Recently, we discussed here Ann Romney's qualications to be the spokesperson for American women on economic issues. Her accuser's remark "She's never worked a day in her life" bounced off Mrs. Romney. The issue was reframed as an attack on Stay at Home Moms (SAHM). And then died.
Now, it's resurfacing.
The designer t-shirt she wore on TV the other day has been traced to designer Reed Krakoff and it retails for $990.
Do you, like some reporters, feel that wearing this expensive shirt shows she is "tone-deaf" to the 99%'s harsh economic realities?
Personally, the pricetag is only one issue. I think the shirt is hideous!
Is that a Moray eel?
I don't care for the shirt design either, though I like the colors. But I am happy to see rich people spending their money. It helps the economy.
Driving Cadillacs as Mrs. Romney does helps Detroit.
At least for right now, until they start making them overseas.
http://www.autoweek.com/article/2011060 … /110609894
Looks splendid on her. Better than many of the very, very expensive dresses that the tax payers buy Moochelle.
i have a couple that look as good i could for....... $5.00 Then she could donate the other $994.00 to some good cause
Since when do designer clothes ever look good?
Here is the thing, if he wants to sell a T shirt for $1000 and people buyit I dont think its stupid dumb or hideous- i just wish I had thought of it first...So I dont hold it against her I applaud her... if someone puts out a legal product and people buy it... who am I to say yea or nay but i can guarandamntee you will not see one in my closet..but if someone else wants to buy one???? Enjoy it I'm sure its not the first 10004 tee shirt out there. So i dont think its out of touch its just not for me....porshe build a 500004 car and a 1000k car- people buy them too- not me but people do...i dont fault porshe do you? a bottle of christal is what 200-5004 ...thats above my price range too but i dont fault them for selling....
ive made my point.. have a jolly day...
You raise some really good points about high-priced items that are available.
If Reed Krakoff can command almost $1K for a shirt, more power to him!
And obviously, if they designer items are offered for sale and someone buys them, that means there's a market for them. And that's all fine and dandy.
I think, though, based on what we have collectively lived through since 2000 to present, the cycle of conspicuous consumption is over.
As a nation -- as a world -- we have been financially humbled.
Of course there are still people who have discretionary buying power.
$990 for a t-shirt for Ann Romney is like $.99 for you or me.
Just another example, like her husband making a $10,000 bet with Rick Perry, that their "economy" of scale is much, much different than the American public or whom they seek to become the POTUS and FLOTUS.
People who complain about the hundreds in one woman's tee shirt should first complain about the millions in another woman's taxpayer-funded jetsetting, or they shouldn't be listened to.
"Money makes the word go around..."
For people can afford to spend, it's great-- and helps others earn something.
For those who can't afford to spend, and think it's OK to go in debt for what they want,it is something else.
The government is doing the latter-- at the expense of taxpayers.
I'm happy to complain about a woman's taxpayer-funded jet-setting.
Do you have anyone specific in mind?
Aren't you the same person that rates our Q&A 's down because you disagree with our religious views? Mmmmmm.....
I wouldn't even spend 50 bucks on that thing!
I agree it's hideous! That being said, I'm pretty sure Michelle doesn't shop at Goodwill or Walmart! I don't really care what people do with the money they have earned. None of anyone's business but theirs. Anything to the contrary is just trying to stir up class envy.
Class envy and anti-class envy are both at fever pitch.
I don't think we've reached the point of ridiculousness that we actually demand our world leaders purchase their clothes at Walmart or Goodwill just to make a "I can relate, mon" statement.
There's nothing wrong with an Ivy League education, per se.
Thank goodness, or we'd be SOL on both POTUS candidates!
Note that most Ivy Leaguers don't even play polo or race yachts.
I suppose Michelle Obama's $1,000.00 handbag is only a tad nicer that Ann's shirt,
But the $540.00 designer shoes makes me wonder what the interior design of the white House is going to cost the Romney family to fix once they move in. I'm thinking major collateral damage.
Those are some ugly a$$ shoes, but - each to her own. Let's comment on some male clothing choices!
One million dollars! They only get used once, and then they are incinerated...
