First Lady requires more than 20 attendants

No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First Lady and she
doesn't
perform any official duties. But this hasn't deterred her from hiring an
unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to
satisfy her
every request in the midst of the Great Recession. Just think Mary
Lincoln was
taken to task for purchasing china for the White House during the Civil
War. And
Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary. How
things have changed! If you're one of the tens of millions of Americans
facing
certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the
shelves at
Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and
then come
to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Miz Michelle
are the
same as members of the national security and defense departments and
the bill
for these assorted lackeys is paid by John Q. Public:

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)

22. Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the
First Lady)

There has never been anyone in the White House at any time that has
created such
an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First
Lady's
social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer
expense, when
even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one;

Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the
President's own pocket.

Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and
"First
Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom travelled aboard Air Force
One to
Europe .

Copyright 2009 Canada Free Press.Com

canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:14:47 -0400, Steve W. wrote:

First Lady requires more than 20 attendants

No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First Lady and she
doesn't
perform any official duties. But this hasn't deterred her from hiring an
unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to
satisfy her
every request in the midst of the Great Recession. Just think Mary
Lincoln was
taken to task for purchasing china for the White House during the Civil
War. And
Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary.
How things have changed! If you're one of the tens of millions of
Americans facing
certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the
shelves at
Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and
then come
to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Miz Michelle
are the
same as members of the national security and defense departments and
the bill
for these assorted lackeys is paid by John Q. Public:

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)

22. Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for
the First Lady)

There has never been anyone in the White House at any time that has
created such
an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First
Lady's
social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer
expense, when
even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one;

Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the
President's own pocket.

Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and
"First
Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom travelled aboard Air Force
One to
Europe .

Copyright 2009 Canada Free Press.Com

canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652

Aw c'mon, man, it's economic stimulus.

--
www.wescottdesign.com

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:14:47 -0400, Steve W. wrote:

First Lady requires more than 20 attendants

Copyright 2009 Canada Free Press.Com

canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652

Aw c'mon, man, it's economic stimulus.

--


add up all those wages, less than the missing Sarah Palin Wardrobe - this is
pocket change - worry about the big things

On 2009-08-14, Steve W. wrote:

First Lady requires more than 20 attendants

No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First Lady and she
doesn't
perform any official duties. But this hasn't deterred her from hiring an
unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to
satisfy her
every request in the midst of the Great Recession. Just think Mary
Lincoln was
taken to task for purchasing china for the White House during the Civil
War. And
Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary. How
things have changed! If you're one of the tens of millions of Americans
facing
certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the
shelves at
Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and
then come
to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Miz Michelle
are the
same as members of the national security and defense departments and
the bill
for these assorted lackeys is paid by John Q. Public:

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)

22. Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the
First Lady)

There has never been anyone in the White House at any time that has
created such
an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First
Lady's
social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer
expense, when
even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one;

Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the
President's own pocket.

Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and
"First
Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom travelled aboard Air Force
One to
Europe .

Copyright 2009 Canada Free Press.Com

canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652

I tried to look up information by searching for "michelle obama
attendants".

Most articles seem to be verbatim copies of one article, reprinted on
Republican blogs. The article does not attempt to be an impartial
source of information and reads more like a propaganda piece ("If
you're one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain
destitution", not how credible news stories are written).

It would appear that the above article is a little mistaken about the
number of Laura Bush attendants. Laura Bush had 15 attendants.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/about...whsalaries.htm

What Laura Bush’s Staff Earned

McBride, Anita B. Assistant to the president and chief of staff
to the first lady $168,000.00

Harder, Cherie S. Special asistant 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
9. The Mayor Says:
August 5th, 2009 at 5:53 pm

I see this as more or less comparable staffs.

i

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:14:47 -0400, Steve W. wrote:

First Lady requires more than 20 attendants

Copyright 2009 Canada Free Press.Com

canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652

Aw c'mon, man, it's economic stimulus.

--


add up all those wages, less than the missing Sarah Palin Wardrobe - this
is pocket change - worry about the big things

If you mention any "Big Things" you are accused of being a racist and a
right-wing terrorist.

Ignoramus8090 wrote:

Most articles seem to be verbatim copies of one article, reprinted on
Republican blogs. The article does not attempt to be an impartial
source of information and reads more like a propaganda piece ("If
you're one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain
destitution", not how credible news stories are written).


In my humble opinion, there is no such thing any more as credible news.

"cavelamb" wrote in message
news
Ignoramus8090 wrote:

Most articles seem to be verbatim copies of one article, reprinted on
Republican blogs. The article does not attempt to be an impartial
source of information and reads more like a propaganda piece ("If
you're one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain
destitution", not how credible news stories are written).


In my humble opinion, there is no such thing any more as credible news.

Just what I was fixin' to say, 99% PURE BS

"Ignoramus8090" wrote in message
...
On 2009-08-14, Steve W. wrote:

First Lady requires more than 20 attendants

No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First Lady and she
doesn't
perform any official duties. But this hasn't deterred her from hiring an
unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to
satisfy her
every request in the midst of the Great Recession. Just think Mary
Lincoln was
taken to task for purchasing china for the White House during the Civil
War. And
Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary.
How
things have changed! If you're one of the tens of millions of Americans
facing
certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the
shelves at
Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and
then come
to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Miz Michelle
are the
same as members of the national security and defense departments and
the bill
for these assorted lackeys is paid by John Q. Public:

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)

22. Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for
the
First Lady)

There has never been anyone in the White House at any time that has
created such
an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First
Lady's
social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer
expense, when
even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one;

Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the
President's own pocket.

Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and
"First
Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom travelled aboard Air Force
One to
Europe .

Copyright 2009 Canada Free Press.Com

canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652

I tried to look up information by searching for "michelle obama
attendants".

