For months, NewsBusters has been reporting media's desire to depict the economy as being significantly worse than it really is in order to assist the Democrats in taking back the White House this November.
In fact, it's been rather common for press members to talk about the economy as being absolutely Hooveresque.
Well, it appears the fashion industry might be aiding and abetting this deplorable effort.
The New York Post reported Monday a rather dreary clothing concept being introduced just in time for the upcoming elections (emphasis added):
Taking a cue from the grim economy, this fall's fashions at Banana Republic, Gap and H&M are featuring a distinctly Depression-era trend of cloche hats, pencil skirts, conductor caps and baggy, vintage-style dresses. [...]
"We associate the newsboy look with urban poverty - street kids of the 1930s," said Daniel James Cole, a professor at the Fashion Institute of Technology.
"Given that we're in an unstable economy and an uncertain political landscape, it's possible that a retro style has come back as a way to connect with our heritage." [...]
Al Thompson, 40, a senior employee at a recruiting company, hates the look - it covers far too much for his taste. He also predicts it won't last.
"Everything in fashion and economics is cyclical," he said. "This fashion has returned just as we're hitting a point in our economy much like what we faced in the '30s."
Are you kidding me? Do we have 25 percent unemployment, and people walking the streets looking for the nearest soup kitchen?
I know this sounds a tad conspiratorial, but might this be part of the plan to make everyone FEEL things are worse than they really are? If people start DRESSING like we're in a Depression, won't that increase the sense things actually ARE that bleak?
Furthermore, won't it be easier to cast President Bush as Herbert Hoover, and Barack Obama as Franklin Delano Roosevelt if everybody looks like the stock market has crashed and people are jumping out of windows?
Of course, something that will be missing in this discussion is the delicious irony surrounding just how much people -- supposedly in a bad economy! -- are going to have to spend to look poor.
After all, folks weren't dressing this way 75 years ago because they WANTED to. I'm sure this hypocrisy will be lost in the translation.
Alas, it seems we're now all being costumed to fit the media meme. What's next?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
Whoo Hoo!
July 28, 2008 - 10:13 ET by Dr_LibertyRedneck clothes are back in style. I knew if I waited long enough I would be cutting edge again.
Any word on the mullet making a comeback?
<insert witty signature here>
Dr. Liberty, where have you
July 28, 2008 - 11:54 ET by motherbeltDr. Liberty, where have you been?
The mullet never left!
The MSM have decided we are in a depression, and now the fashion industry is ordering us to dress the part!
Well, we had "heroin chic"....who would have ever thought that people would want to look like they had trashed their health?
So why wouldn't people spend $300 dressing to look like they are poor?
Obama's theme song
Mullet
July 28, 2008 - 16:00 ET by SemperrightThe Kentucky Waterfall is all the rage.
We call it the ShoFoLoBa here in NC.
Short in the front - Long in the back.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
I predict,
July 28, 2008 - 10:14 ET by MassConservAlong this same vein, I predict the next fashion trend will involve makeup application evoking the Black Death. We've already had Heroin Chic so why not something utterly gross and depressing.
Alternatively, maybe something in a sunburn look to go with the global warming meme.
I would really like to see
July 28, 2008 - 10:40 ET by steviep831I would really like to see fashion go back to mideval times... that would be awesome... </sarcasm>
It has
July 28, 2008 - 11:00 ET by Dr_LibertyApparently you have never been to a Swedish, progressive death metal concert* or attended an Oakland Raiders football game.
* Alternatively, you could go here.
You do sound a tad
July 28, 2008 - 10:15 ET by balboaYou do sound a tad conspiratorial. No one is working in a concerted effort with the fashion industry to make people feel bad about the economy. It's merely some designers looking for something to inspire them, latching on to this concept, then overpricing their designs for a country that will still find a way to buy the overpriced clothes.
B
July 28, 2008 - 10:42 ET by Noel SheppardB,
Before I engage any further, do you think media have been intentionally reporting a much worse than reality economy in order to benefit the Democrats? ns
If they really were rooting for bad times
July 28, 2008 - 10:49 ET by sarcasmoWouldn't the MSM, and not people like me, be the source of the scary graphs in this article?
