Newsflash! Rich Man Drinks Expensive Wine!
Silly report at TPM by Susan Crabtree about Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, "a leading advocate of shrinking entitlement spending and the architect of the plan to privatize Medicare," who -- shockingly -- "spent Wednesday evening sipping $350 wine with two like-minded conservative economists at the swanky Capitol Hill eatery Bistro Bis."
So...he ordered it and couldn't pay? Or...he ran out on the check? Nope.
But, he and the wine did catch the eye of another diner. Writes Crabtree:
Susan Feinberg, an associate business professor at Rutgers, was at Bistro Bis celebrating her birthday with her husband that night. When she saw the label on the bottle of Jayer-Gilles 2004 Echezeaux Grand Cru Ryan's table had ordered, she quickly looked it up on the wine list and saw that it sold for an eye-popping $350, the most expensive wine in the house along with one other with the same pricetag.Feinberg, an economist by training, was even more appalled when the table ordered a second bottle. She quickly did the math and figured out that the $700 in wine the trio consumed over the course of 90 minutes amounted to more than the entire weekly income of a couple making minimum wage.
"We were just stunned," said Feinberg, who e-mailed TPM about her encounter later the same evening. "I was an economist so I started doing the envelope calculations and quickly figured out that those two bottles of wine was more than two-income working family making minimum wage earned in a week."
She was outraged that Ryan was consuming hundreds of dollars in wine while Congress was in the midst of intense debates over whether to cut seniors' safety net, and she didn't know whether Ryan or his companions was going to pay for the wine and whether the two men were lobbyists. She snapped a few shots with her cell phone to record the wine purchase.
Then, Feinberg rudely marched over to their table and accosted them:
She approached the table and asked Ryan "how he could live with himself" sipping expensive wine while advocating for cuts to programs for seniors and the poor. Some verbal jousting between Feinberg and the other two men ensued. One of the two men said he had ordered the wine, was drinking it and paying for it. In hearing how much the wine cost, Ryan said only: "Is that how much it was?"
Read Ryan's interview with TPM here -- scroll down:
TPM: ...she was saying, is it appropriate for you guys to be ordering that kind of wine $350 dollars-a-bottle?Ryan: "A.) I didn't order it. B.) I had no idea what it would cost, and C.) ...I bought one of these bottles even though I drank a glass, and I always pull my own weight for my meals."
TPM: That was very smart. ... But do you think it's appropriate now that you know how much the wine cost to be drinking [such expensive wine] when you're advocating cuts for seniors?
Ryan: "I think it's stupid to pick up that much for a bottle of wine under any circumstance."
TPM: But you had to pay for it...
Ryan: "Yeah, I was like this is ridiculous. Who buys wine that expensive? It surprised me, and I think it's stupid under any circumstance to pay anything close to 100 dollars for a bottle of wine.
TPM: So you wouldn't do it again?
Ryan: "Well, of course not, because I think it's too much money to pay for wine. Yeah, I don't really know what exactly it cost. It was expensive. But um, 250 maybe it was 250, I don't really remember."
Matthew Hurtt has it right, in his take on the woman's thinking:
Because Paul Ryan believes government should live within its means, he can't buy a $350 bottle of wine. Well, let's see. According to Ryan's most recently available tax returns, he's worth anywhere from $590,000 to $2.4 million, which means that two bottles of wine at $350 each is somewhere between .03% and 1.19% of his total net worth. Clearly, he's drinking the cheap stuff.And if Ryan and his two other dinner associates went dutch (this becomes important later), then the wine purchase is a fraction of that (approx. 1/3, according to my math).
...If Ryan's net worth were broken down hourly, he'd earn anywhere from $295 to $1,154 an hour. In the 90 minutes Ryan and his friends sat at the restaurant, he'd make more than enough to pay for one bottle -- maybe even two.
But that's the sneaky part. Miss Crabtree slides that bit of wealth envy into the column like it matters. It doesn't. At all.
Feinberg (CV and website) asserts her economics background once again. And she was outraged. For what? Because Ryan was spending money... money he had earned? FOR SHAME!
Whether Ryan spends HIS MONEY on fine wine or lights dollar bills on fire, it's really none of anyone's business. What's done with the taxpayers' dollars, on the other hand, should be of concern to all of us. Hurtt points to a link by Erick Erickson:
Ms. Crabtree felt the need to go to DEFCON 1 for this outrage that a member of Congress and his two economist friends would buy expensive wine with their own money. She's never, ever written horribly about Barack Obama using taxpayer money for fancy wine at State Dinners. She's never written salaciously about the liquor bills on Nancy Pelosi's government funded plane.But by God you get some failed Rutgers economist out on a birthday date with her husband at a hotel restaurant who gets all jealous that she's not cool enough to hang out with Little Eddie Munster and his econ pals and . . . well . . . fire up the broom stick and quill pen, we've got a hot story and a little scandal on our hands.
And regarding expensive wine, I was talking about this this evening with Gregg. A friend of his in France once ordered wine that was something like $150 while at lunch with us (I saw what he was ordering and I about fainted). It was good and all, but not $150 worth of good. To me $40 wine tastes fantastic, and anything more expensive than that is just wasted on me, and probably on a lot of people.
