General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary Clinton Says She Isn't 'Truly Well Off' Saturday Guardian news
In an interview with the Guardian newspaper published Saturday night by suggesting Americans won't be concerned about the more than $100 million her family has reportedly earned in recent years because they're not "truly well off."
"They don't see me as part of the problem," Clinton said of Americans who are upset about income inequality, adding, "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."
Clinton earned an $8 million advance for her 2003 book "Living History" and her publisher is rumored to have paid "significantly more" for "Hard Choices." Additionally, Clinton reportedly earns $200,000 in speaking fees each time she makes a speech. Bill Clinton has reportedly made over $100 million in speaking fees since leaving office.
Earlier this month, Clinton caused controversy when she said she and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, were "dead broke" when he left the White House in 2000 and subsequently "struggled" to buy homes and pay for their daughter, Chelsea's, education. Chelsea Clinton's wealth also made headlines earlier this month after Politico reported she earned a $600,000 salary as a "special correspondent" for NBC News, a sum Business Insider noted seems to amount to $26,724 for each minute she was on air.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-says-she-isnt-truly-well-off-2014-6#ixzz35NnGRmgD
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/22/-sp-hillary-clinton-interview-will-she-run-for-president-2016
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)No, Hillary. The purchased politicians who implement the planned rigging of this country are a huge part of the problem.
Laughing Mirror
(4,185 posts)It's all the same ruling class patter anyway. They tend to talk alike.
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)Laughing Mirror
(4,185 posts)or in Clinton's case, bursts of laughter, revealing her and their true contempt for the people.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)forever. she needs to shut the hell up. honesty, I could scream.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)I so wish she hadn't said this.
There are plenty of very hard-working - often well-educated - people out there who struggle every day to cover their basic needs. This statement betrays an awesome lack of connection with the average person.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)but they are music to the ears of her target constituency.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)They are very wealthy, but think that they are struggling. When the big crash hit in 2008, we were at a party together and they were wailing and gnashing their teeth. The object of their misery was the fact that the downturn in the real estate market meant that they would have to give up one of their two vacation homes if they wanted to keep their cabin on Mt. Hood.
Oh, the poor things.
Hillary is speaking to these people, the ones who see inconvenience as tragedy.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Sissyk
(12,665 posts)Reminds me of my grandfather. That's what he called cursing. lol! Well, except for ass. He used that, too.
He used to tell my brother that he looked like he had swapped legs with a killdeer (he pronounced it killdee) and got cheated out of his ass.
Paladin
(28,276 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,234 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)She seems to be masterful at providing sound bites for the opposition.
Also seems transcendentally and monumentally and extravagantly clueless.
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)Fucking waste of time. Just compare campaign chests and declare the winner in lights, in Times Square.
Followed by a list of "Brought to you by...." and the big money contributors.
Then hand the money over to the media or whatever, and they can all go on luxury vacations or something.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)deutsey
(20,166 posts)to make Hillary more likable to working people by having her paint herself as one of us...someone who, as someone she knows quite well once famously said, "feels our pain".
If so, they really need to rethink that strategy because it's not working.
djean111
(14,255 posts)And anyone who thinks the general public is going to parse her words in order to make her words seem less clueless - hope they are not campaign managers.
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)Beacool
(30,253 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)It just gets worse and worse.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Poor Clintons, they werk so hard, not like the 99% lazy slackers who deserve poverty and insecurity - is what she is saying.
Keep them coming, Hillary. You are a great stand up comic.
dsc
(52,166 posts)Let's start with Bill who was the poor son of a single mom and worked fucking hard for scholarships to Yale and then to Oxford. He then became the longest serving governor of Arkansas and worked hard again to become President. Hillary graduated valedictorian of Welsey and then became the only female partner of her law firm, then the first female Senator from New York, and Secreatary of State but no neither of them worked a day in their lives.
tea and oranges
(396 posts)Right up until they became powerful & privileged.
It's true they left the White House in debt for all the lawyer fees incurred during all the fake scandals the Right manufactured. It's true Hillary had the rep for being a hard-working senator.
However, by the time Bill left the White House, the power couple was in line for extravagant speaking fees, exorbitant book deals, & outrageous sums for Chelsea to do something or other.
