There's quite a bit of criticism of Mrs. Obama's trip to Spain.

[Stinky The Clown]

30 rooms at a high end luxury hotel. The same number of cars in the motorcade to get her from the airport to the hotel.

To the critics: get over yourselves. Its the law. She has to be protected. She's paying for her room, meals, shopping, etc.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

1. i think some of the criticism is warranted...

given the economic conditions. she may be paying for her room, but at what cost to the taxpayers is the rest of the trip? fairly recently President Obama criticized executives of companies for spending money on junkets to various sites when they were strapped for cash. the US is operating on a huge deficit...millions of dollars in spending for a european vacation right now doesn't look good.

sP

[secondwind]

2. The extra $$ being spent is for her protection, whether she goes to Spain or to San Francisco

[secondwind]

3. when Diana married Charles, in 1981, we were in a recession. Nancy Reagan traveled

to London with 14 trunks, an an entourage "fit for a queen"..........

[Solomon]

4. You know as well as I that it doesn't matter when a republican

does it. Funny how the idiots on the right wing learn for the first time that republican presidents were doing something simply because they complain when a democratic president does the same thing. So many things were never an issue until a democrat does it.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

6. Actually, I remember a great deal of criticism about Nancy Reagan's spending habits.

[Solomon]

12. Good for you. I'm sure you heard it all the way to work and all the

way home on the radio everyday. Then when you got home, it was on tv when you turned it on. I'll bet you heard them complaining about Reagan using a teleprompter too, right? They didn't even know he used one until they started on Obama about it. Did we hear anything about Bush appointing "czars", no we didn't know that until they complained about Obama doing it. My comment is not just with respect to spending by Nancy Reagan.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

23. I mention that Nancy Reagan was criticized for spending and I get jumped on? I was stating

a fact. Maybe there wasn't the same wrongwing blowhards hoarding the media back then and actual news and valid commentary made it through to the MSM...ABC, CBS and NBC back then.

Do a search...it's even mentioned in wikipedia.

[eleny]

38. In all honesty I don't recall the wall to wall coverage of Reagan's excesses

It popped up from time to time but never reached the level of today. I suppose we could chalk it up to the 24/7 cable coverage. Too much gets rotated over and over throughout the day compared to the early days of cable tv back then. But it seems to me that in this situation the security needs are played down and they're central to her travel no matter where the First Lady goes.

[blondeatlast]

57. That's how I remember it as well. nt

[joeybee12]

63. You're right...it started with her demanding new china...

...let's face it, Nancy was and always will be a status conscious gold-digger.

[CreekDog]

86. well maybe, but it's not like she owns that china now

if she really wanted it, she could've bought it herself, but now it's part of the White House and that's quite a different thing.

and it is a historic and important building they live in at the White House and should be appointed and maintained in accord with that.

not only that, the building serves an important purpose in our government as a working residence, office building and one of the seats of our government whose purpose is to represent the American public to diplomats and other foreign officials and US visitors.

starving it is not appropriate.

[rbrnmw]

128. Margaret Truman said she needed new China

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/16/nyregion/notes-on-people-nancy-reagan-wins-support-on-china-issue.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Reagan

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WinkyDink]

14. No, you didn't.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

24. Yes I did and you can even look it up. Nancy Reagan was none too popular

for her extravagance.

[Sal Minella]

51. My favorite Nancy trick was Reagans taking a huge tax deduction

for donating her old clothes to the Smithsonian. There was a great public outcry about the amount Reagans deducted on their taxes as the "value" of clothes that had been donated to Nancy by famous designers (and which she would never deign to wear again anyway) --

and after all the hullaballoo died down, they did the same thing on their tax return the next year!

[ProdigalJunkMail]

18. sorry...I am consistently against it...

the country is in monetary dire straights...like it or not...repub or dem...same stance.

sP

[ProdigalJunkMail]

20. i know why it is being spent... n/t

[Amaril]

132. True, their SALARIES would still be paid, but.....

.....who's picking up the tab for the $500/night rooms for her entourage of staff members and secret service agents? Since they're "working" I doubt they've been asked to pay for their own rooms and meals. This isn't a state visit -- this is a personal vacation -- so, while I adore the First Lady, I'm on the side of those who have a bit of a problem with this......especially during such tough economic times.

