What Recession? Michelle Obama Wears $635 Shoes on $4000 Per Night Vacation!

[IntheNet]

What Recession? Michelle Obama Wears $635 Shoes on $4000 Per Night Hawaii Vacation
Monday, December 28, 2009
Free Republic
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2416710/posts
Barack Obama enjoys living like a king, so why shouldn't Michelle Obama live like a queen? The First Lady was photographed last night in Hawaii wearing $635 per pair designer shoes by Maison Martin Margiela. The shoe style is called "Leather open toe flat pumps." It features a "thin nude leather strap across the top of the toe." A woman lucky enough to have a job in this economy and working for the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour would have to work 88 hours (without taxes taken out) to make enough to pay for Michelle Obama's shoes. If she can get them on sale, they would only set her back $445 for 62 hours work. The Obamas are staying at an $8.9 million estate for an estimated $4000 per night. To cover the Obama's ten night stay, the minimum wage worker would have to work two-and-a-half years (before taxes) to come up with the $40,000 Obama is reportedly laying out. Obama has lectured Americans about how they can not expect to live their lives as indulgently as they have in the past. He has lectured businesses about their travel and pay. Yet Obama and his wife live like kings and queens. The news media has yet to call him out on his extravagance when there is 10% unemployment with no sign of the employment picture improving this coming year.

:rolleyes:

[ChrisWB]

:rolleyes:
Fair enough. Please list all of your purchases of the last five years so that I can judge what you choose to spend your money on.

[IntheNet]

Fair enough. Please list all of your purchases of the last five years so that I can judge what you choose to spend your money on.

I'm not the one lecturing Wall Street on its excesses at the moment...

[yg17]

Are you ********** kidding me? How can you dare criticize this when your hero Sarah Palin ran up a $150,000 bill for clothes during the campaign. You are the epitome of a hypocrite.

Not to mention your source for this is a bunch of racist teabagging rednecks at free republic.

[paddy]

You want Sarah Palin as a president in 2012?

The Republican National Committee has spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14805.html)

[IntheNet]

Not to mention your source for this is...

Actually the Free Republic has lots of photos and documentation for this story... well-sourced report over all:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2416710/posts

[ChrisWB]

I'm not the one lecturing Wall Street at the moment...But you're lecturing Michelle Obama and the members of this forum.

The Obamas and any other family deserve the right to spend their personal money as they see fit. You may view this from a socialist perspective and believe that the wealthy should be regulated. It's your right to disagree with my conservative philosophy. We can agree to disagree.

[yg17]

But you're lecturing Michelle Obama and the members of this forum.

The Obamas and any other family deserve the right to spend their personal money as they see fit. You may view this from a socialist perspective and believe that the wealthy should be regulated. It's your right to disagree with my conservative philosophy. We can agree to disagree.

Trying to dictate how the wealthy should spend their money does seem a bit socialist, doesn't it? Is InTheNet a socialist?

[Peterkro]

Trying to dictate how the wealthy should spend their money does seem a bit socialist, doesn't it? Is InTheNet a socialist?


No your not palming him off on us.

[FreeState]

Sounds reasonable when compared to the Bushes and the McCains..

http://blog.zap2it.com/thedishrag/2008/09/how-much-did-la.html

Laura Bush's ensemble
Oscar de la Renta suit: $2,500
Stuart Weitzman heels: $325
Pearl stud earrings: $600–$1,500
Total: Between $3,425 and $4,325

Cindy McCain's wardrobe
Oscar de la Renta dress: $3,000
Chanel J12 White Ceramic Watch: $4,500
Three-carat diamond earrings: $280,000
Four-strand pearl necklace: $11,000–$25,000
Shoes, designer unknown: $600

Total: Between $299,100 and $313,100.

[yg17]

Sounds reasonable when compared to the Bushes and the McCains..

http://blog.zap2it.com/thedishrag/2008/09/how-much-did-la.html

You and your facts need to get the **** out of PRSI. That sort of thing isn't allowed here! ;) :D

[chstr]

What Recession? Michelle Obama Wears $635 Shoes on $4000 Per Night Hawaii Vacation
Monday, December 28, 2009
Free Republic
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2416710/posts
Barack Obama enjoys living like a king, so why shouldn't Michelle Obama live like a queen? The First Lady was photographed last night in Hawaii wearing $635 per pair designer shoes by Maison Martin Margiela. The shoe style is called "Leather open toe flat pumps." It features a "thin nude leather strap across the top of the toe." A woman lucky enough to have a job in this economy and working for the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour would have to work 88 hours (without taxes taken out) to make enough to pay for Michelle Obama's shoes. If she can get them on sale, they would only set her back $445 for 62 hours work. The Obamas are staying at an $8.9 million estate for an estimated $4000 per night. To cover the Obama's ten night stay, the minimum wage worker would have to work two-and-a-half years (before taxes) to come up with the $40,000 Obama is reportedly laying out. Obama has lectured Americans about how they can not expect to live their lives as indulgently as they have in the past. He has lectured businesses about their travel and pay. Yet Obama and his wife live like kings and queens. The news media has yet to call him out on his extravagance when there is 10% unemployment with no sign of the employment picture improving this coming year.

:rolleyes:

isn't the free market economy you love so much beautiful? they are rich so they can buy what they want no?

[IntheNet]

But you're lecturing Michelle Obama and the members of this forum.

Indeed. But we hear so much about Palin, Bachmann, and Rove herein I thought a bit of variety was due...

The Obamas and any other family deserve the right to spend their personal money as they see fit.

So do bankers and Wall Street investors. Fancy that!

You may view this from a socialist perspective and believe that the wealthy should be regulated.

Actually I am glad to see the Obama's indulging in reckless excess during their Hawaiian vacation; I hope we all can afford such when this recession ends...

It's your right to disagree with my conservative philosophy. We can agree to disagree.

If the Obamas are brave enough to return from vacation in January 2010 to ever-increasing unemployment numbers and can justify their extravagant vacation, polls for the GOP will increase! Matter of fact, I hope they spend a lot while on vacation; those fall 2010 campaign commercials seem to write themselves!

[yg17]

You complain about Obama taking a week of vacation, but aren't bothered by the fact that Bush spent 2.67 years (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/01/16/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4728085.shtml), or 33% of his presidency, on vacation.

Hypocrite.

[racers]

Indeed. polls for the GOP will increase! Matter of fact, I hope they spend a lot while on vacation; those fall 2010 campaign commercials seem to write themselves!

what world do you live in?
only 29% of people approve of the Republicans and the nightmare that was the last 8 yeas will not be soon forgotten.

[bobber205]

Didn't Bush spend nearly two years on vacation? DURING A TIME OF WAR NO LESS!
:rolleyes:

[yg17]

Didn't Bush spend nearly two years on vacation? DURING A TIME OF WAR NO LESS!
:rolleyes:

See my post above. Nearly 3 ;)

In fact, he spent August 2001 on vacation after receiving a PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US"

[bobber205]

See my post above. Nearly 3 ;)

In fact, he spent August 2001 on vacation after receiving a PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US"

I knew it was at least two so I was trying to play it safe. The last thing I want to do is claim stuff to be true when it isn't and be like InTheNet. ;)

[Compile 'em all]

dude, Maison Martin Margiela rules. You should be happy your first lady is dressed properly.

[IntheNet]

The last thing I want to do is claim stuff to be true when it isn't ...

"...The $635 per-pair designer shoes are by Maison Martin Margiela. The shoe style is called "Leather open toe flat pumps." It features a "thin nude leather strap across the top of the toe..."

Photos: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2416710/posts

[bobber205]

"...The $635 per-pair designer shoes are by Maison Martin Margiela. The shoe style is called "Leather open toe flat pumps." It features a "thin nude leather strap across the top of the toe..."

Photos: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2416710/posts

...

No one is claiming that's not true...

[rdowns]

See my post above. Nearly 3 ;)

In fact, he spent August 2001 on vacation after receiving a PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US"


Nice spin. It's common knowledge he was clearing brush in Crawford, TX and not "on vacation". I would note that not a single brush fire was reported in Crawford, TX during the Bush years.

[leekohler]

This thread is the best laugh I've had all day! :D

[bobber205]

If Michelle Obama had worn Walmart quality shoes InTheNet would say "Why is she portraying America as poor?"

They can't win with InTheNet. He has a unjustified hatred of them and all "lefty libs".

[Leareth]

as a side tangent
$600 isn't that much to spend on womens shoes.
good shoes cost fair amount of money
just like good clothes.
and she IS supposed to be a visible person , so $2 flip flops from walmart are just not going to cut it.

[rdowns]

To hell with the shoes, did you see that dress?

[OllyW]

I like the way IntheNet ignores this....

You want Sarah Palin as a president in 2012?

The Republican National Committee has spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14805.html)

and this....

But you're lecturing Michelle Obama and the members of this forum.

The Obamas and any other family deserve the right to spend their personal money as they see fit. You may view this from a socialist perspective and believe that the wealthy should be regulated. It's your right to disagree with my conservative philosophy. We can agree to disagree.

and this....

Trying to dictate how the wealthy should spend their money does seem a bit socialist, doesn't it? Is InTheNet a socialist?

and this....

Sounds reasonable when compared to the Bushes and the McCains..

http://blog.zap2it.com/thedishrag/2008/09/how-much-did-la.html

and this....

isn't the free market economy you love so much beautiful? they are rich so they can buy what they want no?

and this....

You complain about Obama taking a week of vacation, but aren't bothered by the fact that Bush spent 2.67 years (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/01/16/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4728085.shtml), or 33% of his presidency, on vacation.

Hypocrite.

and this....

what world do you live in?
only 29% of people approve of the Republicans and the nightmare that was the last 8 yeas will not be soon forgotten.

and this....

Didn't Bush spend nearly two years on vacation? DURING A TIME OF WAR NO LESS!
:rolleyes:

and this....

See my post above. Nearly 3 ;)

In fact, he spent August 2001 on vacation after receiving a PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US"

but is still convinced he's right. :rolleyes:

[thegoldenmackid]

Umm... who cares? Oh yeah... But what OllyW said.

[Badandy]

I wear expensive clothes and I'm not the face of the United States, even though I should be. Besides, maybe the shoe company gave them to Michelle Obama for free like all these brands do to celebrities?


This just isn't important.

IntheNet: how do you respond to palin ringing up a 150k tab?

No one post in this thread until inthenet addresses this issue please. That should be interesting.

[ChrisWB]

Indeed. But we hear so much about Palin, Bachmann, and Rove herein I thought a bit of variety was due...Do you also comment on the way they choose to spend their money? I haven't bothered to price the outfits of each of the individuals you mentioned. If this is your hobby then I understand if you find it interesting.

So do bankers and Wall Street investors. Fancy that!True, unless they participate in activities that jeopardize the investors and shareholders perspectively.

Many of the banks and firms have accepted government money. If they accept government money then the government is an active owner of the entity and may exert its viewpoint just as any shareholder would.

Actually I am glad to see the Obama's indulging in reckless excess during their Hawaiian vacation; I hope we all can afford such when this recession ends... The recession is not directly tied to your personal checkbook. It is up to you to succeed, not the government. Again, you may disagree with this. You may believe that the government should financially support you throughout your entire life. I do not believe this, but it seems that you do not share my conservative viewpoint.

