patrick.net

Did she buy it or did someone "donate" it to her charity ?

As I said in another thread, this is probably not a mistake. Sad but true. Look at the things that make people like Trump !

And as I said on another thread, she wore it while delivering a speech about inequality. I find it hard to believe that this went over her head. For all that I don't like this woman, I have no doubt that she's a smart cookie. That said, she gave a speech about inequality, all the while wearing a jacket that would cost a minimum wage worker about seven months of earnings. That just looks sooooooooo very bad.

Last weekend, one of our homeless veterans at my local VA Hospital, needed some clothing before being discharged. My Disabled American Veterans (DAV) Chapter provided him with some basic toiletries as well as clean underwear and some clothing. $12K would buy a lot other clothing for needy veterans.

Hillary?

Sunday morning I helped escort one of our VA Hospice residents to the Chapel on the second floor of the VA hospital to attend Mass.

Hillary?

Sunday afternoon, I was helping to feed one of our paralyzed veterans in the Spinal Cord Injury Ward..

Hillary?

Sunday evening, as I was about to go home, one of our VA Hospice nurses asked me if I could stay a little longer and sit with a dying veteran. (He has no family in the area)

Hillary?

Become a VA Volunteer. It will change you forever!

(I am so tired after 4 hours on my feet. I don't know how the nurses do it)

jvolstad says

Hillary's $12K jacket

Bill says, if only Monica had one of these twelve grand jackets, she might have gotten it dry cleaned.

jvolstad says

Last weekend, one of our homeless veterans at my local VA Hospital, needed some clothing before being discharged.

So sad that Trump couldn't sell off Mar-a-Lago or his jet and use the money to help veterans. The money would buy $12,000 jackets for many veterans.

turtledove says

That just looks sooooooooo very bad.

Nah. It's ironic yes. But it only looks bad to people like you that already hate her. To me, a man that doesn't know how it could cost so much, I also know she's a woman and she's running for President. If the designer gave it to her, because of free advertising. would the fact that it cost 12K stilll look "sooooooo bad ?"

You think there are people that the inequality issue is really important to, that are going to say that because she's rich or because she wears a crazy expensive jacket, she can't possibly understand how they feel, or why it's a problem ? I disagree. They're just as likely to think you go girl, you're on the national stage, running against a guy that brags about being a billionaire. Glad you finally got the memo that that frumpy macy's pant suit isn't really working for you.

The things that matter to voters are not rational and aren't that easy to understand. They don't make sense, especially not to women voters. If that weren't the case, do you really think that even the moron's that like Trump would be able to tolerate the obvious risk that having such an aberrant personality as our President presents ?

I get a kick that this is the worst or most interesting current thing you can find ( don't worry I've already heard your factless rant about how untrustworthy she is). But this gem that is probably a very intentional leak by the Clinton forces really speaks to you.

Nobody can claim that she, or her campaign people haven't learned anything from the Trump phenomenon.

In my relatively not wealthy but tasteful upbringing, Trump's taste makes Sadam Hussiens taste look modest. It's grotesquely gaudy.

I think that jacket is tasteful and looks good on her. And I don't think we know what her campaign paid for it, if anything. If it was 12K it was probably money well spent, but more likely this whole thing is a set up, that might even be making her campaign money. If not, it should be. That's some seriously good advertising for Armani.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict you will see a lot more of this kind of expensive designer clothes on Clinton before this November, and after as well if she's elected. And we also might find out that Armani made some contributions to her campaign. Would that be an example of corruption ?

marcus says

Nah. It's ironic yes. But it only looks bad to people like you that already hate her.

Why is it even ironic? It rains on wedding days, and that's not ironic.

This attack always works with the right wing, and it's mystifying: Bill Clinton's haircuts, Al Gore's house, John Edwards's haircuts, John Kerry's loaded wife - all evidence of some putative hypocrisy.

I figure it's projection, since, with the exeption of 1996, all GOP presidential nominees have been men born to wealth and excellent family connections, including "This airport was named after my grandfather!" McCain. Seriously: they candidate most likely to win the GOP primaries is the white man who was born to the most wealth and power.

