The rich, the poor, the median income, and Chelsea Clinton's wedding

[panader0]

Two million bucks is a lot of money. It's over $32,000.00 a year for 62 years. I don't make 32 grand a year. That's more than my whole lifetime of earning spent in one day. I saw the arguments in Straight Story's earlier post. Some felt it outrageous, some defended the amount by saying it will "trickle down" to caterers, musicians, florists etc.
I find it surprising that an ex-Democratic (the party of the common folk, I thought) President who has his offices in Harlem (where the average income is less than 32 grand I believe) would spend that kind of money for one day.
The super rich can afford these extravagances, but the gap between the rich and poor is what leads to social upheaval.

[bluestateguy]

1. What would you consider to be an acceptable amount to spend on the wedding?

Let us all know so we can forward the recommendation over to the Clintons.

[panader0]

7. How about a small wedding and a donation to the Gulf recovery, or

Haiti or a thousand better uses of the money?

[bluestateguy]

9. That's fine, but you still did not quote an actual amount

And are you actually saying that Bill Clinton hasn't done anything about the Haiti earthquake?

[kestrel91316]

21. Why should Chelsea Clinton be forced to have a lesser celebration

than, say, the average Californian? Because YOU say so? When did she lose her basic rights?

Weddings are a great way to move money through the local economy. Beats leaving it in the bank. I support rich people spending money in a way that sends it directly into the local economy just like this does. It A: parts them from it, and B: puts it in the pockets of the less wealthy.

[bluestateguy]

22. Legalizing gay marriages would be a boom for the wedding related businesses

nt

[kestrel91316]

26. It certainly would. The average wedding would be much more lavish,

with attendees much more fashionably attired, decorations would be better, and food, too. I have definitely been to more than a few straight weddings that would make a few gays cry over the tastelessness and crappy food.

[SunnySong]

40. Does the average Californian have a seven figure wedding?

If they were spending 400k no one would bat an eye,


Hell Jenna Bush and JFK JR each spent 100k


Seven figures for a one day event is simply put nuts.

[Dorian Gray]

47. I doubt that the average

Californian is spending $2 million on a wedding.

But I can't begrudge them from spending what they want to spend. It's not my business, really.

[Hannah Bell]

37. it ain't just the clintons.

[SunnySong]

2. Harlem avg income is 45k...

There is no proof they are spending that much just specualtion... and it is uncertain if that includes such unique expenses as security...


That said it does seem a bit dodgy.

[panader0]

4. Wouldn't security be paid for by the taxpayers?

Yeah 45 grand is only 44 years.

[DURHAM D]

15. No.

Jesus - he's no longer President.

[panader0]

30. No security for Hillary and foreign heads of state?

[DURHAM D]

31. Hillary will have her usual 24/7 security detail.

No added cost.

What heads of state? If they are here they pay for their own security.

give it up

This is too childish for words.

[Hannah Bell]

38. The US Secret Service has two distinct areas of responsibility:

1. Treasury roles, covering missions such as prevention and investigation of counterfeiting of US currency and US treasury bonds notes and investigation of major fraud.<4>

2. Protective roles, ensuring the safety of current AND FORMER national leaders and their families, such as the President, past Presidents, Vice Presidents, presidential candidates, foreign embassies (per an agreement with the US State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) Office of Foreign Missions (OFM)), etc.<5>

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

In 1965, Congress authorized the Secret Service (Public Law 89-186)<20> to protect a former president and his spouse during their lifetime, unless they decline protection. In 1994, Congress enacted legislation that limits Secret Service protection for former presidents to ten years after leaving office. Under this new law, individuals who were in office before January 1, 1997 will continue to receive Secret Service protection for their lifetime. Individuals entering office after that time will receive protection for ten years after leaving office. Therefore, former President Bill Clinton will be the last president to receive lifetime protection and former President George W. Bush is the first to receive protection for only ten years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secret_Service#Protection_of_former_Presidents_and_First_Ladies


personally, i feel if he can spend $2 million on a wedding he can afford to pay for his own security.

that would send money into the local economy, too.

as would any spending.

the issue isn't his spending, it's why a former president who didn't go into office super-rich now has $2 million to blow on a wedding.

[virgogal]

3. It's the "Let them eat cake" attitude that drives people nuts.

Do as I say,not as I do etc.

[tabasco]

10. Are you claimnig the Clintons have a "let them eat cake attitude."

Why are you a liar?

[Johonny]

42. the Clintons have yet to offer me wedding cake

you must be part of the in crowd.

Seriously do I care about weddings of people I don't know? Not really.

[Brickbat]

5. Too bad they didn't hire you as the planner, then.

Sheesh.

[dems_rightnow]

6. This adds so much to the original thread

Thanks for starting another one so that your view isn't missed.

[panader0]

12. What? A thousand threads about Breitbart etc, but only one is allowed

about this?

