Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : How Quickly Can Obama Totally Destroy the US? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MJ who wrote (887)

1/7/2013 4:07:44 PM

From: joseffy

1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547

NYT: You May Not Have a Job, But at Least Michelle Obama's Dresses are Expensive

Monday, January 7, 2013
punditpress.com

Normally I don't begrudge a politician or their family for spending a little more on amenities. That being said, I normally want to see that coming out of their own paycheck (which usually we pay for, anyway). After a series of expensive vacations, affairs, or other issues, many (if not most) politicians and their kin break this promise and just spend far too much while the budget remains bloated.

Understated elegance is a matter of electoral smarts for many politicians. Take a president that comes out in a polo shirt while golfing or a short button down shirt while touring a factory-- a little humility can often go a long way.

Usually we don't celebrate expensive extravagance of our politicians. The realm of the super-rich and the celebrities should not usually cross into the White House. A Republican that spends any sort of money on such items is immediately derided by the press (Sarah Palin, anyone?).

Unless they're a Democrat.

With the country only $16,000,000,000,000 in debt, you would expect many of the country's top politicians and their families to try and give a little back, even if it's just for show. Mike Bloomberg, for all of this stupid policies, works for a dollar, and the like.

The New York Times, however, celebrates Michelle Obama's expensive fashion sense. While the dresses may look good, they pay little solace to the family that can't make ends meet. They don't pay the bills for someone in the coal industry that lost their job in the last four years.

But at least she can be " First in Fashion."

How many unemployment checks would those dresses pay for?

Even more astonishing is that Mrs. Obama’s spending on clothes has attracted little scrutiny. Clearly that’s because she is seen as helping the American economy. Still, she has spent tens of thousands of dollars on clothes and accessories.

But it's okay because the money has stimulated the American economy. If we can get every member of Congress to start wearing these designer clothes, we'll be out of our problems in no time!

She was criticized for wearing $500-plus Lanvin sneakers at a food bank, in 2009. But at a time when economic inequality is a serious issue, you wonder why the first lady’s fashion spending hasn’t caused more fuss. I wonder why the media didn't cover it!

This article seems to show what's wrong with the country. Michelle Obama can look nice, and spend the money to do it, but that doesn't count as a virtue and it doesn't count as a sound economic policy.