Seriously I get ties at good will, and Saint Vincent's for a couple of bucks. They have a huge selection.
Mrs. Romney looks good in her T-shirt regardless of the cost. Now the cost of redecorating the white house once the folks living there now have been shown the door, will cost we tax payers more than a mere T-shirt.
The Obama administration on the other hand spends more money every day, than anyone I know can imagine. Forgive me for asking, however, how does that look on them?
Make it a great day:)
I have to confess I don't quite understand your point here.
Would you mind clarifying?
I'd like to comment, but am simply at a loss as to what redecorating the White House has to do with Mrs. Romney's t-shirt.
I will resist the temptation to interpret your comment as potentially racist --that it will cost more than usual for any new occupants to redecorate the WH after "those people" leave. Surely you did not mean anything like that.
I find it hard to believe you would think my comment racist. It saddens me to think you feel that way,
Make it a great day, no really make it a super de dooper great day...
I think it's bizarre that in the midst of the hardest economic times in the US in decades when most people are doing it tough that we have a GOP candidate born into wealth who has never done honest work or earned his own way and his wife who is willing to put down a thousand dollars for a shirt and a first lady who would do something as mind blowing as wear five hundred dollar shoes to a food bank and all of them claim to understand and represent the average American!
Yeah. I can't say I follow that logic either. The whole thing is rather silly and a bit insulting to the average American.
IMO, what everyone is missing here is that the income of the POTUS or candidate is irrelevant. What's relevant is that the $1000. tee is the same quality and screen as any other silk screened tee and can be made for under $3. That's cost, not profit, of course. The audicity of leaders to indulge themselves in this kind of waste is very suspect regarding their integrity as potential leaders and decision makers.
Maybe she was given it for free to advertise the designer. That happens quite a lot doesn't it?
Ok, this one's hideous. But let's be honest, who wouldn't wanna wear a $990 t-shirt? lol
Even if the retail price were what most people paid for designer clothing I wouldn't take offense. I would be surprised if Mrs.Obama pays full price for her exclusive designer wardrobe. I would be even more surprised if Mrs. Romney paid full price.
The only people who do not think twice about spending $990 for a tee shirt are, people who grew up wealthy, Hollywood Celebrities, and politicians.
You see the most beautiful clothing on those who work in Washington DC.
If that is Mrs. Romney in the picture then the offense is ugly, not expensive.
I think it's a stupid waste of money. Almost as dumb as the FLOTUS wearing $540 sneakers to a food bank.
The designer was quick to state that the shirt was not donated to the campaign, that she must have bought it "off the rack" (that cracked me up -- the racks I shop don't have that kind of merchandise).
I wonder if, like Kate Middleton's engagement dress, this will spur a flurry of copy-cat sales and we'll soon be seeing that same shirt design in our local Walmart -- or at least Target!
And yeah, FLOTUS's $540 sneakers/food bank visit came up in the same article. Insensitive!
I have some Walmart T-shirts you can have. I've only worn each one about 50 times, so they are almost still as good as new! Send me a quick check (via HubPages) for $990 and you can have the whole lot.
$990 is a little more than my monthly mortgage payment. No doubt, Ann Romney can afford this designer T-shirt, which she will probably wear only once. Most of my T-shirts are at least 10 years old. I think my oldest one was given to me in 1986. I take care of my clothes, and they are usually second hand to begin with. Even if I had money to throw around, there is no way I would blow it on clothes.
Who's complaining? This is a Forum topic, so we are free to express our views.
I have no problem she can afford the tshirt, but wonder if she realizes how much $990.00 would buy for the average American family. With her rich privilegded background, Idoubt it. As for Michelle Obama and her sneakers. Again, I have no problem with her being able to afford the sneakers. However, coming from a poor background, with no silver spoon, she can still relate to people struggling, where I doubt Ann Romney can.
This is how I feel too. I just had to buy shoes for work...and cringed to spend $40.00.....and Ann Romney is going to speak for me? With a 900 t-shirt? Money stocked all over the planet? World at her feet?
Not in a million years.
But I'll bet that Michelle has had a 40 dollar pair of sneakers in her time.