[spanone]

11. bwahahahahahaaaa

[ProdigalJunkMail]

19. wow...what a cogent response... n/t

[treestar]

36. No, don't think so

Why wouldn't that apply to everyone, too? Nobody should go on vacation due to the recession. And make it worse for people in the tourist industry.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

44. government money should not be spent on lavish vacations, no

if i or you want to spend OUR money on that then so be it...

sP

[treestar]

45. I don't see that the First Family staying at home would do any good

And when they travel abroad, it is good for our country. Not everything is so simple.

[stanwyck]

130. Our money isn't paying for this trip.

Relax. Not your money.

[MikeW]

144. better recheck your figures and sources

BECAUSE YOUR WRONG!!!

[CreekDog]

85. the difference is that it's the job of US Representatives to be emissaries

and thus travel to all parts of the world.

she is not being paid to represent us but she is doing it.

and wherever they travel, the incidental of her position is that the US gov't will pick up the tab for her protection including the housing and care of the people doing the protecting.

it is entirely reasonable expense.

[ejpoeta]

5. i'm sure laura didn't ever leave the white house. well, except when she was on vacation for months

at a time on their ranch or wherever else they were. i never heard a complaint about that. but NOW.... NOW is when it matters.

[66 dmhlt]

7. NBC's Norah O'Donnell did a hit piece on this

Very subject.

No surprise there as both the O'Donnells (Norah and Kelly) are Teapublican sycophants who endlessly shill for the GOP.

[whathehell]

8. Are you telling me that she and Sasha (and entourage) took up thirty rooms?

and THIRTY cars in the motorcade?

I know they need secret service, security, etc. but that does sound a BIT over the top.

[msanthrope]

32. Probably, they took a whole floor. 30 rooms sounds about right.

Think about it.

Much easier for the Secret Service to control a floor than to have extra traffic to account for.

[Contrary1]

39. They did the same thing for Robert Kennedy back in '68...

It was at the Claypool Hotel in Indianapolis. My friend and I made it all of 3 feet out of the elevator before we were intercepted. And a few weeks later, Bobby was dead, because the security in place was just not good enough.

I do not have a problem providing protection for a president's spouse and children, no matter which party.

[msanthrope]

40. Chills at your post....we should never forget. n/t

[Contrary1]

101. Earlier that day, I had the privilege of shaking his hand...

It was at one of the major shopping centers at the time. He was sitting on the back of a convertible. The same friend and I broke through the plastic barricades to run down the hill to greet him.

I was only 16 years old at the time, but it ended up being one of the most memorable experiences of my life. If we had been successful gaining access to Senator Kennedy at the hotel, our goal was to discuss the Vietnam War with him.

We were so young...

[alsame]

67. I agree. The SS should determine what is necessary for

security since they know what the potential threats are.

All our presidents and their families should be kept safe at home and abroad.

[whathehell]

48. You may be right..

Still, I can't help but think..."Can't they double-up?..Every freaking agent needs their OWN room"?

Beyond that, it's not a huge issue for me.

[HipChick]

9. why the witch hunt on Michelle?

Should she be staying at the Super 8 or something and unprotected?

[whathehell]

13. It's not a "witch huunt"....

at least not on this end.

There's quite a bit of difference between staying "unprotected" at the "Super 8" and Thirty rooms in a high end luxory hotel...Please:eyes:

[LanternWaste]

15. What is the precise and relevant amount...

What is the precise and relevant amount of tax-payer money that should be spent. On what objective basis do we arrive at that figure?

[whathehell]

25. I don't know about the "precise and relevant amount"...but I'd like to know

on what "objective basis" the need thirty cars and thirty hotel rooms was made.

..If you know, I'm listening.

