Estimate $1.4 Billion taxpayer dollars spent on Obama family last year

[bobwg]

Funny people want to challenge this authors facts/claims but not offer anything to rebutte him The Blaze/ New York Post report july 2011 Obamas 454 staffers cost taxpayers $37 million dollars a year which is $4 million more than Bush staff , 21 of the 454 staffers make almost $175,000 almost as much as Congress

 

[davekc]

Sorry, I meant to say my Musluim faith, I mean my Christian faith. Actually, I had been watching a Reds game and then an interview with one of the players who is from Beaumont.

No problem. I wondered as I could only think of one White House in TX.

 

[Turtle]

Funny you claim his numbers are bogus but nothing to back it up only that the air force indicates Bush used it more than Obama and how up to date is the air force numbers??????

Yeah, nothing to back it up except for the 89th Airlift Wing who handles all of the president's flights and who knows precisely how many there have been since the invention of Air Force One. They know exactly mow many missions and sorties the plane has made, and they accurately report them to Congress and the American people.

Where did I claim his numbers were bogus? I didn't claim his numbers were bogus. I claimed that be didn't provide other numbers for comparison and he instead only said Obama's were excessive. I also asked you a simple question, if Obama's flights were fewer than his predecessors, would Obama's still be overboard. You declined to answer. I'm not sure what to make of that.

As for how up to date the Air Force numbers are, they are up to date as of this past Sunday midnight, September 23, 2012.

YOu say no way to compare spending between the Presidents which is another indirect point the author makes as there is no transparent accounting where the money goes.

And yet the author managed to magically come up with an exact figure for what Obama has spent. That should tell you one of two things. It should tell you that there is, in fact, a lot more transparency than you might think and that he made no effort to obtain the numbers from previous presidents, or that he simply made his Obama numbers up. It's got to be one or the other.

Yes congress ok money for the white house, gee Democrats controlled congress for 2 years so they just rubber stamp the white house request money. Also there has not been a budget passed by congress since Obama has been in office only the so called continuing resolutions or what ever

Republicans have never met a rubber stamp they didn't like, either. Who do you think has been rubber stamping crap for the last 2 years? And who do you think will be rubber stamping the same crap for the next 2 years?

 

[bobwg]

The author said on tv today that this was an estimate of overall spending by the white house based on his research of what he could find that was publicly available and that anyone has something to offer to disprove his claims , estimates, etc he would gladly look at them Will the Dems show proof to refute his claims I doubt it. yes Republicans for the last 2 years have been going along with the continuing resolutions to avoid shutting down the govt since Dems wont pass a budget

 

[Turtle]

Funny people want to challenge this authors facts/claims but not offer anything to rebutte him The Blaze/ New York Post report july 2011 Obamas 454 staffers cost taxpayers $37 million dollars a year which is $4 million more than Bush staff , 21 of the 454 staffers make almost $175,000 almost as much as Congress

You're already *****in' about how many words I post, and now you want me to post details that refute the author? Puhleeze. Go do your own homework, or just continue to believe whatever you choose to believe.

Yes, Obama's staff cost the taxpayers more than Junior's did. Did you know that Bush's staff cost the taxpayers more than Clinton's did? And that Clinton's cost more than Senior's did? And that Senior's cost more than Reagan's did? And that Reagan's cost more than Carter's did? There's a pattern there. Can you see it? But it's Obama who is the worst. Obama's is overboard and all those others weren't. Got it.

Here's a question for you. Who has had more executive branch czar appointees which were not confirmed by the Senate, George W. Bush or Barak Obama?

Here's a hint:
Bush had 49 appointees, only 21 of whom were confirmed by the Senate, which means 28 were unilateral executive branch czar appointments.

Obama has had 43 appointees, only 10 of whom were confirmed by the Senate, which means 33 were unilateral executive branch czar appointments.

Edit: corrected numbers.

Point being, you can't know if someone is overboard or out of control without something to compare it with.

 

[Moot]

Here's a question for you. Who has had more executive branch czar appointees which were not confirmed by the Senate, George W. Bush or Barak Obama?

