Are the Obamas out of touch?

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
The Obamas have been drawing heat for their 17-day Hawaiian holiday, estimated by some media outlets to cost taxpayers $4 million.

But the criticism doesn’t stop there. Now first lady Michelle Obama is under scrutiny for her high-end fashion choices.

For the Christmas Day church service at the Kaneohe Bay Marine Base, Mrs. Obama was photographed in a seemingly simple white sundress with red and yellow stripes. The dress, however, was by French-born, U.S.-based designer Sophie Theallet, and would have cost the first lady almost $2,000 when she bought it in 2009. More recent designs by Theallet sell for even more.

For the meet-and-greet with service members and their families in a nearby mess hall later in the day, Mrs. Obama dressed down — in a printed green $950 Comme des Garcons skirt with bag waist.

Some see the first lady’s penchant for expensive labels at odds with her reputation as a bargain shopper who frequents J. Crew and Target.

One comment on the Naked DC website read: “She claims to be a champion of the poor and a fellow bargain shopper, but yet, here she is, sporting a dress that no unemployed American can afford.”

President Barack Obama’s dinner last night with the first lady and friends was similarly out of range for many Americans. The group dined at Alan Wong’s Restaurant, an upscale eatery that specializes in Hawaiian Regional Cuisine and is a favorite of the first couple.

The Obama party ordered off a special 5-course tasting menu for $75 a person — $105 per person with wine pairings for each course. Highlights included”Sassey Salad” and bacon-wrapped pork loin, one appetizer and a sample of three butters from three local dairies.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2011/12/michelle-obamas-pricey-vacation-wardrobe/
 
Of course they're out of touch, nobody who gets to be president is ever in touch with the average citizen, its just how it is. Poor people don't become president.
 
Onceler said:
No, but my sentiment is separate from policy. No matter what the policy is, rich people are going to have money. And, as long as they have money, I'd prefer that they spend it.
Click to expand...

wouldn't it then be feasible to see that people of all financial classes spending money helps the economy?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
wouldn't it then be feasible to see that people of all financial classes spending money helps the economy?
Click to expand...

Mostly yes, though I'd caution that anyone in any class should not spend beyond their means, or get into debt (at least, more debt than they can handle).
 
Supreme Being Yurt said:
yes he does.
Click to expand...

Not as a governing philosophy. That said, I'm not opposed to some of the policies that are part of the overall trickle-down viewpoint, like tax breaks for business & keeping the top tax rate lower.

But, overall, trickle-down as a governing philosophy is too simplistic & broad-handed, imo.
 
While Obama complains about CEOs using their corporate jets at the expense of the company, Obama uses Air Force One as his personal jet at the expense of American taxpayers. While each president has a right to use the people’s money for vacation, Obama abuses this luxury. Just one trip to Hawaii cost the taxpayers $1.5 million. That’s not including Mrs. Obama arriving 30 minutes earlier using Air Force Two at an additional tax cost of $11,351 per hour. The Obamas, White House staff, and Secret Service stayed at luxurious beachfront housing, even though they could have stayed at beachfront homes on the Kaneohe Marine Corps Air Station, located less than five minutes from their luxury suites. The cost does not include office building rental in Kaulua, cost of rental cars for White House staff or the total cost of surveillance and Secret Service. This is just one example of many.

Even worse, Mrs. Obama has become a vacationing queen, taking scores of vacations that included taxpayer-funded travel for her mother, children, and cousins to several tourist destinations including Spain, and an African safari, which again included Secret Service and her staff. According to D’Angelo Gore of factcheck.org, there are 26 attendants catering to the First Lady.

Why would Michelle Obama have such an unprecedented number of staffers during a time when millions of Americans are out of work and struggling to support their families? Over President Obama’s four years as president, the taxpayers will have had to pay over $6 million to compensate the First Lady’s staff members. Let’s recall that the future First Lady stated during the campaign, “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country.” I assume she is proud now that the taxpayers are paying for her luxuries.

Then there is the report of the First Lady wearing $540 Lanvin sneakers during a stop to provide soup to the needy at a shelter.

The Obamas are out of touch with the American people, ignoring important domestic and international issues while vacationing and living in luxury at the expense of the American taxpayer. Washington has become home to the privileged, with special retirement accounts and medical benefits. They receive special benefits not accessible to the American people. They are allowed to make laws that benefit certain companies, and then invest in those companies, making millions. This is known as insider trading.

http://www.mantecabulletin.com/section/37/article/30310/

unfair analysis?
 
Onceler said:
Not as a governing philosophy. That said, I'm not opposed to some of the policies that are part of the overall trickle-down viewpoint, like tax breaks for business & keeping the top tax rate lower.

But, overall, trickle-down as a governing philosophy is too simplistic & broad-handed, imo.
Click to expand...

your statement is pure trickle down economics.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
so you agree with trickle down economics?
Click to expand...


Saying "rich people spending money helps the economy" is quite different from saying that we should adopt economic policies that benefit rich people and which rely on the largess of rich people to help raise the economic fortunes of poorer people. The former is true, the latter is bullshit.
 
Disillusioned said:
Of course they're out of touch, nobody who gets to be president is ever in touch with the average citizen, its just how it is. Poor people don't become president.
Click to expand...

So very true, it is not a position any "average" man has held. It is our form of "royalty"
 
I tend to find claims that every politician is out-of-touch to be overdone and pointless. Most probably are, but its not really a valid criticism (even when they fuck up, I tend to find "incompetence" a more relevant charge).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top