If the Obamas are brave enough to return from vacation in January 2010 to ever-increasing unemployment numbers and can justify their extravagant vacation, polls for the GOP will increase! Matter of fact, I hope they spend a lot while on vacation; those fall 2010 campaign commercials seem to write themselves!I am picking up a strong socialist vibe from your writing. You seem to have a great deal of anger for anyone who has accumulated wealth. Should the wealthy have a moral obligation, a noblesse oblige, to spend their money on the poor rather than on luxurious vacations? I can empathize with your viewpoint, but what do you propose to do about it?

[bobber205]

I wear expensive clothes and I'm not the face of the United States, even though I should be. Besides, maybe the shoe company gave them to Michelle Obama for free like all these brands do to celebrities?


This just isn't important.

IntheNet: how do you respond to palin ringing up a 150k tab?

No one post in this thread until inthenet addresses this issue please. That should be interesting.

Quoting you as a reminder.
Also if no one can post till InTheNet responds, then the thread is over. InTheNet has clearly ran away from that point or is buying time to come up with some lie.

[Dont Hurt Me]

G O P throwing Mud at her shoes, just amazing at how low they can go but when you are constantly throwing and playing in the mud sooner or later its all over you and your face. Hey inthenet you need a towel?:p

[IntheNet]

Do you also comment on the way they choose to spend their money? I haven't bothered to price the outfits of each of the individuals you mentioned. If this is your hobby then I understand if you find it interesting.

From time to time, herein, I'll comment on hypocrisy as I see it... Obama tore into Wall Street fat cats just last week then he goes whole hog in Hawaii... seems a bit too much to let it pass without mention...

True, unless they participate in activities that jeopardize the investors and shareholders perspectively.

Michelle Obama is a very glamourous First Lady, as was Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton and all predecessors. My comments were more directed at the guy that condemns Wall Street but then goes to Hawaii on excess account plus...

Many of the banks and firms have accepted government money.

So has anyone on welfare, food stamps, or other entitlement. Plan to make them pay back what they borrowed? I'm not sympathetic to banks here; they should have been left to fail on their own; just pretty thick hypocrisy to condemn banks and not all those on welfare....

IThe recession is not directly tied to your personal checkbook.

Been in a supermarket lately?

... it seems that you do not share my conservative viewpoint.

See sig...

I am picking up a strong socialist vibe from your writing. You seem to have a great deal of anger for anyone who has accumulated wealth.

Sarcasm is a great writing tool if it is judiciously applied, as it was in this instance... relax... capitalism is my stock and trade...

I...respond to palin ringing up a 150k tab

I assume you have not yet purchased her book; you really should (http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780061939891/Going_Rogue/index.aspx). The issue you mentioned is discussed at length. I am satisfied, as are most, with her explanation of the RNC's action.

[Badandy]

I assume you have not yet purchased her book; you really should (http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780061939891/Going_Rogue/index.aspx). The issue you mentioned is discussed at length. I am satisfied, as are most, with her explanation of the RNC's action.

Please summarize her argument justifying her massive clothing expenditure at a time when the country was also in a recession. I have neither the time nor inclination to purchase her book. This is like you asking a question about Obama and having a poster tell you to buy the Audacity of Hope and look for it yourself instead of just quickly answering a simple question.

[NT1440]

Oh, its one of these threads....

[aethelbert]

Oh, its one of these threads....
Well the OP's username is always listed under the thread's title on the main forum page. This was predictable .

[IntheNet]

Please summarize her argument justifying her massive clothing expenditure at a time when the country was also in a recession. I have neither the time nor inclination to purchase her book.

At Amazon only $14.50 ( http://www.amazon.com/Going-Rogue-American-Sarah-Palin/dp/0061939897 )...

This is like you asking a question about Obama and having a poster tell you to buy the Audacity of Hope and look for it yourself instead of just quickly answering a simple question.

Too late... I actually bought both of Barry's books during 2008 campaign since I do read quite a bit.

Moreover, if you're not willing to read Palin's own explanation I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request....

[NT1440]

Well the OP's username is always listed under the thread's title on the main forum page. This was predictable .

No, I just laugh whenever I see leader spending threads. Of course the head of a country is going to be in expensive accommodations, thats the way it works in every country on the planet. I'm not saying right or wrong, just that that is the status quo all over the world.

[thegoldenmackid]

Why not just summarize it. Most of us don't want to buy Sarah Palin's dad any more socks.

[63dot]

Are you ********** kidding me? How can you dare criticize this when your hero Sarah Palin ran up a $150,000 bill for clothes during the campaign. You are the epitome of a hypocrite.

Not to mention your source for this is a bunch of racist teabagging rednecks at free republic.

Pretty weird, isn't it. If Michelle was Republican, then I am sure the OP would praise the shoes as being stylish. ;)

I think the OP is blind in one eye. The truth is both parties have leaders and family members wear better clothes than most of us. It's probably more likely whether it's Sarah or Michelle, that they have clothes, friends, and connections most of us don't have. Well, I sure hope so.

To get to the top, whether you are married to the President, or running on the ticket for VP for a major party, the factions of the press who don't like your politics will attack your clothes. If you are a woman, and you are under dressed, you will be crucified by them. If you wear something nice, then suddenly you are Imelda Marcos.

I have seen a lot of weird things on this forum, but at least they had some political point, but this thread has nothing to offer outside being a cheap shot attack on the President.

And to the OP, if you don't like the President, attack a policy or speech, not his wife's shoes.

[63dot]

See my post above. Nearly 3 ;)

In fact, he spent August 2001 on vacation after receiving a PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US"

After voting against W twice, I actually wished he took way more time on vacation. ;)

[dukebound85]

Fair enough. Please list all of your purchases of the last five years so that I can judge what you choose to spend your money on.

seriously

its not like they were poor before they went to white house

they can spend their money any way they please

[dukebound85]

"...The $635 per-pair designer shoes are by Maison Martin Margiela. The shoe style is called "Leather open toe flat pumps." It features a "thin nude leather strap across the top of the toe..."

Photos: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2416710/posts

cool guess what

i have bought nearly 200 dollar tennis shoes and im no president

how much is that computer youre typing on?

600 bucks is NOT much

who cares


Moreover, if you're not willing to read Palin's own explanation I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request....

HAHAHA classic

First: Palin is stupid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZfM5LluYqw&feature=related)... very stupid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E&feature=related) very very very stupid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rXmuhWrlj4&feature=channel)
Second: Palin is an idiot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-KnMK2ZcHI)
Third: I am not buying no book to support her when you could simply answer the question


Please tell me why on Earth do you support this woman?

I am asking as a Conservative, which I am, how ANYONE could agree with her

[thegoldenmackid]

He makes $400,000 a year. He didn't set his salary and unless he decides to be Nelson Mandela I doubt he is going to start complaining about making as much money as his predecessor. Given how much he makes, I doubt that Michelle having expensive shoes should shock anyone.

I'll answer your argument on face. While it might seem hypocritical it's not the same.
-Obama criticizes CEO's about excessive pay and bonuses
-Michelle buys expensive shoes?

I'm sure that there is a budget for wardrobe and travel for the President. I highly doubt that Obama raises either one of those, if he does - then I'll concede it's hypocrisy. Bush spent something like just under 900 days at Camp David and his Crawford Ranch alone, that's 100+ days a year of vacation for the POTUS at just two locations, when Obama surpasses that, then I'll see a problem. For all we know Michelle bought them via Barack's book money.

[IntheNet]

I'll answer your argument on face. While it might seem hypocritical it's not the same.
-Obama criticizes CEO's about excessive pay and bonuses
-Michelle buys expensive shoes?

I answered your point previously:

Michelle Obama is a very glamourous First Lady, as was Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton and all predecessors. My comments were more directed at the guy that condemns Wall Street but then goes to Hawaii on excess account plus...

Michelle can be as glamorous as she wishes and we all truly admire her... I know I do as do all Americans... My point is one of policy actually and it is directed to the president rather than the first lady... all that condemnation that Obama did last week of Wall Street excess goes out the window fast when you buy $600 shoes and spend $4,000 a night on holiday during a recession...

[thegoldenmackid]

Michelle can be as glamourous as she wishes and we all truly admire her... I know I do... My point is one of policy actually and it is directed to the president rather than the first lady... all that condemnation that Obama did last week of Wall Street excess goes out the window fast when you buy $600 shoes and spend $4,000 a night on holiday during a recession...

Umm...no you didn't? If Obama begins to spend in excess then I see your point, but not when he is acting within a logical realm. Do you really think Alan Mulally's wife is going to stop spending money on shoes, that she could have bought two years ago?

There is a budget, until he starts to expand his travel and clothing budget, I don't see the hypocrisy? He seems to be taking less vacations then Bush, hence he is cutting back?

In the end, this all seems irrelevant. You are going to find something new to bash Obama and I'm going to keep saying he is doing a better job then: the guy before him and the other guy we could have elected and his dumbass sidekick of a vice-president candidate.

[Zombie Acorn]

as a side tangent
$600 isn't that much to spend on womens shoes.
good shoes cost fair amount of money
just like good clothes.
and she IS supposed to be a visible person , so $2 flip flops from walmart are just not going to cut it.

$600 is excessive.

[yg17]

$600 is excessive.

It's their money. She could spend $6,000 on shoes and it wouldn't matter.

Many would consider the price of our Macs excessive. But it's our money and we can spend it however the hell we want.

[thegoldenmackid]

$600 is excessive.

Now the PSRI has turned into a discussion about fashion.

[IntheNet]

He seems to be taking less vacations then Bush, hence he is cutting back?

Not to turn this thread into a vacation sniping war but Obama, only nine months on office back in October, tied the previous president on golf outings! So yes Obama does get his vacation/golf time (see below)... just a short time ago this summer the Obama family went to a week-long vacation on Martha's Vineyard, he's been to Hawaii twice, and Europe several times...all in his first year...

President Barack Obama has only been in office for just over nine months,
but he's already hit the links as much as President Bush did in over two years.
http://www.politico.com/click/stories/0910/obama_ties_bush_on_golf.html

[dukebound85]

Not to turn this thread into a vacation sniping war but Obama, only nine months on office back in October, tied the previous president on golf outings! So yes Obama does get his vacation/golf time (see below)... just a short time ago this summer the Obama family went to a week-long vacation on Martha's Vineyard, he's been to Hawaii twice, and Europe several times...all in his first year...

President Barack Obama has only been in office for just over nine months,
but he's already hit the links as much as President Bush did in over two years.
http://www.politico.com/click/stories/0910/obama_ties_bush_on_golf.html

wow golf

24 rounds in a year

jeebus! thats less than me!

maybe he likes golf more than bush...

as far as travles, he is the President. of course he will go to hawaii and Europe...

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Obama going to Hawaii is the same as Bush going home. It's Obama's home, Hawaii doesn't mean vacation like it does to most everyone else.