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Sarc
July 28, 2008 - 10:55 ET by Noel SheppardJ,
The source of those graphs is the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Do you work for that agency? I wasn't aware. ns
The source for the article
July 28, 2008 - 11:01 ET by sarcasmoAppears to be Safehaven.com, but beyond irrelevant questions about me, might we actually discuss the graphs' substance at some point?? Although if you're trying to sell a sunny view of things, your reluctance is understandable....
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Sarc
July 28, 2008 - 11:04 ET by Noel SheppardJ,
The source of the graphs is the Bureau of Economic Analysis NOT Safe Haven. Take a look at the fine print under the graphs.
Furthermore, are YOU Safe Haven? ns
I said LIKE me above
July 28, 2008 - 11:10 ET by sarcasmoWhich they seem to be, because they published the article. And apparently, we can't discuss the graphs' substance & instead must try desperately to focus on me, which frankly confirms my suspicions... Face it, you're seeing those graphs here from sarcasmo, and people here simply ain't gonna see 'em from Cavuto -- today or this week.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
sarc
July 28, 2008 - 11:45 ET by Noel Sheppardsarc,
Do you honestly think that's the first time I've seen graphs like that, and that you and the gold bugs are the only ones aware of such things? Honestly, how DO you get your head into a car and through doorways? ns
When did I ever say THAT?
July 28, 2008 - 16:48 ET by sarcasmoI just think you're not gonna see graphs about hyperinflation this week on Cavuto, so I said it. Don't extrapolate, it still doesn't work, and trying to make it about me hasn't worked, either. I was talkin' about the hidden inflation issue under Slick Willie, and I'm still right.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
sarc
July 28, 2008 - 11:48 ET by Noel Sheppardsarc,
BTW, it's TOTALLY disingenuous on your part to suggest that I made this about YOU, when -- as is typical! -- YOU made it about YOU in your first comment when you wrote, "people like me."
You made this about YOU right from the start -- as you always do. So, don't try to deflect this to me. Adieu. ns
No wonder
July 28, 2008 - 12:23 ET by sarcasmoYou're discussing the substance of the graphs, instead of desperately trying to make it about me...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
you are unbelievable noel
July 28, 2008 - 13:36 ET by abeautifulpersonone day you are a climatologist, the next you are an economist. or perhaps you are neither.
for you to suggest that the massive debt, crumbling infrastructure, huge currency devaulation, increasing trade deficit etc etc is more alarmist rhetoric, you just don't get it.
you are political guy. its your job to be. you argue against the findings of people who spend their entire lives focused on their disciplines and generate legitimate conclusions based on professional work.
i read the above linked article. it ties in with the words of so many other economists who confirm this information. the problem is, you think others are as political as you.
you think a climatologist is a democrat or communist because their professional studies don't jive with your poltical views. YOU make it political. a climatologist and those who trust professionals see their findings simply as findings. it isn't political, until others such as you, paint is as such.
to suggest sarcasmo as some kind of spy or person who plants information is a smoke screen which i hope fewer and fewer people are distracted by.
the fact remains that america is financially on the ropes. its been trying to control foreign resources and its been printing money to maintain its place in the world. but you cannot spend your way out of a bad financial plan.
while countries around america work hard to invest in education, pay down debt and run budget surpluses, america blows gobs of cash, neglects investment in itself and then thinks it can simply print more money.
the gig is up. there ARE soup kitchens in america. americans work harder and longer for less. the number of working poor increases. america now competes for resources with countries who aren't used to cheap oil, so the price of oil will never go back to where it was.
i could barrage you with numerous facts about the US's faltering economy. they would be facts generated by economists which are independent of each other but come to the same professional conclusions. they've been saying it for years. how you can continue to dismiss them as political rhetoric illustrates how little grasp you truly have of the situation.
NBers
July 28, 2008 - 15:08 ET by Noel SheppardNBers,
I'm beginning to agree with those of you that think we need a better class of troll around here. After all, a SMALL amount of research on this thing's part would have identified sarc to be one of NB's original members, and that he and I have been debating economics and finance at this website for approaching three years -- including this weekend!!!
Yet, rather than putting the slightest amount of effort into determining such, this troll just launched into an attack on moi. It makes me almost miss folks like Dave High and Leon, for AT LEAST they did some research that gave teeth to their attacks. :-) ns
this has little to do with the sarcasmo
July 28, 2008 - 15:17 ET by abeautifulpersonit has everything to do with your dismissal of the information provided.
since i mentioned him in only one line of my statement, perhaps you could address the remainder of the statement.
call me a troll if you like, but the US hasn't hit bottom with its economic woes. then again, perhaps it is easier to dodge that topic and discuss the quality of troll on NB.