[Mimosa]

8. I'm no Madam DeFarge but these days I feel pushed.

I know enough to see that the upper classes rule. And yes, they really rule, despite our pretense of a democracy. :(

[spin]

11. The most expensive marriages often are the shortest ...

Let's hope that this is not the case in this marriage.

[Blue For You]

13. Save your powder for when Levi and Bristol get hitched.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over weddings. Everybody goes overboard with the damn things anyway.

[Beaverhausen]

14. that money won't "trickle down" to caterers, musicians, florists etc. - it goes directly to them

what do people think the money is being spent on? Do they think they are giving it to the other guests?

this makes no sense

[cdsilv]

20. I'd rather they spend it than keep it offshore, or in the bank and hoard it. n/t

[panader0]

23. I put it in quotes because it was mentioned in the earlier post.

[Beaverhausen]

39. I know I get that. But even me, who is doing OK but not wealthy feels bad that I'm not out spending

...more money to keep the economy going. I used to spend a lot more on restaurants, clothes, etc but have cut way back.

If those who have it spend it, it helps everyone.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

46. They are giving the whole $2 million to BP

[monmouth]

16. Ah, the father of the bride was a POTUS, mother of the bride is SOS,

this is their only child and it's their money...Geeez.

[Boojatta]

17. "ex-Democratic President"

Did you mean "Democratic ex-President"?

[OHdem10]

18. We do realize the Media is speculating about the cost of

Chelsea's wedding.

[malaise]

19. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! n/t

[DevonRex]

28. i shouted it. couldn't help it. did nobody read the article earlier?

seriously.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. Go screw. The Clintons earned it.

Full bank deregulation and almost-free trade with China made $trillions for their patrons. The cost of this wedding represents a tiny fraction of what they won - why do you have to ruin this?

[Ignis]

36. !

:spray:

You got me. :thumbsup:

[Foo Fighter]

55. LOL!

Well played, Manny. Well played.

Oh, and you forgot NAFTA. ;)

[sabrina 1]

25. How much did the Bushes spend on their daughter's wedding?

Just asking as I don't remember it being an issue. It could have been, and I could have missed it as I tried to avoid anything with the name Bush on it.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DevonRex]

27. NOBODY KNOWS HOW MUCH THE WEDDING WILL COST!!!!@!

[Fleshdancer]

29. Exactly! Please read the article closely folks. The $2M figure was MADE UP.

just more MSM bullsh*t.

[DevonRex]

32. This place makes my headache worse and worse some days.

I'm just glad that like 5 people read it.

[Whisp]

33. we don't know the costs, but I'll bet it would be a lot cheaper in Tuzla.

;)

sorry to offend, but the mockery against Obama and the free for all in every which way to demean him here every minute of every day allows this kind of thing.

let's see how this all plays out, shall we? I have a good guess.

its goes along the lines of: some pigs are more equal than other pigs.

[stray cat]

34. How many DUers are wealth (>$6/per/day) and don't send money to Haiti?

Rich is relative and DUers who consider themselves poor or median income are if they compare themselves to the world - so if we have a standard of living greater than 75% of Haitians ($6/day) we are the wealthy who hoard our wealth while the rest of the world is starving.

[panader0]

35. World per capita incomes

http://www.success-and-culture.net/articles/percapitaincome.shtml

[Hannah Bell]

41. in haiti, $6 a day will buy you a place to crash & some food.

will it here? no. it gets you a happy meal & a berth on the street.

$2 million is big money everywhere.

i spent less than $200 on my wedding; a $40 dress, $40 ring from a pawn shop & some takeout.

my mother paid for a singer. i think that was a hundred.

[SidDithers]

56. We should all strive to emulate your glorious example...nt

Sid

[Hannah Bell]

57. i don't see any reason for the snark. i wasn't exhorting anyone to follow my example.

just personally, i've never seen the point in spending a lot of money on weddings. i'd rather spend it on the marriage.

big money wedding are a relatively new phenomenon -- except for the superrich, who've always had competitive weddings. mine was cheap even for my time, but most of my peers still just had a church, a dress, a ring from a jeweler & a reception with food prepared by the family.

the wedding planner shit & all that crap came in after the 80s, along with the rest of the yuppie/right-wing/conspicuous consumption bullshit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Here is the problem, it is not trickle down

it is straight exchange of money for a service.

Is the money excessive? Perhaps, but reality is that the new rich are expected to do certain things. That includes... charity work.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

44. Your point will be lost on those who chose to lose it

I am shocked to see the ignorance in this thread and elsewhere in equating "trickle down" and the most basic precepts of a functioning market economy.

Trickle-down is giving unwarranted money to the wealthiest on the theory that doing so is the most useful way to help the average person. It is an absurdity on par with the recent Republican clam that all tax cuts are self-funding.

