You know what a big fancy $2 million dollar wedding does.....

[LynneSin]

It puts $2 million into the local economy for businesses probably struggling to make it in this economy. The Clintons have the money to spend so why shouldn't they. I think the Clintons would have liked to kept much of this wedding out of the spotlight but it's tough when you are as famous as the Clintons. No it won't solve the mess this country is in but every dollar helps.

I wish nothing but the absolutely best for Chelsea Clinton and her husband. Chelsea has stayed a class act since she first lived at the White House at the age of 12 and she is a beautiful classy woman today. She deserves the wedding she wants to have - not what others judge that she should have. I hope she has a wonderful marriage and I can't wait to see Bill Clinton as a grandfather!

[meowomon]

1. Still not buying that argument in this economy.

Truly poor taste. Lacking in noblesse oblige. Let them eat cake!

[monmouth]

3. The Clintons owe noblesse oblige to no one...n/t

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

18. yes, let them eat saltines

You sure are in touch with the common man. :eyes:

[meowomon]

28. I think she should have a reality show about it.

The whole thing could be a great profit making venture! And then, thousands and thousands will be employed. Good grief!

[Bonobo]

32. Given the meaning of the phrase, your comment is silly.

"The obligation of the rich".

[LynneSin]

6. so what?

Seriously - so what

We wouldn't even had known about this wedding if the press & media weren't butting their heads all over it.

I think every bride deserves the wedding she wants as long as she's not spending herself into poverty.

[meowomon]

21. Just the Bride?

Wow, circa 1959.

[peace13]

9. Better to envision a huge white tent..

.. with 200,000 hungry children eating a much needed meal! They can do what they want with their money I don't care but I would hope that if I had the money I would not waste it on a dress. Can a $2 million dollar dress be that much prettier that a $200,000 dress? One would wonder.

[kestrel91316]

31. Please cite a link for your $2 million dress claim.

Oh, and then show us where you complained about the money spent on Jenna Bush's wedding.

[peace13]

93. Ouch...I want to say I'm sorry for misreading the OP but...

your stinky attitude doesn't deserve it. For all I know Jenna walked down the isle naked. Did you see pictures of the war lord wedding? I think not.

[kestrel91316]

158. Your failure to criticize the Bush wedding for ITS cost has been duly noted.

[nadinbrzezinski]

165. And we paid for quite a bit of it

why it was so "cheap," to be honest.

The food was catered by the tax payer, as in WH chefs, which is fine I guess. Security, same thing, by Secret Service... I could go on. If the bush clan had to pay for that wedding, I am betting it would have been AT LEAST at this price range. And if they chose local, go for it.

That is the part of the equation people don't realize when the 100K figure for Jenna's wedding is cited. I say, leave the kids out, and the best to both kids.

[GoCubsGo]

199. Let's also not forget

That Daddy's airplane (AF1) costs about $60K/hour to operate. Two hours to Texas and two to return. That's almost a quarter of a million dollars right there.

[meowomon]

99. Good question.

[nadinbrzezinski]

164. Rumored is 2000 guests

guess what skippy, you got to feed them too. So what about we break out the calculator.

At 25 a plate, that is 50K, just for the food, no place setting or anything like that.

Most likely at 200\plate (Yes it is a high end shindig) you are looking at 400,000

Oh and care to tell me what the Foundation has done? Yes, feed kids, hundred and thousands of them around the world.

Jesus age, do people lack economics understanding or just basic anthropology? This is CONSPICUOUS CONSUMPTION. I might not agree with it... you may not agree with it, but it will have a definite stimulus effect on the local economy.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. Can a struggling caterer or unemployed hotel worker eat your good taste?

Sorry if providing employment for people offends your sensibilities.

[hfojvt]

127. who knew that the lifestyles of the rich and famous

were so beneficial to the working class. Actually I make my living from $1,000 - $3,000 receptions.

[Orsino]

149. Didn't you hear? They already proved that trickle-down works. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

166. So, let me get this straight

when I take my car to the shop I am engaging in trickle down? No. I am engaging in a standard fee for service economic exchange. Guess what happens when you pay the caterer for the food at a wedding? What, since I am not part of the upper crust when I did marry, that means we engage in trickle down too?

Basic economics escapes most people around here. Free clue, trickle down involves SLASHING TAXES, not buying and selling stuff.

[hfojvt]

183. it's the same principle though

The Clintons, after all, might have saved $2 million from the Bush tax cuts. That gives them the money to spend on a wedding which trickles down to all us po' folk. Clearly they should be nominated for sainthood for this huge act of generosity to working people.

[nadinbrzezinski]

197. No, it is NOT the same principle

what you are seeing has a name: CONSPICUOUS CONSUMPTION, and in KEYNSEIAN ECONOMICS this is actually good in a recession. Read on Keyne's Paradox of thrift, serious.

Words, as I am fond of saying... heave specific meaning.

If you said, CONSPICUOUS CONSUMPTION you'd get no beef from me.

As to the tax cuts, those are very specific cuts in the tax code, aimed at people who make above a certain amount of money. In my view they should be raised to oh 70%, but the ONLY taxes involved here are... STATE SALES Taxes.

[Orsino]

188. When you take your two-million-dollar car to the shop, you are engaging in trickle-down. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

198. No I am not, I am engaging in a fee for service

economic exchange. Please learn basic economics. It is not that hard.

I am engaging in trickle down when I pay 15% taxes on income earned through stocks and bonds though... and that one don't make a whit of a difference if the amount I am getting taxed is one buck or 1 Billion.

[drmeow]

153. Nicely illustrates my thoughts

a $20,000 dress doesn't create employment for 10 times as many people as a $2,000 dress. There's still only 1 reception hall, 1 band/dj, 1 florist, 1 caterer. Maybe the ratio of servers to guests is a bit higher but probably not by much. And maybe those servers get higher salary but, again, not much.

[nadinbrzezinski]

167. At 2000 people involved yes it involves that much more people

and at that social level, they are expected to do that. Also she is their only daughter.

I am sure the locals involved will look down at the money injected into the local economy.

Oy

:sarcasm:

[drmeow]

205. Sorry - trickle down wedding theory

doesn't work any better than trickle down tax theory.

Yes, the locals will appreciate the money injected into the economy.

2000 guests? 100 weddings with 100 guests each at $20,000/wedding (more than mine cost for that many guests) would help the local economy more than 1 wedding with 2000 guests costing $2,000,000.

I could give a flying you know what how much money the Clinton's spend on the wedding - the cynic in me just says "that's a lot of money to pay for something that is statistically unlikely to last" - but the reality is that a good portion of the cost is going towards excess profit to people who unlikely to spend it so don't make the claim that that 2 million dollar wedding is giving huge boost to the local economy. I would argue that a wedding with 2000 guests costing $400,000 (the same average per person as a 100 person, $20,000 wedding) would provide the same boost to the local economy as this one will.

