Chelsea Clinton Buys A $10.5 Million Apartment On Madison Square Park

[Nye Bevan]

Former first daughter Chelsea Clinton and her husband have purchased an apartment at The Whitman across from Madison Square Park for $10.5 million, the New York Post reported.

The deal for the 5,000-square-foot apartment, located at 21 East 26th St, closed last month, sources told the Post.

The apartment has four bedrooms and 6.5 bathrooms, and the living room boasts sweeping views of the park. Elliman’s Melanie Lazenby – who was profiled last year in "The Real Deal" – and Dina Lewis had the listing.

The five-story Whitman has one apartment per floor and a key-locked elevator.

http://www.businessinsider.com/chelsea-clinton-buys-apartment-2013-3

Looks like a beautiful place. Congrats to both.

[WilliamPitt]

1. Snarky comments in 3...2...1...

[woo me with science]

19. Shiny Object! You know what's *much* more important

than a flame war about Chelsea Clinton?

These posts, currently on DU, illustrating the real state of wealth in this nation, and the scope of the betrayal that is being perpetrated on all of us by a Democratic administration:

srican69's post showing the outrageous wealth distribution conditions under which Obama is trying to cut our fundamental safety nets:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022507452

Obama To GOP: I’m Serious About Cutting The Social Safety Net - TPMDC http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022507004

President Obama explains the need for a Grand Bargain
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022507426

I believe it is the corporatists who would *much* prefer we get distracted by discussing individuals, rather than the larger, unconscionable betrayal we are all facing right now.

[Egalitarian Thug]

130. +1 The ruling class couldn't care less about what color jersey they wear.

They care even less about all the little people.

[ronnie624]

196. *

[One_Life_To_Give]

201. Goldman Sacks sacred now?

[Bryn]

252. Middle Class is disappearing culture ...

We used to have millionaires and middle class people. Not anymore. We now have billionaires and working poor. So naturally I am curious where they get so much money to get a place like that...too excessive, I think. Bill Clinton helped to deregulate the Glass–Steagall Act and pushed NAFTA through causing jobs to go oversea. Is this why he and Hillary are so wealthy? They started "The 3rd Way" & "The New Democrats" crap. So I am not impressed with their darling dotter's new 10 million dollar apt. because more likely money was stolen from the regular people, the labor, etc.

[B2G]

2. We love our 1 percenters!

Wouldn't want to disappoint Will.

[onehandle]

3. Much better than a Donald DoucheTrump property. nt

[SoCalDem]

4. She's an only child of two wealthy parents.. Why would she NOT have a great place to live?

I doubt that anyone expected them to live in a two bedroom fixer-upper in the Bronx or Brooklyn..

She and her husband are both well-educated/employed and can probably well afford the place.

Do I think it's super expensive? Hell yes!, but NYC has ridiculously high prices for city-living

[B2G]

5. The double standard on wealth here is tres amusing

Seriously.

[SoCalDem]

9. Well, Bless your heart

[Wait Wut]

18. What double standard?

Is it now a requirement of the Democratic Party to hate people that have more money than us?

[stevenleser]

186. Apparently some think so. I remember someone criticizing me here for saying we shouldnt hate rich

people just because they are rich, absent other information about those individuals.

That kind of statement is a damnable sin to a small but vocal minority here.

[bluestate10]

229. I hear you. nt

[bluestate10]

228. There are people on DU that are convinced that all poor people are saints and

all rich people are evil. The real world is far more complex than that simple-minded conclusion by some.

[Honeycombe8]

39. I second that emotion. nt

[HiPointDem]

140. Screwing lots of people over is why great wealth exists, whether any individual wealthy person

did it *explicitly* or not.

[Edim]

208. Agree. nt

[Edim]

209. It's not only guns, warships and rockets. Wealth is theft.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

[Larry Ogg]

211. In essence, without labor money would have no value...

Without money, workers would exchange the products of their labor for the products of someone else's labor, they called it the barter system.

The only other ways to get the products of someone else's labor, would be that they freely give it to you, or you steal it by whatever means necessary.

Turning workers into debt slaves by using fiat currency, is probably the most deceptive means of stealing the products of labor ever devised. In fact, once fiat currency became the preferred medium of theft, it worked so well that thieves could steal the products of labor before the products ever existed, and even before the laborer was even born. And the best part is that most laborers will never figure it out because the theft has been culturally ingrained, thanks to sock puppet politicians who pander to thieves more then workers.

The history of fiat currency, and how and why workers work for paper is a long story with many pros and cons. But I think the cons far out-way the pros once a small group of individuals own the products of hundreds of millions laborers, as well as the products that their unborn children will produce.

In todays world, they put "In God We Trust" on the money, and the workers produce everything and get next to nothing. Well the thieves produce nothing, and get almost everything.

[Swamp Lover]

57. Really? Hatred of someone solely because they have money?

What? Was the screen name, "Laughable Cliche'" already taken?

[HiPointDem]

148. i didn't see any hatred expressed. maybe your nick should be 'willfully blind'.

[stevenleser]

187. Short answer? Yes to all of your statements.

There are some who definitely think it is OK to hate a wealthy person absent any other information about that person.

[choie]

65. Agreed...more hypocrisy...

just another example of the pass that people here give to their "heart throbs".

[catbyte]

105. And what exactly do you mean by that?!?

"Heartthrobs"? Seriously? What are you even doing here if we're so egregious?

[choie]

218. Just because I'm not a sycophant

doesn't mean I don't have the right to be here, express my thoughts and beliefs, and read others' thoughts and beliefs. I said heart throbs and I meant heart throbs. Some (and yes, I said some) people on this board sanctify Obama, the Clintons and some other Democrats to the point where anything they do is rationalized.

[leftynyc]

168. A pass on what?

You're going to have to spell out what you're complaining about. Nobody here hates the wealthy....we just don't think they should be bitching about paying less taxes than everyone else which is what happens with loopholes. We're tired of the wealthy on the right bitching about the pittance they pay in percentage on their taxes. Where on earth did you ever get the idea we hated wealthy people?

[NBachers]

110. Keep Trying!

[ZRT2209]

162. we need to fix the systemic problem of income inequality,

case by case is not the answer

[1983law]

217. I think you are right

about case by case.

A doctor goes to school/residency 12 years post high school--earns $300K

Car mechanic has 2-3 years technical training post high school--earns $40K

How can equality of income be achieved or reconciled?

[ZRT2209]

219. I'm talking about a rigged tax code and wage theft

about skyrocketing worker productivity with plunging wages.

The 1% is rigging the system to take a bigger and bigger slice for themselves - until they have all there is to have.

[1983law]

221. So you are not saying

that under my scenario doctors (or perhaps even small businesspersons) making over $250K, and thus in the 1%, is an example of the corrupt wage disparity which is the issue in this thread. Makes sense, because I cannot see how those persons in the 1% are rigging the tax code and stealing wages from other persons. To be, these are just different skilled people.

[ZRT2209]

240. I'm saying what I just said.

If it amuses you to put GOP talking points in my mouth, I'm not sure why you're here.

[1983law]

251. Nope.

You do amuse me. All of 200 posts and you are judging the intents of those that post in here. And if you MUST know, go to the activism thread and you will see why I am here. Why are you here?

[leftynyc]

167. What double standard?

I don't hear any of the Clinton's bitching about paying too much in taxes...that's the beef most Progressives have with the wealthy. I certainly don't hate wealthy people so what on earth are you babbling about?

[H2O Man]

203. Oh, baloney.

If one of the Bush-lets bought the same apartment, the reaction here woould be identical.

[B2G]

207. Uh huh. Sure it would

[Liberal_in_LA]

230. dbl standard regardind nepotism also. russert's kid gets bashed here. little mention of chelsea's hi

[tech3149]

6. Yea but it's close enough to walk to work

Think of the saving in commute cost and time from North Jersey or the Shore.

