= new reply since forum marked as read
It’s part of the Hope of Billionaires applying themselves to hard work and someday achieving the American dream of becoming Trillionaires!!
https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-gets-mixed-reviews-tax-rich-dress-worn-met-gala-1628719
Maybe that's what the representative from NY-14 meant when she said in her red carpet interview that she was "partnered" with Aurora James.
Do sitting members of the House of Representatives routinely accept things of value (i.e. a $30,000 Met Gala ticket) in exchange for promoting products?
I, too, was "asking for a friend". 
The Met Gala ( i.e. Anna Wintour) pairs celebrities with brands to promote the celebrity, the brand, and the event. That's why the sophomore congresswoman and Aurora James walked the red carpet together.
https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-gets-mixed-reviews-tax-rich-dress-worn-met-gala-1628719
********************************************************
While the dress derives major elements of it's design to the 1954 Dior classic, it's unclear exactly where this particular dress came from, given that Aurora James designs, manufactures, and sells exotic skin footwear and purses, and Brother Vellies does not have a clothing line.
********************************************************
Brother Vellies is a very successful business, having survived a harrowing delay in shipment of ostrich skin due to a transportation strike it's very first year in business.
“We ended up having to get a helicopter to fly this ostrich to where we needed it,” she laughed.
https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/sustainability/brother-vellies-makes-shoes-conscience
*******************************************************
Vellie shoes have a long and interesting history, and in the US are commonly called chukka boots.
The name comes from Afrikaans vel ("skin" ), later assimilated with veld ("field" ), and skoene ("shoes" ). They were first made in the 17th century by the first Dutch settlers in South Africa. Their design is believed to be based on the traditional Khoisan footwear observed by these settlers. The footwear was later embedded into the Afrikaaner psyche when velskoene were used as the footwear of the Great Trek.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veldskoen
******************************************************
Fashion is a funny thing:
One of the most iconic producers of veldskoene (pronounced “felt-skooneh”), African Leather Creations, has been making the shoes from a small town on Namibia’s coast for more than fifty years. The company got its start when Ewald Schier moved to Namibia from Germany and opened a tannery in 1938. Surrounded by farms, open veld, and endless desert, Schier knew his customers needed a durable, comfortable shoe. While a type of veldskoen was already worn in the region, Schier was one of the first commercial producers to choose the shoe’s now iconic soft kudu hide as the most flexible and durable material.
snip==============================================
snip===============================================
snip===============================================
“We’re not reinventing the shoe, we make a simple, basic affordable shoe for every man and woman,” Schier says. “If people want to buy the shoes somewhere else, they can, but with us, they’re buying a story.”
https://qz.com/quartzy/1374719/a-shoe-worn-by-namibian-farmers-has-become-a-hipster-must-have-in-the-worlds-fashion-capitals/
******************************************************
Canadian-born, Brooklyn transplant Aurora James' version of the "basic, simple, affordable" shoe starts at $265. Don't wait for a sale, though. Apparently profit margin is non-negotiable.
https://brothervellies.com/pages/sustainability
wearing a dress saying "tax the rich" makes perfect sense ... not. 
Most people have some kind of service type job while going through college, so is that what she is referring to…? A college job is hardly a “working class” label.
She comes from an educated family and background and she attended an elite university and now she makes almost $200/grand a year. Maybe she has to stick to the brand building script..? It’s confusing. 
And what they wore:
https://www.insider.com/met-gala-fashion-politicians-outfits-2021-9
Secretary of State Clinton, Carolyn Mahoney, 45, and Bloomberg are on the list.
45 and Bloomberg are on on the list multiple times - wearing the same thing over and over again.
Current and former first ladies Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton were both there. (HRC was a senator at the time). The Kennedy and Shriver families (including Senator Ted Kennedy) were there as well. Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg attended along with her aunt Lee Radziwill.
Carolyn Maloney (who seems to enjoy the "costume" element of The Costume Institute) showed up in 2019 in an FDNY-themed turnout coat and matching gown to raise awareness for The Burn Center and the pending 9/11 bill.
Last edited Tue Sep 14, 2021, 09:51 PM - Edit history (1)
I love that Mitt Romney wore a tux he bought at Amazon!
Is that a non-disclosed, over-the-limit gift?
other Democrats aren’t serious. When you hobnob at $35,000/plate dinners to have your picture taken, then you can’t be worried about the “gifts” after all, lololol.
I have not seen you or the others fire up the old outrage Wurlitzer about:
Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney at the #MetGala
Link to tweet
Probably the usual suspects with their manufactured outrage. AOC is a strong and outspoken young woman of color... 
I am still laughing my ass off. The AOC threads are just confirmation that my ignore list is very valid. Nice to see you though.
triggering all the right people indeed
people in and out of congress, as one of us put it above. Low goal. Irritation's for influencers on social media.
To me it's amusing, and nothing more, that a young socialist got to participate in one of the nation's most elite elite's fun social events and found a way to make a statement to her little donors that literally covered her ass.