The idea that a wealthy person who has money, however acquired, paying a poor person to maintain her garden benefits the poor person is not "trickle-down", it is called a "job." It is a fairly normal feature of a market economy that is generally considered better than the alternative, hence we get upset when 10% of the country lacks these exotic derivatives called "jobs."

If a person is a communist then the anti-big-wedding position is consistent, though if I were a communist the Clinton wedding would be rather very far down on my list of things to have a problem with. But, again, the position is consistent.

If a person is, however, not a communist then what the fuck is anyone talking about? A lavish wedding is not what socialism is supposed to cure. Preventing the concentration of control of substantial chunks of the entire productive capacity of a nation or a guarantee of basic standards of living for the poorest is more to the point.

What is on display here is 90% the usual torch-wielding peasants clamoring to burn their own houses down.

Obama has invested more than $2 million in very safe guaranteed income bond funds... the quintessence of idle capital. I don't begrudge him, and I am sure I would do the same... just noting that it is less useful to working people than if he blew the same money on wild Vegas vacation.

People do not, in the main, seem to really "get" economics.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Remember, trickle down involves taxes too

tax cuts is part of it.

Just a small correction...

But like you, well I am amazed at how ignorant people are at the most basic of levels. As to communists, no, not really. Been to a very socialist wedding at a Kibbutz, and weddings were not canceled in the USSR.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

48. "giving unwarranted..." was meant to refer to the Reagan & Bush tax cuts

Easier than the ungainly, "failing to exact what taxation is warranted"

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. No problem

:hi: we have very little, if any disagreement... people are really ignorant of really basic economics

[Peregrine Took]

50. And the little Wall Street darlin' is worth every cent! n/t

[Paladin]

51. How About Laying Off The Clintons?

Both Bill and Hillary made buckets of money off their books and other endeavors, they've got the resources to spend, that money will circulate in the economy---and Chelsea's their only child. Give it a rest---there are plenty of more deserving targets on which to pin all of society's evils......

[bobbolink]

52. Clinton went corporate during his reign so he could afford such extravagances.

And, Imelda deserved all those shoes, too. She worked hard for them.

[AnArmyVeteran]

53. We need to bring back the 90% tax rate for the richest

Face it, the richest people in this country are the biggest deadbeats. Does anyone think most of them earned that much money? Most of the wealthy people make money with their money. They produce NOTHING. The trickle down economic theory is just that, a theory, and it's been debunked over and over again.

When the tax rate was 90 percent this country had the biggest growth in the middle class and we also had the most innovative time in our county's history. The economy was powerful. Unemployment was very low.

Right wingers will tell you if the rich get taxed too much they just go home and stop what they are doing. That's nonsense. I haven't heard of one inventor or one businessman who first looked at the tax rate and then said, "Oh screw this, I'm going to sit on my ass until the tax rate is better before I do anything". Why do democratic leaders let conservatives get away with this lie, over and over again???

President Obama wants to raise the tax rate to the richest people in the country a paltry 3.5 percent and republicans are whining like little babies saying it will destroy the country. Hell, even with the increase, the tax rate would still be less than 40%, or a staggering 50% less than it was when our economy was firing on all cylinders. I haven't heard ONE democrat mention how productive our country was when the tax rate was 90 percent. Why not? Where in hell are they? What in the hell are they thinking, if anything?

I am damned fed up with the inept, corrupt and feebleminded people who are terrified to tell the goddamned truth about conservatives. In my opinion, if they aren't exposing them, they are one of them and that goes all the way up to the damned top of government.

[Raine]

54. Do you think if they didn't spend the two mill on the wedding

that they would give it away?? :rofl: Clintons do what they can for the poor, it's their money they can spend their own money however they want. I really don't know why Democrats get pilloried for how they spend their money, it's a drop in the bucket compared to how the repiggies spend theirs.

[donheld]

58. The Shirley Sherrod thing taught you nothing

You are basing this on reports in the media, you don't have all the facts, yet you make a Giant leap to a conclusion. Proud to unrecommend

[Greyhound]

60. What could be a more memorable Wedding than if the happy couple decided that.

instead of yet another pointless demonstration of conspicuous consumption, they simply created 3 or 4 newly secure families. Families who's kids would have the freedom to achieve what they can rather than what might pay them enough to survive until they die. Think of the real legacy actions like this would create

This $2M is literally nothing to them, and it could do so much.

Isn't this wedding really just a lack of imagination?

[Desertrose]

61. Wake up people...this isn't new...

and it isn't really news.

Those who have "lot's" of money spend it and don't have a clue as to what it's really like for the rest of the ones who are struggling without it...and don't want to have a clue.

Dems are no longer (and haven't been for awhile now) the party of the common folk.I thought that was abundantly clear with the way they always side with big money.

The gap may be what leads to social upheaval, but not til the people wake up and stop making excuses for the haves screwing over the don't haves.

Just sayin'.

[Amaya]

62. it's a ridiculous amount of money to spend on a wedding

nt