Anybody else disgusted with the Clinton wedding???

[Anonymous]

I don't care how much money is spent on hers. I wish I'll be able to spend as much as I want for my daughter in the future so she has a perfect day.

[Anonymous]

And, sorry, tithing to your church isn't "charity" anymore than paying fees to your country club. That's where the vast amount of wingnut "charity" goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a problem with them spending money like that. I do have a problem with the so-called "limousine liberal" attitude that suggests imposing liberal values on society while enjoying lavish "republican" values for yourself and your family.

As a moderate democrat, I find the hypocrisy appalling.

Yes, because Republicans do not donate to charity. This is a tenant of republicanism.

Actually, republicans donate far more to charities than democrats. there's research out there on this. for example, i recall some story breaking when kerry was the nominee that he and his wife had make less than $2k in donations the prio tax year

That's untrue. The biggest donors in the world are democrats like Bill Gates. The biggest donors as a percentage of income are poor people. Rich people on the whole give money, but it is spare money. Poor people often sacrifice in order to give.

Liberals tend to give less because they push for public policies to take care of it.
http://blog.fortiusone.com/2009/01/07/dataset-of-the-day-who-is-more-generous-republicans-or-democrats/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't care how much money is spent on hers. I wish I'll be able to spend as much as I want for my daughter in the future so she has a perfect day.

gag

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a problem with them spending money like that. I do have a problem with the so-called "limousine liberal" attitude that suggests imposing liberal values on society while enjoying lavish "republican" values for yourself and your family.

As a moderate democrat, I find the hypocrisy appalling.

Yes, because Republicans do not donate to charity. This is a tenant of republicanism.

Actually, republicans donate far more to charities than democrats. there's research out there on this. for example, i recall some story breaking when kerry was the nominee that he and his wife had make less than $2k in donations the prio tax year

That's untrue. The biggest donors in the world are democrats like Bill Gates. The biggest donors as a percentage of income are poor people. Rich people on the whole give money, but it is spare money. Poor people often sacrifice in order to give.

Liberals tend to give less because they push for public policies to take care of it.
http://blog.fortiusone.com/2009/01/07/dataset-of-the-day-who-is-more-generous-republicans-or-democrats/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

No, those are flawed analyses. They say that red states give more than blue states. But they fail to look at who within the state gives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel sick to see how much money people spend on such things.
My wedding was private, we offered a meal to close friends.
Instead of gifts we asked our friends to donate the money to a charity in my home country.
DH is a sales person and I'm a nanny. We live a very simple life and I just can't understand how come people spend so much while there's so many around us who need our hand.

You live a simple life because your father is not a former 2 term President of the US, and your mother is not the US Secretary of State. Also, you are not a graduate of Stanford, or of Oxford University. Get over it, you're not being virtuous, you're simply--nobody.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To 11:06 - this is why I left the democratic party and became a republican. Too much hypocrisy. That, and with a family income in excess of $250,000, I was tired of being rich in Obama's public pronouncements.

Still a dem but am sick of being called rich. I weed and clean. No one cares about fugly Chelsea and the press is all about the cost NOT the girl. I lost faith in the Clinton family business when Hilary didn't divorce his sorry ass after monica Lewinsky.

Sure people who own businesses will get a nice profit but the vast horde of minimum wage workers would be better off if they had a job that evaporated to another country.

Right. They'd be better off--unemployed? Wow, you're an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a problem with them spending money like that. I do have a problem with the so-called "limousine liberal" attitude that suggests imposing liberal values on society while enjoying lavish "republican" values for yourself and your family.

As a moderate democrat, I find the hypocrisy appalling.

Yes, because Republicans do not donate to charity. This is a tenant of republicanism.

Actually, republicans donate far more to charities than democrats. there's research out there on this. for example, i recall some story breaking when kerry was the nominee that he and his wife had make less than $2k in donations the prio tax year

That's untrue. The biggest donors in the world are democrats like Bill Gates. The biggest donors as a percentage of income are poor people. Rich people on the whole give money, but it is spare money. Poor people often sacrifice in order to give.

