Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Melania Trump cuts bloated first lady payroll from Michelle Obama days
Topic Started: Oct 20 2017, 09:24 PM (616 Views)
The Inquisitor
Member Avatar

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/20/melania-trump-cuts-bloated-first-lady-payroll-from-michelle-obama-days.html
Warning....Leftist's Post Here....Take Precautions
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Inquisitor
Member Avatar

"During then-President Barack Obama’s first year in office, 16 people were listed working for Michelle Obama, earning a combined $1.24 million a year.

This year, just four people were listed working for Melania Trump as of June. Their salaries totaled $486,700."
Warning....Leftist's Post Here....Take Precautions
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tsalagi
Member Avatar

Oh come on, you know full well, she'd probably long since had a staff supplied to her from her husband's company, and I'm betting every single one of them is still on a payroll.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

Tsalagi
Oct 21 2017, 06:24 AM
Oh come on, you know full well, she'd probably long since had a staff supplied to her from her husband's company, and I'm betting every single one of them is still on a payroll.
The relevant question here T is "Who's payroll?"
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tsalagi
Member Avatar

ringotuna
Oct 21 2017, 06:34 AM
Tsalagi
Oct 21 2017, 06:24 AM
Oh come on, you know full well, she'd probably long since had a staff supplied to her from her husband's company, and I'm betting every single one of them is still on a payroll.
The relevant question here T is "Who's payroll?"
Luckily she's married to a billionaire...I'm just amazed she hasn't move the Executive Office to the Trump Plaza (more gold on the bathroom appliances)
Edited by Tsalagi, Oct 21 2017, 06:37 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

Tsalagi
Oct 21 2017, 06:37 AM
ringotuna
Oct 21 2017, 06:34 AM
Tsalagi
Oct 21 2017, 06:24 AM
Oh come on, you know full well, she'd probably long since had a staff supplied to her from her husband's company, and I'm betting every single one of them is still on a payroll.
The relevant question here T is "Who's payroll?"
Luckily she's married to a billionaire...I'm just amazed she hasn't move the Executive Office to the Trump Plaza (more gold on the bathroom appliances)
Fortunate for her indeed, but back to the point of the thread. What ever number of additional personnel she employs is irrelevant so long as we as tax payers aren't footing the bill. While there is plenty of things to criticize of this administration....this ain't one of them.
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tsalagi
Member Avatar

ringotuna
Oct 21 2017, 06:47 AM
Tsalagi
Oct 21 2017, 06:37 AM
ringotuna
Oct 21 2017, 06:34 AM
Tsalagi
Oct 21 2017, 06:24 AM
Oh come on, you know full well, she'd probably long since had a staff supplied to her from her husband's company, and I'm betting every single one of them is still on a payroll.
The relevant question here T is "Who's payroll?"
Luckily she's married to a billionaire...I'm just amazed she hasn't move the Executive Office to the Trump Plaza (more gold on the bathroom appliances)
Fortunate for her indeed, but back to the point of the thread. What ever number of additional personnel she employs is irrelevant so long as we as tax payers aren't footing the bill. While there is plenty of things to criticize of this administration....this ain't one of them.
My point being, it's easy to criticize the former First Lady's staffing and laud the present First Lady's actions when she can afford to not have the Federal Government pay for it. As First Lady, her responsibilities are more then 4 people can handle, they're just 4 people still on the government payroll, but rest assured, she still has way more then that dealing with the he First Lady's duties.

But what happens when we get the next First Lady in, and her husband isn't a billionaire?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

Tsalagi
Oct 21 2017, 06:55 AM
ringotuna
Oct 21 2017, 06:47 AM
Tsalagi
Oct 21 2017, 06:37 AM
ringotuna
Oct 21 2017, 06:34 AM
Tsalagi
Oct 21 2017, 06:24 AM
Oh come on, you know full well, she'd probably long since had a staff supplied to her from her husband's company, and I'm betting every single one of them is still on a payroll.
The relevant question here T is "Who's payroll?"
Luckily she's married to a billionaire...I'm just amazed she hasn't move the Executive Office to the Trump Plaza (more gold on the bathroom appliances)
Fortunate for her indeed, but back to the point of the thread. What ever number of additional personnel she employs is irrelevant so long as we as tax payers aren't footing the bill. While there is plenty of things to criticize of this administration....this ain't one of them.
My point being, it's easy to criticize the former First Lady's staffing and laud the present First Lady's actions when she can afford to not have the Federal Government pay for it. As First Lady, her responsibilities are more then 4 people can handle, they're just 4 people still on the government payroll, but rest assured, she still has way more then that dealing with the he First Lady's duties.

But what happens when we get the next First Lady in, and her husband isn't a billionaire?
Once again, the issue here is "who's paying for it?" If you want to make a legitimate criticism here in comparing Mrs. Obama & Mrs. Trump's staffing needs, it would be that Mrs. Obama was more deeply involved in "First Lady" causes, thus requiring a larger staff.