[bobber205]

seriously

its not like they were poor before they went to white house

they can spend their money any way they please

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I disagree with you with many of your politics but I think we could be good friends. :D

[yg17]

Not to turn this thread into a vacation sniping war but Obama, only nine months on office back in October, tied the previous president on golf outings! So yes Obama does get his vacation/golf time (see below)... just a short time ago this summer the Obama family went to a week-long vacation on Martha's Vineyard, he's been to Hawaii twice, and Europe several times...all in his first year...

President Barack Obama has only been in office for just over nine months,
but he's already hit the links as much as President Bush did in over two years.
http://www.politico.com/click/stories/0910/obama_ties_bush_on_golf.html

He went to Europe on official business, it wasn't a vacation.

And he has family in Hawaii. Being president doesn't mean you can never see your family again :rolleyes:

And even if he didn't have family in Hawaii, and did just go there for vacation, what's the big deal? He is entitled to vacation too, just like everyone else who works a full time job and gets paid vacation.

[thegoldenmackid]

Not to turn this thread into a vacation sniping war but Obama, only nine months on office back in October, tied the previous president on golf outings! So yes Obama does get his vacation/golf time (see below)... just a short time ago this summer the Obama family went to a week-long vacation on Martha's Vineyard, he's been to Hawaii twice, and Europe several times...all in his first year...

President Barack Obama has only been in office for just over nine months,
but he's already hit the links as much as President Bush did in over two years.
http://www.politico.com/click/stories/0910/obama_ties_bush_on_golf.html

Bush is notorious for not playing golf. Bush took 900 days of vacation to Camp David and Crawford alone. His trips to Europe:
-March-April - G20 and then visited five countries
-June - Joined other leaders on the 65th anniversary of the invasion of Normandy
-July - Went to Eastern Europe and attended the G8
-October - Went to represent Chicago for the Olympics (this was unnecessary)
-December - Went to accept Nobel Peace Prize and the Copenhagen climate talks

I count one of those as being unnecessary it was a couple days long. Not accepting the Nobel prize would not have been good diplomatically. I'm missing the south of France vacation? Even if you think the Chicago trip was unnecessary, none of them are vacations.

(Please keep posting things without facts)

Obama going to Hawaii is the same as Bush going home. It's Obama's home, Hawaii doesn't mean vacation like it does to most everyone else.
Agreed. Obama doesn't go home every weekend, like Bush would do for weeks straight.

[Zombie Acorn]

It's their money. She could spend $6,000 on shoes and it wouldn't matter.

Many would consider the price of our Macs excessive. But it's our money and we can spend it however the hell we want.

Then he can go ahead and stop criticizing the excessive spending on executive compensation. If she can afford such grand shoes then maybe Obama needs a pay cut.

[No1451]

Then he can go ahead and stop criticizing the excessive spending on executive compensation. If she can afford such grand shoes then maybe Obama needs a pay cut.


When the gov gave them money they should have as much say as any other shareholder. I really don't see his comments to them as being outrageous.

And as for HIS pay, in all fairness $400,000 is fairly small compared to what some execs make(if you consider performance bonuses/etc)

[thegoldenmackid]

And as for HIS pay, in all fairness $400,000 is fairly small compared to what some execs make(if you consider performance bonuses/etc)
Air Force One, private security force, Camp David, the White House, numerous allowances are all minimal - I understand.

[Zombie Acorn]

When the gov gave them money they should have as much say as any other shareholder. I really don't see his comments to them as being outrageous.

And as for HIS pay, in all fairness $400,000 is fairly small compared to what some execs make(if you consider performance bonuses/etc)

Criticisms from the left about executive pay came long before bank bailouts. Lets not forget who is cutting Obama's check also. What has congress done recently to deserve a pay raise?

[No1451]

Criticisms from the left about executive pay came long before bank bailouts. Lets not forget who is cutting Obama's check also. What has congress done recently to deserve a pay raise?

True, but only the AMOUNT was in question, not how they spend it. The amount can be discussed, but this ********, this talking about how he spent his money is nonsense.

If anyone ever tried to dictate how I spent my money I'd smile and give them the finger, it is the business of nobody but the individual. Discuss whether or not you think his pay is reasonable if you want, that is up for debate, how he spends his own money is not.

[thegoldenmackid]

True, but only the AMOUNT was in question, not how they spend it. The amount can be discussed, but this ********, this talking about how he spent his money is nonsense.

If anyone ever tried to dictate how I spent my money I'd smile and give them the finger, it is the business of nobody but the individual. Discuss whether or not you think his pay is reasonable if you want, that is up for debate, how he spends his own money is not.

It's the President, in all fairness everything he does is up for debate.

[hulugu]

wow golf

24 rounds in a year

jeebus! thats less than me!

maybe he likes golf more than bush...

as far as travles, he is the President. of course he will go to hawaii and Europe...

I love how the Politico story frames the story, it's not Obama plays 24 rounds of golf, but rather "President Obama ties George W. Bush on Golf." One is such a non-story, a little bit of presidential trivia, but the other story sounds like it's a huge, ridiculous number.


Then he can go ahead and stop criticizing the excessive spending on executive compensation. If she can afford such grand shoes then maybe Obama needs a pay cut.

Well, first, the Obama family already had money from his book sales and other sources of income, so while I'm sure that the presidential salary is nothing to blush at for the Obama's, it is also not their only source of income. That said, I still find it odd that we're playing Hypocrisy Hockey on this one—well aside from the obvious partisan hackery of bringing up the issue in the first place.

Is it required that the President must wear sackcloth before he can criticize the wealth-destroying leaders of Wall Street, who took massive amounts of funding from the US government in order to save their business—and the US economy—from their disastrous decision-making?

Is there a spending limit? Maybe the Obama's could stay at a Motel 6, enjoy breakfast at the Waffle House, and then collect cans in order to make such a criticism?

Furthermore, Obama's criticism wasn't about executive spending, but rather the failure of large Wall Street banks to lend out money while also giving out $10 million and $20 million bonuses. This is a valid criticism of a corporate policy that is hurting the American economy while simultaneously benefiting a few. His problem wasn't with gold-plated bathtubs, or the other baroques of Wall Street, but with the failure of the banks to lend money.

[Zombie Acorn]

True, but only the AMOUNT was in question, not how they spend it. The amount can be discussed, but this ********, this talking about how he spent his money is nonsense.

If anyone ever tried to dictate how I spent my money I'd smile and give them the finger, it is the business of nobody but the individual. Discuss whether or not you think his pay is reasonable if you want, that is up for debate, how he spends his own money is not.

Just doesn't show good taste in my opinion overall in a down economy where 10+% of people have lost their jobs. It shows a general disconnect with the plight of the poor American, maybe he should eat some Ramen noodles for a few months.

[thegoldenmackid]

I love how the Politico story frames the story, it's not Obama plays 24 rounds of golf, but rather "President Obama ties George W. Bush on Golf." One is such a non-story, a little bit of presidential trivia, but the other story sounds like it's a huge, ridiculous number.




Well, first, the Obama family already had money from his book sales and other sources of income, so while I'm sure that the presidential salary is nothing to blush at for the Obama's, it is also not their only source of income. That said, I still find it odd that we're playing Hypocrisy Hockey on this one—well aside from the obvious partisan hackery of bringing up the issue in the first place.

Is it required that the President must wear sackcloth before he can criticize the wealth-destroying leaders of Wall Street, who took massive amounts of funding from the US government in order to save their business—and the US economy—from their disastrous decision-making?

Is there a spending limit? Maybe the Obama's could stay at a Motel 6, enjoy breakfast at the Waffle House, and then collect cans in order to make such a criticism?

Furthermore, Obama's criticism wasn't about executive spending, but rather the failure of large Wall Street banks to lend out money while also giving out $10 million and $20 million bonuses. This is a valid criticism of a corporate policy that is hurting the American economy while simultaneously benefiting a few. His problem wasn't with gold-plated bathtubs, or the other baroques of Wall Street, but with the failure of the banks to lend money.
This^^^

[Zombie Acorn]

Well, first, the Obama family already had money from his book sales and other sources of income, so while I'm sure that the presidential salary is nothing to blush at for the Obama's, it is also not their only source of income. That said, I still find it odd that we're playing Hypocrisy Hockey on this one—well aside from the obvious partisan hackery of bringing up the issue in the first place.

Is it required that the President must wear sackcloth before he can criticize the wealth-destroying leaders of Wall Street, who took massive amounts of funding from the US government in order to save their business—and the US economy—from their disastrous decision-making?

Is there a spending limit? Maybe the Obama's could stay at a Motel 6, enjoy breakfast at the Waffle House, and then collect cans in order to make such a criticism?

Furthermore, Obama's criticism wasn't about executive spending, but rather the failure of large Wall Street banks to lend out money while also giving out $10 million and $20 million bonuses. This is a valid criticism of a corporate policy that is hurting the American economy while simultaneously benefiting a few. His problem wasn't with gold-plated bathtubs, or the other baroques of Wall Street, but with the failure of the banks to lend money.

Again, criticisms of executive pay have been shouted from the left for years now, this isn't a new thing that appeared after the bailouts.

Also I would have more respect for a president who stayed at a normal hotel then one who stayed in one that was $4k a night while a large amount of people are wondering if they will even have a house to stay in the next month. Show me a president that is going to stay in a motel 6, not spend excessively until the economy is back on track and ill show you the next person I want to vote for.

[dmr727]

$600 is excessive.

You must not have a wife.

[thegoldenmackid]

Again, criticisms of executive pay have been shouted from the left for years now, this isn't a new thing that appeared after the bailouts.

Also I would have more respect for a president who stayed at a normal hotel then one who stayed in one that was $4k a night while a large amount of people are wondering if they will even have a house to stay in the next month.

I don't see how this would be any different then Camp David? The President of the United States is not going to start staying at Motel 6 - it's not going to happen. There is a reason why GM gives him a Cadillac and not a Saturn (well...now there are other reasons) to drive. Whatever the case, I stand by at the end of the day all that matters is the overall expense. Bush spent a lot of days not in DC - so even if Obama drops $28,000 this week on his hotel - the reality is that its minimal in the grand scheme of things. The secret service budget is clearly way more.

[obeygiant]

Unless Michelle is wearing a solid gold diamond studded dress strung together with polar bear whiskers and walking on a bed of starving children, I don't care what she wears.

Presidents and first ladies are under enormous pressure, more than most of us ever experience, so take a big break or spend a grand on an outfit. Knock yourself out.

[thegoldenmackid]

Unless Michelle is wearing a solid gold diamond studded dress strung together with polar bear whiskers and walking on a bed of starving children, I don't care what she wears.

I heard the bed sheets were made using the furs of 25 baby pandas.

[hulugu]

Again, criticisms of executive pay have been shouted from the left for years now, this isn't a new thing that appeared after the bailouts.

Are we talking about "the left" or Obama? I thought we were talking about Obama. And, furthermore, is this populism correct?

Also I would have more respect for a president who stayed at a normal hotel then one who stayed in one that was $4k a night while a large amount of people are wondering if they will even have a house to stay in the next month.

The president can't stay at a normal hotel because of security concerns, but let's assume that this doesn't matter. What price would satisfy you? $300 a night? Maybe a little more? What price is satisfactory for people who simultaneously attack populism from the left, but yet get their dander up for the president spending some of his earnings for a vacation with his wife and kids?

