Laura Bush bought a dress that costs $8,400.00

... I read that today. The news story was that her "handlers" didn't check to see if the dress made by Oscar De La Renta was issued to stores. She wore the dress to some gala and found that three other women had the same dress on.

In other words, the news story was that four women wore the same dress.

The news story was not about how she got the money to buy the dress (was this taxpayer money?) or that millions upon millions of people do not have enough food to eat.

What the fuck!

:wtf:

Am I the only one that is pissed off by this?

Comments?

If we're talking world-wide, some people don't make that in a decade. It's the return to the "gilded age" Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?

Men and women are dying in wars we've started. People are starving and our President's wife is worried about an $8,400.00 fashion faux pas?

Fuck that shit.

unflattering to the wearers.

If each of those four women had given me $8000 (and worn some other fabulous dress which was already in their closet) - I wouldn't have to work again until 2011... when I'll be 78! :woohoo:

Oh well.

then I'd fit that bill. I might make more before taxes, not sure.

so don't pick on HER.

Hey, the worse the product, the better the packaging needs to be...

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/02/20_WWJW.html

When the term "empty suit" is used on a regular basis, it's best to have a nice one...

Another "let them eat cake" moment to go with Condiliar's shoes.

:puke:

Why the hell is there a dress for $8000? What the fuck's that dress made of? Gold?

the beads to the dress is expensive. Eleven cents an hour for the work, eleven hundred to supervise. She looked frumpy in the outfit anyway. So how much did the black number she changed into cost? If she had the black one, why did she need to spend $8K+ for the red one?

and only the rabble like you and me wear crap made in Indonesia and Bangladesh? Note, I know nothing about fashion.

that she wears to every formal event. No more. Like, we'll make her wear uniforms.

Sheesh, people, get a clue!

:evilgrin:

That four women at the same event had such poor taste says something about fashion and conformity.

and for Carol Burnett :rofl:

while the rich wear clothes that cost as much as a car... Wasteful....

8 g's for a dress, 80 - 100 g's for a car. The dress is a relative bargain. Don't we all do the math that way? :)

It's a good comparison for most of us car-buyers, but personal wastefulness is a wide label, covering Dems and Reps alike.

Regards.

80-100 for a car? Geez. That's how much we're planning to spend on a house next year.

The car I drive now cost me $3,600.

And would have paid for my current medical bills (about $3600 for ONE minor series of tests/diagnostics) more than twice over. Pennies for her, more than a year's worth of payments, the humiliation of negotiating with accounts receivable offices and the pain of being in debt for me.

I guess I was "wasteful" when I decided I needed to find out whether or not it was a brain tumor or a nerve disease causing my blackouts, fainting spells, and tremors, eh? And my insurance company sure did call me on my wastefulness, refusing to pay for any of it, even though my doctor referred me to a specialist who prescribed all of it. Damn. What a waste.

I'm not going to have to decide whether fixing my peridontal disease is 'wasteful' or not, I'll never have the thousands of dollars to take care of it anyway.

and sorry you're dealing with this. Maybe your dentist would deal with you...is the dentist separate from a hospital? Some aren't. I too need a dentist--just today my wisdom teeth started bugging me again. For me, there's no way I can add at least another $500 dentist bill to what I learned I owe already. I can't even afford what I owe and had I not thought my insurance was going to help, would have had to go on wondering whether I had an aneurysm, or brain tumor. I would never have had the tests done if I knew I had to pay for more than 20% of them--I just couldn't have done it. Now I have no choice, and have to figure out a way to do it. This whole experience has made me really upset about the state of health care. I already was, but this brought it home to me, how unfair it is, and how very unattainable even basic care is for many people like us who work our asses off.

Take care of them as best I can, and then when they have to go bye bye, they have to go. I can't risk thousands of dollars on peridontal care that might not work, and then have to shell out thousands more on having teeth pulled and getting dentures. It's no biggy, it's just the flippant attitude some folks have that bugs me.

I finally went to the doctor about my ear a while back, same reason as you. I just couldn't stand not knowing whether I had an aneurysm or brain tumor or something. Luckily it was just a doctor's visit and a common inner ear problem. I don't know what I would have done if I'd needed thousands of dollars of tests.

Hope everything works out for you.

teeth, you either have a very cheap dentist, or very good teeth. ;-)

No, if you're paying more than that for laser cleaning and a bridge, you're being ripped off. Dental work in my area is among the most expensive in the country. Dentists do so well, they only work 4 days a week.

joke between my hubby and me. If we win the lottery we "might" have enough money to get our teeth fixed. But maybe not so much a joke because I personally know a few people who have spent $20 thousand and more on their teeth. It can cost about $2000 a tooth if you need a root canal plus crown - and it really gets out of sight if you want implants.

There's also some kind of surgery where they lay back your gums and do bone graphs and I don't know what all, and then do the implants. I wasn't talking about that, lol, that would just be crazy talk right there!!

I need to have all my teeth pulled or they will keep making me sick. Yet, I have no capability to afford to have any of it done. I have a worthless dental insurance that won't cover dentures and doesn't cover enough on procedures for me to even keep it. The amount spent on her dress would pay for my teeth twiceover. Meanwhile, I pull one tooth at a time when they go nuclear and hope for a change in my financial existance before I cease to function as an eating member of society.

need dental, no insurance, oh well...

Do you like to play Army?


www.goarmy.com

Yeah, a long time ago. In interesting times.

As to my comparison to the $80,000 car, no that's not my budget (did the smiley fall off my post?). It's in the budget of people who would buy an $8000 dress. Bush, Kerry, Reagan, Pelosi. All I was saying is it's not a partisan issue. The price of the dress is not going to influence any real issues, peace, health, etc.

Regards.

A 1998 Neon with 45,000 miles. Apparently, many DUers need to expand their horizons or something.

You'll find around here that the standard smiley often doesn't suffice - this guy " :sarcasm: " can really be your friend...

