Jump to content


"I'm not truly well off."


Recommended Posts

 

Seems easy to say "You know Bill and I are doing well. But most Americans are not doing well, and here's what I want to do to help..."

Sure does. Now let's find the journalist that will leave it alone after that.

 

Well even then, there really is pretty much nothing there (at least there wasn't before she made some dumb comments). Like, the Clintons are well off, but they truly are not rich, like 1% rich (Mitt Romney rich, etc). They both came from very modest upbringings and have been self-made, essentially. I mean there is very little to attack from any angle there...until you say something stupid.

Link to comment

Looking at a couple sites, it appears that the top 1% earn somewhere between $300,000 and $400,000. Being that the Clintons make something like $200,000 per speaking engagement I'm pretty dang sure they are in the top 1% in this country.

 

Her comments are just plain stupid. She wants to be looked at as a common person and even though she may have come from that, she is not that now....nor has she been that for most of her adult life.

 

She and her husband are faker than a strippers boobs and it amazes me that so many people don't see it.

Link to comment

Looking at a couple sites, it appears that the top 1% earn somewhere between $300,000 and $400,000. Being that the Clintons make something like $200,000 per speaking engagement I'm pretty dang sure they are in the top 1% in this country.

 

Her comments are just plain stupid. She wants to be looked at as a common person and even though she may have come from that, she is not that now....nor has she been that for most of her adult life.

 

She and her husband are faker than a strippers boobs and it amazes me that so many people don't see it.

Yeah. I think that they qualify as very wealthy by almost any measure.

 

They're fake . . . probably like most politicians.

Link to comment

I could be very wrong, but I sense that Hillary Clinton won't even be the Democratic nominee. She's got a lot of electoral history going against her, and the hard truth is that she's not a tenth the retail politician her husband is.

 

This is a great example. Her political sin in this case isn't that she's rich (virtually every national politician is), it's how she handled the question. The correct answer to a question about ones wealth is, "you know, America's a great country, and that Bill and I have been blessed with the success we've had is a testament to the reality of the American dream. I believe in that Dream, and I want to help more people achieve it," not (my interpretation of her words) "Bill and I were poor leaving the White House, so I totally get the pocketbook issues of Middle America (wink wink)"

 

In any case, the lasting political damage here is literally zero, but she's always had trouble with these sorts of comments and it doesn't look like the problem's been fixed.

Link to comment

 

I could be very wrong, but I sense that Hillary Clinton won't even be the Democratic nominee.

That'd be very surprising.

 

 

One of my favorite political aphorisms is "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line" (with regard to presidential primaries). It's not always true in the former case (Kerry and Gore were pretty establishment picks), but I have this weird feeling that it's going to happen again in '12.

Link to comment

Looking at a couple sites, it appears that the top 1% earn somewhere between $300,000 and $400,000. Being that the Clintons make something like $200,000 per speaking engagement I'm pretty dang sure they are in the top 1% in this country.

 

Her comments are just plain stupid. She wants to be looked at as a common person and even though she may have come from that, she is not that now....nor has she been that for most of her adult life.

 

She and her husband are faker than a strippers boobs and it amazes me that so many people don't see it.

 

I'm talking wealth, not income. They are not among the nation's 1% in net worth I guarantee it. Yes, I'm sure their income is high. Like I said, they are well off.

 

Regardless, her comments are dumb, and that's what I'm saying...from a party that nominated Mitt Romney, there is nothing about the Clintons' finances to attack...unless you give them a stupid opening, which Hillary has done.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

I'm talking wealth, not income. They are not among the nation's 1% in net worth I guarantee it. Yes, I'm sure their income is high. Like I said, they are well off.

 

 

Regardless, her comments are dumb, and that's what I'm saying...from a party that nominated Mitt Romney, there is nothing about the Clintons' finances to attack...unless you give them a stupid opening, which Hillary has done.

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, they almost certainly are. This analysis estimates the "average" net worth of the 1% as being $16.4 million. This one says the "cut off" for the top 1% in terms of net worth is around $9 million. Estimates of the Clinton's net worth are all over the place, but it almost certainly hits that threshold.

