. Honestly I could care less. What we run into is a very typical tendency of progressives to grow the size of the government. It just doesn't work. Government does not produce anything. And it is horribly inefficient and rendering services. Government is a necessary evil, but it does not need to be big. Bush didn't get it either. He grew government by a previously unprecedented rate. Obama is doing it now with all the 'czar' appointees. What pisses me off about that is he is deliberately pissing on the Constitution. He is literally creating new cabinet position as he wants. No voting no deliberation nothing, just executive order.

When all is said and done. Our government has been growing rather rapidly since the 60's and consequently so has our national debt. It needs to stop and neither liberals or conservatives seem to want to do that (it's just that liberals do a much worse job of it).

Toede
 
Posts: 1257
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: San Marcos Tx.gif

Re: I've been too hard on O'bama

Postby Toede on Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:19 am

What do ya'll think about him getting the Nobel peace prize? WTF did he do? and remember the votes had to be submitted 11 days after he got elected. I don't understand it.

Toede

-wicked-toon-X
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8201
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Miami, FL

Re: I've been too hard on O'bama

Postby -wicked-toon-X on Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:43 am

it's just a middle finger to bush and maybe a little "We are the world moment"

Khemikal
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 5361
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Gainesville, Florida.gif

Re: I've been too hard on O'bama

Postby Khemikal on Fri Oct 16, 2009 12:55 am

Hi! I just wanted to mention that I still hate the *poor and that the homeless should be eradicated...literally.

That will be all...thank you.

*Poor being defined as those who do nothing to better their station in life instead wishing others to give them handouts.

-PC-Taishar
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA

Re: I've been too hard on O'bama

Postby -PC-Taishar on Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:47 pm

Kevin, the star should come AFTER poor!!!

And I agree but I would not agree with the definition of poor. There are better words to describe what you listed. Like Cuban. LOL!!!! Holy crap I am totally just kidding. But I agree. However, the only way that is going to happen is if we completely revamp the welfare system in the US. Oddly enough I don't see the current administration taking us down that road. Well, unless it means to give bigger free handouts.

awp-killer
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Silver Spring, MD

Re: I've been too hard on O'bama

Postby awp-killer on Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:48 pm

-PC-Taishar wrote:Holy crap AJ defending Michelle Obama? NO WAY!!!!

Tai believes some absurd hitjob story? No way!

The key difference is, according to the Canadian report (and confirmed by Mrs. Obama's staff), Mrs. Obama has an additional 8 members on her staff. That's an increase of 50%.
24. which is exactly what my link said. Which is exactly what Michelle Obama's office said. And which is still the same as Laura Bush, and plenty of other first women (which your hitjob story fails to mention). You are saying how wasteful it is, yet I don't think that you or I even know what they do.

This story isn't really something worth commenting on, but seriously. These kind of stories and the people who promote it, whether it is glenn beck, lou dobbs, or michael moore (gasp!) make you (us) 'misinformed'...which is much worse than being 'uninformed'.

-PC-Taishar
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA

Re: I've been too hard on O'bama

Postby -PC-Taishar on Sun Oct 18, 2009 1:52 am

Yah those crazy canucks always putting out 'hitjob' stories. They were probably paid off by some right wing extremist republicans to write it.

Of course last I checked a story consisting of facts doesn't rate as a hitjob. If you feel it paints your hero in a poor light so be it. Of course you wouldn't call it a hitjob unless you felt it did. Nevertheless, the story is about facts. Mrs. Obama does not need all the people on her staff (24 is more than Laura Bush BTW. Not to mention Laura Bush was very active in US schools and actually DID something, all I see Michelle doing is banging the war drums). Hell I don't think Mr. Obama needs all the people on his staff either. That's exactly my point. Even if Laura Bush had 50 people on her staff it doesn't make 24 on Mrs. Obama's any more justified. Typical liberal justifying something by comparing it to republicans. Here's an idea start justifying actions on merit rather than republicans (republicans should do the same). Freaking stop the spending. If they can't do it in their immediate sphere of influence how the hell are they going to do it with our entire nation's budget? The short answer is they can't. Or more to the point they don't want to, tax payer dollars are just so.....free.

Tai believes some absurd hitjob story? No way!


BTW, by your mirroring sarcasm, I suspect you think that I always believe hitjob stories. In order for you to believe that, it must mean that I've done it before in the past...numerous times. I know liberal tactics tend to shoot for discrediting the source (cough cough Rush Limbaugh we'll just make up all these racist remarks he made) rather than discrediting the facts but, could you please back this up? Because I can certainly back up my sarcasm with a number of times where you've blindly defended liberals. Well I shouldn't say blindly because you at least come with some modicum of logic. It's just usually misplaced.

awp-killer
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Silver Spring, MD

Re: I've been too hard on O'bama

Postby awp-killer on Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:27 am

-PC-Taishar wrote:Nevertheless, the story is about facts. Mrs. Obama does not need all the people on her staff (24 is more than Laura Bush BTW.
I forgot to attach my link. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091006/ap_ ... lady_staff
"Laura Bush: Between 24 and 26 by end of President George W. Bush's term in 2009, according to Anita McBride, Mrs. Bush's chief of staff."