HydroCabron says

This attack always works with the right wing

It works because it's the left that wants everyone else's money to support their supposed equality agenda. Sarah Palin spent $150k on her wardrobe. But she wasn't decrying a person's right to be more successful than another. It's hypocritical because they are card carrying members of the very group they blame for every problem in America today. Trump doesn't pretend to be Mother Theresa, all the while living in his over-the-top digs.

marcus says

You think there are people that the inequality issue is really important to, that are going to say that because she's rich or because she wears a crazy expensive jacket, she can't possibly understand how they feel, or why it's a problem ?

I never said that she is incapable of empathizing with people who are less fortunate than her. But I do think it's in very poor taste to lecture people on inequality while at the same time wearing a jacket that is so over-the-top expensive that it could stand to symbolize the very unfairness that exists in this country. It's like going to a soup kitchen and right in front of everyone, pulling out your Morton's fillet mignon box lunch and eating it. It's just rude and thoughtless. $12,000 for a single item of clothing is excessive by most people's standards.

I have some seriously nice things. I like nice things. Last year excepted, I've never been poor. But I could never spend $200k on a wardrobe (that's what her total expenditure is estimated to be) knowing that there are people out there who cannot afford food. Truly, I couldn't. If I had all the money in the world, I would find it hard to spend $12k on a jacket knowing that I could get a kickin jacket for $1,000 and then buy $50 much-needed jackets for 220 cold people. There are a lot of nice things to be had that cost a lot less than $12k for a single item of clothing. It's not like THAT Armani jacket was her only option. She chose to put on something like that. I guarantee, if she went shopping with me, I could make her look a lot nicer than she does at a fraction of the cost. Give me $15k, and I could take care of her entire wardrobe and she'd look amazing... and I'd still have some money left over to pay myself for my time.

turtledove says

But she wasn't decrying a person's right to be more successful than another.

Neither is anyone on the left.

Advocating a return to the marginal tax rates and capital gains taxes of the early eighties is not hating success. There were plenty of wealthy people then.

Or do you seriously believe that Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower and Truman all believed in punishing hard work and success?

There are simply no communists with any power in the United States. Every political figure understands the class system and the rought correlation between hard work and success, and wants to preserve.

By the way: Sarah Palin attacked "elites" relentlessly, and then went shopping. She also took every elite east-coast pundit gig she could get, before everyone got sick of her.

turtledove says

It's hypocritical because they are card carrying members of the very group they blame for every problem in America today. Trump doesn't pretend to be Mother Theresa, all the while living in his over-the-top digs.

It's NOT hypocritical in the slightest. She wants to change the laws of the US so that the natural course isn't rising inequality. Those laws would apply to her along with everyone else in the U.S.

It's really not the hard to understand. One person's charity, while noble, doesn't fix the problem. Only changes in laws can fix it.

Also--Nobody is blaming the rich for being rich. They get blamed because they use their wealth to bribe politicians to enrich themselves at the expense of the less fortunate.

The fact that you must use strawman arguments pretty clearly shows that you cannot make reasonable arguments..

tatupu70 says

She wants to change the laws of the US so that the natural course isn't rising inequality

Really, she champions NAFTA and TPP-millions of jobs lost will correct inequality?????????????????????????????/

lostand confused says

Really, she champions NAFTA and TPP-millions of jobs lost will correct inequality?????????????????????????????/

IMO, she's wrong on trade.

tatupu70 says

Also--Nobody is blaming the rich for being rich. They get blamed because they use their wealth to bribe politicians to enrich themselves at the expense of the less fortunate.

So then how should we feel about the very politicians who accepted the bribes? Because it's very very clear that the Clintons have been doing so (in a whitewashed quasi-legal way) for a very long time. Just look at the Clinton Foundation "charity" and tell me that's not a front for their own personal slush fund.
By the way I think you are absolutely correct in your quoted statement. The line is drawn not in wealth but in malevolent influence.

HydroCabron says

Sarah Palin attacked "elites" relentlessly

Liberal elites.

Quigley says

So then how should we feel about the very politicians who accepted the bribes? Because it's very very clear that the Clintons have been doing so (in a whitewashed quasi-legal way)

Yep--There is a LOT to not like about Clinton. I won't argue with you.

