"I'm not truly well off."

[BigRedBuster]

 

One of those didn't deny they were rich.

If you're referring to the fake quote that I provided as the title of this thread . . . that wasn't a denial that she was rich.

 

The "dead broke" comment from a week or so ago is probably closer to that.

 

I'm speaking in general terms as what she is trying to portray to the public.

[carlfense]

 

 

One of those didn't deny they were rich.

If you're referring to the fake quote that I provided as the title of this thread . . . that wasn't a denial that she was rich.

 

The "dead broke" comment from a week or so ago is probably closer to that.

 

I'm speaking in general terms as what she is trying to portray to the public.

 

Yeah. That's really dumb.

[StPaulHusker]

 

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.

 

I could be mistaken and most likely splitting hairs but I think Clinton made the vast majority of his money AFTER he was president. Bush made his before.

[LukeinNE]

I could be mistaken and most likely splitting hairs but I think Clinton made the vast majority of his money AFTER he was president. Bush made his before.

 

 

Yeah, I think that's probably right. The piece doesn't really clarify the when the snapshot of wealth was taken. It would make sense that it would be while they were actually president, but the technical basis for Clinton's "broke" comment was that they had something like $2 million in assets and $8 million in debt when leaving the White House.

[tschu]

 

I could be mistaken and most likely splitting hairs but I think Clinton made the vast majority of his money AFTER he was president. Bush made his before.

 

 

Exactly, which is why the Clintons' current wealth is not comparable to, say, Romney's wealth. Clintons were not wealthy at all before the Bill terms; their wealth is the result of their political success, which is not a problem. The problem is when political success is a result of wealth, which brings all sorts of corruptions into question. It does make the Hillary and interesting case, but it's really not comparable to your average rich guy running for Senator or whatever.

[BigRedBuster]

So just to be clear.

 

It is good if someone gets into office and then becomes rich.

 

It is bad if someone becomes rich in private industry and then gets into public office.

 

Hmmmm.....ok.

[tschu]

Want to expand on that?

[BigRedBuster]

Hey...I'm just trying to clarify the general tone of the thread.

 

If I'm wrong then maybe you can expand on that.

[LukeinNE]

As far as I'm concerned, I'm not going to hold someone's wealth against them, and frankly I think it's a dumb excuse not to vote for someone, unless it reflects on their personal ethics (e.g. they obtained their wealth illegally or by highly unethical means).

[tschu]

A person's wealth can often be an indicator, or at least a correlation, to their beliefs, their motives, their personal/political/business connections. This isn't exactly a secret.

 

Yes, wealth does not necessarily mean anything. But it doesn't necessarily mean nothing, either.

 

When only the wealthy have a chance at representation in a public office, this country starts to become an oligarchy. In fact, it already pretty much is.