Perhaps when Ann and Mitt were struggling, she had a $400.00 shirt?
The Romneys are in a class that is a minority in America: the high upper class. And they were born to it. There is no way they can govern for me. They just don't have a clue. And don't care to, as far as I can see.
If they cut my mom's benefits---what's going to happen to her? How will she survive?
I'm not arguing this but it just occurred to me that JFKennedy and Jacqueline Bouvier were born rich and everyong loved them. Different times?
Different people. Kennedy was down to earth, and had a big family....and I don't think he would ever think of cutting benefits for seniors on a fixed income. or poor kids. Ever.
And it's too bad really, because from what my mom tells me, people loved Mitt's dad....working people, unions, veterans....his dad was also down to earth and open.
Something is missing in Mitt IMO--he's missing the compassion gene.
I'm sure that Michelle, as she and her fifty-head retinue wing off to Europe for dinners in five-star restaurants, sunbathing on restricted beaches, and shopping in designer boutiques that sell thousand-dollar handbags, is thinking of nothing but the plight of the poor back in Flyover Country.
I think she does think of the plight of the poor.
I think Mrs.Clinton did.
Ann Romney? She saw that woman's comment on her not working as a way to stick it to her political opponents. "An early birthday gift."..ha ha ha and ho ho ho.
She made a mockery of the hardship's women face as working mothers. And LOVED it. sssssssssssssss
And, of course, you have more than partisan campaign season rhetoric to support that ... uhm ... so well reasoned conclusion ...
Yeah...she said it. And btw, no one was questioning her as a mother....they were questioning her being able to relate to what most woman go through daily.
When you have all the money you need, and help at home, so you can take time out of the day to ride horses....you are a far far cry from women who have to get up, get the kids ready, get themselves ready, drop the kids off, go to work, work all day, pick up the kids, go home,cook and clean, help with homework, baths, teeth, read, put to bed, and for all your hard work: never have enough money to make ends meet.
It's really not partisan, it really is a class issue. And a personality issue! Personally never had a problem with Mrs. Bush....or Mrs. Ford for that matter. It's this particular woman....
she's nasty, just like her husband IMO.
I hope you'll forgive my skepticism of protestations of ethic and objectivity when campaign season is upon us. They're almost always chimeras.
No actually----I said right here on HP that I liked Ann Romney.....until she said that woman's statement was an early birth-day present for her.
Turns out she has the compassion of a stump of wood...unless it relates to herself and her family.
But you know...and so should she....what Jesus said: even the Pharisees do this. Be ye perfect, like the Father.
I was here, and ye knew me not. The poor, the imprisoned, those hungry and thirsty....those yearning for justice>>>of these I AM.
Not some broad who gets off on squashing those less fortunate under her manicured feet.
The Shirt is hideous! Who in the World would be $990.00 for that? I wonder what she would purchase on the taxpayers money should he become President? Toilet Paper earrings for $12000.00 because she felt they were cute?
Women in the political spotlight are often berated for their clothing choices, and I don't think it's fair. Remember the comments about Palin's wardrobe and Hillary's pantsuits? We don't tend to do that with male politicians. I have a feeling that Obama's and Romney's suits aren't exactly "cheapos."
I don't envy people with money. They have their own kinda trips, and money doesn't guarantee good taste. She should invest her T-shirt money in a stylist. Yuck, yuck, yuck. If you can afford an Ivy League education, go for it. Let's see what you do with it!
Eh, it's her money to spend as she pleases.
Does it indicate she is "tone-deaf to the 99%'s harsh economic realities"? Maybe, but I don't care. To me, it's trivial compared to the fact that Romney wants to continue the same Bush economic policies that got us in this mess. That's what we should be talking about.
IMO, the shirt's ugly. What strikes me as odd, though, is that they would show up at the same place together (and it happens to be TV), with him in his usual business-person outfit and her in something that casual (and ugly to boot). There's at least one thing "wrong with this picture" - maybe a few things wrong, price of the ugly shirt aside. I don't think they're that socially inept that they wouldn't coordinate the type of outfit they decide to wear to the same place/occasion. So, the whole deal was contrived for some reason (and in the meantime, he looks like a bigger, more clueless,boob than ever sitting there in his suit ) (Maybe that's what they were aiming for?? )
With both Romneys, it is not about parenthood or their religion. It is about their inability to socialize on a normal level. They have no understanding of or connection to people outside of their small social circle, perhaps their own family.
