On weddings, social events and costs

[nadinbrzezinski]

during recessions and depressions.

Indeed when you have the wedding of (insert famous person here) and they are spending (insert figure here), there tends to be a lot of outrage. Especially in times of economic crisis. So was the case oh at the end of the 19th century, beginning of the 20th, when Cornelia Martin and her husband had THE PARTY of the day. It WAS the place to be, and while people starved they partied like it was 1899.

So the resentment about this (insert famous couple here) is understandable. We have had this before. It is seen as tacky, especially in a country that thinks we are all equal. It is a sign of social friction and that cold realization that no, we are not equal.

Well, I got a little different look at it. This event will produce jobs, and will keep people employed. Should they have a much smaller wedding? Perhaps would be the socially responsible thing to do... should they donate the difference to charity? Perhaps. But this envy speaks volumes about the current US... (Rumored costs for this wedding at the upper tier of society are not that high, believe it or not). We are at a similar point at what when Mrs Bradley left the country for friendlier coasts, the UK. Remember, some of our ultra rich are doing that, right now. Ah the echoes of history, aren't they fun?

Now we would not be having this conversation if this was oh insert Hollywood star here, and trust me, some of those weddings put this one to shame. So look at it this way... it is keeping people fed. And the outrage will be used by Rush and company to tell us about the latte drinking, Mercedes driving, Limo riding... Liberals...

Oh and for the story I referred to read A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America by Michael McGerr. I promise, it is a funny story, and you will quickly see the echoes.

[xultar]

1. Don't waste your breff...they will shit on anyone who doesn't live in a box and

makes enough to buy a pair of shoes.

[Raineyb]

2. That's a rather gross caricature of the position you're opposing. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Which also happened back then

Oh the editorials on the paper of record... NYT... were shall we say viscious? One of the reasons they left.

That is what is so damn funny. History does, at times, repeat itself almost to a T. Oh and that is rare.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

17. I found a deal on a ring for my sweetheart... she was pretty shocked

to find how affordable it was.

[sarge43]

20. Nothing says love like a built in compass

You big hunka hunka of burnin' love, you.

[blueamy66]

42. Hey, we're getting hitched in Vegas...

and then having a reception at the Polish club here in PHX at a later time.

Classy all around, huh? :-)

Hey, we'll all have fun and it will be within our means and the food will be good and my friends and family and friends that are just like family will be there and my Dad will smile down from Heaven.

Money doesn't always buy happiness....

And we'll dance to "Have I Told You Lately That I Love You" and "In My Mind I'm Goin' to Carolina"...

[Hannah Bell]

45. yesterday the op posted about how we all consume too much.

i think a $2million wedding fits that concept.

i really don't understand why the different spin today.

is it because it's the clintons?

or just because it's rich people?

i don't get it.

[LAGC]

3. I'm amazed how much outrage there is over trickle-down, supply-side, Reaganomics...

Until it comes to own of our own.

Pathetic.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Yeah that is the other thing that amazes me

People also do not understand that as members of a class the (insert public figure here, since it will happen again) have to spend to a certain level. It is expected by their social peers, even if they are newly rich.

The couple in the book, they were old money.

[scheming daemons]

14. Except this isn't "trickle down"... this is DIRECT PAYMENT to people

[Whisp]

24. which people,

the rich rock stars that may be playing at the event?

the company president of an exclusive catering service?

or the factory workers in an Asian country that will be making the ribbons and bows at slave wages?

which people do you mean?

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. EVERYBODY WORKING THAT WEDDING

this is how the economy at the market level works. I pay my mechanic for work when I take my car for service... directly, if I take the truck in, or indirectly if I take the car in.

I pay the farmer when I go to the farmer's market, for my chicken. And in this case... the Clintons are paying each of those service providers at the wedding.

Is basic economics SO DAMN COMPLEX?

No wonder we are in such dire straights.

What you think the caterer will NOT pay his cooks, bus boys et al?

[Whisp]

34. don't have to scream.

I'm just not too sold on this rich people trickling down their pennies to the rest of us and we're supposed to be so fucking grateful. that's all. calm down.

if it wasn't the Clintons there wouldnt be such adverse reactions to this very normal observation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Once again, this is not trickle down

Let me ask you a question, are you engaging in trickle down when you buy a coffee in the morning from a service provider? Let's say your Barista, assuming you go there?

This is the same thing. They are SPENDING MONEY, in a standard economic exchange. Give money to oh the Caterer and get food in return. The only taxes involved are sales taxes. Just like your coffee.

Are people having a problem with BASIC economics? This is money in exchange for a service. There are no marginal tax rates involved, which are part of trickle down.

