Skip to main content

The Painful Irony of Michelle Obama's $12,000 Dress

Earlier this week President Obama and the First Lady hosted French President Francois Hollande at the White House for an official state dinner. It was quite the affair with caviar, quail eggs, rib-eye and chocolate-malted ganache.

 

In case you don't remember, Hollande is a full blown French socialist who deeply believes the only way to help the poor is by demonizing and soaking the rich. Hollande is currently moving forward with his plan in France to tax millionaires 75 percent after receiving approval from a court. President Obama holds similar views and has repeatedly told the rich they need to "pay their fair share" so that the rest of us can have a fair shot at life.

 

But it's difficult to take these positions seriously when the people taking them engage in the very lifestyles they claim to abhor. Take for example Michelle Obama, who wore a $12,000 Carolina Herrera designer gown to the state dinner earlier this week. Just a few weeks before the dinner, President Obama argued income inequality is a major problem facing our America. CNSNews noticed the cost of her dress is more than the average household income worldwide.

 

The blue and black designer dress that first lady Michelle Obama wore to Tuesday’s state dinner for the French president reportedly cost between $10,000 and $12,000, according to news media, which is more than the median annual household income worldwide of $9,733, and greater than the median income for households in at least 87 countries, according to data from Gallup.

 

Just before the dinner, Michelle Obama tweeted out this photo of her dogs at the dinner table dining on crystal and fancy china.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/02/14/the-irony-of-michelle-obamas-10000-dress-n1795008?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm#

 

NBC is the same network that questioned Ann Romney for wearing a $900 designer shirt for an interview with CBS This Morning. The Romneys have donated more than $20 million to charity over their lifetimes and have worked for the majority of their lives in the private sector. The same cannot be said for the Obamas.

 

 Here's my bottom line, I couldn't care less how much Michelle Obama's gown cost. I'd love for every woman to have the opportunity to wear a gown like that in her life. Designer clothes are expensive because of the work that goes into them and I'm happy Caroline Herrera got paid for the work she did. Herrera reaped the reward of having a First Lady wear her art and product thanks to hard work.

 

The issue is the Obamas and President Hollande lecturing the rest of us about how much money we should make, how we spend our money and how much of our money they are entitled to. People like Hollande and the Obamas are either elitist hypocrites or they don't really believe in the socialist policies they preach about and implement for the rest of us.

 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/02/14/the-irony-of-michelle-obamas-10000-dress-n1795008?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm#

 

Let them eat cake, indeed.

 

      When Michelle Obama walked out to greet the French President, the media swooned. NBC's Shawna Thomas declared "BOW DOWN!" on Twitter when she saw the dress.

 

Shawna Thomas                  @ShawnaNBCNews        

HOLY CRAP LOOK AT THE FIRST LADY'S DRESS. 

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

rt. wingnut hypocrisy knows no bounds. is it just because he's a democrat? because he's not bush? because the tea party has taken over? what's the excuse for not being 'outraged' during the bush reign? tell us, rt. wingnuts.. what's the problem?

 

President George W. Bush spent over 124 million taxpayer dollars on trips to his ranch in Crawford, TX

 just over 20 million on just planes.. to crawford, tx. oh the horrors!

laura bush took 7 trips , on the taxpayer dime, including her children, to africa... where was the outrage?

 

 

 

Michelle Obama International TravelForeign TripsCountries VisitedNumber of Days
200951025
20103614*
20113716
2012000
2013**3617***
Total1425****72

 

Laura Bush International TravelForeign TripsCountries VisitedNumber of Days
20012916
200251325
200351520
20045916
200592539
200671725
200752029
200882742
Total4673*212
Last edited by Crash.Override

this isn't my argument, mA.. this is the rt. wingnut argument. and don't think the liberals didn't tell you bush was spending us into oblivion. there's no way you can make that claim. not with a straight face.  see, here's the problem .. the rt. wingnuts throw a fit over ANY money spent by the current POTUS, they never said a word during the W administration. so, exactly WHO IS THE HYPOCRITE? first clue, find a mirror.

Here are two of my problems with presidential finances. 

 

How does a man who's job pays $400,000 walk out of the White House as a multimillionaire? 