Here's a hint:
Bush had 49 appointees, only 21 of whom were confirmed by the Senate, which means 28 were unilateral executive branch czar appointments.

Obama has had 43 appointees, only 10 of whom were confirmed by the Senate, which means 33 were unilateral executive branch czar appointments.

To be fair and balanced, Bush had two terms, 8 years compared to Obama's one term, 4 years. Also Carter and Bush Sr. were 1 term presidents.

 

[bobwg]

as for your question about Obama air force one flights I have not seen the number s you quote and for the czars i see that Bush had 49 appointees 28 Not confirmed and Obama has 43 appointees with 33 that were Not confirmed by the Senate So Obama had more that were not confirmed

 

[bobwg]

An incredible amount of that article, and I would imagine the book, is skewed, twisted and exaggerated. Some of it incorrect and highly misleading.

by the way here is your words skewed,twisted, exaggeratted incorrect highly misleading in other words authors facts and claims are wrong or false?

 

[Turtle]

To be fair and balanced, Bush had two terms, 8 years compared to Obama's one term, 4 years. Also Carter and Bush Sr. were 1 term presidents.

True. But to be truly fair and balanced, and to give people an idea of a few things.... namely that governmental abuses, particularly those by the executive and legislative branches, are almost never rectified by the voting booths.

The czar title can be misleading, since it often applies to well-established directors and department heads. For example, under Bush the "regulatory czar" title was applied to the director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which was established by Congress in 1980 by the Paperwork Reduction Act. Similarly, the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health was established by Congress with the Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 but the term "mine safety czar" has only been applied to the position since the appointment of Richard Strickler to the post in 2006.

Several of the czars were appointed more than once by the same president, which counts with each appointment. For example, the "faith-based czar", the Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives was created by executive order by Bush and was appointed three times by Bush, and once again by Obama.

The title can be bestowed by the president, Congress, or in many cases the press. So the number of czars specifically that a president has isn't much of a measure of anything.

But the number of appointments and those confirmed by Congress gives an indication of how willing a president is to do an end run around Congress (IMHO, of course).

FDR started the czar thing, and in 12 years in office had 11 czar titles, with 19 appointments, 17 not confirmed by the Senate.

Truman had 6, 6, and 5 (6 cazr titles, 6 appointments, 6 not confirmed by Congress).

Here is a complete summary table of czars by administration. Please note that my sloppy math, and the resulting numbers, was incorrect on Bush and Obama above, an error which will be corrected once I post this. Both presidents had far more appointments which were not confirmed by Congress than what I had posted. Sorry about that. That's what I get for trying to do too many things too quickly.

Most of FDR and Truman's were war related, and then the presidents who followed either had none or were minimal. Clinton more or less revived the czar thing, then Junior went nuts with it with the Homeland Security and Patriot Act mentality, and Obama followed right along in step. Both of those presidents are the worst offenders, IMHO, at subverting and getting around Congress. Bush's abuses were not corrected at the ballot box, and it's likely Obama's won't be, either (it's a lock that they won't if he's re-elected, tho). The number of czars and unconfirmed appointments, and the increase over the last few decades of cabinet posts in general by both parties is out of control, and I'm afraid the voting booth won't fix it. Never had before.

 

[Turtle]

by the way here is your words skewed,twisted, exaggeratted incorrect highly misleading in other words authors facts and claims are wrong or false?

Without some semblance of proper punctuation, it's very difficult to even tell what you're asking me. But if you are asking me if the author's claims are wrong or false, the answer is yes, some of them are. That's what, "Some of it [is] incorrect and highly misleading," means. The article is skewed with an anti-Obama bias with no attempt to be impartial at all. Facts and conclusions have been twisted for that biased agenda. The very title of the book is biased. The article and the author state that Obama has a "50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.” That is, at the very least, an exaggeration about Air Force One, and a blatant lie about the increase in the number of czars.

The article and the author state that Obama is doing exactly what is customary for presidents with regard to paying the cost of passenger seats on Air Force One for political purposes, but then crafts that in statements and questions that make the reader think Obama is doing something wrong, even though he's not.

