General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCan you spell tone deaf? H-I-L-L-A-R-Y. Hillary Clinton: We Were 'Dead Broke' Upon Leaving WH
In an interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer slated to air Monday night, Hillary Clinton revealed that she and former President Bill Clinton were "dead broke" when they left the White House.
During one of their last years in the White House, the Clintons reportedly earned $416,039, the New York Daily News reports, citing the couple's 1999 federal income tax return. But apparently that was not enough to cover their debts and their daughter's education.
“We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt," Clinton told Sawyer. “We had no money when we got there and we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses, for Chelsea’s education. You know, it was not easy.”
According to Mother Jones, just before she left the White House as first lady, Hillary was given an $8 million advance for her memoir Living History. The couple had also purchased two homes, one in Washington, D.C., and another in Chappaqua, New York, Time reports.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/09/clintons-broke-white-house_n_5474015.html
sob. my heart breaks for the poor dear.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)I'm sorry, but this is really tiresome. It's 2014. After November, we can bash possible Democratc candidates for President. For now, maybe we could focus on 2014.
UNREC!
cali
(114,904 posts)I don't care when it is. It's top of the fold news. Don't like top of the fold news being discussed? Perhaps you're on the wrong website, MM. HC did a much vaunted interview with Diane Sawyer that is being aired tonight. That's news. And perhaps you shouldn't tell others what they should be discussing.
Big thumbs down for your silly, petty comment, MM
don't think that one should be on this website 
go join the republicans.. i don't like Hillary much either but being a bully isn't all that cool looking +5 MM and an Unrec
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)MM jumped in at the number 1 response to disparage the OP. If that's what you are referring to as "low" then I would agree.
merrily
(45,251 posts)And, while I won't alert, "Go join the Republicans" has to at least come close to alertable under the TOS.
butterfly77
(17,609 posts)didn't Hillary want President Obama to pay off her 20 million dollar debt after she refused to quit running even though she knew she was losing?
merrily
(45,251 posts)That was public info. I would bet that she also told him that she wanted to be Secretary of State or Vice President, too, but, of course, I was not privy to that info. Just seemed that way to me.
aquart
(69,014 posts)Isn't slimy innuendo a Rove thingy?
merrily
(45,251 posts)Obama not only agreed, he went into fundraising mode. I know because I had donated to his campaign several times and therefore got the emails from his campaign, seeking donations. I also followed the news rather carefully at that time.
So what "fucking thing" that I allegedly have no idea about are you referring to? Care to say anything that is actually (a) decipherable and (b) not purely ad hom? Any factual refutation, any at all? Or are cheap, personal, and totally meaningless, shots that you pull out of nowhere your only discussion technique?
tiredtoo
(2,949 posts)Yes it is because that is what the corporate controlled MSM wants us talking/thinking about while they continue to propagandize the average citizen to stay home for midterms. The big one with Hillary in it is the one we have to think about.
azureblue
(2,146 posts)form a personal attack diarist, making a personal attack response. but that's how you roll.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)It is IMPOSSIBLE to buy those two homes on a 200K pension. They were broke!
krawhitham
(4,643 posts)If she or her supporters can not take the heat maybe she should not be on tour making such blatant lies. This claim is all about trying to con voters into believing she knows the plight of the middle class poor
840high
(17,196 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)It is getting lame.
7962
(11,841 posts)She's the one going around doing interviews, so she shouldnt be surprised by any questions.
TiredOfNo
(52 posts)She made it quite clear when she was First Lady that she had nothing but disdain for Fox and friends............
7962
(11,841 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)
Beacool
(30,247 posts)No worries there.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)
rofl: :
I'm bad.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)but as Hillary has chosen both her remarks and their timing, we are entitled to discuss them now.
Besides, it won't make a ding dong damn worth of difference, I really don't see any way she doesn't get the Democratic nomination and win the general election against Paul-Cruz-Christie-Perry-Santorum-Bush-Rubio-whoever that the Republicons are going to offer as the sacrificial lamb in a couple of years from now. Unless, and this is a big unless, she can be shamed out of tossing her hat in the ring because she doesn't want to spend the next two years looking like she says goofy stuff.
I think that's the only hope for some folks right now.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I will have to watch the entire interview, but what is tiresome is that so many hopeful families lost their homes in 2008 in part due to NAFTA and the ensuing loss of jobs in the US and in part due to the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Bush is mostly responsible for the crash of 2008, but Clinton's policies helped make it possible.
Hillary had an opportunity to show a lot of compassion for the victims of the crash. We shall see her whole interview.
I support Elizabeth Warren, not because I think she is poorer than Hillary, but because Warren demonstrates her compassion for working people in the policies that she has proposed in the short time she has been in politics.
Bill Clinton was refreshingly compassionate after the Reagan-Bush era, and Hillary is not lacking in compassion. But Hillary is just not the fighter for working people that Elizabeth Warren is. I think that Elizabeth Warren has accomplished incredible things in the short time she has been in politics. Obama's executive order on student loans has to be credited to Elizabeth Warren's campaign on this issue.
Why are we wasting our time with Hillary when we have a better candidate, a real go-getter wotj great ideas.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)When our elected reps turn out to be elitist fakes who distort the truth for personal gain or goals for higher office it stinks. If people can't handle it now or here they better. He k themselves because the real heat hasn't even begun. Hillary is a flawed self-entitled candidate. I look forward to a robust primary and like the detractors I expect democrats to get behind and fund whoever the nominee is...that means if it's not Clinton.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)This is not the time for criticism because we need to stay united....
This is not the time for criticism because election...
This is not the time for criticism because they're just got into office...
This is not the time for criticism because midterms...
This not time for criticism because...
Silly.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Always an excuse for why we can't demand better from those who want to rule over us. (That's not aimed at MM specifically, but at everyone who says that sort of thing.)
I don't agree with 'embrace the suck' as a path to electoral victory.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)keep us focused on is appropriate to discuss. Could you go ahead and do that for us? Thanks in advance.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)a good head start for what may be the most meaningful election in our lifetime. Will the populists win out or will we be destine to 8 more years of the dominance of the oligarchs?
H. Clinton-Sachs and her husband are worth close to $70 million. To some that's success and to others it's representative of the corruption of the oligarchs.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)My congressman will win again. I'm happy about that.
Our governor will be re-elected as will my state senator and assemblyman.
All that's left are some state offices and judges.
If I lived in a different area, a less solidly Democratic one, I might have something to be concerned about, but I'm in California.
So, 2014 is the most important thing, but it is pretty well decided here. Democrats will win every office I think.
tiredtoo
(2,949 posts)
Tommy2Tone
(1,307 posts)I am not a fan of bashing Democrats. So I guess I am in the shits too?
genwah
(574 posts)MineralMan
(146,286 posts)hurts our chances of regaining a Democratic majority in the House and building our Senate majority. Not to mention state legislative elections.
I'm saving 2016 until after November.
genwah
(574 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)No rent, no expenses, free travel, free healthcare. I can't imagine them claiming broke. Their only major expenses was Bill's private legal fees for MonicaGate, and IIRC donors ponied up to cover much of that.
cali
(114,904 posts)directs us not to discuss this, but as I responded to that poster, it's top of the fold news and she did an interview airing tonight in prime time on a major network.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)So she was pulling in good royalties long before leaving WH. Then got the advance for another book. Not broke.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)Clinton Tax Returns Show Book Proceeds Were Given to Charity
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: April 14, 1998
The President and Hillary Rodham Clinton gave $840,000 from the proceeds of Mrs. Clinton's best-selling book ''It Takes A Village'' to charity over the last two years, their tax returns show.
The Clintons also gave away $8,300 in 1997, which is 2.8 percent of their income apart from the royalties. Americans typically give just less than 2 percent of their income to charity.
==
Because of the way the Clintons handled contributions, the charities received far less than they could have.
Rather than sending all the royalties, more than $1 million, directly to charities, the Clintons took the money as income, paid taxes on it and gave away the difference. As a result, the charities received $184,750 less than they could have.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)
karynnj
(59,501 posts)I am not accountant and don't know if there was any way to directly assign the royalties to the charities and avoid taxes. Not to mention, had they done that, the criticism would have been that they avoided taxes.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)
lolly
(3,248 posts)Ken Starr's witchhunt created millions of dollars in legal fees.
They did leave the White House with millions of dollars of debt, and a negative net worth.
Yes, they had much more earnings potential than the average in-debt person. I don't think anyone ever thought they would end up in the poorhouse.
But the fact remains that their 8 years in the White House were incredibly expensive for them. Piling legal bills on the Clintons was a favorite Republican pastime. It was a political operation, just like Birtherism and Death Panelism is for Obama.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Why didn't you, I wonder?
No--I don't wonder.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/14/us/clinton-tax-returns-show-book-proceeds-were-given-to-charity.html
Skittles
(153,147 posts)yup
7962
(11,841 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)autobiography advance?
The Village book was always a charitable effort.
Does that accusation serve an agenda or are you really not understanding?
I don't mean to question your motives, but that comes off sounding like an obfuscation.
7962
(11,841 posts)I did have the two confused. But she did get it in 2000 so they would hardly be broke
MADem
(135,425 posts)by mendacious assholes in Congress trying, and failing, to "get" them.
They had to get a friend to put the cost of their house in escrow, because they didn't qualify for a home loan.
Yes, they had "earning potential," but they had No Money.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)It might be that in her crowd when you are down to 8 million you are broke...it is hard to get a respectable vacation home for 8 million.
MADem
(135,425 posts)That's why she had to get help to buy the place.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Yep that's the fiscally responsible person I want running the country.
Thanks for pointing that out MADem.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)The proceeds were donated.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Hillary Clinton
Obama’s “Plagiarism” vs. Hillary’s Synthetic Image
By Pat Hill
Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton recently charged Barack Obama with plagiarism regarding his use of other people’s phrases without proper attribution in speeches, but like the ghosts who lurk in the dark corners of Livingston’s Murray Hotel, her use of surrogates to write books for her has come back to haunt her.
===
“Lifting whole passages from someone else’s speeches is not change you can believe in,” said Clinton at a February 21 debate in Austin, Texas, “It’s change you can Zerox.” Both Patrick and Obama claim use of the passages, some of which also contain the words of Martin Luther King, were an agreed-upon matter between the two of them, but Obama acknowledged that he should attribute other people’s words in the future.
Both candidates are popular published authors; Obama’s literary efforts include Dreams from My Father (1995) and The Audacity of Hope (2006), and Clinton works include It Takes A Village (1996), and Living History (2003). A subtle but telling difference, though, lies between the published pages of the two candidates; Obama wrote his books with his own pen, but Hillary used ghostwriters for both of her books, and according to a February story in The New Repub-lic, using a ghostwriter hardly entitles Clinton to lecture Obama about using other people’s words.
In It Takes A Village, Clinton did not acknowledge ghostwriter Barbara Feinman, who Simon and Schuster paid $120,000 to help Hillary write the book. The New Republic reported that Hillary’s detractors had asserted Feinman wrote the whole book, adding that Clinton supporters rebutted the detractors by telling the New Yorker magazine that Hillary didn’t note Feinman’s work on the book because it was so bad.
rock
(13,218 posts)When it rains the streets get wet. There is absolutely nothing remarkable about a ghostwriter getting no credit. It does depend on the contract. 
onehandle
(51,122 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)of her current big bucks speaking circuit. Weak sauce from a gaffe prone "careful" candidate.
progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Hard to even pay rent when you're broke - buying houses is right out.
Sounds like of my Republican college friends lamenting in 2008 that the market crash meant that they would just have to sell the cabin on the mountain if they wanted to keep both houses in town. So broke.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)in order to pay th bills for their growing family.
Oh, the humanity.