Most articles seem to be verbatim copies of one article, reprinted on
Republican blogs. The article does not attempt to be an impartial
source of information and reads more like a propaganda piece ("If
you're one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain
destitution", not how credible news stories are written).

It would appear that the above article is a little mistaken about the
number of Laura Bush attendants. Laura Bush had 15 attendants.


http://www.nationaljournal.com/about...whsalaries.htm

What Laura Bushs Staff Earned

McBride, Anita B. Assistant to the president and chief of staff
to the first lady $168,000.00

Harder, Cherie S. Special asistant 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
9. The Mayor Says:
August 5th, 2009 at 5:53 pm

I see this as more or less comparable staffs.

i

So does Anita McBride, Laura Bush's former chief of staff. At least, that's
what she told ABC News' John Stossel: "McBride says that more staffers are
needed as the first ladies' global responsibilities grow. She pointed out
that Mrs. Bush traveled to Afghanistan and Africa, advancing President
Bush's health program."

It sounds pretty wild and crazy, but it also sounds like it's become the
norm.

--
Ed Huntress

"cavelamb" wrote in message
news
Ignoramus8090 wrote:

Most articles seem to be verbatim copies of one article, reprinted on
Republican blogs. The article does not attempt to be an impartial
source of information and reads more like a propaganda piece ("If
you're one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain
destitution", not how credible news stories are written).


In my humble opinion, there is no such thing any more as credible news.

Of course not. They don't send credible news to Texas. They reserve all of
the *incredible* news for you guys.

d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Rick Samuel" wrote in message
...

"cavelamb" wrote in message
news
Ignoramus8090 wrote:

Most articles seem to be verbatim copies of one article, reprinted on
Republican blogs. The article does not attempt to be an impartial
source of information and reads more like a propaganda piece ("If
you're one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain
destitution", not how credible news stories are written).


In my humble opinion, there is no such thing any more as credible news.

Just what I was fixin' to say, 99% PURE BS

The story came from CanadaFreePress.com, which I wouldn't count on for
anything, but it was confirmed to ABC News by Katie McCormick Lelyveld,
Michelle Obama's press secretary, and Anita McBride, former chief of staff
to Laura Bush.

--
Ed Huntress

On Aug 13, 10:21*pm, Ignoramus8090
wrote:
On 2009-08-14, Steve W. wrote:





First Lady requires more than 20 attendants

No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First Lady and she
doesn't
perform any official duties. But this hasn't deterred her from hiring an
unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to
satisfy her
every request in the midst of the Great Recession. Just think Mary
Lincoln was
taken to task for purchasing china for the White House during the Civil
War. And
Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary.. How
things have changed! If you're one of the tens of millions of Americans
facing
certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the
shelves at
Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and
then come
to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Miz Michelle
are the
same as *members of the national security and defense departments and
the bill
for these assorted lackeys is paid by John Q. Public:

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)

22. Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the
First Lady)

There has never been anyone in the White House at any time that has
created such
an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First
Lady's
social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer
expense, when
even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one;

Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the
President's own pocket.

Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and
"First
Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom travelled aboard Air Force
One to
Europe .

Copyright 2009 Canada Free Press.Com

canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652

I tried to look up information by searching for "michelle obama
attendants".

Most articles seem to be verbatim copies of one article, reprinted on
Republican blogs. The article does not attempt to be an impartial
source of information and reads more like a propaganda piece ("If
you're one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain
destitution", not how credible news stories are written).

It would appear that the above article is a little mistaken about the
number of Laura Bush attendants. Laura Bush had 15 attendants.

* * *http://www.nationaljournal.com/about...007/whsalaries...

* * * What Laura Bushs Staff Earned

* * * McBride, Anita B. Assistant to the president and chief of staff
to the first lady $168,000.00

* * * Harder, Cherie S. Special asistant 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
* *9. The Mayor Says:
* * * August 5th, 2009 at 5:53 pm

I see this as more or less comparable staffs.

i

http://www.people.com/people/archive...116494,00.html

Nancy Reagan's Fancy Freebies May Cost the Former First Couple a
Pretty Penny in Back Taxes

By Mary H.J. Farrell, Sue Carswell, Katy Kelly, Eleanor Hoover

....

That would suit M. Chris Blazakis. A former fashion executive who has
spent the past two years investigating Nancy's dress-capades for a
book he is writing on improprieties in the Reagan Administration,
Blazakis, 36, went to the IRS in January 1989. "They missed this for
eight years," says Blazakis, who has provided the IRS with detailed
information about Nancy's clothing and accessories. If the IRS decides
the finery—valued at well in excess of a million dollars—is taxable,
it could really put Nancy in the red. In addition, the designers who
supplied her with the dresses—including Galanos, Adolfo and Bill Blass—
may be implicated in the IRS mess.

....

The designer clothing may be only part of the story. According to
Reagan White House sources, the services of Nancy's hairdresser,
Julius Bengtsson, were provided free during her tenure through a
special arrangement with Clairol—which made the hair color she used—
and cost the company more than $100,000. Exercise equipment valued at
$4,000 or more was installed in the Reagan's private quarters free of
charge in 1980 and returned in 1988, according to White House
sources.

....

Still, it may take more than a tax bill to convince Nancy that she did
the wrong thing. "I wonder: What would have happened if I had stopped
borrowing dresses and had started wearing only the clothes I could
afford to buy?" she asks in My Turn. "Instead of calling me
extravagant, the press would have started referring to me as 'dowdy'
and 'frumpy.' " And then what would Raisa Gorbachev have said?

Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb" wrote in message
news
Ignoramus8090 wrote:
Most articles seem to be verbatim copies of one article, reprinted on
Republican blogs. The article does not attempt to be an impartial
source of information and reads more like a propaganda piece ("If
you're one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain
destitution", not how credible news stories are written).

In my humble opinion, there is no such thing any more as credible news.