[pangaia]

104. I am well educated--better than Chelsea Clinton..

self-employed,and I live in a $95,000 condo...still owe $33,000..
1.5 baths. and the 1/2 is REALLY tiny..more like 1/4. :&gt
What in the world do 2 people do with 6.5 bathrooms? That's more bathrooms than bedrooms!
:&gt (

[hfojvt]

129. it doesn't seem like a great place to me

I am thinking that if I had $10.5 million to spend, that I would not buy any apartment in NYC. Fir $500,000 or so I could get a really nice house on about ten acres and then live off the interest of the $10,000,000. Of course if hey got a mortgage based on their $4,000,000 annual income, then they sorta don't have the option of getting out of NYC.

[graham4anything]

7. Looking forward to a Chelsea Clinton/ John Schlossberg ticket (or vice versa) in 2036 and 2040

[Bonobo]

54. Because nothing says "democracy" like inherited titles. nt

[graham4anything]

68. If money is so bad, why does everyone want some?

The only thing I keep reading is jealousy
nobody really doesn't like money they just don't like anyone but themselves having it

If a million dollars fell from the sky and wasn't anyones, the person it fell on would happily keep it

Even Roger Waters don't ever refuse money though he sings about how awful it is

[Bonobo]

71. Dumb question.

Lots of people want things that are bad.

Ironic that you identify jealousy a being worse than greed.

The world has limited resources. Grabbing so much more than you need takes away from others. It's not rocket science.

[graham4anything]

74. There are no dumb questions as librarians nation wide like to say

One persons money has no effect on another person having or not having money

It is just an excuse to blame something or someone

Money don't buy happiness.
The poorest person can be the happiest in life, never once whining
The richest person can be the saddest going through life bitter and sad

Money doesn't give one freedom

But President Obama does give freedom

There is unlimited money in the world. It is not a finite number.
Therefore, one person's riches, has nothing to do with anyone else

It's a big mistake of raw number statistics when the $$$ total is infinite, and not finite

and if you get rid of the entire 1%, SO WHAT???
It's just one rain drop in an ocean of water

[Bonobo]

78. "One persons money has no effect on another person having or not having money"

Hold on! I gotta stop laughing... Are you serious?

You really THINK that? Is money in unlimited supply?

Wow, you have some weird ideas about economic systems, pal.

Yes, money can be printed infinitely, but if it were, it would be valueless.

Go read some basic textbooks on economics.

[graham4anything]

86. What you just said is so ironic. You do realize what you just said, right?

[Bonobo]

88. Please. Don't stop now. I'm enjoying this.

Enlighten us all about how when the rich take from the limited resources available in the world, it doesn't affect anyone else.

This is fucking hilarious.

[graham4anything]

90. So, you are saying that getting rid of all the rich shall make the world perfect?

What about the day after next Thursday?
then what?

just another burn it down with no gosh idea about what would come next.

Without all the rich, NOTHING at all would change.

The world would continue like it did two weeks ago last Thursday

Because if the anarchy thingy worked, it would not make it one iota better all it would do is
...

well,, I will let you answer that

[Bonobo]

93. Dude, YOU are the one that said that the rich grabbing money affects no one else.

I never said the world would be perfect by "getting rid of the rich" -so you are arguing with a man made ENTIRELY of your silly, multi-colored childish play-straw.

No one brought up anarchy except for you.

You have an appalling and bizarre notion that the world is made up of unlimited resources and that there is nothing wrong with people taking MUCH MORE than they need.

You said that a rich person's taking vast amounts of wealth takes nothing away from poor fold.
'
Do you believe it or not?

As to your own questions to me, they are made of silly-straw.

[graham4anything]

95. It's your right not to answer. But as said, there are no dumb questions.

If x has 100
and y has 10
taking 100 from x, does NOT give y more than 10

simple, first grade mathematics

Unless you are using some voodoo economics, or RandPaulian hocus pocus.

How does removing x get y anything more or less?

So are you saying someone with say 40 million should give the poor their windfall?

[Bonobo]

97. I think we're finished.

Some questions do indeed fail to reach the bar necessary to expect or even hope for answers on a discussion board intended for intelligent political commentary.

Your inability to understand basic economic theory, that I would think even a ten year old would have no trouble understanding, suggests to me that I would be wasting my time continuing with you.

[graham4anything]

98. Check mate.

Don't forget to tip.

[theKed]

108. Lol..."checkmate"

[Bonobo]

128. Oh, I thought he was telling me to "check" my "mate".

[Marr]

225. Uh... you were just spanked.

"Checkmate".

...lol

[OwnedByCats]

178. I got an example

I might get flamed for this lol. You know Bill Gates is filthy rich right? I think he's got about $67 billion so far. I have nothing against people making money, but Bill Gates really is having a laugh. If I want to buy Windows, I can't use it on more than one computer at a time. If I buy the family pack I can install it on 3 computers, but of course the last time I looked it was it was almost 3 times the cost. I think you get a little discount, but you're not hugely better off financially. I don't know if Windows 8 fall under the same restrictions, but I'm talking about 7.

Bill Gates has more money than he's ever going to use (even after charity donations), but yet I still have to purchase a seperate license key for each one. My husband builds our computers so the hardware can be be upgraded when they need to be. It's a bit cheaper than buying a whole unit already built. So that means we're not buying machines that have windows already installed on the hard drive, which sadly seems to be the cheapest way to obtain Windows on different computers. We just upgraded both our computer's hardware, had to buy 2 seperate copies. I think that's ridiculous and feels like a bit of a rip off. I'm not saying one copy should be used for a 100 different computers, but 2 or 3 without paying more would be nice! So while it hits me and millions of others hard in the wallet, Bill Gates is swimming in it. I wouldn't ordinarily mind, but come on.

Oh and if you change your motherboard, Windows thinks it's a different computer and believes 2 computers are sporting the same key, even though all they'd have to do is flag updates for 2 computers being used at the same time with the same key. In my case, it was only updating on one computer. I was able to get them to cancel my previous set up so the new one wasn't flagged or causing issues, but what a pain in the ass!

But between what seems like a monoply on operating systems and making everyone pay for seperate licensing keys, it's no small wonder how he got to $67 billion. To me that is one small way that someone benefits hugely off the backs of 99% of the population who have peanuts to live on - in comparison to him.

[JDPriestly]

141. It's not that we should get rid of wealth. It's that we should get rid of poverty.

I'm not all that opposed to wealth. But I am extremely opposed to poverty.

[NCTraveler]

183. Really like how simple your post puts it.

I am opposed to poverty, not wealth. In some ways in our society my opposition to poverty is directly effected by the way wealth is collected. Therefore I feel a number of issues with respect to wealth collection need to be regulated in order to help out with the elimination of poverty. It is only one part of poverty reduction/elimination, but it is an important part. So many on the right say that all liberals want to do is go after the wealthy. It is not. But making the game more fair is a part of it.

[ronnie624]

205. Having no problem with 'wealth'

assumes (subconsciously) that everyone can be 'wealthy', when in fact, it is physically impossible. All thermodynamic systems, including human economic activity, operate at an energy deficit. So say the Laws of Thermodynamics. If everyone on earth, had their basic needs met, there simply would not be enough for anyone to be 'wealthy'.

We absolutely must rid ourselves of the capitalist economic paradigm, which is really designed to funnel resources to a tiny fraction of the human population, instead of feeding, clothing, and sheltering everyone. For a modern, advanced human society, it is a miserable failure.

http://markbc.net/thermodynamics-for-economists/

[bluestate10]

231. I completely agree. EVERYONE in our country should have enough to eat and a safe place

to live and rest. Those should be viewed as basic rights. Too many people that are rich don't see how interconnected their lives are to everyone else, they have deluded themselves into thinking that society can go to hell and they will continue to live high on the hog.

[Union Scribe]

242. "Without all the rich, NOTHING at all would change."

Yep, everyone knows that all the most important social activism was by rich folk. Gandhi, Rosa Parks, Cesar Chavez, and on and on.

