Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175

I'm completely flabbergasted at the money the Clintons have made since 2000.
Look at the income totals below. A cumulative total of $109,175,175. It's all there. Warts and all. They have layed it bare for the world to see, just for a slimmer of a hope to win this whole thing.

Now, start combing the fine print for details on Bill's post-WH sources of income. If there's a ticking time bomb, that's where it'll most likely be found.... First thing I notice ... $175K in dividend income from CITIGROUP in 2001 returns. Remember, Clinton helped CEO Sandy Weill to repeal Glass-Steagall in 1998-99. Also worth investigating current connection with Bob Rubin as CEO, who was Treasury Secretary under Clinton. So, the big question ... what's the Clinton-Citigroup connection and how much mutual "backscratching" has taken place?

...A question for me is YGP. L.P another Cayman Islands firm. It is listed that this entity acts as a advisor tor Yucalpa Global. Now, the people behind YGP is DGI or the Dubai Investment Group. Dubai Royal Family is behind this group.

Two questions arise. What favours did Bill Clinton pull in relation to recieving this payoffs and a still pending $20m from Yulculpa. Is R. Burkle the front man for this. Did this 'advice' have anything to do with Dubai Ports World and its foray into the USA 2 years ago.

There's an awful lot of potential for corruption in that 109 million. And let's remember, the Clintons are not paid so much for creating a better widget or a better manufacturing process or for running a better restaurant or store. The Clintons are paid for who they are and for access to them. Bill has been going around selling access to a future Hillary administration, with who knows what favors promised. This is one of the main reasons to reject Hillary's candidacy; she would sell us out in huge ways.

A trail is there.

You'd think given these obscene amounts of money that they would give some slack to their donors, and chip in to fund their own campaign, given the way it has all turned out. Hope next time people will think twice in giving them anymore money.

So much for worrying about the working people.

The Clintons you don't fool me. These are obscene amounts of money and they are clearly cashing in on legacy even after which solving none of the pressing poverty in which they found and left this country in.

I wonder what their 'down at the heel' voters would make of this.

PS. I'm still waiting for the list of donors to the foundation. Arab Ruling Families, Dictators, Oil Sheiks, Arm Dealers, Tax Cheats et all. I'm still waiting.

Source Link-http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/re


Display:


Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (2.00 / 2)

They sure seem to be good with money.


by DTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:25:05 PM EST

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (none / 0)

EAT THE RICH!


If I had to make a prediction right now, I'd say Barack Obama is going to be the next president.
by Andre X on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:49:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

not very healthy... (none / 0)

;)

The French do it far better... 'Eat Rich'

and they don't get fat...


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:34:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not very healthy... (none / 0)

Let them (us) eat cake


If I had to make a prediction right now, I'd say Barack Obama is going to be the next president.
by Andre X on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:04:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

God forbid (2.00 / 3)

People should make some money after spending so much time public service...Oh the horror!


by Mayor McCheese on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:25:09 PM EST

No kidding (2.00 / 3)

as soon as this becomes a socialist country, I will maybe, just maybe start to care.


by linc on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:28:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No kidding (none / 0)

We can only hope!


If I had to make a prediction right now, I'd say Barack Obama is going to be the next president.
by Andre X on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:50:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (2.00 / 3)

Since when did making money disqualify you from being President?

At least they didn't buy a house beyond their means with the help of corrupt slumlord.

And wow, much higher percentage of their income to charity than BO, that's great.  his highest year was 6%, right?

Thanks for the info, kathy, you've saved me some research.


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:29:06 PM EST

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (none / 0)

Once you get into the hundreds of millions you tend not to notice the small change.

Just saying.


by grass on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:45:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (none / 0)

LOL since when is 10million small change?

If you keep that kind of change under your sofa cushions I will gladly vacumn it out and throw in a whole house cleaning.


by J Rae on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:54:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (none / 0)

Well, I'd be quite satisfied with 10 million, and I'm certain they're quite happy with the 60 million plus they have left over (after taxes). I'm not complaining, but it is easier to give large impressive amounts when you're that rich. Comparing the charitable giving's of the mega rich to those who make a more moderate sum doesn't quite work, it's like comparing apples to oranges.


by grass on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:02:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (2.00 / 1)

I hate to point it out but the Clintons don't qualify for "Mega" rich.

