Hillary Clinton: We came out of the WH "dead broke" and "in debt"

Interesting. I was unaware that being rich was a bad thing.

 

Hmmm.



We considered three things: what the Clintons reported as income on their taxes, what they reported as assets in Hillary Clinton's mandated disclosures, and what was listed as being owed. The disclosures only give broad boundaries for the value of the assets owned, so the true value of their assets lies somewhere within the dark-red bar.

So, yes, it is technically true the Clintons left office in debt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ntons-left-the-white-house-in-debt-wait-what/

 

Did you forget that the Senate ahs to vote on budgets and then the president has to sign it. As the Senate refused to pass or even produce budgets as required by law the spending had to be funded by continuing resolutions.

Would you have supported shutting down the government until the dem Senate and BH Obama agreed to the House budget?

Hillary didn't seem too proud of that did she. Bill did keep his nuts in a bind a lot.

They reported owing $1.7 million to $6.5 million at the end of 2002, and between $500,000 and $1 million to a New York law firm by the end of 2003. A year later, all of those debts have been paid. So in one year, after being totally broke, the Clintons paid as much as $7.5 million in legal bills. How did she say they earned that much in one year??

Sure it did.

So some intentional damage to the US President's residence is fine with you. How much liberal horde vandalism is acceptable to you??

 

According to your graph the Clintons had millions of dollars upon leaving the White House. That's not consistent with Hillary's claim that they were "dead broke".

I would think the same people upset by Romney's "10,000 dollar bet" would jump at the chance to correct Hillary on her out-of-touch-with-the-common-Democrat type statement.

 

They left the WH in Jan 2001. How do you figure it shows they had millions of dollars when at the end of 2000 they had debts of $10 million and a negative net worth?

 

WaPo article 8/29/1999
President Clinton and his wife shopped for houses again yesterday in pricey Westchester County, N.Y., where they had the luxury of largely ignoring a liability that would sink many families: $5 million in legal debts.

...

Most of the family's assets are in a blind trust they created soon after Clinton became president. The trust, managed by Boston-based Pell Rudman Trust Co., generated $200,318 in capital gains for the family last year, and is valued at more than $1 million, according to the Clintons' most recent tax returns and financial disclosures. The couple paid $89,951 in federal income taxes on an adjusted gross income of $504,109 in 1998.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/aug99/clintons29.htm

 

#1, that's a very unspecific source.

#2, you missed this part, from your link:

most of which still came from Hillary's pension accounts

Unless you think the Clintons should have raided their retirement accounts to pay off their legal fees, that's not most people's definition of liquid assets.

 

Again, does not change a single thing I said. EVERY single, solitary penny spent by the government requires passage in the House. Sorry that gives you cognitive dissaonance, but it is what it is.

 

and whose fault is that?

Why would you want those clowns running the entire country, when they cant even run their own lives?

 

Excellent point. I will no longer vote for Bill Clinton, nor will I vote for Hillary Clinton.

 

The graph shows that they had millions in assets in 2000. Most people who are "dead broke" don't have millions of dollars.

 

If you have millions and owe millions more than that, well, do the math....

 

It also appears their debt vastly exceeded their assets in 2000, making their net worth a negative by what appears to be $8,000,000. I think a net worth of -$8,000,000 qualifies as dead broke.

 

Whereas look at what the democrat party did to former House Majority leader,
Tom DeLay.They trumped up a bogus charge { similar to what was done
to Newt Gingrich } over violating election law.The drat dimocrats waited until
they could find a favorable place in Texas to rig a activist judge and empanel
a democrat friendly grand jury.DeLay stepped down and agreed to never return
to his position in Congress.This started in 2002 and lasted throughout the decade.
It bankrupt Delay.
He was indicted,convicted but held out and had his conviction overturned
and given a formal acquittal.
But not before ruining the man's entire career and bank account.
That is how Dimocrats roll.Even to their own like Governor Rod Blagojevich who
became the fall for both Obama and Rahm Emanuel.Emanuel and Obama both
raised money and supported Blagojevich for Governor.
However when it came time for Chicago Pay-to-Play politics,Blagojevich had to
take the fall for telephone conversations and dealing involving Obama's vacant
Senate seat.

 

Probably stuff they crooked from years of crooked deals in Arkansas and
also during the Presidency.As I wrote,the Clintons even tried to take
stuff that belonged in the White House after they left the Presidency.

 

Well, "bankrupt" is a better word. "Dead broke" implies that you are having major issues feeding yourself, getting clothes on your back and keeping a roof over your head. The Clintons were nowhere near that. But they were, at that time anyway, totally bankrupt. I think she just used the wrong term.

 

The struggling Clinton's, with millions in the bank, went on to have 30 million in assets within a year after leaving office, given millions for just the promise of writing a book sometime in the future.

Yeah, they're just like the rest of the timeclock punchers, LOL

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting. I just questioned that choice of words, and you replied with this:

I guess you were for it before you were against it.

 

I certainly never said they were. I stated that your contention that they were not dead broke was erroneous. Beyond that, please leave me out of the strawman arguments.

 

Who said they were? No one on this thread.

You implied that because they had millions they were not broke. That is clearly wrong. While I prefer the term bankrupt, it remains the case that your implication was flat out wrong. Having millions in assets does not in any way make you rich in and of itself. People with millions in assets go bankrupt all the time.

 

Hillary painted herself as a struggling worker bee upon leaving the White House. You defended that idea several times in this thread.

Few people who are "dead broke" get handed millions to promise to write a book about their lives. But you are free to continue portraying the Clintons as a struggling rags-to-riches success story. It's entertaining.

- - - Updated - - -

I clearly took issue with Hillary's claim that she was "dead broke". You supported her claim, and then took issue with it later. It was almost like you were for it before your were against it.

 

No you didn't. You implied she was rich because she had millions in assets. Nice try, though.

 

Not really. Please do not assign me made up positions and then argue against them.

Again, your assertion is nonsense. You claimed she was not flat broke. A subjective opinion, but one that I disagreed with, noting her debts exceeded her assets by $8,000,000. I said nothing about how she made money, or portrayed it in any way. I believe that is nothing more than bad trolling on the part of your post, so again, leave me out of the nonsense.

 

Your opinion on what I supposedly implied is not important. What I actually wrote is clearly visible for anyone to read.

 

So you haven't been supporting and defending the idea that the Clinton's were "dead broke" in this thread?

It's my opinion that people who are truly "dead broke" do not have millions sitting in their bank accounts, and are not almost immediately given millions of dollars for the promise of writing a book at some point in the future. Truly "dead broke" people don't find themselves in either of these two situations too often. But people are free to continue to portray the Clinton's as struggling rags-to-riches success stories. I understand how liberals need to have their politicians appear as "every mans" in contrast to the Republican Mitt Romneys of the world.

 

Lies simply don't matter anymore, if they ever did. Might as well support the most skillful liar. It shows something.