If only we could be more
July 28, 2008 - 17:55 ET by Roger the ShrubberIf only we could be more like Venezuela.
Oh wait. We already tried that, to your dismay.
I figured you would be less sullen and morose today, seeing it is Lord Chavez's birthday. I figured you would be downright giddy with melancholy.
oh, was that the thread
July 28, 2008 - 19:40 ET by abeautifulpersonwith the erroneous numbers in the story which were never addressed?
the same thread where i repeatedly indicated i was not a chavista, yet was accused as one, over and over?
not everyone sees things in black and white. try a shade of grey. there are thousands of them.
Ah, yes, the thread where
July 29, 2008 - 06:41 ET by Roger the ShrubberAh, yes, the thread where you touted the mighty Hugo Chavez's incredible accomplishements as the (oft-repeated, yet hardly-true) democratically-elected leader of Venezuela.
When confronted by the truth, you resorted to the usual lame-ass lib troll tactics that really separated you from the other standard douchebag trolls that come here. Looked pretty "black and white" to me.
Yep, you are A Beautiful Person: standard douchebag NB troll #618. Congratulations! Your pin is in the mail!
Noel... You got that
July 28, 2008 - 15:17 ET by bigtimerNoel...
You got that right...and there is about a handful of others here to-boot.
I almost would welcome Leon/hater and Regards, Dave High back to get rid of some of these trolling trolls that have been here lately...and longer.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
BT
July 28, 2008 - 15:36 ET by Noel SheppardBT,
Well, here's the difference between a Dave High and the current NB trolls: Dave at least tried to be civil at times, and would even admit he was wrong -- sometimes! -- and apologize if he went too far. These folks today come in swinging and attacking right from the start. And, when they're mistakes or overbearance are exposed, none of today's crop will admit it. They just keep on attacking.
Sadly, as the elections near, it's going to get worse because we are now one of the leading conservative blogs, and we're getting noticed. ns
Yep..I agree. I also have
July 28, 2008 - 15:46 ET by bigtimerYep..I agree.
I also have posted as such before too Noel...as the election nears, it will be worse with the trolls....
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
all about the trolls
July 28, 2008 - 19:28 ET by abeautifulpersonand nothing about the economy. still waiting.
and what it has to do with an election (since i'm not american), i have no idea.
Back back back under that
July 28, 2008 - 20:16 ET by general companyBack back back under that Bridge!!!!!! You,,,,,
under bridge dweller
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
yeah general
July 28, 2008 - 20:20 ET by candanceBeauty's first post on this was a personal attack on Noel followed by an unweildy tirade about random things related to money. Not a very good way to break the ice if you want real debate.
"random things related to money" ?!
July 28, 2008 - 21:13 ET by abeautifulpersonif these things appear to be random, then it would explain some of the problems america is facing today.
personal attack?
is noel a qualified climatologist?
is noel a qualified economist?
is he political? yes.
did he suggest sarcasmo is some kind of spy? "do you work for that agency?" "are YOU safe haven?"
"how do you get your head into a car and through doorways" is this debate?
i attacked no one. i simply held up a mirror.
Turn it around ABP
July 28, 2008 - 21:22 ET by Cool ArrowTurn the mirror around, ABP.
You're looking at yourself.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
ah ha
July 28, 2008 - 20:13 ET by candanceI was wondering on which thread our nightly derailment would occur.
Good to see you again beauty.
for you to suggest that the massive debt, crumbling infrastructure, huge currency devaulation, increasing trade deficit etc etc is more alarmist rhetoric, you just don't get it.
First of all, Noel never said the economy was just peachy or that the government has made wise use of its budget - he's simply asserting that our society latches onto a tough situation and makes it worse than what it needs to be. Don't put words in his mouth to make him look like a dope.
As for the points you bring up here:
-I started a personal forum about the national debt here and couldn't get a single lefty to engage me on an open field.
-I have given quite thorough explanations about the "man behind the curtain" when it comes to us allegedly not having the funds to build bridges and was again soundly ignored by lefties.
