Bush's Tax Cuts Pay For Cindy's Outfit
According to Vanity Fair, the outfit Cindy McCain wore at the Republican Convention Tuesday night cost a whooping $313,100.
Oscar de la Renta dress: $3,000
Chanel J12 White Ceramic Watch: $4,500
Three-carat diamond earrings: $280,000
Four-strand pearl necklace: $11,000-$25,000
Shoes, designer unknown: $600
Total: Between $299,100 and $313,100
I hope she thanked Laura Bush while they were on stage together. According to an analysis by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the McCains have received $313,413 thanks to George Bush's tax cut.
If John McCain were President, she might have been able to add a bracelet to the ensemble. According to the same study under McCain proposed tax cuts they would have received tax breaks of $367,788.
Follow Ari Rabin-Havt on Twitter: www.twitter.com/arirabinhavt
Loading comments…
Most Popular on HuffingtonPost
SaJHwCn0l3r6GHOTedX6fh7RcnnW661Z9tY%2FEYEX0Q%2Bu9BtJVjf2sav0aEhP%2BSmQdbVA35nl0DxP66TxQbwe5PpCmA%2FZOP41
FMRf%2F5fuWk7NMQLglWpf2HtK%2Bx5aktsIy2wTY3SXgbPExk6Nkub%2Bpw%3D%3D
1 of 2
HuffingtonPost Reporters
xTA9rYd67xi5Kadw1Ip0kA%2F3n5pbvciz
yiNMvypaeLArXvBmmRrUhwALP2r6y0nz
1 of 2
Don't Miss HuffPost Bloggers
1 of 3
Huffington Post Apps and Feeds
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Don't you think Cindy McCain has an ample supply of funds to purchase several of those dresses if she wanted to. Those tax cuts are used many times over on her humanitarian work. She has been involved many many many years in helping the innocent children in every part of the globe.
Of course, they were ALSO used to fund her drug addiction.....
I guess for Cindy and John the economy IS fundamentally sound - and then some.
What percentage ???? The percentage was less than what you received.
You mean that the percentage of his income that the cuts were was less than the percentage of my income cut? Okay, I went from paying less around 18 percent to paying 17.5 percent. This was less than .5% of his income?
I see nothing wrong with tax cuts and paying lower taxes if it means the military gets less money. Will the Democrats see to that? Somehow I doubt it since they don't even have the spine to impeach the criminals Bush and Cheney.
Those who vote Republican are either very, very rich or very, very stupid. Unfortunately, we have alot of the latter in this country.
if there is anything more emblematic and more indicative of the disconnect between the other party, and average Americans struggling to buy gas and groceries, I wish someone somewhere would show me what it is. There is an old saying "by their acts, ye shall know them." By simply being themselves, with every step they take, and each time they appear before a camera, the members of the other party prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no physical, moral, or spiritual connection between themselves and a nation depressed and lacerated by year after year of outright economic policy which can only be described as economy by pillage and plunder. I wonder if Cindy McCain will go on from here, and condescend to teach those of us of the ignorant masses the difference between bread and cake.
Roci
Of course, the sale of that dress will trickle down to create so many jobs. Let's see, an exploited child in Viet Nam, (probably a great grandson of one of McCain's prison guards, so we can get that part of the story in as well) 50 cents for the sewing. The oil to get the dress from Viet Nam to LA ports, couple of dollars. A dock worker without health care benefits anymore to unload it, maybe 2 minutes worth of labor costs, the designer's label $2.00, time spent, $200 Grand??? The store who sold it 99.99 grand, the salesperson, $8.00 an hour.
Of course, the sale of that dress will trickle down to create so many jobs. Let's see, an exploited child in Viet Nam, (probably a great grandson of one of McCain's prison guards, so we can get that part of the story in as well) who makes oh, 50 cents to a dollar a day for the sewing. All of that oil to get the dress from Viet Nam to LA ports, maybe a couple of dollars over what the ship would use anyway. A dock worker without health care benefits anymore to unload it, maybe 2 minutes worth of labor costs, the designer's label $2.00, time spent, $200 Grand??? The store who sold it 99.99 grand, the salesperson, $8.00 an hour. Don't piss in my boot and tell me it's raining.
Great response, about the trickle down and don't piss in my boot and tell me it's raining!!!! that is so ROTFLMAO! PRICELESS!
Great article above also about those tax cuts and what they are paying for.
The dress was $3000, not $200,000. Oscar de la Renta apparel is often made in the USA and Italy. Employees at Nieman Marcus make a heck of a lot more than $8 an hour. Private fashion designers often make more than the majority of people who read this forum.
Oh, well that makes it all right then.
Even if one can afford it, why spend so much on a single outfit? Even J-Lo doesn't spend that much! Even Princess Diana didn't spend that much! Hockey mom my A**. Fred Leighton mom is more like it.