Of course not. They don't send credible news to Texas. They reserve all of
the *incredible* news for you guys.

d8-)

--
Ed Huntress



Do you know 7-15?

Navy version of 10- codes...

"cavelamb" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb" wrote in message
news
Ignoramus8090 wrote:
Most articles seem to be verbatim copies of one article, reprinted on
Republican blogs. The article does not attempt to be an impartial
source of information and reads more like a propaganda piece ("If
you're one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain
destitution", not how credible news stories are written).

In my humble opinion, there is no such thing any more as credible news.

Of course not. They don't send credible news to Texas. They reserve all
of the *incredible* news for you guys.

d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Do you know 7-15?

Navy version of 10- codes...

Nope.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb" wrote in message
news Ignoramus8090 wrote:
Most articles seem to be verbatim copies of one article, reprinted on
Republican blogs. The article does not attempt to be an impartial
source of information and reads more like a propaganda piece ("If
you're one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain
destitution", not how credible news stories are written).
In my humble opinion, there is no such thing any more as credible news.
Of course not. They don't send credible news to Texas. They reserve all
of the *incredible* news for you guys.

d8-)

--
Ed Huntress
Do you know 7-15?

Navy version of 10- codes...

Nope.

--
Ed Huntress



Pity!

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 03:52:34 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

Ig said:
I see this as more or less comparable staffs.

i

So does Anita McBride, Laura Bush's former chief of staff.

22 vs. 15 is a 32% increase. You two call that "comparable"?


It sounds pretty wild and crazy, but it also sounds like it's become the
norm.

Yet another way our gov't wastes money.

--
If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the
thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power
to revoke at any moment. -- Marcus Aurelius Antoninus

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 03:52:34 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

Ig said:
I see this as more or less comparable staffs.

i

So does Anita McBride, Laura Bush's former chief of staff.

22 vs. 15 is a 32% increase. You two call that "comparable"?

Yeah. If it was 14, would you have been happier? g I wouldn't. It makes no
difference.

It looks like something that's just growing over time, as the First Lady is
expected to do more and to be more with each election. I don't particularly
like it, but it definitely looks like the trend. Possibly it's worth the
investment in terms of international relations. She certainly has given that
a shot in the arm.



It sounds pretty wild and crazy, but it also sounds like it's become the
norm.

Yet another way our gov't wastes money.

I continue to get a kick out of the people who get upset over a few million
dollars when the issues that are affecting our economy are hundreds of
billions, to trillions, to (in the abstract) tens of trillions.

Where is the sense of proportion here? How does this deserve the attention
to two keystrokes while the pirates of finance continue to sell derivatives
on unconscionable ratios of leverage?

This is so trivial by comparison that it isn't worth noticing.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2009-08-14, Larry Jaques novalidaddress@di wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 03:52:34 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

Ig said:
I see this as more or less comparable staffs.

i

So does Anita McBride, Laura Bush's former chief of staff.

22 vs. 15 is a 32% increase. You two call that "comparable"?

Well, the original Republican article was foaming at the mouth, saying
that Laura Bush had one staffer, and Michelle Obama had
22. (Apparently, CanadaFreePress.Com edited their article and they no
longer say that Laura Bush had only one attendant).

It turned out, much to my surprise, that the Republican article did
not tell the truth and Laura Bush has 15 attendants.

I agree that 22 is more than 15, but it does not seem like a dramatic
difference to me, compared to 22 vs. one.


It sounds pretty wild and crazy, but it also sounds like it's become the
norm.

Yet another way our gov't wastes money.

A relevant question would be, does our country benefit from this by
more than 1.5 million dollars spent on the staff. The answer is not
obvious to me.

i

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:14:47 -0400, Steve W. wrote:

First Lady requires more than 20 attendants

Copyright 2009 Canada Free Press.Com

canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652

Aw c'mon, man, it's economic stimulus.

--


add up all those wages, less than the missing Sarah Palin Wardrobe - this
is pocket change - worry about the big things

If you mention any "Big Things" you are accused of being a racist and a
right-wing terrorist.


ok, amusing, but we both know that my ref to big things would be the like of
NK's ambitions, Pakistan V India, the meltdown in Iraq, national solvency
and such. 1.5 million $ is pocket change in our budget, and having a first
lady who engages in diplomacy of the "soft" kind is money well spent -
consider the consequences of no staff - we would be even more the laughing
stock of the world - we would forefit a very valuable asset (her popular
appeal), and we would gain nothing.

On Aug 14, 3:02*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

22 vs. 15 is a 32% increase. *You two call that "comparable"?

Yeah. If it was 14, would you have been happier? g I wouldn't. It makes no
difference.

It looks like something that's just growing over time, as the First Lady is
expected to do more and to be more with each election. I don't particularly
like it, but it definitely looks like the trend. Possibly it's worth the
investment in terms of international relations. She certainly has given that
a shot in the arm.



It sounds pretty wild and crazy, but it also sounds like it's become the
norm.

Yet another way our gov't wastes money.

I continue to get a kick out of the people who get upset over a few million
dollars when the issues that are affecting our economy are hundreds of
billions, to trillions, to (in the abstract) tens of trillions.

Where is the sense of proportion here? How does this deserve the attention
to two keystrokes while the pirates of finance continue to sell derivatives
on unconscionable ratios of leverage?

This is so trivial by comparison that it isn't worth noticing.

--
Ed Huntress

As someone once said, a million here, a million there, pretty soon you
are talking about real money.

Looks like Parkinsons Law rules. Mamie Eisenhower, as I remember had
a staff of three. One of them was a good friend of my sister. What
I want to know is where they put all those bodies. They must have
enlarged the area for the staff as thirty two would not fit in the
single room that housed Mamie's staff.

And although it may be trivial by comparison to other things that
outrage us, it still is outrageous.