-Currency devaluation is a roller coaster kind of thing depending on world economies and lots of factors. Again I'm not saying it's great but I don't think it's the end of the world.
-Increasing trade deficit. Hmm, maybe we should drill at home and lift all the taxes and regulations so more business can sprout up on American soil, which would work a lot better than forcing existing companies to suddenly double their tax and payroll burden - a price consumers would simply ending up paying at the mall.
As for the rest of your post, I do agree that unless we make some changes we're on our way to a tipping, and IMO Obama (or McCain) will only make it worse.
i don't put words in noel's mouth, don't put words in mine
July 28, 2008 - 21:17 ET by abeautifulperson"media's desire to depict the economy as being significantly worse than it really is"
noel wrote this. it would suggest that he thinks things aren't as bad as they really are. things are very bad for all the reasons i noted and more.
americans once lived off a single income.
then they needed two incomes to live the same lifestyle.
then they needed two incomes and to work longer hours to live the same lifestyle.
then they needed two incomes, work longer hours and leverage their homes to live the same lifestyle.
and here we are: the country is up to its eyeballs in debt, the dollar is worth almost half of what it was only recently, over extended with military in numerous countries, unhealthy and unhappy.
the economy is bad and it hasn't hit bottom yet.
is every opponent a troll around here? i noticed that this is the second time noel has discussed/inferred the topic of banning NB users. why is that?
and i want to know how you gauge newsbusters as a "leading conservative blog"? please provide sources.
moonbat.org
July 28, 2008 - 21:24 ET by Free StinkerIs this the "ask so many questions, they spend hours refuting them all" method that they teach now-a-days at moonbat.org ?
Rant, Rant, Rant
July 28, 2008 - 21:56 ET by dboAre you sure you're "abeautifulperson"? Doesn't sound like it. Do you even know what the definition of a recession is?
calm down beauty
July 29, 2008 - 08:40 ET by candanceI'm trying to engage you here and you're flying off the handle.
The very first line of your first post was "you are unbelievable noel." Maybe in your world that's not a personal insult but it is in mind. If I went over to Real Climate and hopped in the middle of a thread with "Gavin you are so unbelievable" how do you think those folks would see it?
I don't get this point you keep making about being qualified to discuss something. People do research, look up the facts, and present persuasive arguments about things all the time. In fact it's a standard thing everyone has to do in college. Journalists do it every day. So all this jive about needing credentials is really just a clever way for you to tell Noel to shut up.
Families are working more hours to keep the same lifestlye. Really? Back in the 50s you had a house, a car, and a light bill. Today the average family has three or four cellphones, cable bill that goes in the hundreds, a couple computers, an SUV in the driveway, and some emtpy Starbucks cups in the trash.
People are choosing to work more to keep up with the Joneses. A new Wii cost 300 bucks? No problem, we'll get one later. A new Ipod cost 50 bucks? Oh well, I need it for jogging. Local radio isn't any good so I need Syrius in my car. And since I'm so bad with directions I need a GPS too.
On and on it goes.
A typical family in America could very survive on one decent salary if they wanted to.
You're not a troll for voicing opposition here. You're a troll for going off on angry rants and making personal remarks about the admins.
Can et al
July 29, 2008 - 09:03 ET by Noel SheppardCan et al,
And what really makes this thing a troll is the number of people -- including myself, in the past -- that have countered its arguments with facts -- this thread being a fine example -- without any response or acknowledgement on its part.
As you stated, it came into this thread with guns blazing, and now that it has become the source of discussion rather than the subject, it will return to the hole it came from.
This is why the best way to deal with things like this is to ignore them. JHMO. ns
you are right. calling noel unbelievable was wrong
July 29, 2008 - 11:58 ET by abeautifulpersonwhat i meant to say is:
noel, you are incredible as in, not credible. i literally meant noel was not believable.
noel was presented with concrete information which he dismissed instantly, countering with an insult. THIS is what makes him INcredible and UNbelievable.
and again, he has focused on the troll issue rather than actually address the bulk of my statement. which adds to his being INcredible.
he's done this before (insult, dodge the real subject) but enough about noel.
i do appreciate your response. and don't worry. i have have both hands on the handle.
its sounds to me, like you are living a decent life. and that's great. you'll belt tighten but you'll manage. fortunately for you, your income level probably isn't the median.