That's what's being discussed here, that certain brand of out-of-touchness that only the elite have the ability to experience.
dsc
(52,166 posts)He also left office broke, in his case his investments performed poorly when placed in a blind trust, but he used book writing to get back to being in decent shape financially. Yes, he made less than the Clintons did but he did still make money.
tea and oranges
(396 posts)Somehow, in a country where narcissism is epidemic, he remained true to his roots.
Being "dead broke" means something different to the Clinton's than it does for we proles who know that we won't be getting book or speaking deals. I would remind Clinton that she's running for office & needs the kind of enthusiastic support from people that's hard to get when you behave in a way that allows folks to believe she's entitled & out of touch.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)He was one of the very few truly honest and good people to server as President..
Can you imagine him renting out the Lincoln bedroom to friends? <---- This is what kind of people the Clintons are, and there are many other, tons more, examples of what kind of people they really are.
dsc
(52,166 posts)won his governor's primary by distributing fliers of his opponent congratulating a black basketball team in 1970's Georgia.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)were behind that story. Just saying....
Whisp
(24,096 posts)That is a serious charge, and something I think Carter would not do so if you would provide some backup for that with a credible source/link.
dsc
(52,166 posts)and they got it from a biographer of Carter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter
During his 1970 campaign, Carter ran a vicious Wallacite primary campaign against the more liberal former governor, Carl Sanders. While some would label his Democratic primary campaign as populist in the Democratic tradition (he labeled his opponent "Cufflinks Carl" , Carter's campaign was much worse and was aimed at inciting racial animosity among Whites towards Sanders.
The historian E. Stanley Godbold wrote,
Carter himself was not a segregationist in 1970. But he did say things that the segregationists wanted to hear. He was opposed to busing. He was in favor of private schools. He said that he would invite segregationist governor George Wallace to come to Georgia to give a speech.[25]
Carter's campaign aides handed out a photograph of his opponent Sanders celebrating with black basketball players.[26][27] Following his close victory over Sanders in the primary, Carter was elected governor over the Republican Hal Suit.
lululu
(301 posts)Bill is a cigar chomping pol raking in half a mil or more per speech. Hillary is the female equivalent.
Hillary worked hard as SOS, but was completely incompetent. We would have been better with no SOS.
They spawned a hedge fund type.
Biden 2016. Sanders 2016. Almost any actual Dem 2016.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)mylye2222
(2,992 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)City Lights
(25,171 posts)She really rubs me the wrong way.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Because this and other such moments are like sending a billion dollars to the GOP for use in the next presidential campaign. They will pop up in campaign ads everywhere, and they will still hurt many potential voters acutely.
There are so many people suffering so much that no functional politician can go around saying things like this. There are a number of very good potential Democratic nominees. We should look elsewhere for the next candidate.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)rusty fender
(3,428 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)We better hope that the Rethugs don't nominate a competent politician.
$100m from giving speeches and writing books, and she's a hard worker who isn't "well off"? Clueless
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)The work of us common folk is easy and we are quite lazy, how else can one explain why we don't also have several millions of dollars.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)They struggled like mad not to run Mitt, and he was the most electable they had by far. It's been nothing but clown car for the last two cycles, and it seems to be shaping up for clown car 3, which is why the RNC is so desperate to shorten their primary and have as few debates as possible.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)In order to shield that wealth from the federal government's rapacious tax collectors at the IRS, they are using a financial planning strategy to shift ownership of their houses to a private trust, and then to their daughter Chelsea.
This leaves the power couple free to reap the tax advantage of making such a generous gift before they die, while they rent the property back from her at a bargain price.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2660435/The-optics-terrible-Middle-class-champions-Bill-Hillary-Clinton-wanted-raise-death-tax-dodging-creative-accounting.html#ixzz35NsKNcfD
Its totally legal but hardly 'ordinary'
how many of you have shares on your house?
LuvLoogie
(7,035 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)or consult a tax lawyer like they did on how it effects your taxable income.
LuvLoogie
(7,035 posts)and her income tax liability? And it's not like Chelsea is Dubya. She applied herself at University.
alsame
(7,784 posts)tone deaf comments.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Perhaps her "not well off" comment was intended to be asking Wall St for a raise.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Clinton, get your shit together. Just because you can't get away with shit tax loopholes, doesn't make you fucking poor.