And they gave 3x the amount the average person in their income range gives.


by J Rae on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:22:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (none / 0)

I didn't know their was a definition for the adjective mega, unless we're talking science, and then it means 10^6 (factors of a million).

And good for them for giving more than the average millionaire.


by grass on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:30:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Look at it this way.. They reported the income.. (2.00 / 1)

They went a long time, until fairly recently, actually, not being that affluent. It was basically both of their opularity after Bush came in and showed us how good we had had it in the 90s that made them popular.

I am sure that a great many other politicians make obscene amounts of money that they never report..


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:41:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Methinks she doesn't need the job (2.00 / 2)

In fact why would she other than her desire to do good and help others.


I didn't believe in god before the primaries and I still don't.
by NewHampster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:29:57 PM EST

Re: Methinks she doesn't need the job (none / 0)

Didn't you just yesterday cry about how financially straped you were and what a sacrafice it was for you to donate to her? Boy you must feel the fool for sending money to the uber rich!


by lion king on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:43:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Methinks she doesn't need the job (2.00 / 2)

Why? This is the way our system works.

I have donated to her twice and both times it was more than I could really afford but I was happy to do it.

I do not want my presidential candidate to personally finance their campaigns. otherwise we can ask Obama to do it as well.


by americanincanada on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:47:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Methinks she doesn't need the job (none / 0)

Why?
Many's the Obama supporter who has writen a commment on a blog saying how they scraped up enough dough to send 5 bucks to his campaign? face, it almost all serious candidates for political office make more $$ than the average voter/donor.
by Mayor McCheese on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:58:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Methinks she doesn't need the job (none / 0)

Did she help the people of Rwanda????????????


by lion king on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:30:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (2.00 / 3)

Funny first all you BO supporters went on and on and on about how the Clinton's would not release their taxes.  Now no attmept to correct the record but nonsense about how much money they make???  Balb blab blab.

I just wonder.  At the same age who was worth more?  The Clinton's or the Obama's.

THE OBAMA's.  They made over 1 million this year.  This post is hypocrisy, period.  When the Clinton's were 47 they were dirt poor.

david


by giusd on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:30:19 PM EST

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

Bill Clinton was President of the United States at the age of 47.  

Not sure it would have been possible to classify them as "dirt poor" while they were living in the White House.


by davisb on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:33:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (2.00 / 2)

Really what about all the personal monies that had to be used to pay for lawyers to fight the ken starr investigation.

My understanding is when they left the WH the clinton's were in the red???

david


by giusd on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:35:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

Starr didn't start investigating Clinton until Clinton was 48.

The Clinton's earned about 15.7 million dollars the year Bill left office (2001).  I do not believe they were "in the red" at that point.


by davisb on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:39:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (2.00 / 2)

AFTER he left office.  They were certainly in the red when they left office, possibly by more than $15 million, because Clinton had promised to make good the legal fees of his friends who were drawn into Starr's web, a promise he has since made good.


by Trickster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:46:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

I have never seen anything about the Clinton's being in debt or at threat of bankruptcy upon leaving office, or at any point during his presidency.  

I find it a little ridiculous to really believe the Clinton's were somehow "dirt poor" while he was President of the United States.


by davisb on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:49:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

I remember the Clintons being in the red when they left the white house.
They made money off a book advance at the time for immediate bills.

by J Rae on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:57:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (2.00 / 1)

Exactly. They needed that $9 mil advance. they have also paid the legal bills of their friends who got caught up in the Starr probe.

No matter how loud the peeps scream, the Clinton's gave them no red meat here.


by americanincanada on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:02:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yucaipa Earnings... (none / 0)

He claimed he wasn't invested in Yucaipa. He lied and made over 2.5 million.


by regina1983 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:00:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

Nobody said anything about a "threat of bankruptcy."

Lawyers typically don't take their clients to bankruptcy court.  Especially famous clients who make the lawyers famous enough to get all the business they could ever dream of.

I'm not privy, of course, to the Clintons' arrangement with their lawyers, but I'm about 99.9% certain that they knew the Clintons would pay them eventually and never pressed for the money.


by Trickster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:03:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

Sounds plausible enough, although I suppose it's all speculation at this point, none of us being privy to their legal/financial arrangements.

