First Lady now requires 26 servants

pattygreen · September 5, 2009

First Lady Now Requires 26 Servants

Dr. Paul L. Williams Bio

Photo Gallery

By Dr. Paul L. Williams Monday, August 17, 2009

“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.

We were wrong.

Michelle Obama, as we reported on July 7, is not served by twenty-two attendants who stand by to cater to her every whim.

She is served by twenty-six attendants, including a hair dresser and make-up artist.

The annual cost to taxpayers for such unprecedented attention is approximately $1,750,000 without taking into account the expense of the lavish benefit packages afforded to every attendant.

Little did American voters realize the call for “change” would result in the establishment of an Obama oligarchy.

The discovery of the additional attendants was made by D’Angelo Gore of factcheck.org and by calls to Katie McCormick Lelyyeld, Michelle Obama’s press secretary.

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

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

$172,2000 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
$140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
$113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
$102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
$102,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
$90,000 - Medina, David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
$84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
$75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
$70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
$65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
$65,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
$62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
$60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
$60,000 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
$52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
$50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
$45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
$45,000 - Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
$40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
$36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
$36,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
$36,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)

Readers throughout the country expressed outrage that Mrs. Obama would hire an unprecedented number of staffers in the midst of the Great Recession.

Cleo's Mom · September 5, 2009

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."

–D’Angelo Gore

Sources

Executive Office of the President. "Annual Report on White House Staff to Congress." WhiteHouse.gov. 1 Jul 2009, accessed 30 Jul 2009.

Sweet, Lynn. "What Michelle Obama’s Staffers Earn." PoliticsDaily.com. 6 Jul 2009, accessed 30 Jul 2009.

Sweet, Lynn. "More Michelle Obama staff appointments." SunTimes.com. 16 Jan 2009, accessed 30 Jul 2009.

"First Lady Requires More than 20 Attendants." TheLastCrusade.org. 6 Jul 2009, accessed 30 Jul 2009.

Froomkin, Dan. "2008 White House Office Staff List." Washington Post White House Watch Column. 24 Jul 2008, accessed 30 Jul 2009.

Gutin, Myra. E-mail sent to FactCheck.org. 30 Jul 2009.

Plotkin, Stephen. E-mail sent to FactCheck.org. 31 Jul 2009.

Coryat, Kim. E-mail sent to FactCheck.org. 31 Jul 2009.

Posted by DAngelo Gore on August 5, 2009.

Tags: chain e-mail, First Lady, Michelle Obama

Categories: Ask FactCheck

Just so much hatred from those angry that Obama was elected and that the country voted for him that they have to spend so much time combing through every little detail to try to find something to bitch about.

Big freaking deal that she has 24 staffers. We were in a recession with bush, too, and laura's staffing cost $1.4 million. I don't recall that making the press.

pattygreen · September 5, 2009

Just so much hatred from those angry that Obama was elected and that the country voted for him that they have to spend so much time combing through every little detail to try to find something to bitch about.
Big freaking deal that she has 24 staffers. We were in a recession with bush, too, and laura's staffing cost $1.4 million. I don't recall that making the press.

It wasn't until this presidency, when spending became soooooo out of serious control, that the average person put any thought or effort into really looking into government spending. As a matter of fact, it wasn't until this Presidents fast, outragious, programs and over the top spending started that the average American cared to even look so closely into any of the governments policies, appointments, spending, and corruption. Whether past president's or president's wives were guilty of the same thing is irrelivent. For if we knew about those things then, we would have been almost as angry. I say almost, because we were not into the multi-trillions of debt back then that we are in now, since Obama's spending spree started. It is not the person of Obama that has people up in arms, it's just that he happens to be the one in office who started all this spending and borrowing to the point of nausium that has angered the public. He really should have took it slower, then maybe less would have noticed his radical stand. It's really his own fault. I'm talking about his scrutiny here. The public is picking on 'every little thing' as you say, that they didn't speak up on when others were in office, because it is at this time in our country that the people are actually 'feeling' the ill effects of ALL government spending. (past and present) We simply can not afford the taxes that are needed to support all the spending required for all of these programs and government job. These small extravagances (if you call them small), like Michelle's staff, add up. Every gov. job get's lavish gov. benefits and awesome pensions and a much, much higher paycheck than a regular American job out there. These pet peeve projects and pork spending all add up. The gov. needs to stop spending, slash gov. jobs, and stop making new programs. At a time when the people are angry about their spending, they should be overly careful about their own personal shopping sprees and vacations and luxuries, because, after all, the rest of us can't be doing that. We have to pay their way.