Taxes matter to the poor or middle class. The rich don't even have to think about it, they have accountants for that.
leftstreet
(36,116 posts)enlightenment
(8,830 posts)force. By the "force of their efforts".
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)I always think to myself "oh no, you dint"
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)Totally ridiculous!
fujiyama
(15,185 posts)He knows how to connect - and at times he's more self deprecating about their wealth. She strikes me as tone deaf at times.
It almost seems like she's doubling down on her "dead broke" comment. Why can't she simply admit that her and family have done extremely well financially and the difference between them and republicans is that they expect to pay their share back in taxes? Or that she felt that after legal bills after Bill's presidency, they wanted to maintain a certain lifestyle and standard of living and they were fortunate enough to have lucrative opportunities they could take advantage of?
Then again, is it the case that all of that money wasn't always made through hard work? It seems that way with Chelsea - working for hedge funds and being paid over half a million dollars by NBC for being the daughter of an ex-president isn't exactly through toiling away. And it looks like they are taking advantage of the shady tax shelters the Romneys and other top 1 percenters use.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)It seems this is a something that plays loud internally.
They have to actually do stuff to bring in the money as big as it is and it ain't the multi generational stack up of property, possesions, wealth, and connections.
They just aren't in the same blue blood class as they run with so it all probably seems similar, if on a different level as just as they have progressed through life. Always playing a kind of catch up.
fujiyama
(15,185 posts)I think this does explain their (somewhat delusional) psychology. The same probably goes with Chelsea's comments about money not being a motivating factor in her career choices.
It just strikes me as incredibly patronizing to the general public. If they're going to mention money, they need to at least acknowledge the fact that they are extremely wealthy and that buys them choices and a lifestyle most of us can only dream about. I'm not knocking their success (even the "success" of being the daughter of an ex-president), but nobody is buying this bizarre act that they're "not that rich".
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Talk about tone deaf....
Is she channeling Mitt Romney?
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)She can "feel your pain" with the deft touch of Mitt Romney and can call "obliterate Iran" with the zeal of John McCain, has the HR acumen to bring in the steady hand of a Mark Penn, and seeks the council and fellowship of the family.
Folks love them brand recognition but what is the product? Stale, wrong for the times, and kind of a hack. This is the unbeatable professional? Please, mediocre at best buoyed by familiarity and powerful connections, many nefarious and almost all questionable on the best days.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)She's not a natural polititian who can connect with voters. She's not a skilled leader, who can designate the right competent people to help develop and carry out a plan. She votes what she percieves as political expediency, but fails to recognize the populace has moved in a different direction.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)of America's first legacy president, GW bush.
The similarities are frightening. And real.
Laughing Mirror
(4,185 posts)Astute analysis.
GeorgeGist
(25,323 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)sums up things perfectly
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)mylye2222
(2,992 posts)had finantial difficult issue in his Senate's first term back in the 80's.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4685276/ns/politics/t/john-kerry-cheap-aristocrat/#.U6cB8rG8odU
Here.Did he spoke about it through all msm to gain sympaty? Not really......
Please, Mrs Clinton, enough fake whining.
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)I can't wait until we get her next sound bite about how she understands the problems of the little people. Maybe we'll even get "I feel your pain."
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)I'm pretty sure the Presidential pension makes one "truly well off", books and speeches are just gravy.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)elfin
(6,262 posts)She keeps company with the very mega-rich, so, in comparison, she feels not SO well off. But the general population is not fooled.
Such comments reveal how far they have come away from their roots, and her political tone deafness is surprising and is what is going to do her in.
I would like to see her succeed to her dream, but I just don't see it happening. Don't know if that is because by some outlandish quirk of fate, she decides not to run, or if someone else scoops up the primary prize, or if she loses the general. Don't know the reason, just have a very strong feeling she will not be our next President.
eShirl
(18,504 posts)but that, unlike some nameless others who are also well off *coughROMNEYcough*, she pays income tax.
BeyondGeography
(39,382 posts)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
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)OKNancy
(41,832 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)This is classic tone deafness among the 0.1%, those at the bottom of the upper 1/1000 look up at the stunning wealth of the 0.01% and view themselves as not "truly well off", and attempt to justify that by distinguishing between the "working rich" and the "rentier class" - those who are so wealthy that the income from their wealth alone is enough to both grow their wealth and pay for their lavish lifestyles.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)..."who are truly well off"...