i won't go into the details of the excesses of the NA lifestyle. you wouldn't like what i have to say about that...
so let's get some numbers out:
US population: 301m (2007 est)
US public debt (2007): $9+ trillion = $24.7k for every man, woman and child.
total US debt and liabilities is now $57,300,000,000,000. (= $500,000. per household.) http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/05/19/20080519redink0519.html
US budget deficit, THIS year: $500,000,000,000. = $1429. for every man, woman and child.
family of 4 owes $5716. EXTRA for being an american, THIS YEAR alone.
the US owes CHINA: est $1.5 trillion ($6k per person)
http://english.cri.c...
the US owes JAPAN: almost $600 bn
debt is now 35%+ of GDP and growing each year...
...those who don't think the problem is bad, pay up!
i realize they hadn't invented the cell phone when the beaver got walked to school by wally, but its quality of life. and the reality is, for better for worse, people do have cell phones and big cars and bigger homes and now more debt than ever. debt americans can't pay. THAT is a crisis.
so.
we can argue semantics about whether Xboxes were around in the 60's... or we can suggest that since we've seen charts like that, that they erroneous... or we can debate the quality of troll here at NB.
but the fact remains that america is in the big trouble. wondering if there's a conspiracy between the dem's and some idiot fashion designer who got 10 seconds of attention, isn't solving that problem. and accusing the media of sensationalizing the economic disaster which is still unravelling is either misguided or outright deceitful.
but please, share with me how all these numbers are not pointing to something far worse than noel and NB attempts to downplay.
i am not hiding in any hole. i am waiting patiently.
ABP, there are still plenty
July 29, 2008 - 12:10 ET by bassndudeABP, there are still plenty of people who live off one income. I have 6 kids, 4 are married, all three girls stay home, watch the kids and there husbands work and provide. My middle son, which is the only boy that is married so far, works, his wife stays home with his girls and home schools them. And I know alot of people who do this around here. Most women who are married, that work, work not because they have to, but they want to. One girl here will quit after her baby is born. All of the women I know, who work out here work becasue they want to, not have to. If they are happy doing it, fine. But to say it takes two peoples income to raise a family and buy a home is nonsense, or a lie.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
we can both be correct.
July 29, 2008 - 12:49 ET by abeautifulpersonwomen like to work.
but. women also need to work.
show me a mother who wants to cut the child upbringing to get back to work because they want to, and i'll show you 5 mothers who are forced back to work, cutting their full-time motherhood, short.
if women didn't need to work, why so much debt?
we can all agree that people CAN live simpler and therefore cheaper. but unfortunately, they don't. and look what's happened. the numbers don't lie. and if you're not feeling it, you are definitely of the fortunate few.
ABP, debt has nothing to do
July 29, 2008 - 13:58 ET by bassndudeABP, debt has nothing to do with women working. Famlies can and do survive on one income. I cited my family, but there are lots of others. If they will live within their means. Debt is just that. Debt. All of my kids are in debt. They are all buying their homes, all have 2 cars. Not new cars, but cars. One for Dad and one for Mom to do the shopping and kid carting. It is exactly the opposit of your view as to why there is so much debt. IF the woman has to work because of the debt, then they are really choosing to live on an income that is greater than the spouse makes. They do not live within there means. My wife works, she went to work when our youngest son started collage. But she was a house wife for lots of years. Now we are saving for retirement, about 4 more years and we should have enough to sustain us in a lifestyle we deserve. Count us in the few that did not go out and spend everything we made. We spent what we needed to. Saved for our luxuries. BTW, I fished out of a little 16 foot Monarc boat for 17 years, before I got the Ranger I have now. But it did to take the kids out and we had a lot of fun in it.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
okay beauty
July 29, 2008 - 13:35 ET by candanceYou assume I have a comfortable income just because I live comfortably. Um no, we live comfortably because we don't have any credit card debt, we share one car, and we buy our clothes at Target instead of the mall. I'm not sure what the average income is right now but I'd guess we're below it.
I know a family of three who get by just fine on 35K.
Living off one income is really not difficult at all - but people can't imagine giving up their nights out at Red Lobster.
And no, I don't feel bad for Americans being that much in debt "because they're Americans." They're taking zero initiative to hold Congress accountable or demand the budget shrink. They gladly take their 600 dollar "giveaways" with very little thought to where that money came from. Instead of saying "we can't afford that" they assume they're entilted to it and they do whatever it takes to get it.