[Chan790]

69. It's not that hard to grasp...

they take an entire floor of the hotel. SOP.

There happen to be 30 rooms on the floor, so they take thirty rooms. That's not a lot of rooms for one floor of a hotel coincidentally. Most NYC hotels have 50-60 rooms per floor. Most of those rooms won't even be used.

They can't take 15 rooms or 10 rooms to save money...they take the entire floor. It's standard security policy for the US Sec. Service on the detail of the President's family.

30 cars? Makes it harder to bomb the right one, the actual decision which one will be the transport car is not even made until the last moment though it's usually pared to a handful of options...the rest are decoys.

[whathehell]

89. It's not a question of "grasping"....It's a question of simple access to the pertinent information

which you seem to have.....Thanks for sharing!

[LanternWaste]

71. I'm not very clever and don't pretend to know either way.

I'm not very clever and don't pretend to know either way. But I imagine if someone know a thing is "too much", they would know what is the precise amount necessary, and on what that amount is based on ... :shrug:

[whathehell]

87. I think you should have stopped.

with your first sentence.

[LanternWaste]

90. I imagine you think many things

I imagine you think many things that are both irrelevant and ineffectual-- this being but one of them.

[whathehell]

107. You don't take disagreement very well, do you?

I hate to inform you of this, dear, but I couldn't care LESS what you think...So, if you'll excuse me, now, I believe I'll say "goodnight and good luck":hi:

[spanone]

10. they whined about this on nbc nightly news...staying in a hotel known to 'celebrities'

holy fuck, what is she thinking?

[Bitwit1234]

16. Didn't Laura Bush travel overseas and other places when Bush

and the republican party allowed her to...I think so. I am going to check and see.

[sinkingfeeling]

21. Remember the Bushes trip to England and what all they took? Didn't that include armored cars and

planes? Wasn't it the Marine Force One helicopter and a couple of Black Hawks?
Found the link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2119557/George-W-Bush-visit-to-cause-Heathrow-misery.html

Mr Bush's travelling party includes the Air Force One 747, a back-up 747, a 757 jet and four helicopters.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3275907.stm

Tony Blair has insisted he made the right decision by inviting US President George Bush to the UK as a huge security operation gets under way.
Some 14,000 police officers will be on duty throughout Mr Bush's four-day visit, at an estimated cost to the British taxpayer of £5m.

Mr Bush will also be protected by hundreds of armed guards from the US.

[Yavin4]

17. She Should Stay In A Youth Hostel in Madrid

This is a fucking ridiculous criticism. She's a major head of state, and like all heads of state they travel well.

This is nothing more than trying to stir up jealousy and racism.

[whathehell]

28. Don't want to nitpick here but...

I believe we're talking about the WIFE of a "head of state"...Not the head of state herself.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jefferson23]

22. Oh for crying out loud, Mrs Obama, please spend a lot of money. You're

the FIRST LADY, if they don't like it, screw them.

[whathehell]

27. Hell yeah!!...

We're only in the Worst recession in seventy plus years!!...Spend Awaaaay!


They MAY actually have a good reason for this size "entourage"..but until I hear it, I'm going to keep questioning it...Sorry.

[treestar]

37. Decades of Secret Service security experience

In the scheme of things, it's not that big a deal. Better go back to ranting about the wars.

It's also a sacrifice the Obamas make to deal with the security issues - if you're not President, you can take a vacation in peace.

[whathehell]

47. I don't understand.

Are you saying that YOU have "decades of Secret Service experience"?

If so, you might be able to give us just a hint of what 30 cars and 30 rooms are needed for...Seriously, it sounds excessive, but maybe it's not.

P.S. I'm not "ranting" at all...As I said to another poster, this obviously isn't the biggest issue around, but it came up and I gave my reaction. Period.

[HipChick]

58. No rooms below, adjacent or atop of the room

an entire wing/floor gets blocked off..