Edited September 5, 2009 by pattygreen

pattygreen · September 5, 2009

By the way, We're not angry that Obama was elected. We're angry at what he's doing NOW. After he got in office.

Cleo's Mom · September 5, 2009

Just so much hatred from those angry that Obama was elected and that the country voted for him that they have to spend so much time combing through every little detail to try to find something to bitch about.

Big freaking deal that she has 24 staffers. We were in a recession with bush, too, and laura's staffing cost $1.4 million. I don't recall that making the press.

It wasn't until this presidency, when spending became soooooo out of serious control, that the average person put any thought or effort into really looking into government spending. As a matter of fact, it wasn't until this Presidents fast, outragious, programs and over the top spending started that the average American cared to even look so closely into any of the governments policies, appointments, spending, and corruption. Whether past president's or president's wives were guilty of the same thing is irrelivent. For if we knew about those things then, we would have been almost as angry. I say almost, because we were not into the multi-trillions of debt back then that we are in now, since Obama's spending spree started. It is not the person of Obama that has people up in arms, it's just that he happens to be the one in office who started all this spending and borrowing to the point of nausium that has angered the public. He really should have took it slower, then maybe less would have noticed his radical stand. It's really his own fault. I'm talking about his scrutiny here. The public is picking on 'every little thing' as you say, that they didn't speak up on when others were in office, because it is at this time in our country that the people are actually 'feeling' the ill effects of ALL government spending. (past and present) We simply can not afford the taxes that are needed to support all the spending required for all of these programs and government job. These small extravagances (if you call them small), like Michelle's staff, add up. Every gov. job get's lavish gov. benefits and awesome pensions and a much, much higher paycheck than a regular American job out there. These pet peeve projects and pork spending all add up. The gov. needs to stop spending, slash gov. jobs, and stop making new programs. At a time when the people are angry about their spending, they should be overly careful about their own personal shopping sprees and vacations and luxuries, because, after all, the rest of us can't be doing that. We have to pay their way.

Yes, it DOES matter what past presidents did, especially bush, because the SPENDING OBAMA IS DOING NOW, NO MATTER HOW EXCESSIVE YOU BELIEVE IT TO BE, IS NECESSARY TO CLEAN UP BUSH'S MESSES. It is easy to ignore problems and protect the status quo when you benefit from the status quo - which is what bush did. He didn't address the economy until late fall when he started the bailouts of the banking industry. I didn't hear or read anyone complaining bush when he did that.

Obama then had to continue to bail out the banks so that our economy would not get any worse. I understand the outrage about this, but it was a painful solution to a problem that was created by the republicans who did away with banking regulations that would have controlled what they did to cause the economic downfall. My mantra is "regulate, baby, regulate". Now, his administration is trying to get a handle on the regulations and outrageous CEO salaries, something that if the bush administration had done, then Obama would not have to spend money to help solve this problem. Because if the banks fail, the economy fails. However, some of those bailed out banks are making a profit and repaying our government with interest.

The stimulus and middle class tax cut (that 95% of wage earners got) was necessary to do just what it says - stimulate the economy. And it is working. Slowly but working. Had those billions of dollars not been infused into the economy we would have faced a depression and probably 20% unemployment. The stimulus has slowed job loss from 700,000 a month to 250,000 a month. Still a lot, but slower. And the unemployment will still go up before it comes down. But it will - AND IT WILL BE DUE TO THE STIMULUS MONEY.