[nadinbrzezinski]

209. So stimulus spending doesn't work either

and john maynard keynes was wrong. I mean this is taking money out of investment accounts or bank accounts and injecting it into the local economy. Unlike trickle down economics, which is about TAXATION ON MARGINAL RATES, this actually puts money in.

Jesus age... people have no fucking clue that language and words have actual meaning.

Here is a hint, if you happen to have any investments... when you file your taxes, you pay 15% taxes on any profits you made. THAT is trickle down economics, and why it encourages the rich to keep their money parked in investments. Hence why it might sound good, to some right wings, but every time it's been tried it's led to oh minor events like oh the 1929 crash or oh last year.

The way to counter that effect at the policy level is to RAISE those taxes to at least 70%. But taking money OUT of those accounts and into the general economy actually puts it back in circulation. Go read Keynes please. There is a reason he got a Nobel Prize.

You people need to close the ideology and crack open a few books on economics. Or just plain out go take an ECON 101 class.

[drmeow]

211. You are missing my point.

Possibly deliberately? Who knows, and who cares. I simply can't be bothered to try to get it through to you ... and actually, I HAVE taken a few Econ classes.

[Bitwit1234]

15. All opinions noted but tell that to all the people who are

going to benefit from those JOBS even temporary this has created. Every little bit helps. A LOT.

[NJmaverick]

24. I see nothing wrong with parents giving their daughter the best wedding they can afford

plus as was correctly pointed out, spending stimulates the economy and I am sure there are many workers and small businesses that are happy at the chance to make some money in these hard times.

[meowomon]

26. Just the daughter is getting married.

Are the grooms parents kickin in a million or two? Or are they bringing the ice?

[uncommon]

44. I keep seeing those "parents of the bride" comments and cringing too. Poor taste indeed.

Takes two to tango.

[sufrommich]

47. It's pretty common in this country for the parents of the

bride to pay for the bulk of the wedding, is it not?

[meowomon]

52. And it is customary for some societies to mutilate the genitals of their girls

What's your point?

[sufrommich]

55. Oh ffs. What a ridiculous analogy.

Do you boycott weddings where the cost is not shared by both parties? Just curious.

[meowomon]

98. I haven't been to a wedding since my own in 1983

I wanted to get married on Halloween, but my born again x-tian mother would have nothing to do with that and she convinced me to wait until November 2. My husband and I cared little for the trappings of the societal rite of passage so we just showed up at John Brown Park in Tallahassee on 11-02-83 and got married by a United Church of Christ minister. (We picked her out of a phone book. They'll marry anyone and they had the name "Christ" in it so it satisfied my mother) It was raining, but after it cleared there was a double rainbow, we walked up on the little bridge over the lake and got married. After the ceremony some ducks went waddling by and we all got a big giggle out of that. My friends, my family, my husband and I then went to a Chinese restaurant and had the most wonderful time celebrating. That is my idea of a wedding.

[sufrommich]

111. So you don't attend the weddings of your friends and family?nt

[meowomon]

115. No one I know has gotten married like that

I don't even remember getting any invitations except to graduations, birthdays and such. My sisters had big weddings back when I was a kid, but no one since then. I never really thought about it. All my friends and family just have small affairs. And it isn't about the money. Most of them have more than I do. I guess we just value things differently.

[REP]

162. You don't get invited to weddings? Quelle surprise!

I can't imagine not inviting someone to something they're likely to crap all over, especially if it took months to plan and is for an important, happy event.

[Statistical]

63. That is an asinine comparison.

My wife's parents paid for our wedding somehow her genitals escaped mutilation.*

Most guys honestly don't really give a crap about a giant wedding. If it were me our wedding would have been smaller seems like a huge amount of money for a single day.


* My mother helped us with honeymoon and down payment on a home.

[meowomon]

97. I am not comparing it.

I am simply pointing out that many societies have ridiculous customs that go back centuries and they all relate to the bride price and the ownership of women by her parents and that ownership being transferred to her husband at the altar. Quite frankly I find the thought of a bride prancing down the aisle with a white gown and all the traditional trimmings quite revolting. The spectacle of it all is ridiculous. Just my opinion.

[pipoman]

175. Think there is a correlation between you not getting a single

invitation to a wedding in over 25 years and your utterly ridiculous way of thinking? Maybe has something to do with your lack of friends too? It is never too late for self reflection.

[nadinbrzezinski]

169. Yes and a dowry.

And not just in this country. This is a common custom around the Western World, as well as a few other societies.

[MyNameGoesHere]

203. Is your displeasure at traditional wedding

procedures or the money? You're confusing me. Long before you were born some busy body made up rules about who pays for what at weddings. You should show your displeasure at them perhaps?

[treestar]

41. Flowers, food, many people on the lower ends of the economy

would not feel that way because they have a market for their wares - I bet no one in the catering industry down to the lowliest food preparer resents anyone having a lavish wedding.

It's all in how you make your living.

[hfojvt]

113. and no car salesman resents the guy who buys a lexus

and no realtor resents the guy who buys a mcmansion, that still does not make those into one of the things that decent people do. And I almost got a job in a Winnebago factory too and used to make satellite dishes.

[lapislzi]

122. As an event planner, I would love a crack at the Clinton wedding

As would my waitstaff, bartenders, valets, and floral/decorating assistants. That would be a sweet gig.

People with more money than sense keep my kids in college.

[nadinbrzezinski]

171. +1, basic economics

And you are correct, some folks have quite a bit of money to blow off. Some don't and they still blow it.

:-)

As long as the check clears...

And don't forget the photographers and other ancillary staff.

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. So, rich people should stop spending money until the economy recovers?

[immoderate]

105. They must serve as a role model for the unemployed.

"How do we live?" --Miss Jean Brodie

--imm

[Freddie Stubbs]

131. If everyone stopped spending money, what effect would that have on the economy?

[immoderate]

150. You mean -- on things?

:P

--imm

[nadinbrzezinski]

173. Google up the Term,. Thrift Paradox and John Maynark Keynes

Somebody is trying to teach you a valuable economics lesson.

[immoderate]

192. Not you too.

I'm from New York. And in New York we have something called sarcasm. It was invented in Brooklyn in 1932 by Leo Gorcey.

I submit that my statement about "role models" in the post above is so idiotic that no intelligent person could take it seriously. Please read it again. Why would you even bother with someone who could assert that seriously? Edit to add: Does an unemployed person really need a rich role model to demonstrate how to not spend money?

Nadin, we've engaged before, but perhaps not memorably. I've been around a long time and not felt the need to use the <sarcasm> smilie when dispensing wit, (though I have used it sarcastically.)

You are still one of my favorite DUers.:hi:

--imm

[nadinbrzezinski]

196. Becuase a lot of folks round these parts

do not understand basic economics, or that words have actual meanings.