 

And as far as taxing the rich, Bill Clinton (and he is not alone) claims that he should be taxed more. If that is the case, why don't he and the others just send in the extra money they feel that they should pay? The Treasury will be more than happy to take their checks.

One of the problems with this article is the lies and misinformation that the Republicans spread.

 

They say that Democrats "abhor the lifestyle" of the rich, and they are hypocrites when they spend their money on extravagances like designer dresses.

 

That is not the Democrats stance. That is a lie.

 

Pointing out the very real growing gap between the haves and have nots is not the same thing as "abhorring the lifestyle". When Warren Buffett points out this problem, he is not saying he hates his lifestyle. He is saying that Americans don't have the same opportunities as there once was in this country to achieve a higher standard of living, and we have to address it. When he and other uber wealthy Democrats say that they should pay higher taxes to help offset the cost of higher education, or training for trade skills, they also know that just a handful of them sending more money to the government is not the answer. 

 

It's ridiculous to keep repeating this propaganda from the right saying that the Democrats "hate the rich" or are "jealous of the rich". Its very effective though in dividing the country and they will keep repeating it loudly and often until the conservatives have bought it hook line and sinker. 

 

EVERYONE does better in a country with a strong middle class. Even the rich. We need to invest in our own best interest, and not let those that would hoard the largest piece of the pie, and make you believe you are a hater, or jealous if you don't support them in that endeavor. 

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

 

Pointing out the very real growing gap between the haves and have nots is not the same thing as "abhorring the lifestyle". When Warren Buffett points out this problem, he is not saying he hates his lifestyle. He is saying that Americans don't have the same opportunities as there once was in this country to achieve a higher standard of living, and we have to address it. When he and other uber wealthy Democrats say that they should pay higher taxes to help offset the cost of higher education, or training for trade skills, they also know that just a handful of them sending more money to the government is not the answer. 

 

__________________

It would be a start, and could possibly lead to a shaming of the "uber wealthy" into doing so en masse.  When someone like Bill Clinton says he doesn't pay enough taxes, I pretty much have to scoff.  If he were sincere about that, he would send in the difference.  Otherwise it is just talk, and worth the paper it is printed on.

 

When the income tax was first imposed to pay for the Civil War, the rich actually lined up and made a big show out of paying their taxes.  For them it was a matter of prestige that they were wealthy enough to be taxed.  Of course the form was only four pages long, and they weren't taxed at 40%.

Last edited by CrustyMac

And as far as taxing the rich, Bill Clinton (and he is not alone) claims that he should be taxed more. If that is the case, why don't he and the others just send in the extra money they feel that they should pay? The Treasury will be more than happy to take their checks.

Crusty, that's straight from Rushie and Fox.

 

It's ridiculous to keep repeating this propaganda from the right saying that the Democrats "hate the rich" or are "jealous of the rich". Its very effective though in dividing the country and they will keep repeating it loudly and often until the conservatives have bought it hook line and sinker.

 

Jank, When Rushie and Fox think of a new batch of words, we will quit hearing those.

Gift Contributions to Reduce Debt Held by the Public

The Bureau of the Public Debt may accept gifts donated to the United States Government to reduce debt held by the public. Acting for the Secretary of the Treasury, Public Debt may accept a gift of:

  • Money, made only on the condition that it be used to reduce debt held by the public.
  • An outstanding government obligation, made only on the condition that the obligation be retired and the redemption proceeds used to reduce debt held by the public.
  • Other intangible personal property made only on the condition that the property is sold and the proceeds from the sale used to reduce the public debt.

Gifts to reduce debt held by the public may be inter vivos gifts or testamentary bequests.

The fiscal year to date information includes total gifts received for the months of October through September. For the years 1996 and 1997, monthly data is not available. 

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/...rts/pd/gift/gift.htm

 

 

How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?

There are two ways for you to make a contribution to reduce the debt:

  • You can make a contribution online either by credit card, checking or savings account at Pay.gov
  • You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, and in the memo section, notate that it's a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:

    Attn Dept G
    Bureau of the Fiscal Service
    P. O. Box 2188
    Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188   http://www.treasurydirect.gov/...debt.htm#DebtFinance

It's not hard for those who abhor the fact that they are too rich. Hypocrites and liars all! Do as I say, not as I do!

Originally Posted by mad American:

Solve it all. Flat tax rate.  Any objection to a flat tax only means that you want to redistribute wealth. 