(Note to the universe: The 80s [and even the 90s] are way over.)
Still, if you order sushi and fine wine for lunch, or a steak made from a cow that spent its entire life having its ears massaged while sleeping on velvet pillows, I don't think it's a sign that you hate poor people, but a sign that you like sushi and fine wine or pampered cow.
As long as you don't plan on running out on the check, and as long as we taxpayers aren't paying for it, have at it!
P.S. Ryan tips nicely. (He produced the receipt after TPM later approached him outside the Speaker's Lobby after a vote.)
Reminds me of this.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 9, 2011 12:52 AM
This sort of politically motivated rudeness ought to be grounds for the legally justified opening of a large can of whoopass.
These "progressive" liberal passive-aggressive bullies might think twice about their cowardly posturing if conservatives/libertarians were allowed to meet this behavior with an appropriate level of aggressive-aggressive violence.
XWL at July 9, 2011 1:20 AM
"But by God you get some failed Rutgers economist out on a birthday date with her husband at a hotel restaurant who gets all jealous that she's not cool enough to hang out with Little Eddie Munster and his econ pals"
Hey, its her birthday and she'll cry havoc and let slip the class war claims if she wants to.
Sio at July 9, 2011 2:04 AM
Susan Crabtree sounds like a ridiculous person. She must be drinking the same kool-aid as Michael Moore. Apparently, he's not the only one who thinks that private property is a public resource.
Tyler at July 9, 2011 2:19 AM
I read some of the comments. They seem terribly outraged that this isn't becoming a huge story. Apparently a politician spending his own money is breaking news these days.
I think it's interesting that you don't hear of these hysterical class warriors accosting people like John Kerry, who has a lot more money and likes to tool around Massachusetts waters in his yacht (and duck MA taxes by parking it in Rhode Island). Nobody ever chided Ted Kennedy about his expensive tastes either. Being generous (or reckless) with other people's money immunizes you against criticism about your spending habits. I suppose that's the attraction of liberalism for the rich.
LauraB at July 9, 2011 4:06 AM
Expensive stuff is a legitimate form of wealth redistribution. "Oh, we can't have that! Only taxes and government spending can redistribute wealth properly!" Freaking idiots!
Dwatney at July 9, 2011 5:22 AM
Typical liberal hypocrisy. I've never had super expensive wine, but I do not care of people want to spend their own money to buy it. I'm closer to a $2 chuck girl, myself, and that's okay with me.
momof4 at July 9, 2011 5:43 AM
Being a rich Democrat, though, is OK. If you want evidence of a media-control success story, try to find a story about "the richest Democrats in Congress".
This class envy always works because of something described best in a show I saw by accident. Years ago, in "Thirtysomething", there was a situation where Ken Olin's character was worried about a promotion, and David Clennon, the head of the advertising agency, said, "Then you have to decide what it is you want to do. We are paid well to assure the public that all will be well with the world if they simply buy our clients' product - and to that public, history is last week's 'People' magazine."
The public does not remember the last time the ruse worked. It does not know that impediments paced in the way of "the rich" also serve to keep the poor where they are.
Radwaste at July 9, 2011 6:27 AM
Yet another industry that shouldn't be producing jobs: wineries.
Jim Treacher at July 9, 2011 6:36 AM
Reminds me of a story from the AP a few years ago that read like this: ""While Mitt Romney condemns polygamy and its prior practice by his Mormon church, the Republican presidential candidate's great-grandfather had five wives and at least one of his great-great grandfathers had 12."
I think Mitt Romney is as phony as a 3-dollar bill, but was it really fair to blame a son for the sins of his great-grandfather and great-great-grandfather?
Seems anything, no matter how irrelevant, that can chip away any credibility of someone on the right is fair game.
Trust at July 9, 2011 6:38 AM
I think someone should hook Ms. Feinberg up with the elevator guy from the Rebecca Watson story. It sounds like Mr. Feinberg is not getting the job done at home.
I give Ryan credit for remaining calm. I couldn't have.
JDThompson at July 9, 2011 6:40 AM
The surest way to make money is to figure out how to sell things to rich people. Rich people spend money. If there are no people with money to spend, there is no economy, and we're all waiting on the breadline for the party man to let us know if -- this time -- the shipment got through without the capitalists, the Jews, or the pig-dog traitors diverting it.
I visited a blue collar town of my youth -- perhaps one of the most famous despoiled blue-collar industrial towns that isn't Detroit -- and found that the old $1 slice of pizza/50 cent for a styrofoam cup of pop places had converted to an upscale Italian. Same name, same location, way more upscale, tons more margin to employ a lot more people than the owner's daughters.
Mr Green Man at July 9, 2011 6:54 AM
There's never a shortage of people who best know how to spend other people's money.
Jms at July 9, 2011 7:21 AM
"I was an economist so I started doing the envelope calculations and quickly figured out that those two bottles of wine was more than a two-income working family making minimum wage earned in a week."
Invoking the arcane craft of the economist, the daring liberal activist multiplied $7.25 by 40 by 2, proving that the fact that this is less than $700 is less than obvious to reporters educated by the NEA.
