It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Yup at the cost of 0.00000674$ US per person in the the USA. Assuming everyone contributed equally.
"Mrs. Obama pays for her clothing. For official events of public or historic significance, such as a state visit, the first lady's clothes may be given as a gift by a designer and accepted on behalf of the U.S. government. They are then stored by the National Archives."
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: bucsarg
I don't really see a mixed message. The key point Obama was making was that we believe that everyone should get a fair shake not that everyone should be equally successful. It's about guaranteeing the existence of opportunity not ensuring the results.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: bucsarg
Look at it this way - she could have spent $50,000 on the dress. They make enough money to allow her to do that. The fact that she only spent a couple of thousand instead should mean something, right?
Your analogy of a rich person showing up for 30 minutes to hand over cookies is pretty dumb if you ask me. Michelle has done a lot more than just hand over some cookies to some poor people. I don't think she sends a bad message if she buys a nice dress to her husband's last SOTU address.
Something tells me that if she wore a dress from Target, you would be complaining how tacky it was for the wife of the leader of one of the most powerful nations on the planet to represent herself in a cheap dress.
originally posted by: Edumakated
I am no fan of the Obama's, but this is just petty or out of touch with what nice clothes costs. A $2k dress is pricey, but hardly considered over the top expensive - especially for a classy evening gown.
While I don't think the First Lady should be wearing $50k dresses, I don't think we should regulate her to shopping at Banana Republic either.