"

Redistributing wealth is what we have been doing every since the 1980s and under Bush's reign of ruin, it increased by exponentially.  That's exactly why the rich have gotten so much richer, and the middle class and the poor have gotten worse off.

This youtube  shows how our wealth redistribution really looks like  .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0ehzfQ4hAQ
This poses two questions with the flat tax :

1> if the flat tax were, say 30% for example, does it equally affect the guy making $200/week trying to feed his family , as it does, the guy making $200,000,000 a week ?
2> Are  you really foolish enough to believe that the $200M a week guy is actually not going to find a way out of paying his 30% ? Hell, they already do. That's why I pay about 30% in taxes and people like Romney pay half that.

 

notice how quick the rt. wingnuts are to call someone a 'hypocrite', yet not one of them can answer any of the questions i posed about the current POTUS spending? notice how it's either their way or 'you're a hypocrite'.

remember romney saying 'if you pay more than you have to pay, you don't deserve to be president." then 'doctoring' his tax returns so he payed more? that's the mentality of these rt. wingnuts. all the while calling anyone who doesn't share their opinion a hypocrite.

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

One of the problems with this article is the lies and misinformation that the Republicans spread.

 

They say that Democrats "abhor the lifestyle" of the rich, and they are hypocrites when they spend their money on extravagances like designer dresses.

 

That is not the Democrats stance. That is a lie.

 

Pointing out the very real growing gap between the haves and have nots is not the same thing as "abhorring the lifestyle". When Warren Buffett points out this problem, he is not saying he hates his lifestyle. He is saying that Americans don't have the same opportunities as there once was in this country to achieve a higher standard of living, and we have to address it. When he and other uber wealthy Democrats say that they should pay higher taxes to help offset the cost of higher education, or training for trade skills, they also know that just a handful of them sending more money to the government is not the answer. 

 

It's ridiculous to keep repeating this propaganda from the right saying that the Democrats "hate the rich" or are "jealous of the rich". Its very effective though in dividing the country and they will keep repeating it loudly and often until the conservatives have bought it hook line and sinker. 

 

EVERYONE does better in a country with a strong middle class. Even the rich. We need to invest in our own best interest, and not let those that would hoard the largest piece of the pie, and make you believe you are a hater, or jealous if you don't support them in that endeavor. 

Jank,

Make no mistake about it when Warren Buffet, George Soros and the like say the rich are not paying enough they mean guys like me not them.  They all use tax shelters such as perpetual trusts either in South Dakota or off s**** in places like the Bahamas and not for profit organizations that they and their family control and live off of.  None of these are available because of the up front costs to people making 200k to around 1.5 million after that you are getting into the realm where you can basically shelter your money forever.  Like I said before and you did not answer I am fortunate and have a good job that results in me paying 33% of my income to the government. When you add all the other sales taxes, fees etc it is more like 40%+, so how much is enough?  There is simply no legal way for someone working for a paycheck only "not a business owner, or getting stock options etc." to avoid paying taxes.   Basically there are only two real big deductions left mortgage and charity, most others you have to reach a certain threshold % of income before you can claim deductions.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...e-taxes-forever.html

http://www.michiganlawreview.o...-of-perpetual-trusts

 

 

Last edited by HIFLYER2
Originally Posted by Stanky:

Gift Contributions to Reduce Debt Held by the Public

The Bureau of the Public Debt may accept gifts donated to the United States Government to reduce debt held by the public. Acting for the Secretary of the Treasury, Public Debt may accept a gift of:

  • Money, made only on the condition that it be used to reduce debt held by the public.
  • An outstanding government obligation, made only on the condition that the obligation be retired and the redemption proceeds used to reduce debt held by the public.
  • Other intangible personal property made only on the condition that the property is sold and the proceeds from the sale used to reduce the public debt.

Gifts to reduce debt held by the public may be inter vivos gifts or testamentary bequests.

The fiscal year to date information includes total gifts received for the months of October through September. For the years 1996 and 1997, monthly data is not available. 

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/...rts/pd/gift/gift.htm

 

 

How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?