:hi:

Hence, at that point sarcasm don't work very well.

[ParkieDem]

82. I wholeheartedly agree.

The same argument could have been made for the fatcat CEOs that redecorated their offices or bought new fancy yachts with TARP money. It's way too much in this economy.

Just goes to show that Bill never really was a man of "the people."

[KurtNYC]

94. High employment, great economy, low crime -- do those count for ANYTHING?

On my scorecard "the people" did pretty well thanks to Clinton.

[RayOfHope]

100. The dude drove an El Camino, for petes sake. C'mon. n/t

[ParkieDem]

146. And

Poppy Bush drove an old Studebaker from Connecticut to Texas; George Jr. drove an old beat up car in his campaign ads.

[aquart]

159. They are not nobility.

What I did hear was that they were using all local companies. You would rather they kept that money in the bank? Which bank? Bank of America?

Would you feel more comfortable if they gave it to charity which would frugally dole it out to the desperate instead of letting working people do themselves proud and earn it? Because that would be nauseating to me.

The biggest problem with the rich is that they really DON'T spend. There comes a point when there is nothing left to buy but your government. The Clintons are taking what they have and letting it help other families have a really good summer in the midst of a horrible recession.

Now if you want to talk about taxing the Clintons and all others who have as much as they do, I'm fine with that and let's get on it. But to want them to keep that money where ONLY the banks profit from it? What are you thinking?

[nadinbrzezinski]

163. I recommend you check on this dude

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes

Perhaps then you will get what two million can do to a struggling LOCAL economy.

It is, in that small area, a mini-stimulus package.

You might also want to check what Keynes had to say about... thrift during a recession... and the paradox that it is.

[Jakes Progress]

170. Already working steadily I guess.

Tell the couple of hundred who would feed their kids from what they would make at the wedding to just go hungry to spite the Clintons.

Talk about poor taste.

[Ruby the Liberal]

2. Agreed.

Much more beneficial than letting it sit in the bank. They are benefiting the community.

[Obamanaut]

4. This OP says it all. nt

[northernlights]

5. Chelsea has disappointed me since she walked out of college into the bazillion dollar/year

financial industry. I don't blame her for using her connections to leapfrog ahead of the pack, but I would have like to see her do something more worthwhile with her gifts and station in life. I realize it's her choice. I just have no respect for the industry and its motives.

That said, how the Clintons spend their hundreds of millions is their business. And better spent on a wedding than ripping ordinary people off at the casino called wall street.

[Raineyb]

19. Ripping off ordinary people at the casino called Wall Street

is what Chelsea does for a living. So I'm not really sure where you draw the distinction.

[northernlights]

109. I'm not sure what you mean by that...

It's not my business how she spends her ill-gotten gains, although spending $2M on the wedding will be $2M put into the local economy, as others have said.

That she earns her living -- and came by the $2M if she's paying for the wedding -- by ripping off ordinary people at the casino called wall street is why she is a disappointment to me.

[proteus_lives]

135. "her ill-gotten gains"

Is she a criminal? Is her money stolen?

You say she rips people off, do you have proof?

[JoePhilly]

142. I must now admit my "ill-gotton gains" ...

I have a 401k invested in the stock market.

May God have mercy on my soul.

[northernlights]

202. she works in the financial industry

that is my evidence. As I recall her starting salary, fresh out of college, was something in the hundreds of thousands per year. That, to me, is a crime. No kid, fresh out of college, is worth that kind of salary. Except, of course, connected kids.

And extrapolating from another thread, my basic opinion is that wall street and the financial industry are fundamentally, irrevocably corrupt. Any money "earned" there is really money stolen from us peons, whether consciously so or not.

I was very, very proud of Chelsea in the white house. Disappointed in her chosen career. She has the gifts and the position to have done something so much more worthwhile. But whatever floats her boat, of course.

In contrast, I found the Bush twins exploits in the white house to be shameful and an embarrassment. Yet they're the ones who went to work in the poverty-stricken areas of S. America. And yes, HRH Princess Jenna used her position to help purchase the 10,000 acre or so tract in Paraguay sitting on one of the world's largest pure water aquifers. But Barbara, at least, recently came out in favor of health care available to everybody rich AND poor.


Maybe it takes a couple generations of wealth to produce children who want to give back to society as opposed to going for even more of the green. :shrug:

[Paladin]

206. So You're Slagging Chelsea Clinton In Favor Of The Bush Girls?

Take your opinions over to Free Republic where they belong......

[northernlights]

207. I'm calling them where I see them

read my post. And maybe grow up and grow an independent brain.

Chelsea was a model child in the white house. I'm simply disappointed in how she's chosen to use her gifts and position. To chase ever more money, like a nice corporate rethug.

The Bush twins were an embarrasment in the white house. But I appreciate that they've chosen to use their gifts and position to help those less fortunate, more of what I would hoped that Chelsea would grow up to do.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[onenote]

141. I'm sure that not disappointing you was high on Chelsea's list of worries in life

:sarcasm:

[RadicalTexan]

160. I agree

(Runs and hides from DU Clinton loving police)

:hide:

[alarimer]

168. Let's face it, our overlords and their offspring are not like us.

They get everything handed to them on a silver platter, without having to lift a fucking finger. It is completely undeserved that they can, as you said, waltz into some cushy Wall Street job without having to start at the bottom. I forget which one, but one of the Bush twins at least taught school for a while, more laudable than ANY Wall Street bullshit "job".

I fucking hate the rich for this shit. I hate that our political system is composed entirely of rich entitle assholes who only exist to serve their fellow rich assholes in banking or oil or insurance. How much you want to bet that Chelsea someday waltzes into Congress or the Senate? Of course most rich offspring are clueless fucking idiots who wouldn't know how to buy groceries or do the laundry or anything the "small people" do. Fuck them.

[liquid diamond]

178. I wish I could recommend your post. n/t

[Greyhound]

7. LOL! Yes indeed, we should all be so thankful that our masters have deigned to bestow

a bit of largess upon this exclusive and incredibly expensive enclave of millionaires and their minions.:rofl:

Now that's a good morning stretch.
:rofl:

[Raineyb]

20. Those noblemen used to throw mean parties too.

I guess those who are chosen to serve at the party should be thankful for the crumbs they get.

Of course at this level it's not really the small business that's going to benefit but I suppose that if one wants to argue trickle down without being aware of the blatant hypocrisy of their argument that would be the way to do it.

[NJmaverick]

23. When I see comments like these I wonder how familiar you are with the wealth

of many of the founding fathers.

[sufrommich]

33. Or any of our beloved politicians, for that matter.

I wonder who cleans Al Gore's or John Kerry's houses?

[Greyhound]

43. Good points. Still looking for relevance in this line of whatever you are saying.

John Kerry is (officially) the richest man in Congress and is joined by about 240 multi-millionaires in the halls of Congress, the majority of which are Democrats.