Unless Michelle is wearing a solid gold diamond studded dress strung together with polar bear whiskers and walking on a bed of starving children, I don't care what she wears.

Presidents and first ladies are under enormous pressure, more than most of us ever experience, so take a big break or spend a grand on an outfit. Knock yourself out.

Thank you. The phrase "A solid gold dress strung together with polar bear whiskers" should be the new internet meme for profligacy.

[dukebound85]

I heard the bed sheets were made using the furs of 25 baby pandas.

thats sounds kinda comfy...where can i get one? would go nice with my dalmatian jacket


The president can't stay at a normal hotel because of security concerns, but let's assume that this doesn't matter. What price would satisfy you? $300 a night? Maybe a little more? What price is satisfactory for people who simultaneously attack populism from the left, but yet get their dander up for the president spending some of his earnings for a vacation with his wife and kids?



No no no...the President must be on welfare and have food stamps and get unemployment pay while not having healthcare!

If he has a better life than that well shame on him!

[bradl]

Criticisms from the left about executive pay came long before bank bailouts. Lets not forget who is cutting Obama's check also. What has congress done recently to deserve a pay raise?

This is a valid question. So let's do a little bit of math.

It was just recently verified that Steve Jobs was paid $1 in executive bonuses this year. Let's go a bit further and say that he was only paid $1 this year. Safe to say, no?

Let's apply that to Congress. And further, let's take a couple of the newest congressmen: Al Franken (http://www.legistorm.com/member/999/Sen_Al_Franken.html) and Bill Owens (http://www.legistorm.com/member/1004/Rep_Bill_Owens.html).

By default, Congressional base starting salary is $174,000 per year (http://www.legistorm.com/blog/congressional-members-receive-a-2009-salary-increase.html). Obviously, others make (much) more. Currently, outside of other business ventures (and I put no political agenda/spin on that), the Speaker of the House, the Majority and Minority Leaders of each Party, and the President Pro Tempore make the most (http://www.legistorm.com/member_of_congress_salaries.html).

So.. assuming that outside those four people, every Congressman/woman makes the base salary, you're looking at $75,516,000/year for the House, and $8,178,000/year for the Senate. Add in those (Majority/Minority/Pro-Tem make $193,400/year, while Speaker makes $223,500/year), and you get $8,578,200/year for the Senate, and $75,709,400/year for the House.

Total (and once again, assuming base salary for all but the aforementioned) salary for Congress: $84,287,600 per year.

Let's go a bit further. Screw the mid-term elections; let's say that every seat comes up for grabs in 2012. By then, Congress would have made $337,150,400. Again, this is with just base salary.

Not even a billion dollars here, and someone is complaining about $600 shoes. Every company that collapsed in this decade sqaundered more than what Congress makes: Enron. Tyco. WorldCom. Arthur Andersen. Lehman Brothers. Merrill Lynch. CountryWide. IndyMac. Washington Mutual.

Yet someone is complaining about shoes.

One share of stock in Google is nearly equivalent to this, yet we don't see him complaining about that.

Anywho, I'm going off on a tangent about the utter nonsense of the OP's post. I'll just concentrate on yours.

What needs to happen, is for Legislative and Executive Branches of this government to take a play out of Job's and Schwarzennegger's books, and throw their salary at the National Debt. No, it won't make a huge dent, but not only would it help, but would endear them to the people. Could save some votes as well..

BL.

[Zombie Acorn]

You must not have a wife.

No I don't, I wouldn't ever have one that required 600 dollar shoes either, it is very unattractive.

[obeygiant]

profligacy.

I had to look that up. :D

[Zombie Acorn]

This is a valid question. So let's do a little bit of math.

It was just recently verified that Steve Jobs was paid $1 in executive bonuses this year. Let's go a bit further and say that he was only paid $1 this year. Safe to say, no?

Let's apply that to Congress. And further, let's take a couple of the newest congressmen: Al Franken (http://www.legistorm.com/member/999/Sen_Al_Franken.html) and Bill Owens (http://www.legistorm.com/member/1004/Rep_Bill_Owens.html).

By default, Congressional base starting salary is $174,000 per year (http://www.legistorm.com/blog/congressional-members-receive-a-2009-salary-increase.html). Obviously, others make (much) more. Currently, outside of other business ventures (and I put no political agenda/spin on that), the Speaker of the House, the Majority and Minority Leaders of each Party, and the President Pro Tempore make the most (http://www.legistorm.com/member_of_congress_salaries.html).

So.. assuming that outside those four people, every Congressman/woman makes the base salary, you're looking at $75,516,000/year for the House, and $8,178,000/year for the Senate. Add in those (Majority/Minority/Pro-Tem make $193,400/year, while Speaker makes $223,500/year), and you get $8,578,200/year for the Senate, and $75,709,400/year for the House.

Total (and once again, assuming base salary for all but the aforementioned) salary for Congress: $84,287,600 per year.

Let's go a bit further. Screw the mid-term elections; let's say that every seat comes up for grabs in 2012. By then, Congress would have made $337,150,400. Again, this is with just base salary.

Not even a billion dollars here, and someone is complaining about $600 shoes. Every company that collapsed in this decade sqaundered more than what Congress makes: Enron. Tyco. WorldCom. Arthur Andersen. Lehman Brothers. Merrill Lynch. CountryWide. IndyMac. Washington Mutual.

Yet someone is complaining about shoes.

One share of stock in Google is nearly equivalent to this, yet we don't see him complaining about that.

Anywho, I'm going off on a tangent about the utter nonsense of the OP's post. I'll just concentrate on yours.

What needs to happen, is for Legislative and Executive Branches of this government to take a play out of Job's and Schwarzennegger's books, and throw their salary at the National Debt. No, it won't make a huge dent, but not only would it help, but would endear them to the people. Could save some votes as well..

BL.

The amounts are really irrelevant to me, its the principle of the issue, should they be getting raises when we are seeing all of the problems we currently are? If I had them on payroll I would be giving them demotions if not firing, and I think throwing their salaries at the national debt would be commendable.

In the grand scheme of things 600 dollar shoes and 4000/night stays won't add up to much, but it says alot about someones character when the nation is down.

[dmr727]

In the grand scheme of things 600 dollar shoes and 4000/night stays won't add up to much, but it says alot about someones character when the nation is down.

I see you have two machines listed in your sig. In such a down economy, I find your computing excess to be morally repugnant.

Where do you draw the line?

[Leareth]

$600 is excessive.

not really
a good pair of business casual shoes is easily a couple hundred for a well made quality pair. and when someone is in middle of attention, she cant get away with cheap shoddy stuff.

also I believe she wear a size 11 or 12 shoes. NOT easy to get nice comfortable shoes for cheap at that size. Some major manufacturers stop at size 8.5

I wear a size 9.5 or 10 and have hell of a time finding attractive comfortable shoes. I will pay $400 for a pair of shoes that will fit, look good and I can wear for years.

[Zombie Acorn]

I see you have two machines listed in your sig. In such a down economy, I find your computing excess to be morally repugnant.

Where do you draw the line?

Both of which are necessary for the operation of my business.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Both of which are necessary for the operation of my business.
It's a pot/kettle/black scenario. Are you going to type there and say that you don't buy things you don't need?

And you couldn't have saved some money by buying one machine to do your work? Even if it took a little more time?

[Zombie Acorn]

not really
a good pair of business casual shoes is easily a couple hundred for a well made quality pair. and when someone is in middle of attention, she cant get away with cheap shoddy stuff.

also I believe she wear a size 11 or 12 shoes. NOT easy to get nice comfortable shoes for cheap at that size. Some major manufacturers stop at size 8.5

I wear a size 9.5 or 10 and have hell of a time finding attractive comfortable shoes. I will pay $400 for a pair of shoes that will fit, look good and I can wear for years.

Ive never heard of someone complaining that a politician/politicians wife wore too cheap of clothing, I have heard plenty the opposite however.

I don't shop for women's shoes, but your prices still seem excessive to me, I imagine you are paying for label instead of quality.

[63dot]

Ive never heard of someone complaining that a politician/politicians wife wore too cheap of clothing, I have heard plenty the opposite however.

I don't shop for women's shoes, but your prices still seem excessive to me, I imagine you are paying for label instead of quality.

Way back when, the press attacked Mrs. Truman for her inexpensive taste in clothes and furniture.

The press will take any angle they could. Remember attorney Marcia Clark's awful Supercuts hairdo? Hilary Clinton had some dowdy looks in her first lady of Arkansas days and the press was not nice to her. And when her daughter (and other first daughters like Chelsea Clinton) were also targets for the press.

[bobber205]

InTheNet's presence in a thread after he has been rebuked.

http://circlespace.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/tumbleweed_sum1.jpg

[Zombie Acorn]

It's a pot/kettle/black scenario. Are you going to type there and say that you don't buy things you don't need?

I don't get a paycheck from the tax payers for one, secondly I do not subscribe to the materialism and excess that is promoted in US culture. I own nothing that would be considered excessive by the average American.

And you couldn't have saved some money by buying one machine to do your work? Even if it took a little more time?

No, I need both operating systems and a mac pro costs much more then my laptop + building one. Bootcamp with one laptop was not an option.

[Zombie Acorn]

Way back when, the press attacked Mrs. Truman for her inexpensive taste in clothes and furniture.

The press will take any angle they could. Remember attorney Marcia Clark's awful Supercuts hairdo? Hilary Clinton had some dowdy looks in her first lady of Arkansas days and the press was not nice to her. And when her daughter (and other first daughters like Chelsea Clinton) were also targets for the press.

I wasn't alive for the first one, and I don't remember the second one so I will concede on that issue. In recent history all I have seen is people complaining about over expensive attire though. You don't need to spend a bunch to look good either.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Sounds like Zombie could benefit from communism. It's nice to see that you don't live outside your means. :)

[Badandy]

In the grand scheme of things 600 dollar shoes and 4000/night stays won't add up to much, but it says alot about someones character when the nation is down.

So the President and his family should live how a family with the average national income does?

My god, Zombie, it's a moderately expensive pair of shoes. Women's shoes are expensive to start out with, and then when you add in how larger sizes are very rare, you get that price. Also, we don't know if they even paid for them; many visible people in society (actors, athletes, etc...) are given these things as gifts. How do you know the shoes weren't a gift from either the company itself or from a family or friend?

It's unimportant, even symbolically, and the fact that you keep harping on it is pretty disappointing considering your posts are usually reasonable. The retail price of an outfit I go out in on any given day can range from $100 to $1000, and I'm not the a member of the family that is in control of the post powerful nation in the world. My god, let her wear what she wants. Once you're the President or in the President's immediately family, we want you to look good, and if part of that is indulging in an expensive piece of attire that boosts self-confidence or self-image, so be it. Or are you the type who thinks that a President making a speech in front of corn-farmers in overalls and a straw of hay out of his mouth is something other than a photo-op?

[dmr727]

I do not subscribe to the materialism and excess that is promoted in US culture. I own nothing that would be considered excessive by the average American.