Liberals tend to give less because they push for public policies to take care of it.
http://blog.fortiusone.com/2009/01/07/dataset-of-the-day-who-is-more-generous-republicans-or-democrats/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

That statement is true, but the actual effect is of religious vs. nonreligious, regardless of of political ideology. Religious people of all types (including poor blacks) give more time and money (about 25% more) than nonreligious. Even when you eliminate church donations, it's still true. And religious people (again conservative or liberal) weight private action more vs. public action.

[Anonymous]

I really don't understand why there are 5 pages of people willing to argue about a wedding for someone they do not even know. This is silly.

[Anonymous]

Not at all disgusted. I am not normally a fan of the Clinton's either.

I would hate to think of an economy where all the people who had money didn't spend it. Where would all the jobs go? It's their money and therefore their business.

Chelsea has put up with enough shit from her parents in her life. Good for her if she gets a nice wedding out of them and good for all the people working towards her wedding for getting an honest paycheck out of it.

[Anonymous]

I think folks who charge liberals with hypocrisy are laboring under a false misconception: no liberal has any problem with wealth, earning it or spending it. We just understand that with wealth comes the responsibility of supporting the country that makes that wealth creation possible. Hence the progressive tax structure. Conservatives, and the class war they've been waging since before Roosevelt, seem to think that anyone with money needs to maintain a stony contempt for the poor who remain poor, and that tax evasion is a virtue.

It's the same idiocy that labeled John Edwards a hypocrite. For all his many shortcomings, a rich man who cares about the plight of the poor isn't guilty of hypocrisy--it's called empathy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think folks who charge liberals with hypocrisy are laboring under a false misconception: no liberal has any problem with wealth, earning it or spending it. We just understand that with wealth comes the responsibility of supporting the country that makes that wealth creation possible. Hence the progressive tax structure. Conservatives, and the class war they've been waging since before Roosevelt, seem to think that anyone with money needs to maintain a stony contempt for the poor who remain poor, and that tax evasion is a virtue.

It's the same idiocy that labeled John Edwards a hypocrite. For all his many shortcomings, a rich man who cares about the plight of the poor isn't guilty of hypocrisy--it's called empathy.

I'm sorry, but this quote is ridiculous. Conservatives believe that the government should have a limited role in the people's lives. In our ideal world, the government shouldn't need such a progressive tax structure because it shouldn't need nearly as much money to run. I'm Conservative and not wealthy. I consider it my duty to give to those less fortunate on my own. I think the larger the government imposed social safety net is, the less likely people are to take the initiative on their own to help lift up their fellow man.

And, someone who accuses Conservatives of tax evasion really shouldn't give John Edwards as an example on the other side. You do realize he exploited a major tax loophole by structuring his practice to avoid paying taxes on a great percentage of his income, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think many republicans would submit that if the official tally on donations included monies to religious institutions, then the count would be relatively even?

I work for a non-profit with a presidentially appointed board. The WH sets the giving level and different administrations have set different amounts. Clinton's admin set a $5k giving amount. Bush raised it $20k to $25k. Obama left it the same. To date, the appointments are far fewer than where they were when Bush was this far in his presidency.

Being the liberal I am, it definitely surprised me. R's are generous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe she bought carbon offsets for all those guests!

yeah, from Al Gore no less!

I hope he doesn't get any massages at the wedding!

Post says neither Tipper nor Al is invited, so nobody needs to worry about music being censored or bridesmaides being groped.

Daddy will be there so bridesmaids are still in danger!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish Chelsea Clinton happiness and a long, good life.

It is none of my business nor any of anyone else's business how much her parents spend on their only child's wedding.

At least the taxpayers are not paying for her wedding--there is secret service for parents and a no-fly zone for 24 hours over site of marriage and reception. So what, how much more was spent on White House weddings?

For once, can't DCUMers be happy for someone? Try it, you might actually find out it feels good to be happy for someone else.

Actually the no fly zone is only for 30 minutes.