Quigley says

Just look at the Clinton Foundation "charity" and tell me that's not a front for their own personal slush fund

It's not a front for their own personal slush fund.

For me, the bar for believing an accusation against the Clintons gets higher and higher. They may be among he cleanest people in Washington.

Consider the absolutely abysmal track record of Hillary's accusers. To quote Kevin Drum:

Whitewater was a nothingburger. Travelgate was a nothingburger. Troopergate was a nothingburger. Filegate was a nothingburger. The Vince Foster murder conspiracy theories were a nothingburger. Monica Lewinsky was Bill's problem, not Hillary's. Benghazi was a tragedy, but entirely non-scandalous. The Goldman Sachs speeches were probably a bad idea, but otherwise a nothingburger. Emailgate revealed some poor judgment, but we've now seen all the emails and it's pretty obviously a nothingburger. Humagate is a nothingburger. Foundationgate is a nothingburger.

At some point, won't even long-time conservative observers come to this conclusion?

Why not just dislike her policy positions?

turtledove says

HydroCabron says

Sarah Palin attacked "elites" relentlessly

Liberal elites.

Ah, so if Clinton only attacks conservative elites-then it's OK?

tatupu70 says

Ah, so if Clinton only attacks conservative elites-then it's OK?

No: that's hypocrisy.

Also: chickenhawks starting wars all over the place are only hypocrites if they're Democrats.

That hospital in Haiti get built yet?

HOPE II keep the minimum wage down despite spiraling inflation in Haiti.

tatupu70 says

Ah, so if Clinton only attacks conservative elites-then it's OK?

I would expect nothing less. But the liberal elites have different issues than the republican elites. The republican elites don't want to pay taxes. They worked hard to make their money and they want to keep it for themselves. They don't want to be told how they should give back. They don't pretend otherwise.

The liberal elites also worked hard for their money, however, they want everyone else to pay taxes. The repeatedly put the burden on the middle and upper middles classes (and yes, I understand we are the biggest group of tax payers, which is part of what makes us such an obvious target). They institute deductions designed to help the lower classes forgetting that the lower classes can't afford the professional advice to take advantage of all the loopholes. Their policies, perhaps well intended, have done nothing but deplete the middle. More and more of the middle are joining the lower classes, all the while the highest class continues to accumulate more and more.

turtledove says

Their policies, perhaps well intended, have done nothing but deplete the middle.

What are you talking about?

Conservatives have been winning the taxation argument since 1981.

About 80% of our tax and trade laws and agreements have been penned by the Republican Party.

The United States has the third-lowest tax burden among all first-world countries.

turtledove says

The liberal elites also worked hard for their money, however, they want everyone else to pay taxes.

This is transparent bullshit.

They are advocating for higher taxes on themselves, as well (and most particularly). Soros and Buffett are routinely mocked by conservatives on this point.

HydroCabron says

It's not a front for their own personal slush fund.

For me, the bar for believing an accusation against the Clintons gets higher and higher. They may be among he cleanest people in Washington.

Consider the absolutely abysmal track record of Hillary's accusers. To quote Kevin Drum:

Whitewater was a nothingburger. Travelgate was a nothingburger. Troopergate was a nothingburger. Filegate was a nothingburger. The Vince Foster murder conspiracy theories were a nothingburger. Monica Lewinsky was Bill's problem, not Hillary's. Benghazi was a tragedy, but entirely non-scandalous. The Goldman Sachs speeches were probably a bad idea, but otherwise a nothingburger. Emailgate revealed some poor judgment, but we've now seen all the emails and it's pretty obviously a nothingburger. Humagate is a nothingburger. Foundationgate is a nothingburger.

At some point, won't even long-time conservative observers come to this conclusion?

Why not just dislike her policy positions?

Riiiiiiight. You will buy whatever they are selling, so long as they are democrats. Just because someone is so powerful within the law structure, to avoid prosecution, does not make them clean. If you get away with a crime, you can say that you didn't get caught. You cannot say that you are innocent, however. Just a grade a snake, good at gaming gameable systems (that they themselves construct).

