I think we should all treat each other like christians. I won't be responsible for the consequences though.
The bigger argument for me is because no first lady has ever been able to realistically hold a job independent of being the President's spouse - and that is unlikely to change. Yes, 400K is nothing to sneer at and the opportunities once they get out of office is tremendous, but that just doesn't feel like it is consistent with modern society.
I've been putting off having surgery on my knee for years. Two months off with pay might be in my future.
I don't think the First Lady (or First Gentleman when we eventually have one) should be salaried. The duties, while extensive, just come with the territory and will only last four or eight years, depending on the terms her/his spouse serves.
Also, let's face it, we're not getting middle class folks who struggle to manage a budget in the White House and will go back into penury once out. They're well-heeled coming in, and their earning potential only increases once they're out. The book deals alone bring in millions, plus speaking fees, consulting fees, offers to join think tanks, etc. Imagine the offers from law firms that both Obamas are likely to get once his term is done.
Besides, the offices of POTUS/FLOTUS aren't supposed to be about making money. The ide of public service should still mean something.
I don't think she should get a salary, but my reasons are legitimate, and not like groeny's which is motivated by hate and hate alone.
To start with, we can't really afford it, and second, she'll have tremendous opportunities after Obama's term is up to make real money.
Why, of course. We already pay $2 million for Michelle to vacation in Hawaii and for the best food money can buy. That's clearly not enough.
Not to diminish the First Spouses, First Lady will likely be outdated sooner rather than later, or their responsibilities but the household already is well compensated ($400,000 yearly salary plus benefits) and post term riches are guaranteed so I don't see the point.
Having said that, who really cares?
I see what you did there.
@Sue_N I think they should be salaried Sue, but only because I believe the first ladies have proven through the years that what they do adds value to the country. .
@Sue_N Sue, I think your conclusion is important.
There is an importance to at least having the veneer of public service.
I agree. They can always make a mint afterwards with books, speaking fees etc.. I think I would like to see barack nominate Michelle for the Supreme Court (she is a lawyer) just to watch the wingers heads explode. An Obama on the SC for a generation. lol.
@KevinGroenhagen You do realize that First Families foot their own food bills, right? The only meals we the taxpayers pay for are state dinners.
Straight from Teh Stoopid, groeny. But that's you.
Wave that vanilla nutball flag high!
@KevinGroenhagen You do get that this is about the office not the person, right?
I have enormous respect for First Ladies (and the future First Gentlemen). It's a grueling, often thankless job that opens them up to enormous amounts of (undeserved) criticism, and that can knock them off their own career paths, simply because their spouses chose to run for office. BUT, it also comes with enormous prestige and quite a few perks, not least of which is the inevitable windfall after.
Let's face it, there's a reason we pay the Leader of the Free World™ the relatively small sum of $400K, and it's not because we're tightwads. It's because that office is supposed to be a service, pursued out of altruism (remember that?) and not greed. Once upon a time, presidents left office poorer than when they entered. That's certainly not the case now, but the office itself shouldn't be a money-maker.
Either we believe in the concept of public service, or we don't.
@sacredh Even better would be for the next prez put Obama himself on the court. It would be an extinction-level event for the righties.
You're wasting your time. Any democratic president and his family are mooches and an affront to real Americans everywhere.
With groeny, it's all "I hate Obama" all the time.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, is to be allowed to get between him and his hatred.
In my defense, I pushed snow at work today. It gives a guy an appetite. Pork chops, mashed potatoes/gravy, corn on the cob and biscuits.
I had half of a deep dish apple pie for dessert at lunch today. The guy I was working with was amazed. We had a huge lunch too.
@sacredh I hate you. Just sayin'.
Pnnto, I lost 1-2 pounds during that 6 months. My metabolism is crazy. It doesn't matter what I eat or how much I eat. It stays the same. Last summer my doctor told me he wanted me to gain 5-10 pounds. I doubled what I normally eat and gained 1 pound in a month. I'm 6'3" and weigh 175. I weigh 5 pounds less than I did 25 years ago.
@sacredh "loose weight"?
@sacredh 4 years ago I was 230+ and decided that I would give up what I wrote above for Lent and as long as I was doing that I would pay attention to calories and increase working out from 2 to 5 days a week.
When all was said and done I was/am 162 give or take. i talk to people who know me and want to know how to loose weight and I tell them the same thing "Whatever works for you"
Having said that it seems to me that overall diet > Atkins/low carb/juice/etc.
It was about 15 years ago that I gave up all meat and dairy products for 6 months. My cholesterol was 240 or so and my doctor wanted me to start taking medication for it. I decided to try to lower it naturally by avoiding all foods that raised the levels. After 6 months it only dropped 6-7 points. I hate taking any medication that doesn't give me a buzz (principle), but it didn't work so I take pills. It's about 160-170 now.
@sacredh From the day after Mardi Gras (aka Fat Tuesday) Ash Wednesday until Easter.
The cuter P (Hmong not Catholic) joins me. We could skip beef forever but the swine....that's a real sacrifice!
@sacredh "One cheeseburger too many" - Okay that made me laugh.
Also, too, hungry. Gave up pork and beef for Lent so my next cheeseburger if many weeks ahead.
The next four years are going to be nail biters for the conservatives. One cheeseburger too many and Clarence Thomas or Scalia could be replaced by a liberal. I'm really waiting to see what the SC does with the same sex marriage cases. Roberts could be looking at at leper colony gig if he votes in favor.
@sacredh *sigh* I know. Invincible ignorance and all that.