I will concede she may have meant what you said. But by adding the "truly" in there, it really sounds to me (and I'll bet to most people who hear it) as though the "truly" is meant to distinguish the well-offness of others from her and Bill's well-offness which is not as great. And that, of course, is what grates on people.
If she did mean what you think she meant, she could have easily worded it to make that clear. For example: "unlike a lot of people who are also well off" or just "unlike a lot of people who are well off" would have worked just fine and there would have been no issue.
Knowing how to turn a phrase, knowing how not to rankle your base with inartful comments -- these are basic skills for a politician. Ms. Clinton seems to have truly missed the boat in that department.
I think she was a fine SOS, and she was known as a good and hard-working Senator. I've had problems with some of her positions but in many ways I admire her. Back 2008, for awhile there (after the field was thinned) I wanted her instead of Obama because he was green and she knew how to deal with the right wing.
But now? No thanks. She's had a great career and will continue to have a life of luxury. Good for her -- and I mean that, I don't begrudge it one little bit. But she is not the right person this time around IMNSHO.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)If she wants the nod she needs to STFU for at least another year.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)mylye2222
(2,992 posts)thar arrogant and petulant persons alays got the honnors and fill their goals....I you wants to succed, especially in politics, apart from a few exception, YOU HAVE TO PLAY the bad person. Otherwise you are percieved as a weak person.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)She certainly seems to be doing her best to alienate a lot of people.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)if she becomes President.
May the gods protect the world from it.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Give her the power of the office of President, and there's no telling how much worse it would be, but I have a feeling it would be MUCH worse.
randys1
(16,286 posts)biden and warren arent rich and this oblivious
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)rich either
compared to you and me maybe
http://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/income-and-net-worth/
Baitball Blogger
(46,758 posts)mylye2222
(2,992 posts)And people turns away to the important issues of midterm, as the Dem Senate is endangered.... Typical from her....so, that, when 2016 will be here, she will be able to campaign by blaming both Rep, and Obama, for havn't been efficient in midterms issues!
bullwinkle428
(20,631 posts)an integral part of "Team HRC"?
valerief
(53,235 posts)Those poor suffering housewives.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)She needs to hush
LuvLoogie
(7,035 posts)"Because we pay ordinary (straight) income tax, unlike a lot of (other) people who are (also) truly well off, not to name names; and we've done it through dint of hard work (as opposed to inherited)."
Parenthetic additions mine.
The Clintons bust their asses and are good at busting asses. So sorry they hurt your feelings.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Altho what you said still doesn't really clear her of nincompoopness or blundering cluelessness.
LuvLoogie
(7,035 posts)Please, it only makes you sound like those who call The President, O'Bummer or Teleprompter in Chief. If she is Biden-like, so be it.
Every word of hers is going to be parsed by every detractor she has ever had. "What difference does it make?"
GeorgeGist
(25,323 posts)Greed is not your friend.
LuvLoogie
(7,035 posts)Nor is Hillary's wealth my enemy.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,234 posts)JFK and FDR were both wealthy.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)They may have busted their ass their entire life, but it doesn't excuse this silliness.
LuvLoogie
(7,035 posts)I suppose he could have gone and quietly took up oil painting.
You don't suppose the difference in speech derived income between our previous two Presidents has anything to do with their respective quality/quantity of ass busting?
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Clinton needs to back off the rhetoric and just note how blessed they were after leaving office. Just holding high office shouldn't merit making one a multi millionaire. But that's how it is.
LuvLoogie
(7,035 posts)His speaking fees are what the market will bear. As Sarah Palin's fee's go down, Bill's have remained steady or perhaps increased.
I politics, the ability to motivate and inspire people is highly valued.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)So, are you saying you are cool with CEO pay? If not, how do you make the differentiation?
LuvLoogie
(7,035 posts)Price of admission to a U2 concert versus your high school garage band. You guys are just making stuff up and really badly. Bill Clinton commands his speaking price because of all the work he has done in his life and the ability with which he delivers his message.
That's all! The headline in the OP is bullshit.
CEO pay and compensation packages are a function of the tax code and have more to do with rewarding for company stock price.
Speech fees are earned income. Stock options are capital gains.