Welcome to DU! :hi:

it had 18,000 miles and cost me $7,800.00 Cheaper than that dress. And I've never been to a party where three other drivers had one just like it.

Are you serious? Never mind, I suppose you are.

I would like to remind you that most americans cannot plunk down $8000 cash, on the spot, for a used car.

I applaud people who can afford nice things, who spend it wisely. I disparage people who fritter away their money.

(edit: changed "that stuff" to "nice things")

Not as much as a new one, I suppose.

Remember how Republicans were up in arms when Bill Clinton supposedly got a $200 haircut? I'm sure they'll be just as outraged by this. :sarcasm:

it was a 'look at me' color. I was wondering what it was when laura wears red and it is a copy at 8,500 dollars...

Wasn't there some outrage about Nancy Reagan and her expensive taste when her husband was President?

Where is the outrage here?

Where is Laura Bush's sacrifice in this time of war? What is she willing to give up?

nancy didn't like to pay for clothes. She told designers tht they should give them to her for free since she was "advertising" for them.

The clothes had to be custom-made to fit her because she was an unusual size so they weren't "lonaed", though that was the story she gave.

After all the hoopla about this, she quietly went back to doing it until the end of Ronnie's second term.

Was there ever any reports/information of other first ladies being this extravigant during a time of war? And if so, was there outrage from the public?

when she revealed that while at the governor's mansion, she cut back to "only" 4 servants as part of her "austerity" during the war. (Franklin was gov of NY I think at the time.) The press had a field day with the pampered first lady of NY making due with "only" 4 servants. Never mind she was running the entire gov's mansion on that, so it wasn't really all that ostentatious, the reports were written in a way to outrage the public against her and her husband.

But she learned a valuable lesson about dealing with the media and was pretty careful when she got to the whitehouse. She saved her "media outrage credits" for things like promoting black pilots in the armed forces, workers rights, women's rights etc.

Someone should really ask Laura about this. What is she sacrificing?

No matter how much she spends, she'll always look awful with that man next to her.

And she doesn't have an attractive figure, IMO.

draw attention away from her figure. I mean, I couldn't even tell you anything about her figure.:scared:

Nobody pays attention to the price of those gowns until something like this happens.

it was probably a 'freebie' so the designer gets publicity, this time he got bad publicity. :rofl:

and that anyone would buy it. It is particularly appalling that the First Lady would so ostentatiously display her wealth while there are people who have to live for a year on that amount.

To add a just bit more insult to injury, the damn thing looked like it was made out of draperies stolen from a whorehouse.

Didn't she buy "thousands of dollars worth" of shoes in New York as the Katrina victims suffered? It doesn't seem right. But it does seem Republican.

What a wannabe dumbass.

If she was going to throw that kind of change around on a dress, she could have had a one-of-a-kind one made...the cost is a yawner...it's her utter lack of knowing where to go for a custom dress that's funny as shit.

Seriously, that really does tick me off, now that I think about it. How many of the soldiers her bastard husband is using for cannon fodder could have gotten life-saving helmet upgrades for the price of that unsightly rag? How many hot meals could that money have purchased for children suffering from malnutrition food insecurity?

Shame on her.

Is it from her husband's paycheck?

I am really angry about this. I think I'm more pissed about the hubris and the knowledge that no one will call her on this.

The money should come from her own funds or her husband's salary--notwithstanding the fact that he actually hasn't done a damn thing which could possibly justify getting a paycheck. If it came from anywhere else, something stinks.

Imagine, for a moment, if the right wing had learned that one of Hillary's dresses, from her days as First Lady, cost $8,400. They would have immediately demanded an investigation, and the story would have eclipsed all other news, for weeks, at the very least. Hell! FoxNews would STILL be talking about it.

would have the gall to wear something so expensive when there are those that go without eating.

It sickens me.

Many wealthy people just don't care about those less fortunate. They don't realize how lucky they are.

You are a good person because you do care.

(that I'm a good person because I care) but I thank you just the same.

I just think it is 'normal' to be upset when there is such a disparity in the world. Nothing innately good or bad about that position.

I do thank you though.

:hi: :)

I think that's the last figure I saw about their net worth.

Just for those four dresses. Wow. And that's just four out of the dozens that were there. Each probably of a similar cost. Wow.

:puke: These people make me sick......

8000 is a lot of money for an off the rack. maybe someone would have gladly made it for her....oh wait a minute, she`s no jackie.

can't believe that FOUR women would be hoodwinked by a "name" into buying such an ugly thing. Much less all wear it to the same event.

Maybe I'm looking at a bad picture, but I don't think it's an attractive dress.

I think Condi wears dresses that cost more than $8K. Actually, Hillary probably did too, for state events.

When I read the article, it mentioned that Jackie O wore expensive dresses too.

Shame on her as well. Democrat or Republican, it's appalling that one would wear something so expensive when people are starving.

mention to the other "buyers" that Mrs. Bush was wearing it to the same gala. Shit, you can't buy a prom dress from some stores until they double check that someone from the same high school isn't wearing the same gown.

were going to that party and did it anyway. Maybe not the designer but someone knew.

shitting on pickles. I keep thinking that wouldn't have happened to Evita

...and one that looks like it belonged to the Chicken Ranch, at that. But even $8500 is expensive for a couch, IMHO!

marked down to $29.95.
It's a different world.

They had these cool hippy boho blouses....cool, I thought, until I saw they wanted anywhere from around 75 to a hundred dollars for them. Who has that kind of money to pay for a *shirt*? Not me.

And some of them were 'dry clean only,' too: double disappointment. :thumbsdown:

Her old man makes four hundred thousand dollars a year for doing whatever it is that he does, and they weren't poor before he got this job. The cost of this dress is a drop in the bucket to them.

This is the thing: Why would ANYONE pay nine bills for ready-to-wear--especially since this particular specimen looks like it was made from upholstery fabric? Is wearing the curtains suddenly the hot fashion choice for the Filthy Rich?

