[Jimbo]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29760888/?gt1=43001

 

[HersheyK's Dad]

I read that article yesterday. Sorry ladies, but how does that broad think she is going to spend $53,000 a week in alimony? Makeup and plastic surgery can't possibly cost that much, and I think male prostitutes are cheap.

Doesn't mean that David George can't afford it, but give me a break. The whole scenario is absurd.

 

[zoezoe]

they are showing her expenses on GMA right now... unbelievable!!

 

[Garth]

Poor dear. Life's a real ***** for some people aye?

Douglas-David has filed court papers showing she has more than $53,800 in weekly expenses, including for maintaining a Park Avenue apartment and three residences in Sweden. Her weekly expenses also include $700 for limousine service, $4,500 for clothes, $1,000 for hair and skin treatments, $1,500 for restaurants and entertainment, and $8,000 for travel.

 

[HersheyK's Dad]

'$4,500 for clothes, $1,000 for hair and skin treatments, $1,500 for restaurants and entertainment, and $8,000 for travel' A WEEK???????????????????

 

[Nick]

I'd divorce her for $10 million. I need to rethink my career choice, sounds like divorcing rich spouses is the way to go.

But seriously how brave/stupid do you have to be to make a request like that when people all around are losing their jobs and living on unemployment (or less).

 

[dweck]

Hey, she's a big tipper.

 

[gundog]

Let's just pass legislation to tax her money at 90%.........I've seen it done.

 

[Maple1]

$44 million is a relatively small percent of their total net worth. Aren't we in favor of people being able to make as much money as they [legally] can and spend it how they want? If they were worth $50,000 and she was only getting $10,000 people would say that is unfair.

Funny that this board is full of posts about individual freedoms, right to consume what you want if you can afford it etc, but then if someone has more and spends more than you have it is bad bad bad. Remember when we ripped Oprah for building a school.

And I remember reading here that the rich are the ones who create jobs; the middle class and poor have never hired anyone. Look how many people she is personally supporting.

 

[HersheyK's Dad]

$44 million is a relatively small percent of their total net worth. Aren't we in favor of people being able to make as much money as they [legally] can and spend it how they want? If they were worth $50,000 and she was only getting $10,000 people would say that is unfair.

Funny that this board is full of posts about individual freedoms, right to consume what you want if you can afford it etc, but then if someone has more and spends more than you have it is bad bad bad. Remember when we ripped Oprah for building a school.

And I remember reading here that the rich are the ones who create jobs; the middle class and poor have never hired anyone. Look how many people she is personally supporting.

Well, I don't disagree with you, but its not like she isn't getting a pile of money to start with. Its just another sign of the greed that exists. Hell, she signed an agreement and the proposed settlement complies with it. Now she wants more. $43M isn't enough for less than 10 years of marriage.

 

[Nick]

$44 million is a relatively small percent of their total net worth. Aren't we in favor of people being able to make as much money as they [legally] can and spend it how they want? If they were worth $50,000 and she was only getting $10,000 people would say that is unfair.

Funny that this board is full of posts about individual freedoms, right to consume what you want if you can afford it etc, but then if someone has more and spends more than you have it is bad bad bad. Remember when we ripped Oprah for building a school.

And I remember reading here that the rich are the ones who create jobs; the middle class and poor have never hired anyone. Look how many people she is personally supporting.

You can try and twist this into the argument you want, even if it's not, but good luck defending anyone who wants to siphon off money in this fashion. Her getting $43 million versus $60 million isn't going to add to the GDP. The money is already there, either he'll spend it or she'll spend it. Adding someone to the work force would add more to GDP than simply redistributing wealth.

And you're right, most people are in favor of people making as much money as they legally can. That's not at issue here. No net wealth is being created.

 

[amazongold]

"Douglas-David has filed court papers showing she has more than $53,800 in weekly expenses, including for maintaining a Park Avenue apartment and three residences in Sweden. Her weekly expenses also include $700 for limousine service, $4,500 for clothes, $1,000 for hair and skin treatments, $1,500 for restaurants and entertainment, and $8,000 for travel."

