n/t

Maybe you were one of the gullible ones who fell for the bait.

They pay the regular tax rate on their earnings. Shysters in the financial class such as Romney get all types of loopholes.

Why?

And that is true. The Clintons are really really rich, but they might not be WEALTHY.

The tone deafness is that she does not know how bad it is down here and that such a difference not only means nothing to us, but it that it is offensively insensitive to bring up.

It's like a rich person dining at a 3 Michelin star restaurant complaining that the duck confits needs a bit more basting and there were less black truffles than the last time -in front of a crowd on a soup line.

Yes, the duck could have been basted a bit more and the truffles were a bit sparse, but well..

I believe she doesn't use her wealth to the extent others might in her place, and having $50 million to throw around isn't really seen as an issue to her, the difference between $1 million a year and $10 million a year, if you don't have an extravagant lifestyle, is pretty much nil. In this vein I think she really is out of touch.

Of course, there was Chelsea's wedding which was $3 million dollars. That's the biggest expense I can think of, and when you think about it, if you're living in that Washington environment, that probably didn't even trigger an event for Hillary. "It was a nice wedding" as opposed to "how the hell are we going to afford this wedding bill payment for the next 10 years?" (Like most people would have to deal with if they had a really extravagant wedding.)

Someone needs to have a sit down with her and get her to realize just how rich she is. Chappelle joked on David Letterman that the difference between $10 million and $50 million was "$40 whole million dollars." But the truth leading up to the joke was that he was at a restaurant with his wife and a guy across the room had $100 million dollars and they were eating the same thing. There's no real difference. It's just. Insane.

And I think, honestly, sincerely, Hillary Clinton does not get this difference, she doesn't grasp it on a real level. It's not like she's calculating and trying to make herself out to be a regular hard working person. I think she believes it. It was because of the "broke" statement, she failed to realize that while they were $12 million in debt in 2000 they were like $5 million in the net the next damn year (book deals, speech engagements). And it only went up from there. What the fuck Clinton? What the fuck?

I hope Bill talks to her one on one about this. He'd never make this mistake. Say what you want about him he is a great speaker.

And he is a great speaker because he is still in touch with the part of him that understands what it is to be a regular guy. I think it probably never really left him completely.

It's that way for some people.

He has a magnetism about him, and a folksiness, that is unreal.

BeyondGeography (23,717 posts)

56. You are right...bullshit thread head

or story headline, whichever it us. The quote makes it clear she fully recognizes they are truly well off.

I see her faults, but the Hillary Derangement Syndrome here is real

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5135361

"They don't see me as part of the problem." Because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we've done it through dint of hard work."

The "truly" can make it seem as though she is contrasting their status with her own, but it doesn't have to be. It can be an intensifier.

If she'd said "unlike some people who are well off" or "unlike some people who are very well off," I don't think many would think she wasn't including herself--it would simply comparing her tax payment to others who, like herself, are well off.

If she'd said "really" well off, it would be a bit more ambiguous, since really can mean "very" or it can mean "actually (in contrast to this other entity which is not actually)."

Truly, like really can mean either one (but it's more common as a indicator of contrast, so many people will reasonably read the quote as you have).

...too bad she didn't word it differently. For example, she could have said, "unlike others who are well off" -- and there would have been no issue at all.

Sadly, by using the phrase "truly well off" she implied that her family is not "truly" well off, and that makes most of us just roll our eyes. They're in a pretty rarefied space, financially speaking, and her statement shows a lack of sensitivity -- or at least a tin ear, politically speaking.

Her tone deafness comes in here most clearly.

Yes, there is a difference. The tone part is that she doesn't understand that 90% of the US is facing so much hardship that that difference means NOTHING.

It shows quite clearly that she does not really "get it".

Exactly what part of "truly well off" is that not?

...no argument here.

As others have pointed out, however, there are still different degrees of well-off. Apparently, when one is in those rarefied circles, one is acutely aware of those who have even more. IOW, if I have $10M, I'll be looking longingly to the lifestyles of those who have $100M. If I have $100M, I'll be wishing that I could be a billionaire. After all, a million bucks ain't what it used to be, and being a mere millionaire or multi-millionaire just doesn't have the same cachet it used to have.