That said, it's ridiculous to in any way believe or assert that the Clinton's were somehow "dirt poor" at any point during, or immediately after, Bill's presidency.  

Not being poor in no way disqualifies you from being President, but being President surely disqualifies you from being poor.


by davisb on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:14:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

They set up a PAC to help them with their lawyer dues. Also, MoveOn.org formed as a result of the relentless prosecution. I don't think they really went into the red with their own money. I don't begrudge them their wealth, but I do begrudge HRC claiming to understand poor people and what it's like to have to work the night shift. People working the night shift don't average 15.6 million a year. Most don't even make one seventh of that over their entire life.


by TheSilverMonkey on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:06:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (2.00 / 1)

Are you that dense or do you just not do any research? Were you not old enough to understand when Bill Clinton was in office?

The Clinton's never made any real money until they were middle aged. Get that through your brain. They did not become wealthy until they left the whitehouse.


by americanincanada on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:15:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

They were wealthy while he was President, it's ridiculous to consider the President of the US "not wealthy."  The annual salary is about 1000x the national average, all of their home and living expenses are fully paid for, and they have access to their own private jet.

I don't know much about their pre-1992 personal situation, but the President is a wealthy individual.


by davisb on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:24:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

The President lives like a King, of course, but I'll bet you anything that if you added up Bill's and Hillary's net income during their 8 years in the White House, it would be in the lowest quintile among their Yale Law classmates.  And legal fees ate up every cent of it.


by Trickster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:24:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

Look.. Bill Clinton might be from a modest household, but Hillary was pretty well off.  And I suppose she was didn't make any money while working for the Rose Law Firm or while on the Board of Walmart??

I'm not saying they were rolling in millions when he won the White House, but to think that Hillary knows what it's like to work the night shift is a little disingenuous in my opinion.  It's just another story that politicians tell to try to relate to voters...  I don't hold it against her... I just think it's a silly assertion for her to try and pull off.  It'd be like Obama saying that he used to be a professional bowler... No one should believe it when there's proof against it.


John McCain believes "Women shouldn't have a choice."
by jturn17 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:25:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (2.00 / 1)

Yes HRCs dad owned a store. A store that didn't go broke.  A store that made money.

OMG, isn't it awful that her dad worked for a living.

It sounds so much better to make is sound like she came from a family of trustfund babies.


by J Rae on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:31:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

You are right... I retract my assertion.  My apologies...

I still claim that they weren't as poor going into the White House as some have claimed in this comment section.


John McCain believes "Women shouldn't have a choice."
by jturn17 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:34:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (2.00 / 1)

Hillary grew up firmly in a middle class, working family. Bill grew up in a poor in the south.

I do not care that they are rich now. They both know what it is like to be less than rich.


by americanincanada on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:49:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

I think Hillary grew up upper middle class, Bill grew up lower middle class.  Bill was closer to poor but not poor, Hillary was closer to rich but not rich.


by Trickster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:26:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

Yes, silly me, Hillary was just a penniless lawyer from a meager, nameless law firm that represents such unknown clients as WalMart and Tyson Foods. I'm sure she had to work triple shifts just to not have to choose between paying the rent for the Governor's mansion in Arkansas or putting food on the table.


by TheSilverMonkey on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:38:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (2.00 / 1)

Like I said, they became rish in middle age. Period. There is no disputing that. They were also considered white trash when they got to Washington.

Hillary grew up middle class and Bill grew up poor and later with a single mother.


by americanincanada on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:50:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (2.00 / 1)

They were not dirt poor in 1992, but they were not bad off. According to this article their net worth was $700,000. Bill made $35,000 a year, but Hillary was a Lawyer. I have not read all the details yet. However, I'm 47, and off the top of my head I would guess my net worth at about $450,000. And I'm just a member of a single income family, I'm an engineer. You bet your but that the Obama's are worth much more than the $700,000 (inflation adjusted) than the Clintons were. I would like to see those numbers...
by Dave B on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:01:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oops, Link (none / 0)

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/ moneymag_archive/1992/07/01/87389/index. htm
by Dave B on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:04:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good Lord (none / 0)

I hope this works better... http://tinyurl.com/6ncd64
by Dave B on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:06:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good Lord (none / 0)

I saw a list somewhere, maybe open secrets that listed net worth of each presidential candidate.  I think Obama was around 2million, and most of that like 80% his is house.  Most of it recently acquired since he became a Senator and Michelle got that big job for the hospital.

