Discussion:

Discussion for article #224292

This is so very annoying because I don’t remember another candidate’s wealth being at all an issue until it came to car elevators, dancing horses and not knowing the number of houses one owns. The Kennedys are/were insanely wealthy and yet they were some of the greatest champions for the poor and downtrodden. I don’t give a damn if someone is wealthy. What matters to me is if they recognize the enormous income inequality and will be strong advocates for programs that help the poor and middle class.

8 Likes

Ah, but under Republican dogma, which is mixed into the MSM Koolaid, it’s “hypocritical” for a Democrat to be wealthy because um, er, since Democrats want everyone who’s wealthy to pay higher taxes Democrats who are wealthy should um, give all their money to the government instead because Reagan!

5 Likes

Amen dear PluckyInKy. But in fact the Clintons were broke when they left the WH. They were 12 million in debt for legal fees. I don’t begrudge people their wealth but I certainly admire when very very wealthy people do good with their money, such as the Gates family, Warren Buffet. I understand even Michael Bloomberg has vowed to give away all of his wealth.

2 Likes

And then there are these scmucks

2 Likes

Everything she has said is factually, unambiguously true.

  1. They were deep in the red due to legal costs defending against the witch hunts when Bill left office. This is a FACT.

  2. They earn ordinary income and pay taxes on it. The super wealthy “earn” primarily, and by primarily I mean 99%, capital gains income. Oh hai, carried interest! Again, FACT. The Clintons are IN FACT not like the super wealthy. They are like doctors or athletes.

Fuck off, media.

1 Like

I suppose a plane crash, Lynyrd Skynyrd-style, is too much to ask for.

Huh? Remember McCain’s inability to remember how many houses he had? Wealth can be an issue and should be if appropriate. I really don’t see the Clinton’s being “champions for the poor and downtrodden.” Watch how much money Hillary gets from Wall Street. I’ll vote for her if she’s the Democratic candidate, but I’ll be holding my nose the whole time.

I love the hell out of the Gates and especially Warren Buffet. I respect the heck out of wealthy people who use their money to make a better world for the rest of us.

1 Like

ROTFLMAO!!!

After his televised flat out lying about sexual relations, Bill Clinton has lost ALL of his credibility!

If he has, he’s not the only person in that unfortunate situation.

I specifically mention in my post “not knowing the number of houses one owns” so I clearly haven’t forgotten McCain not remembering the number of homes he owns. That was the point. It shouldn’t be an issue unless it shows how grossly out of touch one is with the middle class and poor.
And I don’t give a damn how much money Wall St. gives to a candidate. They often bet on both candidates in hopes of currying favor with whichever candidate wins. Plus, there are plenty of Democrats on Wall St. Working in an industry doesn’t automatically make you a horrible person.

Which explains why his approval ratings remain in the stratosphere.

Stupid fucking teabagger.

4 Likes

Whoops! Sorry, I missed the reference to McCain. I still don’t see the Clinton’s as champions for the poor and downtrodden. They’re better than Republicans, that’s about the best I can say about them.

Yeah, Clinton has no credibility and no one wants to see Beyonce naked. Only in Baggerland does either scenario even begin to be true.

1 Like

Please don’t let the Clintons back in the Whitehouse. Please? These answers are terrible, because these two have no clue how to give a good answer. Sorry Bill, but your assurance of what is “factually true” only makes you look worse.

Because the problem here isn’t that they’re wealthy. And the problem isn’t about whether they’re being factually truthfully or not. The problem is that these two can’t answer straight questions, period. It’s always about looking for some thin reed to hang their story on, and then getting upset when people call them on it. And all so they can score imagined political points that only make them look worse.

You’re wealthy and powerful, Hillary, and have been for decades. Everyone knows it, so why pretend otherwise? We won’t hold it against you, but when you pretend to understand our problems we know you’re full of shit. You don’t have to have cancer to fight it and you don’t have to be poor to fight poverty. But…when you pretend to understand our problems based upon your problems which the rest of us are too poor and powerless to have, you only undermine your own case.

Unless the Clintons ever learn that honesty is the best policy and to stop playing games with the “factual truth,” I don’t want them anywhere near the Whitehouse. They didn’t understand how the game was played in the 90’s, and things have only gotten rougher since. Seriously, I have nothing against the Clintons personally, but really can’t stand trying to defend the games they play with the truth. They’re both still trying to smoke without inhaling, and I can’t stand it. We want the whole truth, not just the part you think scores you political points.

1 Like

I love Talking Points Memo and plan to get my Prime membership this week. BUT… TPM was one of the parties guilty of running with the bad headline that Hillary contrasted herself with the “truly well-off”. I guess it’s not impossible she stupidly albeit in an ambiguous way was saying, hey, at least I’m not a billionaire. But given the fact that she was unambiguously bringing up the unfairly low tax rate that other super rich people pay (as opposed to the rate the Clintons pay), we already have an explanation for why she would say the word “unlike”. She was making a contrast about tax rates. Given that, it seems more likely she was not in fact excluding herself from the truly well-off but including herself.

The “dead broke” was factually true but also moronic. As Bill Clinton acknowledges here and Hillary has acknowledged when interviewed by Rahm Emanuel.

Jonathan Chait and Paul Waldman have written good pieces about Hillary’s wealth and 2016.

They certainly have been through the Clinton Foundation, but I’m not about to judge HRC through her husband’s presidency nor can I ignore the shitty Congress he had that made it impossible to get more progressive legislation. But most of all I know the Clintons are smart enough to see where the country is and where the Democratic Party is. HRC has already begun talking about income inequality and building up the middle class. She knows she has to shore up her left flank. I adore Warren, but she’ll never be president.

1 Like

Bill Clinton has ten thousand times more credibility than you’ll ever have.

All these fuckers are wealthy…that’s how they get elected, stay elected, or are able to retire comfortably after being elected – eventually…except Joe Biden and probably one or two others.

This is a totally manufactured story from the far right that as usual, the MSM has globbed onto because conflict sells, especially if its over a nothing-burger that can divide a bunch of Dems over some trivial bullshit. These types of contrived narratives, stories, and “sudden discoveries” are gonna get old very quickly…so let them try. Its gonna go nowhere and it won’t define Ms. Clinton because everyone already knows, politicians by and large are wealthier than the general population. So…big whooop.

If they think that makes people resentful, they’re wrong…Besides, the media elites pushing this garbage haven’t bothered to take a look in the fucking mirror. Some of the assholes making the most out of this stupid story are getting paid salaries in the millions by the networks and cable companies themselves for this type of schlock journalism.