I become more convinced by the day that you're just screwing around with the nonsense you say.

[graham4anything]

243. You just agreed with what I said!

Without the rich, you still would have had Rosa, Ghandi and Chavez

bingo!
You got it.

The rich did NOT make America.
The people made America.

Take away the rich, and nothing changes that fact.
(you put the tilde' on the wrong part of the sentence in your rush to think I mispoke.)

If each rich person is a wave, take away the wave, and you still have the water.

Enjoy this song, which in a perfect word, would have been the #1 song of the year that
Butch Hancock wrote it, and Jimmie Dale Gilmore sang it
(and on this, the magnificent musical talents of Jerry Douglas and Bill Frisell.
Does it get anymore beautiful than this?)

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="

?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The revolution won by the people when they elected Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, and will elect Hillary in 2016 and 2020 and Michelle in 2024 and 2028 and Chelsea in 2032 and 2036 and John Schlossberg in 2040 and 2044 ...are the ever flowing ever glowing ocean of love

Wave on wave on wave on wave on wave on wave on wave on wave
(as Pat Green also sang years later)
or as David Essex sang(and Michael Damien later sang)
Rock on

[Marr]

224. HOLY shit.

Do you know how money works?

Christ, no wonder you're so comfortable with neoliberal bullshit.

[Egalitarian Thug]

131. You were expecting something else?

Please...

[JDPriestly]

139. I just think that we should not be cutting people's meager Social Security benefits

or requiring the poor to be near starvation and have virtually no assets before providing healthcare for them when one couple can live in a $10.5 million dollar apartment in New York City that has 6.5 bathrooms. It makes no sense.

It's not that everyone should have the same amount of money or the same living standard. It's that it is not right for a few to have whatever they want when so many have so very, very little.

I've never wanted to live in a $10.5 million apartment. I never will. I would like to see everyone have decent healthcare. I would like to see people have jobs. I would like to see justice and that includes a modicum, not all that much, economic justice. I want all children to have the opportunity to get a good education.

Am I really asking too much in a country in which the daughter of a former president can afford to pay $10.5 million for a four-bedroom, 6.5 bath apartment in New York City? Really?

[NYC Liberal]

135. Nothing says democracy like being elected in a popular election.

There would be no "inherited title". Chelsea Clinton would have to run and be elected.

This "dynasty" nonsense that gets thrown around here when a relative of another elected official runs for office is absolutely silly. Someone appointing a relative to a position? Yes, I have an issue with that.

A relative running for office and being elected in their own right? What is undemocratic about that?

[Bonobo]

138. I think it is pretty obvious.

If they didn't have a ridiculously OUTSIZED advantage simply by virtue of the DNA, the;re wouldn't be the Bush, Clinton dynasties.

All signs point to the trend increasing and it is clearly ties to the growing divide between the plebes and the elites.

Pretend all you want, but it is right in front of your face, dancing the boogaloo in a red dress.

"Silly" my ass. It is the start truth. It is fundamentally at odds with the idea of democracy. It is elitist and plutocratic and the only silly thing is seeing it defended.

[graham4anything]

144. So you didn't want JFK or RFK Teddy or Gore or FDR or Jerry Brown orJQ Adams, to ever run?

by the standard you just said, none of the above could have run for President, as all had an older relative.

(cue in Clint and the chair and an imaginary conversation)...

what...

oh...

no, you don't

oh I see

the above were no problem, but any Clinton Bush Obama is the problem?

IMHO, the biggest best thing any parent could hope for, is that their child follows in their footsteps. It means their child approves of what the parents did. (or wife or brother or sister or uncle or niece or aunt or grandfather, etc.)

[Bonobo]

155. That is the reductionistic logic of a simpleton.

But I know you're no simpleton, so you must not have thought it out.

Otherwise you would realize that pointing out individual cases does not invalidate the societal level problem to which I was referring.

[graham4anything]

158. No, I understand it quite nicely, thank you.

The Clinton's have been harassed and persecuted from day one.
Never in the world has anyone been hated by some so much.
Never underestimate the anti-Clinton people.

And though nobody died under Jimmy Carter's watch, in actuality, almost nobody died during
the Clinton's, very few.

Save for the terrorists like McV. and the dead FBI agents by the gun stockpilers at Waco who then blew themselves up.

Yet, the Clinton's are persecuted.

Revenge though will be Jan. 2017, when Hillary Rodham Clinton, mother of Chelsea is sworn in as President45.

[kattycat]

176. Nobody died?

Really? Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children that died during the Iraqi sanctions imposed by Clinton. I guess you just completely forgot about them, or maybe you just didn't know or probably you just don't care.

[Bonobo]

177. Yup. 500,000. nt

[NYC Liberal]

175. Absolute nonsense.

There are all kinds of advantages that people may have when running for office. Incumbents have a huge advantage -- one much, much larger than the advantage one might have by having an office-holding relative; is running for reelection "elitist and plutocratic"? People may have better name recognition. They may be naturally better speakers. etc.

Calling a popular election where people are free to vote for whoever they choose "undemocratic", is indeed an incredibly silly notion. In fact, what's truly undemocratic is the idea that someone should not run for public office, or be prevented from doing so, simply because a relative happened to have done the same.

So, I will defend democracy by opposing the notion that popular elections are "elitist and plutocratic ".

[Bonobo]

179. You're seriously comparing the advantage that an incumbent has

to the advantage that is gained simply by winning the sperm lottery and inheriting a last name?

I would laugh if what you said wasn't so fucking sad.

[whatchamacallit]

200. +1000

[Skidmore]

165. Generally agree with you on many issues but

I am sick of seeing the same bunch of surnames on most national candidates. Not a fan of dynastic claims on political offices.

[leveymg]

8. Her husband is a rising ex-Goldman Sachs investment banker. They probably paid cash

or got a really nice sub-zero real interest rate mortgage. Better than cash, really. And, the new place is so much bigger - the old 5th Ave apartment must have seemed absolutely cramped by comparison.

Marc Mezvinsky (b. December 15, 1977) is a 32-year-old investment banker employed by the hedge fund 3G Capital Management. Formerly, he worked for Goldman Sachs, the most powerful firm on Wall Street.

He likely is a mulit-millionaire, as he purchased an apartment on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan in 2008 for $3.8 million. Unlike many people fleeced by scams backed by Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs, he likely did not use a balloon note to pay for his 1,900-square foot home.

Mezvinsky has known 30-year-old Chelsea Clinton (b. February 7, 1980) since they were both teenagers in Washington, D.C. in the early 1990s. Both of his parents served in the U.S. House of Representatives.

[olddots]

223. Oy Chelsea you could have done better .

oh well the rich get richer and the poor get to eventually kick their ass and the cycle never ends

[frazzled]

10. 5000 square feet for two people seems like ...

way more square feet than is good for two people to live in, whatever one's income. I say that not with malice but with advice to a young couple: too much space breeds distance, not togetherness. Unless of course, you end up just using the 1500 or so square feet in which you eat, sleep, and lounge. What you do with the rest is your business. But then don't talk to us about ecological matters or global warming. (Or income inequality.)

I prefer something cozier. I can't even stand a king sized bed. It keeps me awake all night wondering where my usually snuggly mate is.

[babylonsister]

56. And what's with all those bathrooms? Why??? nt

[name not needed]

87. Clearly they need all those bathrooms to waterboard poor people.

[stevenleser]

191. LOL, thread winner!!!!!

[stevenleser]

192. They clearly intend to throw a lot of parties. 5000 sq ft + 6.5 bathrooms makes it perfect for that.

If I can guess/extrapolate a little further, it sounds like the perfect place to hold fundraisers for someone intending to be a major candidate of some sort.

[bluestate10]

232. Yeah. I get the sense that they are going to be entertaining a lot and having big shots and their

spouse stay over for a night. From the information it seems that two of the bedrooms have two full baths each, that indicate couples that have jobs were both are working on tight, high pressure schedules. I can see them holding fundraisers for rising democratic politicians who come in from all over the country, both Chelsea and her husband come from strong democratic families.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. If you got it, flaunt it. Ostentation much?