He was by far the least wealthy Presidential Candidate this cycle at least of the big players.  McCain, Romney, Edwards, and Clinton are all worth 30 million+... McCain is the least Wealthy of all of those I think it was like 30mil but maybe 40...

Either way... I don't find Obama to be absurdly wealthy.  I mean he's by no means in bad shape. lol, but I'd put him more in the Pre-White House Clinton range as far as wealth goes.


John McCain believes "Women shouldn't have a choice."
by jturn17 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:31:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Has anyone gone to Zillow.com and checked (none / 0)

what his house's 'worth' is compared to other similar houses in his neighborhood?

It looks like its worth much more than 1.6 million. Its in Chicago, in a nice neighborhood. Its not a condo. It probably has a garage and parking, etc.

I don't know the address or I would do it.


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:45:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So (2.00 / 5)

they give more to charity than average or similar earners, they pay more in taxes than average or similar earners.

I think they actually give more of a percentage of their earnings to charity than does Obama- but he had to buy a big house with his money.

Damn them!  How dare they!  They are the scum of the earth!


by linc on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:30:49 PM EST

Re: So (none / 0)

Though one might hope that with such an income they would pay a little more in taxes. I know single adults who make a good living but pay much more, percentage-wise, in taxes. This is certainly not a crtiicism against the Clintons - just a criticism against our tax system.

As for charity giving - it is much easier to give a huge chunk of money to charity if you have an income like the Clintons, versus that of the Obamas.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:51:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So (2.00 / 2)

Bullshit.

Obama is rich as well and could easily have given more than he did. he chose not to.

And in case you did not notice, the Clinton's paid more in taxes than most other people in their bracket.


by americanincanada on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:52:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So (none / 0)

Did you actually read my comment? Or were you too eager to yell at me and call 'bullshit'?

Obama is marginally wealthy - not rich like the Clintons. The more wealth one has, the more they have to dispose of without impacting their standard of living. That is the entire principal behind progressive taxation (look it up).

And in case you did not notice, the Clinton's paid more in taxes than most other people in their bracket.

Of course I noticed. And like I said (oh yeah, you didn't read my comment) this is not a criticism of the Clintons. It is a criticism of our taxation system, and the Clintons just happen to serve as a good example. EVEN when they pay more than the average in taxes, they still pay less than a lot of people with middle-class incomes. Don't you think that is a little... unjust?

It's like I can't say anything here without someone jumping on me and accusing me of Hillary-bashing.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:00:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So (none / 0)

The Clintons are what, 13 years older? The Obama's have not even approached their peak earning years yet.
by Dave B on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:03:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But I thought the Clintons were above average (none / 0)

people, you'd think they would donate above the average amount?


by lion king on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:02:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Uh (none / 0)

Those pocket calculators are really really cheap these days.


by Trickster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:05:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The hundred million dollar women (none / 0)

Are they able to calculate that high?


by lion king on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:18:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am still trying to figure out (2.00 / 3)

What this means:"These are obscene amounts of money and they are clearly cashing in on the legacy of poverty in which they left this country in"

Anyone?


by Mayor McCheese on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:32:37 PM EST

Re: I am still trying to figure out (2.00 / 5)

Yep, I actually laughed out loud at that one.  Legacy of poverty?  This whole diary makes no sense at all.  The Clinton are extremely rich.  Good for them.  I wish I was.

With all that money, most people would just enjoy the good life.  Instead, the Clintons are dedicated public servants who are trying to do good works for people all over the world.  How horrible they are.


No Way. No How. No McCain.
by Denny Crane on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:36:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am still trying to figure out (2.00 / 4)

Agreed - there are plenty of obscenely wealthy people in this country who should be mocked and humiliated for their immoral greed, and the Clintons are not among them.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:52:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How dare the Clintons make some money?!?! (2.00 / 2)

Just who do they think they are!

They should be dirt poor!


by andrewalker08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:33:40 PM EST

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (2.00 / 2)

Yeah, no surprise, the Clintons have done well since leaving the White House - as all former Presidents do.  They paid their fair share of taxes and gave a whopping 10 million to charity.  I'd say this is a good news story for Bill and Hill.