Okay, take her down to one residence, that will cut a lot of expense there, including travel becuse she won't be traveling between FOUR residences. Let her buy a car and stop using a limousine service, and stop buying insane amounts of clothing. That is simply a ridiculous amount of money to spend in a week. It's like she's trying to see how much she can blow, as fast as possible!

 

[Maple1]

You can try and twist this into the argument you want, even if it's not, but good luck defending anyone who wants to siphon off money in this fashion. Her getting $43 million versus $60 million isn't going to add to the GDP. The money is already there, either he'll spend it or she'll spend it. Adding someone to the work force would add more to GDP than simply redistributing wealth.

And you're right, most people are in favor of people making as much money as they legally can. That's not at issue here. No net wealth is being created.

Not necessarily true. She may spend a lot more money than he does.

 

[Wendy]

Okay devil's advocate here for one second. Why should he stay in the life he is accustomed and she has to par down her spending? I'm confused. Listen I think what she is asking for is ridiculous, heck I can't even imagine having that type of money. I'm just confused at why after she has been in a marriage with him, and of course I don't have all the facts, she helped get him to where he is in his position. You might shake your head and say "no she didn't" but even if she's a housewife, trust me, she probably has planned parties, and put up w/ him working ridiculous amounts of hours. Why should she not live in the life she is accustomed?

***Again I would like to say that people living this way amaze me, especially in this economy and I do not agree with it in the slightest***

 

[Maple1]

Okay devil's advocate here for one second. Why should he stay in the life he is accustomed and she has to par down her spending? I'm confused. Listen I think what she is asking for is ridiculous, heck I can't even imagine having that type of money. I'm just confused at why after she has been in a marriage with him, and of course I don't have all the facts, she helped get him to where he is in his position. You might shake your head and say "no she didn't" but even if she's a housewife, trust me, she probably has planned parties, and put up w/ him working ridiculous amounts of hours. Why should she not live in the life she is accustomed?

***Again I would like to say that people living this way amaze me, especially in this economy and I do not agree with it in the slightest***

Exactly.

 

[Hunter]

If I remember correctly - There is a Prenup involved that entitles her to 44 Mil.

End of story.

 

[Bob Pr.]

In these situations, I think often people try to get everything they can and, after they get it, it seems eminently fair to them -- they lose NO sleep over getting that.

Also, in these situations, I think often people try to hold onto as much as they possibly can and, after doing so, it seems eminently fair to them -- they lose NO sleep over successfully doing that.

 

[Nick]

Why should he stay in the life he is accustomed and she has to par down her spending?

She doesn't. She can marry another rich man and continue not to work. Problem solved.

It should be the same if the roles were reversed. He shouldn't be entitled to any lifestyle had the money not been his, no one is "entitled" to any lifestyle. Life happens. Should people not be upset with AIG bonuses because they're entitled to a lifestyle?

If kids were involved, different story, at least I think.

 

[theoconbrio]

She doesn't. She can marry another rich man and continue not to work. Problem solved.

Believe me, it's not as easy as it looks. I can be quite difficult.

 

[Wendy]

I can't seem to get into the story right now because MSN isn't working for me. So i can't read the whole thing. My hubby and I married when I was 20, we had been dating since I was 15. I stayed home for 13 1/2 years putting up with him working a ridiculous amount of hours to get himself to where he is today. Now mind you I have held dinners, planned get togethers helping him socially climb the ladder of his business. Do I not deserve the life that I am accustomed to? Do I have to go find another rich guy to marry? Really? That is all you have?

Now mind you most of the facts in the story are not accurate, hubby is a software engineer and not some big business tycoon. I don't think it's right to assume she just married for money. Unless she already stated this. Of course if there is a prenup than everything is null and void anyway, as it should be.