Healthcare is driving up the costs to the average american. It now represents about 18% of the GDP and there are many industries that have a vested interest in seeing that rise to 20 - 24% of the GDP. So, it needs to be addressed to help contain costs while offering affordable insurance to all. Reduce waste in Medicare where some providers are taking advantage of this government program.

bush's trillion dollar war in Iraq was out of control. He negotiated a very lucrative deal with the pharmaceutical industry to provide medicare part D drug coverage. They got very rich on this almost $400 billion dollar plan. Very little debate or discussion. He just pushed it through Congress and signed it. No public town hall debates, no outrage, despite the fact that they lied about the cost. Said it was closer to $250 billion but when a guy in the budget office revealed that it was closer to $400 billion, he got fired. Again, very little press.

But now, Obama can't even go on vacation, which he pays for himself, without a public outcry. And he can't even give a speech to students to tell them to study and stay in school without parents objecting.

SO, DON'T INSULT ME, PG, BY TELLING ME THAT THIS IS ABOUT SPENDING. THIS IS ABOUT OBAMA, AND IT IS ABOUT THE ANGER THAT HE GOT ELECTED AND IS PROMOTING THE AGENDA HE RAN ON.

pattygreen · September 5, 2009

Yes, it DOES matter what past presidents did, especially bush, because the SPENDING OBAMA IS DOING NOW, NO MATTER HOW EXCESSIVE YOU BELIEVE IT TO BE, IS NECESSARY TO CLEAN UP BUSH'S MESSES.

The best way to clean up someone elses spending problem and mess is to spend even more then them???? That's a great way to fix things. I would have gone with paying off Bush's spending spree.

It is easy to ignore problems and protect the status quo when you benefit from the status quo - which is what bush did. He didn't address the economy until late fall when he started the bailouts of the banking industry. I didn't hear or read anyone complaining bush when he did that.

that's because it wasn't on the news like the things that Obama is doing now. Is that the publics fault?

Obama then had to continue to bail out the banks so that our economy would not get any worse. I understand the outrage about this, but it was a painful solution to a problem that was created by the republicans who did away with banking regulations that would have controlled what they did to cause the economic downfall. My mantra is "regulate, baby, regulate". Now, his administration is trying to get a handle on the regulations and outrageous CEO salaries, something that if the bush administration had done, then Obama would not have to spend money to help solve this problem.

Did Obama need to spend money on all the pork projects in the last stimulus bill in order to regulate CEO salaries???? No.

Because if the banks fail, the economy fails. However, some of those bailed out banks are making a profit and repaying our government with interest.

The stimulus and middle class tax cut (that 95% of wage earners got) was necessary to do just what it says - stimulate the economy. And it is working.

No. It isn't. There is more unemplyment now than ever.

Slowly but working. Had those billions of dollars not been infused into the economy we would have faced a depression and probably 20% unemployment.

I disagree. You never need to spend money to get out of debt. You may have to hurt for a little while till your finances balance out, but you should never spend more.

The stimulus has slowed job loss from 700,000 a month to 250,000 a month. Still a lot, but slower.

Pure speculation and nonsense.

And the unemployment will still go up before it comes down. But it will - AND IT WILL BE DUE TO THE STIMULUS MONEY.

Oh yeah. • $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.

• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program. *$600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.

• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities. *$200 million for public computer centers at community colleges. *$6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings. *$88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.

This is a small dent of how and where some of that money went. When you can't afford your rent, you have to cut out the cable bill so that you can. Some things just aren't immediately necessary until you can truly afford them.

Healthcare is driving up the costs to the average american. It now represents about 18% of the GDP and there are many industries that have a vested interest in seeing that rise to 20 - 24% of the GDP. So, it needs to be addressed to help contain costs while offering affordable insurance to all. Reduce waste in Medicare where some providers are taking advantage of this government program.

bush's trillion dollar war in Iraq was out of control. He negotiated a very lucrative deal with the pharmaceutical industry to provide medicare part D drug coverage. They got very rich on this almost $400 billion dollar plan. Very little debate or discussion. He just pushed it through Congress and signed it. No public town hall debates, no outrage, despite the fact that they lied about the cost. Said it was closer to $250 billion but when a guy in the budget office revealed that it was closer to $400 billion, he got fired. Again, very little press.

