2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton just released her tax returns, Republicans aren't too happy about it
Clinton's tax rate is double what Mitt Romney's was when he was running, and the Clintons donated more than 3 times the amount to charity than Jeb Bush.
http://www.examiner.com/article/hillary-clinton-releases-tax-returns-republicans-lose-major-talking-point
AllFieldsRequired
(489 posts)eats too many donuts and therefore Hillary doesnt care about people with diabetes.
Possible, right?
And I am the one in my circle who is known to not care much for the Clinton's, but around here it is like I am a cheerleader for them compared to some of the shit I read here.
calimary
(80,693 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 31, 2015, 11:02 PM - Edit history (1)
"And I am the one in my circle who is known to not care much for the Clinton's, but around here it is like I am a cheerleader for them compared to some of the shit I read here."Kinda hard not to notice the utter savagery toward HRC. It's gotten pretty nasty around here lately. Some complain about similar hostilities voiced toward Bernie Sanders but I sure haven't seen much of that, AT ALL. Seriously, there's no comparison! The criticism of Hillary Clinton around here just rains down, nonstop, as though it were round-the-clock, years-long monsoon season. It's probably because Hillary supporters are vastly outnumbered here. Bernie Sanders definitely rules the DU.
And evidently others have noticed the same thing - elsewhere beyond just DU:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lorraine-devon-wilke/bernie-bullying-and-other_b_7908216.html
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)The tax returns show that the Clintons gave more than 10 percent of their income to charity, more than three times the amount given by Bush, was averaged 3.1 percent in donations over the last seven years.
-Deuteronomy 14-22
NJCher
(35,422 posts)The Clintons don't even make a big deal about being Christians, yet they do the 10 per cent thing without making a BFD about it, while the bushes barely scratch out a contribution.
This just says it all about the difference in republicans and Democrats.
Cher
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)Cha
(295,899 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....that sound you just heard was Jeb's head exploding!
ismnotwasm
(41,916 posts)mcar
(42,206 posts)Nicely played HRC.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)Yall are worried that someone might spin this?
Ok, here ya go: It must be nice to work for the government and become so damn rich.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Jimmy Carter is in the news talking about how corrupt the government is by being bought by the rich to do the riches' bidding. I stand with Carter.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)You should start a thread pointing out all the folks who got rich as salaried civil or public servants!
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Bill Clinton was a governor and then president.
Hillary was First lady and then a US senator, then SoS.
Both have reaped their fame and fortune from being government employees.
99% of government workers do not get rich.
I am finding the fact that such basic information has to be argued on DU to be quite disconcerting. It's as if the Clinton's were royals and we are living in Old England.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Hillary was First lady and then a US senator, then SoS.
And in between, Bill and Hillary leaving the White House and Hillary becoming A Senator (i.e., while NOT in government service) ... THAT is when they got rich. And, Bill just increased the cash flow.
Both have reaped their fame and but not their fortune from being government employees.
There, fixed it.
Laser102
(816 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)SoS has more than a little influence on how American corporations do business around the world. The main pot of money the Clintons amassed has been since Hillary was SoS.
The willful blindness some of you show is damned disgusting. Good thing yall are not Bernie supporters, it would make us look bad.
George II
(67,782 posts).....as to your final point, Sanders followers do a good enough job on their own making themselves look bad.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)If Hillary becomes president all those speaking fees will be a good investment for those who could afford to take a chance on that.
Hillary, the best president money can buy! I say hell'o'no!
George II
(67,782 posts).....I wasn't.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)You and I really have nothing to discuss. Your blindness to anything the Clintons may do wrong is too dark.
George II
(67,782 posts)....speaking fees to the foundation.
Of course he's a Clinton and a Democrat, so that's bad.
George II
(67,782 posts)dsc
(52,129 posts)and I think being a former President helped his book sales (the main way he has made his income).
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Take a dig at Carter just to buck up the Clintons?
Fairly decent income versus becoming 1%ers is a huge difference. Besides that you won't find Carter partying with the bushies.
And.... Carter was a millionaire before becoming President.
dsc
(52,129 posts)He was in deep financial trouble and yes, his income was at least 500k a year post President and when we discussed the AFT leadership people on your side were quick to point out that was the 1% so either it is or it isn't. Take your pick.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)What will happen here goes something like this:
I see that the Clinton's have got something, in this case hard earned wealth over 50 years of hard work and cashing in on their educational sacrifices early in life.
I see that I do not have that much money and hence feel inferior to the Clinton's.
I justify this by making it unfair that the Clinton's have so much and I so little - I am a victim.
This makes the Clinton's the 'bad guys'.
I can now legitimately dislike the Clinton's.
George II
(67,782 posts)mcar
(42,206 posts)Third Way!!! DLC!!!!
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)nt
mcar
(42,206 posts)oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)This will take up some talk time prior to the first debate. Good for her!
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)One thing from that is true.
The average Joe cannot relate to her USB personal agreement.
Oh the wealthy, they have such hard times protecting their monies.
George II
(67,782 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)Heh.
Taxes have to do with income and "protecting" that income is fair game, I say.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Then Clinton's have shown one of the many pathways to the American Dream, education, good choices, hard work, voluntary work, more hard work....and success.
Anyone resenting this earned wealth are just seeing green.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Envy is a mortal sin. Being filthy stinking rich and donating 10% while getting a nice tax break on said donation. That's an entirely other thing. The poors are just envious. Can't they be satisfied with their cake?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)thought or observation, because I would think that common knowledge?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)It just drips, sometimes. Doesn't it?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)the Clintons, from my experience.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)ericson00
(2,707 posts)cough Bush & Trump cough cough.
The Clintons are the American dream: the Bushes and the Donald are the plutocratic dream.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)wearing foggy glasses.
safeinOhio
(32,524 posts)If less than the Clintons, he's going straight to hell.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Clinton released seven years of tax returns, covering 2007-2014
According to the tax returns, the Clintons paid an average tax rate of 35.6 percent
Since 2007, the Clintons have paid $43.8 million in taxes, on pace with what was in Jeb Bush's tax release earlier this year.
Clinton's 35.7 percent tax rate is more than double of what Mitt Romney paid, 14.1 percent, when he disclosed his tax returns in 2012
and more than the 19.6 percent that President Obama paid last year.
Does anyone who understands statistics see a pattern here?
Note, that Clinton's big money came after they were out of office, not while Bill was POTUS.
Note that they are comparing average tax rates of seven years to tax rates of one year in several instances here.
Note that they are not comparing income rates, only tax rates, which should be higher for higher incomes.
Not saying that this isn't good news for Clinton, but why not show it straight instead of playing with the statistics to make them look better?
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)And someone attempting to play with statistics...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)jalan48
(13,797 posts)Enrique
(27,461 posts)Benghazi!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Email-gate ... er, ... USB ... er, grrrrrr!
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)IT DOESN'T MATTER.
Haters on FOX "News" are going to claim it knowing their followers are not going to look for themselves.
onecaliberal
(32,471 posts)Way to go. Not her biggest fan, but this doesn't surprise me. I know the Clinton's are very charitable. It's one of the things I admire them for.