I'd rather have a bottle in front of me . . . than a frontal lobotomy
by Benjamin3 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:34:38 PM EST

Not Jimmy Carter (none / 0)

He chose not to make money off speeches after he left the W.H.

It's quite amusing to watch you Clinton supporters squirm and try and talk yourselves in to believing that their extreme wealth is some how a positive thing for the poor in this country.
You all just got suckered into sending money to people who clearly don't need it. Maybe next month you'll send to charity organizations that actually need the money.


by lion king on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:49:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not Jimmy Carter (none / 0)

I don't remember seeing that Carter was broke. In fact his family is fairly well off.

If Carter chose not to make speeches that was his choice.

So what is your point?

If Carter does not make speeches no ex-president should?


by J Rae on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:01:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not Jimmy Carter (none / 0)

He doesn't charge MONEY for the speeches. He didn't cash in on his presidency.


by lion king on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:03:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not Jimmy Carter (none / 0)

How many books had Carter published???? I'm sure he isn't giving them away!
by Dave B on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:08:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (2.00 / 1)

THIS POST MAKES ME EMBARRASSED TO BE A DEMOCRAT!!!!!


by alvic63 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:34:57 PM EST

Doesn't sound unreasonable. (2.00 / 2)

We know the Clintons are well-off, and goof for them.  No one's pretending they're poor (except the $96 nuts).


by McNasty on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:35:18 PM EST

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (2.00 / 1)

I always thought it was flat out stupid when people pretended like John Edwards couldn't truly care about the poor because he is rich.  I guess my dentist needs to suffer a sore tooth every day in order to give a damn about his patients too.  The poor bastard!


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:36:28 PM EST

Returns (2.00 / 1)

They need to get a better scanner/copier.

Anyway...I agree that they have every right to be rich.

I am much more interested in donor lists and earmarks. You see - that represents people who give you money and (obviously) want something in return.


We don't need a thinker. We need a doer: someone who'll act without considering the consequences. (H.J. Simpson)
by Newcomer on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:36:38 PM EST

Re: Returns (none / 0)

They need to get a better scanner/copier.

That, and "why didn't they use adobe to put in some page numbers?" were my first thoughts.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:29:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Returns (none / 0)

I saw that too! that cracked me up to see the scrawled out page numbers...my returns look much better and it only costs 29.95. Then again, I dont have bank accounts in the Caymans.


We don't need a thinker. We need a doer: someone who'll act without considering the consequences. (H.J. Simpson)
by Newcomer on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:43:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (none / 0)

Man, I gotta write a book!!


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:36:54 PM EST

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (2.00 / 2)

Let me see.........
They paid about 33% more in taxes then others in their income tax range.

They contributed about 60% more to charity then others in their income range.

They made money from books they wrote. (BTW how much has Obama now made from his books?)

I am not seeing a reason for outrage here.

If anything I see that they knew their tax returns would be released at some point and choose not to participate in tax shelters that might be questionable.

Is there a problem with not screwing the IRS out of tax money now?


by J Rae on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:37:27 PM EST

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (none / 0)

Sen.Barack Obama(D-Ill.)

Net worth: $1-$2.5 million*

Details: In January 2005, Obama agreed to a $1.9 million advance from Random House for two non-ficton books and a children's book, of which $200,000 is being donated to charity. One of those books -- "The Audacity of Hope" -- has been a huge best seller since being released in October. He owns a home worth at least $1.6 million in Chicago.

Also see:

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/mone ymag/0712/gallery.candidates.moneymag/5. html
http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/ 2007/12/10/saloncom-presidential-candida tes-net-worth/


John McCain believes "Women shouldn't have a choice."
by jturn17 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:45:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (2.00 / 1)

Oh my God and they have given a higher than average percentage to Charity! The Shame!  $109,175,175 over 7 years thats about $15.6 million per year.  Nothing wrong with that. Guess I was all legal isn't that what you guys were sure you would find dirty deals in there now that that hasn't happened you want to scream because they made to much money.


"Do you know the difference between a War Story and a Fairy Tale?"
by RedstateLib on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:37:54 PM EST

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (2.00 / 1)

Yes!  How DARE they make money, pay their fair share of taxes, and give SO much to charity!  This is a scandal of epic proportions!  