Dan

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:02:33 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 03:52:34 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

Ig said:
I see this as more or less comparable staffs.

i

So does Anita McBride, Laura Bush's former chief of staff.

22 vs. 15 is a 32% increase. You two call that "comparable"?

Yeah. If it was 14, would you have been happier? g I wouldn't. It makes no
difference.

Yes, I would. It does make a difference to me. It's an unneccessary
waste. Just think how many more doctors the gov't could buy with all
that waste snipped out.


It looks like something that's just growing over time, as the First Lady is
expected to do more and to be more with each election. I don't particularly
like it, but it definitely looks like the trend. Possibly it's worth the
investment in terms of international relations. She certainly has given that
a shot in the arm.

Perhaps I've missed that. Citations magic mending, please?


It sounds pretty wild and crazy, but it also sounds like it's become the
norm.

Yet another way our gov't wastes money.

I continue to get a kick out of the people who get upset over a few million
dollars when the issues that are affecting our economy are hundreds of
billions, to trillions, to (in the abstract) tens of trillions.

If someone comes to your house and turns on the hoses, then shoots
your water main, are you going to simply overlook the leaks, or are
you going to stop the flow wherever you can whenever you can, Ed?


Where is the sense of proportion here? How does this deserve the attention
to two keystrokes while the pirates of finance continue to sell derivatives
on unconscionable ratios of leverage?

This is so trivial by comparison that it isn't worth noticing.

Again you say "Ignore the gushing bullet holes in your feet. It's your
missing hand that's the only problem."

I'm still saying "Let's mend -all- bleeding wounds before any one of
them has a chance to kill us."

--
If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the
thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power
to revoke at any moment. -- Marcus Aurelius Antoninus

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:59:18 -0500, the infamous Ignoramus26634
scrawled the following:

On 2009-08-14, Larry Jaques novalidaddress@di wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 03:52:34 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

Ig said:
I see this as more or less comparable staffs.

i

So does Anita McBride, Laura Bush's former chief of staff.

22 vs. 15 is a 32% increase. You two call that "comparable"?

Well, the original Republican article was foaming at the mouth, saying
that Laura Bush had one staffer, and Michelle Obama had
22. (Apparently, CanadaFreePress.Com edited their article and they no
longer say that Laura Bush had only one attendant).

And I accepted the 15 shown by Ed(?).


It turned out, much to my surprise, that the Republican article did
not tell the truth and Laura Bush has 15 attendants.

My, aren't you smug now that your Dems are in power?


I agree that 22 is more than 15, but it does not seem like a dramatic
difference to me, compared to 22 vs. one.

Well, doh! sigh


It sounds pretty wild and crazy, but it also sounds like it's become the
norm.

Yet another way our gov't wastes money.

A relevant question would be, does our country benefit from this by
more than 1.5 million dollars spent on the staff. The answer is not
obvious to me.

Aha! Nor does it to me.

--
If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the
thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power
to revoke at any moment. -- Marcus Aurelius Antoninus

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:02:33 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 03:52:34 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

Ig said:
I see this as more or less comparable staffs.

i

So does Anita McBride, Laura Bush's former chief of staff.

22 vs. 15 is a 32% increase. You two call that "comparable"?

Yeah. If it was 14, would you have been happier? g I wouldn't. It makes
no
difference.

Yes, I would. It does make a difference to me. It's an unneccessary
waste. Just think how many more doctors the gov't could buy with all
that waste snipped out.


It looks like something that's just growing over time, as the First Lady
is
expected to do more and to be more with each election. I don't
particularly
like it, but it definitely looks like the trend. Possibly it's worth the
investment in terms of international relations. She certainly has given
that
a shot in the arm.

Perhaps I've missed that. Citations magic mending, please?

If you had TV, I wouldn't have to tell you. Since you don't have TV as a
matter of choice, I'll just say that the info is widely known and available.
She's done a great deal, along with her husband, to re-build some respect
and regard for the US in foreign countries.



It sounds pretty wild and crazy, but it also sounds like it's become the
norm.

Yet another way our gov't wastes money.

I continue to get a kick out of the people who get upset over a few
million
dollars when the issues that are affecting our economy are hundreds of
billions, to trillions, to (in the abstract) tens of trillions.

If someone comes to your house and turns on the hoses, then shoots
your water main, are you going to simply overlook the leaks, or are
you going to stop the flow wherever you can whenever you can, Ed?


You're complaining about some leaky washers while your basement is flooding
from a broken pipe. I don't buy into that.


Where is the sense of proportion here? How does this deserve the attention
to two keystrokes while the pirates of finance continue to sell
derivatives
on unconscionable ratios of leverage?

This is so trivial by comparison that it isn't worth noticing.

Again you say "Ignore the gushing bullet holes in your feet. It's your
missing hand that's the only problem."

I'm still saying "Let's mend -all- bleeding wounds before any one of
them has a chance to kill us."

--
If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the
thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power
to revoke at any moment. -- Marcus Aurelius Antoninus

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:20:01 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:02:33 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 03:52:34 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

like it, but it definitely looks like the trend. Possibly it's worth the
investment in terms of international relations. She certainly has given
that
a shot in the arm.

Perhaps I've missed that. Citations magic mending, please?

If you had TV, I wouldn't have to tell you. Since you don't have TV as a
matter of choice, I'll just say that the info is widely known and available.
She's done a great deal, along with her husband, to re-build some respect
and regard for the US in foreign countries.

All I see when I google 'er is talk about her poor taste in clothes.
shrug


It sounds pretty wild and crazy, but it also sounds like it's become the
norm.

Yet another way our gov't wastes money.

I continue to get a kick out of the people who get upset over a few
million
dollars when the issues that are affecting our economy are hundreds of
billions, to trillions, to (in the abstract) tens of trillions.