[dionysus]

108. brush up on your reading comprehension please. n/t

[treestar]

138. No, they do

I have no idea why they need 30 cars but maybe they do. Maybe they could make out a case for it. At least they would have some experience to base it on. And why be so snotty about MY opinion when yours can't be any better? You're passing judgment on it as unnecessary.

[Jefferson23]

43. Are you serious? I have more than a couple of issues with Obama

but his wife is the First Lady and traveling as she should be is not a problem.

[whathehell]

46. Yes I am serious...and I'm not sure what "travelling as she should"?

means.

Of course I don't expect her to stay in a Holiday Inn..but I really can't imagine what the need for THIRTY cars and rooms is.

Do I think this is a MAJOR issue?...No I don't, but since it was being discussed, I thought I'd "weigh in", so to speak.

[B2G]

52. It's actually 60 rooms. n/t

[whathehell]

53. Lovely. n/t

[Jefferson23]

56. Ok, at least we agree this is not major issue, so I'll leave it we'll agree

to disagree on the balance.

Travel as she should means that which rises to her stature as First Lady, security etc and I seriously doubt Michele sat anyone
down and said, make sure I have a 30 room place to hang out!

[B2G]

60. Again, it's 60-70 rooms and

if a republican did this, we'd be having a collective shit fit.

At least let's be consistent.

[Jefferson23]

62. Oh 60 or 70 rooms, well that changes everything for some but not me. n/t

[HipChick]

65. 60?80? 90? 100? rooms out of their pocket?

often rooms are comp'd ..block comp'd too..

Secret Service visit and visually inspect and look at the block or floors of room needed as per security

[LanternWaste]

76. I wouldn't.

"we'd be having a collective shit fit..."

I wouldn't. I didn't.

I don't know about "we" though, as I don't presume to speak for anyone other than myself.

[Lilyeye]

133. You mean you would? Speak for yourself because I wouldn't.

[NYC Liberal]

135. How many times did anyone complain about Laura Bush's SS

protection here? Not many. There were a few exceptional stories that got some flak here, like when the SS ripped up the gardens at Buckingham Palace and wanted to install all sorts of things inside, etc.

EVERY president, Republican and Democrat, and their families, get this protection.

[LanternWaste]

75. Maybe rather than simply questioning it, you could also do research

Maybe rather than simply questioning it, you could also do research. That's what I do when I have a difficult time grasping a thing or find myself skeptical of it.

[Contrary1]

81. I did a bit myself...

Michelle, her daughter, her mother, and about 40 friends are occupying the rooms.

Now, nowhere did I see any mention of who was paying what, but there is plenty of speculation.

So; since security would require that an entire floor be booked, maybe Michelle decided to take friends along to fill those rooms.

Or maybe those guests are paying for the rooms themselves, actually saving money.

Or maybe the hotel provided rooms at a reduced rate.

Or the Obamas are paying for all of it, minus the security detail.

Or whatever.

I learned something many years ago. It's not healthy to get outraged about something you have no control over. And it's a big waste of time too.

[LanternWaste]

92. Self delete. wrng spot.

Self delete. wrng spot.

[LanternWaste]

94. I can support a sincere outrage

I can support a sincere outrage, but the righteous indignation based on little more than presuppositions and a lack of one's own knowledge is hardly a redeemable trait.

I imagine that for many people, it's easier to point fingers and assume faux-skepticism than it is to do the legwork you did.

[whathehell]

88. Maybe I could...

Then again, one often gets the same result from posting on a board.

[LanternWaste]

93. I've often found that researching a thing

I've often found that researching a thing is vastly different from merely discussing a thing... but that's simply my own experience. :shrug:

[whathehell]

105. That's nice...

..Thank you for sharing.:P

[HipChick]

30. +100..well said

[MikeW]

145. should have vacationed in the US and put the money back into OUR ECONOMY

[UTUSN]

26. No criticism of Spain for its racism?!1 (State Dept yanks warning about it)

Remember a couple of years ago the Spain soccer team posed for a pic, all of them pulling their eyes into Chinese slants. I think the event was being held in China.


