Liked this question? Tell your friends about it

55 Answers

Order by
Oldest to Newest
Newest to Oldest
Votes

Good for dead beat loafers like jerhomo .Another13 months of freebies.

I don't wish to be argumentative ,but I disagree with the Islamic belief that I should be killed! " If radical atheists decided they needed to kill believers to ensure their place in nothingness, I'd be criticizing that too."

Obama's Tax Cut Deal: Stimulus In Disguise?

This morning, as commentators delve into the dimensions of the liberal-infuriating grand bargain, which will cost over $900 billion over two years, a current of thought is emerging: might this ambitious economic package amount to a second stimulus, in a climate that appeared entirely inhospitable to the administration advancing further stimulative measures?

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Obamas-Tax-Cut-Deal-Stimulus-In-Disguise-6099

With the clock ticking on tax increases unless Congress acts this month, President Obama insisted Saturday that his compromise with Republicans is the best deal he could have gotten – and called on members of both political parties to "do the right thing" and pass legislation keeping federal tax rates at the low levels they've been since 2001.

"All told, this will not only directly help families and businesses," the president said in his weekly radio address. "By putting more money in people's pockets, and helping companies grow, we're going to see people being able to spend a little more, we're going to spur hiring – we're going to strengthen our entire economy."

In a rare meeting of the minds, the Republican radio address sounded the same themes, a harmonic convergence that is likely to only further inflame disgruntled Democrats.

"It's certainly encouraging to see that President Obama has proposed a potential agreement to stop all the tax hikes scheduled to take effect on January 1," Kristi Noem, a Republican congresswoman-elect from South Dakota, proclaimed in the GOP weekly address. "While stopping all the tax hikes would be a good first step, this alone won't eliminate the job-killing uncertainty hanging over our employers and entrepreneurs. That's why we need to focus on cutting spending and reducing the size of government."

Obama taped his speech Friday, the same day liberal Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders was protesting the tax deal in an eight-hour talkathon – and on the day Bill Clinton backed the president in a fascinating, if somewhat impromptu, news conference of his own from the White House press briefing room. Obama served mostly as a prop for Clinton, albeit a prop that exited stage left on its own power -- leaving the former Democratic president to defend the current Democratic president over sniping from members of their own political party.

As he has for the past week, Obama expressed solicitude for the liberals' frustration that the 2001 income tax reductions will remain in place for upper-income taxpayers, but he pointed out that if Democratic Party intransigence resulted in gridlock, the Bush tax cuts would lapse on Dec. 31, leaving almost all Americans with a significantly larger tax liability in the new year.

"If Congress doesn't act, tax rates will automatically go up for just about everyone in our country," the president said. "Typical middle-class families would end up paying an extra $3,000."

"That's unacceptable to me," the president continued. "We know that it's the middle class that was hit the hardest by the recession, [and] taking this money out of the pockets of working people is exactly the wrong thing to do to get our economy growing faster. Economists tell us that this tax hike on working families could actually cost us well over a million jobs."

Obama said that this specter is why he brought Democrats and Republicans together to the negotiating table. Although he did engage in the requisite GOP-bashing – decrying the opposition party's insistence of retaining "permanent tax breaks for the wealthiest taxpayers and the wealthiest estates, most of which would go to millionaires and even billionaires" – the president reiterated that he was willing to accept those provisions in return for keeping low income tax rates on the middle class and extending the time that jobless Americans can receive unemployment insurance.

"So we hammered out a deal that reflects ideas from both sides," Obama said. "It wasn't easy, and it's by no means perfect. And as with any compromise, everybody had to live with elements they didn't like. But this is a good deal for the American people."

"Now, I recognize that many of my friends in my own party are uncomfortable with some of what's in this agreement, in particular the temporary tax cuts for the wealthy," Obama added. "And I share their concerns . . . But at the same time, we cannot allow the middle class in this country to be caught in the political crossfire of Washington. People want us to find solutions, not score points. And I will not allow middle-class families to be treated like pawns on a chessboard."

`

 


`

            
 

 

 

.

I don't wish to be argumentative ,but I disagree with the Islamic belief that I should be killed! " If radical atheists decided they needed to kill believers to ensure their place in nothingness, I'd be criticizing that too."

Correction it's another year. You get another year on unemployment benifits.Milk e'm


 
`

 

`

            
 

 

 
.

I don't wish to be argumentative ,but I disagree with the Islamic belief that I should be killed! " If radical atheists decided they needed to kill believers to ensure their place in nothingness, I'd be criticizing that too."

As Republican victories appeared inevitable in the month leading up to Election Day, special interest groups began pumping hundreds of thousands of dollars to the incoming GOP chairmen of major House committees, USA Today reported Monday.

The newspaper's analysis of new campaign-finance reports found that beginning Oct. 1, political action committees delivered nearly $1.2 million to lawmakers who are set to take over seven key panels in January.

About $7.8 million in PAC money was paid out during the 2010 election cycle, a 40 percent increase over 2008, according to the report.

Some examples, according to USA Today:

•Michigan Rep. Dave Camp, the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, saw his PAC donations surge to $2.3 million -- up from $1.6 million in 2008. Last-minute donors to Camp included the American College of Rheumatology's PAC, which gave $1,000 for a Nov. 15 fundraiser.

•Michigan Rep. Fred Upton, the incoming chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has received 67 percent of campaign dollars to date from PACs, Federal Election Commission reports show. That's up from 58.5 percent during the 2008 election.

•Oklahoma Rep. Frank Lucas, the incoming chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, an eight-term Republican, faced no serious challenge to his re-election this year and coasted to victory with 78 percent of the vote. But Lucas raised more than $1 million in his campaign, nearly double his haul in the 2008 election.