If someone comes to your house and turns on the hoses, then shoots
your water main, are you going to simply overlook the leaks, or are
you going to stop the flow wherever you can whenever you can, Ed?


You're complaining about some leaky washers while your basement is flooding
from a broken pipe. I don't buy into that.

No, I'm saying that it's all connected and to go after ONLY the
largest leak is a mistake. It all has to be handled or they won't
learn a thing from it. Well, the **** is certainly ready to hit the
fan and I won't be surprised when it does.

--
If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the
thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power
to revoke at any moment. -- Marcus Aurelius Antoninus

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:20:01 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:02:33 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 03:52:34 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

like it, but it definitely looks like the trend. Possibly it's worth the
investment in terms of international relations. She certainly has given
that
a shot in the arm.

Perhaps I've missed that. Citations magic mending, please?

If you had TV, I wouldn't have to tell you. Since you don't have TV as a
matter of choice, I'll just say that the info is widely known and
available.
She's done a great deal, along with her husband, to re-build some respect
and regard for the US in foreign countries.

All I see when I google 'er is talk about her poor taste in clothes.
shrug


It sounds pretty wild and crazy, but it also sounds like it's become
the
norm.

Yet another way our gov't wastes money.

I continue to get a kick out of the people who get upset over a few
million
dollars when the issues that are affecting our economy are hundreds of
billions, to trillions, to (in the abstract) tens of trillions.

If someone comes to your house and turns on the hoses, then shoots
your water main, are you going to simply overlook the leaks, or are
you going to stop the flow wherever you can whenever you can, Ed?


You're complaining about some leaky washers while your basement is
flooding
from a broken pipe. I don't buy into that.

No, I'm saying that it's all connected and to go after ONLY the
largest leak is a mistake. It all has to be handled or they won't
learn a thing from it. Well, the **** is certainly ready to hit the
fan and I won't be surprised when it does.

It's not all connected. The large size of Michelle Obama's staff is the
result of a growing role for the First Lady. I'm not sure I like the idea,
because political ascension via marriage is not my idea of democracy. But I
strongly suspect it's among the best-spent money in the entire government.
As a goodwill ambassador, she's been exceptionally good -- probably the best
since Jackie Kennedy. And the amount of money is trivial if you measure it
against any of the issues that are driving our economy.

The international rip-off in the financial world is completely unrelated:
the result of a deep and corrosive rot in western capitalism. If we can't
solve that, I think we may be screwed. Not that our economy will collapse,
but that it will be irredeemably out of our control. The pirates will be
running the ship, and for all intents and purposes, they will own us.

This really is a moment of truth. There has never been a better time to
restore a sound and democratic basis to our economy. If we can't do it now,
and if moving money around among a relative few financial insiders remains
the driving dynamic behind our economic ups and downs, the game is over,
IMO.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:23:42 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:20:01 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:02:33 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 03:52:34 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

like it, but it definitely looks like the trend. Possibly it's worth the
investment in terms of international relations. She certainly has given
that
a shot in the arm.

Perhaps I've missed that. Citations magic mending, please?

If you had TV, I wouldn't have to tell you. Since you don't have TV as a
matter of choice, I'll just say that the info is widely known and
available.
She's done a great deal, along with her husband, to re-build some respect
and regard for the US in foreign countries.

All I see when I google 'er is talk about her poor taste in clothes.
shrug


It sounds pretty wild and crazy, but it also sounds like it's become
the
norm.

Yet another way our gov't wastes money.

I continue to get a kick out of the people who get upset over a few
million
dollars when the issues that are affecting our economy are hundreds of
billions, to trillions, to (in the abstract) tens of trillions.

If someone comes to your house and turns on the hoses, then shoots
your water main, are you going to simply overlook the leaks, or are
you going to stop the flow wherever you can whenever you can, Ed?


You're complaining about some leaky washers while your basement is
flooding
from a broken pipe. I don't buy into that.

No, I'm saying that it's all connected and to go after ONLY the
largest leak is a mistake. It all has to be handled or they won't
learn a thing from it. Well, the **** is certainly ready to hit the
fan and I won't be surprised when it does.

It's not all connected. The large size of Michelle Obama's staff is the
result of a growing role for the First Lady. I'm not sure I like the idea,
because political ascension via marriage is not my idea of democracy. But I
strongly suspect it's among the best-spent money in the entire government.
As a goodwill ambassador, she's been exceptionally good -- probably the best
since Jackie Kennedy. And the amount of money is trivial if you measure it
against any of the issues that are driving our economy.

I don't see why most of her scheduling can't be handled by existing
Presidential advisors/staff in 2-10 minutes a day. Surely they're
already kept in the loop so the First Lady doesn't say/do something
she shouldn't, something against current/projected policy.

And waste by the gov't, no matter to whom it goes, is still waste.
That's where I see the connection. It has to be identified and it has
to be handled, just like the much larger wastes. Do you think that
the CONgresscritters are above using misdirection to get what they
want, despite consequences to the people and the country?


The international rip-off in the financial world is completely unrelated:
the result of a deep and corrosive rot in western capitalism. If we can't
solve that, I think we may be screwed. Not that our economy will collapse,
but that it will be irredeemably out of our control. The pirates will be
running the ship, and for all intents and purposes, they will own us.

Are you sure they aren't and don't already?


This really is a moment of truth. There has never been a better time to
restore a sound and democratic basis to our economy. If we can't do it now,
and if moving money around among a relative few financial insiders remains
the driving dynamic behind our economic ups and downs, the game is over,
IMO.

Aye, and things bode poorly, laddy.

--
If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the
thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power
to revoke at any moment. -- Marcus Aurelius Antoninus

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:23:42 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:20:01 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:02:33 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news:72ra85luqr2b4fsgfsbfgj99lv22u5kcjp@4ax. com...
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 03:52:34 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

like it, but it definitely looks like the trend. Possibly it's worth
the
investment in terms of international relations. She certainly has
given
that
a shot in the arm.

