President Obama Takes a Salary Cut

1. 88

   Stacie Lposted 11 years ago

   Obama to give up 5% of salary in wake of 'sequester' cuts
   By Kristen Welker, White House Correspondent, NBC News
   
   
   President Obama will return 5 percent of his salary to the U.S. Treasury when other federal workers are being furloughed as part of the mandatory budget cuts that took effect earlier this year, NBC News has confirmed.
   
   The New York Times, which broke this story, adds:
   
       The voluntary move would be retroactive to March 1 and apply through the rest of the calendar year, the official said. The White House came up with the 5 percent figure to approximate the level of automatic spending cuts to non-defense federal agencies that took effect that day.
   
   The president has decided that to share in the sacrifice being made by public servants across the federal government that are affected by the sequester, he will contribute a portion of his salary back to the Treasury, [an administration] official said.
   http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 … -cuts?lite
   Well if he is trying to bolster his ratings and show good will by this action, I think it should be more. As a matter of fact, all of the Congress should take a salary cut!

   replyreport
   1. 83

      gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      President Obama should give up 50% of his salary; Congress should do the same.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         So, just so I can understand.  What would that do for us, exactly?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Clint Wardposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Absolutely nothing, which makes me wonder why he is willing to give up anything, just a senseless gesture I suppose.

            replyreport
2. 72

   The Frog Princeposted 11 years ago

   I'll believe when I see it.  Obama has made so many broken promises that he has lost his credibility with this voter.
   
   The Frog

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I'm sure it's easy to confirm.

      replyreport
      1. 56

         Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         We'd be better of paying the five percent and getting him to cut one of his vacations.  Those cost a lot more than the five percent.  My favorite is when he sent his daughter, Malia Obama, to vacation in Mexico, with her closest friends.  What did that cost taxpayers, $115,000? 
         
         All presidents squander our money, but this one lives the life of a king.  It's okay though, he's going to take a five percent pay cut.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            He and his family live no better than previous presidents have.

            replyreport
            1. 85

               Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               What?! You mean other Presidents have taken their families on expensive vacations?!
               
               SURELY YOU JEST!!

               replyreport
            2. 60

               American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               You need to research that statement a little.

               replyreport
3. 60

   Clint Wardposted 11 years ago

   In 4 years he will have given up $80,000 or the equivalent of a 2014 Jaguar F-Type.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Petra Vlahposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      What a joke!
      No president has ever lived out of the salary they get. A salary is for the presidents just loose change and the 5% cut will not change Obama's extravagant life style.
      Should the rest of us be so fortunate as to have all our expenses paid for, I guess most people would be happy to cut their salaries even more.

      replyreport
4. 56

   Education Answerposted 11 years ago

   Other presidents have squandered money too.  I guess my bias was evident.  My point, however, wasn't that he lives more lavishly than previous presidents, though my bias certainly showed that viewpoint.  My point was that his five percent cut will have absolutely no impact on his lifestyle, and it will do very little to balance our budget.  It is a drop in the bucket, a symbolic statement at best.  IF the sequester really does require cuts like this, he could cut a vacation, and that would save a lot more money than his pay cut, perhaps two drops in the bucket of debt. . .  I'm not saying he's getting more vacations than previous presidents.  I'm not bashing the POTUS.  I'm bashing the perks and wasteful spending associated with the position.  That position can afford a 5% cut and a lot more.
   
   The same could be said of some of the rich CEO's.  I don't really feel too sorry to hear them say that they can't afford to upgrade their private plane this year.  To me, it's even worse when it's a public servant, regardless of political identity.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Well, if 5% is no big deal, I'm sure you wouldn't mind wiring me 5% of your yearly income. I mean, it's just 5%, right? No big deal, right?

      replyreport
      1. 56

         Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Do you even read what people write?  My point was that people like the president and a CEO can afford that kind of cut.  Reread what I wrote.

         replyreport
      2. 60

         Clint Wardposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Isn't that the point of the war on the rich? The rich can afford to pay more because they have more, that what I have been told. The President is paid 400,000 a year but he doesn't spend his own money on the White House mortgage he isn't buying groceries for the family. Everything is supplied by the taxpayer plus 400,000 thousand a year. Not to mention he is already a millionaire from book sales.

         replyreport
         1. 56

            Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Perhaps.  I am opposed to such a war.  I must say, however, that this symbolic gesture is just that, and there are better ways for our government to save money.

            replyreport
5. 65

   maxoxam41posted 11 years ago

   His action doesn't impress me. I want the government, the elite, the corporations to sacrifice to the country too?

   replyreport
6. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 11 years ago

   Good for him. He should do more, he can afford it(that's what the left always says anyway).

   replyreport
7. 56

   Education Answerposted 11 years ago

   I'm irritated, because I think this is typical politics, the kind both sides play.  This whole sequester is a joke.  The White House tours, the White House Easter, and President Obama's salary are really what is/was up for grabs because of the sequester?  It's politics.  It's all for show.
   
   I don't begrudge people for being successful, but claiming that you too are taking one for the team is ridiculous when your salary and living conditions are as high as his.  A 5% pay cut to the POTUS is negligible.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Clint Wardposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      That was my point.

      replyreport
      1. 56

         Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Well, then I agree.

         replyreport
8. 94

   wildernessposted 11 years ago

   How nice of him.  After his instruction to "make it hurt" I gave up 10.7% and believe me it does hurt.
   
   Somehow I don't think he'll miss his 5% quite as much as I'll miss my 10.7.

   replyreport
   1. 56

      Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      +1

      replyreport
9. 88

   Stacie Lposted 11 years ago

   I wonder where the 5% cut in salary money will go?

   replyreport