But now, Obama can't even go on vacation, which he pays for himself, without a public outcry. And he can't even give a speech to students to tell them to study and stay in school without parents objecting.

SO, DON'T INSULT ME, PG, BY TELLING ME THAT THIS IS ABOUT SPENDING. THIS IS ABOUT OBAMA, AND IT IS ABOUT THE ANGER THAT HE GOT ELECTED AND IS PROMOTING THE AGENDA HE RAN ON.

If you're insulted, it's because you choose to believe what you choose to believe it's about. I did not vote for President Clinton at the time that he was elected. I voted republican. Yet, after the election was over, there was not one ounce of anger over the fact that a democrat was in office. I would have prefered a republican, that's for sure, but when it was over and he won the election, it was accepted. Clinton didn't go nuts when he got in there, like Obama did. This is about government corruption that is becoming more and more evident to the American people every day. And they are tired of it. Frankly, I can't understand why you 'love' him. Are you happy or something with the future debt that your great-grandchildren will still be paying off long after you're gone?

Cleo's Mom · September 5, 2009

Originally Posted by pattygreen

Yes, it DOES matter what past presidents did, especially bush, because the SPENDING OBAMA IS DOING NOW, NO MATTER HOW EXCESSIVE YOU BELIEVE IT TO BE, IS NECESSARY TO CLEAN UP BUSH'S MESSES.

The best way to clean up someone elses spending problem and mess is to spend even more then them???? That's a great way to fix things. I would have gone with paying off Bush's spending spree.

It is easy to ignore problems and protect the status quo when you benefit from the status quo - which is what bush did. He didn't address the economy until late fall when he started the bailouts of the banking industry. I didn't hear or read anyone complaining bush when he did that.

that's because it wasn't on the news like the things that Obama is doing now. Is that the publics fault?

It's the fault of the right-wing media run by Murdoch and Fox news.

Obama then had to continue to bail out the banks so that our economy would not get any worse. I understand the outrage about this, but it was a painful solution to a problem that was created by the republicans who did away with banking regulations that would have controlled what they did to cause the economic downfall. My mantra is "regulate, baby, regulate". Now, his administration is trying to get a handle on the regulations and outrageous CEO salaries, something that if the bush administration had done, then Obama would not have to spend money to help solve this problem.

Did Obama need to spend money on all the pork projects in the last stimulus bill in order to regulate CEO salaries???? No.

There was no pork in the stimulus bill. You are confusing the stimulus bill with the federal budget where each congressional representative competes for federal dollars to bring back to his/her district. That is their job and what they are sent to Washington to do.

Because if the banks fail, the economy fails. However, some of those bailed out banks are making a profit and repaying our government with interest.

The stimulus and middle class tax cut (that 95% of wage earners got) was necessary to do just what it says - stimulate the economy. And it is working.

No. It isn't. There is more unemplyment now than ever.

It is working. Every town, every shovel ready project are doing things they couldn't do without the stimulus. Employment will be the last indicator to improve.

Slowly but working. Had those billions of dollars not been infused into the economy we would have faced a depression and probably 20% unemployment.

I disagree. You never need to spend money to get out of debt. You may have to hurt for a little while till your finances balance out, but you should never spend more.

The spending wasn't to get out of debt. It wasn't debt that was the problem. It was that the economy runs on money. The banks control the money. They were failing and thus the economy would have failed and put us in a depression. When the banks don't loan money, people can't buy homes, cars and business owners can't make payroll, etc... and these things are necessary for a healthy economy.

The stimulus has slowed job loss from 700,000 a month to 250,000 a month. Still a lot, but slower.

Pure speculation and nonsense.

You better alert the Bureau of Labor Statistics that monitors employment and unemployment that their figures are wrong.

