Kamala Harris

[Renzatic]

The Office of the First Lady is a real thing, with a budget, offices, staff (including a Policy Director), and is part of the Executive branch.

Man, I'm on a roll for being wrong today.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Man, I'm on a roll for being wrong today.

You’re diversely correct.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Now, I want to clarify one thing. The office of the FLOTUS is not something that keeps me up at night or anything. It’s mostly an afterthought on a concept I truly don’t like. I don’t want to make it seems like it’s a big deal. (Same as The State of the Union, I don’t like the monarchical pump and circumstances of the event in modern times).

 

[Huntn]

it ain’t nice to tell someone (=me) that his/her ideas are so attached to the hate of an individual. I’ll make you pay for it!



I am not suggesting that they should stay in the kitchen. I am saying that whatever they do should not a) be an office of the US b) on their dime, except security.
Simple.

But you are ok with a First Lady initiative? If so, she is expected to mange it at the kitchen table?

 

[yaxomoxay]

But you are ok with a First Lady initiative?

What do you mean? I am not sure what you're asking.

 

[Huntn]

What do you mean? I am not sure what you're asking.

First Ladies frequently champion a social issue, a program they sponsor, back, and promote. It’s been a norm since I was a child. In essence you seem to be arguing they have no right to sit at a desk in a room that already exists In the White House and mange such an initiative, yes?

My Mom worked at the White House for several years. I imagine if someone helps the First Lady, it is existing staff. And if it is something more ambitious, approved by the President, it in essence becomes his program, ie under his prevue, so I’m having difficulty understanding your objection to the First Lady with an office.

 

[yaxomoxay]

First Ladies frequently champion a social issue, a program they sponsor, back, and promote. It’s been a norm since I was a child. In essence you seem to be arguing they have no right to sit at a desk in a room that already exists In the White House and mange such an initiative, yes?

Unless you're arguing that a First Lady is totally incapable by definition, that's not what I am arguing. The first Lady can sit down at a desk if she wants and do all the initiatives she wants, just not an Executive Office of the Federal Government. She can open an LLC, she can open a non-profit, she can open a studio, whatever, commute to work (with paid for security), or - should she feel compelled - work from the private apartments of the White House which are de facto private (with some advantages of course). She can hire her staff, on her dime, and be as successful as many other Americans (with the de facto advantage of her being known, but nobody can do anything about that).

I imagine if someone helps the First Lady, it is existing staff.

The Office of the First Lady is a full fledged Office of the Executive Branch, with its own staff, its own budget, its own policy director, etc. and fully paid expenses (including air travel) and the right to use Federal areas (White House rooms for example) for various initiatives. It's not just "a desk".

 

[Huntn]

Unless you're arguing that a First Lady is totally incapable by definition, that's not what I am arguing. The first Lady can sit down at a desk if she wants and do all the initiatives she wants, just not an Executive Office of the Federal Government. She can open an LLC, she can open a non-profit, she can open a studio, whatever, commute to work (with paid for security), or - should she feel compelled - work from the private apartments of the White House which are de facto private (with some advantages of course). She can hire her staff, on her dime, and be as successful as many other Americans (with the de facto advantage of her being known, but nobody can't do anything about that).



The Office of the First Lady is a full fledged Office of the Executive Branch, with its own staff, its own budget, its own policy director, etc. and fully paid expenses (including air travel) and the right to use Federal areas (White House rooms for example) for various initiatives. It's not just "a desk".

I guess this boils down to personal opinion. Viewing them as a couple, I see First Lady efforts as an extension of the President, frequently with joint ideas and values, my exception is Rump and his volunteer hostage.

We can always get into a discussion regarding the US Federal Govt budget, and the First Lady’s budget wouldn’t even register. would It? Which makes me think your objection is more philosophical, not about money.

 

[yaxomoxay]

I guess this boils down to personal opinion. Viewing them as a couple, I see First Lady efforts as an extension of the President, frequently with joint ideas and values,

Which is fair; I just don't like the existence of a US Federal Office that can be obtained exclusively through marriage.

We can always get into a discussion regarding the US Federal Govt budget, and the First Lady’s budget wouldn’t even register. would It? Which makes me think your objection is more philosophical, not about money.

Oh yes, it's 100% (well, 99% philosophical), I don't think I ever denied it. I also know it will never change (it will probably get worse).

 

[Huntn]

Which is fair; I just don't like the existence of a US Federal Office that can be obtained exclusively through marriage.



Oh yes, it's 100% (well, 99% philosophical), I don't think I ever denied it. I also know it will never change (it will probably get worse).

You included the tax payer cost in your argument, hence my reply.

TalkedAbout Forums

TalkedAbout has been around for many years and we pride ourselves on offering unbiased, critical discussion among people of all different backgrounds

politicalgroove.com

 

[yaxomoxay]

You included the tax payer cost in your argument, hence my reply.

TalkedAbout Forums

TalkedAbout has been around for many years and we pride ourselves on offering unbiased, critical discussion among people of all different backgrounds

politicalgroove.com

I know. The taxpayer argument is part of it.
I don't think that tax money should go towards the office, for the reasons stated above. I am certainly aware that the savings won't balance the budget!

 

[Huntn]

I know. The taxpayer argument is part of it.
I don't think that tax money should go towards the office, for the reasons stated above. I am certainly aware that the savings won't balance the budget!

There are two angles to your argument. 1) Tax payer expense. 2) A platform for the First Lady. I disagree with you about both of them and am happy to leave it there.

 

[yaxomoxay]

There are two angles to your argument. 1) Tax payer expense. 2) A platform for the First Lady. I disagree with you about both of them and am happy to leave it there.

No, my angle is one: I am against the existence of a permanent Federal Office obtainable exclusively through marriage, and nothing else.
Expenses, staff etc, are just the body of the Office and the elements that are tangible of such official Federal Office.

Even if the cost was $0 and even if the FLOTUS was completely silent I’d be against the existence of such Office.