Nathan at July 9, 2011 7:32 AM
It's always important to keep in mind how large the markup on wine is in a restaurant. It's at least 100% and can be 200% or more (especially on cheaper bottles and/or at overpriced places). In fact, Googling that bottle finds a reference to selling a case of it for $100 per bottle a few months ago. That's not cheap but there's plenty of good wine that costs far more wholesale. So really it's just that he was at a restaurant with a ludicrous markup. That doesn't avoid the shock value of the $350 number but it wasn't like he was picking the best wine ever.
Polynices at July 9, 2011 7:35 AM
Another lesson: The good guys and the bad guys can dine at the same restaurants. The only difference is that the good guys don't order the wrong things.
Jim Treacher at July 9, 2011 7:35 AM
Hah, I should have done more research before posting. That restaurant has its wine list online: http://www.bistrobis.com/index1.html (select wine on the drop down). Turns out $350 *is* the most expensive bottle on the menu and that means it is the most ludicrously marked up. You *never* buy the most expensive bottle, it's there for suckers who want to impress but don't know their wines. I'm sure he could have gotten a substantially identical bottle of wine from one of the many high $100s-low $200s bottles.
It's still his business how he spends his own money, in any case.
Polynices at July 9, 2011 7:43 AM
I think you need to check your math on the percentage of his salary. Are you saying that with a million dollars he can only buy 100 bottles of wine?
Skyler at July 9, 2011 7:47 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/09/newsflash_rich.html#comment-2341040">comment from PolynicesI drink Trader Joe's wine -- whatever's under $6 -- but a guy who spends $350 on a bottle of wine is helping a small business and putting money into the economy. If he can afford it, dumb as I think it is financially and in terms of what you get for your money, hey, fine by me.
A question: Can anybody really taste the difference between a $25 or $40 bottle of wine and a $300 one -- assuming they aren't a sommelier? The times somebody's bought a $40 or $60 bottle of wine when I've been out to dinner, it's been very good, but I really can't taste the difference between that an a $20 bottle of wine. And I like dry whites and I find that Marlborough, NZ wines are very good for very little money. Nobilo, Brancott Sauvignon Blanc, etc.
Amy Alkon at July 9, 2011 7:50 AM
Why was Miss Susie at an upscale restaurant anyway? She should have "supped" at Denny's.
Claude Hopper at July 9, 2011 8:07 AM
"Can anybody really taste the difference between a $25 or $40 bottle of wine and a $300 one -- assuming they aren't a sommelier?"
Sometimes. My husband's best friend IS a sommelier, though, so we all do a lot of sampling. Most of the stuff we drink (unless it's a special occasion) is between $20-$30. You'd absolutley be able to tell the difference between a Silver Oak cab ($80-100) and something gross like one of the Coppola wines ($15-ish).
A $350 bottle of wine at a restaurant is generally a $150 bottle at the liquor store/wine merchant.
ahw at July 9, 2011 8:09 AM
As a professional winemaker, I must say that the best $100 bottle of wine is . . . two $50 bottles. Of course Ryan would have been better off bringing his own wine and paying whatever the corkage is.
If that cranky leftette had approached the table of Kennedy and Dodd she might have had a different experience.
Stillman Brown at July 9, 2011 8:12 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/09/newsflash_rich.html#comment-2341108">comment from ahwSomebody gave Gregg a very expensive bottle of wine (we shared it with my neighbors, who contributed their decanter and muslin or something to strain it through). It was red, and I prefer dry whites, which I usually drink, but I didn't find it $100-plus worth of yummy. It was just good.
Coppola wines are my very unfave.
Pinot grigio, I find, is a safe dry, cheap wine, generally speaking, if boring.
Prefer white burgundy, which can also be had cheap.
Amy Alkon at July 9, 2011 8:19 AM
So next time I see someone who looks poor buying soda or chips, I ac take a photo and give tham a stern lecture?
I wonder who the waiter (oppressed worker) liked more?
KateC at July 9, 2011 8:19 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/09/newsflash_rich.html#comment-2341113">comment from KateCExactly, Kate. And what was this woman doing at such an expensive restaurant when poor people are hungry? Shouldn't she have gone to Denny's and given the money she would have paid for dinner to the family of an unemployed person?
Amy Alkon at July 9, 2011 8:21 AM
In the late 1990s, I was eating lunch at The Palm in DC with a friend. Expensive place, I'm not sure what I was doing there, I'll bet my meal cleaned out my minimum wage pay for the day, if not the week (and we had no wine at our table). I noticed James Carville come in and sit down at a nearby table. He showed up late, ate, and left early, without leaving any money for the bill.
I'm just a flyover bumpkin, so I don't know whether this sort of personal financial management is common in DC, but now I find myself thinking there is never a Ms. Feinberg around when you really need one.
J. H. Colter at July 9, 2011 8:22 AM
"A question: Can anybody really taste the difference between a $25 or $40 bottle of wine and a $300 one -- assuming they aren't a sommelier?"
Buy me a $300 bottle of wine (cab, please), and I'll let you know. In the morning.