I remeber in high school when an aquaintance complimented my prom dress ($80 at J.C. Penny) and complained about how much she hated her dress that cost ten times as much.
I see some expensive clothing in women's magazines. I always think how hideous that it looks or the fact that I probably could buy something that looked very similiar for a tenth the price at a department store or at one of those mall clothing stores. I think that part of it is just to say that you are wearing expensive clothing.

I'm a regular guy that buys regular clothes.

Shit, I have three pairs of jeans and a couple of pairs of slacks. I get by just fine on that.

(except for a photo op)

to be fair, the dress may have been loaned to her from the designer.

And Laura is wearing a dress that cost $8,400.00. Shameful.

Isn't my business how much anyone spends on their clothes. People can buy whatever they want.

However, it is my fucking business if it is my tax money that is buying her dress.

It is also my business if that money could have bought a marine some protective gear. She supports the war and all.

It is my business when her husband is ruining the nation and the planet. It is my business when she, as part of the "leadership," does not take seriously her responsibilities as the first lady.

If she were some rich dumbass that wanted to buy expensive clothing, then it is my right to have my opinion on that, however, I would also recognize their right to be fucked up.

:shrug:

Unless you think that because Bush draws a salary you are entitled to an accounting of how it's spent.

As others have pointed out, the dress was quite likely gratis - but even if it wasn't, it's not customary for there to be a "clothing allowance" for the First Lady. Entertainment and Household Expenses, yes, but not personal clothing.

someone in a "leadership" role would still be wearing something like that given the events taking place in this world.

Or, I suppose, I'm not allowed an opinion?

... thanks for playing.

put response in wrong place. :blush:

it's not the cost that gets me it just demonstrates another stupid choice these idiots made they didn't even check to make sure the dress hadn't been distributed to stores. :silly:

However it speaks to her character.

Honestly, do we really have to go ALL the way back to the feudal age before people will accept that they have a right to fight for a fair piece of the economic pie and that when somebody is buying $8500 dresses, you sure as hell aren't going to get your fair share.

salary - or their other income - is their choice.

If they are deriving an income through illegal or unethical means, THAT is an issue.

They set themselves up as the moral authority of the world - when they act immorally, they're fair game.

Exploiting labor is disgusting and these people wouldn't have this kind of money if people didn't shrug their shoulders at it.

which they have earned so much of their fortune.

But the dress isn't relevant to that -- they'd have the same fortune with or without that purchase.

From exploiting labor. The only people I know who don't get this are people who exploit labor themselves or poor Republicans who have been brainwashed into thinking they'll get rich too.

not relevant. How they spend their money doesn't matter - how they earn it does.

It is the outward symbol of the increasing wealth disparity as well as a corrupt government, considering FOUR women had the same dress. I really wonder how much money is spent on ONE of these galas. They are supposed to represent a people's government - they aren't the titans of industry or mega-movie stars. $8500 dresses, on any government representative, is an outrage - akin to Emelda Marcos' shoes.

I don't care.

If they spend government funds in wasteful ways, I care.

so you shouldn't have said that was your issue.

You're either filthy rich yourself, or you're among those who have been intimidated into believing that expressing outrage at capitalist exploitation is tantamount to being a pinko commie.

If $ are legitimately earned I do not give a fuck how they are spent - that is a PERSONAL CHOICE.

And to answer your ludicrous accusation: I am not rich (filthy or otherwise). I work with human service non profits, and am WELL aware of the difficulties of people with marginal incomes. I grew up poor myself, and every lunch I had in grade school was on the Free Lunch program.

I didn't like being judged for my family income, and I'm happy to not judge others for theirs.

i personally don't care how much anybody spends for their own clothing.

Because that's the only way wealth becomes accumulated in the top 1%, by exploiting the bottom 50% and leaving many without food, shelter, clean water or medical care.

as well as ALL of your household items and the computator you use?

and then donate the savings to fight world hunger?

because if you don't- then you don't personally care if people starve.

and i'm sure that you don't have something as obscenely luxurious as a television set in your home, correct? and no cd's, video games, stereo, or mp3 player either- after all- people are starving, and the money spent on such and other obscene luxuries could be better spent providing them with food...

some people...
:eyes:

Actually I buy second hand because dumping perfectly good items into landfills is also immoral. It's my way of doing what I can to offset the economic system that the top 1% created.

some people indeed.

:eyes:

do you have a television?
do you have a car?
do you have a telephone?
do you have your own computer?

i could go on...but i'll wait for my answers to those questions...

because if you spent/spend money on ANY of those immoral luxuries that could be better spent providing food for the hungry, or shelter for the huddled masses, yearning to be free- then you are obviously a cruel, heartless and selfish beast.

some fuckin' people...
:eyes: :eyes:

ANY hungry person. Would they be ANY better off if she simply saved her money? No.

The problem is distribution of wealth - not how wealth is spent.

And if it was distributed fairly - she wouldn't be able to buy $8500 dresses.

How hard is that to grasp?

Are you?

Not as wealthy. And until we have an equitable society, I'm sure as hell going to point to those who are leading the pack in preventing it, and the Bushes are sure as hell at the top of the heap.

Costco is a case in point of a great employer -- fantastic with employee benefits, gives to Dems. Do you think the Costco CEO can't afford this dress?

How about Tina Turner? Think she never spent this much on a dress?

I don't think you're reading anything I've said. You want to fight and so you keep changing your arguments. You say you care about income distribution and labor exploitation - but you keep avoiding that discussion.

You've argued that only the top 1% could afford this dress, and that they can only do that by exploiting labor.

Do you think the Costco CEO could but the dress? Do you think Tina Turner could? Do you think they can do so because they exploit labor?

Hellooooo?? What part of that don't you get? Our economy is based on labor exploitation - that's why we have unions for chrissake. The Costco CEO does what he can to fight that. George Bush does what he can to continue the exploitation. What part of that don't you comprehend??

you are completely displacing your completely justifiable moral outrage over the exploitation you just described onto something that doesn't have anything to do with it. (And it doesn't work all that well as a "symbol" either.)