Communist! Communist! :p

[hulugu]

I had to look that up. :D

You should have seen me trying to spell it. I had to Google since it's not in Dictionary.app.

...The retail price of an outfit I go out in on any given day can range from $100 to $1000...

Whatever Mr. Money Bags!

[63dot]

I wasn't alive for the first one, and I don't remember the second one so I will concede on that issue. In recent history all I have seen is people complaining about over expensive attire though. You don't need to spend a bunch to look good either.

I agree. I think there are quite a few clothes that are affordable which look good.

However, I doubt that any first lady of either party, will have had many casual trips to Macy's, Kohl's, or Mervyn's. National security and the increased danger public figures in politics face these days does not make it safe, so it's not impossible to imagine a first lady wearing a $600 dollar pair of shoes. Did she buy it as a young associate attorney? I highly doubt it. It's more likely under her new circumstances and visibility, she bought those shoes while First Lady. In that context, they are not really that crazy expensive.

[Zombie Acorn]

So the President and his family should live how a family with the average national income does?

My god, Zombie, it's a moderately expensive pair of shoes. Women's shoes are expensive to start out with, and then when you add in how larger sizes are very rare, you get that price. Also, we don't know if they even paid for them; many visible people in society (actors, athletes, etc...) are given these things as gifts. How do you know the shoes weren't a gift from either the company itself or from a family or friend?

It's unimportant, even symbolically, and the fact that you keep harping on it is pretty disappointing considering your posts are usually reasonable. The retail price of an outfit I go out in on any given day can range from $100 to $1000, and I'm not the a member of the family that is in control of the post powerful nation in the world. My god, let her wear what she wants. Once you're the President or in the President's immediately family, we want you to look good. Or are you the type who thinks that a President making a speech in front of corn-farmers in overalls and a straw of hay out of his mouth is something other than a photo-op?

Im not really harping on this particular instance per say, personally I believe $600 dollars is excessive for shoes generally, I didn't say we should crucify someone for it, I just think its in bad taste at the current time.

I would like to see a politician who isn't so detached from their constituents, and that seems to be all there is these days.

[63dot]

Im not really harping on this particular instance per say, personally I believe $600 dollars is excessive for shoes generally, I didn't say we should crucify someone for it, I just think its in bad taste at the current time.

I would like to see a politician who isn't so detached from their constituents, and that seems to be all there is these days.

What's going to happen is if there is enough uproar over these shoes, however petty I think this news story is, I don't think we will see the First Lady wearing that pair again.

So far, there was an expensive bailout and the banks paid back, with interest. The stock market has seen some moderate rallies that have not been seen in a long time. Some housing markets show a possibility of rebounding some in 2010. Jobs may rebound, but that could take another year.

But in the context of four years, I think the President has done pretty well given the circumstances he was handed and we not even into his second year. He told 60 Minutes he wouldn't rate his job as an A, but a B+. I give the President about a B-, but that's good compared to W who rarely ever passed the C barrier in my book.

Obama came into this job knowing at some point, people would perceive this recession as one that W built, as to one which Obama built. People have short term memories, and what sectors of this recession which don't recover will likely blame whoever is in office. Being fair, the 90s were the best decade of economic growth, and in the 8 years W was there, it only went downhill. The fact that Obama not only slowed down the slide, but slightly reversed it in less than a year is pretty good.

[Zombie Acorn]

What's going to happen is if there is enough uproar over these shoes, however petty I think this news story is, I don't think we will see the First Lady wearing that pair again.

So far, there was an expensive bailout and the banks paid back, with interest. The stock market has seen some moderate rallies that have not been seen in a long time. Some housing markets show a possibility of rebounding some in 2010. Jobs may rebound, but that could take another year.

But in the context of four years, I think the President has done pretty well given the circumstances he was handed and we not even into his second year. He told 60 Minutes he wouldn't rate his job as an A, but a B+. I give the President about a B-, but that's good compared to W who rarely ever passed the C barrier in my book.

Obama came into this job knowing at some point, people would perceive this recession as one that W built, as to one which Obama built. People have short term memories, and what sectors of this recession which don't recover will likely blame whoever is in office. Being fair, the 90s were the best decade of economic growth, and in the 8 years W was there, it only went downhill. The fact that Obama not only slowed down the slide, but slightly reversed it in less than a year is pretty good.

We haven't felt the repercussions of spending yet I fear, by either president. I am a little wary of counting my eggs before they hatch, Obama himself warned of a double dip recession which I guess is good that he is at least acknowledging we have a problem on both fronts. I refuse to assign a grade until I see how Obama's major policies roll out. If he can get the *******s in congress under control for health reform he will be up a few points in my book. People are tired of politics, they want stuff accomplished.

[Iscariot]

I don't care how much President Obama spends on clothing, vacations, restaurants or nights out.
I don't care how much Michelle Obama spends on clothing, vacations, restaurants or nights out.
I don't care how much Sarah Palin spends on clothing, vacations, restaurants or nights out (the McCain campaign was free to spend donations how it saw fit).
I don't care how much President Bush spends on clothing, vacations, restaurants or nights out.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I don't care how much President Obama spends on clothing, vacations, restaurants or nights out.
I don't care how much Michelle Obama spends on clothing, vacations, restaurants or nights out.
I don't care how much Sarah Palin spends on clothing, vacations, restaurants or nights out (the McCain campaign was free to spend donations how it saw fit).
I don't care how much President Bush spends on clothing, vacations, restaurants or nights out.
5._but I'll be damned if Joe Biden gets the slightest bit of happiness from my tax dollars.

[thegoldenmackid]

Four pages on a six hundred dollar pair of shoes? Seriously? 13 Seconds In... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1PMmG1Crb4)

[Zombie Acorn]

I don't care how much President Obama spends on clothing, vacations, restaurants or nights out.
I don't care how much Michelle Obama spends on clothing, vacations, restaurants or nights out.
I don't care how much Sarah Palin spends on clothing, vacations, restaurants or nights out (the McCain campaign was free to spend donations how it saw fit).
I don't care how much President Bush spends on clothing, vacations, restaurants or nights out.


I don't either when our economy is on the up and up and unemployment isn't high. At times like these I think its best to show a little restraint. People don't want to hear about 4000 dollar per night vacations when they have been out of the job for a year and are struggling to get by.

I don't think this is a huge issue, but its a starting ground for a bigger problem that I see from politicians in general.

[63dot]

I am a little wary of counting my eggs before they hatch,

I am talking about the few eggs that have hatched. We do have a long way to go.

The numbers are there, and while small and generally headed in the right direction, are still up for debate. Why isn't the stock market in the mid 11,000s? Why hasn't real estate rebounded with double digits in every state? Why is unemployment double digits? So these eggs, while hatched, are small but at least not DOA.

Like it or not, while we pull slowly out of this recession (not quickly), whether it's in Obama's second term, or in a Republican's first term after January 2013, the US government is going to keep on spending money. We have two wars right now, we need to spend to make health reform work in a manner that can have long term savings, and we can't slack on our infrastructure.

[Badandy]

Being fair, the 90s were the best decade of economic growth, and in the 8 years W was there, it only went downhill. The fact that Obama not only slowed down the slide, but slightly reversed it in less than a year is pretty good.

Being fair, while Clinton did an admirable job with the economy, a large part of the growth and prosperity was due to the burgeoning tech industry - something that probably would have happened under any President. Similarly, we can't discount the fact that 9/11, and not solely Bush, eroded confidence in the capital markets. The tech bubble bursting a year after Clinton's Presidency also was pretty foreseeable (the question was when) and, in my view, unable to be prevented given the crazy high growth rates companies in the industry had. This just compounded an already bad situation. So, I don't necessarily think the economy we saw under Bush was an accurate reflection of his economic policy. Detractors of him will say he caused all of these problems and his supporters will say he inherited all of Clinton's problems. Neither are accurate; the problems we saw under Bush reflected the natural progression of events we saw under Clinton, and, indeed, prior Presidents. Bush got a pretty raw deal in terms of the domestic economy.

I'm not being an apologist for are his massive spending increases, by the way.

So my points is: I don't think it's fair to judge the merit of a President's economic policy in the first year they're in power. I don't know if it's even fair to judge them after four years, but there are obviously some exceptions. Similarly, I think the debt we're racking up is really worrisome, and that will be attributed correctly to both Bush and Obama. What do I care if the unemployment rate fluctuates by a percentage point or two here and there? The stakes of the bets we've made under Bush and Obama dealing with this financial crisis are far higher than that. We won't find out if those bets are effective in the next year or two, even if things do partially recover in the short-term. In the same vein, I'd caution people in both saying our terrible economy is Bush's fault and the reason it's improving is because of Obama. It's not that clear-cut.

Just typing out my thoughts, I don't know if it even relates that much to the quoted post.

[hulugu]

I don't either when our economy is on the up and up and unemployment isn't high. At times like these I think its best to show a little restraint....

This sounds like you're flirting with a bit of magical thinking. At best, we're talking about symbolic gestures aren't we? These don't really matter in the great wide economy, in the formation or execution of economic policies, or really for anything, except for ink for the political hacks.

...What do I care if the unemployment rate fluctuates by a percentage point or two here and there? The stakes of the bets we've made under Bush and Obama dealing with this financial crisis are far higher than that. We won't find out if those bets are effective in the next year or two, even if things do partially recover in the short-term. In the same vein, I'd caution people in both saying our terrible economy is Bush's fault and the reason it's improving is because of Obama. It's not that clear-cut.

Just typing out my thoughts, I don't know if it even relates that much to the quoted post.

Good post. I think the reactions to unemployment fluctuations, or any other economic divination we've decided to use, are just an attempt to get a psychological handle on the situation. If it's getting better, maybe spending a few more dollars at Christmas won't doom me, if it's getting worse, maybe I should keep that slightly out-of-date can of corned beef hash. It's really just an attempt to feel our way through.

At least that's why I pay any attention to these numbers in the short-term, even though I know that most economic policies take years to make their mark. The Bush years still don't look very good, considering we've effectively lost a decade economically, but I tend to agree that lining up the Bush administration in the crosshairs ignores several other deserving targets.

[Rampant.A.I.]

I don't either when our economy is on the up and up and unemployment isn't high. At times like these I think its best to show a little restraint. People don't want to hear about 4000 dollar per night vacations when they have been out of the job for a year and are struggling to get by.

I don't think this is a huge issue, but its a starting ground for a bigger problem that I see from politicians in general.

Don't need to hear about it, or don't need to obsess about it?

Why isn't there similar outrage directed at other celebrities for living above their means?

[rhsgolfer33]

You must not have a wife.

Or maybe he lives in reality, where the vast majority of Americans could never afford to spend $600 on shoes? For many Americans that is almost one months rent, groceries for the month, or payment on two cars. Those that can afford $600 shoes are definitely in the minority. It is not hard to get excellent shoes for well under $600, men's or women's.

I don't really care how much Obama spends, but I do think spending his vacation in a $4,000 a night vacation rental is in bad taste given the current economic situation. Most American's can't spend $4,000 for an entire vacation, let alone one night. He's certainly entitled to spend his money how he chooses, however, if I were him I would have went for a more modestly priced vacation.