[sufrommich]

50. Maybe you should go back and read post #7. nt

[Greyhound]

53. Yeah, I wrote it. I do not however, live in your head, so I'm still looking for you to articulate

your point.

[sufrommich]

57. I thought my point was pretty clear. Most politicians are

rich, including the ones who are beloved on this board, like John Kerry and Al Gore. Neither of whom receive this kind of feigned outrage over their spending habits.

[Greyhound]

65. That's funny, I've heard about everything from the fabulous estates they've built

to the hair-cuts they get, with accompanying outrage, for years. And speaking for myself, the outrage is real as is the astonishment at how many people are so unaware of reality that they are not.

"There is a class war being waged, and it's my class, the rich class, that's waging it and we're winning" - Warren Buffett

[sufrommich]

76. Really, on DU you saw many threads dedicated to blasting

Kerry's wealth or John Edwards haircuts or Al Gores houses or the Kennedy's wealth? I don't recall any such threads.

[Greyhound]

80. Then you were simply not paying attention. They seemed endless. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

179. You really have been hanging out at the lounge then

And I should add one other haircut, one at LAX for Clinton (which is an urban legend for the most part)

[Greyhound]

34. Quite. And what does that have to do with this? n/t

[sufrommich]

35. That the outrage is selective? nt

[SidDithers]

39. Yup...nt

Sid

[Greyhound]

49. Not at all, this piece is about the Clintons. I'm equally outrages by the class warriors of both

parties and even those with no political positions.

The ongoing class war is the only issue that matters. Until we begin fighting it, nothing can change but the amount and quality of gilding on our cage.

[nadinbrzezinski]

180. But strikes are so yesterday

I have had more than one person have empty eyes when I mention the concept.

[Romulox]

51. Jimmy Madison throwing a wedding next year, is he?

:eyes:

[sufrommich]

54. I have no idea who Jimmy Madison is. nt

[Romulox]

56. Oh brother!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison

[sufrommich]

58. OMG, I am so dense for not getting that you meant

James Madison! Seriously, you make no sense.:eyes:

[Romulox]

68. It's OK, I'm pretty sure he spelled it "Jimi"

And, ummm, you were responding to a subthread that started out:

When I see comments like these I wonder how familiar you are with the wealth of many of the founding fathers

You said it was because of "selective outrage". Now James Madison is one of those "founding fathers"--he's also been dead for 200 years. So you see, the thought of him planning a wedding is absurd, just like thought of us being "selectively outraged" about said wedding (which will not happen, let's remember!) is similarly absurd.

Do you get it now? :eyes: :hi:

[sufrommich]

74. But of course, I made no mention of our

founding fathers and used current democrats to make my point.

[Romulox]

77. Oh brother!

When you hit "reply" under a person's response, you are making an (implicit) assertion that your comments are logically related to those just above your own. You've missed that link, so the meaning of these posts has escaped you.

Rest assured, you were involved in a conversation about "the founding fathers", whether you knew it, or not. :hi:

[blindpig]

73. Oh yes....

It does not recommend them either.

[WinkyDink]

8. The rich Right-wing likes this argument. too. We'll hear more when Bush's tax-cuts near expiration.

[Statistical]

89. Exactly without the Bush tax cuts the Clintons couldn't have afforded this.

See the little peasants are better off when the rich have insane amounts of cash.

Don't let the tax cuts on the uber rich expire think of the caterers, and bar tenders, and yacht builders.

I mean if the Clintons were less rich they might only be able to spend $1 million on the wedding. That would rob caterers of a million in revenue.

See if you love the poor you will cut taxes. Not for everyone. Most people are too stupid to use money wisely. You cut taxes for the top 1%. They are smart and they will dole it out to the unwashed masses if and when it is needed.

[meowomon]

106. So WE have to like it cause THEY don't?

If the right wingers come out against the color orange, does that mean I have to like it now?

[WinkyDink]

130. I don't think you read me right.

From what I see, we're on the same page with this one.

[meowomon]

184. mea culpa

pax

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. Has Chelsea Clinton every told by a TSA agent at an airport to walk through

the body scanners? I'm just wondering. I happen to like the kid, I just wondered if our children are being treated differently on that regard.

[teenagebambam]

11. I'm getting married the same day

and spending $2000.... BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I CAN AFFORD TO SPEND. If the Clinton's can afford $2 Mil, more power to them. I'm a professional singer, I've certainly taken my share of money from rich people who had too much money to know what to do with.

[babydollhead]

16. congratulations!

[KharmaTrain]

12. And This Matters How???

Is there tax money being used to pay for this wedding? Is this wedding going to destroy lives or even affect anyone who isn't involved? Don't we have enough problems of real consequence to focus on than to obsess over a private wedding? It's their money...and it's been earned legally through years of hard work and this is a special time for their family and so be it. Surely much of the money will go to many vendors who could use the business in a tough economy.

My hearty congratulations to the Clintons and may they enjoy this special occasion...it's well earned and deserved. Don't like all the gossip? Then move along...there'll be another "outrage" any minute.

[Statistical]

70. "Is there tax money being used to pay for this wedding?"

Of course there is. The Clinton's (like all uber rich) paid significantly less taxes under Bush tax cuts for the last decade. Those millions and millions in taxes not paid allow them to have so much frigging money that dropping $2 million on a single day is really nothing.

Progressive and steep taxation curbs the desire for excessive consumption. Still it is much better to shift the tax burden to the poor that way the rich can throw million dollar weddings and thus employ the poor & middle class.

See it is WIN - win.

[SammyWinstonJack]

78. Thanks for pointing that out about the bu$h tax cuts making events like this possible for the

wealthy.

Even clinton himself makes mention of the tax cuts the repugs gave him that he says he doesn't really need. :shrug: Guess he and Hillary found a way to spend those tax cuts they really do not need. :evilgrin:

[KharmaTrain]

83. Nice Try...

Is our tax money going to provide security? Is her wedding dress being paid for through some government subsidy? That's direct use of our money and that's all I care about.

Regarding taxes, I'm all in favor of removing the disastrous boooosh tax cuts and other forms of corporate welfare, but what does that have to do with a wedding? Right now the tax burden is being pushed to the future. As President Clinton passed a tax increase that put a bigger tax burden on the rich (that led to him and the Democrats losing the House in '94 and his never-ending problems that manifested in his "impeachment"/inquisition)...give the man credit that when he had the ability he did try to equalize the tax burden and it resulted in the greatest domestic economic growth and prosperity in my lifetime. But that has zilch to do with a private wedding.

[Statistical]

85. "Is her wedding dress being paid for through some government subsidy? "

If you don't consider $4.7 trillion in tax reduction for the uber rich which now enables them to spend an obscene amount of money on things like weddings, mansions, jets, and yacht to me a "some government subsidy" well then no sense in continuing.