Typical liberal justifying something by comparing it to republicans. Here's an idea start justifying actions on merit rather than republicans (republicans should do the same).
Maybe 24 people is way too many. I don't really know, but my guess is it isn't.

I will compare to the republicans, because it appears they don't seem to have any problem with it, until it is the other guy and then forget to mention how they did the same thing. If it is a real problem, it's just really hard to take whoever writes this seriously. I see too many of these people just looking for anything so they can feign some outrage about obama (or democrats, or whatever), even if as it does in this case, make them hypocritical.

BTW, by your mirroring sarcasm, I suspect you think that I always believe hitjob stories. In order for you to believe that, it must mean that I've done it before in the past...numerous times.
I had your post about Mojib Latif in the other thread in mind...I guess its not really a "hitjob" on a person, but more on a concept that you disagree with (in that case, global warming). I haven't responded to it yet, but I think it is a good example of how being "misinformed" is much worse than being "uninformed". I can only imagine you found that from someone, somewhere, specifically looking to misinform people about global warming.

-PC-Taishar
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA

Re: I've been too hard on O'bama

Postby -PC-Taishar on Sun Oct 18, 2009 12:21 pm

And here I thought you let that thread die cuz you had nothing to say. I won't derail this thread but I look forward to checking in on that one.

As for this topic. I will say again. Don't argue with me by comparing what I say (or whatever hitjobs i find) to what the republicans did. I'm not a republican, and only support republicans when they support common sense. I'd say they do this only slightly more often the democrats. Since you obviously glossed over it, I'll say it again: argue with reason, not comparison. In this particular instance the government is getting bigger, if we want to say Laura Bush had 24 people ok, thats fine. It's more than previous first ladies have had, and it needs to stop. Will the first lady in 2020 have 40 staffers? Where do we draw the line if we don't show outrage at 24, then we certainly won't at 25, and then 26 and the 27. It's the same concept as they are using with health care. They introduced the plan with a public option and public outrage was high enough that they had to back it off. So now they introduce something without a public option that will eventually lead to a public option. It's smart, I get it. But I'm smart enough to realize where it's going and a lot of other people are too.

awp-killer
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Silver Spring, MD

Re: I've been too hard on O'bama

Postby awp-killer on Sun Oct 18, 2009 11:53 pm

I'm not a republican, and only support republicans when they support common sense. I'd say they do this only slightly more often the democrats. Since you obviously glossed over it, I'll say it again: argue with reason, not comparison.
I'm doing both. If you aren't merely dumping on the democrats, why bring this up now? Even if you aren't, clearly whoever wrote this editorial is doing it just to dump on them. Why else characterize it as a staff to "cater to her every whim", yet forget to mention what they do? Why else say it's "unprecedented", when clearly it isn't, and forget to mention how Laura Bush had the same number?

So just what does a staff of 24 do for Michelle Obama? Well, for starters there are the 32,000 pieces of mail that have flooded the East Wing since Michelle Obama took occupancy in January, but the main official duty of the first lady is to tend to the care and maintenance of the White House and its seemingly endless social functions. Of course some first ladies, like Michelle Obama, maintain a higher profile than others, and with that comes the need for people to help write speeches, arrange travel and security details, handle media inquiries, etc. About the myriad tasks and responsibilities handled by White House staffers, Anita McBride, Laura Bush's former chief of staff, recently said, "There's never enough people to do the amount of work that has to get done.

You just haven't given me any reason to think that 24 is too much. For all I know, they do the work of 50 people. If this was an actual story, it would say why 24 is too much. And if I agreed, I wouldn't be defending them. But instead your story just tries to shock you, and then says how lavish and "unprecedented" this is.

Thanks Canada!! At least your press isn't afraid of her.
You really think the press is afraid to run a story like this? The much more likely answer is...it's not a story.

-PC-Taishar wrote:Will the first lady in 2020 have 40 staffers?
Like Jacklyn Kennedy had? Don't forget that the role of the first lady has increased quite a bit since the 60's too.

You see why being "misinformed" is worse than "uninformed"? Look at how much it takes to straighten this out. You think most people go through this much work, or rather just remain misinformed? In fact, I find that some people would rather be misinformed (not you). They desire an us vs. them mentality, and it doesn't matter who is right or not...they know who the home team is.

Cane
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm

Re: I've been too hard on O'bama

Postby Cane on Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:01 am

You also have to remember that it all depends on the initiative of the First Lady as well. While I don't think teaching childhood literacy required 24 people for Former First Lady Bush. I'd think Hillary's initiative took on a stronger role of needing that many people with reforming healthcare.

Michelle's goals are supporting Military Families, encouraging National Service, assisting career women balance family and careers, and mentor programs. I suspect that's a little harder than Bush's.


Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron