Even the liberals should be angry!?

just becuase one did it doesn't make it right for another.

it doesn't matter which first lady did it , the point is that it is millions of taxpayers- tax dollars wasted. thought we were all suppose to cut back.

and i'm not even gonna start on all the other things obama's administration and the previous administrations have done that i don't agree with cause i 'd be here all night.

politics as usual,

lets take our country back and restore our constitution and stop corrupt govt.

No, the first Lady has the same number of *staff* (not servants) as the previous First Ladies. Ever since Elanor Roosevelt, the FLOTUS' office has become an arm of the White House. First Ladies have championed social causes, spoken on issues, and taken some of the burden of being President in a media age off the President.

By the way, 3, 4, 10, 11, 18, and 20 don't work for the First Lady. They are White House staffers who work for whoever needs them. The Social Secretary's office does most of their work on behalf of the President.

But your question isn't phrased to address the question of First Ladies, in general. You asked why does Michelle Obama specifically need such a large staff, and isn't it shameful Michelle Obama specifically surrounds herself with so many "servants." The allegedly factual CFP article condemns Michelle Obama specifically, to the exclusion of all other First Ladies. Only after presented with disputing evidence did you broaden your scope to all First Ladies.

So the question is this: Why did you promulgate an erroneous, obviously biased article as fact when evidence of its falsehood is relatively easy to find? Why, when proven wrong, do you lack the backbone to admit your gullibility? Even sticking with your original thesis that Michelle Obama is a bad person would have shown some gumption. Don't try to change the rules after you've lost the game.

I consider that super golden voice of radio, the pronounced Micheal Savage whilst he says that "liberalism is a psychological illness!" Ahh! yet i visit bypass one even farther. . . Liberalism isn't only a psychological illness, yet quite a unfavourable, hypocritical one at that! as an occasion PETA; human beings for Ethic scientific care of Animals. Now, whilst the socialist media exhibits them, that's. . . Say like at a protest, an anti gun, or quite anti 2nd exchange rally. They get shown as doing sturdy by skill of desiring the removal of all firearms! What the media won't teach is the real hypocrites that they are, whilst they start smashing residing house windows, throwing buckets of blood, hearth bombing places, even making dying threats! specific I fairly have seen them in action! yet another occasion, the ACLU! they are the explanation why I scream tort reform NOW! those are criminal experts that would quite turn loose criminals, and then have human beings arrested for protecting their sources, and kinfolk against criminals that threaten their very energetic hoods! The ACLU defends people who defame our flag. those are the comparable people who could quite penitentiary somebody that would pontificate the Bible in public places. additionally the ACLU needs to have God removed from government homes. each and all the jointly as they are going to say that the religion of Islam is a race. LIberals will protest the war in Iraq, yet the place have been they whilst "Slick Willy" Clinton desperate to bomb Yugoslavia? i think they are peace fans whilst there sort isn't in the Oval workplace. Now they call themselves "Progressives" ok, yet remember this; even the Nazi's even seen themselves. Now do you notice the super photograph! i do no longer could desire to view that youtube hyperlink to make certain the place you're coming from! I completely have self belief each little thing which you pronounced by using what I fairly have seen myself! The liberals could quite stay in a totalitarian state! they do no longer only like the very freedoms which you and that i savour! that is why they are indignant! replace: mcaeru! The moon isn't continually yellow, neither is cheese continually yellow! I do understand which you're refering to Alex Jones, and not the gang.

Nearly all of these positions were established during previous administrations. For example, First Lady Laura Bush oversaw a staff of 18 (not "one") during 2008, the final year of the George W. Bush administration, with positions and salaries roughly comparable to those in the Obama White House.

How Many?

According to the 2009 White House report to Congress, there are 16 people with a title specifically indicating they work for Michelle Obama’s office. In other words, there are 16 people with "first lady" somewhere in their title, such as Jocelyn Frye, deputy assistant to the president and director of policy and projects for the first lady.

The list reported by Sweet and The Last Crusade, however, includes six other staffers who do not have "first lady" in their title but are a part of the first lady’s office staff, such as Desiree Rogers, special assistant to the president and White House social secretary, and Natalie Bookey, staff assistant.

We contacted Katie McCormick Lelyveld, Michelle Obama’s press secretary, to check the list’s accuracy. Lelyveld told us in an e-mail that the first lady’s current staff size is actually 24, not 22, as the chain e-mail claims. Lelyveld couldn’t provide a list of the staffers at that time.

First Ladies Past

The chain e-mail’s author claims that "[t]here has never been anyone in the White House at any time that has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady’s social life." The author claims that "even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one." But the counts for those first ladies are incorrect – and they’re way off.

Stephen Plotkin, reference archivist for the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, told us in an e-mail that Jacqueline Kennedy’s office was "headed" by one person, but said that there were "at least 9 people working for Mrs. Kennedy, with the promise of a great many more" during her time at the White House.

Kim Coryat, an archives technician at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library, told us it can be difficult to nail down a precise count of staff considering "White House staffing for all offices ebbs and flows with time." But she said in an e-mail that White House telephone directory records indicate that Hillary Clinton had at least a staff of 13 as of October 1993; 18 as of April 1997; and 19 as of March 2000.

Lelyveld said that Michelle Obama’s staff was actually no different than that of her predecessor, Laura Bush. "[W]e have exactly the same staff number as Mrs. Bush and our office organization reflects a similar staffing model, so insinuations otherwise are wrong," she said. Lelyveld said that the White House’s "personnel records indicate" that there were 24 staffers for Laura Bush at some point. We were able to verify at least 18 staffers for Laura Bush, as of June 30, 2008, via the 2008 White House staff list published in The Washington Post’s White House Watch column. Sixteen people were specifically referred to as a "first lady" staffer, and Amy Zantzinger and Dorothy Thornton served as White House social secretary and deputy social secretary, respectively. It’s possible that someone with the title of "staff assistant" was assigned to the Office of First Lady as well, as is the case with Michelle Obama’s staff.

The combined annual salaries for the 22 staffers we can specifically identify as working for Michelle Obama come to $1.6 million. For the 18 we could identify as working for Laura Bush in 2008, the total is $1.4 million.

http://m.factcheck.org/2009/08/michelle-obamas-sta...

The most anyone else had was 3? Laura Bush had 18, at a cost of just over one million dollars.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1...

Don't try to mislead us again.

EDIT: Oh dear God. Come on now, you didn't read the whole thing.

Laura Bush was far from a fiscal conservative during her time in the White House and, like her husband, served to bloat the White House budget. A list of Mrs. Bush’s staff attendants is as follows:

McBride, Anita B. assistant to the president and chief of staff to the first lady $168,000.00

Harder, Cherie S. Special assistant to the president for domestic policy and director of project of the first lady $108,000.00

Niemiec, Sally M. Press secretary to the First Lady $90,000.00

Miller, Sonja M. Deputy chief of staff to the first lady $84,700.00

Ballard, Deanna M. Director of scheduling for the First Lady $75,000.00

Underwood, Carrie P. Deputy director of policy and projects for the First Lady $65,000.00

Wallace, Charity N. Director of advance for the First Lady $65,000.00

Marshall, Misty C. Director of correspondence for the first lady $59,700.00

Etter, Marisa L. Deputy director of scheduling for the First Lady $50,000.00

King, Kristin N. Deputy director of advance for the first lady $50,000.00

Lineweaver, Lindsey M. Special assistant and personal aide to the first lady $47,500.00

Rawson, Kimberly D. Executive assistant to the chief of staff to the First Lady $46,200.00

Donoghue , Tarah C. Deputy press secretary to the First Lady $43,000.00

Vogel, Campbell B. Deputy director of correspondence for the First Lady $42,500.00

Block, Jonathan F. assistant press secretary to the First Lady $39,000.00

This amounts to a total of $1,083,700.00.

You have been misinformed. She has 3 or 4 more than most First Ladies. She's also more active right out of the gate.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/firstlady.asp

Ladybird Johnson and Betty Ford had 30, Laura Bush at the end had 26, Jackie Kennedy had 40.....should I go on?

or Pat...you could look at it like that's 24 american people who have a job. And insurance. 24 people who aren't standing in the unemployment or welfare lines. 24 people who have a roof over their head, food on their table and clothes on their kids backs.

Part of the hope and change accountability Obama promised. Don't forget her mother that lives at the White House and travels with Michelle all at tax payers expense.

You clearly have no idea how to ask a question.