I would call it the single largest government subsidy in modern history. Trillions of dollars were hoarded by those at the top because their taxes (which were already low) were cut even lower. One doesn't spend $2 million on a wedding just because they are "wealthy" one spends $2 million on a single day because they have an obscene amount of cash and really nothing to spend it on.

Why do they have so much cash? Oh yeah because of that thing you say isn't a government subsidy. The fact that they saved millions in tax cuts each year for a decade allowed their wealth to grow compounded in insane levels.

"But that has zilch to do with a private wedding"
Simple version. The Clinton's (and every other uber rich) are far far far more wealthy today than a decade ago due to the Bush tax cuts. Thus a direct result of those cuts is they have the kinds of money to blow $2 million in a single day. Without the Bush tax cuts they may be merely rich and likely would have to "skimp" and only spend half a million on a wedding.

[KharmaTrain]

90. No, Not A Subsidy...It Was A Tax Cut

Sure sounds like sour grapes. So should they give the $2 million or whatever (the amount from what I've seen is still speculation) to a homeless shelter? To you? Again, this is a private wedding with money the Clintons earned legally and how they spend it...especially on a special occasion...is no one's business. Attempting to "shame" shows an agenda not a point.

I've been and am highly critical of the boooosh tax cuts but it surely wasn't a "subsidy"...that came through the corporate welfare arm that spent billions off the books (including two wars for profit). You ask why do they have so much cash? From my knowledge both parents wrote best-sellers and have earned big money in speaking fees...they didn't take it from some public funding.

Your outrage over tax inequality has merit, but it should be directed at those who enacted those laws than those who took advantage of it.

[Statistical]

92. "with money the Clintons earned legally and how they spend it.."

By that logic nobody should every be upset about anything rich spend money on. Bankster gets $100 million bonus and build a 30 ft gold statute of himself dropping a turd on the working class. Hell that employed a lot of people right? Also we should go ahead and cut the taxes on rich EVEN MORE. I mean it wasn't a subsidy in the strict sense of the definition.

Hell it helped them "give" $2 million to the working class. I bet if we cut taxes ONLY on the rich and by even more the economy would REALLLLLYY recover.

"You ask why do they have so much cash? From my knowledge both parents wrote best-sellers and have earned big money in speaking fees...they didn't take it from some public funding."
You don't think their POST-TAX income has anything to do with the level of taxation.

$1 mil income & 45% taxes = $550K after taxes.
$1 mil income & 28% taxes = $720K after taxes.

Regardless of the merit of their work they are significantly richer due to tax inequality.

I am not outraged at the Clinton's. If they want to spend $2 mil on a wedding then fine. If they want to spend $2 mil trying to sail around the world that is equally fine. However I see excessive consumption by the top 1% as a sign of the tax inequality.

What I find outrageous is the OP is trying to spin that as a good thing. "Think of all the caterers it helped". BLEH.

Another poster said it better and more concise here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8801029&mesg_id=8801893

Maybe the caterers wouldn't need as much "help" (like working at a wedding among the nobles is a gift) if the rich paid their fair share in taxes to begin with.

[onenote]

138. I own a house on which I am able to deduct mortgage interest

which of course gives me a tax break not enjoyed by those who don't own houses. So I guess in your view, my wedding and honeymoon, which weren't all that lavish but were more than a justice of the peace and a night at the holiday inn was "paid for by the taxpayers."

Nonsense

[Fla_Democrat]

14. What about a 2 million dollar

house, or a boat, maybe a 2 million dollar party at the snooty-snoot country club? If money is being spent, regardless of who is spending it, is that a good thing? :shrug:

[kestrel91316]

37. I dunno, I think parting wealthy folks of all political persuasions from

their money is a good thing. If they spend it on manufactured stuff that declines in value rather than using it to bribe politicians, that's particularly desirable.

[blondeatlast]

79. Best post of the dustup I've seen yet. nt

[pinboy3niner]

17. I agree--and pray this is the end of the wedding threads.

Why do I suspect it's not the end? :)

[KurtNYC]

96. Given the MSM's fanatical hatred of the Clintons, and the overwhelming

desire of some here to scream "hypocrite" -- this is only the beginning.

[Statistical]

22. You know what a big fancy $2 million dollar yatch (or mansion, or other high ticket item) does ...

It puts $2 million into the local economy for businesses probably struggling to make it in this economy. The Wall Street Bankster have the money to spend so why shouldn't they. I think the Banksters would have liked to kept much of the excessive consumption out of the spotlight but it's tough when you are as reviled as Wall Street is. No it won't solve the mess this country is in but every dollar helps.

-------------

By that logic any amount of spending by anyone should be considered a good thing. Like Executives taking private jets. Private jet companies employ pilots, and people to build, and maintain them.

It is called trickle down economics.

[JVS]

59. Wait until you see that argument made in support of the weapons industry.

And no consideration of the broken window fallacy.

[Statistical]

66. I'll throw one in the ring.

The great thing about the weapons industry is the "product" is continually used up. See if you build a library it could last for a thousand years. What a waste. How will that employ library builders next year.

If you build a bomb and explode it..... you need another bomb. A continual source of prosperity for the American worker. I mean bomb builders could be employed forever as long as we keep finding places to drop bombs. It is like having a Clinton wedding every single day of the year. Cake for everyone!!!!!!!


More bombs, less schools. It is the only way to put American back on the right track.

[JVS]

69. Yeah, but if you build tractors instead, then you will increase the production capacity.

[Statistical]

72. Booo.

If you do that prices will go down. The poor & middle class will no longer be dependent on $2 million "gifts" from the ruling class to keep the economy afloat.

What kind of weirdo are you anyways pushing for sustainable economic prosperity and less concentration of wealth.

[Historic NY]

25. I live here and it will be a big shot in the arm for the area.....

Rhinebeck, Hyde Park and the rest of the little business in the Hudson Valley took big hits after IBM bailed shedding more that 10 thousand jobs. The biggest event there during the year are the fair and the Good Guys cars shows. It gets escaping city dweller action during the summer. The Beekmans Arms is the oldest inn in the nation in continous operation. I imagine most costs are in housing guess' services & security. Lots of things for visitor to see including the FDR estate & The Air Drome...of course the upscale shopping. The estates are large and afford privacy. This should aid the security bubble. I can imagine all the workers cleaning & airing out these stuffy old world estates. I've been a guest at an old one that dated to the early 18th century and it was outstanding. Things will be humming in the Valley with the sound of money being spent. Kudo's to the Clinton's for choosing our area.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL0etx9clSg&feature=player_embedded

[druidity33]

30. thanks for the local perspective! nt.

[meowomon]

104. Nice for you

We'll be clamoring at the gate for left overs.

[blindpig]

194. enjoy....

[kiva]

27. Exactly.

Bubba as a grandfather...bet he'll be a good one.