The money they are spending is going into the very much hurting LOCAL economy. So you get it? Now you and I might go? WOW they are spending like there is no tomorrow. It has a name, it is called CONSPICUOUS CONSUMPTION, and it is part of the social role assumed by those with money. They are expected to do that.

[Warren DeMontague]

48. don't have to spread bullshit, either.

The Clintons are rich. They are. They are allegedly spending a large sum of money on something that will probably provide a decent, if temporary, boost to the livelihoods of many small businesses and workers associated with this thing. What they are NOT DOING is arguing that somehow their spending that money means that we should dismantle the social safety net. That's why this isn't "trickle down" anything.

They have the money. You can fulminate all you want that they shouldn't be allowed to have it, or that you should be personally in charge of approving all their expenditures, but as it is, they have it, and apparently they can spend it. Look at it this way; they're not having the wedding in Mumbai or Shenzen, are they?

[Whisp]

58. this boost to livelihoods...

do you think the same way about, for example, of a BP executive's party?
but don't they as well spread that trickling money around because of the goodness of their hearts.

Nothing to do with ostentatious conspicuous consuming, they're doing it to share their wealth with the small folk, right?

How about some parties that Big Pharma people, and other superrich people have?
That okay with you because some servers and valets are getting some work?

I never looked at it that way, before this Clinton wedding discussion came up, but I will keep that in mind when we hear about another rich person showing off their booty, and see how that plays out here from some of you.

So I see your bullshit and raise you a cowshit patty.

[Warren DeMontague]

62. I don't spend a lot of time grinding axes about peoples' parties, in general.

I'm more concerned with BP executives cutting corners on safety at work than what they spend their money on when they're not working.

[Warren DeMontague]

46. " trickle-down, supply-side, Reaganomics..." is saying we should eliminate the social safety net

and the money spent by rich people with their ensuing tax breaks will more than make up for it.

It didn't work, it doesn't work, because a) the rich people have a tendency to sock the money away or invest it in corporations that ship jobs overseas, and b) the elements of the social safety net being pulled away under trickle-down economics are PRECISELY those societal functions which are not esp. subject to free market forces and amelioration, i.e. aid for the sick, infirm, mentally ill, unemployed, yadda yadda yadda.

NONE OF THAT HAS JACK DIDDLY DIP-DEE-DOO SHIT to do with Chelsea Clinton's wedding, and yes, the 2 Million (if indeed it is that much) they are alleged to be planning to spend WILL be plugged back into US jobs, goods, general economic stimulus, albeit (as these things go) a small one. But unless they're outsourcing the wedding to India or China, it will be a nice net gain for wherever they decide to hold the thing.

But, really... don't let the facts interfere with a good 15 minute hate.

[madmax]

5. You forgot Advent and Lent.

}(

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Sorry

[JVS]

7. The only good expensive wedding was the one that started Oktoberfest in 1810.

And the reason that it was so expensive is that they pretty much decided to spend 2 weeks getting everyone drunk and well fed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Well it would be fun if the lord of the manor

was required to invite all to the wedding...

If we are not careful we might go back to the future.

:-)

[Hannah Bell]

10. um, in another thread you were exhorting everyone to live more simply.

there's a contradiction there, don't you see?

unless the underlying assumption is that the rich should spend & the non-rich should practice monk-like austerity.

[panader0]

11. Leo Tolstoy on poverty

"I therefore felt and feel and shall not cease to feel that as long as I have any superfluous food and someone else has none, and I have two coats and someone else has none, I share in a constantly repeated crime."
FWIW

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Remember he wasn't fully into that

until late in his life. Now should I remind you that the Clintons are newly rich? So expect a foundation to help the lesser among us. That is a social expectation too.

[Hannah Bell]

43. foundations aren't created to help the lesser among us. they're created to preserve wealth.

[Warren DeMontague]

63. Actually, they're created to scientifically preserve civilization long-term in the galaxy.

I kid! Little Issac Asimov joke, there.

[Beringia]

13. I hope she is happy in her marriage

however much money was spent.

I am definitely a socialist though at heart.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. That makes two of us

And in an ideal society we would not have these class differences. But we do, and until the paradise comes, having gone through a wedding... I know that some people rely on them to make a living. That ranges from the card maker, to the food caterer, the cake decorator, et al.

So a few people are making money on this. No this is not trickle down... it is reality. It is an economic exchange. And people are missing that, as usual.

Trickle down would be to expect that money to come to me... but in this case it is a pretty straight thing, they are paying all these people, for a service.

[pnwmom]

16. Good points. Plus, the Clintons, unlike their critics,

would be happy to pay higher taxes to help those less fortunate.