Laura Bush doesn't have to be in the top 1% of income earners for her to be able to buy a $8400 dress, so that part of your argument sinks. FURTHER, and this is important -- it is entirely possible for lots of people to have enough money to buy such a dress (forget the top 1%) WITHOUT having earned it by exploiting others.

FURTHER still, her $8400 dress does not itself cause people to be without food, shelter, medical care, etc., -- unless, of course, you expect all of us to give every spare penny of discretionary income we might have to charity. That is what you do, I presume?

YES, you do have to be in the top 1% to be able to afford an $8500 dress, unless you're suggesting that people earning $150,000 a year are going to spend the equivalent of a mortgage payment on a dress. They aren't. You do realize that $200,000 annual income is the top 2% - right? And that's just the US, not the entire world.

And yes, earning the kind of income that affords an $8500 dress came off the backs of exploited labor - no two ways about it. Has nothing to do with giving money to charity - it has to do with the economic system that allows that kind of wealth to accumulate in the top 1% in the first place.

I know a number of people who made significant earnings from working at Microsoft early on. Some are millionaires.

They worked hard, they didn't cheat anyone, they didn't exploit anyone. They earned income and stocks in exchange for their work.

They could afford that dumb dress, IF THEY WANTED IT.

My god, they were sued because of labor exploitation. They invented temp labor as a way to avoid benefits and fair wages. Try again.

labor?

It came from exploiting temp labor. Currently, even more comes from Chinese, Indian, and other foreign factories. That's reality. Anybody who got rich off Microsoft, got rich by exploiting the labor of others. True of most investors.

does not do so by exploiting labor?

I don't. Our entire economic system is based on labor exploitation. But *I* don't set economic policy. *I* don't move businesses offshore. *I* don't have any power to change anything.

The Bushes DO. That's the difference.

Since you think no one earns a significant income without exploiting labor, you think everyone who does is guilty of exploiting labor.

Good luck with your bleak little puritanical worldview.

They use religion to convince people they aren't worthy of "God's blessings". Everything they do is designed to keep the masses powerless and servile. Including telling you it isn't your business how they spend their money - as if it's an inherent right.

Really.

They want to judge people for being gay, or having sex outside of marriage, or having abortions.

You want to do it based on how people spend the money they earn.

It's all just judging personal choices.

Which, even though you say you care how money is earned, you refuse to equate to how much money people end up with to spend.

to spend $8500 on a luxury.

You can sidestep it all you want, but that's still the problem with people like the Bushes buying $8500 dresses.

system is unethical - dress or no dress.

If $200,000 is top 2%, what percentage is $150,000 annual income? How about $100,000? Why not haul out the link where you're getting your data for us all to see?

AND, let me remind you that your argument was, and I quote, "top 1%," to which I replied no, others can afford that too. BTW, $8500 for someone making $150K would likely be more than ONE mortgage payment.


Further, let me get you to clarify: your contention is that it's not possible to make $150 - $200,000 a year without DIRECTLY exploiting labor? There are no jobs, no careers, no professions in which one can make that money without DIRECTLY exploiting labor?

Or are you saying that since our whole system is based on exploitation of labor (and natural resources, I'll throw in), everyone is involved in exploiting labor but it's only if you're making BIG money that it becomes a problem? Someone in your position (whatever that is) is safe from criticism.

You don't KNOW that the top $100,000-$200,000 income earners are in the top 95%? That's a big part of the problem in this country. Too many people don't understand how poorly distributed income really is.

You say $8500 is likely more than one mortgage payment for someone earning $150,000. Exactly. That's 95% income percentile - and they can't afford an $8500 dress.

It isn't a question of any given profession existing without labor exploitation. It's a question of our entire economic system being based on labor exploitation - and those at the top are the ones who write the legislation and implement the business practices. That's why when they wear $8500 dresses, it's time to point out how they pay for it. It isn't just labor exploitation either, it's also with billion dollar government contracts, tax subsidies, tax cuts, etc.

We suffer for their lifestyle, and people want to justify that. Incredible.

You don't seem to think that's your business. Fine. Once again: you didn't argue TOP 5%, you argued TOP 1%. I'm pretty sure that the figures widen out considerably under the top 1% -- IOW, that there are many, many more people in the top 5% than there are 5 times the number in the top 1%. But you want to change the argument every time you're challenged. Fine.

You can play that game by yourself.

Frankly, I find your argument that because the capitalist system as a whole exploits labor (and it does -- natural resources, too, as I said elsewhere, which you don't seem to be concerned about and shame the hell on you), then no one should ever have an $8500 dress. I don't want to live in your narrow, ugly little world world. Reminds me of the old saying: if this is your justice, spare me your mercy.

I'm okay with some people wearing an $8500 dress, beautifully designed by an world-renowned artist, carefully handcrafted -- HANDMADE -- by trusted craftspeople and artists to exacting specifications. A gown which can hang in the Smithsonian later, perhaps, and enrich all our lives. A gown other designers can learn from and whose art can be informed by, a gown some of us can study and appreciate and perhaps even incorporate some of the design elements into our own clothing, if we wish. Or just really relish and enjoy that utterly beaudacious red!!!

I believe in beauty. I believe in art. I believe these things ennoble our lives, and I believe that we as humans have every right to find ways to enrich our lives with these kinds of beautiful things -- IF we can afford it and WITHOUT DIRECT exploitation of others. But opting out of our exploitative system isn't really that practical.

Yes, we have a moral obligation to create a just economic system, and a just judicial system, and a just educational system, just housing, etc., etc, etc., etc. But Laura's dress isn't going to get us there, no matter how hysterical or outraged you get about it. Nor is SHE responsible for economic policy.

YOU are perfectly welcome to your narrow, emotionally and spiritually constipated little world. Bah! "The System" isn't going to change because of your outrage over an $8500 dress worn by someone you don't like for political reasons.