This isn't about debating the invention of Nintendo. This is about a culture that's gluttonous and prideful. No one cooks at home anymore. No one makes do with an older car or an old appliance. People used to have gardens to grow their own veggies and they knew how to make the most out of every resource. Folks these days eat a thousand calories at Applebee's and then spend money at the gym to burn off the fat.
In other words, Americans are perfectly happy being in debt and having a government in debt. They're content with things just the way they are. We're becoming more and more like the bloated Roman Empire every generation.
I've said before that our economy isn't good but it's not as much of a crisis as everyone lets on. And until more Americans start buckling down to change things they really don't have the right to whine.
ya know, i'm with you on most of what you say...
July 29, 2008 - 15:24 ET by abeautifulpersonbut i don't think americans are happy being debt. i think that's all they know.
see, this is where you and i respectfully diverge.
yes, people should live simpler.
but the US govt has been run by corporate interests that runs a massive military industry which protects those interests abroad. and americans have been living a subsidized lifestyle because of that military protection of corporate interests.
guys like chavez become enemy #1 because they stick it to the corporations, renegotiating deals in favour of venezuela. (i'm not going to go into whether he is doing it for the right reasons. that's another subject).
the war in iraq really shines a light on how wrong this type of utilization can be. and now that military industrial complex is the tail wagging the dog.
money that could be invested on education is being sucked away into military expenditures. and the reality is, the more the military is used, the more enemies are made the more it is needed. its bankrupting the country. almost $700,000,000,000. for 2008. that equals no deficit and spending at pre-2000 levels.
but back to the issue whether americans are happy working long hours, earning less and being crushed with debt. much of that has to do with government. lots of conservatives rail against bigger govt (which is a joke considering how badly the present admin has exploded the country's debt). but i suggest that a bit more govt involvement would help.
how?
- decent education system. america is falling behind and having to import more and more professionals. crime is direct result of poor education. america incarcerates 25% of the world's criminals.
- having a few more bodies keeping an eye on things like the sub-prime lending disaster, or the enron scandal or even untendered contracts for iraq that resulted in cost-plus, unfinished, messes.
- assisting with educating the public about debt, consumerism, the sharp point of marketing.
- keeping an eye and controlling things like media consolidation. i hear so many complaints about the MSM. its no wonder, the way the media is allowed to behave.
- (this one's going to rankle some folks but)... a decent health care system. the present one in america is really sick and needs to be torn down. a healthy society is a happy one which is free to pursue small business development. as a canadian, almost all my friends are entrepreneurs. we have small businesses that some may not have pursued if we were forced to buy outrageously expensive, and inadequate health insurance.
i know, its all commie talk.
anyhow. i'm done with this thread. we'll meet again.
nuff said.
Specious cr@p."americans
July 29, 2008 - 08:56 ET by MassConservSpecious cr@p.
"americans once lived off a single income.
then they needed two incomes to live the same lifestyle.
then they needed two incomes and to work longer hours to live the same lifestyle.
then they needed two incomes, work longer hours and leverage their homes to live the same lifestyle."
I grew up in a single income home and we lived pretty simply as a result.
At the time people lived off single incomes people watched broadcast TV, had a single home-phone and went to the movies maybe once a month, now everyone has to have cable television or satellite TV, cell phones (one for every family member), satellite radio, internet service and buy the latest DVDs as they come out.
Keeping up with the Joneses used to mean buying one new Chevy every four years, not paying for an Acura MDX every two, in addition to a Toyota Minivan with DVD entertainment system and a brand new car for your 16 year old son.
I short, Americans no longer live the lifestyles they did when families lived off of a single income. There is no comparison.
No, I think they focus on
July 28, 2008 - 12:09 ET by balboaNo, I think they focus on the bad parts of the economy because that's what they tend to do.
b
July 28, 2008 - 12:13 ET by Noel Sheppardb,
Well, then there isn't much more for us to discuss on this issue, is there? If you don't believe media are doing it, then why would you believe the fashion industry is? Make sense. ns
Noel, Well, I don't
July 28, 2008 - 12:35 ET by balboaNoel,
Well, I don't believe the fashion industry is doing this for other reasons: It's a kooky notion. "You know, we should totally do a series of Depression-themed clothes, to help out the Democrats in the election."