*************UNQUOTE**********

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/state-department-pulls-racism-warning-as-first-lady-michelle-obama-visits-spain/19581198

Racism Warning Yanked as Michelle Obama Hits Spain


(Aug. 4) -- First lady Michelle Obama arrived in Spain today amid an embarrassing discussion about a State Department warning of racism among Spanish police.

Comments on the State Department website warned Americans that there had been cases of African-Americans being victimized by Spanish police.



"We have received isolated reports that racial prejudice may have contributed to the arrest or detention of some African-Americans traveling in Spain," the Bureau of Consular Affairs warned, according to The Guardian.

The State Department yanked the comments off the website Tuesday and said the comments were out of date.

**************UNQUOTE************

[HipChick]

29. where would Spanish police even get close to Michelle?

[UTUSN]

31. Uh, they wouldn't show their racism to Mrs OBAMA. Does that mean it's not there?!1 n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

33. This thread turned out to be an object lesson in knee jerking ....... I'll be kind and not say what.

In defense of Mrs. Obama.

Post by The Clown.

Unrec by his fan club.

Hiya kids!! :hi:

[treestar]

34. No surprise. There's always somebody to criticize any damn old thing.

[laureloak]

35. 30 rooms is extravagant. I worked in hotel that hosted

monarchs and never were that many rooms used. Michelle is the wife, not the president.

[whathehell]

49. The voice of experience...Thank you! n/t

[HipChick]

55. It's not extravagant...its the security aspect...

I was staying in a hotel once, and was asked to move rooms on account of a guest being there..they needed my room, not because it was going to be occupied, but from a security aspect there was a certain amount of empty rooms that had to be around the one they are staying...some goes for heads of states that had entire floors of rooms blocked off for them..

[laughingliberal]

41. K & R nt

[AngryAmish]

42. It is just another way to call her uppity

[Arkana]

50. She's married to the most powerful man in the Western Hemisphere

and the best way for anti-Obama forces in Europe to get to him would be to hurt his wife in some way.

Everyone who's criticizing needs to stuff it and realize that some things ARE worth it.

[whathehell]

54. Maybe

YOU should "stuff it" and realize that lots of folks don't think this IS "worth it".

[B2G]

59. The cost of flying AF2 alone is over 140K

A tich over the top, IMO.

[HipChick]

64. So she should take Coach seat? on a commercial flight? Funny how no-one quibbled about First Lady

trips before we had a black President...

[whathehell]

68. "Let them eat cake.."

[MikeW]

146. +1000

Qu'ils mangent de la brioche

[LanternWaste]

78. It would appear to be the same 'folks'

"lots of folks don't think this IS "worth it"..."

It would appear to be the same 'folks' who don't know what the worth is regardless...






"I don't know what art is, but this is most certainly not art" seems to be analogous.

[whathehell]

82. Oh, I'm sure you say that

to ALL the folks who don't agree with you!:rofl:

[LanternWaste]

95. No... merely the petulant ones.

No... merely the petulant ones.

[whathehell]

114. Then, by all means, talk to yourself!

Someone who can't brook disagreement -- on a fairly minor issue, no less -- fits the definition of
"petulant" far better than I do.

Have a good one!:hi:

[SammyWinstonJack]

79. +1

:yourock: :applause:

[whathehell]

84. Thank you, Sammy..

I'm much enamored of you as well!

[SammyWinstonJack]

80. dupe

[Arkana]

97. Protecting the First Lady? Really? You don't think that some radical group

or terrorist organization could possibly piece together that the best way to hurt Obama would be to hurt the ones he loves?

Michelle Obama deserves as much security as her husband, if not more. And his kids should get even more than that.

[4lbs]

61. Seriously, there are people having a crapfest about this?

Taking up all those rooms, likely an entire floor, is warranted from a security aspect.

If you are in charge of making sure a high-level person (i.e. wife of a head of state) is safe and secure, how do you do it?