On a much smaller scale, I have been making a point of going to a certain small restaurant a couple times a month -- something we've never done before. It's a great little place that caters to people with my food allergy and I've already seen two other restaurants I like go under in this economy. I'd like to do my little part to keep this place open.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. I know, why I ordered my new china

from a LOCAL artisan.

[niyad]

19. let's see--the dress designers, the florists, the bakers, the caterers, the wait staff, etc., etc.,

would be getting a lot of the speculated (since none of the people guessing has any real information)
amount, wouldn't they? shouldn't that make a lot of people very happy. I mean, aren't THOSE people then going to go out and spend some of that windfall, which will enable THOSE people to go out and spend, which will enable. . . .

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. +1, basic economics

[haele]

32. Don't forget the security. Communications, transportation.

Insurance for an event that size - and yes, if the location was a business as well as a residence, they probably had to plunk down insurance to book.
Plus all the set-up costs; the pre- and post-wedding and reception logistics. 2000 guests and their retinue are a lot of people to cover.
I ran a single day teleconferencing workshop event two years ago at a government facility for about 50 people with coffee and a catered lunch; even with all the discounts, government pricing, and penny pinching, it ended up costing around $25K for 8 hours of workshop- not to mention the 6 hours or so of time I put into the event that I was getting paid for, as well. All that money for just around 50 people - and I had to keep in mind when I was planning the event that I was providing a service not only to a general audience - a third of whom were flying in from out of town, but to three flag officers and two other high level government administrators. It was considered not only to be successful, but to be under a normal budget for an event like that.

With 2000 "high ranking" guests, 2 million dollars is probably a going to end up just being a "nice" garden party wedding and reception, not a fancy yacht done up as a disco with "Dom Perignon dispensed from an ice sculpture reproduction of the peeing boy of Brussels..." and gold-flaked caviar.

Haele

[Hannah Bell]

52. some people having too much money is the reason all those "little people"

are so little.

.

[RainDog]

22. Mark Rich knows all about Clinton's largesse. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. I have not seen that one

come from the swamp and rear it's ugly head in a while!!!

[RainDog]

25. Clinton was all warm and fuzzy toward Scooter Libby regarding the case, too.

Libby was Rich's attn.- and, yeah, Rich did trade with Iran, but who doesn't, if you can make a buck, right?

that was long before the aspens were turning in the Valerie Plame case.

am I cynical? am I tired of this shit? you betcha!

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Well at least Vince Foster's ghost has not

made it into this... ooops just did.

I will never claim politics is clean...

Or warm and fuzzy, but then again... The Prince by Nicholo Machiaveli applies today as much as it did when written.

[RainDog]

35. Vince Foster has absolutely nothing to do with the scum bag Mark Rich

or the pardon from Clinton.

You know, if Clinton wanted to get a blow job in the White House from an intern - I could've care less. It made me sick that he was impeached for this by lowlifes with second families on the side, hookers, mistresses... all that bullshit.

However, pardoning that scumbag Rich was repulsive. There's nothing "conspiracy theory" about it. Mark Rich's pardon is one of the most corrupt instances of the Clinton presidency. I have no idea why you bring Vince Foster into this - Rich made illegal trades with Iran, was indicted on 51 counts of tax fraud - and I'm just glad Clinton had the money to pay for Chelsea's wedding without having to pardon another such sonofabitch to raise funds.

Just as Donald Rumsfeld was wrong to make deals for Searle as a private citizen, Rich was wrong to collude with those who made deals with Iran during the hostage crisis - so was Ronald Reagan's crew, with their bid to undermine Carter's re-election by seeking to make a separate deal with Iran.

If we're supposed to be "okay" with this sort of "real politick" because a democrat was part of it - well, I say fuck that shit.

politicians are, imo, some of the lowest life forms on the planet.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. It is not whether I am ok

I'd love to see Reagan (or those still alive) on the docket over Iran Contra, and what they did to Carter.

I'd love to see the whole Bush Jr, Admin on the docket

I'd love to see a few in the Clinton Admin in the docket.

That includes Clinton, but it ain't gonna happen.

It is not whether I am ok. Nor whether I accept it, but again I refer you to The Prince. And yes, there was conspiracy involved in both. One was RW media, the other in the legal sense.

Of course there is this section on the Prince about the Prince who uses Mercenaries, and what happens to his kingdom... that sort of gives me a smile.

[RainDog]

37. the point is that you were trying to dismiss the Rich situation

by mentioning Vince Foster.

fuck the prince.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Becuase both are usually mentioned together

and you dismiss Machiavelli at your peril.

[RainDog]

56. no they are not usually mentioned together

Mark Rich is mentioned in Time Magazine, for instance, as one of the ten worst political pardons of all time. Both liberals and conservatives found the pardon repulsive. Rich as an equal opportunity sleazebag. Rich is mentioned in connection with political bullshit - not conspiracies.

you make the connection - but others don't - because there is no connection.

