Why does The First Spouse get a Staff?

[NickCole]

I don't think the First Lady should have a PERSONAL staff. There should be someone in charge of protocol that handles all visits/dinners with foreign leaders and of course a staff to maintain the White House. Cooks should only be brought in for state dinners and that is it. I don't know how it works at the moment but I think the President and the First Lady should pay for their own food, clothes, hair and makeup and all the other bullshit that doesn't have to do with the President's job. Shit, I would even charge them rent for living in the White House.

That's no way to treat the King and Queen and Princesses!

 

[Apollo]

I don't think the First Lady should have a PERSONAL staff. There should be someone in charge of protocol that handles all visits/dinners with foreign leaders and of course a staff to maintain the White House. Cooks should only be brought in for state dinners and that is it. I don't know how it works at the moment but I think the President and the First Lady should pay for their own food, clothes, hair and makeup and all the other bullshit that doesn't have to do with the President's job. Shit, I would even charge them rent for living in the White House.

Fuck that bullshit. I would rather the president busy doing his job than worrying about all that other bullshit.

 

[opinterph]

Moderator Notice

Reminder: This is an On-Topic thread. Posts unrelated to the original topic may be edited or removed.

 

[Kulindahr]

The First Lady doesn't just sit on her ass and do nothing all day. And 1.1 million is unbelievably cheap compared to what our government spends on other basic stuff.

But the size of the staff is a little sad in the middle of a recession.

Maybe she needs that many to figure out how to spend less on what she does....

 

[bankside]

Leaders of nations do not have Elaine and Frank over for tea. These are state occasions, and much is at stake.

 

[noah617]

It's odd to me that some of the strongest supporters of Hillary Clinton don't recognize that what's going on here is just a retread of the attacks that were used against Hillary during the Clinton years.

First Lady has become a high profile and important job and it requires a reasonably compensated and competent staff.

 

[Apollo]

It's odd to me that some of the strongest supporters of Hillary Clinton don't recognize that what's going on here is just a retread of the attacks that were used against Hillary during the Clinton years.

First Lady has become a high profile and important job and it requires a reasonably compensated and competent staff.

shhhhhhhhhhhhhh

they dont use logic!

 

[JB3]

Isn't this considered part of her husband's budget?

I don't see a problem with her having a staff. We can't really expect her to sit around and do nothing, now, can we? The standard of an active first lady has been set; she can't do it alone.

Now, PAYING her to do it is a whole different story...

 

[Apollo]

Isn't this considered part of her husband's budget?

I don't see a problem with her having a staff. We can't really expect her to sit around and do nothing, now, can we? The standard of an active first lady has been set; she can't do it alone.

Now, PAYING her to do it is a whole different story...

I don't think they pay the use tax payer money to pay her. Only the president gets a paycheck I think.

 

[JB3]

I don't think they pay the use tax payer money to pay her. Only the president gets a paycheck I think.

She doesn't get paid now. Once Obama got into office, however, the media started up their apparatus saying how the first lady does so much for the country and should have a salary.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't think they pay the use tax payer money to pay her. Only the president gets a paycheck I think.

There's a separate budget for running the White House, though, IIRC -- and that's under her control.

 

[gholumboy]

Hmmmm. Didn't Congress have to vote a special allowance for George Washington after his term expired otherwise he would as likely have been out on the street. Presidents and family have to live to a standard especially with the exploititive devious totally immoral media collectively poised to seize on the slightest possible aspect on which to comment so that they sell more papers time or airwaves!

For the vilifiers, people like Mrs Obama are beset from all over their country to be patroness of everything from one social extreme to another. Do these critics think she is going to sit down and write a personal no thank you or do hours of research into the background of these organisations societies et al. How about she unwittingly agreed to open a conference backed by the Klan - would that give the media some dividends, or say she visits France and the local media comment that she had a bad hair day.

No Joe Ordinary who has never even looked over his back fence cannot or will not actually think what is involved because that means a distraction from the TV program or interupting some other day to day interest.

This is not to criticise his life because most of us are in the same boat, but having put these people in positions to organbise the country for everyone's sake let them get on with it whout mealey mouthed penny pinching carping thoughtless rematks!

 

[ABoyNamedSue]

I personally have no problem with the First Lady getting a staff. Elanor Roosevelt would be an example to look at. Since Elanor Roosevelt the role of First Lady has been changed a great deal.

 

[TickTockMan]

I personally have no problem with the First Lady getting a staff. Elanor Roosevelt would be an example to look at. Since Elanor Roosevelt the role of First Lady has been changed a great deal.

Personally I have no problem with it either. I just think they either need to pay for them themselves or let us vote on POTUS, VPOTUS, FSOTUS, & SSOTUS.


If they are going to be spending money let us vote on who “we” want.

 

[Apollo]

Personally I have no problem with it either. I just think they either need to pay for them themselves or let us vote on POTUS, VPOTUS, FSOTUS, & SSOTUS.


If they are going to be spending money let us vote on who “we” want.

You don't get to vote on the White House staff under the president.