Neither of them would recognize hard work if it bit them in the ass.

taking responsibility for running an office, writing a book, running a household etc.

are accusing DU'ers of something... something they do all the time re: Hillary

It seems pretty clear to me that "unlike a lot of people who are truly well off" could be read as either "unlike a lot of (other) people who are (also) truly well off" or as "unlike a lot of people who are truly well off."

I think at her economic level, she sees that there is RICH and there is WEALTHY.

She wants to say that she is not like THEM (the truly wealthy) but she fails to see that such a distinction means nothing to us on the killing floor.

made a natural path to derision.



Have to accept that she does not do well with words. She seems to need an English translator.

that can't be reconciled with your posts.

try to prove their intelligence and knowledge in all aspects of politics.

not like her for things she's actually said (or done, or failed to do) than for words that were twisted or not actually hers.

Not a surprise. Same old, same old......

then yes you are broke. She never said that they weren't able to make money once they left the WH.

if she run and becomes the nominee are you staying home or voting for her?

the wealth which she and Bill have accumulated since having left office.

Nobody is fooled. It appears that both are part of this revolving door that goes on between Wall Street and Washington DC - go easy on us when you are running regulatory agencies, and we will reward you with a highly paid Mickey Mouse job when you finish with your public service.

A crusader for the middle class, U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren's personal finances were bound to come under scrutiny. Warren raised eyebrows Thursday when she said she isn't a wealthy individual who owns a lot of stock.

"I realize there are some wealthy individuals -- I'm not one of them -- but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios," Warren, a Harvard professor, told MSNBC.

Warren was making a point that members of Congress either shouldn't own stocks, or should put them in a blind trust so that they are not drafting laws that benefit their own investments. But the financial disclosure report Warren filed last month shows that by most people's standards, she's pretty well off.

Warren earned more than $700,000 from Harvard, book royalties and consulting fees, and lives in a $5 million house, the report shows. She has multiple mutual funds and stock in IBM, the sole individual stock she owns. The total portfolio is worth nearly $8 million.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/elizabeth-warren-wealth-income_n_1237607.html

In 2011 her net worth was $14.5M.

When someone knocks your champion on the merits, it's not difficult to accept the flaws, account for them on balance, and move on.

I guess that's that.

Many of our Congress-critters think they are doing us all a huge favor by doing their jobs for a paltry $174,000 a year.

So????? The Roosevelts, Kennedys, Bushes, Kerry, Romney, etc., make the Clintons look like paupers.

What she meant is that they actually pay taxes, as opposed to others....cough, cough, Romney....who hide their assets in overseas accounts. Although she didn't say it, they also tithe 10% of their income in charitable donations. The Clintons were the poorest presidential couple since the Trumans.

Both the Left and the Right are a bunch of hypocrites. I don't see any bellyaching from the Left about the Roosevelts or Kennedys' money. I also don't see any complaints from the Right about the wealth of most of their past nominees.

"Clinton was born with no inheritance, and he made little significant money during 20 plus years of public service. After his time in White House, however, he made a substantial income as an author and public speaker. Clinton received large advance from autobiography. His wife, the secretary of state, has also made money as author."

http://www.businessinsider.com/american-presidents-republican-candidates-net-worth-2012-1?op=1

Everyone needs to remember FDR, JFK and many other liberal icons were (and are) wealthy.

Facts be damned.

Good post.

Sid

their words into anything they could possibly mean when taken out of context and spun in a certain way. Eh. Don’t complain when more and more politicians only respond with well researched sound bites that have been reviewed by 75 people.

She does not consider herself wealthy. There is no need to defend her comment, and no need to spin it. Her choice of words were not the best.

What a relief that I won't see her on the onramps with a sign saying "I'm Not Truly Well Off, Will Work for $400,000"

Thus trying to push her wealth off as being the result of her piety, I guess. God rewards the just.

Except, of course, that in general, the rewards supposedly handed out by God are supposed to accrue in the next life, not in this one.

Her wealth is a result of structural privilege. As a former President and former First Lady, the Clintons have all sorts of wealth-generating privileges that simply will never apply to 99.9999999% of Americans.

To pass that off as simply 'a blessing' is disingenuous at best, and more likely pandering to the religious. She's too intelligent to be ignorant of the reality of why she's wealthy.