[Hosnon]

29. That's only the silver lining argument...

It's not commendable that they are throwing such a lavish wedding.

[JVS]

36. We've heard this before and it's BS.

[uncommon]

46. It's not trickle down when it's individual spending. Trickle down is about tax cuts for

the wealthy stimulating the economy.

[Statistical]

61. They are exactly the same thing.

The tax cuts are suppose to stimulate spending.

Aka the Clintons paid much less in taxes over last decade thus they have millions more and they can use those millions on a wedding. The wedding then stimulates the economy. That is the entire basis for the trickle down nonsense.

"Trickle down is about tax cuts for the wealthy stimulating the economy."
Think about this for a second how does a tax cut "stimulate" the economy. It doesn't not even in the bogus supply side theory does it. What stimulates the economy is spending and investing and the rich (like Clintons) can do more because of the tax cuts.

Saying supply side economics is about tax cuts in a vaccum is silly.

"It's not trickle down when it's individual spending."
All spending is invididual. The macro-economic effect is the aggregate of individual choices.

[JVS]

67. There is a slight but unimportant difference.

Trickle down can be practiced on both the supply and demand side.

Supply side economics claims that giving the rich more money causes them to hire others and produce more. This creates jobs, causing wealth to trickle down.

Of course there is the question who is going to consume all of this shit and keep the businesses from flopping.

Rich people to the rescue again. Because they have all that money they can afford to soak up the production! So their demand lets money trickles down again!

[blondeatlast]

81. "Supposed" as opposed to "actually." Big difference that I'm surprised you don't see.

The tax cuts didn't stimulate spending. The wedding WILL.

[Statistical]

87. Tax cuts never directly stimulate anything.

Tax cuts result in the person/entity targeted having more money. That INDIRECTLY leads to increased spending & investing.

Thus Clinton's getting millions in tax cuts over last decade allowed them to amass the kind of wealth needed before one can consider dropping $2 mil on a single day.

I would say that fact that they (and others) can blow $2 million on a wedding means they are insufficiently taxed.
You however would argue it is good their taxes were low because they can now afford the wedding and that stimulates the economy. Had their taxes been higher they likely would have less money and thus need to spend less on the wedding and then the poor wedding planners, and caters would suffer. See cutting taxes on the uber rich is good.

If anything you are arguing that Bush tax cuts & trickle down economics indeed does work.

[nadinbrzezinski]

201. No they are not, and John Maynard Keyne's

theory might illuminate all of this for you.

[treestar]

38. The Chelsea Clinton Wedding Stimulus!

Almost sounds like a mini one of itself! :party:

[meowomon]

107. Maybe some of the Democrats could run on that this year!

Beats the hell out of saying we chickened out on the public option.

[TwilightGardener]

40. I don't know why anyone would care about the cost of the wedding.

Have a happy day, Clintons. Enjoy it.

[progressoid]

42. Hooooray for getting trickled down on!!

It feels much better when it's Democratic money rather than Republican money.

[nadinbrzezinski]

174. Bears repeating

are you engaging in trickle down when you take your car to the shop for repairs? Or is that just a plain pay for service arrangement?

What is different about this family paying a caterer for a service?

Trickle down involves taxes, as in slashing them, especially for the upper level.

People need to learn that words have meaning, specific meaning in-fact.

[Romulox]

48. America is a "meritocracy", and the Clintons are "progressives"!

:puke:

[JVS]

60. Are you suggesting that America is a plutocracy and the Clintons are plutes?

[Romulox]

64. Not in the least--the Clintons are *the peoples'* hereditary dynasty.

I, for one, thank them for any small bit of effluvia that "trickles down" to the people. Truly, we are not deserving!

[earth mom]

62. Sorry, but a wedding that costs that much is ostentatious in a depression and we're in a depression

in case you haven't noticed.

Sure, it may help florists and caterers etc., but it is a gawd awful display and very reminiscent of how the robber barons behaved way back when.

And if you can't see the parallels between then and now, you may want to educate yourself.

The Clintons should be aware of how this looks but it's obvious they could care less and I find that shocking and sad coming from "democrats".

Let them eat cake indeed.

[blindpig]

71. Thank god for the rich!

We couldn't survive without them....

Oh wait, we actually could survive much, much better without them. In fact, we cannot survive very much longer with them.

'Class' like that need go away entirely.

[Dappleganger]

75. Both Clintons worked hard for that money.

Nobody handed them anything on a silver platter. I only wish their only daughter the best in her wedding and marriage.

[blindpig]

86. Really?

Did they work so much harder than a sanitation engineer or carpenter, that an hour of their time is worth hundreds of those other's hours?

I don't think so, nobody does. Nobody except those who do the serious dirt for the really, really rich. Their services are worth it to the uber rich, they depend upon them. The rest of us, not so much.

We might ask, which of those workers, the Clintons or those who work with their hands, relatively benefit society the most?

[meowomon]

102. Damned right

I am a nurse. Tell me how fucking hard I have to work. How much fucking shit I literally have to put up with. I could easily retire on less than a quarter of what they will allegedly be spending on this wedding. A stupid piece of crap reception with freakin ice sculptures that cost more to make than what I make in one year. Frivolous, ostentatious and very politically unwise of two such savvy politicians in these bad economic times. Mazal Tov, Chelsea. Enjoy your cake.

[Dappleganger]

133. You seem very bitter.

My mother was a nurse too and she worked 12 hour shifts since I don't know when. The point of my post was that neither of the Clintons came from old money: it wasn't handed to them on a silver platter such as the Kennedy family.

Why are you so angry that someone would spend their own earned money on a wedding for their only child? I would not begrudge anyone the right to choose how they wish to celebrate.

Enjoy your resentment...it must be a hard pill to swallow.

[misanthrope]

176. I believe the term you're looking for is "extraordinary"...

...Recall back in 2008 when Chelsea took time away from her hedge fund management duties to stump for Hillary Clinton? In February of that year, she was fielding questions from students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison when one young voter asked, "Has your mother shown any remorse for the fact that her vote cost Iraqis a million of their lives?"

Chelsea replied, "She cast a vote based on the best available evidence. Perhaps you had clairvoyance then and that's extraordinary." This off-the-cuff retort seemed to reveal an arrogance and brusque ignorance of the fact that millions of global citizens worldwide took to the streets to protest the ramp-up to that war. If that many folks could see through the transparent evidence presented by the Bush-Cheney regime, then there was nothing precognitive nor extraordinary about their perception, but rather something obtuse about Hillary's judgment.

And "extraordinary" would be the last descriptive I would use to describe the Clinton offspring or her life. Plenty of upper crust brats have followed the same gilded path.

[hfojvt]

117. obviously it is the Clintons, they are like Atlas

just like all the other rich people. I just hope to God they don't shrug :scared:

[blindpig]

129. Ha! What would we do without them?

I can think of a lot of things....