There are two ways for you to make a contribution to reduce the debt:

  • You can make a contribution online either by credit card, checking or savings account at Pay.gov
  • You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, and in the memo section, notate that it's a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:

    Attn Dept G
    Bureau of the Fiscal Service
    P. O. Box 2188
    Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188   http://www.treasurydirect.gov/...debt.htm#DebtFinance

It's not hard for those who abhor the fact that they are too rich. Hypocrites and liars all! Do as I say, not as I do!

_________________

 

And how do you know they don't do this?

Yep, some may have, but more likely a lot of concerned citizens did:

 

There were 165 signatories to the original "Patriotic Millionaires" list, among which Nouriel Roubini, Leo Hindery, Rick Schottenfield, and mysteriously, Whitney Tilson. One should of course add Warren Buffett: the progenitor of the grassroots movement. Thus a total of 166. In other words, assuming only these 166 people donated cash to the US Treasury in 2012 to pay down the debt (while a potential tax deal awaits), the average patriotic millionaire has donated a whopping of $46,684.45 toward paying down the US debt.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...ait-pay-down-us-debt

Originally Posted by Stanky:

Yep, some may have, but more likely a lot of concerned citizens did:

 

There were 165 signatories to the original "Patriotic Millionaires" list, among which Nouriel Roubini, Leo Hindery, Rick Schottenfield, and mysteriously, Whitney Tilson. One should of course add Warren Buffett: the progenitor of the grassroots movement. Thus a total of 166. In other words, assuming only these 166 people donated cash to the US Treasury in 2012 to pay down the debt (while a potential tax deal awaits), the average patriotic millionaire has donated a whopping of $46,684.45 toward paying down the US debt.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...ait-pay-down-us-debt

Like I said they mean for others to pay not themselves!!!

Zerohedge got the payment numbers from the Treasury website. I'm the one who shouldn't trust goobermint numbers, not you! They even copied and pasted from the Treasury webpage. If the left's crony capitalists don't follow through with their cash after their rhetoric, it doesn't surprise me. If Buffet and the others meant what they said, they should lead and give a lot more than lip service. Anyway, he might have suckered a few GOP senators and congressmen into paying a few bucks in the election cycle.

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...ait-pay-down-us-debthttp://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/11/2012%20debt%20paydowns.jpg

Oh sorry, I re-read it and now I see that zerohedge is ASSUMING that amount by each of the members of the Patriotic Millionaires.

 

Donations by men like Buffett is not the answer to our debt problem. Tax reform, and government spending cuts are. 

 

I wonder why so many Republicans seem to dislike Warren Buffett? Are they jealous of his wealth? Do they abhor his wealthy lifestyle?  

I am pretty much Libertarian; Buffet should make whatever amount of money he wants and should give whatever amount he wants to charity and to legally shelter whatever amount of money he wants from the Washington DC wastrels. What I object to is cheap hypocritical election year posturing. As to the values given by the Treasury, for all anyone knows the gifts could have come from the general public who wanted to give money for the election but couldn't stomach donating money to either a Mormon or the moron. In that case a check to St. Jude's would have been a better choice in doing good for society.

Originally Posted by David L.:

I doubt that Michelle Obama had to pay for the dress. Designers offer their clothes to her for exposure and publicity. Same with celebrities - when you see actresses coming down the red carpet on Oscar night in those gowns and jewelry, most of it was loaned to them by the designers.

=====================

That should make people who can barely afford to buy groceries feel better.

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Mormon or moron,  sorta true, It's a shame that was the best America had to offer.

==============

Really? Because he's a mormon you don't think he had anything to offer? Oh, but wait a minute, isn't it the Republicans that use religion? Let's just forget that pelosi and hillary, to name just two, were, and most likely still are, telling people that jeesus wants them to vote for democrats. By the way, isn't reid a mormon and rich too? Why is it that is never brought up? 

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

Here are two of my problems with presidential finances. 

 

How does a man who's job pays $400,000 walk out of the White House as a multimillionaire? 

 

And as far as taxing the rich, Bill Clinton (and he is not alone) claims that he should be taxed more. If that is the case, why don't he and the others just send in the extra money they feel that they should pay? The Treasury will be more than happy to take their checks.