Steve Daniels at July 9, 2011 8:24 AM
1: I am sure Ted Kennedy only drank the cheap stuff while he was spending us into oblivion. Not sure what he paid for his whores though.
2: At least Ryan wasn't drunk on the floor of Congress like Stupak was and like Pelosi often is.
3: It was none of her damn business and whoever owned the restaurant should have thrown her ass in the street for harassing the customers.
4: She draws what is essentially a welfare check since I am not aware of any meaningful contribution made buy Rutger's economists. In fact I would bet her net output to the economy is negative given how poorly most college graduates understand economics.
5: Ryan is a much nicer guy than I am. If it had been me the medics would have still been trying to pry my foot out of her ass.
6: I think i like this blog.
Voluble at July 9, 2011 8:27 AM
As someone fairly liberal who disagrees with Ryan on his policies, I find the actions of Mrs. Feinberg very rude. And pointless. How people spend their private money is irrelevant to a discussion of how we spend public money.
Also, I'm curious how she was able to recognize that he was having such an expensive bottle of wine. She must have some experience with drinking expensive wine herself. I would not be surprised if the amount she spends on wine in a year would be well out of reach of the minimum wage earners she champions.
Clinky at July 9, 2011 8:33 AM
Thanks for bringing up Teddy Kennedy - I was just beginning to forget him. His entire life in Washington can be summed up thusly: if you're left enough and in power, there is no horrible personal behavior can not be excused.
K at July 9, 2011 8:35 AM
What sort of loser takes her husband out for a birthday dinner and spends the evening spying on other diners? Poor bastard.
How much money does this Feinburg make? I'm guessing it's a lot more than "a couple making minimum wage." Why isn't she donating the difference to starving old people, instead of demanding Paul Ryan extort more money from me?
Yeah, I know.
HeatherRadish at July 9, 2011 8:45 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/09/newsflash_rich.html#comment-2341173">comment from Steve DanielsThe somewhat expensive (compared to $350) wine we did have, when Gregg took me to Italy for a literary festival in Mantua that he had to attend with Elmore (Leonard -- Gregg's his researcher of 30 years) was Amarone. We drank it there at every meal. Great stuff. And not expensive there, although I think it runs maybe $50 a bottle here.
One of Elmore's kids is a wine expert and he turned us on to Picpoul, a dry white from France that usually isn't too pricey.
And KateC is the one who turned me on to the affordable Marlborough wines. Yum!
Amy Alkon at July 9, 2011 8:48 AM
I drink cheap wine because its in my budget. I buy a bottle of red from Chile in my local liquor store and it is delicious. I pay $6.99 or $8.99 depending on whether or not its on sale. A close friend of mine who has a lot of money buys a wine that is delicious and he pays $50 a bottle. He can afford it. His favorite though is a huge jug of sangria that he buys for $6. Whichever he chooses to drink, he has worked to pay for and its his business. This lady was extremely rude. I'm sorry Ryan didn't tell her it was none of her business and to let him eat and drink in peace. Although then the next story would have been about the "rude" public servant.
Kristen at July 9, 2011 8:52 AM
The fascist, totalitarian preferences of the left rears its ugly head again.
What was Feinberg doing in such an expensive restaurant to begin with? The dives that minimum wage workers eat at, when they can afford to eat out, don't serve any wine more expensive than Boone's Farm. Feinberg's an upper middle class snot pissed that there's an upper class.
DADvocate at July 9, 2011 8:54 AM
So...austerity for Ryan and the rest of us, but not for Ms Feinberg? She was spending money on what most of us would consider to be an expensive meal, but she drunkenly accosts someone else who is doing the same thing?
Hypocrites are everywhere, I suppose.
Warren Bonesteel at July 9, 2011 9:03 AM
Why wasn't this wine sold and the money given to the poor?
Good one, Judas.
teapartydoc at July 9, 2011 9:07 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/09/newsflash_rich.html#comment-2341264">comment from KristenA tip: Wine is cheaper (for those of us who aren't big drinkers) if you can drink it over a period of days. Gregg got me one of those wine savers that sucks the air out of the bottle. This means that I can buy the $8 huge jug of Pinot Grigio at Costco and not have it go bad.
(Gregg brings better wine when he makes me dinner, but I'm a girl on a tight budget -- tighter now that my Amazon Associates $ is gone, but I'm working on that...and I'm sending out the proposal for my next book. Sent it to one agent who liked me -- I'm leaving mine -- and have three others to send it to as well, on recommendations of connected people who like my writing.)
Amy Alkon at July 9, 2011 9:26 AM
LOL,
Crabtree
I went to a state school for my engineering degree. The cost difference between your education and my education could have significantly improved the life of a "couple earning minimum wage."
And I would not have needed the napkin to do that math.
lololol so many feel the need to fabricate drama.
You do Rutgers theatrical school proud.
Haggar at July 9, 2011 9:27 AM
I'm not much of a wine person, myself. All white wine tastes the same to me, and all red wine tastes the same to me.
On the original argument: Spending $350 on one bottle of wine is stupid. However, spying on another table who ordered $350 wine is more stupid. And confronting them about it/taking it to the internet is colossally stupid.
