We have been discussing the rather fascinating role of wealth in American politics rather Hillary Clinton’s repeated flubs in claiming to be “dead broke” after leaving the White House and struggling like other Americans to cover tuition and mortgage costs (here and here and here). Despite the fact that most of our leading candidates are fantastically rich, they still feel the need to show voters that they feel their pain. With the Clintons, the new pitch feel flat with even usually favorable media outlets mocking Hillary over her statements. Now Bill Clinton has tried his hand at reviving the new narrative of a working couple done good. Bill Clinton has insisted that the claim of being broke is “factually true” since they had legal debts. However, everyone in Washington knows that these debts to Democratic law firms is funny money and that these firms would have closed shop rather than pursue the Clintons for payment. The debts, as is always the case, was quickly paid off by Clinton supporters, lobbyists, and others interested in helping the powerful couple. It was debt on paper alone and both Clintons were looking at massive windfalls after leaving the White House. It comes down to the meaning of “debt” to paraphrase a certain president. In the meantime, Joe Biden has tried his hand at the “poorer than thou” pitch.
Bill Clinton insisted that Hillary is “not out of touch” when she claimed that they were “dead broke” and later told the Guardian that voters “don’t see me as part of the problem” with income inequality in the United States “because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we’ve done it through the dint of hard work.”
Bill Clinton returned to the claim that it is “factually true” that his family was several million dollars in debt. However, he did not claim that any of these law firms had taken any action to force payment of the debt or address the obvious intention for supporters to pay off the debt. CNN documented that Clinton earned $106 million by making speeches from the end of his presidency through January 2013. Hillary Clinton has pulled in $200,000 a speech and was criticized for receiving $500,000 in one week from Goldman Sachs .
Bill Clinton dug the hole deeper with this rather dubious comment: “Everybody now assumes that what happened in the intervening years was automatic. I’m shocked that it’s happened. I’m shocked that people still want me to come give talks. And so I’m grateful.” The “shocked, shocked” claim was even less convincing than when uttered by Claude Rains. Everybody predicted Clinton would pull in massive bucks on the speaking trail and it was widely discussed before he left the White House. Moreover, he had already started to arrange for such work given the almost immediate speaking engagements.
It is becoming a snowballing disaster for the Clintons as they struggle to portray the image of “country done good.” I am not sure why wealth is so polarizing in American politics to the extent that these super rich candidates have to engage in such desperate re-invention. I do not believe that most people hold great animosity for the super rich while they harbor anger over any special deals or tax shelters. The Clintons have been famous for their army of speechwriters and political advisers shaping every word and gesture — as did candidates like Mitt Romney. However, the rollout of this new narrative has been a disaster. When Hillary later insisted that taking a quarter of a million dollars a speech was commendable thing as opposed to “getting connected with any one group or company,” it triggered analysis on recipts of half a million dollars from companies like Goldman Sachs and revived the scandal of over how a Tysons Food executive arranged for Hillary to invest $1000 to make $100,000 in roughly ten months. While most of us are cringing at the spin, the Clintons appear to see no alternative but to plow ahead on the narrative.
The new claim that Clinton was surprised that people would pay him so much for speeches entirely undermined the credibility of his defense. It played into the view of many voters that our leaders can no longer distinction spin from the truth or at least have little respect for voters to see the difference.
What I thought was equally fascinating was how, as Hillary was struggling with the “dead broke” narrative, Joe Biden (who also wants to be the next nominee), just coincidentally revealed that he does not even have a savings account and will have to live off his government pension. That claim was reviewed by the Pulitzer prize winning organization Politifact. Earlier, the nonpartisan Politifact found Hillary’s comments to be largely false and implausible. Biden fairly only slightly better with a finding that it is “half true” which may be a high for American politicians. The group noted that “Biden also holds four checking accounts, two of which he shares with his wife. In addition, he holds six life insurance policies with Mass Mutual. The Bidens reported an adjusted gross income of $407,099 last year, including his vice presidential salary of $230,700.” He will also receive a $5 million “transition budget” for moving expenses, security, and other incidentals upon leaving office.
Biden is still more credible on this subject as one of the least wealthiest members of the Senate when he represented Delaware. However, it is a narrative that will sit poorly with many citizens regardless of the party. Ironically, conservative figures like Clarence Thomas has a real and compelling story of growing up in poverty. In the end however there is a difference between powerful Americans claiming to be sympathetic with the poor and going even further to having been one of the working stiffs. Ironically, both Clintons have an admirable commitment to the poor and a demonstrated history of working on their behalf. They have street cred on the issue. That is what is so bizarre because this continued effort to claiming to have been dead broke has only alienated voters in an area where the Clintons should rightfully be given great credit.
And the campaign season has not even officially begun . . .