Perhaps I've missed that. Citations magic mending, please?

If you had TV, I wouldn't have to tell you. Since you don't have TV as a
matter of choice, I'll just say that the info is widely known and
available.
She's done a great deal, along with her husband, to re-build some
respect
and regard for the US in foreign countries.

All I see when I google 'er is talk about her poor taste in clothes.
shrug


It sounds pretty wild and crazy, but it also sounds like it's become
the
norm.

Yet another way our gov't wastes money.

I continue to get a kick out of the people who get upset over a few
million
dollars when the issues that are affecting our economy are hundreds of
billions, to trillions, to (in the abstract) tens of trillions.

If someone comes to your house and turns on the hoses, then shoots
your water main, are you going to simply overlook the leaks, or are
you going to stop the flow wherever you can whenever you can, Ed?


You're complaining about some leaky washers while your basement is
flooding
from a broken pipe. I don't buy into that.

No, I'm saying that it's all connected and to go after ONLY the
largest leak is a mistake. It all has to be handled or they won't
learn a thing from it. Well, the **** is certainly ready to hit the
fan and I won't be surprised when it does.

It's not all connected. The large size of Michelle Obama's staff is the
result of a growing role for the First Lady. I'm not sure I like the idea,
because political ascension via marriage is not my idea of democracy. But
I
strongly suspect it's among the best-spent money in the entire government.
As a goodwill ambassador, she's been exceptionally good -- probably the
best
since Jackie Kennedy. And the amount of money is trivial if you measure it
against any of the issues that are driving our economy.

I don't see why most of her scheduling can't be handled by existing
Presidential advisors/staff in 2-10 minutes a day.

That's why other people have the six-figure job, and you and I don't. d8-)

Surely they're
already kept in the loop so the First Lady doesn't say/do something
she shouldn't, something against current/projected policy.

I doubt if that's more than a tiny issue.


And waste by the gov't, no matter to whom it goes, is still waste.
That's where I see the connection. It has to be identified and it has
to be handled, just like the much larger wastes.

And that's why we're in such trouble: Too many voters can't focus on the
distinction between a million and a billion. And a trillion is just noise to
them -- "one, two, and a heap," and all that.

Do you think that
the CONgresscritters are above using misdirection to get what they
want, despite consequences to the people and the country?

It's what they live on. They get away with it because we don't have the
sense to distinguish between individual free speech and megamillions
lobbying. The libertarians think that K Street is all about free speech,
when it's really all about stealing money from taxpayers.



The international rip-off in the financial world is completely unrelated:
the result of a deep and corrosive rot in western capitalism. If we can't
solve that, I think we may be screwed. Not that our economy will collapse,
but that it will be irredeemably out of our control. The pirates will be
running the ship, and for all intents and purposes, they will own us.

Are you sure they aren't and don't already?

They have been for a while. Now is our chance to fix it. I think we'll blow
it.



This really is a moment of truth. There has never been a better time to
restore a sound and democratic basis to our economy. If we can't do it
now,
and if moving money around among a relative few financial insiders remains
the driving dynamic behind our economic ups and downs, the game is over,
IMO.

Aye, and things bode poorly, laddy.

--
If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the
thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power
to revoke at any moment. -- Marcus Aurelius Antoninus

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
They have been for a while. Now is our chance to fix it. I think
we'll blow it.

Kind of looks like that today, doesn't it.
Commercial paper underlying securities is going to begin coming home to
roost over the next year Ed.
At that point we'll see an awful lot of outright failures and this ought to
generate the will at large for law makers and regulatroy agency's to do what
they must. The politics and public will are going to have to lead the way on
this.


--
John R. Carroll

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:33:11 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:


"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:14:47 -0400, Steve W. wrote:

First Lady requires more than 20 attendants

Copyright 2009 Canada Free Press.Com

canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652

Aw c'mon, man, it's economic stimulus.

--


add up all those wages, less than the missing Sarah Palin Wardrobe - this
is pocket change - worry about the big things

If you mention any "Big Things" you are accused of being a racist and a
right-wing terrorist.


ok, amusing, but we both know that my ref to big things would be the like of
NK's ambitions, Pakistan V India, the meltdown in Iraq, national solvency
and such. 1.5 million $ is pocket change in our budget, and having a first
lady who engages in diplomacy of the "soft" kind is money well spent -
consider the consequences of no staff - we would be even more the laughing
stock of the world - we would forefit a very valuable asset (her popular
appeal), and we would gain nothing.

My goodness Bill...thats a Great! set of excuses for the Obamas! Kudos!
Have you applied for a press release writers job at the Whitehouse?


'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith
becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact
equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man
because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the
person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American,
but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag,
the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the
English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a
loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Ro osevelt 1907

Grim early Indications for Wall Street reform
The banks want to stay huge and indulgent, and the administration may not be
willing or able to stare them down

By Robert Reich



http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...ating_finance/
--
John R. Carroll

On Aug 15, 9:10*pm, "John R. Carroll" wrote:
Grim early Indications for Wall Street reform
The banks want to stay huge and indulgent, and the administration may not be
willing or able to stare them down

By Robert Reich

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...ating_finance/
--
John R. Carroll

The trader has a contract with Citibank that was made before the
government passed a law about approvals on pay. So now the government
wants to void the contract. Our legal system does not allow laws to
be retroactive regardless of how popular a new law is.
Dan

On Aug 15, 10:55*pm, "John R. Carroll" wrote:

OK. but they would be BK without the hand out they got.
He'd have gotten nothing at all then.
There is also a concept called "fairness" and humility that comes into play.
Either way, were I his boss and wanting to cut his payout you can bet
exactly that would happen even if he had to be caught in bed with a small
boy or something....