I am disgusted by Alex Rodriguez' quarter billion dollar contract. FOR EXAMPLE. And not by Bill Clinton's speaking fees.
You all are being ridiculous.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)He came from a poor family, and spent 30+ years working for the same company working his way up. He busted his ass and eventually became CFO and them CEO. For the last ten years of his career, he made millions. Most of it was stock based compensation based on metrics like free cash flow and share price.
I would argue he is adding more value than someone giving speeches.
LuvLoogie
(7,035 posts)than Bill Clinton did in his 30 + year political carreer, which is topped of by the pinnacle of any political carreer, i.e. two United States Presidential terms, then I suppose that is debatable on who provided more value in his carreer. You'd have to look at the President and you'd have to look at the CEO.
But you CANNOT say that Bill Clinton doesn't earn his keep. And the OP is STILL bullshit.
You should stick with one argument though. You are kind of all over the map on this. Mediaite just slammed CNN for doing the same thing you guys are doing with this pettiness based on a butchered quote.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Fucking .1%er's acting like they have a fucking clue because the .01%er's are so rich. Ceo's don't deserve what they get paid, professional athletes don't deserve what they make and someone making 100 fucking million dollars giving speeches doesn't deserve it. ALL those buckets are one percenters who have no fucking clue how the rest of us live.
I don't hold it against anyone per se, but talking down to me and thinking I believe for a second you even step foot in the world I live in is insulting.
LuvLoogie
(7,035 posts)to simply whine.
The Clintons understand the difference between action and wishful thinking. I would recommend a job at Starbucks and a girlfriend, or a boyfriend.
Sorry, but I don't feel sorry for you.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)I DO feel sorry for you.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)They had the ability to make money, so what?
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Are you serious?
People living paycheck to paycheck are actually broke worrying about their livelihood, people who know, by virtue of a fucking speech engagement, they can earn $200,000, are not worried, broke, or unsure about their future.
If you are going to make a statement about how in debt you were in the past you should contrast that with 1) your current status 2) and what led up to your current status.
What led up to their status was that they made tens of millions every damn year for doing basically nothing. Note: I'm not talking about, say, the money Hillary earned as a Senator, that was hard earned.
But there is easy money and there is hard earned money.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)Should they have not accepted speech engagements and book advances because there are other people who live hand to mouth? Making money is not inherently evil. They have made money since they left the WH, but they also do a lot of good for many people through their foundation.
I don't envy other people who make more money than I do. Good for them if someone wants to pay them a large sum of money to hear them speak.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)There is easy to deal with broke and holy shit we're going to go bankrupt broke.
The former is a trip to the pawn shop to pay the light bill. The latter is the family breadwinner with a household full of kids getting cancer.
I don't envy people with more money either. But it was poor phrasing and Clinton needs to reign that shit in. Sorry if this bothers you or you can't see it.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)The Clinton's had a CLEAR asset when they left the WH - the ability to earn $100,000,000+ from speeches. They were NOT worried about if they would have a place to live. They were NOT worried about getting food for their family to eat. They were NOT worried about ANYTHING that someone who is broke worries about.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)then claim the article reporting her actual words is bullshit. Impressive self-delusion but not gonna work on the rest of us.
LuvLoogie
(7,035 posts)Did Hillary Clinton say that "She Isn't 'Truly Well Off'?" I am not self-deluded. Context is important, but "What difference does it make?"
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)(like other lower-middle-class Americans), unlike a lot of people who (unlike us) are truly well off
"
Hey, this re-writing business is kinda fun. I wonder whether most Americans heard it your way or my way.
LuvLoogie
(7,035 posts)But go ahead and join the reactionaries.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Because I would prefer a Democratic candidate who is not a corporate shill?
Because I can easily see Hillary walking away with the nomination & then choking herself with foot-in-mouth disease & blowing the General, paving the way for a Cruz or another Bush?
And hell yes, I'd vote for her before any Republican, but Jesus, the woman is doing a great job of feeding the Dark Side ammunition for their oppo commercials.
LuvLoogie
(7,035 posts)Did you go with the out of context soundbite and condemn him for being tone deaf and out of touch? Or did you find out what his whole statement was?
Remember? "You didn't build that" and the manufactured outrage that caused.
Aren't Dems better and smarter than that?