If they don't know the shoe designer, how do they know how much they cost? It really makes me laugh, they used to say the same thing about Jackie O and she just laughed it off. She once said "if I spent as much money on clothes as the press claims, I would be wearing mink underwear".
Grow up about Princess Diana, there is a great book by her coutierier (whatever), she spent big bucks to look great....(that girl had no waist).
This is class warfare! It's US against THEM! Meanwhile I can only fill 1/2 my gas tank.
Vote your pocketbook.
O b a m a / B i d e n 2008-2016!
The top tax rate was only cut by 4.6%, a small cut on a percentage basis. I find it funny how people say the Bush administration is "for the rich" when the cut was so small. In contrast, the Kennedy tax cut in the 1960s took the top rate down by 21%, the Nixon tax cuts by 7%, 1981 Reagan tax cuts by 20%, and the second Reagan tax cuts down another 22% in 1987-1988. Then George Bush Sr increased taxes but is labelled a supply-sider by the left. It's also interesting that people are upset that folks in the top two tax brackets got cuts, when a full 50% of households don't pay any federal income tax at all (many actually get more money back then they pay in). So let me ask, who should get tax cuts when it is folks in the top brackets that pay all the taxes? How can you cut taxes for people that don't pay any tax?
The top rate was only cut by 4.6%, that's true. Of course that still means that the highest WAGE earners are paying 35% of their income into taxes, but the highest ACTUAL earners are paying LESS THAN HALF of what they were paying before bush, since almost their ENTIRE income comes from capital gains, which were reduced from 35% to 15%!
And bush sr raised taxes because he HAD to, since the govt was STILL in the red AFTER he raised them. But notice that he didn't raise taxes on the rich or corporations NEARLY as much as he did on the middle class.
And once again, the folks in the top brackets are paying more on a straight dollar for dollar accounting, but they are not only paying LESS of their income than those in the middle and bottom, but they are USING more of the govt while paying LESS for it!!
It's the same as if you and I go to a restaurant together. I'm poor, so I buy a burger and soda. You're rich, so you buy 3 bottles of Dom, caviar, and a $100 steak. When the bill comes, we aren't going to split it down the middle, since you got more than I did. YOU should have to pay for what you use! The same argument applies to taxes!
Dugan, knock it off with your Larry Kudlow talking points! I see that posters in the Business Section largely ignore you nowadays, but I won't.
The reason why the bottom 50% of households pay no federal income taxes is because they live in poverty. Let me repeat that: THEY LIVE IN POVERTY! Of course, this has been offset by the decrease in jobs and job pay since the late 60s. I believe that if minimum wage had kept up with productivity gains and inflation, it would be around $20.00.
Do you know what revolution is? Blood in the streets? Well, Reagan must have known when he signed off on the law creating the Earned Income Tax Credit. Republicans may be dumb, but they're not stupid. As they were throwing money at the wealthy hand over fist, at the expense of the poorer rabble, they should at least throw the latter a bone. And they did. Way to go Ronnie!
It was interesting how the Republicans made such a warm story about Cindy-Lou's pop last night: pulling up his bootstraps and with a little spit and drive, built his $10,000 investment into...... well, they didn't say how much the Hensley Empire is worth (wouldn't sit well with people ready to lose homes and/or jobs). What they failed to mention was how pop built his distributorship usuing all the protections, regulations, and public infrastructure brought to you courtesy of, Keynesian Economics.
Oh, what's the use? Just go away....please!
It's all relative. The bosses where I work claim they got the same raise as everyone else. Yes the same percentage, but not the same amount as the rest of the workers, because they're 3% is MUCH MUCH larger than my 3%.
Also when Repubs talk about the relatively low unemployment rate that doesn't mean anything either, because during slavery, Blacks had 100% employment.
Poor people pay taxes...they spend all of their incomes on necessities and goods. They have nothing left after that so all of their income is taxed. That's why rich people want a consumption tax. They make it sound like they'll pay more because the buy pricer items,but it's only a portion of their income. So poor people who have to spend all of their check to survive will be taxed 100% while rich people who can bank or invest a large chunk of their income will pay much less.
It's all a trick, but most people are too stupid to get it!!!
Actually, a true consumption tax, that taxed EVERY transaction might work, but it needs to include STOCK sales, and BOAT sales, and HOUSE sales and everything else that the rich spend money on. At the same time, food needs to be excluded, since you can't live without that, and if you DON'T exclude it you will find that the poor (who are making too little to pay taxes right now.....) are paying MUCH more in taxes.....
Yeah . . . she could have never afforded it without those cuts right?
$313K is ALL?....I mean...REALLLY!
Now, now, ostentation is only bad if... oh, forget it. You know what I'm going to say. The extremists in this country are taking over and they're using an "oh, gosh" hockey mom to do it. What a bunch of BS.
I wonder what kind of tax breaks Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi (& spouse), Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, & John Kerry ( & spouse, Teresa Heintz) have rec'd lately ?
yet i only got 600, which went straight into my gas tank and to IRAN
awesome :)
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
