Clinton$ tax return

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I think you see problems with his speeches only because they were to friends of his years in the White House. I don't.

You expect his enemies to pay him to speak? You expect him to appoint enemies to positions in the administration?

Why would you be suspicious and immediately assume kickbacks?

You need to stop hanging out with friendly bear. Everything is not a conspiracy nor a kickback. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...

And sometimes rumored behavior with that Macanudo gets you in the deepest **** with the missus.

So RM, can you say that you've never contributed once to the "Haliburton= Cheney"  "Enron = Bush"?

Can you at the very least realize It's a very, very fine ethical line the Clintons are walking.  As the one of the younger surviving presidents when he retired, he's got the energy to give lots of speeches and inside contacts to help grease the skids when friends or contributors have trouble.  Goldman Sachs giving $650K for one speech?  Maybe Bill's worth it, but if Hillary ever voted for anything directly benefitting GS, then that is very tainted money.  You also get to circumvent all the campaign finance laws with total impunity with this set up they've got.

Carter is the only other President I can think of who has stayed as visible and active.  However, most of his work has been humanitarian in nature, not bringing in sacks of cash from speaking engagements.  He had no need for massive sums of money, but if the Clinton's were to campaign for office again, they sure would need it.

I admire Bill for what he's done.  If Obama is President, I expect he's going to be worth far more once he graduates from the White House.

A friend of mine put it in funny perspective the other day:

"The Clintons are the perfect example of people living on the government dole and taking charity from friends and associates, it never ends, they are the cosummate beggars."

I respect your opinions, RM, as well as the right of the Clintons to make money as they see fit, but there are some very close relationships which bear watching.  

[cannon_fodder]

So when Bush leaves the white house and heads Exxon-Mobile-BP-Texaco-Conocco-Phillips mega Corp or earns $1mil a year for "advising" all of those companies and essentially doing nothing - you won't call foul.

Ok then.  I'd find that suspicious too... but if thems' the rules.

Also, a politicians spouse can take as much money from corporations as they want?  Duly noted.

The failure to admit that you at least understand why this raises some eyebrows is surprising.

[RecycleMichael]

Yes. I understand why people are suspicious of his income. It is a lot of money.

I am just wearing down by the sheer volume and force of the attacks on Hillary and her husband. They are attacked for everything they do or don't do. Every word is twisted and every action assumed for political gain. I only wish the other candidates had one tenth of the scrutiny.

Have you read where Michelle Obama received a large bonus (almost double her salary) when her husband was elected to the Senate? Her income from that job went from $122,000 a year to $317,000 suddenly.

That job with the University of Chicago Hospitals was also the recipient $1 million of earmarked funding legislation authored by Barack in 2006. Why has no media picked up that?

It is because of a double standard. Anything the Clintons do is attacked and the media is silent on the Obamas.

[pmcalk]

I don't know that I agree, RM, but even if the press pays more attention to the Clinton's, you have to admit that this is an unprecedented campaign.  Never before has a spouse of a former president run for president.  Of course that's going to result in more scrutiny.

[cannon_fodder]

While I'm not too concerned at all about the earmark (I am, but not as a political conspiracy since it is the status quo) - I would be interested to see why her salary doubled.   One has to start from the assumption that it was to keep someone of name on the payroll and perhaps have access to whisper in her ear.  

But I suspect the reason the media has not picked up on it is because the sum total was $330K a year and not a headline grabbing number like $100,000,000.00+.   Again, as I stated above - I would be interested to know why the salary jump.
- - -

Looking into it briefly she was promoted to Vice President of PR at the University of Chicago's Hospital.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092500896.html

So while it was worth looking into, a Harvard Law Graduate serving on the board and as a VP of a major University hospital making $300K seems about right.  While I suspect the timing of the promotion, $300K a year as a VP is not exactly the same as $600K for a 40 minute speech.  

Now, if it came out that her employer is also among their largest campaign donors and once elected she double her income again... I'd grow more suspicious.  As it is, it is merely a tacit mark against him.  But something the media didn't raise too much lately for sure.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

I don't know that I agree, RM, but even if the press pays more attention to the Clinton's, you have to admit that this is an unprecedented campaign.  Never before has a spouse of a former president run for president.  Of course that's going to result in more scrutiny.

Yes. She is the spouse of a former President. But she was also elected twice as a Senator from New York. Posters on this forum act as though she went from changing diapers and mopping floors to presidential candidate.

Maybe she should have divorced the guy. Then his speech income wouldn't be used to attack her.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Yes. I understand why people are suspicious of his income. It is a lot of money.

I am just wearing down by the sheer volume and force of the attacks on Hillary and her husband. They are attacked for everything they do or don't do. Every word is twisted and every action assumed for political gain. I only wish the other candidates had one tenth of the scrutiny.

It is because of a double standard. Anything the Clintons do is attacked and the media is silent on the Obamas.

Well, I do think you've got a particularly strong strain of anti-Clintonism here on the board, and I don't think it's quite as bad in the MSM.  We've got a lot of people here rabid for her downfall, so the sample is a little skewed.

But I do think you're right:  there is a double standard.  The MSM knows exactly what to do with a Clinton presidential run:  attack it.  They've been doing that for almost two decades.  And what a relief it has to be!  It's ingrained habit by now.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael



I am just wearing down by the sheer volume and force of the attacks on Hillary and her husband. They are attacked for everything they do or don't do. Every word is twisted and every action assumed for political gain. I only wish the other candidates had one tenth of the scrutiny.

I fail to see where this is any different than hard-core Democrat's treatment of President Bush (or Dick Cheney, or Karl Rove) the last seven years.

You reap what you sow.  Sad part is there are cannibals in your own party who once supported the Clintons who are going after Hillary now.