___

For one thing, Obama's books were best sellers that produced lucrative royalties:

 

"Exact figures are not available because the disclosure form lists only a range of income. But Obama earned between $50,000 and $100,000 in royalties for "The Audacity of Hope," his 2006 book that lays out many of his policy prescriptions. He earned between $100,000 and $1 million in royalties from each of his other two books: his memoir "Dreams From My Father," which was published in 1995 and re-released in 2004; and his 2010 children’s book, "Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters."

 

Those book royalty figures reflect income in just one year.

http://www.masslive.com/politi..._earned_between.html

 

http://articles.latimes.com/20...-disclosure-20120515

Originally Posted by Bestworking:
Originally Posted by David L.:

I doubt that Michelle Obama had to pay for the dress. Designers offer their clothes to her for exposure and publicity. Same with celebrities - when you see actresses coming down the red carpet on Oscar night in those gowns and jewelry, most of it was loaned to them by the designers.

=====================

That should make people who can barely afford to buy groceries feel better.

________________

 

Are you jealous that she got to wear that expensive gown? How would it have fed people had she not worn the gown? Instead of worrying about what the first lady is wearing to a WH event, how bout you worry about how Congress is taking away peoples ability to feed their children while out of work. Seem like some of you here have your priorities all screwed up.

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

As to Warren Buffet, I object to his crony capitalism with government -- trying to influence killing the Keystone XL so his investment in RR tank cars will prosper.

_____________________

 

I assume you object to the Koch brothers too then.

__________________________________________

Well, Jank, it seems you just do not understand the fundamentals of right-wing activism.   It goes something like this:   There is nothing out of order with the multi-billionaire Koch brothers spending multiplied millions to promote the interests of their vast energy empire, but when Warren Buffett applies his ample financial resources and his legal and constitutional right to freedom of expression in a manner favorable to his interests but not so favorable to the Kochs, he is a seditious practitioner of "crony capitalism."

 

Your attitude obviously needs some rehabilitation--at least that is how Dire and certain other alleged defenders of the Constitution would see it.

Last edited by Contendah
Originally Posted by David L.:

I doubt that Michelle Obama had to pay for the dress. Designers offer their clothes to her for exposure and publicity. Same with celebrities - when you see actresses coming down the red carpet on Oscar night in those gowns and jewelry, most of it was loaned to them by the designers.

Yep, they often "donate" them to be worn by the FL, then they either claim it as a loss, or advertising costs, on their taxes. I had much rather she pay for it, on her own dime, and not just her, any of them, which is what I have to do when my wife needs something special to wear. And I don't get to claim any of those costs.  The income tax system in this country sucks, and I am disgusted every time I sit down to fill out the 42 or so pages that is typically required on my return. Taxes, upon taxes, upon taxes, and when you are self employed it is a nightmare.

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Best, please tell me what is right about Romney.  I think one of his quotes was "Let me tell you a funny story about 4,000 people losing their jobs", another, "I like to fire people".  This man made a fortune by destroying factories and sending jobs overseas.  Buy them, gut them sell them or close them.

  

 

 

And as usual you don't have a link. The "liking to fire people" I have seen and I heard all he said. "I like being able to fire people who don't provide adequate services".  Only a lame brain would try to twist that into him saying he just loves to fire people for the sake of firing them, and only an idiot would believe that lame brain. When people don't do their jobs they should be fired, and hey, I agree, I like seeing people fired that aren't doing what they're supposed to do. I wish we could start by firing all the dead weight that have government jobs and don't provide adequate services. 

 

Last edited by Bestworking
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

As to Warren Buffet, I object to his crony capitalism with government -- trying to influence killing the Keystone XL so his investment in RR tank cars will prosper.

_____________________

 

I assume you object to the Koch brothers too then.

__________________________________________

Well, Jank, it seems you just do not understand the fundamentals of right-wing activism.   It goes something like this:   There is nothing out of order with the multi-billionaire Koch brothers spending multiplied millions to promote the interests of their vast energy empire, but when Warren Buffett applies his ample financial resources and his legal and constitutional right to freedom of expression in a manner favorable to his interests but not so favorable to the Kochs, he is a seditious practitioner of "crony capitalism."

 

Your attitude obviously needs some rehabilitation--at least that is how Dire and certain other alleged defenders of the Constitution would see it.

________________________________________

Your comments on the Koch brothers is merely deflection, the question was about Warren Buffet.

I object to anyone using the government to gain from a decision, especially one that will hurt the nation at large. 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×