Jig-A-Meister wrote:Defending wardrobe is not defending policy. done now.
My point is alot of this other campaign finance shenanigans far outweighing her wardrobe has been out there for at least eight months, and you haven't called attention to any of this until you can slam it on her with a link from . and you cite a misrepresentation of the truth that makes her seem insincere, knowing damn well she didn't do all this shopping herself, and won't wear have of what they buy for her and her family when clothing has made and broken quite a few politicians. And this "discovery" was from politico, no less!
I am not *defending* her wardrobe. I am saying the claim that it cost 150,000 is false. I'd also love to know who among you has clothes they'd wear to meet the UN.
This is the same as saying McCain voted with bush, when Bush don't vote. It's insulting the intelligence of people who know this game.
that's right people, two new suits a year, whatever the cost, plus 100 dollars upkeep. on the taxpayers' dime. along with their burial, and their lunches...
And all of this is legal, and as been for decades and decades. :(
So forgive me if I am a bit out of sorts with people claiming to be bothered by her getting a wardorobe to be in the public limelight, when the glasses she is wearing, and the bag she is carrying are on page one of publications that slammed hillary for pantsuits and photoshopped Obama in his swim trunks, and are in the voter's hands every day.
I swear if we have to add more stupid to politics to get more people to vote, I prefer a smaller turn-out.
raum wrote:
I swear if we have to add more stupid to politics to get more people to vote, I prefer a smaller turn-out.
and for the record this was not meant as a slight against people here. it is meant as a slight against the people who make articles that make it look like palin is a frivilous and extravagant woman, when every pre-election or current election picture speaks against it.
raum wrote:
I think it is misrepresentation of the truth.
You gathered that from a 'no comment' on behalf of the McCain camp when asked..? I didn't...
raum wrote:Fact of the matter, Obama's property value increase in Rezko scandals profited him more than Palin's wardrobe.
Here we go on the speculation express again...Toot toot!!
raum wrote:Fact of the matter, Biden's taxpaid AMTRAK rides to DC are costing taxpayers more than Palin's wardrobe cost a single donor, even with part of it embezzled.
Unlike the good Gov's little expenses she charged the state for staying in Wasilla, right..? By the way, where's the proof that Biden makes taxpayers foot the bill..? I'd like to see it...
raum wrote:Fact of the matter, people who are pro- either candidate are not capable of equillibrating the facts.
I beg to disagree...The problem is not the facts, its the slants...
Buffmaster wrote:So Obama, McCain and Biden all shop at Sears for their suits?
No, they along with every other senator get two suits, no matter the bill. Obama's are Marx,.. duh. They run about 1500 bucks each.
The 100 bucks clothing allowance is for cleaning and maintenance. buttons, and whatnot. All employees of the govt get some variation of clothing allowance.
Speculation, my ass. Even Obama admits it. Again, a private donor to the RNC provided Palin's wardrobe. Capital embezzlement for a felony offense of political manipulation was a "boneheaded move" according to Obama.
ayhja wrote:
raum wrote:Fact of the matter, Biden's taxpaid AMTRAK rides to DC are costing taxpayers more than Palin's wardrobe cost a single donor, even with part of it embezzled.
Unlike the good Gov's little expenses she charged the state for staying in Wasilla, right..? By the way, where's the proof that Biden makes taxpayers foot the bill..? I'd like to see it...
OMG - She SAVED money by taking the kids with. It cost less than the chef's salary for her kids to come with her when they needed to. Think about this.
You got a kid, right? what is cheaper, getting him a sitter, or taking him with you. Either way, the Governor has the budget to do so, and she made the more fiscally responsible choice. She just minimized the budget of the governor's office, and did so legally.
As far as biden, he averages over 100 dollars a day, both ways, so that is over 500,000 a year on AMTRAK - but sometimes the excess is more like: $4,650 in TAXPAYER dollars in AMTRAK travel on April 01, 2008 alone:
Spoiler:
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $500 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $460 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $426 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $338 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $258 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $252 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $241 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $232 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $232 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $232 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $230 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $224 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $202 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $190 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $169 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $108 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $101 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $101 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $101 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $101 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $101 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $101 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $101 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $101 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $90 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $90 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $90 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $82 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $54 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE $54 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE ($10) 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE ($64) 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE ($90) 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE ($101) 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE ($101) 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE ($101) 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE ($213) 1-Apr-07 Travel
AMTRAK Wilmington, DE ($232) 1-Apr-07 Travel
All taxpayers expenses by Senators are public knowledge. That's how I know Obama charged 45,000 in a family trip around the world. When the record for expenses was 19,200, and that was considered excess. But that is but a small part of the 1.3 million a year in taxpayers finest a senator gets to run their office, at home and in DC.
ayhja wrote:
raum wrote:Fact of the matter, people who are pro- either candidate are not capable of equillibrating the facts.
I beg to disagree...The problem is not the facts, its the slants...
[/quote]
No, the problem is most of you are just waking up to the kind of excess the govt. has been doing all along. But you are blaming Bush for it all, and not seeing the change in that last two years was not Bush, it was a Democratic congress that increased spending, holds a lower approval rate than Bush, and increased the Republican excesses to appease liberal interests that got them voted out of office.
Jig-A-Meister wrote:Big bloody difference between 2 suits per year at a total of $3000 vs 150,000 in just over 50 days. :)
YES. huge difference.
1. Individual donated 150,000 to RNC for Palin family's election cycle wardrobe, which was bought for her. Clothes donated afterward (prolly auctioned and money donated to a plate dinner or something, as is typical), and Individual gets tax-deductible donation. Palins prolly get to keep some of the stuff, and donation is depreciated by accountants.
2. TAXPAYERS pay for two suits for 100 men and women that are employed by them, in addition to 1.3 million dollar operating budgets per senatorial employee per year. Budgets have no accountability and transparency is dieliberately confusing leading to the worst approval of Congress EVER, who is still voting for themselves to get another raise.
Jig-A-Meister wrote:Puh-leeze! You're smarter than that. There wouldn't be this donations angle if it hadn't been brought to light.
And I figured you would be smarter than to think she was intending to keep it all.
Most of the clothes bought were the same thing in different sizes and colors and sent to her and the rest was returned. Over 1/3 of it was sent back almost immediately after the RNC because she never wore it.
I really can't believe there is a damn person endorsing Obama complaining about campaign excess! That is fucking absurd.
