Good thing Palin's against corruption...Follow

Obama reported 4.2 million dollars in income in 2007.

Palin reported 166 thousand.


The point is that she is arguably the first major party candidate on a presidential ticket any of us have seen in our lifetimes who is *not* a millionaire. And she's certainly the first female in that position.

And all you guys can do is talk negatively about how the RNC bought clothes for her while she's campaigning? Seriously? That's a bad thing to you?

Yup. Says a lot about the party who's plan to win is to keep tying the media up in irrelevancies like how much some clothes cost, in order to prevent the people from thinking too hard about such unimportant issues like comparing the tax plans of the two tickets...

No, I'm saying her being unqualified to be VP is absolutely irrelevent to the type of clothing she owns, but the fact that she's spending all this time and money LOOKING like a good candidate rather than actually BEING a good candidate highlights her inadequacy for the job.



Oh, that's right, the only people who should be expected to pay their own way are the welfare recipients drinking the sweat off the brow of the working man, right? A woman who has had enough money to campaign for public office should just get a free ride.



Let's see, do I expect a leader of my country to be responsible enough to live within her personal means and not go on $75,000 shopping sprees? Frankly, yes. If you can't afford to get something as trivial as designer clothing for yourself, don't expect anyone else to buy it for you. Who is going to be buying her clothing if she gets to be VP?



Not at all. I'll be the first to express outrage over the "girl tax" that is fashion wear and things like dry cleaning charges. But since no one else pays for it for me, I do without. Living within my means and all.



If she were a man, I would be just as offended at the idea of campaign contributors buying Armani suits as I am Chanel dresses. The only reason I had no problem with her clothing before is because I wouldn't know a Christian Dior pantsuit from a pair of overalls, and because I assumed she was being a responsible adult and buying her own clothing. That's because I don't look at labels. I DO, however, look at price tags, and if I can't afford it, I don't buy it.

If I found out my political contributions were buying designer clothing and not going to getting the message out, I'd be FURIOUS, and the fact that you, Gbaji, who have preached the concept of "living within ones means" as the way to cure all the world's ills, can rationalize this to yourself is absolutely hilarious.

She could be wearing a $1 garbage bag or a $10,000 dress. Doesn't matter.

She believes that dinosaurs co-existed with Adam and Eve. And her invisible buddy in the sky made the world in a week......

She's a gullible fool.

Thats what matters.

And of course, not that we're still talking about campaign finance reform, but if we were, well, this would certainly be fertile ground.

The Obama/Biden campaign hasn't spent any campaign or party money on candidate's clothes, if that gives you a baseline.

Well, also, Joe Biden isn't all that rich himself.

But anyway, Palin gets smeared for actual fact. The crazy Pubbies at Freerepublic and at other GOP repositories of stupid are thinking that Obama is going to Hawaii to off his grandma who isn't really sick.

I find amusement in the special brand of rareified crazy that only Freepers can provide but, damn, their site layout is pure shit. I can't be bothered to read it due to layout alone.

Edited, Oct 23rd 2008 9:48am by Jophiel

People are bothered by this? I don't get it.

We have 16th amendment still in effect. That is a good reason to get bothered.

We're about to let a communist buy the whitehouse, oh the irony. A guy who gets 'housing advice' from the execs at Fannie Mae. Brilliant.

We elect democrats because Republicans can't control spending, and the national debt grows. Brilliant.

But we're more worried about whether the Governor of Alaska spent a few hundred bucks of the state's money on her kids.

Well America, you want change, its coming. Be prepared to get hoodwinked things about about to get a hell of a lot worse, people deserve their governments.

Communist? I assume you're talking about Obama. Maybe you should research exactly what communism is.

Anyway...

We already have a crazy right-winger here, go home.

Communist????

I was promised a socialist!

This has been brought to you by BrimstoneFox News.

Sigh...

While you both use the term "national debt", we all know (or should by now) that the relevant calculation is "debt held by public as a percentage of GDP". That's the only correct way to measure real debt against a national economy.

And on that measure, the highest rate we've had was during the first half of Clinton's presidency, with values in the high 40s (49% for three years in a row). Sure. During the second half, the rate dropped dramatically.

During Bush's 8 years in office, it's been sitting pretty stable at around 35-37%. It has not gone up. It has not gone down. It's stayed about the same the whole time.

As to the drop from the massive highs during the Clinton years? The only real change there was that Republicans took power in Congress. It's pretty hard to make any sound argument that Clinton did anything to cause that at all...