Because the only thing that matters is her role in TAXING THE WEALTHY, INCREMENTALLY, UNTIL THEY HAVE TO SELL OFF THEIR ESTATES AND MOVE INTO THEIR GATEHOUSES. Mostly metaphorically speaking, but liberal Democratic voters of 80 years ago did that by electing enough liberal Democrats to control congress and the WH for long enough (12 years!). And those representatives literally taxed the very wealthy of those days out of their palaces.
We're once again committed to eliminating the new wannabe ruling classes RW powers have been creating (during a period when voters didn't give us the power to stop them). But we have to finally have ENOUGH POWER FOR LONG ENOUGH TO DO IT.
So when Ocasio-Cortez rallies young people to vote for the Democratic Party, she is fighting for wealth redistribution and taxing the wealthy. Anything that threatens to weaken our party, works against that goal.
Because we're the only ones who ever did and who will ever be able to do it. It's OUR job.
Eyes on the big goal, as Nancy describes below.
Alabama
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
New Hampshire
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
need to pitch in more!!!!!
To some degree.
At least everyone who earns money.
It's the least we all owe this country.
need to pay up' posturing on here by some (not you of course)
This place becomes more and more reactionary and regressive each month on a multiplicity of levels. Maybe the AEI and Cato have started to fund it. 
I would not be shocked to start seeing virtual shrines being erected for Pete Peterson, Milton Freidman, and Arthur Laffer.
Is the Laffer Curve Too Simple a Theory?
There are some fundamental problems with the Laffer Curve—notably that it is far too simplistic in its assumptions. First, that the optimal tax revenue-maximizing tax rate T* is unique and static, or at least stable. Second that the shape of the Laffer Curve, at least in the vicinity of the current tax rate and T* is known or even knowable to policymakers. Lastly, that maximizing or even increasing tax revenue is a desirable policy goal. In the first case, the existence and position of T* depend entirely on the shape of the Laffer Curve. The underlying concept of the Laffer Curve only requires that tax revenue be zero at 0% and at 100%, and positive in between. It says nothing about the specific shape of the curve at points in between 0% and 100% or the position of T*.
The shape of the actual Laffer Curve might be dramatically different from the simple, single peaked curve commonly depicted. If the curve has multiple peaks, flat spots, or discontinuities, then multiple T*’s might exist. If the curve is skewed deeply to the left or right, T* might occur at extreme tax rates like 1% tax rate or a 99% tax rate, which might put tax revenue-maximizing policy into serious conflict with social equity or other policy goals. Furthermore, just as the basic concept does not necessarily imply a simply shaped curve, it does not imply that a Laffer Curve of any shape would be static. The Laffer Curve might easily shift and change shape over time, which would mean that to maximize revenue, or just avoid falling revenue, policymakers would have to constantly adjust tax rates.
This leads to the second criticism, that policymakers would be in practice unable to observe the shape of the Laffer Curve, the location of T*, whether multiple T*’s exist, or whether and how the Laffer Curve might shift over time. The only thing policymakers can reliably observe is the current tax rate and associated revenue receipts (and past combinations of rates and revenue). Economists can guess what the shape might be, but only trial and error could actually reveal the true shape of the curve, and only at those tax rates that are actually implemented. Raising or lowering tax rates might move the rate toward T*, or it might not. Moreover, if the Laffer Curve has any shape other than the assumed simple, single peaked parabola, then tax revenue at points between the current tax rate and T* could have any range of values higher or lower than revenue at the current rate and the same or lower than T*. An increase in tax revenue after a rate change would not necessarily signal that the new rate is closer to T* (nor a decrease in revenue signal that it is further away). Even worse, because tax policy changes are made and applied over time, the shape of the Laffer Curve could shift; policymakers could never know if an increase in tax revenue in response to a tax rate change represented a movement along the Laffer Curve toward T*, or a shift in the Laffer Curve itself, with a new T*. Policymakers trying to reach T* would effectively be groping in the dark after a moving target.
Lastly, it is not clear on economic grounds that maximizing or increasing government revenue (by moving toward T* on the Laffer Curve) is even an appropriate goal for choosing tax rates. It might easily be the case that a government could meet the otherwise unmet needs of its citizens and provide any necessary public goods at some level of revenue lower than the maximum it can potentially extract from the economy, perhaps much lower depending on the position of T*. If so, then given the well-researched principal-agent problems, rent-seeking, and knowledge problems that arise with the politically driven allocation of resources, putting additional funds in public coffers beyond this socially optimal level might just produce additional unnecessary social costs, inefficiencies, and dead-weight losses. Maximizing government tax revenue by taxing at T* would also likely maximize these costs. A more appropriate goal might be to reach the minimum tax revenue necessary to achieve only those socially necessary policy goals, which would seem to be almost the exact opposite of the purpose of the Laffer Curve.
Sorry about that. I guess
oh wait, outdoor photo op.