Chels "earned" 15MM @ the hedge fund, btw, so at least she's not dead broke no mo'. Hell, her hubs quit his job and played ski bum for months after he hit that jackpot, er, married that heiress.
They also get $ & expenses from the Clinton Global Initiative charity etc.
Not 'zactly cutting coupons.
dead broke but for a preszzydential pension, free health insurance, paid personal security, senate salary, expenses, board member stipends, etc. wah
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Good lord.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)so asinine.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)and in DC since they have to spend so much time there.
This isn't some special luxury only the Clintons had.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)pnwmom
(108,976 posts)Most people in Congress have homes in their districts because they have to, and in D.C., because they have spend so much time there.
st17011864200074656
(190 posts)Actually, for both houses of Congress, you only need to have residency in the state in which you are running; for example Allen West didn't live in his district in Florida, he was represented by Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)And buying a house is often a smarter thing to do financially than renting.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)In a tent?
Besides, what the hell do you and the rest of the perpetual Clinton bashers care what they do with their money?
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)They bought a house in New York so she could get apply for a job there and the house in DC was because of wishful thinking about said job.
They weren't "broke" and she and most people know it. If owing more than your yearly income is broke then most people I know are also "broke".
Beacool
(30,247 posts)She was elected to the US Senate before she left the WH. She needed a residence in DC.
Unbelievable the crap one reads here...........
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Hillary was making even more money when they left the White House and they were still broke?
Most people I know owe more than their yearly salary and don't consider themselves broke.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
RainDog
(28,784 posts)had put forth legislation to make it impossible for someone who had been arrested for possession of marijuana once to be eligible for food stamps, per Michelle Alexander in The New Jim Crow.
Pardon me if I'm not sympathetic.
I'll vote for Clinton if she's the nominee, but, honestly, I'm not really interested in having another Clinton (or Bush, for that matter) in the White House.
GeorgeGist
(25,319 posts)a Republican.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)So broke they could only afford two expensive houses and an Ivy League education for Chelsea.
bigtree
(85,986 posts)I liked the move to New York and Hillary Clinton's commitment to public service representing that state.
I believe her when she says their debts were astronomical. This is a family that was under attack; the entire family; from the republican party and the early beginnings of the bat-shit crazy cottage industry of hate that we're suffering through today.
Hillary, herself had earned a top dollar as a private attorney before she followed Bill into the White House. I don't see any reason why she wouldn't want to begin to build the same type of income structure for her and the former President. You don't have to feel sorry for them. They could certainly have chosen to live at whatever level folks think is low enough to not feel resentment or animus toward their personal accumulation of assets.
From what I see, most of the 'wealth' folks are attributing to the Clintons when they left the WH were in the form of 'assets'. That's nebulous enough to me to conclude that it's believable that they could see the end of their financial rope if they didn't start earning money. Then there was their daughter, who was grown and all of those expenses to consider. There's also the need for folks in that position to have a secure residence and that takes bucks.
Again, no one should shed a tear about all of that, but I don't see where Hillary or anyone else has asked anyone to feel sorry for them. She was just stating a fact. She says they were in debt from legal fees and the like and I believe her. I wondered where all of the millions for those personal lawyers was coming from at the time. It must have been an enormous debt . . . and all in defense against a political onslaught which was directed at her family; but, really was intended to invalidate our Democratic votes for our Democratic president. Impeachment? Vince Foster? Whitewater? They bore that political burden, mostly alone. Hell, even today, folks act as if they were to blame for all of that.
If you don't like these folks earning money from speaking fees, that's certainly a legitimate criticism. But criticizing her for declaring that the family was financially in over their heads? They most certainly were when they left the WH - and I'm not sure that the public who the Clintons had worked for and spent their time in office defending and supporting with their efforts wanted to see them bankrupt, no matter how much more advantaged they were than the average American.
It's almost as if folks criticizing these comments of hers couldn't have cared less if they had fallen flat on their faces and were ground under by debt. It has happened to public servants leaving office in the past. Maybe that would have satisfied the critics, but I doubt it.
cali
(114,904 posts)it's tone deaf to say you were flat broke on leaving the WH. It ain't rocket science.
bigtree
(85,986 posts). . .wait, you can't. You're just making it up.
cali
(114,904 posts)You, on the other hand? false accusations are your metier.
<snip>
Perhaps she intended to commiserate with the down and out. But the Clintons were no middle-class family in extremis. Bill Clinton’s salary as Arkansas governor was limited. (That was among the reasons the Clintons gave for investing in the Whitewater real estate development that made them targets of a grand jury and an independent prosecutor in the 1990s.) And the Clintons did leave the White House with abundant debts, mostly to lawyers (another legacy of the 1990s).
But President Clinton left office more than 13 years ago, and more than a decade before Hillary Clinton began her whirlwind of speeches. Both have written books that earned them millions, on top of his presidential pension and her Senate and secretary of State salaries. No one forced them to buy two large homes, one in Washington and the other in New York.
<snip>
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-hillary-clinton-abc-news-book-interview-deftness-and-tonedeafness-20140609-story.html
bigtree
(85,986 posts). . . never mind. The snip you provided furthers the lie that she wants someone to feel sorry for her or said what she did to gain some sort of everywoman image thing. The lengths folks go to for politics . . . you'll have to beat her without resorting to this class-envy loaded tripe.
cali
(114,904 posts)such a remark is not the way to do it. And cute little strawman. more like pathetic. I have not criticized her wealth. duh.
try again. better yet, refrain from embarrassing yourself further.
bigtree
(85,986 posts)I believe that. I watched people work overtime to absolutely destroy that family and I'm happy to see that they prospered in the wake of all of that. besides, I'm grateful for their public service in defense and support of many of the things that benefit us out here.
I'm sorry if I can't wrap my head around what I'm supposed to hate her for today. please proceed.
azureblue
(2,146 posts)You can surmise her motivations from reading an article? Amazing. What is she thinking at this very moment? We would love to see a demonstration of your skills as a clairvoyant. Who knows, if you are accurate, you could maybe make a living at it.
You got something substantial to say, besides assumptions, minding reading, innuendo, broad brush generalizations, personal attacks, and what appears to be a regurgitation of the latest GOP talking points, then say it. State your specific objections to Ms. Clinton's professional abilities to be a good President. Show, with references to the source, where and when she, as a public servant, did something that would negatively influence her Presidential abilities, and, most important, state why you think that. Bless your heart, remember that we are hiring her for a job, and her professional qualifications should be examined carefully. And how that will be reflected upon the state of the country and the world, if she should win the Presidency. And let's cut to the chase here- name your choice for President and tell us why they are better qualified, and why they do not deserve the same muck raking you are subjecting Ms. Clinton to. We're waiting.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Hillary's comment was about when she LEFT THE WHITE HOUSE.
She wasn't a Senator nor a SoS yet.
Where the f*ck is the last POTUS Of the USA and his Senator wife supposed to live?
I can't stand Hillary, she was my Senator but your OP is typically pathetic.
cali
(114,904 posts)oh poor wittle hilly.
my heart breaks for her. And no, they don't need two mansions. duh.
oh, and imitation shows lack of critical thinking and imagination, kitty.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)She became the Senator from NY State on January 3rd, 2001, and she and Bill officially left the White House on January 20th of that year. A slight overlap, but enough of one to make your assertion incorrect.
In any case, Hillary trying to poor-mouth her situation in 2001 is laughable at best, pathetic at worst.
MADem
(135,425 posts)She RAN from NY and -- like Bobby Kennedy of Brookline and Hyannis, MA, and McLean VA did -- she had to establish residency.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)or residency? The only thing I disagreed with you was that she was indeed a Senator, fully sworn into the US Senate before she and Bill officially left the White House. You asserted that there was some sort of gap between the two events, and I stated the fact that there was not one, that there was an overlap.
Even if she had left the White House on January 3rd, and was seated in the Senate on January 20th, it would have been a distinction without a material difference.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I never agreed nor disagreed with you about any such thing. You're confused.
However, she was a resident of NY state and campaigning there during her husband's last year in DC. She left the White House, for purposes of residency, at least a good long year and then some before her husband did.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)It was not you, it was KittyWampus who made that assertion. I apologize for getting the two of you mixed up. However, I don't recall saying anything about her residency in NY, I don't have any issues with that.
But since you mention it, have you been to Chappaqua? The only "homeless" there are those who have not yet cleared escrow. I'm not a Hillary hater, I just wish she had chosen her words better. Hopefully, the senior members of her staff will have a good long chat with her, and make sure she uses better phrasing for the next couple of years.
In any case, she's so far ahead in the polls that no matter what she said, she's still not going to lose, provided she decides to run. Of course, there are those here who are hoping that she decides it's not such a great idea...
MADem
(135,425 posts)She only bought that house because the wealthy Mr. McAuliffe put everything but the down payment cost of the house in (speaking of escrow) an escrow account. He basically co-signed her loan. She would NOT have gotten the house otherwise. She didn't qualify for a loan because they were in debt up to their ASSES, and she didn't secure that advance for her book (DEC 2000) until she had owned the house (bought in SEP 1999) for well over a year.
Now, seriously, are you going to start crabbing that someone running for the Senate, with Secret Service, needing sufficient zone defense for them, was living in "too nice" a neighborhood?
The definition of "homeless" is not having a home. They did not have one. They needed one that was suitable, and were it not for help, she would have been hard put to find anything that would have worked for her, her spouse, her kid and the Secret Service.
She was running for office--did you want her living in an end room at the Motel Six?
I mean--come ON. I can't believe how petty people get about her. It's just unfathomable.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)Somewhere between Chappaqua and Motel Six, there's a happy medium, and the Clintons were not as close to it as she's trying to make it out to be. I don't begrudge her a thing, but I do find that it is silly to try to compare yourself with the folks at the bottom when you've had the lifestyle that the Clintons have had for the past four decades.
Once upon a time, Trump owed more than he was worth, if he tried to say that he was "po' folks" at any point in his adult life, we'd find that statement to be ludicrous.
MADem
(135,425 posts)She was a First Lady, who had gotten death threats, with a secret service retinue, running for the Senate. Carrying a shitload of DEBT.
The Secret Service had "requirements" so there was a type of residence she needed to live in. No McMansion with zero separation between houses, for example. She also needed to be close enough to transportation, near main roads, a host of little details that, if you've never been responsible for someone's security, you don't worry about.
They could have gotten rich as Roosevelts while in the governor's mansion and the WH, but they didn't. As for begrudging, I don't begrudge them for making a buck after they left the WH. Even at that, a lot of the money "they" make goes to the Foundation, which is involved in charitable endeavors.
Trump had "cash flow" issues--that's not the same at all and to try to pretend it is isn't acceptable. He OWNED assets--real estate, homes, etc. He had documents with his name on them. The Clintons didn't even have a house. They didn't have a car, or a house key. And they didn't qualify for the damn mortgage, even though they had "earning potential." No "Countrywide Chris" Dodd loans for them...
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)and later as an former president they would have made something north of $350,000 a year. I totally agree with you. She made the choice to do the speeches. Some make it sound like she had debt collectors knocking at her door. That only happens when you are not part of the 1%.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He was on half pay (not the new pension--he gets the old pension which is less than half of what GW Bush gets) and needing living quarters, and she was just starting out in her new gig--she got her first paycheck AFTER they left the WH.
Duval
(4,280 posts)hang it up! Some people make up their minds and then stop thinking. I don't understand why there is so much Hillary bashing on DU. Gee, I almost thought I'd wandered into Republican territory. 
MADem
(135,425 posts)All we'd need is shitty software and a few more misspellings and I'd swear I took a right turn...!!