"When the trip is deemed political, it’s customary for the president to pay the equivalent of a first class commercial ticket for certain passengers. But Gray says that hardly covers the taxpayer cost of flying the president and his staffers around on Air Force One."

It's not supposed to pay for the cost of flying the president and his staffers around on Air Force One. It wasn't supposed to for any other president, and it's not supposed to for Obama, but the author misleads people into thinking that now, suddenly, it's supposed to.

The article and the author also states, “There is no mechanism for anyone’s objection if a president were to pay his chief of staff $5,000,000 a year. And nothing but a president’s conscience can dissuade him from buying his own reelection with use of some public money.” Except that's a lie. There is a mechanism in place for objection, as well as a mechanism refusing to authorize the funds for the salary. And since all White House money is accounted for to Congress, despite the claim of no transparency, the president cannot use public money to buy his own reelection.

The author and the article states, "Aside from a salary, the president gets a $50,000 a year expense account, a $100,000 travel account, $19,000 entertainment budget and an additional million for “unanticipated needs,” he notes." Well that certainly sounds lavish and extravagant, doesn't it? How DARE Obama waste such enormous amount of money! That's what that paragraph is designed to incite. But, what he failed to note was that expense money comes directly from Congress, and that previous presidents have had the same relative expense accounts.

The author also states that Obama has appointed 43 czars. That's not true. The 43 number includes all appointess, including those that must be confirmed by the Senate. The author makes that statement at the end of the paragraph where he cites the number of paid staffers at the White House, to make you think Obama is out of control, but with the lie about the czars it calls into question the staffers numbers, as well. He also cites the amount of money it costs the taxpayers for each round trip Obama makes to Camp David, as if all of a sudden trips to Camp David are just a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money. How many times has Obama been to Camp David? How about Bush? Clinton? The other Bush?

The one that gets me is the part about the White House Movie Projectionist who lives at the White House and is on-call 24/7 just in case anyone wants to see a movie at any time, day or night. It's added to the article and the book to indicate more Obama excesses, even though it uses Carter as an example in the context of Obama excesses. And then contrasts that with the average American's movie watching frequency. Read about the White House Theater here (Family Theater - White House Museum) and here (What's Playing at the White House Movie Theater? :: Tevi Troy). You'll find out that the theater was installed in 1942. The picture of "Ike and guests" is really quite funny. They look thrilled to be there.


There are certainly several more things I could cite that fall into the category of "skewed, twisted and exaggerated. Some of it incorrect and highly misleading." But I don't want to. You don't believe any of it anyway. You'd rather believe that Obama is the worstest mostest evilest man in like, ever.

 

[Moot]

Its articles from the likes of the Daily Caller, etc. that give conservatives a bad rep. Actually, all pieces that have been spun, twisted, falsified, distorted and repackaged for a specific agenda gives all of politics a bad name. A simple straight forward, unbiased chart like Turtle posted tells the story. Study it and draw your own conclusions instead of being spoon fed partially digested bird vomit. Sure it takes a little work to chew through it, but you will be a better person for it, no matter what your political persuasion.

 

[bobwg]

Whitehouse.gov Obama white house staff numbers 2009-487, 2010-469, 2011-454, 2012-468 compared to Bush 2005-406, 2006-441, 2007-442, 2008-453. Obama staff highest wages $4 million more than Bush staff

 

[21cExp]

Sorry, I meant to say my Musluim faith, I mean my Christian faith. Actually, I had been watching a Reds game and then an interview with one of the players who is from Beaumont.

I think he landed in Beaumont then rode in a diamond and gold encrusted convoy of Mercedes and Hummers to Crawford.

 

[Pilgrim]

Its articles from the likes of the Daily Caller, etc. that give conservatives a bad rep. Actually, all pieces that have been spun, twisted, falsified, distorted and repackaged for a specific agenda gives all of politics a bad name. A simple straight forward, unbiased chart like Turtle posted tells the story. Study it and draw your own conclusions instead of being spoon fed partially digested bird vomit. Sure it takes a little work to chew through it, but you will be a better person for it, no matter what your political persuasion.