[FooshIt]

84. They are insufficiently taxed

clearly

[Orsino]

148. +85 n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

155. And Bill Clinton will back that up. He likes to say that he is under taxed and smiles while saying

it. :eyes:

[Gormy Cuss]

88. Who's having a two million dollar wedding?

There's no such price tag assigned by the Clintons. That's the high end of a general estimate made by a NY wedding planner who caters to ostentatious people.

Stimulating the economy? What horse manure.

[Oregone]

91. Weddings are a barometer for inequality

So while you can look at the positive effects of capital injection, it must also be noted that this injection is only possible due to mass disparity making that amount seem "reasonable" to the spender. And that is something to be outraged about. The system is broke, and only benefiting the elite. If we are to sit around and whitewash each and every trivial superfluous event that the rich put on, we are ignoring the signs about how out of whack the society is (and thereby, preventing mobilization against it).

These feelings need to fester and motivate change.

[Better Today]

95. I actually agree. Unfortunately it's a lose/lose for them, if they didn't everyone would

be bitching that they were hoarding their cash when they could be supporting the economy by spending, and if they do this, then they are being exorbitant and rubbing our noses in it.

Poor Clinton's can't win for losing, sometimes.

[earth mom]

101. FYI-The Clinton wedding is to be held on the Astor Estate.Astor = one of the original ROBBER BARONS

:puke:

[meowomon]

108. Apropos.

Notice how I used the fancy word? Also apropos.

[sufrommich]

110. Which was then willed to a Catholic Charity

A CATHOLIC CHARITY!!!!!

Then it was sold to a rich guy. A RICH GUY!!!!!!!!!!

[Starbucks Anarchist]

128. LOL!

:rofl:

[Lucian]

103. "Hey. Your business sucks because of the economy. But hey, I have $2 million to throw around."

:eyes:

Throwing around $2 million while others are struggling is tasteless and tacky. I don't care who you are.

The opinions here would be really different here if it was John McCain's daughter getting married instead of Chelsea Clinton.

[hfojvt]

114. IOKIYAD

[Lucian]

119. Apparently so.

[hfojvt]

112. so it trickles down to help all of us?

Thank you, oh, thank you most beneficent rich people. Please help us more by buying yourself a fleet of cars, six or seven homes, a thousand pair of shoes, a yacht and a private jet. I know you hate all that ostentation, but think of the poor working people of America. All your luxurious living just makes their lives better by trickling down.

[meowomon]

116. I'm still waiting for Reaganomics to trickle down to me

I guess I'll just be an hourly waged nurse/slave the rest of my life. No retirement. Who's got extra money to save when bills gotta be paid.

[Statistical]

120. To bad they don't need nurses at the wedding you would get a little trickle there.

Can you see how great it is for the working class when the nobles of our realm throw a party?

[hfojvt]

121. you are just not seeing the big picture

What if you lost your job, and then Thurston Howell III hired you to take care of his sick cat for $100 a week plus room and board. Then you'd see how lower taxes for rich people combined with their luxurious living, really just helps us all.

[meowomon]

124. Can't see the big picture

I'm too busy wiping Mrs.Howell's ass!

[Obamanaut]

151. It would be better if they sent you a check for a million or so, but until

that happens, keep working for ways for their assets to be seized and redistributed. That probably won't happen either.

One wonders if researchers are working on a cure for wealth envy.

[Whisp]

118. did you say this about Rush's wedding?

I somehow doub that.

some consistency please! This is not about the rich vs poor so much about its okay if WE (dems) do it, because after all we are the good and sinless guys.

[Statistical]

123. Its "good" money vs "bad" money.

Or maybe our "nobles" vs their "nobles".

[Whisp]

125. thats what makes me laugh about all this.

see it all the time.

making excuses for 'our side'.

O, Think of the Caterers!

:rofl:

[L0oniX]

126. I love rich people ....NOT!

[CoffeeCat]

132. People can have an opinion...

...about Chelsea Clinton's wedding--in the same way they can have an opinion
on what Reese Whitherspoon eats for breakfast or what kind of car Johny Depp
drives.

But in the end--it's nobody's damn business but the people who are involved.

[Dappleganger]

134. Exactly.

But I am a bit surprised with the resentment and nasty remarks posted here.

[Statistical]

136. I agree. After all "let them eat (wedding) cake"! n/t

[AngryOldDem]

137. I think $2 million on a wedding is a silly waste of money...

...no matter who is having it.

[onenote]

139. is there a specific amount for a wedding that is not "silly"

I think spending $100 for a wedding would be silly if the couple spending the money only had, say, $200 to their names.

[LynneSin]

145. I can think of alot of things you can do to foolishly spend $2 million dollars but here's the thing

it's not your money or is it mine.

It's their money.

They aren't mortgage everything to create this wedding. They have the money and they can spend it how they like.

[AngryOldDem]

152. True enough,.

I was just offering an opinion, as others are doing here.

[LynneSin]

157. I know but can't figure out why we're on a democratic website badmouthing Chelsea

or questioning the Clintons wanting to spend money on their daughter - an amount that is really just an internet rumor. I mean none of us have seen the final bill.

[Stevenmarc]

190. It's fairly simple

Any expenditure of money that exceeds that of a minimum wage earner brings out the DU "Eat The Rich" contingent. It really never fails.

[liquid diamond]

185. Some people are just full of themselves and insensitive to the

economic suffering in this country. With this shameless ceremony the Clintons have clearly established they are not one of us.

[Beacool]

140. Wow, such class resentment!!!

The Clintons do plenty for others. Bill Clinton could have limited himself to giving paid speeches and playing golf. Instead, he works tirelessly to help people throughout the world. The Clintons also donate 10% of their earnings to others, far more than most politicians.

They have only one child, a daughter who they dote on. So some of you see fit to spill your vile because they want to give her a memorable wedding?

Unbelievable......

:(

[mzmolly]

143. Absolutely agree about the economy.

:hi:

[yawnmaster]

144. So lets cut taxes so the rich can spend even more to stimulate the economy!!!

--sarcasm---

[Orsino]

147. And think of the beautiful people of all colors and creeds...

...who will be employed outside, parking the cars of their betters.

C'mon, folks. Trickle-down economics fail as a defense of conspicuous consumption. I'm glad the Clintons aren't just blowing all their money on enormous estates or Rembrandts, but such glittering affairs also re-emphasize the great divide that separates Us from Them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

182. Trickle down is about taxes

this is an exchange of money for services.

And conspicuous consumption is expected at these shindigs. I don't like it, but that is another matter.

To me it comes down to this... LET THEM SPEND THE MONEY. Those beautiful people will have a pay check.

As to class warfare, it is actually systemic, and believe it nor not separate. But we first have to be precise with the language. This is a payment for service exchange. Any taxes involved are NY State Sales taxes.