Sarah at July 9, 2011 9:35 AM
"Why wasn't this wine sold and the money given to the poor?
Good one, Judas."
+1
I want to believe that this leftette has the same passion for wastage when she sees people in the supermarket misspending their Food Stamps on booze and snack food, and sternly rebukes them in the checkout lane.
Don Fulano at July 9, 2011 9:45 AM
LEAVE ME ALONE!!
Is that a concept leftists cannot abide by? Just imagine sitting enjoying a good meal with a fine wine and some idiot comes over and criticizes the purchase.
I do credit Ryan for staying calm I would have stood up said, "I never hit a lady........and then went and punched her husband in the face"
bobbymike at July 9, 2011 10:00 AM
For an "economist", this lady is not very bright. What good does it do for rich folks to sit on their cash? The money spent here went to pay wages for those working at the restaurant, at the winery, at the company who delivered the wine, etc., etc.. In this economy, the people who spend their own money (on whatever they want) are the ones helping the situation.
irright at July 9, 2011 10:02 AM
Now, Don Fulano, that would be raaaaacist!
However, there's a more important lesson here: Leftards will keep trying to run your life as long as they're alive to do it.
SDN at July 9, 2011 10:05 AM
Just so people know, because much of the rich world doesn't like to admit it: $350/bottle in a restaurant is really not that much. It should get you a good bottle, but there are plenty of restaurants out there, even in humble places, with wine lists that start in the forties, hover in the hundreds, and plateau for hours in the thousands.
Just Some Guy at July 9, 2011 10:15 AM
So, question: which is more outrageous, a well-off person buying expensive wine (and hence employing less well-off people) and paying for it with his own money, or a person buying chips and soda, with food stamps?
We won't even get into people buying lobster, shrimp, and expensive steak with food stamps.
DSmith at July 9, 2011 10:24 AM
I heard an economics professor explain to his class that the reason basketball, football, and baseball players are millionaires is because the people they work for are billionaires. If you want to make a good living, work for a rich person and not a poor one.
Rick T. at July 9, 2011 10:26 AM
Should Ms. Crabtree have pulled this on a union boss, she'd have been bitch slapped into next weeks unemployment check.
Swangaz at July 9, 2011 10:30 AM
When Ms. Crabtree has given all but about $50K of her and her spouse/partner/whatever's assets to the government (just write a check to the US Treasury) and arranged that of her future earnings, anythng over about $25K per year (a little more complicated but I'm sure a good lawyer could work something out) also goes to the government, then I might give her arguments the benefit of at least seeming sincere, even if still illogical.
Marty at July 9, 2011 10:30 AM
ooops, I meant Feinberg; but Crabtree, too.
Marty at July 9, 2011 10:33 AM
Whether or not I think spending $350 on a bottle of wine makes sense or not, is anyone's purchase of such an item genuinely resulting in the misery of others? He's certainly not swiping $350 worth of food out of the mouths of others, which is what these lefties try to project with this nonense. In reality, the outrage on the Left for such spending really has NOTHING to do with any genuine concerns for the welfare of the "less fortunate", but more with their own narcissistic rage. In their small minds, THEY should be determining how everyone else's money is spent, because THEY know better than anyone else...
Speedstan at July 9, 2011 10:45 AM
Marty - good post I agree. I want all leftards to only spend exactly what they need for housing and food and clothes (everything bought as cheap as possible) and give EVERY PENNY left over to the government and then and only then can you open your mouth.
bobbymike at July 9, 2011 10:50 AM
Yet another industry that shouldn't be producing jobs: wineries.
Posted by: Jim Treacher
What are you.. the industry police? Only those you approve should be in business. FGS.
Melody at July 9, 2011 10:58 AM
Susan Feinberg and her husband could have eaten at McDonalds, and gotten filled up for less than $10. Instead, they chose to go to a restaurant so fancy and so expensive that it sells $350 a bottle wine frequently enough to stock it.
Really people, Susan Feinberg and her husband chose to celebrate her birthday at a restaurant where dinner for the two of them, even without any wine, surely cost more than what a Chinese farmer makes in six months. In fact, probably more than a working class North Korean makes in two years.
How dare she, someone who claims to care about the poor, waste such huge amounts of money this way. If they had eaten at a local soup kitchen, and sent the entire amount of their dinner bill to Save The Children, just think of how many little ones could have been fed.
With the side benefit of putting capitalist restaurants such as this out of business, and the people who work there on welfare. Not to mention the people who work at the winery, the distributors who supply the restaurant, the people who make the wine glasses and the tablecloths, supply the advertising, due the restaurants accounting, do the janitorial work....
All of these capitalist pigs could be put on welfare, if the smug liberals such as Susan Feinberg who patronize these places would just stop eating there.
Robert Hanson at July 9, 2011 11:04 AM
"Rich people spend money."
I worked for a megayacht yard in Miami for a while, and it is my experience that rich people save money. That is, they generally know what to do with capital.
Big hint for leftists: if you want to "save" the country, always GET something for your money. Other than a vote. If you give someone money, and they have not earned it, it has no value to them.