I'd rather have a bottle in front of me . . . than a frontal lobotomy
by Benjamin3 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:52:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (1.33 / 3)

How repulsive that with all that money they still can't pay their campaign bills. And then to turn around and take money from thousands of Americans who are financially strapped. What say you all who yesterday commented in a diary about the average Obama donations? You all told stories about  your money problems and how you still managed to send Hillary money. Poor people sending money to the uber rich!  Now that really shows you how how much Hillary is for the little people.


by lion king on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:38:03 PM EST

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (2.00 / 3)

WTF?  No one is forcing anyone to send Hillary money.  And you are saying she should finance her campaign with her own money?  That is ridiculous.  


by JustJennifer on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:42:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (2.00 / 2)

Are you serious? Really?!?!

People flipped out when she loaned her campaign 5 million and you want her to what? Finance the whole thing? Did you forget that Obama is rich as well? Was he not asking poor people to scrap together $5 for him the other night in PA?

There is a big difference in campaign finance and personal finance. Please learn it before you hit send again.


by americanincanada on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:45:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (none / 0)

He is a pauper compared to this.


McCain: The Past, Obama: The Future
by KathyM on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:51:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (2.00 / 3)

And your point is?

If the fact that they are rich is all you got...


by americanincanada on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:52:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (none / 0)

This is like the fourth time you've posted your own comment on this thread. You are obviously a troll or you think no is listening to you and that's because...I don't know... maybe you make no sense?


by apolitik on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:58:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It sounded silly the 1st time you said it (none / 0)

It's not getting any better. . . .


by Trickster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:07:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (2.00 / 3)

And? Who cares.  Honestly.  This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.  They're all rich, all of them.  What would you expect from the former First Couple (of 8 years, no less).  They are beloved figures around the country, and they sell books, give speeches, etc.   Most politicians, if they are successful, become rich.  That's the way it works.  If you don't like it- work to change the system (although in today's world- popularity = money).  I just find this post to be someone looking for something.  If you want to talk about something, check out Obama's ties to Rezko.  Guess what that was about, MONEY.  What really matters is what you believe a politician has in there heart and wants to do for this country.  Hillary chose public service as a youth, when she was making NO money.  Think about that.


by easyE on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:39:03 PM EST

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (2.00 / 4)

Yeah, it's like "how dare Hillary have money and think she can connect to average voters!  Who does she think she is - Robert F. Kennedy?"  Oh wait, never mind, RFK had money too.  That the original poster here is "flabbergasted" is also amusing.  Their book advances, Bill's income from speeches, have all been part of the public record.


I'd rather have a bottle in front of me . . . than a frontal lobotomy
by Benjamin3 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:44:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (2.00 / 3)

Honestly, I think Obama supporters need to act flabbergasted over this one lest they look foolish.  They've been begging for the tax records - and now they got em.  AND?  
The funniest thing is that cnn.com and msnbc.com LITERALLY had "BREAKING NEWS" scrolls "THE CLINTON RELEASE TAX RECORDS".  I kid you not.  It was the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen.  I ventured over to Fox News, and they seemed to be touting how much taxes they paid (as a good thing).  I just find the whole circus element of it kinda funny and then sad, and then funny again.
by easyE on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:58:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (2.00 / 3)

I find it astounding that people are now going to scream about how rich they are. Since when is being rich a crime in this country? God knows, Obama has been trying to get rich for years and is doing pretty good.

The Clinton's give 3 times more money to charity than others in their bracket and 4% more than Obama on his best year.

Not to mention I was getting sick of people saying she would not release or would have stopped filing jointly in order to hide something. Guess what? They did none of that.

I am waiting for the apology.


by americanincanada on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:42:09 PM EST

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (none / 0)

Obama could have very easily chosen a different career path if his goal was to become rich.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:54:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (2.00 / 1)

So could have the Clintons.
by Dave B on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:12:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (2.00 / 2)

Obama is doing very well for himself, better in fact than the Clintons were doing when Bill first ran for president (few people acknowledge that Hillary had few choices other than to be a corporate lawyer in Arkansas, given her educational background and the miserable pay Bill recieved as Governor of Arkansas, something like $20,000 a year when he first entered office and only $40,000 a year when he left office in 1992), and they too could have very easily chosen a different career paths if their goal had been to quickly enrich themselves.

