Hey, there is an oversupply of outrage with Obama as President. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuyYup, and most of it is over stuff as stupid as the fact that the WH has a groundskeeper.
Instead, you guys want to go back and forth blaming current and past presidents and making BS comparisons. Let's focus on the NOW and how to fix the NOW. Originally Posted by satexasguyGot news for ya, we ain't gonna fix anything by going on and on about frivolous shit like the WH keeping a groundskeeper on the payroll.
Regardless if a Republican or Democrat is in office, doesn't the mere fact that while average Americans are watching every penny and the economy is not doing so good (subject to debate) that the head of our country does not do anything to curb excess spending for frivolous shit like dog walkers?Or groundskeepers? You think POTUS should be out there mowing his own lawn?
Originally Posted by satexasguy
Got news for ya, we ain't gonna fix anything by going on and on about frivolous shit like the WH keeping a groundskeeper on the payroll.He is more than a dog walker, he eats them too.
And acting like he's nothing more than a dog walker, where's that gonna get us?
By the way, i read your question about 3 or 4 times, and there is no question there. Originally Posted by Doove
Doove and AssUPURHead ... you both have your heads so far up Osama's ass that you don't get the question. Let me try it again. Do you think that in such difficult financial times, the POTUS should at least try to lead by example by curbing spending at the White House? Originally Posted by satexasguyAgain, your original attempt at a question was not a question, but at least you got it right the second time around. And my answer is yes, he probably should to some degree. But then, how do you know he hasn't?
Obama's "dog walker" just happens to be the head groundskeeper of the WH and he's had the job since 1972.I said I don't begruge them a dog walker and that I wouldn't pay more than $35 or so a day. My dogs only have to be walked and played with once a day when I travel as they have access to my big back yard so I only pay $18, but I can see that people may need the walker to come twice a day for more.
Boy you guys are dumb.
Yup, and most of it is over stuff as stupid as the fact that the WH has a groundskeeper.
Can't wait to see how many posts we have to put up with this year over the "fact" that Obama has never been to Normandy on D-Day.
Olivia? Originally Posted by Doove
Again, your original attempt at a question was not a question, but at least you got it right the second time around. And my answer is yes, he probably should to some degree. But then, how do you know he hasn't?No, I do not think the groundskeeper position should be eliminated. I think it should be reviewed and cutbacks taken accordingly if there is a way to reduce the cost. Which should be done with all of the WH spending.
Nevertheless, let's get this thread back on its original track. Since i answered your question, you answer mine. Do you think the groundskeeper's position should be eliminated? Originally Posted by Doove
I said I don't begruge them a dog walker and that I wouldn't pay more than $35 or so a day. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward
Why is there a dog walker anyway? Originally Posted by TheDaliLamaThe best part of all this nonsense is that this so-called "dog walker" doesn't even exist (except in the minds of those afflicted with Obama Derangement Syndrome).
Answer this, should Moochelle continue to take her elaborate family vacations without her husband at the expense of the taxpayers? Originally Posted by satexasguyDamn right she should, if that's what she wants to do. Every first family in history has done it, and every first family going forward will continue to do it. It's not her fault that the security detail for her and her children costs so much. And she shouldn't be forced to give up her right to travel just because she's the first lady.