If you want the best advice on the planet for getting and staying "rich", just do this: Look at what the poor people do - then, don't do that.
-----
I wonder - has Ms. Feinberg met Gary Musselman?
Radwaste at July 9, 2011 11:13 AM
Melody--it's a joke. Do you know what Jim does for a living? Google him.
KateC at July 9, 2011 11:15 AM
Still, the episode highlights the divide between those who pay taxes, and those who consume taxes.
Ryan cannot relate to the median-income family making $48,000 a year.
Ryan has become a catamite for plutocrats, and that's okay, his constituents voted him in.
As income and wealth concentrates in the top 1 percent, we must all become sycophants, catamites, procurers for the top 1 percent, and devise moral-sounding virtues for our actions.
I think polygamy will someday become the norm among the top 1 percent, and in effect, already has--you think Clinton, or Arnold S., or any other high-income male is boinking just his wife--no, there is a string of women.
Eunuchs may come back in style too.
BOTU at July 9, 2011 11:15 AM
According to the receipt attached to the article, Ryan left slightly more than a 20% tip.
What percentage did Feinberg leave with her great concern for the working class?
Conan the Grammarian at July 9, 2011 11:18 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/09/newsflash_rich.html#comment-2341597">comment from RadwasteI wonder - has Ms. Feinberg met Gary Musselman?
Side note for regular commenters here: Just got an email from Gary and Susie (who's been a great friend to him)...she's on her way back to Illinois to pick up Gary and then they'll come back to California. Gary got offered a gallery show, but there were some snafus, and Roman Genn generously offered to help me with working them out. So...when Gary's back, we'll do that. More when he hits L.A.
Amy Alkon at July 9, 2011 11:38 AM
I'm trying to get the Progressive story straight.
Is it good for the economy when people spend money? Or, is it bad when people spend?
Is it only good if Ryan spends on middle-class goods? What is the recommendation from the Department of Spending?
Maybe that is why Team Obama wants to take a big chunk of money from the wealthy. And, they want to take a big chunk of money from the middle class, if you want the truth.
Then, they can spend it in the right way, the politically correct way, the Progressive way, through a thoughtful, educated, and socially just bureaucracy.
Andrew_M_Garland at July 9, 2011 11:40 AM
What are you.. the industry police? Only those you approve should be in business. FGS.
Yeah wait what?
Jim Treacher at July 9, 2011 11:46 AM
Maybe it is just me but it makes me happy that rich people can be separated from their money as easily as by offering them a bottle of rotten grape juice. It gives the rest of us poor schmucks a chance to get in on some of the dough.
And yeah, I am one of those people who only tastes the alcohol in wine. People say it tastes like this or that and all I can think to myself is if their orange juice spoiled like this in the refrigerator they would throw it out.
I also resent the fact that all of the cool varieties of grapes are wasted on wine when they could be used to make some really good varieties of grape juice. But then you couldn't sucker anyone into paying $350 for that I guess.
Voluble at July 9, 2011 11:55 AM
Three phrases come to mind: "Hypocritical bitch", "None of your goddamn business", "Sit your stupid ass down". The fact that Ryan used none of these shows he has amazing self-restraint.
BTW, I once was fortunate enough to be a guest at an amazing wine tasting sponsored by the Wine Spectator. They had the Chateau Margaux right next to the Chateau Petrus. Both are quite expensive, but the more expensive Petrus was discernibly better than the Margaux although both were superb. So yeah, expensive wine is usually expensive for a reason and a $150 wine can be better than a $50 wine.
TexUte at July 9, 2011 12:27 PM
Shouldn't she have gone to Denny's
Deer lord, you're not suggesting she go and eat at Denny's, are you?
Denny's: Slowest. Food. Prepration. Evah.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 9, 2011 12:42 PM
Does Feinberg have the first idea what Wagyu beef costs?
She could check with Obama.
She should check with Obama before she opens her stupid mouth again.
drjohn at July 9, 2011 12:55 PM
He has the right to buy what he wants and the lady has the right to make comments. Not seeing a problem.
NicoleK at July 9, 2011 1:46 PM
Wasn't Bistro Bis the place where Teddy Kennedy and Froggy Dodd used to make waitress sandwiches? Did that ever make the news?
Walter Sobchak at July 9, 2011 1:55 PM
That party drinking the big money wine was a stimulus package for the restaurant industry. You gotta problem with that?
morewinemoremoney at July 9, 2011 2:20 PM
"He has the right to buy what he wants and the lady has the right to make comments. Not seeing a problem.
Posted by: NicoleK "
And we have the right to ridicule the crap out of her.
irright at July 9, 2011 2:30 PM
He has the right to buy what he wants and the lady has the right to make comments.
So do we. So do you.
Jim Treacher at July 9, 2011 2:31 PM
Rutgers University in state tuition is $319 per credit hour. Out of State Tuition is $695.
So to purchase a three credit Economics class at Rutgers would cost Congressman Matt Ryan as much six bottles of that wine.
When the good professor looks out across her class (that is if she teaches it herself instead of passing the job off to a grad student) does she consider how many cases of Jayer-Gilles 2004 Echezeaux Grand Cru that represents?