[Orsino]

189. Taxes are indeed another part of the overall strategy...

...but here trickle-down is being used to defend the antics of the rich--and it fails.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

193. You simply do not know what the term means

[nadinbrzezinski]

200. You simply refuse to learn what trickle down means

I suggest you take a detour the way of Wikipedia, or just a basic economics book and try to learn it.

I am serious there.

[Orsino]

204. Nope. This is all a distraction.

Conspicuous consumption is conspicuous consumption. Trying to justify it as pumping up the economy, then digressing into a debate on economic terms, is pure distraction.

The Clintons, much to our surprise, turn out to be rich people, not completely different from other rich people. Not as bad as most, certainly, but two-million-dollar weddings can't be spun as good things. They just can't.

[nadinbrzezinski]

208. How is precision in language a distraction?

Look it is a particular hang up of mine, but as a writer I like to use words in their correct meanings. You may not like it, but there are reasons why 2 million dollar weddings are actually a good thing... since they take you out of Keyne's Thrift Paradigm.

Now that one is not so basic economic theory, but in case you need it... that is what STIMULUS SPENDING AND CONSPICUOUS CONSUMPTION help to avoid.

You may believe it is a distraction, but then we enter into the realm of ideology... and if this is about we hate the rich, and yes... envy.

You try to tell the people who are WORKING this shindig that they should NOT work this shindig on ideological purity. I am sure they will laugh at you, and perhaps point.

Now here is a big fucking hint for you... this may come as a shock to you... you think this wedding is on the upper edge for the cost and spending for that social class. No, it is not. But carry on. This is a classic we hate the rich and Clinton sucks.

I might not like this spending on ideological grounds, but on economic grounds, by all means spend it... and take it out of a SAVINGS or INVESTMENT account and into the main economy... it will do far to get the economy going, than parked, or hidden in foreign accounts. But that is just my opinion (and that of John Maynark Keynes and I am willing to bet Paul Krugman...)

I am sorry for saying this, but excuse me for again suggesting you go do some extensive reading on economics and stay away from ideology. Perhaps start with Krugman, if you want an easier intro... or just go read Maynard Keynes... either received the Nobel prize. I take their words ahead of yours by the way.

[Orsino]

210. It's a distraction from the greater offense of conspicuous consumption by the elite...

...whom we are supposed to worship.

I've already acknowledged that spending beats mere hoarding, and that the Clintons are hardly Caligula, but that doesn't have much to do with the obscenity that is America's wealth gap(s). In the face of that crime against humanity, reading an economics textbook is also a distraction--one might start to believe that two-million-dollar weddings are good things.

As the rich keep telling us, when they are caught at it.

[keroro gunsou]

154. *sigh*

and this is EXACTLY why the rich are winning the class warfare. we're too busy pissing and moaning about someone's guestimated wedding expenditures instead of doing something worthwhile to help close the gap between "us" and "them." this sort of immature shit is what helps keep the classes divided almost as much as the money.

as a soon-to-be baker/caterer, i'd kill to be apart of a gig like this, and i'd be willing to bet whoever i worked for and with would also.

as i posted elsewhere, since when has the media ever given the clinton's a break on anything ever?

my cousin's getting married next march, it is going to be far from a 2mil affair, but i don't hear the caterers, dj's, and other people that will make a buck off of her wedding bitching and moaning. a few of her friends have had VERY lavish weddings, and it was almost embarrassing what they spent money on, but you know what. those same people working my cousin's wedding didn't turn down the gig, they laughed all the way to the bank. on the plus side, my cousin, disney princess obsession aside, is a very smart, level-headed person, who knows what she wants and knows what can be afforded.

jesus, it's time to grow the fuck up and put on our big kid pants people. there is more important issues than chelsea clinton's wedding and who spent how much on it.

:rant:

that said, hopefully chelsea and marc have a wonderful day and future ahead of them... :party:

[noamnety]

156. I object to your phrasing, on principle.

I don't believe anyone "deserves" to have a 2 million dollar wedding. I wish you'd pick a different word there.

[XOKCowboy]

161. Shows that politicians make too much freaking money and are totally disconnected to the real world?

Or is that just what it seems like to me?

[nadinbrzezinski]

181. Actually in this case, they left the WH in debt

all those legal bills...

This is from speaking engagements after the WH.

I figured it would be a good thing to explain this.

Clinton is VERY POPULAR in the talking circuit...

[Berserker]

172. What a waste of fucking money

We have people that don't know where there next meal is coming from and sleeping in the streets and we have ass kissers that think this shit is okay. Fuck the Cinton's and all there money.

[liquid diamond]

186. Thank you Berserker.

I'm getting really pissed off with posts that justify this shit. "It's their money!" That isn't the fucking point. People are suffering while these pigs burn cash on a lavish wedding that will last one fucking day.

[Beacool]

195. The Clintons give millions of dollars to charity every year.

Aside from all the aid that Bill's foundation doles out to those in need, particularly in Africa.

So, why don't you ant the other resentful bunch go and do to yourselves what you prescribed for the Clintons.

What a miserable bunch........

x(

[Starbucks Anarchist]

177. I think it's too much, but it's also their money.

So more power to them.

[liquid diamond]

187. And yet another one. n/t

[1776Forever]

191. I don't think they care what we think - A wedding from India cost $78 M

and was for an India steel magnate's daughter in 2004. Maybe that is where Hillary got the idea from for a million $$$ wedding. I heard she loves India and their culture. Maybe it is to keep up with the rest of the crowd:

10 Most Expensive Weddings
By siripuramrk

http://siripuramrk.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/10-most-expensive-weddings/

November 18, 2006
Cost: $78 million

The record-holder for the world’s most expensive wedding to date is the nuptials of Vanisha Mittal (daughter of billionaire Lakshmi Mittal) and investment banker Amit Bhatia. This wedding took place at Vaux le Vicomte, a 17th-century chateau in France, in 2004. The elaborate, outrageous wedding has been honored by Forbes’ Magazine as one of the most expensive weddings, and currently ranks in the Guinness Book of World Records for the most expensive wedding ever recorded, with $78 million spent. The wedding went on for five days, and included extravagances such as invitations sent out in a 20 page silver book, 100 different dishes prepared by a top Calcutta chef, a wine tab of $1.5 million, and 1000 guests on hand to witness the world’s most expensive wedding ceremony ever.
(more at link)

.............

It will be what it will be. I wish Chelsea good fortune and long happy marriage.

[red red red]

212. My 2 cents

I think Chelsea has been a 'real class act' for the years she has been in the public. I see no reason not to let her have the wedding they could afford. More power to them. The stupid right-wing is going to cut them for sure. Rush was so ugly about Chelsea - I can only imagine what he's going to say about her now. Of course, The Tan Man can spend $90,000 on golf and that's alright - don't let me get started!