[Eraserhead]

but I do think spending his vacation in a $4,000 a night vacation rental is in bad taste given the current economic situation. Most American's can't spend $4,000 for an entire vacation, let alone one night.

You won't get adequate security without paying that sort of money. He can't just stay in a hostel.

[Eraserhead]

Or maybe he lives in reality, where the vast majority of Americans could never afford to spend $600 on shoes? For many Americans that is almost one months rent, groceries for the month, or payment on two cars. Those that can afford $600 shoes are definitely in the minority. It is not hard to get excellent shoes for well under $600, men's or women's.

Obama has one of the top 10 most important jobs in the world, his role is more important than any individual company CEO and certainly well beyond the responsibility of any average American.

To be perfectly honest with that level of responsibility he should be able to buy his wife $60,000 pairs of shoes if that is what makes her happy.

[skunk]

How can those who keep trumpeting America's greatness simultaneously be so very petty? :confused:

[roadbloc]

What Recession? Michelle Obama Wears $635 Shoes on $4000 Per Night Hawaii Vacation
Monday, December 28, 2009
Free Republic
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2416710/posts
Barack Obama enjoys living like a king, so why shouldn't Michelle Obama live like a queen? The First Lady was photographed last night in Hawaii wearing $635 per pair designer shoes by Maison Martin Margiela. The shoe style is called "Leather open toe flat pumps." It features a "thin nude leather strap across the top of the toe." A woman lucky enough to have a job in this economy and working for the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour would have to work 88 hours (without taxes taken out) to make enough to pay for Michelle Obama's shoes. If she can get them on sale, they would only set her back $445 for 62 hours work. The Obamas are staying at an $8.9 million estate for an estimated $4000 per night. To cover the Obama's ten night stay, the minimum wage worker would have to work two-and-a-half years (before taxes) to come up with the $40,000 Obama is reportedly laying out. Obama has lectured Americans about how they can not expect to live their lives as indulgently as they have in the past. He has lectured businesses about their travel and pay. Yet Obama and his wife live like kings and queens. The news media has yet to call him out on his extravagance when there is 10% unemployment with no sign of the employment picture improving this coming year.

:rolleyes:

Yawn.

Mrs Obama will probably have to look presentable, smart and well turned out, probably in agreement to her husband being president. $600 or roughly £380 in my case seems okay as long as she doesn't buy a pair every week.

Mr Obama will need a lot of security to make sure he isn't popped off by one of your Sarah Palin supporting friends. $4000 or £2,500 is fine.

You should see what our politicians claim from the tax pot.
:rolleyes:

[Thomas Veil]

Hey, if you've got the money, you can buy expensive shoes for yourself.

You buy cheap shoes if you're gonna throw them away.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2m81vmu.jpg

[yg17]

Yawn.

Mrs Obama will probably have to look presentable, smart and well turned out, probably in agreement to her husband being president. $600 or roughly £380 in my case seems okay as long as she doesn't buy a pair every week.

Mr Obama will need a lot of security to make sure he isn't popped off by one of your Sarah Palin supporting friends. $4000 or £2,500 is fine.

You should see what our politicians claim from the tax pot.
:rolleyes:

Bingo. Obama can't exactly stay at the Honolulu Airport Motel 6 :rolleyes:

[sushi]

$600 is excessive.
Yes it is!

You must not have a wife.
Snort.

In my case, I'm lucky to have the wife that I do. :)


I don't care how much<snip>
My sentiments exactly. :)

Or maybe he lives in reality, where the vast majority of Americans could never afford to spend $600 on shoes? For many Americans that is almost one months rent, groceries for the month, or payment on two cars. Those that can afford $600 shoes are definitely in the minority. It is not hard to get excellent shoes for well under $600, men's or women's.
Completely agree.

I would also add that expensive clothes does not make a person.

I don't really care how much Obama spends, but I do think spending his vacation in a $4,000 a night vacation rental is in bad taste given the current economic situation. Most American's can't spend $4,000 for an entire vacation, let alone one night. He's certainly entitled to spend his money how he chooses, however, if I were him I would have went for a more modestly priced vacation.
Sage advice.

I think that it would have been prudent for him to consider this considering the current economic situation in the US.

[abijnk]

I didn't read the full thread, so I don't know if you guys are still on topic or if this has been mentioned, but here it goes:

There is an enormous difference between the Obama's spending money they rightfully earned and Wall Street bankers paying themselves large bonuses when their banks are in such dire straights that they need tax payer money. Anyone who can't see this has to be so willfully ignorant that they are beyond hope of convincing otherwise. The Obama's earned their money, Wall Street paid themselves for running their banks into the ground. Where is the equivalence?

People seem to have completely forgotten that Obama was rich BEFORE he was President. He hasn't been staying at Super 8's for a LONG time now. Why would anyone expect that to change?

[Zombie Acorn]

Don't need to hear about it, or don't need to obsess about it?

Why isn't there similar outrage directed at other celebrities for living above their means?

Celebrities aren't in control of public policy and they aren't getting a pay check from the tax payers.

[spork183]

This is an outrage. I'm currently knitting explosives into my underwear as fast as I can knit...

Just another case of the party who is out taking potshots at the party that is in. How much time do we waste throwing crap around in the name of politics? This is 3 minutes I have lost forever over a pair of shoes. I'm sure Laura never wore any shoes that cost more than $15, which as we all know is the sensible upper price limit in this economy...

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Celebrities aren't in control of public policy and they aren't getting a pay check from the tax payers.
The president gets $300,000 from the American taxpayer. That is their money. They can do with it what they want. The rest of the money the Obamas have made in other ways and they can do what they want with it as well.

[fehhkk]

Saw the article, then saw the OP's signature.

Man, how can people lack any sort of common sense to even say they would vote or support for such a ditz.

[dmr727]

Celebrities aren't in control of public policy and they aren't getting a pay check from the tax payers.

Then why not argue about the Obamas' salary instead of how they choose to spend it?

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Then why not argue about the Obamas' salary instead of how they choose to spend it?
It doesn't matter. The president could make $0, he's rich anyway. People like Zombie and InTheNet would still find their spending offensive.

[Zombie Acorn]

The president gets $300,000 from the American taxpayer. That is their money. They can do with it what they want. The rest of the money the Obamas have made in other ways and they can do what they want with it as well.

Obama shoudl continue lavish spending then, he won't have to worry about a 300,000 dollar pay check next term guaranteed.

It doesn't matter. The president could make $0, he's rich anyway. People like Zombie and InTheNet would still find their spending offensive.

Offensive? Not really. Stupid given the circumstances? Yes.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Obama shoudl continue lavish spending then, he won't have to worry about a 300,000 dollar pay check next term guaranteed.



Offensive? Not really. Stupid given the circumstances? Yes.
What fool bases his or her political opinion off shoes? Why should voters care that much about how the Obamas spend their money? And I like how your argument went from "that's our tax dollars" to "they shouldn't spend like that in these economic times." :rolleyes:

[yg17]

Obama shoudl continue lavish spending then, he won't have to worry about a 300,000 dollar pay check next term guaranteed.



Offensive? Not really. Stupid given the circumstances? Yes.

If Americans don't vote for him again because Michelle wore a $600 pair of shoes, then Americans are even dumber than I thought.

[Zombie Acorn]

What fool bases his or her political opinion off shoes? Why should voters care that much about how the Obamas spend their money? And I like how your argument went from "that's our tax dollars" to "they shouldn't spend like that in these economic times." :rolleyes:

Not just shoes, choice of vacation and general disregard for the times people are living in. It is our tax dollars, when the economy is down and you are on payroll you shouldn't be spending excessively. If a CEO took compensations on downed performance years you would be bitching, yet when the president and congress get raises through a recession and spend excessively its fine.

If Americans don't vote for him again because Michelle wore a $600 pair of shoes, then Americans are even dumber than I thought.

His approval rating isn't exactly high right now, and it surely doesn't help.

[spork183]

Obama shoudl continue lavish spending then, he won't have to worry about a 300,000 dollar pay check next term guaranteed.



Offensive? Not really. Stupid given the circumstances? Yes.

I think he should set a new precedent and funnel a bunch of taxpayer dollars to a defense contractor he has strong ties with. Oh, that's already been done.

[Zombie Acorn]

I think he should set a new precedent and funnel a bunch of taxpayer dollars to a defense contractor he has strong ties with. Oh, that's already been done.

Thus the reason why Bush was a ****** president, why would we want to do that?

[dmr727]

Offensive? Not really. Stupid given the circumstances? Yes.

Okay, so when should someone decide to spend money then? If I strip it all back to the bare necessities - sell the cars, move into a studio apartment, and eat ramen every day - I can support myself and my wife on about 1/10 of my take home salary. You obviously don't want me putting the other 9/10 into the economy, so I suppose I should just shove it all under a mattress until the day I die.

That's obviously one extreme. The other is that I spend it however I see fit. I don't need a MBP, but I wanted one, so I have one. Where is the line? Should I look up the median income for my zip code and spend no more than whatever that number is? Or maybe the median for the entire country? Since we're in a recession, perhaps take 20% off that number? 40%?

What do you think is smart?

[arkitect]

If I strip it all back to the bare necessities - sell the cars, move into a studio apartment, and eat ramen every day
You mean, move to Tokyo?

;)

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Not just shoes, choice of vacation and general disregard for the times people are living in. It is our tax dollars, when the economy is down and you are on payroll you shouldn't be spending excessively. If a CEO took compensations on downed performance years you would be bitching, yet when the president and congress get raises through a recession and spend excessively its fine.
It's HIS money! It's up to HIM how it's spent. How can you not get that through your skull? The tax payers can't say, "hey we're giving you this paycheck, but it's only redeemable at Red Robin and Blue Oyster Cult concerts."

[dmr727]

You mean, move to Tokyo?


Ha! Sounds like fun to me. I've always thought it'd be cool to live there. :)

[yg17]

Not just shoes, choice of vacation and general disregard for the times people are living in. It is our tax dollars, when the economy is down and you are on payroll you shouldn't be spending excessively. If a CEO took compensations on downed performance years you would be bitching, yet when the president and congress get raises through a recession and spend excessively its fine.

You can't criticize his choice of vacation, it's a stupid argument. For security's sake, he can't just stay at any hotel, I'd imagine he's in some sort of condo or resort where the Secret Service can protect him. The President can't just walk into any cheap hotel and rent a room, the SS will not allow that.



His approval rating isn't exactly high right now, and it surely doesn't help.

It's about where Bush's was when he got re-elected.

[Zombie Acorn]

Okay, so when should someone decide to spend money then? If I strip it all back to the bare necessities - sell the cars, move into a studio apartment, and eat ramen every day - I can support myself and my wife on about 1/10 of my take home salary. You obviously don't want me putting the other 9/10 into the economy, so I suppose I should just shove it all under a mattress until the day I die.

That's obviously one extreme. The other is that I spend it however I see fit. I don't need a MBP, but I wanted one, so I have one. Where is the line? Should I look up the median income for my zip code and spend no more than whatever that number is? Or maybe the median for the entire country? Since we're in a recession, perhaps take 20% off that number? 40%?