Is her work-product really worth that extra expense over community college economics coursework and transfer the credits? I mean in this economy can we really justify spending all that much for credentialing?
The Kraken at July 9, 2011 3:56 PM
> Did that ever make the news?
Shut up, Donny.
Crid at July 9, 2011 4:28 PM
Speculation from Althouse that the woman who did all the complaining had enjoyed a couple of sips as well.
Crid (cridcomment at gmail) at July 9, 2011 5:01 PM
I believe this goes back to the lawn article also. Another person with the belief that they know what's best for everyone else.
Cat at July 9, 2011 5:05 PM
Or, worse, she was pretty sober.
Amy Alkon at July 9, 2011 5:18 PM
The worst, most evil thing you could ever do to Prof. Feinberg is to compel her to live in a world of her own creation. Theoretically - she would have been politely intercepted on the street outside of the restaurant. After gleefully relating the sins of those she observed, the polite, but increasingly sinister government agents would ask her to sign a confession. Confusion would flit across her face - "What are you talking about?"
Agent: "Why Comrade Citizen Professor, you contacted US with the admission that you were dining in a restaurant that caters to enemies of the people. Did you eat there, yes or no? And isn't it true you did not act to 'speak truth' until after you were operating under self-administered mind altering drugs, aka alcohol?"
The agent would lean in and then gently say: "Or do you wish to direct condemnation to others who are behaving in the exact same manner as you - but we are supposed to accept your subjective assertion that at least you 'care' and therefore are free from condemnation and empowered to crush the 'other'?" "Comrade professor - you have two choices - sign the confession and admit you hate the workers, or refuse to sign and confirm that you hate the workers AND hold them in contempt and disrespect. You have 10 seconds to make your decision....."
Californio at July 9, 2011 6:34 PM
I didn't know they let TPM hang out in front of the Speaker's Lobby. That sounds like something that will need to change.
Craig at July 9, 2011 7:26 PM
I would NEVER spend $350 on a bottle of wine! Manischewitz Blackberry is still just a few bucks a bottle, but that's the only wine my unsophisticated palate can handle.
However, if there were a primo bottle of vodka for $350, I might consider it for a special occasion. And my net worth is far less than Rep. Paul Ryan's.
Whether you approve or not, it's no one else's business what someone chooses to spend their money on. Unless, of course, their bad choices lead them to qualifying for your money in the form or tax dollars in order to get by. Getting by, meaning that they buy steak with food stamps and pay for satellite, smart phones, and fancy rims with money stolen from those of us who are responsible enough to actually work for a living. I don't think we have to worry about that with Ryan.
KimberBlue at July 9, 2011 7:46 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/09/newsflash_rich.html#comment-2342636">comment from KimberBlueManischewitz Blackberry is still just a few bucks a bottle, but that's the only wine my unsophisticated palate can handle.
Are you related to my parents? I didn't really drink -- even wine -- until I was in my mid-to-late 20s, so I didn't really pay attention to what my parents drank. (My dad used to drink icky stuff like schnapps from time to time.) Gregg and I went to visit them when we were in Detroit, and my father asked if we'd like a glass of wine. "Why, yes," I said, or something like that, and he went to the refrigerator and pulled out some screw-top red Manischewitz. Suddenly, I got very unthirsty.
Amy Alkon at July 9, 2011 10:00 PM
Don't take this the wrong way, Ms Feinberg. I find your savoir-faire and arithmetical abilities very impressive and I'd like to talk to you some more. Would you like to come to my room for some Jayer-Gilles 2004 Echezeaux Grand Cru?
Tracy at July 10, 2011 12:01 AM
Lets see if I understand this. A reporter is eating lunch at a posh restaurant when she spots a Congressman at the very same restaurant partaking of what posh restaurants serve. And imagine, he actually picks up his own tab. Amazing. Perhaps she was disappointed that a lowly congressman was fouling the very air she breaths. May I suggest that the intrepid reporter follow Senator John Kerry, D-Massachusetts around for a while. By the way, who picked up her tab.
MassJim at July 10, 2011 6:46 AM
OOPS. I meant to write "A professor".
MassJim at July 10, 2011 6:49 AM
"I was an economist so I started doing the envelope calculations and quickly figured out that those two bottles of wine was more than two-income working family making minimum wage earned in a week."
You have to be a friggin' ECONOMIST to make this calculation?
I could have done it when I was 4. In my head.
Chester White at July 10, 2011 7:16 AM
Yeah, and I understand that Senator John Kerry, D-Massachusetts drinks RIPPLE with his meals! I heard him say, in his finest patrician tones, to his butler - yes, he has one -"Jeeves, please run to the wine cellar and fetch a bottle of the 1968 RIPPLE RESERVA. It will be simply superb with the duck liver pate."
MassJim at July 10, 2011 7:50 AM
Still, the episode highlights the divide between those who pay taxes, and those who consume taxes.
Ryan cannot relate to the median-income family making $48,000 a year.
Ryan may not be able to relate to the median-income family but this story doesn't show it. His guests ordered expensive wine that he clearly didn't value himself but had to pay his share for because of congressional rules.