Obama, who sports a $15,000 Chronoswiss watch, lives in a mansion, and has a mink-coat-wearing wife, is doing reasonably well for someone in his 40s, even given his educational background.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:22:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (2.00 / 2)

Cool.  So this is to agree that the Clinton's know best how to handle the countries finances?

President Hillary!  yeahhhh, bring it home.  Yes She WILL!!


by LindaSFNM on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:43:11 PM EST

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (2.00 / 3)

AND...AND...the diarist was able to get the information she was looking for directly from the source at Hillaryclinton.com.

Love openness.

Now, if only we can get Obama to turn over records from the state of Illinois.


by LindaSFNM on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:44:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (none / 0)

Sigh, he has.  Can you say precisely what you would like to see that he has not released?


by interestedbystander on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:50:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (2.00 / 1)

He's released NONE of his records from his state senate days, and has actually said they don't exist.


I'd rather have a bottle in front of me . . . than a frontal lobotomy
by Benjamin3 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:58:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (none / 0)

What his kindergarden papers weren't enough?  Sorry, couldn't resist.


by chewie5656 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:07:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (none / 0)

Not true - google is your friend.


by interestedbystander on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:09:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (none / 0)

Nice way to try and change the subject.


by lion king on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:54:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (none / 0)

Change the subject?
There is not "there" there.

The Clintons have money.

They are not "super-wealthy".

They won't make the top 1000 in income in this country.

They pay alot in taxes and give alot to charity.

Are you complaining that they are not freezing and on foodstamps?


by J Rae on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:07:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They should GIVE IT ALL (none / 0)

to anyone else!  They should have little to nothing.

Who do YOU know who has ENOUGH money?  Does EVERYONE want more?  But to look at someone else's income and want THAT - hmmmm what would my Mama call that?

Check your history.  It is not uncommon for the wealthy to be in positions of power - TO DO for the less fortunate.

Oh forget it, the constant refrain from BO supporters harmonizes with Republicans - the Clintons are just crappy sleaze.  


by Southern Mouth on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:44:37 PM EST

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (none / 0)

Looks like it's more of the same.  Something that wouldn't have been an issue at all (I'm supposed to care that they made money legally) blown up because they took a weird stand about not wanting to release the information.  If there's no smoking gun there, I don't understand why they didn't just do this months ago to shut down the issue.


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:47:25 PM EST

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (none / 0)

And I don't understand why, if there is nothing there, it can't be just let go.


by americanincanada on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:48:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (none / 0)

I agree with you here. There's almost no point in a politician not releasing his or her tax returns.


by Mayor McCheese on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:53:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (none / 0)

Because it takes some time to get them all together, and because Hillary does not want to be "bullied" into doing something like releasing tax returns.


I'd rather have a bottle in front of me . . . than a frontal lobotomy
by Benjamin3 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:56:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What stand? (none / 0)

They never said they wouldn't release the info, they just said it wasn't ready yet.

Notice it's not April 15 yet.  Remember that there's some connection between that date and tax returns. . . .


by Trickster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:09:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What stand? (none / 0)

What is the connection between 4/15 and her tax returns from 2000-2006?   She could have released those and killed this issue.


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:51:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What stand? (none / 0)

Why should she have to have two tax release days?  It's not like releasing all your personal information is a big party that you want to have as many of as possible.

There was nothing at all unreasonable about what she did.  She released her tax records earlier than candidates usually release them, and she got out in front of McCain.

Please, don't just pick pick pick at the opposing candidate over anything you can find.  Wait for something real to come along.


by Trickster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:59:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What stand? (none / 0)

I'm not saying there's a moral issue here.  I'm saying it's a political issue.  Clinton could have defused a story that was hurting her a little at no cost to herself.  She didn't have to do it, but it would have made her life easier.  Why not do so, especially when things weren't going well for her?


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:50:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (none / 0)

It's not wrong to be rich - but I'm just wondering how some struggling donors are going to feel if they've struggled to send off $50, knowing that Hillary could do a lot more than lend herself $5m when she's in trouble.  I predict a downturn in fund raising here on in.


by interestedbystander on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:48:19 PM EST

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (2.00 / 2)

I just sent her more money.