Obama is absolutely brilliant, and a truly decent person. But what if all you had to go by is MSM soundbites and Sunday talk shows to go by?
When you consider the attacks that HRC has enjoyed these past two decades against the work she has done all her adult life, who are you going to stand with?
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)if she had, that would change the meaning.
And to say that they "bust their asses" is kinda silly. Campaigning for office is pretty hard work, as I know from experience, and perhaps holding office is harder work than we the people normally give them credit for - a former county commissioner told me that his $40,000 a year job was pretty hard (and he didn't make $40,000, they raised the pay after he was off the board.
But making speeches and writing books is not really hard work. For me to earn $8,000,000 at my current job I would need to work over 470,000 hours or 58,800 eight hour days or 11,700 five day weeks or 226 years.
I am pretty sure that 226 years of doing my job is a lot harder than writing ones autobiography. I'd be quite happy to take next year off and write my own autobiography for a mere $20,000. And if I could make even $20,000 a year for just giving speeches I'd consider myself very very fortunate.
I'd be happy to work up a little half hour speech about income inequality and how politicians like Clinton have failed (or I should really say 'betrayed' since failure makes it sound like they are trying to help the working class, when really they are not) the working class. And you can hear that speech for a mere $50 plus travel expenses.
LuvLoogie
(7,035 posts)I'll stand with my contextual aides against the hatchet job upon which Hillary's detractor's are pinning their tails.
I would never say that public speaking and writing books isn't hard work. It's not underwater welding, but it's an honest living. And I highly doubt that Bill clinton is ever idle.
frylock
(34,825 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)To bust the asses of the powerless and voiceless.
Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)
madaboutharry This message was self-deleted by its author.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)The Clintons are close enough to know what it means to be "truly well off" in America, and from their perspective that perch is still just out of reach. The very rich admiring the acquisitions of the exceedingly rich.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)$100 million buys a lot more than words.
And it raises a whole set of new problems, for instance Wealth Management:
http://financialservicesinc.ubs.com/revitalizingamerica/SenatorPhilGramm.html
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)nilesobek
(1,423 posts)re-evaluation here. I've recently persuaded 2 young women to vote Democratic across the board. Hillary is not helping the cause as I've been shouted down hard by anti-Hillary people who won't vote for her no matter what.
Are we nominating the right woman? I remember in 2012 I thought "OMG, I hope they don't nominate Huntsman." And the GOP picked Romney, thankfully. They nominated the wrong Mormon. I hope we can navigate this minefield.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Even if she does announce, she may end up blowing it in the primary, just as she did in 2008. Until he threw his hat in the ring, nobody but political nerds and his own constituents had really heard of Obama either, so there might very well be another 'unknown' out there. (And to all of the people who want to say, but, but, but, he gave the speech at the convention in ... yeah, and the folks watching? Mostly political nerds. Most of the country doesn't pay attention to squat in politics.)
Evergreen Emerald
(13,070 posts)It appears that instead we are willing to believe any taken-out-of-context-twisted-meaning we might as well be republicans.
She acknowledged that she was well off, but unlike some, she pays taxes. Dang you people are so willing to attack her you have become lemmings.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)And to accept the patronizing tone that characterizes almost everything she says.
If she says "you people" she's toast. And I wouldn't be surprised to hear that she's done so.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,070 posts)Too many people are willing to jump on the bandwagon to view her in the worst possible light.
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)Evergreen Emerald
(13,070 posts)You had to twist yourself into a pretzel to come up with that interpretation.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Evergreen Emerald
(13,070 posts)it will be twisted and used against her.
Logical
(22,457 posts)thomhartmann
(3,979 posts)Here's what she's pointing out (and referencing Romney):
If you earn your income from work (physical, mental, or speech-giving), you pay up to 39% federal income tax, and proportionate state and local taxes. She's saying that's where most of her income comes from.
OTOH, if you "earn" your income sitting on your butt around the pool waiting to the dividend checks to arrive from your "investments" (aka Romney & Paris Hilton), then you are among the select few who don't pay ordinary income tax, but instead pay a much lower "capitol gains" tax - maximum of 20%. While she's clearly in the top 1% or even .1%, the *truly* rich earn the vast majority of their income as capital gains and dividends and thus pay about half the taxes that "workers" like Hillary do.