[bluestate10]

36. I know that area. It is reasonably nice. Close to lower Manhattan and Wall Street but

not too close. Near the upper east side, but not too close. A lively area during the day, but quite at night.

[Whisp]

12. the keeping up with the Jonses is getting out of hand.

conspicuous consumption like this, in today's resource threatened world, is just not the right message.

Gluttony got us into the fucking mess we are in.

Sorry, I don't find they 'deserve this' because their parents are rich.

[bluestate10]

37. Homes in that area cost that much. Her husband and her work on Wall Street. They

got a place that is close, but not too close. The area that the home is in is a good place.

[Whisp]

46. I guess Wall Street people are good people sometimes.

But usually I hear a lot of flack against Wall Street people.

Kind of curious, this.

[bluestate10]

51. Some are good. Too many are assholes. nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

132. Name three. They are parasites that make the world a worse place every day they go to work. n/t

[leftynyc]

170. Bullshit

There are plenty of progressives on wall street (my best friend for one). They vote for Democrats, support womens rights and gay rights and pay their taxes without bitching about it. But you go ahead and call thousands of people parasites without actually knowing any of them. Such a good progressive.

[Egalitarian Thug]

194. Imagine that. Someone that lives around (and works?) on Wall Street claiming that they're

really good progressives, blah, blah, blah. What do you call something that produces nothing while sucking resources from that which it depends on to live.

Well it doesn't matter what you say, it's what you do that makes the difference. And every day that they go to work, they help to make the world a worse place for everyone but themselves and those that hire them.

[leftynyc]

195. Continue with your ignorant statements

They suit you so well.

[Egalitarian Thug]

197. Oh my, I'm cut to the quick. The parasites believe that I'm not bright enough to understand

just how important they are.

[Egalitarian Thug]

216. Oh my, here's another ignorant fool that just doesn't understand how truly wonderful these

poor misunderstood, and socially indispensable, parasites are.

"this sort of cramped vision of altruism in which it’s considered perfectly acceptable to support only those causes that are directly good for you and yours."

"Needless to say, this is all wrong. Political virtue consists in standing for what’s right, even — or indeed especially — when it doesn't redound to your own benefit."

And this ignorant fool is a Nobel Laureate.

[joeglow3]

213. I produce nothing and make good money. Am I a parasite?

My job requires me to comply with Federal governmental regulations (income tax). It is extremely complex and not enough people have the skill set (driving up pay).

[Egalitarian Thug]

214. If you're interested in an assessment, provide more details. I suspect that that is not

your purpose in posting this however, and that you know the answer.

And don't forget the other factor in Wall Street's particular brand of parasitism, spreading misery and both creating and profiting from deprivation.

[bluestate10]

226. You Don't work there. What makes you such an expert on human nature?

The fact is, there are good rich people and bad rich people, just like there are good poor people and bad poor people. Being rich doesn't make one evil, just as being poor doesn't make one a saint.

[Egalitarian Thug]

241. People can rationalize their actions forever, but rationalizations don't make you good.

Not everybody that works on Wall Street is rich, but that doesn't change the fact that if you choose to work in the financial industry, you make your living making the world worse every day.

Nobody has ever been shanghaied and forced to work on Wall Street, therefore everyone that does has decided that their chance to get rich is more important than other people's ability to eat, to be free, or even to live.

It's exactly the same, and uses many of the same rationalizations, as the scientist or engineer that goes to work every day looking for new and better ways to kill people.

[RobinA]

212. Plenty of Wall Streeters

are good people. The question for me is, and this has nothing to do with Clinton and her husband personally, what do these people DO for that kind of money?

[bluestate10]

227. I am glad to see that you are separating people from the culture that they work in.

I agree, there are plenty of good people on Wall Street. But most of those good people earn their money while not contributing much to the overall economy before some of them are lucky enough to get stints as appointees in government agencies. Many on DU decry Wall Street people being appointed to government jobs, but those people have political philosophies, especially the liberal ones, that cause them to have a great yearning to come in and provide the appointed brains that shape policy and, I argue, overall make the country better.

I prefer hanging out with venture capitalist over Wall Street people. Venture Capitalists by and large create new services and products and as a result create high paying jobs where there were none. But even the group that I feel most comfortable with has many bad people mixed in among the good.

[Marr]

13. Daddy was a very *lucrative* breed of Democrat.

DLC/Third Way/Representative for Wall Street

They certainly aren't in it to help your sorry ass.

[LittleBlue]

14. Reminds me of Downton Abbey

Where the nobles are going on about their castles while the peasants mostly go along with it, though a few are thinking "wtf, why are we supporting this?"

Hopefully some day the investment banker/Fed welfare system collapses.

[Recursion]

32. Downton saw the aristocrats as supporting the peasants, actually

It's kind of a fair point. Yes, it's absurd that a grown man should have someone else dress him. On the other hand, it's also absurd that a grown man thinks dressing another grown man should be worth room & board.

[jollyreaper2112]

154. It's silly

We gobbled up all the land so you couldn't earn a living, now we give you work as a noble act of charity.

The sad thing is that this argument is taken seriously. The fox fucks were crowing about how noble the rich are in Downton. Yeah, let's see Dubai Abbey where Asian maids are shipped in for rape and torture. Gee, aren't rich people neat?

[HiPointDem]

73. The female head of the 'real' downton (the place where it's filmed) was the daughter of Alfred

de Rothschild.

Alfred Charles de Rothschild CVO (20 July 1842 - 31 January 1918) was the second son of Lionel de Rothschild and Baroness Charlotte von Rothschild of the prominent Rothschild family. At the age of 21 Alfred took up employment at the N M Rothschild Bank at New Court in London. It was there that he learnt the business of banking from his father and made valuable contacts in European banking circles.

In 1869, at the age of 26, Alfred became a director of the Bank of England, a post he held for 20 years, until 1889. In 1892 he was one of those who represented the British Government at the International Monetary Conference in Brussels.

Alfred de Rothschild had an illegitimate child from a relationship with Mrs. Marie Boyer Wombwell. At age 19 in 1895, their daughter Almina married George Herbert, 5th Earl of Carnarvon and became Lady Carnarvon, the 8th Countess of Carnarvon. Her father provided Almina with a £500,000 dowry that allowed her financially-strapped husband to maintain the family estate known as Highclere Castle. Beginning in 2010, the property became widely known as the location for the BBC series Downton Abbey.

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

And after reading her biography it looks like Julian Fellowes based at least the bones of the story on the real-life story.

[Comrade Grumpy]

15. A $10.5 million apartment is a good argument for wealth redistribution.

[mnhtnbb]

16. And the Repubs who used to diss Chelsea for her looks? They're all drooling.

[Brickbat]

17. This thread would be so very different if one name were changed in that article.

[kenny blankenship]

22. Like maybe change "Clinton" to "Romney"

or "McCain" perhaps?

[Brickbat]

23. I was thinking about the Bush twins,

but in any case, you were picking up what I was putting down.

[bluestate10]

40. Barbara Bush II lives in NYC. I don't think she has a place like Chelsea, but I doubt that she

is living in bad housing.

[HiPointDem]

124. i'll bet she does, just the equivalent for a single woman. she lives in greenwich village. i've

Last edited Fri Mar 15, 2013, 02:43 AM - Edit history (1)

heard it's no longer the haunt of penniless bohemians. if it ever was.

[bluestate10]

233. Yeah. I agree with you on all points. Barbara Bush II likely has a toney place to live.

Her family is even richer than the Clintons. She seem to be a good person from all that I have read about her, so good for her.

[NYC Liberal]

136. Maybe not, seeing as the Bush twins supported and voted for Obama.

[Logical]

25. So true, the double standard here is fucking amazing at times. n-t

[HiPointDem]

75. if it's true, why is it flamebait? only because there are folks here who don't want to admit it,

or even have it spoken of.

humble non-ostentatious members of the ruling class are rare. rarer still those who give up their wealth to live with the proles.