What do you think is smart?

You aren't a public figure, I don't see whats so tough to see about this. Imagine a CEO of a company (this won't be hard because it happened) getting compensation in a recession in which profits were way down, workers were put out of work, and you go buy some 1000 dollar shoes with the compensation. What is the reaction you expect? Public outrage? Yes.

This particular spending wasn't huge, but its starting to border the point where people are going to see it as bad taste.

[dmr727]

If a CEO took compensations on downed performance years you would be bitching, yet when the president and congress get raises through a recession and spend excessively its fine.

But people are bitching about the compensation of the CEO, not how he/she chooses to spend it. That's what I'm saying. If you don't like the fact that Michelle Obama is buying $600 shoes, don't pay the Obamas enough to afford them.

[yg17]

You aren't a public figure, I don't see whats so tough to see about this. Imagine a CEO of a company (this won't be hard because it happened) getting compensation in a recession in which profits were way down, workers were put out of work, and you go buy some 1000 dollar shoes with the compensation. What is the reaction you expect? Public outrage? Yes.

This particular spending wasn't huge, but its starting to border the point where people are going to see it as bad taste.

The compensation wasn't the problem, it's the fact they got compensated in the first place when they ran their corporations into the ground and needed bailouts. If they earned the compensation, I couldn't give a rat's ass how they spent it.

[mcrain]

It's HIS money! It's up to HIM how it's spent. How can you not get that through your skull? The tax payers can't say, "hey we're giving you this paycheck, but it's only redeemable at Red Robin and Blue Oyster Cult concerts."

His money? Wait a second. She is an attorney. She was in a large Chicago firm. As an attorney in Illinois, I can say that she was making enough money to afford to buy herself $600 shoes.

Anyone know whether the shoes were hers from before the election? Anyone know whether the shoes were given to her?

[Zombie Acorn]

You can't criticize his choice of vacation, it's a stupid argument. For security's sake, he can't just stay at any hotel, I'd imagine he's in some sort of condo or resort where the Secret Service can protect him. The President can't just walk into any cheap hotel and rent a room, the SS will not allow that.

So stay home, I imagine a large amount of people couldn't afford a vacation this year since they didn't have a job.


It's about where Bush's was when he got re-elected.

That worked out well for the nation.

[Zombie Acorn]

But people are bitching about the compensation of the CEO, not how he/she chooses to spend it. That's what I'm saying. If you don't like the fact that Michelle Obama is buying $600 shoes, don't pay the Obamas enough to afford them.

No, they were bitching about what they were spending on. This is why all of the lavish business meetings in Vegas, gold plated trash cans, etc stopped. Its bad taste.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

You aren't a public figure, I don't see whats so tough to see about this. Imagine a CEO of a company (this won't be hard because it happened) getting compensation in a recession in which profits were way down, workers were put out of work, and you go buy some 1000 dollar shoes with the compensation. What is the reaction you expect? Public outrage? Yes.

This particular spending wasn't huge, but its starting to border the point where people are going to see it as bad taste.
Yeah, except the president doesn't get bonuses, he gets a paycheck like everyone else. The president is entitled to his paycheck for doing his job like the rest of us. Those CEOs ran businesses into the ground and accepted bailout money.
I imagine a large amount of people couldn't afford a vacation this year since they didn't have a job.

WTF does that have to do with any?

[yg17]

So stay home, I imagine a large amount of people couldn't afford a vacation this year since they didn't have a job.


So? It's his money. If you can afford something and want it, do you not buy it because a large amount of other people can't afford it?

[Zombie Acorn]

So? It's his money. If you can afford something and want it, do you not buy it because a large amount of other people can't afford it?

If I am in control of their general welfare, yes. If my workers were going part time and being laid off I would not take a $4000/night vacation, only an ******* of a boss would do that.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

So? It's his money. If you can afford something and want it, do you not buy it because a large amount of other people can't afford it?
No. He does not. Did you not see his posts pages back? Zombie is a communist.
If I am in control of their general welfare, yes. If my workers were going part time and being laid off I would not take a $4000/night vacation, only an ******* of a boss would do that.

He's not a boss!
His money? Wait a second. She is an attorney. She was in a large Chicago firm. As an attorney in Illinois, I can say that she was making enough money to afford to buy herself $600 shoes.

Anyone know whether the shoes were hers from before the election? Anyone know whether the shoes were given to her?

Sorry, I was responding to the assertions that Obama was misspending American taxpayer money.

[yg17]

If I am in control of their general welfare, yes. If my workers were going part time and being laid off I would not take a $4000/night vacation, only an ******* of a boss would do that.

He is not in control of their general welfare. He is the president, but he cannot hire or fire them.

[Jason Beck]

Honestly, who cares. 650$ bucks isn't much when you make decent
money as the president. Plus she probably got them for free.

[Zombie Acorn]

He is not in control of their general welfare. He is the president, but he cannot hire or fire them.

So policies that Obama implements do not effect whether or not you keep/lose your job?

Where were you when Bush was in office ****ing up the economy?

[Zombie Acorn]

Honestly, who cares. 650$ bucks isn't much when you make decent
money as the president. Plus she probably got them for free.

This isn't a question of amount, but rather whether its excessive. It would be petty to argue simply about $650 shoes, it does however lead to a bigger issue of whether the President is disconnected from America as a whole.

[dmr727]

No, they were bitching about what they were spending on. This is why all of the lavish business meetings in Vegas, gold plated trash cans, etc stopped. Its bad taste.

Because in that case it was company money. If a CEO is using his/her personal income, I couldn't care less how it's being spent. You might have a problem with how much a CEO is getting paid (and I'll probably agree), but that's a separate issue.

it does however lead to a bigger issue of whether the President is disconnected from America as a whole.

He's a politician - of course he is! :p

[spork183]

This isn't a question of amount, but rather whether its excessive. It would be petty to argue simply about $650 shoes, it does however lead to a bigger issue of whether the President is disconnected from America as a whole.

Zombie, anyone in politics is disconnected from America as a hole (whole). Our politicians are completely removed from reality. If you want proof, look at their health plan, compensation, earmarks, the list goes on. But I digress.

The point of this thread was not to highlight excessive spending. It was to make a partisan political point denigrating the Obamas. Anyone who thinks it was for thoughtful commentary is guilty of excessive thinking, which could be fatal in this current economy.

[hulugu]

But people are bitching about the compensation of the CEO, not how he/she chooses to spend it. That's what I'm saying. If you don't like the fact that Michelle Obama is buying $600 shoes, don't pay the Obamas enough to afford them.

No, they were bitching about what they were spending on. This is why all of the lavish business meetings in Vegas, gold plated trash cans, etc stopped. Its bad taste.

As dmr said, the complaint was about compensation and bonuses that seemed completely divorced from performance, but gold-plated trash-cans were symbolic of a corporate mindset that was so ridiculously baroque it actually destroyed long-term wealth. The problem, however, wasn't the spending by CEOs and others, but their bonuses in spite of a corporation's inability to cover its needs.

Again, I'm not sure why this strikes anyone as so significant, it's just a new version of Edward's haircut.

[Rodimus Prime]

Not just shoes, choice of vacation and general disregard for the times people are living in. It is our tax dollars, when the economy is down and you are on payroll you shouldn't be spending excessively. If a CEO took compensations on downed performance years you would be bitching, yet when the president and congress get raises through a recession and spend excessively its fine.



His approval rating isn't exactly high right now, and it surely doesn't help.


But they do take compensations on down years. Hell some of them take huge bonuses on those years. It makes me sick when they are making 316 times the average worker compared to 20 years ago it was a 20-40 times.

We have companies that have over 10% of there total profit goes to the CEO... Personally I almost think we should start removing CEO pay. At 316 jobs per CEO that sounds like a pretty good deal to me. On top of that of there 316 jobs saved most of it would go back into the economy so it really would save even move.

[Eraserhead]

^^ I definitely agree on that. But Obama isn't in that category or even close on $400k.

[63dot]

His money? Wait a second. She is an attorney. She was in a large Chicago firm. As an attorney in Illinois, I can say that she was making enough money to afford to buy herself $600 shoes.

Anyone know whether the shoes were hers from before the election? Anyone know whether the shoes were given to her?

Hi mcrain,

jefhatfield here!! Great seeing an oldtimer here. I obviously changed my name, but how is the tax law biz?

Anyway, wasn't she an associate attorney and not a partner? Here in the Bay Area, even the public law schools have become expensive and students often get out of school with $50K debt, or more. Rent here is very high, and one of my alma maters have attorneys average $60K after a year or two out of law school, but they tend to be a lot like those Federalist Society types who would rather be MBAs. :) The better paying law firms here, like most of the law schools, tend to hire liberals or liberal moderates. The rare GOP attorneys I know don't get the more lucrative work in Norcal, but that may be the case anywhere, as law school is there to train lawyers, not Southern Baptist Ministers.

I got a full ride scholarship for law school, and so did one of my professors who works in a small city where they start at $44K for assistant DAs and Public Defenders, and I would not practice or have anything to do with law as many of my student or attorney peers feel. I eventually took the business/accounting route instead, but I know you did both so you can relate.There's less stress and better money as a good independent bookkeeper, tax preparer, or accountant in the smaller cities in the SF Bay Area and not even the need for the CPA tag. CFEs do bangup business here. Maybe Chicago is different with how they pay young lawyers.

No attorney I know in my parts wear $600 dollar shoes, and I know a ton of them, but then again neither do accountants I know even though many of them can afford them.

However, she is First Lady of the United States and $600 dollars for shoes is probably what Mrs. Bush, Mrs. Clinton, and Barbara Bush wore with regularity.

[Counterfit]

Michelle Obama is a very glamourous First Lady, as was Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton and all predecessors.
I'm not sure I would use "glamourous" as a term for Laura or Hillary. Graceful and classy, certainly (more so in Laura's case), but not really "glamourous".

There is a reason why GM gives him a Cadillac
That thing is so worked over, I doubt we can really call it a Cadillac still.
The retail price of an outfit I go out in on any given day can range from $100 to $1000
Wow. I might hit the high end of that when I'm skiing, including my skis. Heck, even my tux cost just over half of what my skis did.
Why isn't there similar outrage directed at other celebrities for living above their means?
Like Nicholas Cage (http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/11/17/nicolas.cage.lawsuit/index.html)?
His money? Wait a second. She is an attorney. She was in a large Chicago firm. As an attorney in Illinois, I can say that she was making enough money to afford to buy herself $600 shoes.

Interesting point. She made $115k more in salary than him in 2006. But their total income for that year was almost $1 million, thanks to book royalties.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Like Nicholas Cage (http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/11/17/nicolas.cage.lawsuit/index.html)?


The link you showed is about Cage suing his manager for allegedly embezzling some of his money.

A Hollywood celebrity blowing all of their money on things they don't need with no concern for their own futures is really nothing new.

I skimmed the article, and don't really see any kind of public outrage against Cage.

Not sure how owning "two castles, 15 palatial homes, a flotilla of yachts and a squadron of Rolls Royces" really compares to taking the family on vacation at a really really nice hotel, either.