As far as future first ladies staff goes? :dunno: Why should we speculate?
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tsalagi
Member Avatar

ringotuna
Oct 21 2017, 07:05 AM
Tsalagi
Oct 21 2017, 06:55 AM
ringotuna
Oct 21 2017, 06:47 AM
Tsalagi
Oct 21 2017, 06:37 AM
ringotuna
Oct 21 2017, 06:34 AM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
Luckily she's married to a billionaire...I'm just amazed she hasn't move the Executive Office to the Trump Plaza (more gold on the bathroom appliances)
Fortunate for her indeed, but back to the point of the thread. What ever number of additional personnel she employs is irrelevant so long as we as tax payers aren't footing the bill. While there is plenty of things to criticize of this administration....this ain't one of them.
My point being, it's easy to criticize the former First Lady's staffing and laud the present First Lady's actions when she can afford to not have the Federal Government pay for it. As First Lady, her responsibilities are more then 4 people can handle, they're just 4 people still on the government payroll, but rest assured, she still has way more then that dealing with the he First Lady's duties.

But what happens when we get the next First Lady in, and her husband isn't a billionaire?
Once again, the issue here is "who's paying for it?" If you want to make a legitimate criticism here in comparing Mrs. Obama & Mrs. Trump's staffing needs, it would be that Mrs. Obama was more deeply involved in "First Lady" causes, thus requiring a larger staff.

As far as future first ladies staff goes? :dunno: Why should we speculate?
Being former military, I'm big on contigencies, even worse, I'm a firm believer in Murphy's Law. That's why I speculate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

Tsalagi
Oct 21 2017, 07:10 AM
ringotuna
Oct 21 2017, 07:05 AM
Tsalagi
Oct 21 2017, 06:55 AM
ringotuna
Oct 21 2017, 06:47 AM
Tsalagi
Oct 21 2017, 06:37 AM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
Fortunate for her indeed, but back to the point of the thread. What ever number of additional personnel she employs is irrelevant so long as we as tax payers aren't footing the bill. While there is plenty of things to criticize of this administration....this ain't one of them.
My point being, it's easy to criticize the former First Lady's staffing and laud the present First Lady's actions when she can afford to not have the Federal Government pay for it. As First Lady, her responsibilities are more then 4 people can handle, they're just 4 people still on the government payroll, but rest assured, she still has way more then that dealing with the he First Lady's duties.

But what happens when we get the next First Lady in, and her husband isn't a billionaire?
Once again, the issue here is "who's paying for it?" If you want to make a legitimate criticism here in comparing Mrs. Obama & Mrs. Trump's staffing needs, it would be that Mrs. Obama was more deeply involved in "First Lady" causes, thus requiring a larger staff.

As far as future first ladies staff goes? :dunno: Why should we speculate?
Being former military, I'm big on contigencies, even worse, I'm a firm believer in Murphy's Law. That's why I speculate.
To what end? And what is the solution? Do we keep a dozen or so unnecessary personnel on staff for the benefit of the NEXT first lady?
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
clone
Member Avatar
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
ringotuna
Oct 21 2017, 07:17 AM
Tsalagi
Oct 21 2017, 07:10 AM
ringotuna
Oct 21 2017, 07:05 AM
Tsalagi
Oct 21 2017, 06:55 AM
ringotuna
Oct 21 2017, 06:47 AM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
My point being, it's easy to criticize the former First Lady's staffing and laud the present First Lady's actions when she can afford to not have the Federal Government pay for it. As First Lady, her responsibilities are more then 4 people can handle, they're just 4 people still on the government payroll, but rest assured, she still has way more then that dealing with the he First Lady's duties.

But what happens when we get the next First Lady in, and her husband isn't a billionaire?
Once again, the issue here is "who's paying for it?" If you want to make a legitimate criticism here in comparing Mrs. Obama & Mrs. Trump's staffing needs, it would be that Mrs. Obama was more deeply involved in "First Lady" causes, thus requiring a larger staff.

As far as future first ladies staff goes? :dunno: Why should we speculate?
Being former military, I'm big on contigencies, even worse, I'm a firm believer in Murphy's Law. That's why I speculate.
To what end? And what is the solution? Do we keep a dozen or so unnecessary personnel on staff for the benefit of the NEXT first lady?
Tsal....small gov't Conservative.... :rotflmao:

This is Tsal with any positive TRUMP news....

Posted Image

The boy is as jaded as Buckfan.....
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

Wait is this a joke? The first lady receives a salary?
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
clone
Member Avatar
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
estonianman
Oct 21 2017, 11:26 AM
Wait is this a joke? The first lady receives a salary?
Tsal appears to think so...

But this in regards to staff size and costs....

Mooch Antoinette had a big staff to handle all of her whims....

Mrs. Trump staff is substantially less because she is low maintenance compared to her predecessor


:popcorn:
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tsalagi
Member Avatar

clone
Oct 21 2017, 11:35 AM
estonianman
Oct 21 2017, 11:26 AM
Wait is this a joke? The first lady receives a salary?
Tsal appears to think so...