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)would not have had the burden. My parents died ten months apart and I could barely hold on to the only real asset I have, my beloved house, the one they had for the first time in their hard working lives. I am better now but it will always be on the horizon, the shipwreck that could kill me. I have ZERO sympathy for her and her first world problems.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)The Whitewater investigation had been going on for several years before Monica Lewinsky was outed by that vile woman Linda Tripp.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)because of the increase Clinton supported as President. Most of the rest paid for his personal legal bills as a result of his targeting by the Rethugs.
I agree to the tone-deaf accusation. A mistake.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)welfare reform under Clinton was a Republican wet dream.
To hear this crying about how poor they were makes me want to puke since Clinton didn't give a crap about actual poor people and demonstrated the same while he was in office.
bigtree
(85,986 posts). . . I paid as close attention as anyone to what was happening politically and personally to that family. You can't summarize the impact of that presidency with a throw-off remark about welfare reform.
The only crying I've heard is the wailing from folks who couldn't find a respectable thing to say about that family. I don't have time for that nonsense.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)but if you want to pretend that's the case, go right ahead. I notice you don't actually bother to address the reality of my remark.
I have no love for the Clintons, but, as I said, I will vote for Hillary if she's the nominee.
I am SICK of political dynasties in the U.S. and I don't care which side of the aisle they're on.
Neither Clinton has impressed me with their political decisions on major issues.
22.9 MILLION NEW JOBS were created during President Clinton’s term in office, the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and 4.4 million more jobs than were created in the preceding 12 years. 91 percent (21 million) of new jobs were created in the private sector, a percentage as high as under any other President in 50 years. The economy added an average of 238,000 jobs per month, the highest under any President.
During fiscal year 2000, the government reduced its publicly held debt by $223 billion - the largest one-year debt pay down in American history. FY 2001 was the fourth consecutive year of debt reduction, bringing the four-year total to $453 billion. The public debt was $2.9 trillion lower in 2001 than was projected in 1993. Debt reduction brings real benefits for the American people because less borrowing by the federal government means lower interest rates for other borrowers. Thanks to lower interest rates, in 1999, for example, a family with a home mortgage of $100,000 paid roughly $2,000 per year less in mortgage payments, as well as reduced payments on car loans and student loans. Under President Clinton’s plan, the U.S. was on track to eliminate the nation’s publicly held debt by 2012 for the first time since Andrew Jackson was President.
In 1992, the federal budget deficit was $290 billion. Thanks to the Economic Plan of 1993 and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, by the year 2000, America had the largest ever federal surplus of $236 billion. President Clinton’s last four budgets marked the first four consecutive surpluses in a row in more than 70 years.
Unemployment dropped from 7.5 percent in 1992 to 4 percent in 2000, the lowest in more than three decades. The unemployment rate fell in all eight years in which President Clinton was in office. Unemployment rates for both African Americans and Hispanics fell to their lowest levels on record in 1998, then continued to decline over the next two years.
Family income rose by $7,562, or 17 percent, between 1993 and 2000, after adjusting for inflation. There were seven straight years of income growth during the Clinton years, leading to an all time high in 2000. The median income of African American families increased by a third – $8,629 – to a record $34,616 in 2000. Median family income among Hispanics grew by $6,868, or 24 percent, to $35,403, also an all-time high.
For the first time on record, more than 2/3 of households were homeowners. The homeownership rate reached 67.7 percent in 2000. Minority homeownership rates also reached new highs. By the end of 2000, there were almost 10 million more homeowners than there were in the beginning of 1993. In contrast, the homeownership rate fell from 65.6 percent in the first quarter of 1981 to 63.7 percent in the first quarter of 1993.
The President increased the Minimum Wage from $4.25 to $5.15 per hour, raising wages for 10 million workers.
Fifteen million additional working families received additional tax relief because of the President’s major expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit. In 2000, the EITC lifted 4.1 million people out of poverty – more than twice the number lifted out of poverty by the EITC in 1993. In 2000, 26 million families benefited from the $500 per child tax credit in the Balance Budget Amendment of 1997.
Under President Clinton child poverty dropped by 28.6 percent to 16.2 percent in 2000, the lowest child poverty rate since 1978. While still far too high, the African American child poverty rate fell by a third from 46.1percent in 1993 to a new low of 31.2 percent in 2000, (data collected since 1959). The Hispanic child poverty rate also fell by close to a third between 1993 and 2000 – from 40.9 percent to 28.4 percent, lower than it had been since 1979.
The poverty rate declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.3 percent in 2000, the largest seven-year drop in over 25 years (1965-1972). The poverty rate in 2000 was the lowest since 1974. The African American poverty rate was the lowest on record, and the rate for Hispanics matched it’s record low. The number of people living in poverty fell by 7.7 million between 1993 and 2000, 100 times more than in the Reagan Administration, when poverty declined by only 77,000.
The United States had five consecutive years of real wage growth, after declining 4.3 percent during the two prior administrations. This represented the longest consecutive increase since a period in the 1960’s and early 1970’s.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9344887&mesg_id=9345034
RainDog
(28,784 posts)All Clinton had to do was get out of the way, which is what the California tech sector wanted anyway.
That list, nevertheless, still does not address his welfare reform policy, or his statement that the era of "big government" (dog whistle for a certain segment of the population) was over.
That hasn't served us too well, compared to other western democracies during this last recession. That's the longterm consequence of policies he aligned with as a leader of the (mostly) southern Democratic leadership that played to certain... concerns.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)was not the dot come boom. And those things did more to help poor Americans than any other recent president has done.
bigtree
(85,986 posts)Earned Income Tax Cut.
If you can't fathom that, you can't speak with any authority about what happened to poor folks under that administration.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)and I apologize for my error.
eilen
(4,950 posts)
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)When the Banking Modernization and Reform Act hit President Bill Clinton's desk, he willingly signed it.
Despite the fact that this one piece of legislation took away a major component of protection for the middle class: the Glass Steagal Act.
Less than eight years later, our economy collapsed.
Of course, when he signed off on this piece of legislation, was he then promised a big time "payback" that would return to "thank him" for doing this?
Yes, I often mention how Billy Boy gets some $ 100,000 per speech in front of Corporate podium.
Another DU'er recently corrected me, with this information:
While HC was Secretary of State, she had to disclose amounts & sources of her husband's income on govt. employee financial disclosure forms. That's where all the details in this 2013 article come from. Now, and for as long as she is not a declared candidate for president, the Clintons' speechifying and all other income sources remain confidential - between them & the IRS. The details are almost impossible to believe - he was paid over $200,000 by a financially failing "non-profit" hospital. A newspaper publishing company in Nigeria paid him $700,000 each for speeches in two successive years - 2011 and 2012. Any politically cognizant person can draw conclusions about what quid pro quos are expected by domestic and foreign special interests groups and businesses in anticipation of Bill Clinton's wife being elected president.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201...-windfall/
As former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton embarks on her new career as a paid speaker, she joins a lucrative family business that already has earned her husband more than $100 million since leaving office in 2001.
According to a CNN analysis of 12 years of federal financial records, former President Bill Clinton had his most active and profitable year on the lecture circuit in 2012, delivering 73 speeches for $17 million from mid-January 2012 through mid-January 2013. That brought his total haul in speaking fees since leaving the White House to $106 million. His previous record for annual speech income was $13.4 million in 2011.
As in previous years, the former president's highest-paying events were held overseas. He earned $5.2 million last year for 15 speeches given in 12 countries. The most lucrative was a February speech to a local newspaper publishing company in Lagos, Nigeria, for which he received $700,000. He addressed the same group in 2011 for the same amount. He earned an additional $150,000 for a June speech delivered via satellite to an audience in Australia, while on a speaking tour in Florida. The remainder of his 2012 speech income was earned before domestic audiences in 15 states and the District of Columbia.
bigtree
(85,986 posts). . . the next fool mismanages a record surplus and its his fault?
What a joke.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)ex-heads of state get those kind of deals, its a regualr thing.
bush even got some well paid gigs, tho his popularitiy was low when he left office.
progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)We're seeing the effects of generations of welfare families... it's not good.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)RainDog
(28,784 posts)in that way, but I have been severely financially harmed by the housing bubble and the fall out (I'm not a house flipper - I'm just someone trying to get by who can't expect million dollar pay outs for speaking fees.)
Back in Clinton's time, however, I was doing quite well, financially.
I always find it interesting when people do a "Bill Cosby" on poor people, tho. I'm also fortunate enough to have family members who have not had to deal with generations of poverty.
If you knew anything about the effects of poverty itself - the stress, you might not be so willing to throw POOR WOMEN under the bus for one who will never be and has never been poor.
That's what's so disgusting about this moment, ultimately.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)and I certainly may not, didn't Terry McAuliffe loan them the money for the New York house?
MADem
(135,425 posts)He put most of the cost of the house in an escrow account, and if they defaulted on the loan, he would have been responsible for the repayment. It was kind of like co-signing, one step removed.
They didn't qualify for a loan, otherwise. That kind of speaks to their financial situation when they left DC, despite the snark you're seeing here.
Yes, they had earning potential, but it wasn't yet realized. No bank would give them the scratch without that security.
Ronald Reagan, almost immediately after leaving the WH, went on a short week and a couple of days trip to Japan for which he was paid two million bucks to eat a few meals, shake hands, take pictures, meet and greet people, and give a couple of very brief talks. In addition to the two million, he also, of course, got luxury accommodations and a massive private jet with bedroom and full bath to get him to and fro.
Ms. Toad
(34,062 posts)"We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt"
Momentarily without income, and with the luxury of being in debt - because financial institutions believed enough in you to allow you to go into debt (enough to buy two homes & finance an Ivy League education) is not "dead broke" in the sense that most people who - for example - live on the street or are always on the edge of being kicked out of their home because they don't know where the next month's rent will come from.
They can (and everyone expected them to) have jobs immediately - and be able to continue to borrow money to live on until then. Luxuries people who are truly dead broke don't have. The issue isn't whether they are permitted to earn money however they want - but that the language used to describe her financial position was tone deaf - in the way people with money (or access to it) are often tone deaf to the reality of those who have none. The kind of statement we often hear from (and jeer at) when it comes out of the mouth of a Republican and I, for one, don't find it any more attractive coming out of the mouth of someone on my end of the political scale.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)Well said, not that it'll make any difference with the "bat-shit crazy cottage industry of hate" that is no longer just a purview of the Right. The Left hates them just as much, read some of the comments.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)of Elizabeth Warren. Warren really did come from nothing even got a full ride scholarship for her undergrad. She went to school while raising a family -- not an easy task for anyone. Warren can talk the talk because she walked the walk.
All this "we was po" crap is calculated for political reasons, just like her "yes" vote for the IWR as is her "regret" for that yes vote now that she see's her calculated gamble did not pay off.
Just my opinion but I just don't see anything genuine about her. It's all about politics.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Give me a break!!!
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Give me no quarter???
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Why not just say, "I have the benefit of experiences that I have acquired and want to share it. If it happens to pay a lot of money I'll be glad to earn it."
Or, "I'm fortunate to have something to say that people are willing to pay to hear, it has been helpful when we had a lot of expenses."
I don't see anything wrong with using what she has to make money. It confuses me that she would suggest that they were near poverty upon leaving the WH. She's smarter than that.
tritsofme
(17,376 posts)The RW's legal war on the Clintons left them very broke at the end of his term in office. She has nothing to apologize for in terms of what they earned after leaving the White House.
Obviously this is a politically dumb thing to say, silly to pretend otherwise, but it also isn't really a meaningful statement in the long run.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)If you had $1,000,000 but owed 2,000,000, you'd be dead broke.
Get over it. And get over yourself.
cali
(114,904 posts)not close YOU get over it. I'll say precisely what I please, when I please. Don't like it? Cry me a river.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)and I hate to break it to you:
A new ABC News-Washington Post poll gives Hillary Clinton a commanding lead in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination - with 69% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents supporting her.