First, you can just rent 3 or 4 rooms at a hotel and worry about all the other people on the floor, and their intentions. You have to keep track of dozens of other potential suspects on that floor. Every time one of those suspects (the other hotel guests on that floor) comes on the floor, you have to question them about where they went and search them.

Or, second, you can rent out the entire floor knowing that your high-level person and his/her entourage will be the only ones on that floor. Then you can just guard the entrances to that floor. That comes down to monitoring a few elevators and doors that lead to stairs. Anyone that comes on that floor better be at least an authorized hotel worker or they'll be instantly detained.

One method makes it much easier to guard and maintain the safety of your charge.

It's all about security and not about any grandizing largesse.

People that have a problem with this need to consider the best way to keep a person safe.

[Contrary1]

72. That reasoning has been presented several times in this thread...

Looks like some just don't get it.

[B2G]

73. This is a *vacation*

for her and her daughter. It's not an official state visit. It's costing the taxpayers untold hundreds of thousands. It looks terrible. Deal with it.

[Contrary1]

74. Doesn't make any difference. If she goes anywhere, she needs protection.

That protection requires security at the hotel.

[B2G]

77. I'm not disputing that

What I am saying is that taking such a vacation now, in this economic climate, is extremely foolish. Add 10 days in the Hampton on top of this later this month...well, I'm not going to say anymore. It looks hideous.

[Contrary1]

83. I understand what you are saying...

I have members of my own family who are having a terrible time right now.

But here's the thing. People with means will always be able to do things that the rest of us can only dream about. And, while there are times that I am envious, I don't let myself get too bothered about it.

[whathehell]

91. Not to beat a dead horse, but

their "means" are the taxpayers' money.

They are not independently wealthy.

[HipChick]

98. The Obama are not independently wealthy? Never heard such BS before

what's next? oh vey..

[whathehell]

103. Never heard this "bs" before?

Then, honey, you haven't been listening.

A regular talking point of the Obama campaign was that he and Michelle had "just got over paying for their school loans"..e.g. They were a middle class couple...An upper middle class couple due mainly to Michelle's salary, yes, but "wealthy"...No.

[HipChick]

111. I guess that's why they filed $5.5M income last year on their taxes.but I guess that still makes .

poor?

[whathehell]

115. Black and white thinking...

if one is not rich, one is "poor"?

I used the term "upper middle class"..duh...They weren't filing those kinds of income taxes before they entered the White House.

[haele]

139. I think the royalties on the book sales had a lot to do with the increased income.

Since Ms. Obama isn't working (so far as I know), they're living off his salary and allowances as the President (since February of 2009, at least), and any royalties off the book sales.

Their investments have to be in a blind trust from what I understand, so that means anything over, say $600K is their own money, not taxpayer money; if they made over $5 million last year that isn't going into any new deferred investment vehicles, why shouldn't they spend what wasn't already paid in taxes? After all, if they dumped most of it in a savings account, they'd just have to pay the interest on it next year.

Other than paying for the necessary-for-National-Security transportation and security detail, the taxpayers are probably not on the hook for any other vacation costs - including, I daresay, the cost of the hotel and food.

It's not like she's using taxpayer money to buy a congresscritter, a PAC, or an election. She's a national figure going on a vacation that she probably could have afforded when she was a private citizen.
I may personally be jealous because I can't take a well-deserved vacation in Spain, but I'd be just as jealous because someone in my same "class" (mid-level working class) who is a British or French citizen is able to take their family on "holiday" for two or three weeks in Spain - or Denmark - or on the French Riviera - with just a little bit of saving ($50 a month or so) over a couple years.

Haele

[whathehell]

140. Could be...

I just know that they really were not "wealthy" for most of their married lives...He made about $50,000 a year when he represented Illinois, and his book "Dreams from my Father" didn't sell well (it was out of print for years) until he came onto the national scene.

The hotel and the cost of the food...She probably paid for herself and Sasha. The security detail was probably put on the public tab.

But you know what?...Since the security has been explained to me -- entire floor, no one above or below -- I really have no problem with it!.....Nema problema!