Why do you want to vote on hers?

 

[ABoyNamedSue]

The First Spouse is probably the president's most trusted advisor, confident, and most likely affects the presiden'ts policy more than anyone. Personally, when I vote for President I take a good long hard look at the spouse because he/she has a great deal of potential to shape the role of the president more than anyone.

I pointed out E. Roosevelt earlier. She was probably the most powerful First Spouse we have seen. FDR having such limited mobility she went where he could not. Was the eyes and ears where he could not.

The role of the first spouse regardless of pay and regarless of staff is going to be paramount. The First Spouse is going to have a tremendous amout of power. And, even the bachelor or widower presidents we did have they had someone there to fulfill the role of First Spouse in social settings.

However, the role has been greatly expanded in the Second half of the 20th Century. In my opinion the goverment is much, much to large to have direct elections for such. It would create utter chaos to have direct elections for such.

If I were to have direct elections beyond what we already have no it would not be for who the First Spouse choices as her staff. Namely I would have direct elections for the Supreme Court, the high ranking cabinet members and such.

 

[Apollo]

The First Spouse is probably the president's most trusted advisor, confident, and most likely affects the presiden'ts policy more than anyone. Personally, when I vote for President I take a good long hard look at the spouse because he/she has a great deal of potential to shape the role of the president more than anyone.

I pointed out E. Roosevelt earlier. She was probably the most powerful First Spouse we have seen. FDR having such limited mobility she went where he could not. Was the eyes and ears where he could not.

The role of the first spouse regardless of pay and regarless of staff is going to be paramount. The First Spouse is going to have a tremendous amout of power. And, even the bachelor or widower presidents we did have they had someone there to fulfill the role of First Spouse in social settings.

However, the role has been greatly expanded in the Second half of the 20th Century. In my opinion the goverment is much, much to large to have direct elections for such. It would create utter chaos to have direct elections for such.

If I were to have direct elections beyond what we already have no it would not be for who the First Spouse choices as her staff. Namely I would have direct elections for the Supreme Court, the high ranking cabinet members and such.

The Supreme Court should never have direct elections, something the founding fathers understood.

If judges had to campaign for political office, it would essentially destroy the objectivity they are supposed to have. Also why they are given life terms.

Sure presidents since have elected individuals who are more inline with their political leanings, but I still think that is better than letting the masses choose some idiots to sit on the bench.

As for Cabinet members. They answer to the president, not us.

 

[TickTockMan]

You don't get to vote on the White House staff under the president.

Why do you want to vote on hers?

I don't want to vote on "hers", I want to vote and her. I have no problem with The First Spouse having a staff as long as 1) They are an employee and 2) We either get to vote as a package deal on POTUS, VPOTUS, FSOTUS, & SSOTUS - or number one is enacted.

The First Spouse gets a lot of power for no other reason than they married someone. If they are doing a job lets make them an employee and make it a job.

 

[Apollo]

I don't want to vote on "hers", I want to vote and her. I have no problem with The First Spouse having a staff as long as 1) They are an employee and 2) We either get to vote as a package deal on POTUS, VPOTUS, FSOTUS, & SSOTUS - or number one is enacted.

The First Spouse gets a lot of power for no other reason than they married someone. If they are doing a job lets make them an employee and make it a job.

Why? It kind of gives the wife of the president absolutely nothing to do.

You do vote for the Vice President. When you vote for the president, you are voting for the person they pick. If you don't agree with the guy they picked, then don't vote for the front runner.

Kind of what happened to McCain when he picked Palin.

Also as someone has already mentioned in this thread. When you vote for the president, you also vote for their wife.

The Sec of State is a cabinet position and they answer to the president, not the people.

 

[TickTockMan]

The First Spouse is probably the president's most trusted advisor, confident, and most likely affects the presiden'ts policy more than anyone. Personally, when I vote for President I take a good long hard look at the spouse because he/she has a great deal of potential to shape the role of the president more than anyone.

This is my point. I get a little booklet with information on people running for office to help me decide. It has background info on education, work history, etc. The First Spouse holds an office, they should be included in my little booklet. I shouldn’t have to dig to find info on the president's probable most trusted advisor. Someone that can affect “us” that much should be publicly vetted by the public if they so choose.

However, the role has been greatly expanded in the Second half of the 20th Century. In my opinion the goverment is much, much to large to have direct elections for such. It would create utter chaos to have direct elections for such.

If I were to have direct elections beyond what we already have no it would not be for who the First Spouse choices as her staff. Namely I would have direct elections for the Supreme Court, the high ranking cabinet members and such.

I am not talking about special elections. And I am not talking about having elections for a staff. I am talking about adding two names to a banner/sign and some information to a booklet. Instead of it being “Obama/Biden for President” it could be “Barack & Michelle Obama/Joe & Jill Biden for President.”


Hell just looking up Biden’s wife name I found out she is a doctor and goes by such instead of her title. If these people get so much power, I would like to know a bit about them.

This thread was not about the staffers themselves. It was about a person unchecked getting to wield power and spend money.