[HiPointDem]

117. I think it is our business how the 1% lives, when they're proposing to cut social welfare &

privatize public services and assets.

You can say, well, chelsea clinton's not doing that, but she's the beneficiary of her parents' position and she's the wife of a wall streeter (who are as a group heavily involved in what's happening).

So IMO, it is my business, and I will point out these people's ostentation, wealth & hypocrisy at every possible juncture.

What has chelsea clinton ever done besides be born to wealthy & connected parents, enabling her to marry a wealthy & connected man?

Her father 'reformed' welfare and recently spoke at Pete Peterson's tax-free conclave about cutting entitlements. Clinton, people have forgotten, made noise about cutting 'entitlements' himself and appointed Peterson as head of his own panel on it. It's likely monica lewinsky helped short-circuit that move.

It *is* our business.

[graham4anything]

146. Jealousy leads to high blood pressure, when what is needed is Wellness.

[HiPointDem]

147. heal thyself physician

[graham4anything]

150. Having a 48 ounce soda(780 calories), then a refill91560), is = to having a gun and a bullet

And the people that love guns and bullets, are the ones leading against giving up their
48 ounce sodas.

Common sense is on the side of NOT drinking 48 ounce sodas(780calories in a sitting, doubled if getting the free refill) and common sense is not having a gun and a bullet.

Statistically both will kill something far easier than if both were gotten rid of.

[HiPointDem]

151. oh for god's sake, don't you have better things to think about than how much soda someone

drinks?

exhibit A for 'what's wrong with today's democratic party'

[graham4anything]

152. Wellness saves the poorest the most in reduced health care bills

The less times one has to go to the doctor, the less health care costs
Added up througout a life, that is or can be a savings of $100s of thousands of dollars.

[HiPointDem]

153. that exemplifies the upper-class approach to other people's health. monitor their soda use

while cutting their social benefits, jobs and wages.

[graham4anything]

156. Wellness helps the poor the most

But the NRA don't like wellness in their zealous cultlike quest to always make a corporate world gun more important than any child in school

[Upton]

157. How about we let the poor make thier own decisions?

They don't need some fat cat authoritarian like Bloomberg ordering them around..

[graham4anything]

159. I am a soda addict. Held to the cult of the soda. I welcome any wellness help anytime

I sure wish Mr. Bloomberg had been around decades ago.

Wellness saves.

1560 calories while seeing a 90 minute movie is insane.

Childhood diabetes is one of the most heartbreaking, yet 100% preventable diseases out there.

And ask anyone who is obese, the teasing and taunting. The hospital bills, and for the poorest, the ones who don't have good health insurance.

Funny people forget that Bill and hillary never owned a house til later years, as they served the public their entire life.

But persecution of the Clinton's has been since day one.

I just cannot understand it. The Clinton's are champions of helping the poor.
I can understand the Bush's not liking them, as Bill ruined their plans of keeping office.

But remember, the Clinton's are our friends.

and 1560 calories in a 90 minute movie like a bullet and a gun kills.

[Upton]

161. Yeah, that soda culture..

is going to be the death of America yet Yep, "Mayor Mike" specializes in going after the poor while giving his 1% buddies a free ride.

You're making a spectacle of yourself by drooling over someone like Bloomberg..Again, it's creepy.

[graham4anything]

164. If its so unimportant, why does the NRA fight back instead of ignoring

Much easier not to comment except nobody is drooling

However, this dude pictured below drinks far too many 1560 calorie sodas
And he slobbers all over

He is fat.

[img][/img]
(c)lucasproductions.

but let's keep persecuting the Clinton's.
Only ones who shouldn't like the Clinton's are the bush fans.
Because without Bill, Jeb already would have been President.

[Upton]

169. What does the NRA have to do with soda?

How odd. Just because your hero started up an org you agree with like MAIG, doesn't mean he's right about limiting soda or anything else...

You seem to have a need to be dictated to...whatever. Explains your attraction to the NYC mayor. However, some of us would rather run our own lives without any "wellness help"..from someone like Bloomberg.

[graham4anything]

174. Christine Quinn for Mayor of NYC 2013. I bet Chelsea & Hillary will vote for her.

Bloomberg will just be a private retired citizen in Jan. What strawmen scarecrows will the haters use then?

Mike Bloomberg's mom lived to be 102.
Wellness helped.
And Mike's Mom came from zero money, nor had any most of her life.

Mike earned every penny of it, and for a while had zero.

Chelsea never lived in a home til she was older.
Just the White House and the Governor's mansion, which are like fish in a fishbowl.

Why hate Chelsea for being successful on her own accord?

And what child when in their teens, doesn't welcome an uncle or aunt or friend's parents giving them a reccomendation for any job. One always appreciates any help for any job.
Why persecute Chelsea?
What has Chelsea ever done to warrant this

(and not saying anyone here is doing this, just in general, ever since Newt called her ugly.
Why are the haters so afraid of the Clintons? Shows something must be great about them for them to get all this abuse?)

(and btw, the OP should delete her address from the post, even though the article states it,
in this day and age, don't make it easy IMHO, but that is only my opinion)

[stevenleser]

189. OWS would say that you don't hate the 1%, you hate policies that benefit the 1% at

the expense of the 99%.

If you follow that philosophy, which I think is a good one, then there is no reason to direct outrage/anger/ill will at Chelsea Clinton or her husband.

They haven't pushed any of those kinds of policies as far as we know. The wealthy who choose to live in NYC, in fact, are choosing to live in a city with a tax structure that will force them to pay a lot more than in other places for a lot of programs starting with infrastructure including a massive and thorough mass transit system that benefits the 99% as I well know since I use the subway every day.

It's definitely not necessary to hate 1%'ers to push for policies that benefit the 99%. Those who are doing that here (and you are not one of them devilgrrl) are doing that entirely of their own accord for their own personal and non-political reasons.

[hughee99]

102. Competely agree. n/t

[sabrina 1]

145. Change it to Chavez's daughter and watch what happens. Only American politicians

and their families are allowed to get rich from their positions as elected officials. But if a guy from a Latin American country, especially if he helps the poor with their own oil revenues, no matter how democratically elected does the same thing, he will be vilified, even here on this democratic forum.

[stevenleser]

190. Not for me and not if you follow OWS's good advice.

OWS says you do not hate the 1%, you hate policies that benefit the 1% at the expense of the 99%.

If you follow that rule, you do not have inconsistencies. I can be mad at the Bushes and the Romneys and whichever of their offspring seems to be supporting policies that benefit the 1% at the expense of the 99%.

And I can be not mad at Chelsea and her husband who have not done that.

[Buns_of_Fire]

20. Four bedrooms and six-and-a-half baths?

I'm trying to wrap my head around that one.

I can see one bathroom per bedroom, and a half-bath for the main living area. But that still leaves two bathrooms unaccounted for. I don't THINK I need to evacuate more than I sleep, although I suppose having one in the limousine would be a nice touch...

[Nye Bevan]

26. I'm guessing they will be doing a LOT of entertaining (nt)

[Recursion]

29. I was just going to say that. I'm marrying a foreign service officer this summer...

... and when we're overseas the USG picks up our rent (thank you, taxpayers: seriously). Her current digs in Vienna have 3 bedrooms and 4.5 baths. But it's also in her job description to host parties, so you want that.

[Buns_of_Fire]

236. Well, sure, I'll buy that.

Although I must admit that I've had more success in entertaining guests in the living room or the den. To each his own.

[JI7]

27. it might be 2 bathrooms for 1 bedroom

this is probably for the main bedroom for whoever owns the place . each of the couple has their own bathroom. then they would have one bathroom each for the rest of the bedrooms . and another one outside for guests who aren't staying there.