But this in regards to staff size and costs....

Mooch Antoinette had a big staff to handle all of her whims....

Mrs. Trump staff is substantially less because she is low maintenance compared to her predecessor


:popcorn:
Low Maintenance my ass, her wardrobe could feed half of DC for a week...and I'm sure she hasn't reduced her staff, just who is paying for it, that would be her husband's company. The other flip side is that this First Lady acts more like Marie Antoinette then Jacqueline Kennedy. The First Lady should be involved, Melania would rather stay in Trump Plaza in luxury in NYC then deign to live in the White House.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tsalagi
Member Avatar

clone
Oct 21 2017, 11:14 AM
ringotuna
Oct 21 2017, 07:17 AM
Tsalagi
Oct 21 2017, 07:10 AM
ringotuna
Oct 21 2017, 07:05 AM
Tsalagi
Oct 21 2017, 06:55 AM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
Once again, the issue here is "who's paying for it?" If you want to make a legitimate criticism here in comparing Mrs. Obama & Mrs. Trump's staffing needs, it would be that Mrs. Obama was more deeply involved in "First Lady" causes, thus requiring a larger staff.

As far as future first ladies staff goes? :dunno: Why should we speculate?
Being former military, I'm big on contigencies, even worse, I'm a firm believer in Murphy's Law. That's why I speculate.
To what end? And what is the solution? Do we keep a dozen or so unnecessary personnel on staff for the benefit of the NEXT first lady?
Tsal....small gov't Conservative.... :rotflmao:

This is Tsal with any positive TRUMP news....

Posted Image

The boy is as jaded as Buckfan.....
Actually, I'm a smart conservative, any true fiscal conservative would slash the DoD budget in half. That's where the lion's share of the budget goes to, not including the 60 billion more that Trump wants to give DoD contractors.

Look it's real simple....we can either pay Defense contractors to provide things that will kill people we really don't need, or we can help alleviate domestic issues here at home, yes, I know, the thought of "getting something for nothing" sends you and every other member of the far right into near coronary arrest.

The Cold War is over, yay, we won...now...can we focus less on foreign issues involving the US military and more on domestic issues concerning our people?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tsalagi
Member Avatar

As far as positive trump news...I'm sorry clone, I'll never be on board with you guys, not as it regards President Trump, in my simple opinion, he's been the worst candidate for the Oval Office put up by my Party in over a century.

I pulled the lever for every level of GOP involvement in Trump's election year, local, county, and State, I just in good conscience couldn't pull it for him. My only hope is that Pence manages to grow into his position to groom him for 2020.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
clone
Member Avatar
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
Tsalagi
Oct 21 2017, 01:40 PM
clone
Oct 21 2017, 11:35 AM
estonianman
Oct 21 2017, 11:26 AM
Wait is this a joke? The first lady receives a salary?
Tsal appears to think so...

But this in regards to staff size and costs....

Mooch Antoinette had a big staff to handle all of her whims....

Mrs. Trump staff is substantially less because she is low maintenance compared to her predecessor


:popcorn:
Low Maintenance my ass, her wardrobe could feed half of DC for a week...and I'm sure she hasn't reduced her staff, just who is paying for it, that would be her husband's company. The other flip side is that this First Lady acts more like Marie Antoinette then Jacqueline Kennedy. The First Lady should be involved, Melania would rather stay in Trump Plaza in luxury in NYC then deign to live in the White House.
See what I mean.... Eeyore...


Posted Image


Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Inquisitor
Member Avatar

Tsalagi
Oct 21 2017, 01:48 PM
As far as positive trump news...I'm sorry clone, I'll never be on board with you guys, not as it regards President Trump, in my simple opinion, he's been the worst candidate for the Oval Office put up by my Party in over a century.

I pulled the lever for every level of GOP involvement in Trump's election year, local, county, and State, I just in good conscience couldn't pull it for him. My only hope is that Pence manages to grow into his position to groom him for 2020.
My...my....whose got their grumpy pants on today :wah: :wah:
Warning....Leftist's Post Here....Take Precautions
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Coast2coast

So now an element of modern conservatism wants to start (continue) a divide over The First Lady. :oyvey

Okay, fine. Maybe if she did anything as First Lady she would need a larger staff. But one to travel to her walk in closet, one to handle her collection of hurricane heels, one to craft her "anti-bullying campaign :ohsnap: , and one to remind her to appear like she wants to be there covers it. :usasmile:



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
clone
Member Avatar
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
Coast2coast
Oct 21 2017, 03:47 PM
So now an element of modern conservatism wants to start (continue) a divide over The First Lady. :oyvey

Okay, fine. Maybe if she did anything as First Lady she would need a larger staff. But one to travel to her walk in closet, one to handle her collection of hurricane heels, one to craft her "anti-bullying campaign :ohsnap: , and one to remind her to appear like she wants to be there covers it. :usasmile:



[twitter=FLOTUS/status/852956755843743744]
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · MFAB · Next Topic »
Add Reply