I see them as spoiled, sociopaths who have no knowledge, empathy, compassion, ability to reason, or ability to think on their own. Worse for her, she is just not the class of woman who is suited to be the First Lady. Money and the spa at will is not enough. The job would, after Hillary, Betty Ford, Michelle Obama, and even Lady Bird Johnson, be too much for a boring, washed out blond.
She is not required to wear Wal Mart clothes. She can wear a million dollar watch if she chooses. In fact, I hope that she continues to make such blunders, as it will demonstrate that neither she nor her husband have the emotional, intellectual, professional or moral qualities required to lead this nation.
When she and her husband can settle on something that will bring this country out of the hideous mess that their Republican party has made of things, then she just might get away with being an even bigger ass than her husband.
I'd really love some specifics on how the R party made the 'hideous mess'. More spouting what you've heard non facto?
You're right, but FDR spent the most, followed by President Obama. Why? Because both had to deal with a recession, wars, and worldwide financial collapse. Curious why would it cost more to redecorate the whitehouse after the Obamas leave?
As long as they are not spending tax dollars I don't care if her tshitts is 5.00 or 1k! Being a stay st home mom is a hard job!please don't insult all the moms that choose that career choice! Let's face reality! There will always be haves and have nots! I want a president that can get us all employed! We want our kids with jobs after college! We want the world a better place for our future generations!
Plenty of extremely wealthy people see how unfair things are.
Plenty of rich people want things to change.
These particular 2 are the problem. They do not care IMO.
Did anyone consider that maybe she got it for free from the designer? If I wanted my designs to be seen by millions, I'd give them away to high-profile people who appear in the media often. Anyway, it's a hideous shirt. Carry on.
I don't understand why our focus is on the cost of her shirt and how it affects her "relatability" to the 99%. Her focus is on those who vote, and those who vote are the 1% (actually 5%) who care about their wealth and how long it lasts. Our argument shouldn't be "How come she spends her money so frivolously?" It should be "How come our education system only teaches us to be employees who struggle to live from paycheck to paycheck?" or "Why do we put so much value on status instead of significance?"
Why are we so ignorant of what is really going on? Because it's all we know, all we have been shown, and all we've been taught. Very few people know that the "Federal Reserve" is not federal, and has no reserves, but is owned by 12 mega wealthy families who determine the value of our dollar based on what they want to charge us in interest at any given time. But that's not the problem. The problem is our own thinking. It's how much we think we know. We watch the news and read the newspaper, and think we know what's what.
You can't just "vote in" a better life. It's not about Republican or Democrat, (hell, most people couldn't really explain why they're one or the other, accept that that was what their parents were) We need to vote for someone who will do the right thing, period. But good luck with that... I would recommend Oliver Demille's "Freedom Shift" for starters...
Au contraire, mon ami, this entire topic is, for most, all about political spin, Democrats and Republicans. With few exceptions, the tee shirt picture is fodder for the campaign. The rest of it is fog deliberately intended to conceal the hidden agenda.
People are highly talented at inventing moral covers for their expedient objectives, and at convincing themselves their justifications are true. Politics is typified by it, and the media age has convinced most of us that it's both normal and ethical to do it. Read the threads here. They are dominated by that particular human trait. You could write a thesis for your psych degree out of it.
Case in point:
"Looks splendid on her. Better than many of the very, very expensive dresses that the tax payers buy Moochelle."
and I should know. I'm a Femi-Nazi who hates Jews and enjoys killing babies.
If you say so, but I wouldn't. I would say you hate conservatives, libertarians, and all others who dare dissent from your own sociopolitical POV (at least that's what's in your posts), and that you embody those antipathies in the label "Republican" whether or not it fits. All your political comments have to be taken in light of that, which does have an effect on their credibility.
No, don't thank ... err ... blame me. I'm just responding to the point you bring up.