Good point - and since we've discussed what they are, perhaps we should take the Czar subject matter one more step into the weeds to get back to what might have been the main point - Obama's alleged abuse of czars. The main complaint of Republicans from the start of his administration is addressed very well in a report published by Judicial Watch dated Sept. 15, 2011:

The Obama administration deliberately circumvents congressional oversight by routinely investing czars with broad and vague responsibilities. These responsibilities often overlap with, and may even replace, the duties previously assigned to Senate confirmed statutory Officers. The problem of vague, yet powerful, policy czars usurping the power of statutory Officers has not gone unnoticed by the Senate. On September 14, 2009, six members of the Senate Committee on Oversight and Governmental Affairs sent a letter to President Obama expressing concern that at least 18 czars "either duplicate or dilute the statutory authority and responsibilities the Congress has conferred upon Cabinet-level officers and other senior Executive branch officials."

http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2011/czar-report-09152011.pdf

This report provides some interesting reading for anyone wanting to get into the details of why there have been so many complaints about Obama's czars, their influence on policy and budgetary matters and their lack of accountability to the American public or congressional oversight. Although it's not too long (42 pgs) it very well documented and provides some excellent examples of why problems exist with these appointees due to qualifications, conflicts of interest, policy positions and their unfettered powers that directly influence the everyday lives of the American public. A good example of this is Obama's appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick as Healthcare Czar:

From page 18 of the report:

Undoubtedly his experience and dedication to medical treatment of children would have been seen as impressive qualifications, but what was lost by the action of Obama was the ability of the Senators to ask about extremely controversial statements made by the doctor and what appears to be unorthodox ‒ and perhaps dangerous ‒ policy views that will ultimately impact the lives and health care of Americans.

Perhaps Dr. Berwick’s most notorious statement was:
"Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized, and
humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us
to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is, by
definition, redistributional"

Such a statement and others equally extreme, along with his support for a Great Britain-type health care system, suggests Berwick is a socialist – and now able to run amuck in shaping the future of Medicare and Medicaid in the U.S.

The bottom line is that the Obama czar appointments are consistent with his worldview that was well-documented before his election to POTUS - he's the most radical liberal ever to have held the office, and his out-of-control spending policies have led to unprecedented levels of debt and deficits that will be a drag on the US economy for years to come. He and his accolytes disagree with the founding principles of this country and they are working in concert to "fundamentally change" this nation. Obama must be defeated and his lackeys removed from their positions.

 

[Humble2drive]

. . . his out-of-control spending policies have led to unprecedented levels of debt and deficits that will be a drag on the US economy for years to come. . .

The high spending levels during President Obama's term in office can not be characterized as "out of control". Congress controls the appropriation of funds. There is a reason our system is set up like that.

It would be correct to say that Government spending during the Obama administration has been extremely high but, it would not be correct to blame the President for that total amount.

"The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office.
That includes spending for the bank bailout legislation approved by President Bush. Annual increases in amounts actually spent since fiscal 2009 have been relatively modest. In fact, spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year is running slightly below the same period last year, and below projections."

FactCheck.org : Obama’s Spending: ‘Inferno’ or Not?

 

[Turtle]

A big caveat to that, however, is many of those appropriations and policies Obama inherited were ones he promised to eliminate. He didn't even try. He was more preoccupied with that stimulus bill.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

The bailouts? Really?....that was chump change and most of that has been re paid....where did they spend the trillions of dollars....??

 

[davekc]

The bailouts? Really?....that was chump change and most of that has been re paid....where did they spend the trillions of dollars....??

Are you sure?
Taxpayers still owed billions from bailouts - Sep. 11, 2012

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Are you sure?
Taxpayers still owed billions from bailouts - Sep. 11, 2012

But Dave....200 billion?....chump change in the big picture....and did you read on some banks they turned a profit...that no one talks about.....it is out there but not gone....we are talking trillions here Dave...just pizzed away...no hope of getting any of that back...

 

[davekc]

Two different issues with regards to the bailouts and everyones favorite, the stimulus.