questionmark Posted June 22, 2014 #1 Share Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) Hillary Rodham Clinton defended scrutiny on her and her husband’s personal wealth by contrasting herself in an interview published Sunday with other multimillionaires who are “truly well off.” The comment immediately drew scorn from Republicans, who have highlighted a series of stumbles the former secretary of state and potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidate has made on her book tour this month when talking about her personal fortune and six-figure speaking fees. In an interview with Britain's Guardian newspaper, Clinton was asked whether she could be a credible champion for fighting income inequality in the United States despite her wealth. Read more Well Ms. Clinton, we are aware that you have to retire to sleep under a bridge every night and don't know how to pay the car payments.... we feel so sorry for you...really Edited June 22, 2014 by questionmark 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy4 Posted June 22, 2014 #2 Share Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) Good luck not finding a politician who isn't a multi-millionaire. They don't give a crap about people like you and I. Edited June 22, 2014 by andy4 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilly Posted June 22, 2014 #3 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Nonsense (pure and simple). 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonshadow60 Posted June 22, 2014 #4 Share Posted June 22, 2014 If the Clintons are not truly well off, who the heck is? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilly Posted June 22, 2014 #5 Share Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) I just did some checking around the net. Hillary Clinton's net worth is estimated at 20 to 22 million. Bill Clinton's net worth is estimated to be from 77 to 80 million. Right, she's not "truly well off". What a load of BS there. Edited June 22, 2014 by Lilly spelling 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Aurelius Posted June 22, 2014 #6 Share Posted June 22, 2014 ...Meanwhile, there are people all across America living in Tent Cities. These people make me sick. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acidhead Posted June 22, 2014 #7 Share Posted June 22, 2014 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted June 22, 2014 #8 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Well there's "well off" and then there's "truly well off". I'd say the likes of Paris "never having to work a day in her life" Hilton is truly well off, while the folks who worked for their squillions are "well off". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan max2 Posted June 22, 2014 #9 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Honestly I didnt even expect here to say something that dumb. But I guess it justa reflection of how out of touch our politicians are getting. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted June 22, 2014 #10 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Almost all politicians are Rich, or rather, "Well Off". And they don't have a clue what people forced to Rent living space, or forced to make payments on a old used car are going through. Hillary is what, 66, now? I was reading an article about this the other day and she said that she did various jobs and had to struggle... when she and Bill were in college. So, that is like 45 years ago? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilly Posted June 22, 2014 #11 Share Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) Hillary Rodham Clinton was upper middle class (her father owned a textile business). Bill Clinton did not come from money. Hillary attended Wellesley College and went to Law school at either Yale or Princeton (I know it wasn't Harvard). I seriously doubt the Clinton's did any 'struggling' after graduating law school. I just checked, it was Yale. Edited June 22, 2014 by Lilly addition 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted June 23, 2014 #12 Share Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) I just did some checking around the net. Hillary Clinton's net worth is estimated at 20 to 22 million. Bill Clinton's net worth is estimated to be from 77 to 80 million. Right, she's not "truly well off". What a load of BS there. By contrasting herself with her others with her husband's wealth, she must think that 77 to 80 mil is "truly well off"? Or would she be saying that 97 million to 102 million isn't truly well off? What a terribly clumsy attempt at trying to connect with voters. Edited June 23, 2014 by Yamato 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilly Posted June 23, 2014 #13 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I guess a net worth of only 100 million doesn't quite cut it if one's rubbing shoulders with billionaires. But, to be so out of touch with reality as to think only billionaires are 'well off" is utterly ridiculous. Most people work all their lives and never even see 1 million in their 401Ks. The elite who govern us know this all too well, to pretend otherwise is disgusting IMO. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supervike Posted June 23, 2014 #14 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I guess this is one cause, regardless of politics, we can all agree on. The Clintons are loaded. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thelaw1 Posted June 23, 2014 #15 Share Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) [media=] [/media] This country is going to hell because people put pointless qualifications above actual qualifications and don't take the time to study a candidate. I remember people saying they were gonna vote for Bush over Gore because you could have a beer with Bush. I don't get it. I want my President to be better than me, not like me. Edited June 23, 2014 by Thelaw1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilly Posted June 23, 2014 #16 Share Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) Well, the candidates from the other side of the aisle (Republicans) are rich as well (ex, Romney's net worth was estimated at 350 million). Edited June 23, 2014 by Lilly oops! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted June 23, 2014 Author #17 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Well, the candidates from the other side of the aisle ® are rich as well (ex, Romney's net worth was estimated at 350 million). The problem here is not being rich ('cause if you are not you most probably will not get beyond mayor of Dumptown, pop 1200), it is pretending not to be to pretend that you actually understand what it feels like not knowing where the next meal comes from or of the fear that a simple misstep ends you under bankruptcy protection to make yoursel advocate of those living precariously. I find it revolting... no matter who does it. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supervike Posted June 23, 2014 #18 Share Posted June 23, 2014 The problem here is not being rich ('cause if you are not you most probably will not get beyond mayor of Dumptown, pop 1200), it is pretending not to be to pretend that you actually understand what it feels like not knowing where the next meal comes from or of the fear that a simple misstep ends you under bankruptcy protection to make yoursel advocate of those living precariously. I find it revolting... no matter who does it. Exactly. Do those politicians understand that everytime gas goes up, or food prices skyrocket, we are all effectively taking a pay cut? Do they have any clue what it's like to worry if I can afford to help out my kids go to college, or ever retire? I'm extremely lucky to not have to worry about where my next meal will come from, and I have been fortunate to always have a place to sleep, but I certainly don't go around pretending I can truly understand those who don't. This is just as revolting as Mitt Romney's 47% comment. These people are seriously out of touch. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilly Posted June 23, 2014 #19 Share Posted June 23, 2014 These people are seriously out of touch. That sums it up quite nicely. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeWitz Posted June 23, 2014 #20 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Breathtakingly out touch. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted June 23, 2014 #21 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Is it wrong to wish bad things happen to bad people? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little_dreamer Posted June 23, 2014 #22 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Is it wrong to wish bad things happen to bad people? The Germans had a word for it: Schadenfreude http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightly Posted June 24, 2014 #23 Share Posted June 24, 2014 (edited) Is it wrong to wish bad things happen to bad people? Yes, but we all do it. Yup, Out of Touch... People who have always had more than enough money really can't understand .. the rest of us. Or how impossible it's becoming to maintain ourselves . Our system is out of whack. * i think the technical term is Screwywompus Edited June 24, 2014 by lightly 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromdor Posted June 24, 2014 #24 Share Posted June 24, 2014 College buddy of mine was the son of a retired general who was also a current professor at the university. His mom also worked at the university. Family brought in a little over $200,000/yr. He swore up and down that he was middle class and honestly couldn't understand why his friends all groaned when he claimed that. I think people just get used to a certain lifestyle and begin to think that it is the lifestyle they live is the American "average". And they truly don't understand what it's like in other peoples shoes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted June 25, 2014 #25 Share Posted June 25, 2014 College buddy of mine was the son of a retired general who was also a current professor at the university. His mom also worked at the university. Family brought in a little over $200,000/yr. He swore up and down that he was middle class and honestly couldn't understand why his friends all groaned when he claimed that. I think people just get used to a certain lifestyle and begin to think that it is the lifestyle they live is the American "average". And they truly don't understand what it's like in other peoples shoes. I'm tempted to say that if your two income house hold brought in 200k these days you may have enough to last you the rest of your life if you retire comfortably at 65 years old. In that sense it could be considered upper middle class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now