"Clinton also fares well in public perceptions in the new poll: 67% of Americans view her as a strong leader, 60% say she's honest and trustworthy, and 59% say she has new ideas for the country's future."
LOL.
cali
(114,904 posts)2008
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)It isn't 2008.
A new ABC News-Washington Post poll gives Hillary Clinton a commanding lead in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination - with 69% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents supporting her.
"Clinton also fares well in public perceptions in the new poll: 67% of Americans view her as a strong leader, 60% say she's honest and trustworthy, and 59% say she has new ideas for the country's future."
cali
(114,904 posts)or do you actually believe that history is irrelevant, wolf?
MADem
(135,425 posts)And I think you know that.
So stop goading and baiting him when he can't respond. That's rude.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)for violating community standards. What is rude is telling other posters what to do.
MADem
(135,425 posts)If you're getting your last licks in because the opponent has been vanquished, that can, and has been, seen as goading/baiting.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Demit
(11,238 posts)And plenty of people don't like it, so they say what they please. I think we all understand now that you are going to say what you please, without your having to reiterate it every time someone else says what they please.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)I suppose.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)She could have used the word 'underwater', which is where you owe more than you are worth, but not necessarily living out of dumpsters. The 'dead broke' wording is what is indeed tone deaf.
NYC Liberal
(20,135 posts)Hillary makes a simple statement of fact, and she's attacked as though she broke down sobbing, fell to the floor and wailed in faux agony in front of the cameras.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)Yes, their liabilities exceeded their assets on paper at that exact time, but they certainly had enough unrealized assets (each of them was worth a lot in speaking fees and book deals) to not truly qualify as 'dead broke'. If you or I lost our jobs, nobody's going to pay a plugged nickel for either of us to say or write a damned thing, the Clintons had that, plus a Senator's salary and a Presidential pension to keep the wolf from the door.
She really needs to get someone to vet whatever she says, this sounds like sniper fire in Tuzla. At least during the latter example, she was weary from the campaign trail, what's her excuse for being this imprecise during a softball interview with Diane Sawyer?
NYC Liberal
(20,135 posts)Just because they were able to recover from that doesn't mean it wasn't true.
That's like saying if you or I couldn't be broke if we had lots of education and experience in a lucrative field and you called those "unrealized assets .
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)They had stories that publishers would give huge advances for, and speaking fee abilities that few people ever have. Their 'recovery' was never in doubt.
Can you at least admit that she didn't choose her words as wisely as she could have? Can you concede that if she had used the words 'overextended', 'deeply in legal debt' or 'underwater' that this whole thread wouldn't have existed?
NYC Liberal
(20,135 posts)If she had said they were doing great and had no money problems, people would be attacking her for being "insensitive while people are suffering".
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)All I said was that she could have chosen her words more carefully. Sorry if I expect too much from a Yale law school graduate who's been in the public eye for two-plus decades.
No one here is denying that the Clintons owed large legal bills for the decisions they made regarding Bill's personal conduct. All I'm saying (and others are agreeing with me on) is that 'dead broke' is a very poor choice of words for someone trying to get ordinary people to empathize with her.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)The bullshit here is thigh deep.
But....but....we don't HATE her. We just hate her money, her policies, her views of the world, her chances of running and winning the nomination, etc., etc. etc.
uberblonde
(1,215 posts)When Michelle Obama (who was making, I think, $350k a year at her old job), married to a millionaire senator and living in a historic mansion, complained about how much it was to pay back the Ivy League law school loans?
Yeah, me neither.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Although, to be fair, I'm not sure the worst bashers are the Obama supporters. I think that they are not too hot on Obama either.
uberblonde
(1,215 posts)That much of the outrage on this thread is selective and grounded in amnesia.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)They don't like the Clintons. Therefore, they will find any excuse to bash them. It feels like being on a RW site.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)She's right, but it's also true it didn't take too long to replenish with book royalties and speaking fees, but that's what the question was: why the speaking fees.
This is a non-issue. Move on.
cali
(114,904 posts)why don't you just move on and refrain from wasting your precious time telling me what to do? I won't listen and if anything such an imprecation will make me right more negative posts about Hillary who I strongly oppose.
Demit
(11,238 posts)Just thought you'd want to know.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)in using the commonly understood term 'dead broke', she made it an issue. She could have avoided the topic, or simply stated that at the time they left, their legal bills were staggering. No one could have disputed that.
Now, she's got a phrase out there which she's left herself open to ridicule. She owns it, and it will be interesting to see how she backpedals from it. It's not a fatal error by any means, but it's a wake up call to her staff to make sure she stays on message for the next two and a half years. That would be their fully vetted message, carefully crafted not to scare away the people who decide the weekend before an election who to vote for.
betsuni
(25,462 posts)to a question about the speaking fees, and then an additional question: if Americans could understand making five times the median income in this country for one speech. Hillary answers, "Making speeches for money was much better than getting connected with any one group or company as so many people who leave public life do." This seems like a very good thing. Why is that ignored? Why suddenly being paid big bucks for speeches is a big deal... And the word "broke." Donald Trump has been broke. I say I'm broke when I don't have any cash money and payday is next week. Big deal.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)with. She wasn't saying "poor me" or even "I feel your pain."
lolly
(3,248 posts)Just as they always do--from Wellstone's funeral to, well, every speech Al Gore made. And now Obama.
Parse an extended speech or interview. Pull something out of context, manufacture a damaging context ("Hillary is crying poverty! Pretends she has it as bad as poor people!" and the press takes its marching orders.
Sad to see people who should know better how these things always work jumping on the bandwagon.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Do you think her speeches are not connected to any group?
betsuni
(25,462 posts)She said ONE group or company, so yes, I think she is connected to many groups.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)It will be twisted to the ugliest interpretation possible. It is tiresome.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)and I got attacked repeatedly for it.
I'll await your abject, groveling apology.
Not really, but I will rub in your face that YOU shamelessly make shit up. Bad habit. Makes you a... yep. you own it.
https://www.google.com/search?q=cali+John+Edwards&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&gws_rd=ssl
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)A new ABC News-Washington Post poll gives Hillary Clinton a commanding lead in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination - with 69% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents supporting her.
"Clinton also fares well in public perceptions in the new poll: 67% of Americans view her as a strong leader, 60% say she's honest and trustworthy, and 59% say she has new ideas for the country's future."
And you're right - it wasn't you that supported John Edwards.
cali
(114,904 posts)and those reflect the public in 2008 as well. love how you gloss over making one of your false accusations. It's so cute.
Response to cali (Reply #48)
Post removed
progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
BeyondGeography
(39,369 posts)I always agreed with her on Edwards. She was a 
on JE from the get-go, going back to the time when this board was filled with Edwards supporters.
What's relevant about that here is Edwards had no idea, nor did his supporters, how tone deaf he appeared talking about two Americas on the one hand and building himself a 20K square-foot home on the other (while billing his campaign for expensive haircuts). "Dead broke," when you have the obvious earnings prospects that Bill had, is a milder form of tone deafness, but it's a slip-up nonetheless.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)xocet
(3,871 posts)Clinton says she 'misspoke' about sniper fire
(CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton said she "misspoke" last week when she gave a dramatic description of her arrival in Bosnia 12 years ago, recounting a landing under sniper fire.
Clinton was responding to a question Monday from the Philadelphia Daily News' editorial board about video footage of the event that contradicted her assertion that her group "ran with our heads down" from the plane to avoid sniper fire at the Tuzla Air Base.
Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for rival Sen. Barack Obama's campaign, said the Bosnia claim was part of "a growing list of instances in which Sen. Clinton has exaggerated her role in foreign and domestic policymaking."
Clinton told the paper's editorial board it was a "minor blip."
...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/25/campaign.wrap/
progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)the shit never stopped against her around here.
cali
(114,904 posts)Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)Several voted for Iraq and Afghanistan votes that she regrets--just like John Kerry and many others (and remember that Obama initially agreed with it until it became politically unpopular).
She is not a war monger. The vitriol around here would be more palpable to take if it were grounded in fact. But knee jerk reactions to distortions promulgated by the right wing is hard to take.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)she was in favor of arming the Syrian rebels, made the case for that to Obama, and was turned down.
But no, definitely not a war monger, nuh uh. Just not a fast learner.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)Perhaps we could discuss the issues rather than be a snark?
And:
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/23/politics/us-syrian-rebels/
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)She repeatedly made inflammatory, hawkish comments that were at odds with the Obama administration. It was pretty obvious why they had the Special Envoy to the Middle East report directly during the White House during her tenure. They wanted the Middle East to know to ignore her.
Then they restored the Special Envoy to State as soon as John Kerry took over. The snub was pretty obvious. I was expecting a lot of her supporters here to get angry about it.
But that would go against the meme that her time in Obama's cabinet is evidence that she has changed her ways.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)But it makes perfect sense, Hillary having the thoughtless and careless outbursts she so often has.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)Short on facts long on gossip.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)And history shows that Obama eventually came around.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)She is. Whether or not Obama is one is beside the point.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)as much of the defense here is, and the last DU polls and demos I recall seeing indicate a sizable portion of DU is quite cozy financially speaking. The general public may give a candidates remarks 2 minutes tops, more than enough time for Hillary's remarks to be seared into memory. It is a guarantee that this will be used to paint her as elitist and out of touch, all which is true IMO.
Beacool
(30,247 posts) 
hughee99
(16,113 posts)No twisting necessary.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Most of us will get in debt at most for the value of our houses. Due to the Republicans, the Clintons were millions in debt. They were indeed broke, as they were millions in debt. I recall being amazed at how horrifying that would be.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)When people go broke due to housing market collapses or ruinous medical bills, that's one thing. Bill could have kept his pants zipped, and none of that would have happened.
Or, further, once the name Monica Lewinsky became a household word, Hillary could have gone to Bill and said, "Well, you got caught again. Better go on TV and admit you were wrong, and are never going to do this again, instead of shaking your finger at the camera and denying it, because we both know that you did it. Do the right thing, and I'll stand by you as 'the good wife' yet one more time, but do the wrong thing, and I'm on my own from here on in, and so are you."
That would have avoided a lot of legal expenses, at least as far as they accrued to her.
treestar
(82,383 posts)the way they did.
There were other issues too, I think I remember. Vince Foster and various other things.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)assholes to be assholes. I really don't recall the Clintons racking up legal bills over the Vince Foster situation, since no executive or legislative body tried to hold them responsible for his suicide, only the reich-wing press did that.
In any case, I assert that if Bill Clinton had come clean way back when the name Monica Lewinsky had surfaced, then they would have gotten a lot of it behind them quickly. Issuing denials just prolonged the pain, and kept him from working on OUR agenda, rather than spending his time trying to save his own ass.
Remember all the jokes Jay Leno, etc. were making about Dubya being a coke-head during the 2000 election? Wouldn't Repukes have been really pissed off at Shrub if a video tape of a cocaine party at the White House leaked out during his term in office? Well, Junior didn't give his enemies any ammunition other than his stupid official decisions, and he managed to get way too much of what he wanted by keeping his nose out of the blow, at least in ways that we'd all find out about. Was I asking for too much to expect that from the Clintons?
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)Not just over Monica, but all sorts of made up scandals.
Regardless presidential families make bank when they leave the White House, and Clinton knew that, so while they may have worried about debts it wasn't the same as a family living paycheck to paycheck. They always had connections and the presidential pension. They went from being broke to multi millionaire in a year.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)before the Monica Lewinsky issue became public. By then they had already incurred in legal debt. Once you are being investigated, you have to hire legal counsel. Your premise is erroneous sice they were were "lawyered up" way before Monica became public knowledge. Keeping his "pants zipped", as you put it, wouldn't have made any differece.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)of expenses incurred to fight Whitewater only, versus the expenses of hiring a team of lawyers to represent Bill Clinton before Congress, including a Senate impeachment trial. I have the feeling that the latter was by far the bulk and majority of the costs. Even getting into shady development deals is something avoidable, too.
