“I know we’re spending — I added it up for the first time — we spend between the two kids, on extracurriculars outside the classroom, we’re spending about $10,000 a year on piano and dance and sports supplements and so on and so forth,” Mrs. Obama tells the women. “And summer programs. That’s the other huge cost. Barack is saying, ‘Whyyyyyy are we spending that?’ And I’m saying, ‘Do you know what summer camp costs?’”Poor Michelle Obama. She and her candidate hubby Barack only make a combined income of $481,000 a year. Yet they can't afford piano lessons, sports lessons, dance class and summer camp for their daughters.
Poor, poor Michelle. Her candidate hubby had only 2 best sellers, bringing in millions of dollars in royalties. Yet they are having trouble saving for their daughters' college education.
What will they do?
Trying to look like a middle-class family, Michelle Obama made the statement above. But let us look at the facts.
FACT: They make $481,000 in combined income. This puts them in the top 2% of all US taxpayers. Middle class they are not.
FACT: Michelle Obama doesn't do housework. She has had maids, nannies, and gardeners. The average American can only dream of those luxuries.
FACT: Michelle and Barack Obama went to the best schools in the nation. Universities that cost $50,000 a year. Most Americans if they go to college, can only afford city or state schools.
FACT: Michelle and Barack Obama send their children to the best (expensive) private schools in the Chicago area. Most Americans send their children to public schools because they cannot afford the tuition to the private schools.
FACT: The Obamas are rich! They are not middle class. They do not struggle to make ends meet. They do not worry how they can afford gas and food, let alone the luxuries of piano and dance lessons for their children.
Michelle I have some advise for you. I know how you can afford all the luxuries for your daughters. You can send them to the YMCA. They have dance, music and sports all in one place. They have reasonable fees and a great staff to help you. You can even join and use their gym equipment instead of the expensive health club you and Barack use. But then again, with the elitist attitude you and Barack have, you'd probably decide not to. After all you would have to associate with real Americans. The Middle Class and poor.
UPDATE: (Hat tip to Jem of America Needs Sarah Palin) Since writing this, it has come to my attention the indulgences that Michelle Obama has.
Michelle Obama ordered lobster apps, two whole steamed lobsters, Iranian caviar, and Champagne at the Waldorf Wednesday afternoon when she was there with her dear hubby for a meeting.
You can view the room service check here. And they want to be considered Middle Class? Not in this plane of existence.
3 comments:
Yes, Michelle, please stop complaining.
You might update your post with MO's room service order from the Waldorf the other night. Iranian caviar - !
Thanks for this post. Had forgotten about her complaining.
You've reminded me how absolutely they lack connection to America, be it white, black, red, yellow, brown or day-Glo orange.
BTW: I don't care what they ordered at the Waldorf Astoria. In their place, I may've done the same.
But, I do care that they, with respect to their unfortunate economic "plight," engage in what I find both amusing and very insulting--try to tell me and us that they have any clue about what most Americans face now.
I'm certain that they're going to give their fair share of anything they earn above $250,000, right?
What stinks about them both is what they practice, as the old saying goes, "Don't pee (p***) on my leg and tell me it's raining."
They both become more repugnant as the hours tick by.
Once again, the once-great New York Times has shown its ideological bias as well as its ability to disguise editorial opinion as straight news reporting with yesterday's hit piece on Cindy McCain.
The article, written by Jodi Kantor and David Halbfinger, may be found at the below web site:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/us/politics/18cindy.html?bl&ex=1224475200&en=12299783805b8c72&ei=5087%0A
The general gist of the article is that Mrs McCain is a dishonest, politically ambitious woman, who would do anything to advance her husband's political aspirations.
For example,
"From the start, Mrs. McCain’s marriage has been defined by her husband’s ambitions, and despite her sometimes punishing ride in political life, she does whatever she must to help fulfill them."
Fact or opinion?
"Those close to Mrs. McCain say she aspires to be like another blonde, glamorous figure married to an older man: Diana, the Princess of Wales."
Who says that? Unnamed sources, that's who.
"Mrs. McCain expanded her childhood home, turning it into a 10,000-square-foot mansion that struck more than one visitor as a shrine to her husband."
And who are those visitors?
In addition, the article also contains implications that the McCain marriage is less than ideal citing their extended periods away from each other.
In researching the article, co-author, Jodi Kantor, even dug up a schoolmate of McCain's daughter through Facebook and wrote her this note:
Jodi Kantor
Add as Friend
September 29 at 7:21pm
Report Message
"I saw on facebook that you went to Xavier, and if you don't mind, I'd love to ask you some advice about a story. I'm a reporter at the New York Times, writing a profile of Cindy McCain, and we are trying to get a sense of what she is like as a mother. So I'm reaching out to fellow parents at her kids' schools. My understanding is that some of her older kids went to Brophy/Xavier, but I'm trying to figure out what school her 16 year old daughter Bridget attends-- and a few people said it was PCDS. Do you know if that's right? Again, we're not really reporting on the kids, just seeking some fellow parents who can talk about what Mrs. McCain is like.
Also, if you know anyone else who I should talk to-- basically anyone who has encountered Mrs. McCain and might be able to share impressions-- that would be great.
Thanks so much for any help you can give me."
Jodi Kantor
Political correspondent
New York Times
Nice, huh? If only the Times had shown that kind of investigative imagination in the John Edwards story-or the myriad of stories about Barack Obama's lifetime associations that the Times has poo-poohed.
Speaking of Obama, you might want to compare the Cindy McCain story with the Times' May 18, 2008 adoring profile of Michelle Obama, written by Ms Kantor and Jeff Zeleny:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/18/us/politics/18michelle.html
The article on Mrs McCain, compared to their previous piece on Michelle Obama, merely underlines the obvious bias of the New York Times and their mixing of opinion into the main news pages. It should be stated that the NYT is not the only paper guilty of this. You see it in newspaper, after newspaper, after newspaper. It is up to us, the readers, to read between the lines and ask ourselves this simple question:
"Is this fact or opinion?" If it is opinion, why isn't it in the editorial section?
It really makes one wonder if this is what is being taught in journalism schools.
I have my opinion.
gary fouse
fousesquawk
Post a Comment