Why would her fundraising drop? Obama is rich as well!! He has a million dollar house and his wife makes almost half a million a year, not to mention the book royalties.


by americanincanada on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:50:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (none / 0)

It's all relative.


by interestedbystander on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:56:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (none / 0)

And you try and compare the money Obama has with how much the clintons have? No contest the clintons used their W.H. days to fatten their wallet. That is such a Republican thins to do.


by lion king on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:57:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And exactly what Obama will do too. (2.00 / 1)

Michelle Obama received a $200,000/yr raise after Obama was elected to the US Senate. Obama had two huge book deals after he became famous. He is well on his way. In fact the Obamas are ahead of the Clintons at a comparable age when it comes to raking it in.


by ineedalife on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:16:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And exactly what Obama will do too. (none / 0)

One can only speculate on what Obama would do. The issue is what the clintons HAVE done. The W.H. is not a cash register!


by lion king on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:20:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And worth it at 100X the price (none / 0)

n/t


by Trickster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:48:56 PM EST

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (2.00 / 3)

Oh no... wealth! Let's burn them at the stake!


Fight for Democrats in Congress.
by owl06 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:51:04 PM EST

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (2.00 / 6)

I'm an Obama supporter, and I could care less that the Clintons are rich.  Is anyone really surprised?

This is still a capitalist country, after all.  Good for them.  And kudos for donating over $10 million to charity.


by XoFalconXo on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:56:27 PM EST

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (2.00 / 2)

I wonder If KathyM was as upset about the SICK amount of income the Kerry's reported on their 2004 returns?


"Do you know the difference between a War Story and a Fairy Tale?"
by RedstateLib on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:58:11 PM EST

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (2.00 / 1)

Or about Teddy K's income, almost none of which hear earned.


by Mayor McCheese on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:00:07 PM EST

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (none / 0)

Guess what....Washington D.C. Capitol of the political elite, the haves that are for the most part disconected from the average American.

When the political elite finally retire from "serving the people" (ha ha) They transfer to their new careers; Lobbyist. <---Of course, this is just an overall generalization;-)


by soyousay on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:01:31 PM EST

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (2.00 / 2)

I'm happy to see none of that fortune comes from blood and/or oil money.

Kathy, this is dreck.


by Si Ella Puede on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:04:24 PM EST

Re: Clinton Income 2000-2007: $109,175,175 (2.00 / 6)

KathyM's view of reality:

They are clearly cashing in on legacy even after which solving none of the pressing poverty in which they found and left this country in.

Reality (1992-2000):

*  Average economic growth of 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the previous years. The economy grew for 116 consecutive months, the most in history.

* Creation of more than 22.5 million jobs--the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, were in the private sector.

* Economic gains spurred an increase in family incomes for all Americans. Since 1993, real median family income increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars).

* Overall unemployment dropped to the lowest level in more than 30 years, down from 6.9 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in January 2001. The unemployment rate was below 5 percent for 40 consecutive months. Unemployment for African Americans fell from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent in 2000, the lowest rate on record. Unemployment for Hispanics fell from 11.8 percent in October 1992 to 5.0 percent in 2000, also the lowest rate on record.

* Inflation dropped to its lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5 percent, and fell from 4.7 percent during the previous administration.

* The homeownership rate reached 67.7 percent near the end of the Clinton administration, the highest rate on record. 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 poverty rate also declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.8 percent in 1999, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. This left 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993.

* The surplus in fiscal year 2000 was $237 billion--the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_ of_Bill_Clinton


by markjay on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:05:56 PM EST

$52 Million from Speeches (none / 0)

I thought Hillary didn't respect the value of "speeches."

Seems to me that Hillary campaign waited until late Friday to minimize attention, and chose this weekend so they have a bit of time to weather the storm before the PA primary.

It may be hard for Hillary to plead for contributions to her never-ending excellent adventure, now that we know how deep her pockets are today. And just think of all the $$$ she could dream of making in speeches herself!

President Hillary would have meant lots of speech money ($52M?). But of course, being presidential candidate Hillary will produce more speech money than Senator Hillary!
by xtrarich on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:11:40 PM EST