The way I see it is this; as long as the rich purchase American made products then I'm happy to see them spend their money regardless of how gaudy or ostentatious it may be. We keep hearing about taxing the rich, well spending money is returning it to the economy. Hoarding money causes problems; spending it causes stimulation.
Exactly why the US gvt needs to spend money on this country--rather than give big tax breaks to multi millionaires and billionaires.
How many trillions are there in Swiss bank accounts that could have been spent here?
And how will a billionaire miss a couple mil anyway?
After getting rich here--using America and it's services and her people....they say sayonara....take the money and run.
I think Swiss bank accounts have always been with us. They were there when the tax rates were 70%. Somehow economic activity must be spurred. Just taxing idle dollars will only drive those investments offshore or to tax-free muni's.
Well--why isn't that against the law???
We have people locked up for dealing marijuana--wich hurts only those who CHOOSE to imbibe....but you can rake in billions and leave?
We need new laws, and different ideas of what constitutes a crime, IMO.
You should pay your taxes if they are earned in this country. Once you have done that then you can do with it as you wish (send it overseas; by a villa in Italy; move to another country and bring it with you; whatever). Do you want to force people by law to spend their money here? Is that what you are saying?
The problem is, they have fixed the laws so much that they don't pay taxes! So much so that a rich person pays less a percentage of their wealth in taxes than a working stiff pays who earns $45,000--$106,000.
They use America--the roads, airspace, workers, police, air, water, etc. Then when it comes time to pay up, they say Sorry: to Switzerland I go. On the basis of avoiding US taxes!
That is criminal if you ask me.
Allowing those with less to make up for their greed.
Confiscation of his assets when one moves out of the country is often called an exit tax. It's a common feature of socialist societies, which declare basically that all property belongs to the state, not to the individual.
If a person has paid his taxes then that's it in my view. I would not be in favor of further taxation which is a nice way to put it. That is not the mark of a free society. If the individual wishes to leave then that is there risk. That kind of tax is onerous. I am not in favor of it.
I agree with you. An exit tax is state confiscation of private property under a false label merely because the individual has made a choice no longer to live in that society. In effect, it's exactly what the previous post says: a declaration that all property belongs to the state, which may permit individuals to hold some of it temporarily strictly at its discretion and for its purposes. That has no place in a free country.
Gawd, I must be bored if I'm posting on this thread.
Really, WHO CARES how much Ann Romney's T-shirt cost? If you want to talk about robbing the tax payer, focus on things like bank bailouts and spending money on fighting pointless wars.
Mind you, I do think she was robbed and I personally would have gone for something with long sleeves
Personally, I would vote the t-shirt ahead of the humans (if they truly are).
And many other people will do just that. lol.
lol.... The irony in talking about taxes and laws in the same statement!! Someone show me the law that says you have to pay taxes. There is none. Tax law, a true oxymoron...
It's called the internal revenue code, I suggest you read it, the supreme court has affirmed that taxation is law and is mandatory in the face of ever challenge, tax law is no oxymoron, you can even study it at Uni.
So is not paying taxes breaking a LAW, or violating a CODE?? What does this law state? Or what is the code?
The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in Internal Revenue Code §§ 6011(a) , 6012(a) , et seq., and 6072(a). See also Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-1(a). It is a law passed by Congress and while it may not say law in it's title (many laws do not) both Congress and the supreme court as well as hundreds of smaller courts have affirmed it is law.
Any taxpayer who has received more than a statutorily determined amount of gross income is obligated to file a return. Failure to file a tax return could subject the noncomplying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties. In United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10 th Cir. 1986), the court clearly states, "although Treasury regulations establish voluntary compliance as the general method of income tax collection, Congress gave the Secretary of the Treasury the power to enforce the income tax laws through involuntary collection . . . . The IRS' efforts to obtain compliance with the tax laws are entirely proper."
The word "law" has more than one meaning. In its widest, most technical sense, It may be any statute, regulation or executive order issued by a government. Most people take it that way. The term, however, is also used in a sense of the traditional social mores and rules of a society e.g. the common law of the English-speaking world, in reference to an established ethical system e.g. that of Judaism, of the basic charter of a government e.g. the US Constitution, and in other ways as well. It looks to me as if more than one of those senses is in play here. That always gives rise to breakdown in communication. This part of the thread, I suspect, is going nowhere until those in it gain an understanding of the definition of "law" everyone else is using.
