Watchlords

Average monthly family income in the US is under $4300.

The Obamas feel your pain.

I always thought Michelle Obama was a robo-babe. Thanks for the pic, Cheez!

conjurer wrote:I always thought Michelle Obama was a robo-babe. Thanks for the pic, Cheez!

Just say CHEEZ!

She looks lovely in that picture, don't you think? WAY better than Ann Romney in the $900 jacket that the left went wild about...

BigCheez wrote:

conjurer wrote:I always thought Michelle Obama was a robo-babe. Thanks for the pic, Cheez!

Just say CHEEZ!

She looks lovely in that picture, don't you think? WAY better than Ann Romney in the $900 jacket that the left went wild about...

Hell yes! Of the two, I'd much rather tap the First Lady.

And she flies around in a big airplane, has people who serve her, rides in a big Cadillac, lives in a big White House, and I'd bet that blouse was donated so the designer could say she wore it. Got your attention (probably from a blog post somewhere), and I'd bet it's not because you're a fashion maven. You don't seem to be the Vogue magazine or Women's Wear Daily subscriber type.

Did you see Ann Romney on Piers Morgan last week? Here stuff wasn't from TJ Maxx either! Her outfit even impressed me! And Mitt's suits (nor Obama's) aren't from JC Penney either.

The point is what?

EDIT: And what about Ann Romney's dancing horse in the Olympics? How about that? No one I know has one.

Datsun240Z71 wrote:And she flies around in a big airplane, has people who serve her, rides in a big Cadillac, lives in a big White House, and I'd bet that blouse was donated so the designer could say she wore it. Got your attention (probably from a blog post somewhere), and I'd bet it's not because you're a fashion maven. You don't seem to be the Vogue magazine or Women's Wear Daily subscriber type.

Did you see Ann Romney on Piers Morgan last week? Here stuff wasn't from TJ Maxx either! Her outfit even impressed me! And Mitt's suits (nor Obama's) aren't from JC Penney either.

The point is what?

As I mentioned above, the left ran wild when Ann Romney wore a $900 jacket to the Today show. I guess because the campaign has nothing to run on except negatives, it has "focused like a laser" on class-warfare trivialities like the 1%, Bain and nasty rich people in general.

Maybe Obama's "chickens are coming home to roost!" (Rev J. Wright, mid September, 2001)

Ann Romney bought her $900 t-shirt.

I'd bet Mrs. Obama did not buy the blouse in question.

From what I understand, wealthy people tend to wear expensive clothes. I do agree that going after somebody's attire by the media is pretty low-class.

Maybe it's like the family values guy cheating on his wife... just a TAD hypocritical.

Datsun240Z71 wrote:Ann Romney bought her $900 t-shirt.

I'd bet Mrs. Obama did not buy the blouse in question.

So handouts are better than purchasing with your own money?

Handouts and being lent things by a designer for their publicity are not the same.

Buying $900 t-shirts you'll have to admit is not something many of us can (or would probably) do.

Sometimes they do keep the garment, ala Nancy Reagan in particular.

This has been going on forever, and it's an issue now?

Didn't Palin create a stir for buying expensive clothes and charging it to the McCain campaign?

And don't Hollywood actresses wear designer gowns, etc. on the red carpet to represent the designer? I've seen them identified by the designer in People magazine and even newspapers. I'd bet most of them could pay for their own.

Handouts? Not even close.

No, it's not really an issue now as far as I am concerned. The issue is with your comment. Is $900 a lot to pay for a Tshirt-in my mind yes. I also feel that more than 1K is a lot to pay for a wristwatch. My point is, if it is their money, who am I or you to criticize? It just strikes me as odd that you would denigrate someone for buying an overpriced shirt but the freeloader gets a pass. And yet in your reply you bring up Palin and Reagan. Unfortunately, partisanship trumps principle yet again.

Once again the left fails to realize that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

If you want to bash the Romneys for wardrobe expenditures, you'd better be willing to also point your criticism at the Obamas. Conversely, if you're willing to forgive/ignore one while at the same time pointing fingers at the other, that's the absolute height of partisan idiocy.

Damned hypocrites on both sides, but bitching about the cost of clothes? Seriously?

Twatwaffles.

Mitt da twits $77k tax deduction... A horse in the olympics. Salary for the president is $400k, clothing and such are provided by donations of designers or from the official allowance.