I'd actually enjoy saying goodbye to the entire subject now...Buh bye:hi:

[blondeatlast]

99. So anyone who works in the public sector must clear their spending with you? How progressive of

a Deaniac. Congratulations.

[whathehell]

100. Not "me" personally...They are accountable to the taxpayers, yes.

Sorry if you don't like that!

[blondeatlast]

102. So the MVD clerk needs to clear her vacation plans with all of us?

I'm sure Dr. Dean is so very proud of you, bless your heart.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blondeatlast]

106. Really? The MVD clerk's vacation plans?

FWIW, I was a Dean supporter when he ran--but you just go ahead with your performance art.

[whathehell]

109. Whatever, dear.

I'm just going ahead and saying..."Good night..and good luck"...buh bye:hi:

[blondeatlast]

110. Sleep well, if you can while fretting over the city librarians trip to Disney World. nt

[whathehell]

116. Yeah...I'll give that a shot.

:sarcasm:

[dionysus]

112. puke out a "cult" or "messiah" why don't you.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whathehell]

119. Oh my...

Another one who can "give it out" but not take it.

Grow up, sweetie..In the interim, make yourself at home in my Ignore list.

[dionysus]

123. oh noes!11!!

[GoCubsGo]

126. Their "means" are book royalties.

But, I guess that since taxpayers have been purchasing the two books the President wrote years ago, I guess it is "the taxpayers' money". Although, that's a stretch.

[whathehell]

141. I know about the president's books.

I don't know how much their royalities came to, but I bet it didn't pay for the security detail.

Not to worry...Once the need for all the security was explained to me, it made sense, and as I told another poster...I'm REALLY done with this!...Buh bye:hi:

[GoCubsGo]

153. Is that a promise?

:hi:

[MikeW]

148. she doesnt need a "handful" of family and friends on vacation

prob. on the gov. nickle.

[MikeW]

149. she doesnt need a "handful" of family and friends on vacation

prob. on the gov. nickle.

[GoCubsGo]

154. She can take whomever she damn well pleases on her vacation

Especially considering she's paying for it herself.

[Contrary1]

155. Sometimes, it helps to do a bit of research...

"The First Lady and Sasha, nine, are not travelling with 40 friends, as has been reported, but with two friends and four of their daughters, plus four staff members, an official said. She and her friends are paying for their rooms, food and travel in Spain..."

"...the US government is picking up the bill for her security costs – including an undisclosed number of Secret Service agents and official vehicles – and the flights on Air Force Two."

Which the government nickel would have picked up, no matter how few or how many went.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/michelle-obama/7932155/Michelle-Obama-criticised-over-expense-of-Spain-trip.html

[Spazito]

66. Geez, trust repubs and Obama critics to cause a...

stink over this, it figures! Thanks, Stinky, for bringing it to our attention, it is always good to know what the opposition is doing!

[blondeatlast]

70. Sanity on DU? I liiiike it!

:thumbsup:

[mstinamotorcity]

96. If a floor of rooms and thirty vehicles

are the necessary things that must be put in place for the security of the First Family, then so be it. The President has enough to worry about without wondering if the wife and children have enough protection. And I assume the protection in a foreign country would need to be heavy because of unknown threats. Mrs. Obama have a safe and enjoyable trip. F--k the haters.

[wiggs]

113. 'Some people' are criticizing Michelle.....nt

[Stinky The Clown]

118. 'Some people' (sic) are fucking stupid

[whathehell]

121. Yeah.....and a lot of them are on this thread.

[gulliver]

122. Wait. Bush and the GOP caused the recession in the first place.

Now they are complaining about Obama's wife travelling overseas?

[Stinky The Clown]

124. Yes

[rbrnmw]

125. there is ALWAYS Criticism of Michelle Obama nothing new

they are just big babies shove a pacifier in their mouth and pray it shuts them up

[LanternWaste]

129. I guess the best criticism of her trip we've been presented with is...

I guess the best criticism of her trip we've been presented with is, "I have absolutely zero knowledge how much the trip should have cost, but it was too much. Although I have no objective basis on which to form that opinion, I'll hold to it until someone else does my research for me...", the rest being little more than side-stepping, tap-dancing and a big bag of subject-changing.