This is no defense of Hillary & I'm not speaking to the merits of the context in which she said this; just pointing out what she meant (and, unfortunately, is lost on most Americans) - that we have two tax systems, one for workers (from mill-workers to brain surgeons) earning paychecks, and another, far more generous one, for people who make money with money (aka Romney).
Thom
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)I found disingenuous since most americans don't put their houses into shares or have insurance trusts like the Clintons.... hey its legal and the law but its not ordinary.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Her word choices and framing sucked though.
Skittles
(153,198 posts)she's a very smart gal but it's been a long, long time since she lived among ordinary Americans
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Skittles
(153,198 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Wage inequality is what distinguishes this gilded age from the previous one. At the end of the 19th century the elites almost all lived off of rents - rents on property, rents on their capital, not on wages. In this gilded age, thanks to the neoliberal tax policy, banksters, ceos, wall street schmucks, revolving door government officials like the Clintons, entertainers and athletes and the rest of the income based 0.1% are there by "income" rather than "rent on wealth", but as they are accumulating wealth at an extraordinary rate, the difference is mostly irrelevant and certainly will vanish as their accumulated wealth is inherited by their children.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)the Clintons don't have a portfolio of stocks, bonds, and other dividend and cap gains stuff. They may be getting paid to talk or write books as well, but the 1%er with no equities is a rare beast indeed.
TBF
(32,102 posts)and the Clinton debts could still be larger than the assets. At the end of the day you subtract your debts from assets and see if you have anything left. Many of us don't. I would suspect by this point that the legal fees have been paid and the expensive houses in NYC may be paid off from Bill's speaking engagements, books, etc - but who knows. I do believe that she and Bill have worked rather than inherited it and I think that is what she is talking about.
But does she understand folks who work 2-3 part-time jobs (minimum wage at best), have little if anything to inherit from their families, and have little hope for the future?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)$200,000. We are the 90%, doesn't make us bad and it doesn't make others bad for earning what they can. This jump and criticize and degrade someone is going to come back and bite us. What do you think Elizabeth Warren assets are? How did she get those assets? These are questions we should not be comparing someone's ability to do or not to be able to serve as president. It is about ability to perform.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I've put principles before money for most of my life. Turned down a job offer that would have paid me $400k more than I've made since I turned it down because I'd have had to break my word to take it. I may be below the poverty line, but I'm not ashamed of myself.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)If I had the opportunity to speak to a group of RW and thought I could makes some points I would, and especially at $200,000 for the speech.
cali
(114,904 posts)not that what she did say is anything but stupid and borderline dishonest.
aikoaiko
(34,184 posts)Instead she's doubling down on this theme of middle class income.
I kind of get it that they mingle and work with people worth billions and tens of billions of dollars, but those people aren't the votes HRC needs to worry about.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)When it would only affect the top 5%. I think she's really out of touch. Not that either instance she was wrong, she's probably in the 30% tax bracket with few available loopholes and they were likely in great debt when Bill left office. It's still stupid to point this crap out because of their opportunities once the were out of the White House. She needs to point that out if she's going to connect with the American people.
Skittles
(153,198 posts)what is with wealthy people trying to make the world believe they are not wealthy or that they know what it's like to be poor? OWN your wealth, just prove to us YOU'RE ON OUR SIDE.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
rock
(13,218 posts)is how they all are supported with tons of proof.
This is sarcasm, of course. They are in fact nearly all remarks made by junior high bullies.
Sienna86
(2,150 posts)She's out of touch with the 99%. That includes me.
Warpy
(111,359 posts)and she knows just how rich that .01% really is. Of course she feels barely upper middle class when she's around them, the poor relation who is tolerated once in a while.
Putting it into context, "dead broke" meant they couldn't achieve the lifestyle they'd become accustomed to when they occupied the halls of power. There was no way they could enter the club whose admission price was the number of Congressmen one had bought.
The comments are doing her no favors at all among people who have been underpaid since the late 70s if they're lucky enough to find jobs.
Every time she opens her mouth, she's telling Main Street how ignorant she is about the food insecurity more and more people have as they realize they're one major car repair away from not being able to buy enough food to kill the pain of hunger or a rent increase away from being hungry all the time.