 

In any case, their wealth in and of itself is irrelevant. Her money gaffes are only an issue because it risks the one thing all politicians fear above all else: being exposed as a phony.

Link to comment

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2665493/Im-not-truly-compared-wealthiest-Americans-says-Hillary-Clinton-despite-6million-houses-fortune-estimated-100million.html

 

 

 

A PRESIDENT'S WORTH, FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON TO BARACK OBAMA

 

George Washington (1789-1797): $525m

 

John Adams (1797-1801): $19m

 

Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809: $212m

 

James Madison (1809-1817): $101m

 

James Monrow (1817-1825): $27m

 

John Quincy Adams (1825-1829): $21m

 

Andrew Jackson (1829-1837): $119m

 

Martin Van Buren (1837-1841): $26m

 

William Henry Harrison (1841): $5m

 

John Tyler (1841-1845): $51m

 

James Knox Polk (1845-1849): $10m

 

Zachary Taylor (1849-1850): $6m

 

Millard Fillmore (1850-1853): $4m

 

Franklin Pierce (1853-1857): $2m

 

James Buchanan (1857-1861): Less $1m

 

Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865): Less $1m

 

Andrew Johnson (1865-1869): Less $1m

 

Ulysses Simpson Grant (1869-1877): Less $1m

 

Richard Birchard Hayes (1877-1881): $3m

 

James Abram Garfield (1881): Less $1m

 

Clester Alan Arthur (1881-1885): Less $1m

 

Grover Cleveland (1885-1889, 1893-1897): $25m

 

Benjamin Harrison (1889-1893): $5m

 

William McKinley (1897-1901): $1m

 

William Howard Taft (1909-1913): $3 M

 

Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921): Less $1m

 

Warren Gamaliel Harding (1921-1923): $1m

 

Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929): Less $1m

 

Herbert Clark Hoover (1929-1933): $75m

 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-1945): $60m

 

Harry S. Truman (1945-1953): Less $1m

 

Dwight David Eisenhower (1953-1961): $8m

 

John F. Kennedy (1961-1963): Kennedy Estate Worth Nearly $1 Billion

 

Lyndon Baines Johnson (1963-1969): $98m

 

Richard Milhous Nixon (1969-1974): $15m

 

Gerald Rudolph Ford Jr. (1974-1977): $7m

 

James Earl Carter (1977-1981): $7m

 

Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1981-89: $13m

 

George H. W. Bush (1989-1993): $23m

 

William Jefferson Clinton (1993- 2001): $38m

 

George W. Bush (2001-2008): $20m

 

Barack Hussein Obama (2008-present): $5m

Link to comment

I'm surprised the Clintons haven't accumulated more wealth. Hillary is very good at investing. Even in speculative investments where she has almost no knowledge of the industry. Like cattle futures. LINK :lol:

Link to comment
William Jefferson Clinton (1993- 2001): $38m

 

George W. Bush (2001-2008): $20m

 

Here is a perfect example of how views of someone gets twisted in American politics and media.

 

I would have never guessed that the Clintons had almost double the net worth of Bush.

 

BUT, anything about the Clintons was always how they were common folk....bla bla bla.....

 

Bush on the other hand, all you heard was about his rich he was and how out of touch he is with reality and all he cared about was his rich friends.

 

Politics...politics...politics....and the perception they put out to the public and what the other side attacks them on.

 

Reality is, NOBODY is going to be running for President that doesn't have a ton of money and net worth. So, it laughable when one stands up and attacks the other for being rich while acting like they are a common man/woman.

Link to comment

Regardless, her comments are dumb, and that's what I'm saying...from a party that nominated Mitt Romney, there is nothing about the Clintons' finances to attack...unless you give them a stupid opening, which Hillary has done.

 

Ancient history! Plus Romney's wealth proved that he was an all-American success story while Godz-ILLARY's wealth shows that she is a hypocrite.

Link to comment

 

Regardless, her comments are dumb, and that's what I'm saying...from a party that nominated Mitt Romney, there is nothing about the Clintons' finances to attack...unless you give them a stupid opening, which Hillary has done.

 

Ancient history! Plus Romney's wealth proved that he was an all-American success story while Godz-ILLARY's wealth shows that she is a hypocrite.

 

One of those didn't deny they were rich.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...