[Nye Bevan]

35. How cool would that be. Never having to worry about leaving the toilet seat up (nt)

[JI7]

41. a lot of couples have said it helps their relationship

[bluestate10]

43. That is standard for some upper income couples. Both people run on their schedules and

don't have time to wait for the other to finish in the bathroom. Chelsea and her husband are career people.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

101. Just in case the toilets don't work (spares)

[Ruby the Liberal]

222. Here is the floorplan

Interesting layout.

[mountain grammy]

239. Hate the floorplan.. good thing I'm not rich.

[Ruby the Liberal]

248. Windows only on the ends - really gives off a

burrowing through a cave vibe. That, and the only entrance is the elevator shaft. What happens in a fire or emergency when the power is out?

First world problems, no question - but I'm with you. Not a fan.

[name not needed]

24. How DARE she not live in squalor!

[Whisp]

52. there is a lot of yardage between squalor and a 10 million dollar hovel. n/t

[babylonsister]

60. Yep! It's disgraceful!

with the

[Recursion]

28. *North* of Madison Square Park? Might as well be in the Garment District...

What is the world coming to?

[Yavin4]

31. There's a notorious on premise swing club right around the corner from them

oh so I've heard.

[bluestate10]

45. The area has many good spots, but some rough ones. The trend is upscale.

Properties are being renovated. The area is lively during the day and into the night.

[HiPointDem]

76. is that why they chose the neighborhood?

[Yavin4]

83. Possibly. It's literally like 1 block from them.

It's convenient.

[bluestate10]

234. Speculation on your part. I have been in that area, there is a lot of questionable shit one block

the place the young couple bought. But there is a lot of upscale stuff too. My guess is the location is convenient to their jobs, nothing more, nothing less.

[Yavin4]

235. It's a joke.

Take a chill pill.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

198. Trapeze...

I think.

[frazzled]

62. C'mon they can eat at Eleven Madison Park or the Shake Shack

Depending on whether they're feeling high (very high) or low (not that low, just down with the crowds). Across the park they can shop for truffle oil at Eataly.

[Recursion]

67. Isn't that the original Shake Shack?

That's something I'm going to miss when I leave DC...

[Yavin4]

30. The Kennedys Were Stinking Rich. So were the Roosevelts. They bought palatial homes too.

It's not the wealth. It's what they advocate. No other families advocated for the working class and the poor more than the Kennedys and the Roosevelts.

[Demo_Chris]

34. The Clintons are no more in that camp than the Bushes. nt

[bluestate10]

48. Barbara Bush II works for a non-profit and is pro gay rights. Not all Bushes are bad.

I would be willing to take a bet the Barb Bush II is a secret liberal in the strain of Nancy Reagan's two children (who are out and out liberals).

[Demo_Chris]

49. Interesting

[bluestate10]

53. Every time I read something about Barbara Bush II, I come away thinking that she is a

liberal both at heart and in practice.

[Demo_Chris]

66. I know nothing about her actually

I don't pay a lot of attention to first ladies.

[bluestate10]

84. Barbara Bush II is the oldest daughter of Barbara and George W Bush. nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

133. Yes, they are. As are all of them. The fact that some do some good in no way changes the

underlying fact that they have gained all this by exploiting and propagating the misery of others.

[HiPointDem]

143. she doesn't just work for it, it's *her own* non-profit, tied into the gates foundation mission

of third-world health and funded by google, gates, and similar others.

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

[kattycat]

180. That may be true

But both Bush twins support their father and for that there is NO forgiveness.

[Honeycombe8]

245. She's not exactly "pro gay." She just isn't against gay rights. There's a difference.

She's not political, seems to me. But she used to be a democrat...like Reagan. Back in the day when the Dems were a little less liberal, and Republicans were a little less crazy.

[JDPriestly]

142. But the Roosevelts invented social programs. They did not destroy them.

The Roosevelts started Social Security. They didn't cut it.

That's the difference. Clinton did so much to cause so many people to lose their homes . . . . for example, ending Glass-Steagall.

[stevenleser]

188. Chelsea Clinton hasn't enacted, destroyed or modified any programs. nt

[graham4anything]

149. You mean LBJ don't you? LBJ was by far the single most liberal president ever. Without a doubt.

LBJ was the one that actually DID.

Why do people always leave LBJ out of things?

LBJ was the #1 simply the best liberal of all the presidents.
Far to the left of JFK and RFK

Eisenhower and JFK started the war.
LBJ gave us the civil rights/ voting rights acts.

Nobody as President before President obama did MORE GOOD for the poor and the minorities of this country than LBJ did.

But it's funny that when people say dynasties or this or that, they actually only mean
the Clintons/Obamas and the Bush's on the other side.

[Upton]

163. You forgot Vietnam..

that's okay..I'll remedy the situation.

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which gave the President the exclusive right to use military force without consulting the Senate, was based on a false pretext, as Johnson later admitted.[96] By the end of 1964, there were approximately 23,000 military personnel in South Vietnam. U.S. casualties for 1964 totaled 1,278.[92] Johnson began America's direct involvement in the ground war in Vietnam when the first U.S. combat troops began arriving in March 1965.[97]By 1968, over 550,000 American soldiers were in Vietnam; during 1967 and 1968 they were being killed at the rate of 1,000 a month.[98]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson#War_record

[graham4anything]

166. JFK and Eisenhower's war, and JFK hired McNamara. Lest you forget

anyone would have done Vietnam

ONLY LBJ got the social acts, the civil rights acts, the voting right acts done.
No one else would have done that. No one else did.
LBJ did.

And Nixon sabatoged the peace efforts, which could have been done.

I love LBJ.

The single stupidest thing done was jettison LBJ in 1968 and giving Nixon the presidency.
Pity the fools who did that.

But its great we no longer need ground wars. Now we have drones, and there is minimal damage. Drones are humanitarian, and I for one am glad we have them.

[Midwestern Democrat]

237. I think what gives people a somewhat icky feeling is the relatively recent development of former

presidents being able to "cash in" on the presidency - not all that long ago, this was not considered proper. Harry Truman was so adamant about not doing anything that looked like he was cashing in on being a former president that congress enacted the presidential pension ($25K a year) in the late '50s to allieviate Truman's meager financial condition. I'm not going to condemn later day presidents for taking a different path, but I will say that it makes a lot of people very cynical about government when they see public service very often becoming instant springboards to immense wealth afterwards.

[Gravitycollapse]

33. Am I suppose to be happy for the super rich simply because they are Democrats?

No thanks.

[kenny blankenship]

72. It's all about vicarious participation and the illusion of inclusion

Exhibit One.

[Poll_Blind]

82. Indeed. nt

pb

[Demo_Chris]

89. perfection +9001

[Whisp]

100. the insinuation that the Obama's are rich elites is hilarious when you are comparing to the famiy

in the OP.

but have your fun.

[kenny blankenship]

107. You're not even warm.

[HiPointDem]

121. "the illusion of inclusion" i think has more to do with things like the amazingly high rate of black

incarceration, unemployment and the fact that under obama black net worth has plummeted to its lowest rate in modern times. and that majority black cities are being stripped of their democratic rights by things like 'emergency manager' laws.

but there's a black president with a pretty family, so it's all right.

[Whisp]

122. so Obama takes the brunt of all the gridlock.

He's had job programs and many things that are stuck in the repuglicans constipated assholes, but yeh, Obama is a traitor to his people.

He must have planned it this way all along.

jezuz h cristies. This is probably one of the most disgusting things I've heard about the President here on DU and there have been some doozies.

You should be god damned ashamed.

[HiPointDem]

125. lol. faux outrage. i'm sure you understood the point from jump street, you just aren't allowed

to cop to it.

class privilege. even more real than white privilege, but we aren't supposed to speak of it.

[Whisp]

126. go away.

[HiPointDem]

127. you're not obliged to respond to my posts and can even put them on ignore if you like.

i explained what i thought the poster meant, since you seemed to be throwing up a lot of straw men. it's a hard habit to break.

[Cha]

112. bullcrap.