The rules of good compaortment end well before $100 million per year.
Know what I mean?

--
John R. Carroll

If they had let Citibank go bankrupt, they could have voided the
contract. But the government acted in haste and as often happens
there were unintended consequences. If they do anything to void the
contract now, there will be other unintended consequences. If I were
the trader, I would be appealing all the way to the supreme court.
I certainly agree that it is a rotten state of affairs. But in this
case I think the government ought to admit they screwed up and let the
contract stand. I would rather have the guy get the 100 million than
let the government pass retroactive laws.

My thoughts are that his boss is the one that should be out of a job.
He is the one that approved the contract.

Dan

wrote:
On Aug 15, 9:10 pm, "John R. Carroll" wrote:
Grim early Indications for Wall Street reform
The banks want to stay huge and indulgent, and the administration
may not be willing or able to stare them down

By Robert Reich

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...ating_finance/
--
John R. Carroll

The trader has a contract with Citibank that was made before the
government passed a law about approvals on pay. So now the government
wants to void the contract. Our legal system does not allow laws to
be retroactive regardless of how popular a new law is.

OK. but they would be BK without the hand out they got.
He'd have gotten nothing at all then.
There is also a concept called "fairness" and humility that comes into play.
Either way, were I his boss and wanting to cut his payout you can bet
exactly that would happen even if he had to be caught in bed with a small
boy or something....

The rules of good compaortment end well before $100 million per year.
Know what I mean?


--
John R. Carroll

In article
,
" wrote:

On Aug 15, 10:55*pm, "John R. Carroll" wrote:

OK. but they would be BK without the hand out they got.
He'd have gotten nothing at all then.
There is also a concept called "fairness" and humility that comes into play.
Either way, were I his boss and wanting to cut his payout you can bet
exactly that would happen even if he had to be caught in bed with a small
boy or something....

The rules of good compaortment end well before $100 million per year.
Know what I mean?

--
John R. Carroll

If they had let Citibank go bankrupt, they could have voided the
contract. But the government acted in haste and as often happens
there were unintended consequences. If they do anything to void the
contract now, there will be other unintended consequences. If I were
the trader, I would be appealing all the way to the supreme court.
I certainly agree that it is a rotten state of affairs. But in this
case I think the government ought to admit they screwed up and let the
contract stand. I would rather have the guy get the 100 million than
let the government pass retroactive laws.

My thoughts are that his boss is the one that should be out of a job.
He is the one that approved the contract.

The problem is that that trader really is a rainmaker, making billions
for the bank year after year, and if they break the contract, he will be
hired away in a flash for much more than $100M.

He will also sue the bank and will win.

And his boss is not in danger of losing his job for paying that much,
unless the govt is able to force the bank to do something foolish.

The boss would have a case against the bank as well. But he'll probably
follow the trader to a new company. Being fired by the govt for hiring
and retaining a trader who made billions for the bank looks good on
one's resume.

I bet the govt will find a way to change the subject.

And retroactive (ex post facto) laws are forbidden by the Constitution.

Joe Gwinn

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 18:06:46 -0400, Joseph Gwinn wrote:


And retroactive (ex post facto) laws are forbidden by the Constitution.

Joe Gwinn

Last bonus, ever! :-)


Mark Rand
RTFM

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:34:14 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

I don't see why most of her scheduling can't be handled by existing
Presidential advisors/staff in 2-10 minutes a day.

That's why other people have the six-figure job, and you and I don't. d8-)

What's why? Because we think and they just scheme?


Surely they're
already kept in the loop so the First Lady doesn't say/do something
she shouldn't, something against current/projected policy.

I doubt if that's more than a tiny issue.

Big egos don't like to be caught from behind by their wife's errant
comments or behavior. That makes it a big issue to both the uppy ups
and their advisors.


And waste by the gov't, no matter to whom it goes, is still waste.
That's where I see the connection. It has to be identified and it has
to be handled, just like the much larger wastes.

And that's why we're in such trouble: Too many voters can't focus on the
distinction between a million and a billion. And a trillion is just noise to
them -- "one, two, and a heap," and all that.

Hell, I'm confused when I see a comma in a monetary figure...


Do you think that
the CONgresscritters are above using misdirection to get what they
want, despite consequences to the people and the country?

It's what they live on. They get away with it because we don't have the
sense to distinguish between individual free speech and megamillions
lobbying. The libertarians think that K Street is all about free speech,
when it's really all about stealing money from taxpayers.

Does _any_ good ever come from lobbying? sigh


The international rip-off in the financial world is completely unrelated:
the result of a deep and corrosive rot in western capitalism. If we can't
solve that, I think we may be screwed. Not that our economy will collapse,
but that it will be irredeemably out of our control. The pirates will be
running the ship, and for all intents and purposes, they will own us.

Are you sure they aren't and don't already?

They have been for a while. Now is our chance to fix it. I think we'll blow
it.

Until the next revolution. Methinks Dems + Obama just might form
critical mass for it. Don't hold your breath, but you might want to
think about ducking and covering soon, folks.

--
If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the
thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power
to revoke at any moment. -- Marcus Aurelius Antoninus

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article
,
" wrote:

On Aug 15, 10:55 pm, "John R. Carroll" wrote:

The problem is that that trader really is a rainmaker, making billions
for the bank year after year, and if they break the contract, he will
be hired away in a flash for much more than $100M.

That might be the case.
The guy might also be managing a computer trading scheme.
One version of that has the trading computers right off the trading floor
and is executing transactions from buy to sell again in less than a second.
The margins are small but if you execute a million trades per day, it adds
up. It's the ultimate day trading scam.


He will also sue the bank and will win.

And his boss is not in danger of losing his job for paying that much,
unless the govt is able to force the bank to do something foolish.