I'd say your attempt to do so is a princely fail.

[Whisp]

40. well, Iranians need some of that trickle down too!

[DevonRex]

27. 1. Cost of wedding is speculation. 2. This will be a political event

as well as a wedding.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Well adding the politics to this

just adds to this.

Personally if this was a small wedding... private et al, or ten times at large... well this is the way it is.

[JoePhilly]

28. Let me help .... I had Chardonnay with dinner tonight ...

should I have had beer instead ... or maybe just water?

20 years ago when I got married, we had 200 people, open bar, in a Radison Hotel ballroom. We spent over $2000 on the bar bill. My wife and I put it all on an AMX card.

Did we spent too much ?? ... our family and friends had to buy plan tickets to come ... had to buy hotel rooms for 2-3 days.

I guess we could have had punch and cookies in the basement of the church and sent them all home 10 minutes after.

geeeeze.

[nadinbrzezinski]

I agree, my parents paid for my more elaborate wedding

ten years ago... or is twelve? Time flies.

What we are seeing is a lot of envy.

By the way, I hope you enjoyed your Chardonnay.

[Hannah Bell]

44. here is a thread about how we should all consume less.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8791844&mesg_id=8791844


but if people say the clintons should consume a less than $2 million wedding, it's just "envy"?

wtf?

which is it, should we consume less, or should we consume more to pump up the economy?

or just consume whatever it's our fortune to have?

or only millionaires should consume more, & the peons less?

wtf?

[Whisp]

41. did you have the power and influence to make or break policies, lives,

etc., when you had your wedding?

please don't compare personal weddings here to ones whose sometimes bad decisions affect millions of people, and come out rich for it.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. Wow. If I didn't know it, I would think you were talking about Pol Pot, not Bill Clinton.

Was he perfect? No. But he was far and away better than any other President so far in my lifetime. Including Carter.

Clinton did all right, and so did the country.

[JoePhilly]

54. Lots of Clinton hate appearing on this thread ... more than I expected to see.

[Whisp]

57. really?

ok, if thats what you prefer to believe.

I have my own ideas, if thats ok.

:)

[JoePhilly]

61. Clearly you don't like Clinton ...

thus your claim that he made bad decisions and got rich because of having done so.

And, if you go through the thread, you will find plenty of hate for Bill Clinton.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

31. Today's biggest losers: Sasha and Malia

Think about it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Many years ago I had the chance to talk to President Carter

one of those rare things about life. And you got it. One of his disappointments about the WH was how Amy did not have normal teen age years.

That had me thinking hard about it.

[Bonobo]

47. Listen everyone: Be grateful that your nobility eats caviar!

Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to pick the fish bones!

[girl_interrupted]

49. Then I guess the Obamas should cut out the State Dinners

and the family vacations, unless of course they spend time in the Gulf, cleaning up the oil spill. Michelle should stop buying such expensive clothes. The whole family should be buying their clothes at Walmart.

That the Clintons have given over 10 million in charity & paid over 33 million in taxes, shouldn't count.

That the Clinton foundation has raised over 25 million for charitable causes shouldn't either.

That the money is coming out of their own pocket and not yours, shouldn't matter either.

I guess my husband and I should cancel our vacation plans too, we have worked hard to save for it, but others can't, so where do we get off daring to enjoy ourselves.

Me, I'm glad the wedding has led to people getting jobs and making money. Jobs aren't easy to find these days. So it's all good.

[pinboy3niner]

51. +100

Somehow, the family of a former President and a current Secretary of State going to an Elvis wedding chapel in Vegas wouldn't make me feel better--and would have litle benefit for the local economy.

Yes, it's all good.

[sarge43]

53. If Chelsea and What'shisname had a 5 minute city hall do,

the world would be a better place -- just how?

Only two questions here, is this what the adorable couple want and the POB are willing and able to pay for it?

Yes? Good, then party on and love, laughter and a long life together. Mazel tov.

[uncommon]

55. It's a no win - we either slam the rich for hoarding money or for spending it.

:shrug:

[pipi_k]

59. I don't mind so much that rich people spend their money...

but I do mind when they do it in an in-your-face, "Fuck you" sort of way.

Flaunting their wealth in vulgar fashion.


It probably wouldn't be so bad for very rich people to go whole hog on a wedding or social event if, for example, they gave away an equal amount to some charity or social program.


Without taking a tax deduction. That's another pet peeve of mine. People who "donate" to charity and then expect a tax break for doing it. What the hell kind of "donation" is that?

[uncommon]

60. I think we (DUers in general) actually just don't like it that anyone

is obscenely wealthy to begin with.