[woo me with science]

160. +1000000

Nailed it. Thank you.

[RedCappedBandit]

38. The uber wealthy will be the uber wealthy, as they say.

[HipChick]

42. This is cheap for nyc

[bluestate10]

50. You're right. Her place is between the Upper East Side and the Battery Park area.

It is near Madison Square Garden. The area is renovating extensively. Given the options, she got a deal.

[leftynyc]

172. No - it's not near Madison Square Garden

It's where the original Madison Square Garden was hence its name. This is on the east side around 23rd street. MSG is on the west side and 34th Street.

[frazzled]

64. No, this is not cheap for New York City

Or are you just making a joke?

If it had been a 2,900 sq. ft apartment for $4.5 million, we might not be quite so taken aback. $10.5 million for a couple of (young) thirty-somethings is way up there.

[olddots]

44. I could have beat them down to 10 million

Why do the snootys have to have so many bathrooms ?

[bluestate10]

58. Somehow, I can't account for one of the full baths. I see all the others. They may have

two large bedrooms that have two baths, that is the only way that I can account for the 6th full bath. The half bath is likely off of a common area, like a living room or kitchen where guest that won't be staying can use it.

[Ruby the Liberal]

249. There is a den`

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2519584

[panader0]

47. Obscene

Obscene

[DollarBillHines]

59. Nice place

With those kind of appointments and 5K ft sq, they got a pretty good deal.

[fascisthunter]

61. I bet you love rubbing this in DUers faces

not clever.

[Initech]

63. $10 an hour couldn't buy you a cardboard box in Manhattan.

[Shankapotomus]

69. 10.5 million for your shelter...

while some go without? No. That's in bad taste. Chelsea is going against the trend. The days of indulging yourself in more than you really need are over.

[HiPointDem]

80. hardly.

[Zax2me]

77. 6.5 bathrooms? Do the pets have personal potties?

Gluttony.

[MannyGoldstein]

79. 5,000 sq ft? I hope she has a lot of time

to do all of that cleaning!

[bluestate10]

85. She almost surely has hired house cleaners. People that buy those types of houses in NYC

don't do their own cleaning.

[renate]

81. it does look gorgeous

And it's their money. As long as they didn't get it by hurting others, I don't care what they do with it. But it's kind of funny to see this here, with mostly positive responses, while the guy who wrote the "Living With Less" article in the NYT got so much crap on the very same forum for, well, living with less. I'm honestly, not snarkily, curious about why he got such a negative response here, but I don't want to kick that thread because it seems that DU got tired of it several hours ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022505510

[kentuck]

91. She pulled herself up by her bootstraps...

It had nothing to do with Mommy or Daddy...

[Demo_Chris]

103. lol

[leftynyc]

173. Are you forgetting

she has a husband who works on Wall Street? They both make a very nice living and don't have to rely on Bill and Hillary to make their bills.

[DotGone]

204. And their families' connections & status had nothing to do with their stations in life? n/t

[leftynyc]

206. No more than anyone else

Everybody uses whatever connections they have. I don't see a crime in that.

[riqster]

92. I used to be homeless. This week, I signed the papers for a small house.

Should I feel guilty for no longer sleeping under my pickup truck?

I can buy a house now. I was given help when I needed it, and have busted my ass for 16 years to get to where i could buy a tiny house in an Ohio town.

I don't feel one damned bit guilty. Neither should Chelsea. Yeah, her place cost more. So what? Three gets you five we both give back to our communities, and that is what separates us from the Reeps.

[marybourg]

106. Congratulations on your new home. May you have

much pleasure from it (and I'm sure you will, with your healthy attitude on life.

[riqster]

185. Thanks!

[MrMickeysMom]

94. Actually, this, plus her being a hedge fund manager deflate any further interest in her..

Yeah, she's from money and she became a hedge fund manager who apparently married another Wall Street sell out. Have a nice life.

She had good models in her parents, so what do you expect but this existence for Chelsea? I just don't expect the rest of the 99% to look to this Clinton for future leadership. This kind of wealth doesn't get to be placed in the same category when compared to, say, the Kennedy legacy... it's a Wall Street legacy.... and a one that I expect fewer and fewer people here "feel happy" about. On the other hand, who am I to say people can't exist like this?

Maybe she'll eventually do something great in her life outside of making NYC's real estate bubble suckers happy.

[kattycat]

182. Her father -in-law is an outright crook

Served like 6 years in Federal prison. Though it hasn't been mentioned ONCE in this thread. So all those claiming that it's okay as long as they didn't cheat and steal to get it can eat those words. Her husband wouldn't be where he is today if it weren't for his crooked thieving father.

[MrMickeysMom]

215. Hey, he could be governor of Florida!

Little crook humor there...

I wasn't aware of that, so if you have something I could look up, I'll have a laugh and a half later on, when I've imbibed a few beers!

[TwilightGardener]

99. Like Zoidberg says:

"Yayy! A happy ending for the rich people!"

[Locut0s]

109. According to Google Street View this is the building?

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=21+East+26th+St&hl=en&ll=40.742959,-73.987014&spn=0.002737,0.002481&sll=40.718575,-73.996868&sspn=0.087626,0.079393&hnear=21+E+26th+St,+New+York,+10010,+United+States&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.743019,-73.987206&panoid=Us-X2hY6AKZDWCSD_YfK2g&cbp=12,2.19,,0,-36.39

[flvegan]

111. Good for them.

I know that the usual here is to hate folks who are successful, regardless of how they became successful. I got a middle finger for them.

[Whisp]

113. unfortunately the word 'successful' has changed a lot lately.

Was a time where you had an idea or a product that gave you the money and success, now it's just punching numbers for Wall Street and most likely screwing someone else(s) out of their money that is lower on the totem pole than you are. And if you have influence and big connections, why the screwing just gets more fervored.

[flvegan]

115. I like your jump from what you think are facts to opinion.

[Whisp]

116. Wall Street Mocks Protesters By Drinking Champagne 2011

Here's a fact. I didn't know Wall Street was back in all the good books again.
But then there are the Good Walls and the Bad Walls.

[Cha]

114. Yeah, I don't envy people either who are successful in

in love, money, or health. Good for them!

[HiPointDem]

118. chelsea clinton was successful in the sperm lottery. which made her successful in the marriage

lottery.

[msanthrope]

250. Rather sexist of you. Why not include the ovum, particularly as the mothers of both are quite

successful?

[JI7]

123. in this case it's the parents who are successful and were able to provide this to their daughter

[Egalitarian Thug]

134. Well that at least has the benefit of symmetry, because they have the finger for you as well. n/t

[graham4anything]

202. +10.5 million. The ones in disagreement are just jealous

[DreamGypsy]

119. I pity this poor couple...

...paying $2,100 per square foot for their 5000 sq ft apartment, with only 6.5 'bathrooms'.

In 1991 we moved to a 2.6136 million square ft 'apartment' (that's 60 acres) for only $300,000 - that's 11 cents per square foot.

And we paid off the mortgage in just 17 years.

I understand that people have different backgrounds, upbringings, self-perceptions, and life goals that affect their choices in housing ... I respect those differences.

It's true we only have 4.0 indoor 'bathrooms' - 2 in the house, 1 in the barn, 1 in the cottage. But if you count the number of incidental 'arboreal urinary facilities', we have about 200. Many more if you accept the dog accounting.

Yes, the roof leaks over most of the 2.6M sq ft on a rainy night. But on a clear, cloudless summer evening, the unimpeded view of the Milky Way is more than sufficient compensation. On cold, damp winter nights we enjoy the intimate heat of the wood stove, fed by logs and limbs harvested from the property.

Best wishes to Chelsea and Marc in their new home. May you find peace and happiness there -

I step outside to take a leak
Underneath the stars
That's Orion and the Pleiades
And I guess that must be Mars
All as clear as we long to be.