MILF

Right, and if you think that $400k is the Obamer's only source of income, you're delusional. Once again, scream bloody murder about them EVULLL Republicans while ignoring similar lifeystyles by those on the left.

At least be honest about the fact that fairness plays no part in this...

koimaster wrote:Mitt da twits $77k tax deduction... A horse in the olympics. Salary for the president is $400k, clothing and such are provided by donations of designers or from the official allowance.

You don't think our presidents have other sources of income other than their official salary?

Edit: oops, didn't see WD's reply...

Not to mention that Michelle is the First Lady while Ann merely aspires to the job. Top line clothes go with the gig. Have we forgotten Michelle's trips to The Gap?

What I have learned from this thread:
ann romney=undeservedly wealthy bitch that spends a fortune on clothes while poor children starve
michelle obama=woman of the people that really shops at the gap and kmart but who gets designers to lend her dresses because she's so dang cool.
barack obama=just struggling to get by on $400,000 a year and who doesn't accept kickbacks from his rich friends like those evil republicans
mitt romney=rich douchebag that puts his cigars out on minority childrens' foreheads and has an olympic horse? (whatever the hell that is) whose wealth obviously makes him unqualified to be president.

Thanks guys!

Whatever Ann Romney paid for the shirt or jacket (I heard jacket), Randy, PALES in comparison to what you paid for your Rolex Daytona. And since you buy into all the class-warfare crap the Dems are spewing, I'd have to say you're "out of touch", too.

Koi, how much do you have in the Speake Marin and the heavily-modified Corvette, not to mention the Range Rover?

Your collection, Fallstaff? I have an inkling it's closer to Neddles stratosphere than mine...

You champions of the "little guy" are certainly free to liquidate all those trappings of success and conspicuous consumption. Write a big check to the IRS as a donation, since you apparently feel the government is better able to spend money than the individuals that made it.

Oh, that's right. Socialism is for the PEOPLE, not the SOCIALISTS.

I did not pass judgement on anyone.

If I want to pay for a Daytona (I did) or Mrs. Romney wants to buy a $900 t-shirt (she did) that's okay with me and I challenge anyone to show me stating otherwise.

Everything I stated was factual.

The original post concerned Mrs. Obama and her outfit which was not hers. I tried to state the probable source of that outfit and compared her to other First Ladies and celebrities. I also referenced Nancy Reagan, who was notorious for keeping the designer outfits lent to her, probably with the designers approval and by mention compared the controversy over Sarah Palin's wardrobe to the issue at hand.

All of these people live a lifestyle fit for their station in life, and I don't begrudge them of that, and never said otherwise. The fact is that most of us don't live like that nor will we ever. The chance of me or my wife being President and First Lady, a Vice-Presidential candidate, an ex-governor, multi-millioinaire or a celebrity are pretty slim at this point.

As I've said before, what some people read and the conclusions drawn are based on perception, not necessarily what was stated.

If you want to dispute what I actually wrote, go ahead, but you can't.

I don't really see what the issue is, and stated that as well.

Nothing more to add.

conjurer wrote:

BigCheez wrote:

conjurer wrote:I always thought Michelle Obama was a robo-babe. Thanks for the pic, Cheez!

Just say CHEEZ!

She looks lovely in that picture, don't you think? WAY better than Ann Romney in the $900 jacket that the left went wild about...

Hell yes! Of the two, I'd much rather tap the First Lady.

I dunno... ann looks damn milf-ish.

I think michelle looks like the grinch who stole christmas.

And i'm not the only one that thinks so. Google images returned this =>

when I searched for "obama grinch".

Datsun240Z71 wrote:I did not pass judgement on anyone.

If I want to pay for a Daytona (I did) or Mrs. Romney wants to buy a $900 t-shirt (she did) that's okay with me and I challenge anyone to show me stating otherwise.

Everything I stated was factual.

The original post concerned Mrs. Obama and her outfit which was not hers. I tried to state the probable source of that outfit and compared her to other First Ladies and celebrities. I also referenced Nancy Reagan, who was notorious for keeping the designer outfits lent to her, probably with the designers approval and by mention compared the controversy over Sarah Palin's wardrobe to the issue at hand.