In any case, they managed to make a lot more than the debts, and in fairly short order, too. My issue is mainly with the "dead broke" choice of words.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)than the 911 Commission.
Priorities.
liberalmuse
(18,672 posts)And this is one of those times.
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)In 2001 Bill Clinton earned $9.2 million giving speeches. In August of that year he signed a $10 million book deal. Before she left the White House Hillary signed an $8 million book contract.
So in one year they went from "dead broke" to far from it.
She needs to stop trying to sound like a regular person and fess up to the fact that she and her husband made a lot of money by talking.
bullwinkle428
(20,629 posts)advisors that clued them in to the fact that huge paydays were coming once they left the White House! 
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)due to legal bills.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Waving a magic wand and making tens of millions of dollars in income appear out of nowhere is pretty much the easiest possible way to get out of debt.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)were after leaving the White House, without a doubt.
I can see it now...can't you?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Can't say I can pay YOU $ 200,000 though.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)uberblonde
(1,215 posts)The government is not required to cover all the legal expenses that President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton accumulated during the Whitewater independent counsel investigation, a federal appeals court panel ruled today.
The Clintons had sought reimbursement for $3.5 million in legal fees.
The three-judge panel, which is part of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and which handles issues related to independent counsels, ordered the government to pay about $85,000 to reimburse the Clintons for fees involved in reviewing and responding to the independent counsel's final report.
*****
The government paid some legal fees incurred by former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush during the Iran-contra investigation.
David E. Kendall, the Clintons' lawyer, said Mr. Bush was reimbursed $272,000, or 59 percent of the money he had requested after the Iran-contra inquiry; Mr. Reagan, he said, was awarded $562,000, or 72 percent of the amount he had applied for. With the award of $85,312 from the panel, the Clintons' package represents 2 percent of the fees they were seeking.
''The good news is that the partisan Whitewater smoke-and-mirrors investigation is finally over,'' Mr. Kendall said.
The ruling may not appealed.
As part of his agreement to avoid charges related to the Monica Lewinsky investigation, Mr. Clinton agreed that he would not seek reimbursement of those legal fees.
Mr. Clinton earned almost $10 million from speeches last year, according to disclosure forms filed by Senator Clinton, a New York Democrat.
She reported earning $1.15 million from Simon & Schuster, publisher of her new memoir, ''Living History.'' The payment, along with $2.85 million earned last year, means that she has collected half the $8 million advance she obtained for the book.
cali
(114,904 posts)and she's now worth upward of 50 million. The question was about her current and recent speaking fees in any case.
It was a stupid thing to say.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)well, lets keep in mind that they were paying for some of the best legal representation in the world. Maybe a public defender, like many truly broke are resigned to use for their defense could have saved some cash, but really, they had assets and income so they weren't quite broke. No we don't expect royalty to use the commoners, that would be undignified and would not adequately shield the rich from the consequences of their misdeeds, not that I give a shit about the blowjob or even the lying about it. I bring it up because her statement slaps the actually broke in the face from so many different angles.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The claws are out.
Can't wait for general election season, when the rules against the bashing and trashing kick in.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)if we were in general election mode. The main comment is on the PERCEPTION of what Clinton said. Even if, at the moment of leaving office, their liabilities exceeded their assets, it is fair to say that they never doubted that their POTENTIAL future income would greatly exceed their liabilities. (The article upstream said Bill Clinton tried to recover $3.5 million in legal fees. I have no idea what the real total was. However, at minimum Hillary had an $8 million advance that she would get when she met whatever the conditions for each payout were. In addition, it was no surprise that Bill Clinton would get at least as big an advance). The advances alone were very likely much more than the legal bills.
I remember many threads in 2012 that criticized things Obama said - because people thought they were not helpful. Those posts did not get hidden. Attacking Obama did. Likewise in 2004, many criticized Kerry's campaign and were not deleted.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Yes, GOP politicians recovered the vast majority of their legal fees (Reagan, guilty as sin, Iran Contra--see the article) yet the Clintons got effed over. Their fees were in the neighborhood of five million, IIRC.
They also had houses to purchases and household expenses to pay--the taxes, electric, heat, etc. don't pay themselves. Bill Clinton took forever to write his book and he didn't ink his deal straightaway. His autobiography came out, what, four years later? It took him forever to write it--the press made fun of him learning to use a Blackberry/cell phone and stumbling around the NY house while struggling to write the book....and then his dog got hit and killed by a teenager driving too fast. They had "fun" with that, too.
The nail that sticks up gets hammered down, but the piling on when it comes to those folks is just OTT. And some of the worst of it I see here. It's like the surplus and the minimum wage hike and EITC and all the things WJC did for working families never happened, and we're "better off" now with the deficit that Bush ran up to the moon and Obama is trying to beat back down, no more peace and prosperity, Obama struggling to end Bush's wars of choice, etc. and I still have to come here and listen to the "they're all the same" memes.
They're not all the same. Any Democrat is better than ANY Republican--and I am just amazed at people who don't 'get' that.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)be no further litigation on the Monica ( and I think Paula Jones) litigation. I think it might also have been seen that the Clinton litigation was on private things done --- the Reagan actions were things done covertly by the US government. (To me the Iran/Contra actions were far worse - and GHWB likely avoided prosecution because he was allowed to pardon many people who could - if tried - have led to problems for him.)
I think your numbers prove my point. I don't know the points at which Clinton actually got her $8 million, but it alone - even after taxes - would have paid off the legal bills. They had about $350,000 of income just from salaries. Add in Bill Clinton's speaking fees in that first year - and I think they would have had no financial problems.
Bill Clinton's book was out in July 2004 - because every good Democrat wanted the topic of conversation for at least a month before the Democratic convention being that Lewinski was "because I could." (Unfortunately much of June 2004 was lost to hagiographies of Reagan who died.)
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Of course that counts as dead broke.
Sure...
Lets have her be in charge of rebuilding the middle class. That should work.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)“We had no money when we got there and we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses, for Chelsea’s education. You know, it was not easy.”
cali
(114,904 posts)really quite extraordinary.
frylock
(34,825 posts)those poor, poor people.
progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)Because the Hillary-haters were so deranged in their hate for her. The Clinton's paid their own legal fees for the shit that the RW threw at them.
Hillary Clinton is a smart person, she is not trying to claim that she knows what it's like to live on food stamps. She was telling the truth... the office of President doesn't really pay much in comparison to a CEO, or even the Congress who seem to be able to find so many side ways to gain $$$.
The Hillary Clinton haters were just disgusting, as were the President Obama haters. I was not a fan of Obama's at first, because I supported Hillary. Then I grew the hell up once he was the nominee, and learned about the person that was denigrated here all the time.
After shoveling through the crap here on DU at that time, I came to recognize who the haters were, and what their real story was. And I see they persist. Good luck with that... Here's the thing, the uber left wing candidate some of you pine for, will never get elected you simply need so many mainstream Democratic voters AND republican crossovers to win. As for the others with irrational hate for the President and Hillary Clinton, eventually your paycheck will stop coming, and you won't need to hang around DU much longer.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)We just shake our heads mightily at some of the crap she says, like when she votes for meaningless wars, or defends Bill, knowing his history, or when she sucks up to banksters.
And now, she tries to say that she understands what it is to be one of those po' folks, just like the folks who lost good paying jobs and either have no job, or a McJob that is sucking the life out of them, or the folks who got hammered in the real estate collapse, or those whose unemployment benefits ran out, or whose food stamps got cut. You can advocate for the poor without trying to pretend that you are one of them.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)The crap one reads here rivals anything posted on any RW site. They don't want to admit it, but hate it is.
I would like them to point to one single positive article on either Clinton where they haven't rushed to piss on it.
Well, I got news for them.This is NOT 2008 and if she chooses to run, there'll be millions of us fighting for her.
madinmaryland
(64,931 posts)Rmoney - Born on third base and thought he hit a triple.
George HW Bush - Born on third base and thought he hit a triple.
George W Bush - Born on third base and thought he hit a triple.
John McCain - Born on third base and thought he hit a triple.
Fuck them.
Ms. Clinton married a man who had no father and was raised by his mother and stepfather. The men listed above were raised by nannies and other support personnel.
Edited to add: Thank you to the late Ann Richards!
cali
(114,904 posts)Making shit up is contemptible.
madinmaryland
(64,931 posts)betsuni
(25,462 posts)Clinton rich isn't Romney/Bush rich, Clintons don't have inherited wealth. That's why, I guess, the right is going to attack on this. And they'll push the Hillary is a big fat liar thing, too.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... waiting for you, you're not "broke". When you can sign 7-figure advance book deals, you're not broke. Hillary is incredibly out of touch, just as she was during this debate ....
Thanks for the thread Cali.
Blue_Adept
(6,399 posts)But man, this reminds me why I avoided so much of primary season back in 07 and 08. There's a lot of bitterness left in a lot over the years for a whole host of reasons, real and imagined, and it's just going to be even more brutal this time around. Probably best to just trash any thread relating to certain people and primaries/presidential all around.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)to say that matters to those who are looking for money from me. When I'm broke, I eat ramen noodles and potatoes all ways. When I'm broke I ride my bike to work. When I'm broke I beg for a few extra hours at work, when I'm broke the pawn shop and craigslist help me to live leaner, like a minimalist lifestyle without the burden of choosing it. When I'm broke I thank my lucky stars that my mom might let me crash at her place after eviction until I can get back on my feet a bit. When I'm broke I seek payday loans to make it through the week. When I'm broke I visit the once per week St.Joe's soup kitchen and food pantries. When I'm broke I lose all sense of dignity.
And I'm upper class compared to many of the other people I see around when their broke.
What hardship, what indignities does someone like Hillary suffer when their broke? Seriously, somebody answer me that?
AnotherMother4Peace
(4,242 posts)getting close. The election is right around the corner.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)pathetic.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)I heard yours at work today in the next cube over this afternoon on Sean Hannity's show.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)You have to be careful not to give them so much material, and saying 'dead broke' instead of 'underwater' is doing just that. She's got to sharpen it up considerably before she seriously hits the campaign trail in November.
If you want Hillary to be President (and I think it's still inevitable) then you need to be glad for this wake-up call, its far away enough from the Iowa caucuses to not make a ripple of difference to voters, yet it's alarming enough for her staff to really vet everything she says.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)considering her warmongering foreign policy positions unless you are trying to be ironic. 
AnotherMother4Peace
(4,242 posts)1000words
(7,051 posts)
It's already long.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
dflprincess
(28,075 posts)did not make them "dead broke"
Dead broke is the unemployment benefits have run out, there are no jobs that pay a living wage, there's no food in the fridge and the rent (or mortgage) is overdue.
She's a clueless as a Bush. Next she'll be marveling at grocery store scanners.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)until just before they left the White House, when they purchased a home in NY so she could run there, and a place in DC so she could work there. With mortgages.
She's no Mitt Romney.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)most parents with grown children exceedingly well.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)Plus, it had to be a home in an area approved by the Secret Service.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)truck drivers. 50k maybe at the top end 80k per year salary for the well paid ones? She could probably rent. I don't know. Life on a budget makes one need to live within their means and make compromises. Such is life. The contractarian Clintons should be well aware of that expectation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act
tularetom
(23,664 posts)And why would they buy not one but two huge homes? That just doesn't make sense.
Either they weren't in debt, or they didn't give the book money to charity, or they knew that there were some significant paydays coming in the near future.
When she say they were "in debt" it isn't like some guy losing his job at age 55 with no prospect of future income. She knew the money would begin rolling in pretty soon.