I've concluded you just haven't made the connection between those who write the regulations and the money they make because of their power to write those regulations. Maybe you will some day.

See ya.

If it was important to them. Some working class brides spend over a months wages for a dress that they wear one day so why might someone not spend one months wages on a dress that they might wear for important formal occaisions that might help them look the part for getting ahead in their career, for example.
Plenty of "working class" people readily drop that much on a vehicle. Plenty of middle class people drop that much or more on private/parochial school. Some middle class people might spend that much on new furniture/remodeling that does not add value to their house. It is up to them what they deem important enough to spend their money on.

And they do not drop $8500 on a dress, not even a wedding dress. True middle class people don't even drop that much on an entire wedding.

A vehicle or tuition is a totally separate matter, as is investing in their homes.

And someone earning that much could easily buy that dress - IF it was their priority.

People spend their money in a lot of ways. I've known people who scrimped and saved and ate beans and rice alll the time so they could afford the top computer technology.

Top 5% is $137,000.

You can't sensibly buy an $8500 dress on a $137,000 income. You need to be up in the top 1% before that even begins to be a feasible option.

That's what I said.

Someone on a 137k income could easily buy that dress if that was their priority.

But then again, you think everyone's income is derived from labor exploitation, so does it really matter?

It's not all that much money, which makes it even sadder that 95% of people in the US, the richest country in the world, don't even make that much.

money the same way you do.

I knew a waiter who went without a car and ate on pennies because he loved antiques - so that's where he spent the money he made. You wouldn't think someone with his income would have an apartment full of antiques, but he did.

A physician could buy that dress. So could a lot of other people.

But why pretend it has anything to do with the rich, since you've already made it clear that we're ALL exploiting labor anyway?

"you've already made it clear that we're ALL exploiting labor anyway"

'we're'

You apparently have so much money that you don't even know what it's like to live on less than $150,000. They are not buying $8500 dresses. I promise you.

ALL benefiting from it.

I assure you, I do not earn $150k or more. And though I'm now middle class I grew up poor, so I understand it QUITE well.

I know a woman that makes approx 70,000 a yr and she consistently buys things like purses costing over $500. Her clothing is proportionally expensive.

She will forgo other things to have the money to spend on apparel. This is her choice.

As for the bushes clothing spending, how much of their income comes from the war machine? Or stolen oil? To my mind, the red dress Laura is wearing is saturated in blood. This is the real issue with a $8500 dress IMO.

Let's say a professional lived in a relatively low cost area. He/she opts to buy a $150,000 home instead of a $300,0000 home. Presuming that this professional has a mortage and property taxes, this would free up a lot of income, enough to buy a $8,500 piece of clothing if they wished.
I wonder though if it would make a difference to you if it were a man or woman. Maybe a man would be not seen as being as wasteful buying an expensive suit because presumingly he could wear it to every formal occaision.
The reason that I don't it impossible for someone making less than $137,000 to buy such a dress is because I have people spend a lot money on things that wouldn't be worth it to me if I made the same amount of money, but were important to them.

Should we take a stand and lower the presidential salary to under $100,000?
Would even the most liberal and ethical president earn his salary off the backs of exploited labor?

Laura Bush included. They just spend and spend until the sun sets and they start over again at sunrise.

Everyone else here understands this already. What are you failing to understand?

Your underlying premise is that "there's not enough to go around, so I must RESENT anyone who has wealth because it means I'll never / can't have as much."

It's really not true, you know. Under a number of circumstances that we are seeing in today's world there most certainly is an INEQUITY and a growing gap between rich and poor, but fixing that does not mean that those who have wealth must be stripped of it all.

Under the right circumstances -- capitalism reined IN and regulated instead of unthrottled and unhinged, and an end to exploitation of people at the bottom (again: regulation!!!!!!!!!) -- we can have an economically just world.

(I'd personally prefer socialism, but not a socialism in which everyone's "pie" is exactly the same size.)

It costs me NOTHING that Laura Bush buys an $8400 dress. It takes NOTHING from me. It diminishes my chances not one whit. Neither my happiness nor my economic picture depend on her NOT having that dress or are impaired because she does.

Ya'll are just dumping in a sexist way on a woman none of us like. That's wrong.

In this sense, they are under someone else's employ.

Once one realizes this - that Bush's $400k presidentializing salary didn't buy an $8500 dress, that his corporate patrons did, one understands why it's an issue.

Those who govern us are paid by our adversaries. Paid a lot. His net worth is between $9 and $26 million.

Between "Where are those dang WMDs" and "Now watch this drive" and "Iraq is bad. That help?" and Pickles and Condi's fucking SHOE WARDROBES and everything in between, I'm pretty damned disgusted.

feed a thousand families.

and I like my car just fine, evenj though we all wear blue jeans and t-shirts, etc. $8,400 for any article of clothing is waaaayyyyy too much. Give it to charity and let poor people buy a whole bunch of clothes.

and we simply can't have that, Daaaahling.

three pair of jeans and a couple of slacks.

I have one pair of Pumas that I got ten years ago (and I love them). I have one pair of thirty some odd dollar dress shoes.

I'm fine as can be.

it is ridiculous to expect laura to go around in a jeans and t-shirts

she already dresses about as shitty and frumpy as she can get away with

this "off the rack" christmas dress is only the latest example of her lack of style

personally i think the way she slobs around borders on the disrespectful, somehow jackie kennedy and hillary clinton could be nicely dressed and well-groomed in the public eye

Gezzzz, with all that is in wrong with this administration, this country, and our population... I couldn't give a flying-flip about how the chimp and the first lackey care to spend their discretionary funds.

MZr7

The way change happens is when people talk, and define incidents like this. **Not** being outraged by something like this is how we get situations like we have in the world. This may seem like a small deal, but actually, it is very much part of the underlying philosophies that have gotten us where we are today.

So friend, I totally disagree. This *is* a big deal. And we should all speak of it as such. That is if we want to change the status quo and make a better world.