The boss would have a case against the bank as well. But he'll
probably follow the trader to a new company. Being fired by the govt
for hiring and retaining a trader who made billions for the bank
looks good on one's resume.

I bet the govt will find a way to change the subject.

They have given the job to a faceless beaurocrat. Someone who is not elected
and that can take any amount of heat for them.


And retroactive (ex post facto) laws are forbidden by the
Constitution.

Retroactive tax laws are passed all the time. What you are referring to is
only true in criminal law.

Anyway, the commercial mortgage fiasco is just now getting started. One of
the few remaining lenders providing other banks with wharehouse lines of
credit was siezed on Friday and they will be the first of many.
All of our "To Big to Fail" banks are sitting on a TON of securities that
are supported by commercial real estate loans and none of those securities
have been marked to market because of a rule change made a year ago to keep
them solvent. That change won't help them once the actual loans can't be
refinanced and the paper will have to be marked down all the way to zero as
it defaults.

Congress will either have passed the enabling legislation to allow these
large institutions to be siezed and sold off the way banks currently are or
we'll see the lot of them in the crapper. The very dissruption TARP was
intended to avoid will happen anyway.
At that point, the courst will be able to reach back 18 months and deal with
bonus issues and that is already the law.

--
John R. Carroll

wrote:
On Aug 15, 9:10 pm, "John R. Carroll" wrote:
Grim early Indications for Wall Street reform
The banks want to stay huge and indulgent, and the administration may not be
willing or able to stare them down

By Robert Reich

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...ating_finance/
--
John R. Carroll

The trader has a contract with Citibank that was made before the
government passed a law about approvals on pay. So now the government
wants to void the contract. Our legal system does not allow laws to
be retroactive regardless of how popular a new law is.
Dan

Oh? Ever hear of the Lautenberg Amendment? It retroactively changed
penalties for certain domestic violence misdemeanor crimes, so if you
were convicted of them long ago, doesn't matter how long, you no
longer have the right o keep and bear arms.

David

In article ,
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article
,
" wrote:

On Aug 15, 10:55 pm, "John R. Carroll" wrote:

The problem is that that trader really is a rainmaker, making billions
for the bank year after year, and if they break the contract, he will
be hired away in a flash for much more than $100M.

That might be the case.
The guy might also be managing a computer trading scheme.
One version of that has the trading computers right off the trading floor
and is executing transactions from buy to sell again in less than a second.
The margins are small but if you execute a million trades per day, it adds
up. It's the ultimate day trading scam.

From what I've read, he is not a computer trader at all.


He will also sue the bank and will win.

And his boss is not in danger of losing his job for paying that much,
unless the govt is able to force the bank to do something foolish.

The boss would have a case against the bank as well. But he'll
probably follow the trader to a new company. Being fired by the govt
for hiring and retaining a trader who made billions for the bank
looks good on one's resume.

I bet the govt will find a way to change the subject.

They have given the job to a faceless beaurocrat. Someone who is not elected
and that can take any amount of heat for them.

It will be decided by a Judge, not a bureaucrat.


And retroactive (ex post facto) laws are forbidden by the
Constitution.

Retroactive tax laws are passed all the time. What you are referring to is
only true in criminal law.

It's more complex than that. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law and especially
http://supreme.justia.com/us/512/26/case.html, which turned on
Congress's motive not being improper. A trader getting $100M per year
can afford to fight all the way to the Supreme Court, and improper
motive is sure to be alleged. Nor should it be all that hard to
establish.


Anyway, the commercial mortgage fiasco is just now getting started. .....

This may perhaps all be true, but is not relevant to the trader case.

Joe Gwinn

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article
,
" wrote:

On Aug 15, 10:55 pm, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

The problem is that that trader really is a rainmaker, making
billions for the bank year after year, and if they break the
contract, he will be hired away in a flash for much more than $100M.

That might be the case.
The guy might also be managing a computer trading scheme.
One version of that has the trading computers right off the trading
floor and is executing transactions from buy to sell again in less
than a second. The margins are small but if you execute a million
trades per day, it adds up. It's the ultimate day trading scam.

From what I've read, he is not a computer trader at all.


He will also sue the bank and will win.

And his boss is not in danger of losing his job for paying that
much, unless the govt is able to force the bank to do something
foolish.

The boss would have a case against the bank as well. But he'll
probably follow the trader to a new company. Being fired by the
govt for hiring and retaining a trader who made billions for the
bank looks good on one's resume.

I bet the govt will find a way to change the subject.

They have given the job to a faceless beaurocrat. Someone who is not
elected and that can take any amount of heat for them.

It will be decided by a Judge, not a bureaucrat.

LOL

Citigroup, Bank of America, the American International Group, General Motors
and its finance arm, GMAC, which all received two taxpayer infusions, will
face the strictest scrutiny from the new federal official charged with
vetting compensation, Kenneth R. Feinberg. He is known for overseeing
payouts to the families of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/business/08bank.html

Anyway, the commercial mortgage fiasco is just now getting started.
.....

This may perhaps all be true, but is not relevant to the trader case.

It might look that way to you now but the courts in a BK case can review
history and retroactively "undo" a lot.



--
John R. Carroll

wrote:
On Aug 15, 9:10 pm, "John R. Carroll" wrote:
Grim early Indications for Wall Street reform
The banks want to stay huge and indulgent, and the administration
may not be willing or able to stare them down

By Robert Reich

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...ating_finance/
--
John R. Carroll

The trader has a contract with Citibank that was made before the
government passed a law about approvals on pay. So now the government
wants to void the contract. Our legal system does not allow laws to
be retroactive regardless of how popular a new law is.
Dan

We'll see.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/us/18bar.html?_r=1&hp

It's a little different animal that what we have been discussuing but might
openthe door to other actions.

--
John R. Carroll