For her to say something like this is an insult to her listeners.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)and in DC because they spend so much time there.
And I'm guessing she gave the book money to charity so she wouldn't be criticized for making a profit off their time there.
But people will always find a way to criticize.
dflprincess
(28,075 posts)aren't able to rent a one bedroom apartment in a bad neighborhood, but they managed to purchase 2 homes.
Weird how that works.
blue neen
(12,319 posts)D-I-V-I-D-E-A-T-T-E-N-T-I-O-N
Kablooie
(18,625 posts)pnwmom
(108,976 posts)plus grad school for Chelsea, they owed more money than they were worth. They didn't have an expensive house to sell when they left Arkansas (most people's biggest asset), and they didn't own property in D.C.
She's not asking for sympathy from people whose children didn't get a chance at Stanford. She's just being honest.
They aren't in the Mitt Romney class.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Must be nice.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)Another big chunk went to Chelsea's schools.
But why is it that a President like Clinton -- who was only making $35K a year for his lengthy term as Governor -- gets all this criticism for finally making money ?
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 10, 2014, 01:42 PM - Edit history (1)
Good to know you were concerned though. Amazing that my drywaller father was able to send three kids to college prep high schools AND make a house payment on MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH less than the poor Clintons during that time frame.
Edit to add, we did not qualify for financial aid.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)that the top rate after the Clinton increase was almost 40% -- before Social Security and Medicare taxes. That's pretty significant to most people.
I don't know when you and your siblings went to college, or where, but Stanford was very expensive when Chelsea went there and the Clintons, unlike most drywallers, probably didn't qualify for financial aid.
Again, why all the resentment and distortions about the situation of a man who had been making $35K a year for his entire long term as Governor, and when he finally made a substantial salary, supported legislation that would substantially raise his own taxes?
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)that justifies over ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS in speaking fees because "we were broke"?
And I find it funny when people here are speaking of the hardships of a 40% tax rate on incomes over $300,000 (mind you, tax rates are marginal) and little SS would have been paid on those amounts. Sounds a lot like what we hear from the other side of the aisle.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)If they've made that much in speaking fees-- I'll take your word for that -- good for them.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Walton's? Gate's? Buffet?
Sorry, it is bullshit how much presidents make after they leave office. It cheapens the office and leads to us getting the crappy pool of canidates we do cycle after cycle. This is being brought up because it is the first time a spouse of a president that has made over a hundred millions dollars is trying to run for president themself. And it highlights the fucking bullshit spewing forth when these people pretend like they have ANY idea how 80% of the nation lives.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)He's far more aware than you give him credit for.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I don't think the President or First Lady paid for their food or clothing, vehicles, dinners, etc., etc., so that 35K is a whole lot more if you take away the expenses most of the great unwashed have to deal with.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)He made $35,000 over 20 years ago and had ZERO living expenses. So, no, that is a not even in the same fucking ballpark as what most people live through every day.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)as Governor and as President. Presidents and Governors have to reimburse the government for their personal living costs other than housing.
A salary worth $35K twenty years ago would be worth about $59K today, considering inflation. Any graduate of Harvard Law School would have been able to make far more money than that in the corporate world, and he was a top graduate.
From an article on "The Poorest Presidents in History"
http://www.twcc.com/articles/2014/03/11/t/the-poorest-presidents-in-u-s-history
Bill Clinton (1992-2000): Hope, Ark.
William Jefferson Clinton was born to a single mother in the poor, dirt-farm town of Hope, Arkansas. His father, a traveling salesman, died in an auto accident a few months before he was born. After several years in the care of his grandparents, Clinton moved with his mother and new husband to Hot Springs. Clinton says his stepfather, a gambler and a drunk, regularly abused him, his mother and his half-brother. Since leaving the presidency, Clinton has earned millions as an author and public speaker.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/20681/who-pays-obama-familys-food
President Obama may have his own executive chef now, but when his family and personal guests eat what's coming out of the kitchen, he'll have to foot the bill himself. Luckily for him, though, the government picks up the tab if he's having a state function at the White House, which could get pricey since the White House's website touts that its five chefs can crank out dinner for 140 or hors d'oeuvres for over a thousand people.
Does someone really keep track? Apparently, the White House functions like a luxury hotel in this regard. At the end of each month, the president receives a bill for his food and incidental expenses. Nancy Reagan was famously taken aback by this practice when an usher presented her first bill in 1981, saying, "Nobody ever told us the president and his wife are charged for every meal, as well as incidentals like dry cleaning, toothpaste, and other toiletries." (Once they got used to the bills, though, the Reagans loved the White House; President Reagan often joked that all the amenities made it like living in an eight-star hotel.)
The president and his family get to pick what snacks they want, what brand of toothpaste they use, and what menu they want the chef to prepare for them, but it can still get a bit pricier than new commanders in chief expect. In a fascinating article in this month's National Geographic, former White House chief usher Gary Walters said that he couldn't remember any first families not complaining about the high prices of the food. Walters added that Rosalynn Carter was particularly miffed by the high-priced fare, which must have been a bit more expensive than what she'd been getting in Georgia.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Worse yet, they are using the Republican talking points of the day to bash her. Guess who is flogging the same kind of meme? Reince Priebus and the pundits on FOX, that's who.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/10/clinton-says-pair-dead-broke-after-white-house/
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/06/09/republicans-rip-hillary-clintons-dead-broke-comment/
tularetom
(23,664 posts)She lied about being exposed to sniper fire in Bosnia in 1996, and when called on it her explanation was that she "misspoke" because "occasionally" she was "human like everybody else".
Whisp
(24,096 posts)does that make me subhuman?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)What a sad story.
Somehow they not only avoided bankruptcy, but they bought two homes.
Financial geniuses, the two of them.
I don't want to be malicious, but really . . . .
Does Hillary have any political sense at all?
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)a gaffe machine.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)She is very intelligent and works hard, but she does not have Bill's grace under fire and affability. She is not a person you would want to have a beer with if you were a man or have lunch with if your were woman.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts) cali
(114,904 posts)
They are working very hard to brand criticism from mainstream Democrats as "Right Wing" BS.
Several have attempted it in this thread.
The funny thing is that they are waaaaaayy further to the conservative Right than I am.
In fact, Hillary is at the very right edge of the Big Business/Chamber of Commerce/Wall Street
wing of the Democratic Party.
leftstreet
(36,106 posts) loyalsister
(13,390 posts)I found the tone deaf premise of her claim of being broke to be stupid and annoying, But, sneaking in a complaint about taxes when Dems have been trying to raise them on the 1% made me angry.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)to bolster social security. Obama wanted to raise the cap, she called that a tax increase on the middle class. Also that 100k plus appears to be at the low end of middle class in her estimation is interesting and speaks to her disconnectedness from actual middle class.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)especially as, when all is said and done, the one thing Clinton actually did right was raise the tax on the wealthy to somewhat reasonable levels.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
CountAllVotes
(20,868 posts)and off she goes again. It sounds like ye olde food bank was right around the corner for them NOT!
What a crock of B.S.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)peasants do. Now stop griping about her inevitability. It's her turn, after all.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Of course, most of them are worth $100m or more.
Gosh what a lovely prospect for 2016.
TeamPooka
(24,221 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)she has ears of tin
TeamPooka
(24,221 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)mom, who do little grocery shopping because she has not the money. She visits food banks and he children provide when they can. She is both broke and poor, and if anyone coming out of the white house with the advantages the Clintons had were to hear about how "broke" she was, she would do what politicians have preached to her kind for years. Work more, cut expenses, live within your means. Be responsible, and don't cry about your lot in life, you were the first lady to a two term president. You with your Wesley and Yale Law and grad education, surely you can find a path out of your circumstances.
It's tone deaf to anyone who matters.
TeamPooka
(24,221 posts)running a general election campaign.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)For an average person, to be dead broke is to fear poverty. To effectively compare the experience of having debt and an impending tuition bill with worrying about losing a house feeding their children illustrates that they live in an entirely different reality.
The Clintons may have had debt, but they also had a pension and opportunities that would have solved the financial problems of most people who are dead broke.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)and the Carlyle Group, now that they have millions they are no longer 'struggling'.
But it does explain Greed, when you can never have enough. Greed and corruption and bribery.
uberblonde
(1,215 posts)When the Clintons left the White House, they didn't even own a home and they had $5 million in legal bills. It doesn't mean they couldn't afford to eat, but yeah, for all practical purposes, they were broke.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)would have been the practical manifestation of broke. Maybe selling a home, or taking a second part time job might have been brokeness realized. I don't believe for a second they felt the marriage stressing, dignity robbing feeling of being broke . . . of being broken. No, they are well healed. I think they will never truly taste broke.
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,833 posts)I've been broke. Never been poor.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)It is agonizing to see people in such pain over Hillary's financially problems. Why in hell would anyone want the presidential job, anyway, when it involves being stabbed time and time again with barbs and pitchforks.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Stab middle class Americans in the back, including seeing that NAFTA was passed, promoting Monsanto, and also getting rid of Glass Steagal, well, you can't be surprised if a few barbs come back your way...
AzDar
(14,023 posts)
navarth
(5,927 posts)It really bugs me that I might have to vote for her just to keep somebody worse from getting elected. I am DOG tired of these kinds of choices.
AllTooEasy
(1,260 posts)The middle class was NEVER better! Or do you give Reagan-Bush credit for the economic prosperity of the Clinton years. I remember those years well. I could walk into a Fortune 500 company and TELL THEM what it would take for them to employ me. Ah man, America was a land of milk and honey. Then W happened and everything went to shit.
...but I guess that was Clinton's fault too.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)the middle class, or at least the part of the middle class that was tied into the tech bubble, that part of the economy all went smoothly.
And meanwhile, Clinton also made sure that the government was operating at surplus levels, rather than debit levels, as we have done ever since Sept 11 2001.
However, the secret coding that was deep inside the Banking Modernization and Reform Act, and that Clinton signed onto, enabing it to become the law of the land, that was a ticking time bomb. One that went off in Autumn of 2008.
For inside that Act was a provision that gutted the Glass Steagal Act.
And that allowed the economic bubble that started right around that time, and that took Trillions of dollars out of the worth of most Americans once it collapsed..
Then it was decided by both Republican and Democratic leadership to bailout the fuckers that had done this. So another 15 to 16 trillions of dollars of indebtedness ahs been incurred, which will be offset in part by the looting of the 2.1+ Trillion dollar surplus over at Social Security.
AllTooEasy
(1,260 posts)I think you are ignoring 8 years of Bush's economic mismanagement to come to that conclusion! Clinton wasn't infallible, but W compounded every perceive evil by Clinton.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)It had a lot more to do with the playground for the financial industry that was created by the Banking Reform and Modernization Act designed by Phil Graham but supported by every Banking Controlled and Whoredom Member Politician out there, including Mr Clinton.
Only one guldarn Senator out of the One Hundred voted against it - a Senator Dorgan from Nebraska.
He was widely interviewed at the time, and he pointed out continually that once Glass Steagal protections were taken out of the system, our Wall Street machinations would go back to resembling a gambling casino, and would result in economic catastrophe.
And right around eight years later that is what happened.
Here is a rather recent Bill Moyers interview with former Senator Dorgan:
AllTooEasy
(1,260 posts)I don't accept the argument that Bush's presidency was inconsequential, that a Gore presidency would have produced the same thing. The Iraq War costed us a trillion, Bush provided more deregulation, he cut revenue, whipped out surplus, relentlessly faught against protectionist policies that secured American jobs from going overseas, and he had the economic policies of Adam Smith. I expect a president to act when things look rough, but W compounded Conservative Economic stupidity with more Consevative economic stupidty, because that's how he and his supporting cast was brainwashed.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)If he had gotten in, Nine Eleven would still have happened, and the Secret Cabal that really runs things would have been able to make it clear to him to go into Iraq.