"People bet on winners," Craig Holman, of the watchdog group Public Citizen, told the newspaper.

Holman said it was a "classic case of special-interest money not going to help win the election, but helping members endear themselves to the new leadership."

Some of the lawmakers used the money to help lesser-funded Republicans. Camp, for example, gave more than $650,000 to national and state party committees.

USA Today points out that while the numbers are bigger this year, such PAC largess is not uncommon. In 2006, Democratic chairmen saw donations surge after the party won control of Congress.

Short Answer: No it's not good for average Americans! Why? Because it's ADDING another $800 BILLION dollars to the deficit (now at 13.8 BILLION and climbing!) and it's loaded with "Earmarks"!

Either Congress has a straight up or down vote on the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts or it shouldn't vote at all!

"I have met the enemy, and he is us!"-Pogo There is only one type of "good" Liberal, and that is an out-of-office Liberal!


Michelle Obama’s Staff


August 5, 2009

Bookmark and Share

Q: Does First Lady Michelle Obama have an "unprecedented" number of staffers?

A: A spokeswoman for the first lady says that Michelle Obama currently has a staff of 24. That may indeed be the largest of any first lady, but Hillary Clinton, with 19 staffers, and Laura Bush with at least 18 and perhaps more, weren’t far behind.

 FULL QUESTION:

Is this accurate? And how does it compare to prior first ladies’ staffs?

First Lady Requires More Than Twenty Attendants

? Click to expand/collapse the full text ?

Recession, Depression, What, Michelle Worry?
 
July 7, 2009
Dr. Paul L. Williams
"In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much," she said. "See, that’s why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service, " Michelle Obama.
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.

 

FULL ANSWER:

The White House published the 2009 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff on its official blog on July 1, listing the title and salary of many White House office employees. A few days later, a fuss began online over the number of people who are assigned to work for the Office of First Lady and how much they earn per year.

A blog post from Chicago Sun-Times reporter Lynn Sweet on July 6 put the spotlight on "What Michelle Obama’s Staffers Earn." The staff of TheLastCrusade.org, a Web site that describes itself as a place "where you can engage in the life and death struggle against the forces of Islam, apostasy, moral complacency, cultural relativity, and the New World Order," then took the information and posted a piece claiming that the first lady had hired an "unprecedented number of staffers" to "cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession." That piece was also posted on the conservative Web site CanadaFreePress.com under the byline of Dr. Paul L. Williams, who runs TheLastCrusade.org. That post has become part of a chain e-mail that some of our readers have passed on to us, and the e-mail expands upon Williams’ post, falsely claiming that some recent first ladies have had only one or three staffers.

How Many?

According to the 2009 White House report to Congress, there are 16 people with a title specifically indicating they work for Michelle Obama’s office. In other words, there are 16 people with "first lady" somewhere in their title, such as Jocelyn Frye, deputy assistant to the president and director of policy and projects for the first lady.

The list reported by Sweet and The Last Crusade, however, includes six other 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, special assistant to the president and White House social secretary, and Natalie Bookey, staff assistant.

We contacted Katie McCormick Lelyveld, Michelle Obama’s press secretary, to check the list’s accuracy. Lelyveld told us in an e-mail that the first lady’s current staff size is actually 24, not 22, as the chain e-mail claims. Lelyveld couldn’t provide a list of the staffers at that time.

First Ladies Past

The chain e-mail’s author claims that "[t]here 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." The author claims that "even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one." But the counts for those first ladies are incorrect – and they’re way off.

Stephen Plotkin, reference archivist for the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, told us in an e-mail that Jacqueline Kennedy’s office was "headed" by one person, but said that there were "at least 9 people working for Mrs. Kennedy, with the promise of a great many more" during her time at the White House.

Kim Coryat, an archives technician at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library, told us it can be difficult to nail down a precise count of staff considering "White House staffing for all offices ebbs and flows with time." But she said in an e-mail that White House telephone directory records indicate that Hillary Clinton had at least a staff of 13 as of October 1993; 18 as of April 1997; and 19 as of March 2000.

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

The combined annual salaries for the 22 staffers we can specifically identify as working for Michelle Obama come to $1.6 million. For the 18 we could identify as working for Laura Bush in 2008, the total is $1.4 million.

Dr. Myra Gutin, a professor of communications at Rider University and a first ladies historian, says that the first lady’s role has certainly "grown and evolved" since the 1960s, but generally speaking, the first lady’s "staff numbers about 14-16." Gutin told us she recalled "some first ladies have had staffs of more than that."

Related Questions

Other people asked questions on similar topics, check out the answers they received:

Asked: Who benefits politically from the tax cut?

Is the tax cut a bigger win for President Obama or for Republicans?

Asked: Are there any centrist Democrats who shun ...

Are there any centrist Democrats who shun Obama and the liberals? Blanche Lincoln, Kent Conrad, Max Baucus and Oscar Goodman come to mind. Goodman when he was Mayor of Las Vegas refused to allow Obama ...

Asked: Cults of racist hate.

You have seen Democrats screaming hatred against veterans because Veterans do not support radical Islam or Obama -- or hatred of any sort. So much for Democrats. The thing is, Democrats are only ...

Ask a Question... We'll forward it to people who know

More Questions

Payroll Tax Cut Extension: Will YOU Be Effected?

Goodness! Aside from the 'grammar' glitch.. It won't affect me all that much now that I'm on pension.. But I do hope the workers benefit as they damn well deserve a little meat on the bone that's tossed at them from time to time.

What is excise tax and regressive tax?

Excise is an example of a regressive tax along with such taxes as payroll tax. They are considered regressive as they are usualy levied upon a business and they have the characteristic of not contributing to the growth or development of that business. more info : https://www.onlinefiletaxes.com/