Originally Posted by pattygreen

Edited September 5, 2009 by Cleo's Mom

Cleo's Mom · September 5, 2009

If you're insulted, it's because you choose to believe what you choose to believe it's about. I did not vote for President Clinton at the time that he was elected. I voted republican. Yet, after the election was over, there was not one ounce of anger over the fact that a democrat was in office. I would have prefered a republican, that's for sure, but when it was over and he won the election, it was accepted. Clinton didn't go nuts when he got in there, like Obama did. This is about government corruption that is becoming more and more evident to the American people every day. And they are tired of it. Frankly, I can't understand why you 'love' him. Are you happy or something with the future debt that your great-grandchildren will still be paying off long after you're gone?

My opinions are based on facts and doing research not listening to the hate mongers on the right (rush, glenn, fox news) who hate Obama and everything he stands for. We even have ministers praying for Obama's death. Yes, those who preach the bible praying for someone to die.

Clinton didn't have the big mess to clean up that Obama did/does. He tried to get healthcare via Hillary and she was crucified by those who said it was too costly and then those same people didn't blink to give bush blank check after blank check for Iraq, never questioning the cost. If this anger is about debt, then when Clinton balanced the federal budget and left with a surplus and bush sqaundered all of that and ran up the debt - where were the town hall outrages? Where were these same people who shout down the disabled at these town hall? They were bush supporters then and Obama haters now. There was no outrage because as cheney said then "reagan proved that deficits don't matter" (and reagan and bush ran up huge deficits) - what this all proves is that DEFICITS ONLY MATTER WHEN OBAMA DOES IT.

The anger about Obama getting elected is palpable and every day it gets worse. Ministers praying for his death, men wearing guns on their hips to Obama's meetings. Parents upset because he will speak to students to study hard and stay in school. People begrudging him a vacation. This is not about the debt.

THIS IS ABOUT THEIR HATRED OF OBAMA. PERIOD.

pattygreen · September 5, 2009

It's the fault of the right-wing media run by Murdoch and Fox news.

So, you would rather that the goings on of politicians and the WH were kept in secret?

pattygreen · September 5, 2009

There was no pork in the stimulus bill. You are confusing the stimulus bill with the federal budget where each congressional representative competes for federal dollars to bring back to his/her district. That is their job and what they are sent to Washington to do.

True. You are right. Still, unnecessary spending.

pattygreen · September 5, 2009

It is working. Every town, every shovel ready project are doing things they couldn't do without the stimulus. Employment will be the last indicator to improve.

It mostly caused government jobs. Where will these employees go when the money runs out for that job?

pattygreen · September 5, 2009

You better alert the Bureau of Labor Statistics that monitors employment and unemployment that their figures are wrong.

noone, can predict what might have happened if there was no action taken.

pattygreen · September 5, 2009

THIS IS ABOUT THEIR HATRED OF OBAMA. PERIOD
Wow! I tend to think that it's what you are hoping for. You're actually hoping that it is out of hatred for Obama that the country is upset with government policies, spending, his socialistic agenda, his czar picks, pork spending, corrupt dealings, campaign lies, etc. It sure sounds that way to me. You would love it if it were a hate thing instead of a disgust in the way he's running things issue. Wouldn't you? Then you could justify your thoughts that the nation is still racist and biggoted. How sad. You need to get past that.

Cleo's Mom · September 5, 2009

It's the fault of the right-wing media run by Murdoch and Fox news.
So, you would rather that the goings on of politicians and the WH were kept in secret?

No, I always wanted transparency. But that didn't happen with bush. The lies were hidden, the secret wiretapping, the abuses at Gitmo, Abu Grahib, the cost of the Iraq war, showing the coffins of the dead soldiers

coming home - all this was initially kept from us. After bush "won" in 2004 - then things were revealed and the truth came out but it was too late.

Obama just opened the WH visitor logs so we can see who goes there - something bush refused to do. What was he hiding. Cheney's secret talks with his oil buddies that developed our energy policy?

Cleo's Mom · September 5, 2009

It is working. Every town, every shovel ready project are doing things they couldn't do without the stimulus. Employment will be the last indicator to improve.
It mostly caused government jobs. Where will these employees go when the money runs out for that job?

It has a ripple effect. When roads are paved they need to buy equipment and materials from private businesses who in turn hire workers, etc.. Same with small town and big town governments. Every job is not a government job. And when people go to work, whether government or private, it helps the economy.