And don't forget, it may be that Bush and his people lied in order to get people in Congress to vote for the Iraqi War Resolution, but how is it that us activists knew we shouldn't go into that war, but a super majority of those SOB's in Congress voted for the IWR? Except for some very brave souls like Barbara Lee, Dennis Kucinich, and Cynthia McKinney, and they received death threats for not doing their "patriotic duty."
AllTooEasy
(1,260 posts)9-11 may have happened, but there's also a possibility that it may not have happened. I believe that Bush's incompetence opened the door for 9-11. Why didn't it happened during Clinton's presidency? Why not during Obama's? I don't give Bush a pass by putting the blame on some secret Cabal. Why did this cabal wait for Bush to become president, and not give the order during Clinton's 8 years? Numerous newscasters, not associated with Fox, demonstrated Bush's hard-on for Iraq's invasion prior to 9-11. In fact, Bush's administration personally assigned more CIA in Iraq than Afghanistan PRIOR TO 9-11. What for?
I could go on, but I just not as willing to give Bush a pass.
frylock
(34,825 posts)YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)joshcryer
(62,269 posts)No question she is purposefully raising this topic now, and not a year and a half from now, when her campaign begins.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Making tone-deaf statements like that does the Democratic party no good.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)But the left or the Libertarians can. So she brings it up now and it becomes a non-issue a year and a half from now. It's brilliant.
Note: I think her response is bullshit. I think it's grotesque. Who cares if you were in debt, you're making 10x what the average American makes. It's stupid, out of touch. But because it's a year and a half away from the actual campaign, I think she gets away with it.
djean111
(14,255 posts)has money, anyway, and when a wealthy person says they were "dead broke", that is how it will be sold.
Thanks to youtube, this remark will be used for quite a while.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)The GOP runs on this "anyone can be rich" ideal. They can't run against the Clinton's wealth. It would backfire so badly.
It remains a fact that the Clinton's were poorer than the Obama's. And the Clinton's will be sure to point that out. The Clinton's, in fact, are probably the last of the lower middle class to approach politics in modern times. It's a losing approach for the GOP. Libertarians and the far left will try to make up some false narrative, but it won't work.
djean111
(14,255 posts)And, again, the GOP is really really offended by rich Democrats. The stupid thing they fling about Gore is that he is rich. George Soros offends them. I saw a cartoon about a war-painted Elizabeth Warren saying the deck was stacked against most Americans, something like that - and the GOP rejoinder was to list Warren's house value and salary and such and say she was a hypocrite. I explained to my grandson that this was an ad hominem attack and that what Warren said was correct no matter how much personal wealth she had. But this works well for the GOP.
For me, Hillary has too much baggage, and then there is the TPP. I just think what she said was ill-considered, and does not bode well for campaigning.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)The left won't give two shits about this in a year and a half.
I agree what she said was stupid, if ignorant, especially grotesque, but I think she's thinking long term. Get it out now, know one gives a shit a year and a half from now. If anything I'm pissed off she is now not going to decide to run this year. She said she would. Now she's extending it. It's showing that she's just going to avoid any sort of real, running scrutiny, as long as possible. So this issue is going to die, in a few weeks time, at most.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Plus, ANY criticism of Hillary will be branded as Right Wing nasty talk.
By not announcing whether she will run, she is effectively tying up everyone else who wants to run, because the Big Money won't "invest" until they know what is going to happen. Hillary is a great investment for Wall Street; Warren, of course and for example, is not. So a lot of the big money will stay in those deep pockets until Hillary shits or gets off the pot.
And, I have been told, the onliest thing of any importance whatsoever in today's "democracy" is money and winning with that money and being obligated to the money when/if elected. Which renders campaign rhetoric as blather and not to be taken seriously.
I do think that there is about as much enthusiasm for Hillary, at DU, as there is ever going to be - and the thing to be counted on is lesser evil, and voting just because of the "D" on the shirt.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)Hate it when the right attacks the left from the left.
djean111
(14,255 posts)very well.
Hate it when the centrists attack the left as if the left was the right. 
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)If you use their talking points what does it help?
Clinton was wise to air this out now. I don't see DUers trashing Alan Grayson despite he being a 1%er. It's bullshit, but what can you do?
djean111
(14,255 posts)What Hillary said deserves push-back. I am not going to be okay with something merely because the Right is against it.
That's called mindless lockstep, and we laugh at the GOP for it.
Pretty soon, what the candidates do or say won't matter in the least, I suppose - just vote for who we are presented with and shut up seems to be the new Democrat Way.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)I'm not going to be played.
djean111
(14,255 posts)She was. And that does not help the Democratic party one damned bit.
It would be 'being played" to just cheer whatever Hillary says or does on.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)I don't, I think she flubbed, but on purpose. Get it out of the way because it would be brought up invariably. Better to focus on the debts than the riches.
djean111
(14,255 posts)So Hillary is playing eleventy-dimensional chess, eh? Time will tell.
And I assume that anyone at DU who favors another primary candidate over Hillary because of, say, the TPP is also a Rightie. Interesting tactic. Will piss off more people than you think, I believe. Time will tell.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)So she talks about being broke, IRL, in her book. Big deal. The Clintons were broke for some 6 months. they had to have Mcauliffe bail them out. Big deal. Whoops, the MSM is all chastising her about being broke. Whoops, the left wing and the far right wing chastises her about being rich and her being "broke" as a non-issue. Bah, ha, mawh. She wins. Not running for months not if not a year or a year and a half. She just made the right wing "tone deaf" narrative irrelevant.
Clinton wins.
Time will definitely tell. Feel free to bookmark.
djean111
(14,255 posts)ya know. The Hillary people are just succeeding in putting people off. Might want to re-think that.
Oh, and yeah, Grayson has baggage.
But he is sincere in wanting to help Americans, I believe.
I do not believe Hillary feels the same way. She is corporate, Grayson is not. And she was out-speechified the last time she was "inevitable".
All the sparkly or threatening or smearing spin won't change that.
Over and out.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)That's all. We'll see if Clinton's wealth is an issue 2 years out. It won't be. It'll be vague, as much as Grayson's. If not more so, since her wealth was book deals and talks, while Grayson made money in ponzi schemes which he was lucky enough to distance himself from. Though, in a true lack of transparency, he lamented that his name was announced in a lawsuit...
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)You are one of them. Time will tell, indeed.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Not a lot of voters want to hear woe-is-my-wallet tales from career politicians.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)A year and a half from now, no one cares. Clinton knows this is an issue that is not positive. So she raises it early to stem the long term hit from it. Again, as I said to the other poster, it is grotesque, I think she should say she's wrong for accepting the money and that she will choose to use it for good or some shit, but she won't. So it's just a strategic thing. And it's going to work. See you in two years.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Has to be.
cali
(114,904 posts)
MFM008
(19,805 posts)they were trying to raise money for the Library, for the lawyers because of WhiteWater and alll that crap. I believe her, I also ordered her book to read it myself.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)....during the attempted Republican coup d'etat and the abuse of power of Ken Starr.
I suspect a lot of "Well, this isn't the worst thing in the world" and "Let's just let the chips fall where they may" type posts.
cali
(114,904 posts)the reaction here would have been precisely the same as it is over Benghazi- a united front. that's so obvious it's ridiculous.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 10, 2014, 10:20 AM - Edit history (3)
Similar to the way I'm not terribly critical of the president over at Discussionist or Facebook or in the company of my low info mother or racist stepfather and ignorant brothers. I'm usually defending him from attack.
This place here is where we keep ours in check. I truly believe that any BOG-like acquiescence to any sense of infallibility of our candidates and our politicians that takes place here is a bad thing. Any diversion from our principles and ideals should be rebuked harshly here so that we can maintain our moral rudder by virtue of the fact that our candidates do walk the walk. We don't tolerate bad behavior from our candidate, therefore our candidate is worthy of a higher level of trust than the puke candidate.
They live in a happy fiction. Their party has evolved into an echo-chamber of uselessness and it has not gone unnoticed. When they present a united front while repeating pre-scripted Lunz talking points, it might slide by a few voters who aren't paying attention, but I seriously believe it hurts their party in the long run. That's why when I am in the presence of other democrats I am comfortable to rail the loudest against deviations from what makes democrats better.
Again, the ODS or whatever the fuck cutesy name you want to put on it when democrats express disgust over NSA overreach, droning, gitmo, etc. that you find here in the company of democrats is, in my mind not much brought up in mixed company or in places where the general public that composes the mushy middle voting block live. I wish people would understand that. We're not torpedoing our party when we call them to task in the confines of our home for their transgressions. Instead I see it as maintaining integrity.
Also, I feel as though we know once they are the candidate, for we know for whom we need to cast our vote.
Also, it's pretty easy to avoid criticism. Do you find much criticism if the populist-progressive wing of the party here? No. Warren and Sanders are pretty much lionized because they act with integrity and with the courage of their progressive convictions. The recipe is simple. Work for the people. Remain humble. Don't feign poverty when dining at a 10k per plate fundraiser while being served by $2.35 per hour waitstaff and you're usually going to be alright.
Also, if my friend or coworker has a booger on his nose or has parsley in his teeth, I'm going to tell him until he gets the message. (Get the shit out of your teeth lest you'll look like an unkempt slob)(fix your bad behavior because you sound like an idiot right now).
djean111
(14,255 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)critique is important. Then all people see is the critique and we end up with democrats calling democrats tea-party operatives. Communication is totally broken at that point and we become useless bickerers each convinced of his own superiority without consideration of the other.
So thanks for recognizing and approving of my post.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)As if Whitewater had been about Lewinsky, when it was not. It's sad to see that these are supposed to be fellow Democrats, but they repeat the Republican talking points to a T.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I rarely agree with you (and quite a few other people down thread that also agreed with you). Our party would be making a mistake if she is the nominee.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)While true, it is something that doesn't need to be said. 1%ers problems are different.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/09/alan-grayson-investment-fraud_n_4414872.html
They just keep making more and the income gap keeps expanding.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)Their kind of broke is more mental and less about cash. They had millions but not MILLIONS.
Right - Left, in between, if you are rich, you see things entirely different than everyone else.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Out will come Bill, aka "minister of slapin stuff" and feel our pain. Hillary may have many talents, but if it was not for Bill pouring honey over everything, she would not be half as well liked.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"sob. my heart breaks for the poor dear..."
I imagine people who are subsistence farmers in the sub-Sahara feel the same way about you and I...
DearAbby
(12,461 posts)I can tell you from my experience. Being called a Moocher and a Leech is far more insulting than Hillary saying she was "dead broke."
You know, I laugh with disdain at the Republican's sudden concern for the how the poor would feel. And the media just jumps on...have they asked?
snooper2
(30,151 posts)LOL
I know people love her and are DYING for her to be the first woman president, but there are OTHER woman out there LOL....
Beacool
(30,247 posts)LOL
Well, yes people love her and want her to be president. Too bad that a) the "other woman" does not want to run and b) she polls in single digits.
CrispyQ
(36,457 posts)I'm not feeling sympathetic for someone who commands $200k in speaking fees & has earned $5 mil since stepping down from SOS.
Clinton-broke is not the same as middle-class-broke.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)
Iggo
(47,549 posts)
karynnj
(59,501 posts)I am certain that the Clintons had huge legal bills. They had to fight a huge number of things in court due to the many RW charges. They actually raised money to cover some of the bills incurred by people around them who became collateral damage. I would not be surprised that - at the moment they left the WH they owed more than their assets.
However Hillary got an advance of $8 million for her book that was written while she was Senator. Bill Clinton then got an advance of $15 million for his. I assume that $24 million was far more than there bills - and she already was a Senator when they left the WH . So, there was likely never a point where they really came close to actually having any consequences of being broke. Consider that they immediately bought two expensive homes.