Astra at July 10, 2011 8:01 AM
If he was drinking from a box of wine instead of the expensive stuff, would that change our economic crisis? Of course not. If he's not contributing his fair share to taxes, then maybe she's got something. But connecting the wine to the economy is really reaching.
JonnyT at July 10, 2011 9:28 AM
"...he went to the refrigerator and pulled out some screw-top red Manischewitz. Suddenly, I got very unthirsty."
Hey, that stuff is good! When studies came out saying that red wine was good for you, my parents decided to try it. The convenience store store down the street had Manischewitz for $3.99 a bottle, so it seemed the logical choice. (My parents would never spend $40 on something if they could find a cheaper version for only $4!)
I was in high school at the time, but they allowed me have an occasional glass. I haven't had it since then, but I remember that I really liked it. Then again, I also had fond memories of the soy milk I drank as a kid. When I tried that again as an adult, I couldn't even get it down.
KimberBlue at July 10, 2011 9:56 AM
BTW, 2 buck chuck under Obama has now become $3.99. Aldi's has Winking Owl for $2.69. Walmart Oakleaf is still $2.97. I shop around.
ken in sc at July 10, 2011 6:31 PM
It looks bad when politicians advocate restraint for others but not themselves. Whether or not it SHOULD look bad is not the point... of course he earned his own money, and people on social programs are spending other people's money. Of course his not buying wine wouldn't mean there was more money for the poor. (On the contrary, as Amy points out, the more he spends the more the waiter gets. And the ine distributor, grape grower, etc)
But if he's telling the old and poor to tighten their belts, it just looks bad for him to be lavish. Like the $200 haircut, not knowing the price of milk... the reaction many people have to his wanting them to tighten their belt is "Easy for you to say."
NicoleK at July 10, 2011 10:51 PM
Personally I'm curious if she gets into such a huff, when people are buying a $10,000 plate dinner at an Obama fundraiser. Thats several months of those making minimum wage.
Or how about criticizing a Prius buyer for their obvoius waste, they are spending about 2 years of the other persons salary, meanwhile a moped is way more fuel efficient.
Joe at July 10, 2011 11:05 PM
@NicoleK. I don't understand your argument. I don't think anyone is telling people to "tighten their belts" for the sake of belt tightening. I belive it is a euphemism for a changing (i.e. declining) economy. What they are really saying is "live within your means" and that those "means" are likely changing. Maybe you make more money than I do. That means that our means we should live within aren't the same. I need to get a house I can afford, you need to get one you can afford, and Warren Buffet needs to get one he can afford. Odds are that those will be three very differently priced homes, but they will (should) fit our unique circumstances.
Tony at July 11, 2011 7:01 AM
Carville probably had an account. My old boss at the London Sunday Times had one. Not uncommon.
KateC at July 11, 2011 7:59 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/09/newsflash_rich.html#comment-2345734">comment from KateCKate is correct.
Amy Alkon at July 11, 2011 8:24 AM
@Amy - the Trader Joe's $5.99 lambrusco is my favorite - refreshing, bubbly, and delicious on its own or mixed with fruit soda or juice! And since it's carbonated, it's the perfect excuse for having to polish off the bottle once I open it.
Would Ryan's $350 have done more good if he'd donated it to a charity or something? Maybe, but it's his damn money - and perhaps someone should remind the economist that all the 'belt-tightening' is really giving our consumer-driven economy a spanking.
If you're planning on running for election by posing at a friend of the common man (yoohoo, Gingrich) it may be better to keep your zillion-dollar credit lines at Le Sparkly Rocks undercover, but I think her behavior was really rude. Go home and blog about it like a civilized person!
Choika at July 11, 2011 8:54 AM
Oh, and @Tracy - GRAPIST!
Choika at July 11, 2011 8:58 AM
Tony, I'm not saying it IS bad, I'm saying it LOOKS bad. Of COURSE govt should spend less. But if I were on SS and some guy sipping $300 wine was telling me to spend less, I'd be pissed off. I imagine a lot of people will think less of him. Sadly, a lot of politics is about imagem and "Is that how much it costs? Teehee! I dont even check the price" is not gonna look good to the voters whose programs you are slashing.
And Choika, every politician poses as a friend of the common man. So does every fancy chef, fancy movie star, fancy everything. Personally I think it is even more pretentious than ordering $300 wine, but apparently the rest of the world disagrees with me.
NicoleK at July 12, 2011 1:58 PM
Test.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 16, 2011 6:04 AM
It's all good.
Amy Alkon at July 16, 2011 6:16 AM
Unfortunately, for many cloud computing platforms the vehicle example you give doesn’t work out. If you see a car as a means to an end, and all you cherish is getting there, then you need an application platform like Google’s AppEngine. Here you merely add an application, and the rest is taken care of. If however you run ec2, you’re no longer worrying about computer hardware, but still about instances and virtual servers. Every one of them run OS’s that need to be maintained; it’s like taking taxi’s but still having to know everything about the taxi’s engines. I predict that at some point we’ll move towards AppEngine like models or ‘managed clouds’.
php development ide at October 12, 2011 12:46 AM
Leave a comment