Disappointing, yet hardly surprising.

[Llewlladdwr]

131. Might have been nice if this money was spent here in the US though, dontcha think? NT

[Lilyeye]

134. It's bad enough that the media is harping on this non issue story

even worse that people right here on DU are falling for the crap.

[HipChick]

136. or stoking it even

[Llewlladdwr]

137. How is this not an issue?

This nation is in the midst of one of the worst economic crises ever and the President's family can't at least spend our tax dollars on goods and services provided by fellow Americans? Maybe vacay somewhere in this country in a show of solidarity? I'm sure there's a ton of businesses on the Gulf Coast that would love the attention a visit from the First Lady would bring.

[Doctor_J]

142. Some DUers will fall for any right-wing shit

Some think their taxes will go up

Some think their guns will be "grabbed"

The reason the repukes throw shit on the wall constantly is because a little of it sticks every time

[MikeW]

151. why is

taking an extravagent vacation and toting along "friends and family"
on the government nickle considered right wing?

Obama is asking Americans and the federal government to DO and GO with less and sometimes WITHOUT.

But you for some reason think its ok for them to disregard what they ask others to do.

This is EXACTLY the problem with both political parties today.

Whats good for them isnt good for us!

[Fire1]

152. Hog wash! First of all, the only thing on the "gov. nickel" is

nothing other than what SHOULD be on the gov. nickel. FLOTUS has far fewer on her security detail than former first ladies. Look it up. Google is your friend. There is no smoking gun here, just the green eyed monster. "But you for some reason think its ok for them to disregard what they ask others to do." A four day vacation with her daughter and some friends, who are paying their own expenses, btw, will have no affect on this economy, one way or another. Furthermore, I've never heard POTUS indicate that we should curb spending! HE said, don't spend more than what you HAVE and get your asses out of DEBT!! THAT'S wtf he SAID!! (to paraphrase, of course)

[MikeW]

158. January 2009

"Everybody in the country is going to have to sacrifice something, accept change for the greater good. Everybody is going to have to give. Everybody is going to have to have some skin in the game."

Check your facts before you post.

[Fire1]

159. That's not telling you to cut back and curb spending!! That's

telling you that you may have to give up that second or third gas guzzler, that boat or jet ski's or even that second home if you can't afford it!! I'll check my facts when you succeed in reading comprehension.

[Contrary1]

156. In case you missed it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8883890&mesg_id=8897892

[MikeW]

157. and you missed the point

The cost to the American Tax payers footing her travel bill would have been cheaper if she had vaca'd in the US closer to home.

I dont care what they spend on meals and hotels. Im stating the simple fact that it costs WAY WAY WAY more to fly her and her

entourage to Europe than it does somewhere closer in the US.

Dont bother ... your probably one of those DU'ers that'll just tell me its sour grapes.
Just more sour grapes but ILL KEEP
EATING EM!!! ... mmmm sour grapes.

[MikeW]

143. it doesn't wash in a time where more and more are asked to do with less and go without

Your apparently OK with the President asking Americans to cut back go without ... asking government employees to
yet again do more with less, cut travel, eliminate positions that were vacant that need to be filled but
hell ... there going on vacation to the tune of how many millions?

Sorry that stuff has to end somewhere ... either that or stop asking others to sacrifice.

Who's paying for the posh 30 rooms?

Why does she need an entourage of people that occupy 30 rooms?

I dont question the security.

But in a time where the country is in the crapper, Americans are losing their homes

AND OBAMA is going to give government agencies another 5% cut totaling 10% to agencies that are already

cut to the bone still id say that trip is pretty unreasonable.

EVERYONE ELSE is expected to conserve and go without .. apparently EXCEPT for the Obama's.

[Fire1]

147. Concern noted. n/t

[Fire1]

150. delete.