One of the Clintons close personal friends, and a prominent member of the democrat party, is a good example, of being above the law. Where in the world is Jon Corzine? Is he awaiting Hillary to call and ask him to be the VP?

tatupu70 says

It's NOT hypocritical in the slightest. She wants to change the laws of the US so that the natural course isn't rising inequality. Those laws would apply to her along with everyone else in the U.S.

It's really not the hard to understand. One person's charity, while noble, doesn't fix the problem. Only changes in laws can fix it.

Also--Nobody is blaming the rich for being

Now that's rich!

Where does Hillary claim to want to change the laws so to change the course of rising inequality?

And now you want me to believe that she wants the laws to apply to her? laughable, you're just flat out lying now.

Comparing Hitlery's $12,000 Mumu to Trump gold guilded room, is no comparison.
Trump isn't running in the election on a foundation's dime.

Trump paid for room and his campaign.

Hillary not only hasn't paid for her campaign. she didn't buy that bathrobe.

turtledove says

would expect nothing less. But the liberal elites have different issues than the republican elites. The republican elites don't want to pay taxes. They worked hard to make their money and they want to keep it for themselves. They don't want to be told how they should give back. They don't pretend otherwise.

They don't mind spending US taxpayer money though. Just don't go asking them to pay any, right?

turtledove says

The liberal elites also worked hard for their money, however, they want everyone else to pay taxes. The repeatedly put the burden on the middle and upper middles classes (and yes, I understand we are the biggest group of tax payers, which is part of what makes us such an obvious target). They institute deductions designed to help the lower classes forgetting that the lower classes can't afford the professional advice to take advantage of all the loopholes. Their policies, perhaps well intended, have done nothing but deplete the middle. More and more of the middle are joining the lower classes, all the while the highest class continues to accumulate more and more.

That is completely incorrect. Buffet, Gates, et. al want to raise taxes on the top 1% and make the tax code much more progressive. Raise capital gains. Death tax, as conservatives are fond of calling it. That's what liberals want.

errc says

Now that's rich!

Where does Hillary claim to want to change the laws so to change the course of rising inequality?

And now you want me to believe that she wants the laws to apply to her? laughable, you're just flat out lying now.

"Hillary Clinton proposes raising taxes on high-income taxpayers, modifying taxation of multinational corporations, repealing fossil fuel tax incentives, and increasing estate and gift taxes. Her proposals would increase revenue by $1.1 trillion over the next decade. Nearly all of the tax increases would fall on the top 1 percent; the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers would see little or no change in their taxes. Marginal tax rates would increase, reducing incentives to work, save, and invest, and the tax code would become more complex. The analysis does not address a forthcoming proposal to cut taxes for low- and middle-income families."

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-hillary-clintons-tax-proposals

Tenpoundbass says

Trump isn't running in the election on a foundation's dime.

Trump paid for room and his campaign.

Trump is in talks with the RNC to pay back his campaign loans from the primaries. They will definitely pay for most/all of his general election expenses.

He is sort of self-funding his campaign.

HydroCabron says

He is sort of self-funding his campaign.

His campaign will not be self funded. That much I can guarantee.

Haters

tatupu70 says

That is completely incorrect. Buffet, Gates, et. al want to raise taxes on the top 1% and make the tax code much more progressive. Raise capital gains. Death tax, as conservatives are fond of calling it. That's what liberals want.

French for more complicated. Once again, that benefits those who can afford the knowledge to navigate the system and raises the costs of compliance. Death tax no doubt will be just as stupidly implemented as everything else. You'll end up with the family who inherited a few hundred thousand paying half to the government while the guy inheriting hundreds of millions will have everything shielded by tax shelters.