Either way, I see you've accidentally revealed your own lavish spending, Mr. Bond:

Wow. I might hit the high end of that when I'm skiing, including my skis. Heck, even my tux cost just over half of what my skis did.
:D

Kidding, of course.

Ski equipment is expensive, of course. Especially if you use it with a Tuxedo.

Kidding again.

[Counterfit]

The link you showed is about Cage suing his manager for allegedly embezzling some of his money.

A Hollywood celebrity blowing all of their money on things they don't need with no concern for their own futures is really nothing new.

I skimmed the article, and don't really see any kind of public outrage against Cage.

Not sure how owning "two castles, 15 palatial homes, a flotilla of yachts and a squadron of Rolls Royces" really compares to taking the family on vacation at a really really nice hotel, either.

Either way, I see you've accidentally revealed your own lavish spending, Mr. Bond:

Well, I only used that as an example of a celebrity blowing through money, not so much the public outrage part.

[IntheNet]

I'm not sure I would use "glamourous" as a term for Laura or Hillary. Graceful and classy, certainly (more so in Laura's case), but not really "glamourous"...

Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush, and Michelle Obama are all glamorous; interesting it is that while we object to presidential policy and have strong feelings on presidents, we Americans have almost universal appreciation and regard for our First Ladies. Liberals object to Bush and conservatives object to Obama but both are united behind the glamor and stately office of the First Lady and their positions. From Martha Washington to Michelle Obama, we hold these women in high regard and we should. I like that about America. It is one thing in Washington removed from political squabble. That's good.

[djellison]

So in this recession, you don't want the first family to spend their hard earned cash? You'd rather they just saved it, or what, burnt it or something?
:rolleyes:

[skunk]

Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush, and Michelle Obama are all glamorous; interesting it is that while we object to presidential policy and have strong feelings on presidents, we Americans have almost universal appreciation and regard for our First Ladies. Liberals object to Bush and conservatives object to Obama but both are united behind the glamor and stately office of the First Lady and their positions. From Martha Washington to Michelle Obama, we hold these women in high regard and we should. I like that about America. It is one thing in Washington removed from political squabble. That's good.You are being astoundingly dishonest. You started this thread, remember?

[IntheNet]

So in this recession, you don't want the first family to spend their hard earned cash? You'd rather they just saved it, or what, burnt it or something?
:rolleyes:

Can you answer an honest question then? How many Americans do you suppose, in this recession, are buying $600 shoes and spending $4,000 a night on vacation? Not many correct? Can we at least agree on that? Then if so, do you think it is such a wise state protocol message, for the leader of the free world, to do so on his vacation?

A while ago, during the French famine, a French princess (alleged to Marie Antoinette), upon learning that the peasants had no bread, said "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" (roughly translated: "Let them eat cake"). It didn't work out so well... the French Revolution started soon after... Leaders of nations need to set examples...

You are being astoundingly dishonest. You started this thread, remember?

If you have been paying attention you'll see plainly this thread is not about Michelle Obama... that's not where my point is addressed. The president is the president, while on vacation or in the Oval Office; he needs to set an example.

[skunk]

A while ago, during the French famine, a French princess (alleged to Marie Antoinette)Actually, she was Austrian, but don't let that stand in the way of an irrelevant analogy....

[skunk]

If you have been paying attention you'll see plainly this thread is not about Michelle Obama... that's not where my point is addressed.Strange. I thought the title you gave it was "What Recession? Michelle Obama Wears $635 Shoes on $4000 Per Night Vacation!". Must be the wrong thread. Sorry about that.

[IntheNet]

Actually, she was Austrian, but don't let that stand in the way of an irrelevant analogy....

Was being the operative word (as former Archduchess of Austria). At 14 she became Dauphine de France, thus my term "princess" was correct...

Strange. I thought the title you gave it was "What Recession? Michelle Obama Wears $635 Shoes on $4000 Per Night Vacation!". Must be the wrong thread. Sorry about that.

The President sets policy... deal with it.

[arkitect]

So in this recession, you don't want the first family to spend their hard earned cash? You'd rather they just saved it, or what, burnt it or something?
:rolleyes:

In any event aren't we supposed to be spending our way out of this recession?
Or have I been reading the wrong memo? ;)

Bloody hell. Who cares about the price of Michelle's shoes. I for one am glad the US First lady isn't a frump. The lady's got class.

Do you think the French are up in arms over Carla's spending on clothes?

And what is the big deal about a $4,000/night holiday? For an extended family in a luxury villa/hotel that's peanuts.
:rolleyes:


A while ago, during the French famine, a French princess (alleged to Marie Antoinette), upon learning that the peasants had no bread, said "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche"
Go brush up on your Rousseau.

[Rampant.A.I.]

So stay home, I imagine a large amount of people couldn't afford a vacation this year since they didn't have a job.



That worked out well for the nation.

That's just petty and bitter. If you can afford a vacation with your family and have the time off, why wouldn't you take them on vacation?

Do you honestly not see the significance of Obama's approval rating being compared to the approval rating before the other president was re-elected for a 2nd term, or are you just throwing in a comment about how much Bush sucked to be contrary?

[skunk]

Was being the operative word (as former Archduchess of Austria). At 14 she became Dauphine de France, thus my term "princess" was correct...Your analogy was ludicrous.

The President sets policy... deal with it.Your thread title is clearly focussing in Michelle Obama. Deal with that. Whether or not the President whom you disavow and disrespect so frequently sets policy is utterly irrelevant to the thread, as are most of your answers.

[IntheNet]

Your thread title is clearly focussing in Michelle Obama. Deal with that. Whether or not the President whom you disavow and disrespect so frequently and eloquently sets policy is utterly irrelevant to the thread, as are most of your answers.

I do not disrespect the President or the First Lady. I disagree with the president and object to his policy. The message he is saying to Americans is that he does not care about them!

Illustrating that sentiment with threads like these is part of what is called honest political discussion. If you expected that everyone was going to fawn over him for four years and worship every word he says for four years I am sorry to disappoint you. Many object to his policy and the message he sends, in the Oval Office and while he is on vacation. Moreover, in a hard recession, having the leader of the nation buying $600 shoes/$4,000 per night lodging is in fact a story. You might not think so but it is. Expect to see it featured in campaign commericials. Maybe you can tell us how much $600 shoes/$4,000 per night lodging could help the many out of work and unemployed with 10.5% unemployment rather than condemning me for raising the issue?

[skunk]

I do not disrespect the President or the First Lady. I disagree with the president and object to his policy.That's what they all say.

Illustrating that sentiment with threads like these is part of what is called honest political discussion.The day you make an honest contribution to a political discussion will be marked in my diary.

[rdowns]

we Americans have almost universal appreciation and regard for our First Ladies.

Where do you come up with this screed? And how did you know I pleasure myself to pics of Barbara Bush?


I do not disrespect the President

Delusional much?

[djellison]

In any event aren't we supposed to be spending our way out of this recession?

Quite.

[yg17]

Even if there was no recession, most people still wouldn't spend $600 on shoes and $4000 on a vacation, so what's your point.

The Obamas just happen to have more money than the average American, so they're going to spend it on more expensive things than the average American. It's simple as that. It's capitalism, that thing you love so much, until you can use it to make Obama look bad. Then you hate it.

[StruckANerve]

Who cares? Rich people have earned the right to wear whatever they choose.

[rdowns]

Who cares? Rich people have earned the right to wear whatever they choose.

Unfortunately, so have poorer people.

http://media.peopleofwalmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/754.jpg

[bobber205]

Can you answer an honest question then? How many Americans do you suppose, in this recession, are buying $600 shoes and spending $4,000 a night on vacation? Not many correct? Can we at least agree on that? Then if so, do you think it is such a wise state protocol message, for the leader of the free world, to do so on his vacation?


Not many people doing that during great economic times anyway. :rolleyes:

The people that CAN do that still can just they're probably scaling back a bit. The rich are still rich in this country. The poor are still poor. Sure some people have been knocked down a notch, but it's not as you try to make it. The whole country isn't living out of a box on the side of the road.

[Counterfit]

The whole country isn't living out of a box on the side of the road.

Luxury! I grew up in a pothole and had to eat searing hot gravel for breakfast before going to work in a factory for 28 hours!

[skunk]

Luxury! I grew up in a pothole and had to eat searing hot gravel for breakfast before going to work in a factory for 28 hours!You were lucky...

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Luxury! I grew up in a pothole and had to eat searing hot gravel for breakfast before going to work in a factory for 28 hours!
and walk ten miles in the hot snow to work (snow was hot back then!), uphill both ways!

[bobber205]

and walk ten miles in the hot snow to work (snow was hot back then!), uphill both ways!

My best shoes were 6 cents, not 600 dollars! That's a lifetime's worth of food! :eek:

[hulugu]

Can you answer an honest question then? How many Americans do you suppose, in this recession, are buying $600 shoes and spending $4,000 a night on vacation? Not many correct? Can we at least agree on that? Then if so, do you think it is such a wise state protocol message, for the leader of the free world, to do so on his vacation?

Well, if we're going to play this game. During the 2001 recession how many people vacationed on their 1600-acre ranches worth more than $1.3 million, including an additional 11-acres that included a pound stocked with 600 large-mouth bass? I can think of one.

A while ago, during the French famine, a French princess (alleged to Marie Antoinette), upon learning that the peasants had no bread, said "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" (roughly translated: "Let them eat cake"). It didn't work out so well... the French Revolution started soon after... Leaders of nations need to set examples...

I think it's interesting that you reference that infamous phrase. First, according to many historians, the phrase had existed for a hundred years previously, and furthermore, the apocryphal story that Marie uttered such a remark was created by people who intended to slander the princess and help bring down the French aristocracy (in addition to dozen of pornographic stories about her).

If you have been paying attention you'll see plainly this thread is not about Michelle Obama... that's not where my point is addressed. The president is the president, while on vacation or in the Oval Office; he needs to set an example.

I, like skunk, may be "confused" by the title of this thread.

[Counterfit]

(in addition to dozen of pornographic stories about her).

... Go on.... :D

[hulugu]

My best shoes were 6 cents, not 600 dollars! That's a lifetime's worth of food! :eek:

At least you had shoes. My family shared a pair of flip-flops.



When we weren't making soup with them.

... Go on.... :D

;)

[Badandy]

Well, if we're going to play this game. During the 2001 recession how many people vacationed on their 1600-acre ranches worth more than $1.3 million, including an additional 11-acres that included a pound stocked with 600 large-mouth bass? I can think of one.


Thread over.

[CaptMurdock]

A while ago, during the French famine, a French princess (alleged to Marie Antoinette), upon learning that the peasants had no bread, said "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" (roughly translated: "Let them eat cake"). It didn't work out so well... the French Revolution started soon after... Leaders of nations need to set examples...

Not only are you incorrect about the identity of the lady in question, but "brioche" is not cake, but more a bun-like bread containing butter and soft cheese, glazed with beaten eggs and often honey.

[paddy]

Not only are you incorrect about the identity of the lady in question, but "brioche" is not cake, but more a bun-like bread containing butter and soft cheese, glazed with beaten eggs and often honey.

Also that quote was falsely attributed to her AFAIK.