Here, the problem really is that she is going to far to defend something that is not illegal. Why not just say that they know that they and their foundation have a bigger impact if it has the money behind it to do the kinds of things that their values say need doing. Elections take money too.
The problem is that anyone who ever faced real financial problems will know that the Clintons were not even close to having to deal with "being broke". At that point, they both had annual compensation which they deserved and which placed them as a couple in the top 1% - though not .01%. Imagine the reaction if Kerry had spoken of the years he genuinely could not afford homes in both MA and DC. Though true, it was also true (as we saw this week) that his grandparents had a large estate in Brittany France that he and his cousins visited in summers and that the extended Forbes family had estates as well. For him to do anything other than say he was very fortunate would have backfired because even if on paper he personally had few assets at points, he never faced the real problems that people who are really broke face.
It is true that the Clintons really did make far less than most of their peers in the years that Clinton was a governor in Arkansas. This was a sacrifice. However, the same could be said for any high powered individual who chooses public service over working for a corporation. (Look at John Edwards, who made millions as a trial lawyer - Bill Clinton could easily have done the same.)
No one wants a former President to live with money problems. However, that was never a threat. That is why they get $200,000 a year. Not to mention the money from writing books.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Hillary Clinton on Tuesday tried to clear up the fallout from a comment she made about her family being “dead broke” after leaving the White House in 2001 – a remark that opened her up to charges of being out of touch with ordinary Americans.
“Let me just clarify that I fully appreciate how hard life is for so many Americans today,” the former secretary of state said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” She said she and husband Bill Clinton were “obviously blessed” but it was “just a reality what we faced when he got out of the White House meant that we just had to keep working really hard.” She said she recalled being about $12 million in debt.
Story and video of her comments: http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/06/10/hillary-clinton-removes-dead-broke-from-her-repertoire/
Whisp
(24,096 posts)and you could be millionaires too, like us! If you are poor, you are not working as hard as we did.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I believe she has a communication problem.
dirtydickcheney
(242 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)The Clinton's left the white house about $10 million in debt, mostly due to the cost of their defense attorneys after 8 years of unfounded and frivolous lawsuits by the radical right wing.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)When Romney was sitting at a table with unemployed fast food workers (I think) when he "joked" around that he too was currently unemployed-so sure that his personal circumstance was relative to them?
Her comments, I'm sorry--sound every bit as out of touch - oblivious, really-and ridiculous to those of us "real mainstreeters" out here as romney did that day.
She needs to "hit the streets" and get to Really Know Who we are and What We are really coping with, imo.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)The majority of the debt was due to legal bills from the witch hunt that was Whitewater. The Republican Party should have been the ones paying those bills. Ditto for their staffers' bills.
Of course they had the potential to make a lot of money after they left the WH, but she is not wrong in stating that they were broke when they left it. Terry McAuliffe had to co-sign their mortgage for the house in Chappaqua and lent them part of the down payment.
They have obviously made a lot of money since then and she has said so.
cali
(114,904 posts)it didn't have to happen. Here let me show you:
"When we left the WH we had significant debts. Both Bill and I recognized that we had to meet those legal obligations and we both felt it was better to stay independent and make speeches than to connect ourselves to any business entity or entities".
Gee, that was tough.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Thanks for your concern.
As if you gave a flying fig about Hillary.......
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Her many amazing examples of foot in mouth is on record.
I don't know what is at the core of her being (my guess is $$$$ and Powa powa powa) but identifying with regular people is obviously not there and so she has to be particularly careful how she comes across and that is certainly hard work, to have to be so careful about what you say opposed to what you really think.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Besides, I don't think that she or her supporters give a f*ck what the Clinton bashers think.
Life is too damn short to worry about the bitters on the Right AND the Left too.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I'm sure you don't want another list of embarassing proof that she is the one that is sometimes so clueless it's mind boggling.
Iggo
(47,549 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)who bash her 24/7, regardless of the issue at hand.
Iggo
(47,549 posts)ieoeja
(9,748 posts)
DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)a young couple from a middle and working class background with advanced degrees, great intelligence and a willingness to work very hard didn't just seek opportunity in the private sector instead of going into public service.
It was just stupid of them as they would have been multi-millionaires by their early 30s and billionaires by their mid-40s and would never need to worry about buying a home near their retirement age .
The assessment on DU seems to be that they should have stayed out of politics because we didn't need them as we could have had the 8 years of Reagan, followed by 8 years instead of 4 for Poppy Bush, followed by 8 years of Cheney and we would be in Bush Jr.'s 2nd term right now. The Clintons just really screwed things up for the Purist Democrats.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Luckily, what they think is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things as they are in the minority. The vast majority of Democrats support and like both Clintons.
Duval
(4,280 posts)I'm from Durham, NC. And a Democrat.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)"I never felt comfortable playing a populist"
Bad faux pas.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Setting aside her little Bosnia fantasy for a moment, what about when she gave John McCain his best soundbite of the 2008 campaign?
Or when she sought the backing of West Virginia voters with this despicable appeal that didn't even qualify as dog whistle?
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Too many here on DU think the same. Treat Bill's lovers like whores and sluts and investigate their sexual history and give Bill the pass. Nice feminisms!
Imagine a husband saying this about his wife.
Beacool
(30,247 posts) RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)I can't believe you are truly that naive.
DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)a family income of $250,000 was middle class. Out of touch. That's what she is.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)DesertDiamond
(1,616 posts)points... I have mixed feelings about that. It's true that the rich are out of touch when it comes to knowing what the word "broke" really means. Some of the kindest, most sincere rich people I know have that mindset, so I don't hold it against her. There are other things about her that I'm not crazy about. I don't know that this one is relevant overall.
Harry Monroe
(2,935 posts)But with that being said, she doesn't have a fucking clue about what being dead broke really means. I hope this isn't the start of a trend with her. Has she been away from us ordinary folks too long? Let's not give right wing assholes any ammo.
azureblue
(2,146 posts)"According to Mother Jones, just before she left the White House as first lady, Hillary was given an $8 million advance for her memoir Living History. The couple had also purchased two homes, one in Washington, D.C., and another in Chappaqua, New York, Time reports. "
Being given an $8mil advance does not equate actually having the money in your account. Do not assume just because she signed a book contract, she got the cash on the spot. And do not assume she was paid the entire amount in a lump. A lot of payouts are incremental to avoid a lump sum tax penalty.
The Clintons needed a residence in DC for professional use (think Bill's Harlem former post presidency office) and a "real" home elsewhere. Both are necessities, not luxuries, and they did not own a house at the end of Bill's term as president. If the diarist is so smart, how about they total up how much it costs to buy and set up a household in DC?
This diary's attempt to smear Ms. Clinton with a broad brush is typical of the pathetic attacks on Hillary. Just crap flung in all directions, in hopes to discredit her somehow. My heart breaks for the writer of the diary, to think that someone would stoop so low to write something that is laughable stupid. . You don't like her? Then grow the eff up and write something about her professional experience with links to facts and show how that will influence her presidency.
Tommy2Tone
(1,307 posts)Instead of trashing Hillary.
EEO
(1,620 posts)eilen
(4,950 posts)she was in my art class. She was a wealthy corporate wife-- spouse worked for Lockheed Martin and they traveled quite a bit as he would have to go to say Israel for a year and then Austrailia and the somewhere else etc. Anyway, they were here for an undetermined amount of time and her role was always to secure housing, transportation (cars) etc. Some friends of theirs asked them to house sit. So they had some rent-free living space while she looked for homes or home plans.. Note, they had no kids, had family who lived in the area etc. She described herself as "essentially homeless." I describe her as "essentially tone deaf".
antigop
(12,778 posts)strange7
(16 posts)does that mean , only a few million in the bank?
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)nose got longer, and her pants are on fire!
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)and how hard they work ...entitlement ...who's turn it is ...struggling to pay the bills and for the "houseS". Hey If I only made $100,000 a year I'd be declaring bankruptcy ...so they are doing better than me ...right? Mean while I'll see what I can do about working up some crocodile tears over their problems.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
- I don't see how that helps, but okay Hils, I'll take your word for it.....
K&R
maggiesfarmer
(297 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)seems better. HER job. She should not have said that. Trying to put Dems in a corner where they need to defend whatever a candidate says merely because the Right doesn't like what a candidate says is ridiculous.
Looks like there is a plan to try and make it so Hillary doesn't need to run in a primary, methinks. Very interesting indeed.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Lots of crying on this thread that poor Bill - never made much money while Governor. I point out that his wife had a very nice income, thank you very much, as a full time lawyer/partner AND as a Asst. Professor of Law.
August 1974 - Moves to Arkansas to teach at the University of Arkansas School of Law.
1974-1977 - Director of Legal Aid Clinic at the University of Arkansas School of Law.
1974-1977 and 1979-1980 - Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Arkansas School of Law.
1976-1992 - Attorney at Rose Law Firm, Little Rock, Arkansas. Is named partner in 1979.
1978 - Bill Clinton is elected governor of Arkansas. She continues to work at Rose Law Firm, making her the first First Lady of Arkansas to continue working while her husband is governor.
In all those 18 years in Arkansas, she had a very comfortable income, and for most of those years they were living free -no rent, homeowners insurance, utilities, property taxes - you'd think they'd have socked away a very nice nest egg with which to buy a very comfortable home upon leaving the White House. If only they hadn't lost $68,000 on the Whitewater wheelings and dealings.
Whitewater has come to encompass many issues and controversies. But it began with a failed real estate venture that Bill and Hillary Clinton entered into with their friends Jim and Susan McDougal in 1979 -- 42 lots along the scenic Whitewater river in norther Arkansas. whitwater
Sales were dismal, and in 1992, the Clintons sold their remaining interest in Whitewater to McDougal for $1,000. Arkansas business practices have historically been notoriously murky, however, and how the Clintons had managed their unfortunate investment was scrutinized briefly by a New York Times reporter who suggested the Clintons might have taken improper tax deductions, and that their losses might have been heavily subsidized by the McDougals. The Clinton campaign managed to quell the controversy quickly by showing the couple had lost $68,000 on the deal.
http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/infocus/whitewater/introduction.html
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)When the child support check was 2 weeks late? That kind of broke, Hill?
Yeah, those were the days, right, Sister? Like when Chelsea never even asked you for money for a class ring or a yearbook because she knew you didn't have the money and she didn't want to make you feel bad. Was it that kind of broke? Testify! Hillary!
Could she be any more out of touch?
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)More likely it's somewhat closer to 'We were so broke, our income fell to a level where we were in danger of almost having to pay income tax'.......'ALMOST'.
-or-
'We were so broke, we even contemplated repatriating some sheltered funds' kind of broke.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)let the misogynists kitty claws come out. Next you know she will be painting selfies about her showering habits.
cali
(114,904 posts)area where I applaud her.
I know what you should do with your claim of misogyny.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)All those years when he was governor and she was a partner in a law firm, she was bringing in more money than he was. The clinical psychological term is "enabling".
maggiesfarmer
(297 posts)I know that's how it's being popularly used, but tone deafness refers to an inability to discern tones in what you hear. It does not refer to an inability to state a message tuned for the intended audience, which is what we have here. The colloquialism associated with that behavior is "putting one's foot in one's mouth", admittedly not one of my favorites. Nevertheless, I advocate we strive to not adopt "tone deaf" in this context.
another tangent: other message boards I participate on accept keystrokes for formatting text, but no matter how many times I hit <CNTL> I, the selected text still doesn't change to italic.
Amaya
(4,560 posts)Try going to bed hungry or sleeping in your car! Completely out of touch fool.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)
Crabby Appleton
(5,231 posts)plus benefits. Chump change by 1%er standards, but a decent income for most people.