You all aren't incorrect when you say that tax rates are more favorable (after WWII, that is). Just comparing rates across years proves that:

Assumptions: Based on 2013 dollars, $22k= poverty line for 2-person household, $52k= median household income, $181k= median salary of median tax rate of 28%, $450= 1%

2013
Bottom Rate: 10%
$22k: 15%
$52k: 15%
$181k: 28%
$450k: 39.6%
Highest Rate: 39.6%

1985
Bottom Rate: 0%
$22k: 14%
$52k: 22%
$181k: 42%
$450k: 50%
Highest Rate: 50%

1970
Bottom Rate: 14%
$22k: 17%
$52k: 22%
$181k: 39%
$450k: 58%
Highest Rate: 70%

1955
Bottom Rate: 20%
$22k: 20%
$52k: 22%
$181k: 38%
$450k: 62%
Highest Rate: 91%

1940
Bottom Rate: 4%
$22k: 4%
$52k: 4%
$181k: 11%
$450k: 34%
Highest Rate: 79%

1925
Bottom Rate: 1.5%
$22k: 1.5%
$52k: 1.5%
$181k: 6%
$450k: 14%
Highest Rate: 25%

1913
Bottom Rate: 1%
$22k: 1%
$52k: 1%
$181k: 1%
$450k: 1%
Highest Rate: 7%

What you aren't looking at are effective tax rates. You could make the highest tax rate 99%, but if the corresponding effective tax rate is 2% it's meaningless. It's an illusion of fairness that doesn't exist in reality. Get rid of the deductions, have a fair and straight forward tax rate from which there is no escape and then you will have something meaningful. When Buffet made the comment about how he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, he wasn't talking about the marginal tax rate. His secretary just doesn't have the same team of tax experts completing her tax returns for her. Most of us don't.

But this is a separate issue from spending what we don't have. Allowing waste to permeate the farthest reaches of every well intended government program, paid for courtesy of tax payers... Subsidies that drive up costs (that's the cruelest tax imaginable -- talk about regressive), just to name some examples. My point is, there's more to it than just looking at marginal tax rates. If that's all you want to look at then yes, rates are better now than they were in 1960. But, IMHO, you are missing the point. The rate might be better but you aren't better off.

turtledove says

But she wasn't decrying a person's right to be more successful than another

Wow. Interesting how you have to twist things around to make it believable (while actually making yourself out to be an idiot).

There isn't a single liberal suggesting that we go back to tax rates anything like they were under Eisenhower. But your overlords have somehow succeeded in getting you to argue for their agenda of catering to an obscene multigenerational aristocracy, the likes of which we haven't seen since the gilded age.

Do you ever read anything that doesn't fit your sick twisted view ?

I would imagine if you tried to read something like this http://robertreich.org/ you would find yourself jumping up and down with your fingers in your ears screaming "I can't hear you."

Please share a link with me that I might find equally compelling regarding the virtues of "trickle down" or how liberals want everyone to have the same income and success level.

turtledove says

French for more complicated

So, higher rate = more complicated? How is a capital gains rate of 25% instead of 20% more complicated?

turtledove says

Death tax no doubt will be just as stupidly implemented as everything else. You'll end up with the family who inherited a few hundred thousand paying half to the government while the guy inheriting hundreds of millions will have everything shielded by tax shelters.

That's a different topic. You don't fix a problem of too many shelters by getting rid of the tax entirely.

turtledove says

What you aren't looking at are effective tax rates.

OK, so please post the effective tax rates then. You prove my point with data, then say it's irrelevant with no supporting data. turtledove says

Buffet made the comment about how he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, he wasn't talking about the marginal tax rate. His secretary just doesn't have the same team of tax experts completing her tax returns for her

He wasn't? All his money comes from capital gains. Whereas the secretary pays earned income tax. But, in any case, I agree with you that there are lots of tax shelters for the rich that we should nix.

turtledove says

My point is, there's more to it than just looking at marginal tax rates. If that's all you want to look at then yes, rates are better now than they were in 1960. But, IMHO, you are missing the point. The rate might be better but you aren't better off.

The point is what the rates create/produce. Look at inequality over the last 40 years. That's what current tax rates have helped produce.

turtledove says

But I do think it's in very poor taste to lecture people on inequality while at the same time wearing a jacket that is so over-the-top expensive that it could stand to symbolize the very unfairness that exists in this country

It's a conservative good looking jacket. Why would anyone think it costs 12K ? We still don't know that it did. I'd bet it's some kind of contribution write off for Armani. Or a marketing scheme.