-Greg Brown, The Poet Game

[JDPriestly]

137. So, Chelsea Clinton and her husband can afford a $10.5 million apartment,

and our on the average under $1,300 per month Social Security has to be cut. There is something very, very wrong here.

[MadHound]

171. Yay! The lives of the rich and powerful.

Another one percenter kid living on money that they didn't earn.

But hey, it is the daughter of a Democrat, so everything is good

[KansDem]

181. Nicht schlecht!

I wonder if I'll be invited to the housewarming...

[kattycat]

184. Those saying they "earned that"

are full of it. And by "it" I mean a word that rhymes with "it". That Marc fellow she married didn't earn shit. His father was a crook therefore any gains he has made in life have been on the shoulders of a crook. These are the fruits of corruption.

Some of the frauds Mezvinsky is accused of were fairly simple affairs with no connection--directly, anyway--to West African cons. But he was also involved--sometimes as scammer and sometimes as sucker--in several deals that come straight out of the Nigerian playbook. Starting in the early 1990s, Mezvinsky found himself being tapped repeatedly by a parade of West Africans. According to Robert Zauzmer, the assistant U.S. attorney prosecuting the case, a "sort of mailing list of potential victims" appears to circulate along the Nigerian grapevine. (This explains why Buzz Siler got so many pitches--and why he was able to help bust three separate groups of scammers.) Mezvinsky must have been a con artist's dream: an apparently upstanding American pol who's financially ambitious and has access to wealthy friends and banks only too happy to lend him money.

Most significantly, however, it appears Mezvinsky believed, or wanted to believe, their increasingly crazy pitches. (He declined to be interviewed for this article.) Of the approximately $13.3 million that flowed through Mezvinsky's bank accounts between 1995 and 2000--most of it, says Zauzmer, the product of fraud or embezzlement--about $2.6 million went to con men, a portion of which turned up in bank accounts in New York City and Boston that federal investigators believe were controlled by West African swindlers.

Starting in the late 1980s, according to Zauzmer, Mezvinsky got involved in a series of shady dealings. He began scamming a long list of victims, many of them friends, promising big returns from West African oil or investment schemes. Starting in late 1996, Mezvinsky solicited $365,000 from a Maryland urologist. A year later he got $1 million from a certified financial planner in Florida. Between January 1998 and January 1999, he received $1.2 million from an Italian businessman. In 1999 he got yet another $1 million from a retired Pennsylvania business executive and $500,000 from a Virginia investor. Each got a different story, but the general pitch was that if they would give Mezvinsky their money--which he promised to hold in trust at a U.S. bank, risk-free--he would guarantee a hefty and quick profit. But even as Mezvinsky was scamming people, he was letting himself get scammed by West Africans--apparently hoping that the big score would help him pay off the large debts he was accumulating.

The whole thing crashed to earth when David Sonders, the Virginia investor, sued. Soon after, in January 2000, Mezvinsky and his wife declared bankruptcy. The filing shows debts in excess of $7 million, much of it unsecured personal loans from friends and business associates, including $25,000 lent in 1999 by Bernard Nussbaum, a prominent New York City attorney and President Clinton's first White House counsel. (Nussbaum declined to discuss the matter.) Mezvinsky's wife pulled out of the race for the Democratic nomination to one of Pennsylvania's U.S. Senate seats.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/2002/07/01/324998/index.htm

[Whisp]

199. +++

the idea that if it's a rich democrat that the money is clean is ridiculous. Her husband's money is tainted, robbed from others. And I'm not sure where her dad's money comes from either - it's easy to set up slush by charging ridiculous amounts of money for speeches in return for favors you may have done under cover while in office. Easiest way for payola scam on earth and I don't believe Mr. Clinton is an honest man, he's proven that.

[KurtNYC]

193. Doesn't have the same zing if they say: "Marc and Chelsea Mezinsky buy 5,000 SF apartment on E. 26th

This is a 5-story building in lower midtown, next to Little India. If they need wholesale toys, printed graphics, Indian buffets or a taxi this is a good location. To me this location lacks a distinct personality and is the intersection of several fragmented neighborhoods. A 5 story building isn't tall enough to escape street noise or people looking in. Seems kind of an odd choice but it is central and therefore, for someone who probably uses nothing but private car service, very convenient.

I worked briefly with Chelsea Clinton in 2005 when she worked for McKinsey and they were also consultants for a mutual client. I was in my office one morning and saw someone walk by the door and I remember thinking 'wow that person looks a lot like Chelsea Clinton.' She had no attitude, was approachable and did her job. I really wanted to talk to her about growing up in the Whitehouse and how she put up with national media crap and criticism but the opportunity never presented itself so it was all business.

[HiPointDem]

210. $10.5 million has pretty much the same zing anywhere.

[Peter cotton]

220. It's her money...she can spend it however she likes.

I'm not about to criticize her for it, and am baffled why anyone would.

[tabasco]

238. She could have done so much with her life

but she became a wastrel.

[Peter cotton]

244. By all appearences, she's *enjoying* her life. Good for her.

[Libertas1776]

246. My beef...

my beef isn't really with this couple, although 10 mil is a freaking lot for an apt in my opinion. There are always gonna be wealthy and super wealthy people living in the major cities, particularly NYC. My beef is the fact these days, the only people living in NYC for example (emphasis on Manhattan, not the outer boroughs) are mostly super rich. Manhattan, once upon a time, was home to all classes of people. The super rich had their 5th and Park Avenues, but there was also ample room for middle class, working class, and poor people. The fact is, the latter groups were the bulk of the population. In the past 20 or so years, with the end of rent control for one thing and the reversal of flight to the suburbs, these groups have been pushed out. What were once working class neighborhoods are now gentrified "trendy" and "hip" hoods for affluent young people and people who will pay spend every last cent they have to live in a shoebox to pretend they are affluent. In the process the city loses its true character. The 2000s saw a building boom in the city, not for affordable housing but rather towering glass condos for the super elite. I read a news article not that long ago where a towering new apartment building for the obscenely rich in lower Manhattan (like 20 million for the smallest apts) were getting huge tax breaks from the city through a loophole in, ironically, a city affordable housing ordinance. Those fuckers will do anything to save a buck.

Oh and what a laugh when Mayor Bloomie announced he wanted to construct "affordable" micro apartments, (probably the size of one of Chelsea's walk in closets, or half baths). The story was posted here on DU and many thought it a great idea. I personally don't object to it if they genuinly were affordable but they won't be. Instead, what should cost maybe 700-800 bucks for a closet sized apt, will prob inflate to about 1600+ dollars, the price that use to get you a tiny studio apartment, and a studio apartment will inflate to about 2500 and so on. It's all a scam. The only poor living in the city (by which I mean Manhattan. Living in the metro area, saying I am going to the city means I am going to Manhattan, not Queens or Brooklyn. You say Queens or Brooklyn or etc. by name) are those living way up town, or in scattered pockets in lower Manhattan in slumlord out of code dumps or in the city's massive NYCHA project houses, which are also to be found in the city's other boroughs. So basically, Manhattan has become one massive gated country club community, with a little room left for "the help." Can't have them commuting to far!!

The sad thing is this is happening in all major cities in the US and the world. You think NYC is expensive? Just look at London, Paris, Hong Kong just to name a tiny handful...good grief, and its getting worse.

[justiceischeap]

247. Are we supposed to hate all people with money?

I'm seeing lots of comments saying that if this were an article about the Bush twins or some other Republican, DU would be flaying them alive. I'd agree this is true but it's not because of a double-standard that so many in this thread are talking about. It's because, historically, wealthy Democrats treat their wealth differently than wealthy Republicans. For the most part, it would appear, wealthy Dems are willing to pay their fair share of taxes (if the laws were in place for them to do so) and Repubs aren't. Wealthy dems seem to know that helping those without wealth is good for everyone, Repubs are every man for himself.

I don't dislike (or hold a grudge) against all wealthy people; I dislike greedy wealthy people who want to hoard all the privilege their money can buy and shit on the rest of us. There is a difference.