I think it looks like a bird. It's her money - I'm sure you have bought something for yourself at least once in your lifetime that was too expensive.
Folks - go to the mall and visit that huge store called Macy's and tell me there isn't similar looking top for top dollar.
And WTF? Nobody makes a beef about the red carpet dresses that cost thousands for one night that are hideous?
The less fabric the more it costs ( have you bought a good bra lately?)
Sometimes sheer is U_G_L_Y
and other times - it works.
This is her body after 3 months later from giving birth!
I think it looks like a bird-fish morph.
Thanks for the red carpet pics.
Bjork wins the all time worst possible outfit.
It will be very hard to beat that -- but eventually someone will.
No Bjork doesn't get the worse dressed that goes to Lady GaGa her dress was made out of meat. Bjork's was beautiful compared to that thing! Ugh!
Yes, that should definitely win the worst AND grossest outfit award.
That wasn't a dress - that was an abomination. It was jerky'd for archival. Now if it was bacon - well - that's a whole different story...
Gasp! You're making me laugh! I'm seeing things, too. Did her eel turn into a parrot??? Keep those pics coming. Quite entertaining. I'm trying to find excuses not to fix dinner! Now they're complaining that Hilary isn't wearing makeup!
Anything else??? There's always something.
The soul purpose of this type of thread is to tap into the jealousy's and resentments that emotionally immature people have about those who are more succesful than them. That in turn will result in a vote for Obama.
That's the intent of the partisans, anyway. My own opinion is that more people see through it than buy into it, so this sort of personal mudslinging alienates more votes than it gains.
As the OP of this of this thread I can assure you there is no jealousy or envy involved> I do not consider Ann Romney more successful than me or really of anyone I know.
I will say I am glad she beat breast cancer and is managing her MS and would love to see her be inspiration/spokesperson on those widespread afflictions.
Oh, get a life! The SOLE purpose of this thread is to share our thoughts. Which is what any Forum is all about. In case you haven't noticed, this has been a pretty entertaining subject created up by Mighty Mom. Usually, a Forum disappears after a few posts. We are not cookie cutter people here, and no harm is intended. I appreciate creativity and a sense of humor on any Forum. I'm not looking to politically bash anyone. Not being famous, had I showed up at a family gathering or social event with an eel on my chest (on silk or no silk), I would have been made fun of.
It is what it is. Envy and resentment towards someone in the limelight? Get real!
Not only that....are they kidding?
Don't they remember "arrugula" and how "elitist" Obama is, and what a "snob" he is....
and your candidates wife wears $900 t's....so where are your elite, snob comments on her??
Finger on the pulse of the nation? More like sucking our lifeblood.
by the pink umbrella7 years ago
Yea, so i went to the dollar store to get envelopes today, and this woman came out of the store wearing a sports bra and pants. When i asked the clerk about it, she said the woman does that all the time, and shes...
by Charles5 years ago
Does he really think that the solution to the dwindling social security fund is to privatize it? Perhaps it would be a better idea to return the money that has been "borrowed" without our consent? ...
by Divamommy7 years ago
Is it just me or are a lot of people like me. For years i have always shopped for outfits. I will buy from array of designers but i will not mix up the labels. I just cant do it. I cant put on a pair of designer jeans....
by Ralph Deeds5 years ago
Bain is still sending jobs to China and stuffing money in Mitt Romney's pockets. The latest victim of Bain's vampire capitalism are the workers in Sensata Technologies in Freeport, Illinois. Sensata was profitable in...
by Jean Bakula5 years ago
I thought Mrs. Romney was very artificial and stiff. The things she said about all the roles we women play were true, but more for our Mother's generation. She was discussing things like helping the kids write the book...
by Dr Billy Kidd5 years ago
From several exchanges, I learned why some people are voting for Romney. It is because Romney will launch a war against Iran. Generally, it is said that Muslims will attack the U.S. again. And that Iran will use nukes,...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.