Its not like they go around pretending they are just like you and me.

Come on people- this is ridiculous. The rich in this world spend this much $$$ on clothes all the time.

I'll go away now.

:eyes:

They don't - the only reason we heard about this is because 3 other women wore the same dress.

I assume her dresses for state dinners and special events cost thousands. She is a Bush. She is wealthy. She never pretended to be a thrifty person.

You are entitled to an opinion - I'm just saying it's not newsworthy that her dress was expensive.

I wondered at the worth of the story only because three other women wore the same dress.

The issue of poverty be damned.

:eyes:

"those elites who think they're better than you". They play the "regular folk" card all the time. Bush does it with his insultingly exaggerated Texas accent (which is right next door to black face, it's so bad) and his brush clearing and such, but they all do it in some way.

average people...at least during CAMPAIGN season.

The First Couple have a responsibility to set an example for the nation. Which I guess they are - but it's an example of unbridled consumption and wasteful spending by the rich.

It strikes the wrong tone for our leaders to be so arrogant. Do I hear "let them eat cake?"

It's a shame that some can wear such expensive dresses while children starve and do without medicine. But, to be fair, she's not the only one. Lots of actresses and other rich women wear gowns that cost just as much or more. So, shame on anyone that wastes so much money on a dress. All 4 women got what they deserved. They spent $8000 to look good and in the end just looked silly.

Same with celebrities -- they don't buy their gowns.

I just wish she'd get some better looking duds for the money she's spending.

We deserve to have a well-dressed First Lady :)

She should have stayed in the dress, and had a group photo with the other 3 women. Thta would have been classy and fun !

paid for it. I am surprised de la Renta they didn't tell her it was store issued. But maybe she bought it off the rack?

Surprised nobody's noted this fact yet :)

$200 for a haircut?

I do care about HOW they make their money.

Look here.

income is up to them. Just like how you spend yours is up to you.

I care that CEO salaries are insanely disproportionate to their employees. I care that there are war profiteers.

I care about some extremely unethical practices.

But I don't care what you do with your own earnings - that's your business.

'Tis a pity because you didn't refute my point, even if you did read it.

If her family income is ultimately derived from taxes it's still THEIR income -- just like any government employee's income.

If she spent $20 on a dress the balance of this purchase would STILL not go to buy armor for troops, because it would STILL be their income.

Aside from that, the fact is they're quite wealthy all on their own. Bush's salary is just a drop in the bucket.

income.

I do care about people earning income through misdeeds. But otherwise I have no reason to be outraged about how people spend their own money.

I'm not part of the so called Moral Majority. I don't give a shit about people's PERSONAL CHOICES.

What don't you get about that?

It's a very distinctive dress and overwhelms the card. You would think with the horror in Iraq, she would have worn a more sedate dress. But nooooo.

Someone on DU mentioned that it looked like laura and george were having a prom photo taken. :)

Whether she is a Dem or Rethug, she can't be expected to attend State Dinners and galas in second-hand clothing or knock-offs. Seriously, I think it is a double-edged sword. And this story got attention because some other women had on the same gown. I bet the all First Ladies' wardrobes will be expensive. And no one at the dinners and galas will discuss how many nutritious dinners could have been fed to hungry folk, or how many AIDS meds could have been delivered to the sick, healthcare provided to the poor in low access areas, etc. I don't even care about this because it is all "theater."

I remember the Carter Inauguration. The Washington media gave Rosalynn Carter HELL because she made her own ball gown for the Inauguration Ball!!! Sacre bleu! They were mad at her for NOT spending thousands of dollars for a designer gown.

I was proud of her for having the skill and intelligence to sew properly.

I thought Hillary's dark blue lace Inaugural Ball number was just beautiful, if anybody remembers that.

of the dress. AT least, I think part of it was blue violet.

Poor Rosalyn. But good for her that she'd do such a thing during a time of economic problems in the country, and showing sensitivity to the feelings of others.

There's really no way to win on this issue.

Yes, there are people who are starving. Shall the rest of us come look at how YOU spend YOUR discretionary income and chide you for that as well? I have a weakness for books. Are you going to tell me that I should be conributing to charity instead of buying books?

Your tax money isn't being spent here. When JFK became President-Elect, his FATHER gave Jackie an annual budget for her clothes so she could wear designer clothes and not be hampered by the relatively low salary JFK would be drawing.

Designer clothes cost money, a lot of money. They don't have to be originals with no copies to be worth $8400 and individually handmade. It's likely, IMO, that the sequins or crystals or whatever made the dress sparkle were handsewn. That costs money -- UNLESS you want the work done in sweatshops and prisons in China --?????

Laura Bush -- and I'm NO fan -- gets criticized when she looks dowdy, and now she's getting criticized for a beautiful designer gown. There's no pleasing DUers, but the truth is this: it's none of your business, really. When was the last discussion criticizing W's suits or other apparel?

FInally, find something SUBSTANTIVE to criticize about her. I can't stand the woman, frankly, and it pains me to come to her defense, but dammit, criticizing her clothing and style and other factors of her appearance is just sexist, and disgusting.

You have an opinion!

Guess what?

So do I. It happens to differ from yours but it's an opinion nonetheless.

She parades around in blood-soaked finery while her husband systematically transfers wealth from the middle class to THEIR class. It's relevant. It's atrocious behavior.

K-mart, the transfer of wealth would still be there.

She and her little weenie of a husband believe they are fucking ROYALTY. We have every right to call them out on that crap. It's obscene.

I don't think you're wrong about that, esp. vis a vis W. But it has nothing to do with the dress.

Would you also critidize Jackie Kennedy for her expensive Valentino and Oscar de la Renta gowns -- and suits -- and coats -- and hats? What about Nancy Reagan? Hillary Clinton? She may not have spent as much, but she too had to wear nice clothes and SOME of them were definitely designer duds.

Your outrage is appropriate; how you're handling it and what you're targeting is not.