These aren't exactly two synchopatic industries.
I can't hardly wait
July 28, 2008 - 10:24 ET by c5thenUntil we see the 'faschions' on display if komrad Obama wins in November.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
How much does it cost?
July 28, 2008 - 10:29 ET by rubylensI'll bet a single "Depression-era street urchin" outfit costs hundreds of dollars to put together. Real Depression-era urchins, of course, would have been lucky to get a few cents per day to keep themselves from starving to death. Ah, irony.
I saw this today and thought
July 28, 2008 - 10:38 ET by steviep831I saw this today and thought to myself, it's ironic that the people telling us that the latest fashions are "looking poor" are the same people that are designing the poor looking clothes. I agree with Noel's statements too; to pull of the "newsboy" look from GAP, BR and H&M would probably run you north of $100 per outfit... Give me a break.
Yep
July 28, 2008 - 10:46 ET by tnculpOnly in liberal land can you spend hundreds of dollars to evil hegemonic corporations in exchange for looking "poor".
Maybe this country needs
July 28, 2008 - 10:59 ET by bradbenj5952Maybe this country needs another depression just to remind folks of how bad bad really is!!! << mostly sarcasm
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:31
bb
July 28, 2008 - 11:02 ET by Noel Sheppardbb,
Sadly, you actually may be right: the only thing that might change the work ethic in our nation, and encourage an appreciation for what folks have rather than an entitlement, is a depression. ns
Is this the shift
July 28, 2008 - 15:28 ET by Cool ArrowA depression coupled with the election of Obama, we should be expectng a "cold boot" in about four years, followed by 4 years of warming up under conservative thought.
That's a nice "warming"
July 28, 2008 - 17:07 ET by bradbenj5952That's a nice "warming" thought, but I think a little unrealistic in the current media environment. If the next depression happens under BO's reign, it will be blamed on the many years of Republican control (Nixon, Ford, Jimmy didn't have a chance, Reagan, Bush 1, Legislative Control - Clinton absent from analysis as usual, Bush 2) and Barry as just the inheritor of the problem. Perhaps Barry will come out smelling like a rose as the next "New Deal" president! Then we'll have another 40 year era of absolute liberal control of legislation. Something tells me we'll not survive another round of such nonsense. And this is my most optimistic version of the future. ;)
p.s. The country will then demand the repeal of the 22nd Amendment. Just imagine, Barry could be the president that breaks FDR's term record.
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:31
Only in America
July 28, 2008 - 11:27 ET by CobraManOnly in America would people pay good money to look poor. And only in America would a "depressed economy" lead to ever increasing number of obese people.
Soup Kitchen Chic. How
July 28, 2008 - 11:43 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsSoup Kitchen Chic. How depressing. Will this be required dress for the Democratic Convention?
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Goofieness from the fasion
July 28, 2008 - 11:55 ET by mattmGoofieness from the fasion world is quite expected, isn't it?
I suppose they'll start dressing like East African muslims if the Big O gets elected....
Hugely biased CNN.com story on Budget Deficits
July 28, 2008 - 12:33 ET by tropicalreportThis is revisionist history for sure with just about every Democrat talking point listed verbatim: The headline states, $128 billion surplus morphed into giant deficit. !!!
http://www.cnn.com/2...
Some of the quotes:
"President Bush inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion when he took office in 2001 but has since posted a budget deficit every year."
"The Bush administration has spent heavily on the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and faces a large budget shortfall in tax revenue because
of Bush's tax cuts and a souring economy."
Um, Bush's tax cuts ? Come on, that is poppycock. Well, at least the author of the story has a source for this statement, which is parrotted:
"A Democratic point man on the budget, Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota,
blasted the administration for its "reckless fiscal policies," blaming
the president's tax cuts for driving the government into deficit and
saying Bush "will be remembered as the most fiscally irresponsible
president in our nation's history."
That must make King George
July 29, 2008 - 07:01 ET by FoolicanThat must make King George the "most fiscally responsible president" according to Kent Conrad, then.
Paint your face black for Obama its the newest fashion
July 28, 2008 - 19:42 ET by Daniel BakerRobert Downey Style
John McCain 2008 Protect Traditional Marriage
Traditional Marriage is not "Divisive" Obama.