All of these people live a lifestyle fit for their station in life, and I don't begrudge them of that, and never said otherwise. The fact is that most of us don't live like that nor will we ever. The chance of me or my wife being President and First Lady, a Vice-Presidential candidate, an ex-governor, multi-millioinaire or a celebrity are pretty slim at this point.

As I've said before, what some people read and the conclusions drawn are based on perception, not necessarily what was stated.

If you want to dispute what I actually wrote, go ahead, but you can't.

I don't really see what the issue is, and stated that as well.

Nothing more to add.

Your support of the fatuous tactics of the current reelection campaign is rather "transparent", Randy, and rather than Chicago focusing on Obama's accomplishments, it's all class-warfare and "Romney's Richie Rich and out of touch", all the time.

I know you're a lib and playing double standards is the stock-in-trade, but this is a pretty clear example of wanting it both ways.

I get to call out hypocrisy, too.

Even if I am a conservative.

I can't believe I'm getting drawn into a policy room thread...

It's not hypocrisy, because it's not the same thing.

Only the staunchest of socialists would say that you can't be successful and buy a Rolex or a $900 t-shirt or a $6,800 dress or whatever. For the majority of 'liberals' as defined in the USA (the Liberal party here is more akin to your Republicans), which I daresay would include everybody who posts here, the POV is more moderate. Your money, you can waste it however you please.

Where the liberals differ from the conservatives is that we recognise an alarming (to us) gap between rich and poor and are not adverse to sacrificing more of our $$$ to help the less fortunate get a leg-up. We look past text-book theory and partisan rhetoric and acknowledge that the actual events of the the last 60 years indicate that the trickle-down effect is more or less bullshit. It is bullshit peddled by a very wealthy (and getting wealthier) minority to convince the rest of us that they shouldn't have to give as much back, because by letting them keep more, they will somehow create jobs and look after the rest of us.

Liberals, on the other hand, recognise that education, healthcare, and infrastructure costs money, it benefits everybody, and everybody should pay for it.

The concept of a 'fair share' is a subjective one, but many liberals believe that if basic living expenses are $30k per year, and somebody makes $30k per year (before tax), then they really can't afford to pay a lot of tax. Somebody making $150k, however, can afford to pay, say, $50k in tax, as that still leaves them with $70k disposable income.

And you can use that $70k to buy a Rolex, a $900 t-shirt, and Olympic Horse (whatever the fuck that is), anything you like. But don't tax the guy struggling to get by on $30 k, because he needs every penny he can get to live a basic lifestyle in fair health and with some semblance of dignity. Yes, he is riding on us more fortunate souls, and we don't mind, because we can afford it. How greedy do you want to be? How much stuff do you actually need?

This might seem long winded and rambling, and it is, but it needs to be said, because trying to attack liberals because one of the wealthy ones wears a fancy dress is a smokescreen, nothing more, and a flimsy and transparent one at best (I'd like to see Michelle in flimsy and transparent neglige, but I digress). It is an argument based on a false pretence that Liberals don't allow anybody to own nice things. We all like nice things - we just think that they are not the first priority, and should be purchased with what is left over once we have paid our dues to society. You know, the society that helped us get lucky and become successful in the first place.

Consider, also, the 'trickle up' effect. Instead of giving the rich tax breaks, instead of taxing everybody at a fixed rate, you tax the wealthy at a greater rate than the poor. You take all this revenue, and invest it in programs that provide the lower and middle classes with a bit of extra disposable income. They might save some, but they will spend a lot of it. Indeed, they will spend much more of it, proportionately, than the wealthy, who already have enough disposable income, and additional income tends to be saved or invested.

Each lower / middle class person isn't spending a whole lot more, but there are a LOT of us. This allows a LOT of people to enjoy a better quality of life, and at the same time creates demand, which creates jobs, which drives investment. From the bottom up. Sort of similar to the trickle-down theory, except a LOT of people get to feel the benefits. And the other BIG difference is that it actually works.

If you want to start a thread on the relative merits of wealth redistribution, be my guest. That isn't the point I'm making:

The Obama campaign has made it all about Mitt's offshore accounts and being a rich CEO and how he is "out of touch" with "regular folks", as Barack would say.

They cannot make that claim while vacationing in Spain, Hawaii and Martha's vineyard and wearing $7k jackets without it being hypocritical. The US lefties can't contain themselves about Mitt's garage and the horseback riding. Now here's a little bit of the same medicine.