It's not strange in my book, because it's doubtful she paid anything for it. Did you know that celebrities are paid big bucks to where designer clothes (and say who the designer is). This has got to be the same. That's why we even know it's an expensive Armani. Wealthy women in Hillary's age group in France, London, Dubai, and Shanghai are now all clamoring to have a dress like it. Wake up tutledove.

marcus says

Wow. Interesting how you have to twist things around to make it believable (while actually making yourself out to be an idiot).

There isn't a single liberal suggesting that we go back to tax rates anything like they were under Eisenhower. But your overlords have somehow succeeded in getting you to argue for their agenda of catering to an obscene multigenerational aristocracy, the likes of which we haven't seen since the gilded age.

Do you ever read anything that doesn't fit your sick twisted view ?

I would imagine if you tried to read something like this http://robertreich.org/ you would find yourself jumping up and down with your fingers in your ears screaming "I can't hear you."

Please share a link with me that I might find equally compelling regarding the virtues of "trickle down" or how liberals want everyone to have the same income and success level.

Are you hearing voices, or something? I don't think I said a single thing you accused me of. Have you reached a point where you can't even separate my words from your expectations? I thought you were a teacher. Shouldn't you be teaching during the day? I hope you aren't leaving your entire classroom to fend for themselves while you lose your mind over things I never said.

Tenpoundbass says

Comparing Hitlery's $12,000 Mumu to Trump gold guilded room, is no comparison.

Trump isn't running in the election on a foundation's dime.

I was comparing what I do not think as tasteless or conspicuous consumption to what is possibly the most tacky and tasteless and conspicuous consumption I have ever seen. One would think what he really wants is to be king. I wonder if he has a crown with lots of jewels that he wears sometimes. That's the portrait of Trump tat someone should do.

And I continue to argue that Hillary is probably even getting paid to where that dress and leak that it's an expensive Armani. Hey, it's easy money, it doesn't hurt anyone and she has an expensive campaign to urn.

"running in the election on the foundations dime ?"

Good one. Shouldn't you be making up better shit than that. Turn Fox back on, or go to Drudge. I'm sure you can come up with some better lies to support your emotions.

marcus says

It's a conservative good looking jacket. Why would anyone think it costs 12K ? We still don't know that it did. I'd bet it's some kind of contribution write off for Armani. Or a marketing scheme.

It's not strange in my book, because it's doubtful she paid anything for it. Did you know that celebrities are paid big bucks to where designer clothes (and say who the designer is). This has got to be the same. That's why we even know it's an expensive Armani. Wealthy women in Hillary's age group in France, London, Dubai, and Shanghai are now all clamoring to have a dress like it. Wake up tutledove.

There were several articles discussing this very topic. But when a designer donates the garment, a table cloth in this case, they typically have an arrangement where they are credited with the design. Since that didn't happen, it been seriously suspected that she bought the jacket. The "style-watchers" were the ones to figure out who the designer was.

turtledove says

Have you reached a point where you can't even separate my words from your expectations?

marcus says

turtledove says

But she wasn't decrying a person's right to be more successful than another

This seems clear to me, and it's by far the stupidist thing you've ever said on Patrick.net

I did later read further down where you tried to moderate, accusing democrats as being the ones to put tax pressure on the middle and upper middle class.

The facts are really clear though. The republicans claim to be the guardians of over spending. But the truth is they were the ones with the l "starve the beast" strategy. Reagan started it bycutting taxes at the same time he raised military spending massively.

We can't have an honest approach to spending in this country. The biggest spending always happens under republican Presidents, and then the budget crisis is used to prevent any and all democrat initiatives.

The truth is that if we lived within our means, we wouldn't be able to afford our military and out empire. Both of which are a higher priority than what's best for the people. This is and will be increasingly true as white fear of not being a huge majority anymore kicks in.

If we lived within our means we would have to make tough decisions. So instead, there is tons of corporate welfare and low taxes for all the special interests, and you're a fool if you think this is the doing of democrats. It is partially, because the democrats are pretty far to the right at this point. But the republicans are now full on delusional.

Example:

But she wasn't decrying a person's right to be more successful than another

Pathetic.