She's building a great deal of resentment among hard working people who would love to be that "dead broke" some day.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)Yeah, let me point something out to you. To most people that make less than $150,000/yr, there is little difference between $100 million and $10 million, because having either is not going to happen in their lifetimes without winning the lottery or through a significant crime.
I realize that you want to come off as being one of us, but you aren't, and earning $456,000 one year doesn't put you exactly at the poverty level, either.
If you are pissed that you aren't a billionaire, well, I think just about everyone can relate to that, but $100 million dollars isn't "we drink tap water, mend our shoes and make our own salt" living, either.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)I guess it is a little too modern to expect...
JI7
(89,276 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Hillary... why in the hell do you want this ???
KoKo
(84,711 posts)IF....one believes he's still a Dem.
She's going to dump Penn after she gets her Wall Street/Global Interest Funding and get Carville back out there on "Meet the Press" and the rest of the Sunday Shows and Faux and MSNBC...and writing in the Blogs and elsewhere on the Net....about how she "Identifies with Average Americans because she and Bill started out with Nothing but Yale Law Degrees and undergrads of Top American Schools and how they MADE IT TOTALLY ON THEIR OWN! (which is part true...but leaves out much about how they made their connections) and so they identify with "Struggling Americans."
We've sort of been there and done that before...but, it's a NEW CROWD NOW...and Marketing means one can sell "Old Goods" positioned as "New" a bit after the expiration date and be fine with it all. Just puts some new policy positioning "stuff" on it and it will sell GREAT!
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)There is some validity in the "hard work" label, or was, but not truly well off, Clinton?
Jesus Christ. And I am going to be voting for her because the only alternatives we'll be allowed are worse.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)wheniwasincongress
(1,307 posts)for her to say these type of things. I thought she was super aware
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)If she can not stop saying stupid things why should any of us support someone so stupid?
closeupready
(29,503 posts)over and over, then seems to me it's not just 'saying stupid things,' it's really how she thinks. It is a scary thought for a lot of reasons.
And I know it's popular on this board to imply female leaders never do wrong, but Imelda Marcos, Benazir Bhutto, and Indira Gandhi (three off the top of my head) all had reigns which were flawed by serious lapses of judgment.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)and Angela Merkel, two of the worst leaders, regardless of gender.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Both - particularly the former - VERY flawed, on not just policy but actual, measurable results.
I would also add Christine Lagarde, but of course, she's a bureacrat, not an elected official.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)For a supposedly smart person, she says way too many dumb hammer bag things.
Do they make .1% to 99% translators?
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)What I see: "we pay our taxes, unlike some (other) people who are truly well off, who I won't name but you know I'm talking about Mitt Romney, don't you?"
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)Most voters are not going to analyze her words, they will just go by the first impression they get.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)Because Romney is four year old news. Why take a shot at him? Who is she speaking to when she takes that shot? She is not the Democratic nominee, so right now, she should be speaking to Democrats and progressive leaning Independents who will either accept her as the nominee or not.
That suggests that those of us here at DU who are very very tired of the political ruling elite class in this country may, yes indeed, get rather miffed when Hilary Clinton continuously tries to convince us that she is just like one of us. At one time, perhaps she and Bill Clinton did know what poverty and what being truly broke was like. But that is not true today, and this kind of communication just comes across as being tone deaf and narcissistic.
I am not going to vote for another DLC neo-liberal, neo-con for President.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Beacool
(30,253 posts)Who needs the RW when DU will report anything and everything Hillary? As long as it's negative, that goes beyond saying.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)Somebody, get the hook...
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)140K is middle class?????? And, it never happened, no one is working, and the system is bleeding. just as they want it. I predict after the baby boomers, there will be no more soc sec.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)While I will agree that the Clintons are by no means the worst offenders when it comes to out-of-touch rich people, she is still remarkably tone-deaf on this subject. Just acknowledge it, Hillary.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)A few of these:
and a big chunk of this, I haven't decided which part yet:
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)It appears she misspoke. She was just inarticulate IMO.
I'm not upset about this.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)She was trying to compare herself, as a member of the .1%, with someone who is a member of the .01% and then pretended like that makes her equal to the rest of us. She meant what she said and she thought we are stupid enough to believe that means she is one of us working class folks.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)and her innuendos about Romney meant nothing to the Global community
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)And, for a very, very, very, very, very, very few, they want it.