[the 1%] Obama dines at elite, expensive restaurant for Valentine's Day

wow, $75 a person.

More than a humble playwright could ever dream of.

 

Feels like a grocery checkout isle tabloid article

 

Stimulating the restaurant economy. Good job, Mr and Mrs Obama!


Bigtexx's people will never be happy unless the Obamas only eat at KFC.

 

That's pretty low end for a President.

 

LOL......

 

I make diddly squat but have paid $60/person for special occasions.
Obama's part of the 1% (so are all other presidential candidates and the vast majority of Congress) and he's never tried to cover that up. And conservatives all of a sudden go ape**** when a millionaire eats at a nice restaurant? Only if they're a liberal. I guess he should've taken Michelle to Chucky Cheese instead.

 

hopefully he got to see michelle in her new lingerie.

 

he would go to Denny's....but they make him wait too long for a table.

 

I don't really feell bad for your desperation bigtex...

 

...

I am actually scandalized by the thought that he might have only tipped 20%. Unless the service was bad (doubtful), then I want our president setting a good example and tipping at least 50% on Valentine's day.

I realize that this is real folks, and this is good news for John McCain, but can we keep the restaurant recommendations to the hangout?

 

LOLOLOLOL I stopped reading at $300. Why do people even write about this sht. I am a conservative, and I honestly am ashamed the man only spent $300. Not really, but seriously $300 bucks for V day dinner at a nice restaurant.

1) He is the pres, he isn't taking Michelle to Chili's or Olive Garden.
2) I have spent 240 on a dinner date, so $300 is not that ridiculous.
3) Like the lingerie, I am sure he paid out of pocket for dinner. Hell, they may have eaten for free. Even if the state did pay for it...would I give a sht about $300 bucks?
4) It's Valentine's day, for those of us with a spouse or significant other a nice dinner is appropriate.

I won't vote for Obama, but I certainly won't give a crap about this nonsense.

 

What amuses me is that the President has said on several occasions that he and his wife are part of the 1%. Unlike the tiny-minded critics from the far right, Mr. Obama thinks that high income earners at his level, and at higher income levels, should pay more in taxes than they currently do. Heck, they should pay what was paid under the hero of the GOP, Ronald Reagan. That would be a nice change. The "free ride" under George W. Bush, when the wealthy could delude themselves into thinking that fighting two wars while cutting taxes was a good idea, instead of the idiocy that it was (and never done before in our nation's history), is over, tinytexxx. Time to hop off the bike. Time for you to grow up.

 

Why would we care that a millionaire had a nice dinner with his wife on Valentine's Day? The President can afford it.

 

horrible thread will NOT read again

 

What a hilarious thread. texxx is so incredibly desperate. Obama admits to being in the 1% and has never attacked the 1% for being wealthy.

His only beef is for them to pay their fair share of taxes.

bigtexxx's inability to grasp that concept is hardly surprising.

 

What about that super creepy **** Elizabeth Warren?

Elizabeth Warren Earns $429,000, Worth Millions but Not Part of 1 Percent

Nick Gillespie | January 30, 2012

There's rich and there's really rich. As the poet and well-paid insurance executive Wallace Stevens supposedly once said, "There's a difference between appreciating art and owning it."

So take pity on Harvard's Elizabeth Warren, the scold of the 1 Percent who is currently running for the Senate in Massachusetts after getting hosed by the Obama administration. Warren is widely credited with pushing for the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency that would simplify credit offerings so that all of us idiots who bought houses we couldn't afford could blame somebody else. Faced with opposition from Republicans, Obama tossed Warren aside as the first hea of the CFPA.

Buzzfeed reports that Warren, like Marie Antoinette and Bruce Springsteen, only likes to play poor:

“I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios" she told [MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell].

Hard to see how Warren wouldn't be, by most standards, wealthy, according to the Personal Financial Disclosure form she filed to run for Senate shows that she's worth as much as $14.5 million. She earned more than $429,000 from Harvard last year alone for a total of about $700,000, and lives in a house worth $5 million.

She also has a portfolio of investments in stocks and bonds worth as as much as $8 million, according to the form, which lists value ranges for each investment. The bulk of it is in funds managed by TIAA-CREF.


Making a ton of dough - she's well into the 1 Percent of income earners based on her salary alone - doesn't mean she can't understand with special care the problems of the rest of us.

But it's worth pointing out that Warren is in fact out of touch with those for whom she claims to speak. She consistently says that folks "didn't know the deal" when they signed up for credit cards that charged interest on balances, mortgages that required monthly payments, or loans that charged interest. She is the embodiment of a paternalist (maternalist?) who thinks that jes' plain folks are dolts who are always getting screwed by mustache-twirling bankers that exist mostly in the imagination of Faulkner's Jason Compson. Hence, her longstanding desire to "simplify" the offerings of financial institutions down to a few types of loans, all of which can be read "by the average American" in a couple of minutes.

It may be quaint for a Harvard prof to want to help the great unwashed, but if she seriously thinks that people overextended on houses and more because they didn't understand their credit terms, she's fighting the wrong battle and we'll all be the poorer for having fewer credit options.

And for those of us who don't make $429,000 a year, or live in $5 million homes, or have as much as $8 million in stocks and bonds, that's not good.