Don't tell me how to "handle" my outrage. Go play nanny somewhere else, I'm not interested.

You don't have to be filthy rich, you don't have to be president, you don't have to be (or think) you're royalty to buy that dress.

I will call them out on whatever the fuck I want to call them out on, stop telling me what to do.

Thank you!

All the rest of what you said is NOT. FOcus on that. Skip the gender stuff.

Please explain. Thanks.

I don't know what your trip is, maybe you work in fashion, I can't think of any other reason you'd be defending that horror-show, and I have no idea where you get off telling me what I can and cannot criticize Mrs. Bush over. She's Marie Antoinette, she's Imelda Marcos, she's Elena Ceauşescu and I won't cut her slack anywhere on any topic. She sold her soul for that gown, hundreds of thousands have died for it, if she had any humanity at all she'd shave her head and rend her garments and wail in shame at what she's done. I will not sit down, I will not shut up, stop telling me what to do.

Hundreds of thousands died for that dress? Then sounds like she got it cheap, to me.

Where did you make THAT connection?

She's stands in an ocean of blood.

Did she have a fortune before the war?

Is the president paid a sum regardless of the war?

The dress is soaked in blood, it's an obscenity, it's emblematic of everything I hate about them, and I am done talking to you but I'll have my eye on you in future. I see where you're coming from.

still have no coherent cause and effect.

Thrilled to know you have your "eye" on me. :eyes:

I assure you, you do not understand where I'm coming from.

To look good it is not necessary to spend $8500 for a dress. I think we can all agree on that?

So wearing this dress DOES reflect on Laura. She is a role model. Wearing this dress she is a role model for the rich, for those who think nothing of blowing obscene amounts of money on expendable items. She is a role model for people who like to flaunt their wealth. Such expressions of wealth are highly symbolic. Laura is not a role model for the majority of people in our 'democratic' society.

It is a substantive criticism.

sackcloth and ashes, or whatever. Who are the arbiters of taste or "flaunting one's wealth"? How much is she or soemone else ALLOWED to spend on a dress in your world? It's a serious question; I'd like an answer.

Look, I'm not one who typically defends the ultra rich, but this whole conversation is utterly ridiculous. As I came back to it today, ya'll look like a bunch of hicks. Damned unsophisticated, and resentful as hell of what is frankly the norm in Washington, D.C.

Hollywood celebs spend this kind of money on their clothing too -- where is everyone's outrage about that?

And what should the Designers you would put out of business do? You realize, of course, that courture is an ART form, and that they employ a lot of people too, and that the Fashion Industry as a whole is a fairly large one. Would you have everyone just wear burlap -- or uniforms made out of hopsack?

Laura is not a role model for the majority of people in our 'democratic' society.

Actually, she is. There is NOTHING wrong with following the custom of dress for formal affairs in our nation's capital, and being seen in public in a dress most of us would not / could not afford -- it's expected. It gives some of us something to aspire to, it lifts our spirits to see something beautiful and a fumpy old ex-librarian like Laura look not all that bad (certainly not as bad as she has in certain other clothes). Only those with resentment in their hearts would find fault with it.

Ditch the resentment -- it can only hurt YOU in the long run.

I don't know how much it cost, but presumably a lot less than this dress.

Too many people are too concerned with others' personal choices.

I've appreciated reading them. BUT -- I think I'm done with this thread. Thanks for your input.

...you call people hicks--who feel such display of wealth is outrageous. Now is that nice? And you perpetuate the notion that this flaunting of wealth is acceptable in political circles. Guess what-- "the norm" in Washington IS offensive to a LOT of people. (And a lot of people are grossed out by Hollywood excesses too. Who wants politicians to act like Hollywood idiots?)

Boo hoo for the designers if there's a drop-off in sales to politicians. There will still be plenty of rich society matrons and other Stepford Wives to fleece. Why jump to the extreme of suggesting that the alternative is "burlap'? :shrug: not logical

You must be in the fashion industry, right? I think we all know a nice outfit for Laura and friends would not have to cost almost $9000 each. Laura in a $9000 dress might "lift your spirit"--it does not lift mine. "Something to aspire to"?--oh BS. This is purely an obscene flaunting of wealth and power.

There is NO dress that is worth that much (and there are NO hairstyles worth $700, as Laura paid, either). There is no other way to see this. While these vultures drain the country dry and pour billions into wars benefitting themselves, they preen and parade in glittering costumes at lavish functions. They deserve to look like Repuglican clones.

Maybe you like the excesses of the last days of Rome. But accept that it makes others sick...not resentful (resentful implies that you want to be in that position yourself). No, just sick at the image of excess they present at a time when average Americans are asked to be more and more frugal. Laura Bush has a choice--she could use that money for more generous purposes and still wear something presentable. :puke: But instead we witness the Dance of the Stepford Wives and their Nutcracker consorts. And people like you say this is all OK.

Sorry,
but in a democratic society, where we choose our leaders, I think this is entirely **my business* and a "big deal". Buying or wearing $8000 dresses when there is such poverty in the country shows a lack of compassion and concern. The Presidency sets an example. We will never see a more just society if we allow our representation to feel comfortable so far above the average man.

There is a problem with distribution of wealth in the United States.

How people choose to spend their own income is not the problem.

It is not about the dress, but what is behind it.

We cannot have fair representation by people who are not in touch with the lives of ordinary people. Or who do not care about the lives of their constituents. You will never get just representation by people who live life as a "higher class". If they do not have the sensability, or the discipline, to hold off on the excess because of the message it makes than they also don't have the wisdom to properly manage the country, or the wisdom or compassion to understand the half of the country that is not well off.

I don't give a rats but about what you spend. But you are damn right I care about the statement this makes from a public representative. And you are damn straight I will, and others **should** comment and dissaprove of this, regardless of party.

So many Americans want change. But they think they can get it superficially. The issues are far deeper than the surface. We have to change our philosophies. And we have to expect more from our representatives. We can push out of touch representatives to vote our way for a while, but they will always flop back. There needs to be deeper change.

No offense but you are still living in a fantasy if you think that you can have a just society with a uber rich class running it. can't happen.

And I judge candidates by policy - not by their income.

First, sorta tangential but still a valid point -- I don't hear you complaining about W's suits. He wears Armani, I think I heard. WHERE IS YOUR OUTRAGE ABOUT THAT?

You're right about the fact that we need representatives in government who represent THE PEOPLE. Laura isn't a representative of anything. It's not her job to "dress poor" so some statement is made for people like you. Good grief!

And to be honest -- $8500 isn't that much for a designer couture dress. It just isn't. So as far as "excess" goes, you're kinda behind the times. This is probably on the moderate or "typical" cost side.

That doesn't change the fact that 8,500 is still a lot of money for most American citizens. Does it? I mean, surely you don't think that the rising costs of high couture is actually grounded economically, do you? Do you think the mindset among the ultra-rich that 8,500 has become such a paltry amount should somehow trickle down to the rest of us? Yes, never mind that 8,500 still buys a heck of a lot of basic necessities these days. 8,500 as a significant lump of money is so 1995! :crazy:

I'm sorry, but your post actually only served to reinforce my feelings on the matter. I do think that people in a position of power have at least a modicum of responsibility in how they conduct themselves and the message it sends to everyone else. I don't think a person has to give a shit about the dress. But, I think that acknowledging that in the current economic climate and the growing ranks of people suffering economic hardship makes it at the very least understandable that some may look askance at such excess. And if those in Laura Bush's world have become so isolated from that that they've forgotten that 8,500 is still significant to most people, does it hurt for them to be reminded of it? I honestly don't understand your and others in this thread taking to task of people who can't wrap their heads around such excess. It makes no sense to me.

And if those in Laura Bush's world have become so isolated from that that they've forgotten that 8,500 is still significant to most people, does it hurt for them to be reminded of it?

Oh, this thread is going to remind them? How, exactly?

I honestly don't understand your and others in this thread taking to task of people who can't wrap their heads around such excess. It makes no sense to me.

It's just (a) pointless and (b) sexist to rail against Laura Bush's dress. That's all. Many of the points made have been good ones -- but Laura Bush's dress just isn't the problem, and isn't even a good "symbol" of the problem:

* Nothing would change or be different or better if she'd spent less on her dress.
* She doesn't make policy anyway.
* It's illogical and juvenile to criticize her for others' failings and esp. for the failings of a whole society -- and esp. to criticize her on the basis of what she wears and how she looks, which are entirely, 100% sexist considerations.

And so forth and so on.

My God, from some of the absolutely hysterical posts here, you'd think she personally stolen food from homeless children and their mothers and then laughed in their faces.

A lot of people here would do very well to look up and cogitate on the pyschological concept of Shadow Selves.

The $8500 gown she wore looks like hell--the "drapery" comments were right on the mark; most of her formal clothing looks like it was made from upholstery fabric--and she looked really bad in it.

The shocker isn't that Laura Bush would buy an expensive, ugly dress. That's SOP for her. It's that the designer had the balls to make five of them.

Oh man, wait till Morgana LaFey reads that, that you said "balls". You see, Morgana doesn't believe you should be allowed to use such sexist language as "balls", lol. :evilgrin:

I liked the dress very much. As for how she looked in it -- not bad, actually. I've seen her look worse.

But you know what? It's not your fucking business how she looks in her clothes or what she wears. It's just not. It's sexist to criticize her on those grounds. I think there's a LOT to criticize Laura Bush for without being sexist. Anybody wanna try? That might be interesting.

The First Lady of the United States is my nation's ambassador to the world.

Look at the last five First Ladies. Rosalynn Carter always looked sharp. Nancy Reagan likewise. Barbara Bush looked like a neatly-dressed grandmother. That sounds a bit sexist on its face, but she looked like the prototype for the grandma everyone else had--the one who let you stay the summer riding ponies on her farm, and who always had fresh homemade chocolate chip cookies when you came to visit. (It was only when you got to know her you realized she may be the most vicious person in America.) Hillary Rodham Clinton ushered in an era of "working glamour"--she looked like a well-dressed, well-groomed lawyer because that's what she was. (Now she looks like a well-dressed, well-groomed senator.) And Hillary is proof you don't need cubic dollars to be well-dressed; the Clintons are the least-wealthy First Couple we've had in many administrations. They didn't even own a home until late 2000--not because they couldn't afford one, but because all Bill's jobs came with free housing.

And then there's Laura Bush. I can go to any big box store in the country and find five cashiers who dress better than the First Lady of the United States. That's terrible, but it's the way it is. Laura Bush goes to these summit meetings and has her picture made with foreign leaders' wives. The other first ladies always look immaculate and stylish; ours shows up looking like Chairman Mao discovered polyester doubleknit.

Okay, you want me to criticize Laura Bush without being sexist? She is, quite possibly, the most disinterested person in all America. Most First Ladies have a project they work on while their husbands are in office--Nancy Reagan and her Just Say No campaign, for instance. Laura Bush claims to have literacy as her project, but she may be the greatest stealth literacy promoter in America. I never see her, or hear about her, doing anything. And it would be mean to point out that she fits in perfectly with America's Most Murderous Family because she started her personal body count before she even graduated from high school.

so she bought an expensive dress- so what? i'll bet that when she was 1st lady that hillary probably donned an expensive frock or two as well- where was the OP's outrage then?

but I don't understand the outrage. I doubt she even paid for the dress. And if she did, I think the cost is what you'd expect for something like that.

I find it odd she wouldn't take the time to get an original made for that much money though. I'm betting there are designers who would love to make a dress for her that gets so much press.

I don't understand why people are so concerned with what she wears all the time. Do we expect her to have good taste? Look who she married to find that answer!

I know my buddies' wives all have closets full of $8k dresses.