Source: USA Today
Greed is such a horror. The red tape does what it can to keep the costs of production where they belong – with the producer who is trying to outsource as much of his costs as possible thereby increasing his profit. Greed doesn’t recognize a social responsibility, only profit when the government has to make up for the poverty level wages and the lack of medical care. Greed doesn’t recognize a fair price for the use of natural resources, only profit when natural resources can be taken for a fraction of their value and all of nature can be despoiled when regulations are lacking or not enforced. How short-sighted. Fair wages produce greater discretionary spending. Social safety nets produce less stress and hopelessness on the population. Regulations provide for the safety and well-being of all. Is profit more valuable than clean air to breathe or clean water to drink? Ask the people of West Virginia and Ohio and North Carolina about how tasty their coal ash water is. And the people of Pennsylvania and other states where fracking is rampant just how good their water tastes (when it isn’t burning). Ah, greed. Truly the devil’s tool.
Eric, Very interesting thought. It falls in line some of my work experience. I worked for a self made man who made it big (Company at the time was ~$40M/year). He was the richest guy I’ve ever known. He was also the meanest sob I’ve ever worked around. The best thing he could have done was leave the company to us younger guys and enjoy his life but he couldn’t do it since he had sacrificed so much including his family. Also, when you found out more about the countries history, you came to realize that he screwed his partner early on.
SWM, You are an in the box thinker. Saucy understands there are a diverse group of people. They don’t fit the duopoly box. They don’t care about so much of the horseshit the duopoly cherishes. A revolution will not look like anything any of us have seen in our lifetime. For us outside the duopoly, it will be embraced. The duopoly, and their cultists, will do everything in their power to stop it. It really could get nasty. There is more unrest out there than the cultists could ever imagine. You’ve been warned.
“Factually true!” Since there is no possibility of conception or a zygote, oral-genital activity is not “sex.” No such thing as ‘oral sex,’ ‘anal sex,’ or ‘gay sex.’
Clinton is still fixed on his smarmy pettifogging ways. He has learned nothing about truth, parsing, and perjury. “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms Lewinsky.” for him is factually true. It was imitation, simulated, faux sex. That’s the ticket. Yeah!
TheSaucyMugwump – “Here’s a clue for you. In the not so recent past, someone would have a great idea, open a factory in the U.S., hire lots of Americans, and become wealthy. But today, someone has a great idea, opens a factory in China, hires almost no Americans, becomes obscenely wealthy, and then whines about paying taxes.”
You forgot the part about having the great idea, realizing all of the red tape you have to go through due to being over regulated, looking at the over paid union wages, Obamacare, SS, etc.. to make the product, realizing it is cheaper to send the product somewhere else so it can be made for a cost that people will be willing to pay, all so you can pay one of the highest tax rates to Washington where they use your money better than you could.
Eric ” For example, compared to the hungrier Clintons, George Bush renders the impression that he wasn’t in it for the money.” Maybe he wasn’t but he had some very rich Texas oilmen to reward along with the bankers.
Saucy, I think the main complaint about Hillary Clinton among democrats is that she is too centrist. Thomas Friedman wanted to start a centrist third party in 2012 but after Romney became the nominee, it fizzled. I think the third and fourth parties will be on the far right and possibly the far left if Hillary is the democratic nominee. Bernie Sanders is the candidate on the left, and I don’t know who Palin would choose for the tea party. Maybe, she would chose herself.
Nick wrote “It’s time for a revolution”
Count your blessings. At least you are not stuck in a giant vagina.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/27971248
A Horatio Alger life story is admirable in its own right, but where it gives me pause when choosing a community leader is determining whether the self-made candidate can sublimate the self-interested orientation that has driven his success up to that point for the selfless patriarchal perspective of the social greater good.
It’s often the case that a self-made man has needed to be extraordinarily selfish in his formative years, perhaps even acting unethically at times, in order to rise above his modest birthright. Will he switch gears to selfless leadership once in elected office? Honorable military service, peacetime service suffices, would be a favorable indicator in this regard. (For example, see the 7 Army values.) An advantage of electing someone who was born into a family where a past generation was selfish and paid the less-than-ethical dues is that the scion’s inherited affluence allows for a more-innocent social conscience with a sense of noblesse oblige and less of an eye for self-benefit. For example, compared to the hungrier Clintons, George Bush renders the impression that he wasn’t in it for the money.
swarthmoremom wrote “Sarah Palin might go rogue and split the tea party from the republican party”
What we need is a party in the middle, perhaps a mix of what the Democrats were before they contracted terminal political correctness, Eisenhower Republicans, and the Bull Moose Party.
I hope Sarah and her friends create a new party. They should put their money where their mouth is, given that they continually claim that most Americans support their policies.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/25/sarah-palin-is-maybe-going-to-take-the-tea-party-home-and-go-rogue-third-party-with-it/ Looks like Sarah Palin might go rogue and split the tea party from the republican party. Cochran’s victory in Mississippi which was aided by some democratic black voters, is propelling her into action. She supported the neo-confederate McDaniel. The third party movement is gaining steam, nick.
He’s yesterday’s news
Whether it’s Biden, Queen Hillary, or ANY DC politician. You see just how out of touch they are. It’s time for a revolution.
TheSaucyMugwump: “But today, someone has a great idea, opens a factory in China, hires almost no Americans, becomes obscenely wealthy, and then whines about paying taxes.”
Or skips that step altogether and becomes wealthy through finance or government lobbying without generating economic production in real terms.
jonathanturley: “Ironically, both Clintons have an admirable commitment to the poor and a demonstrated history of working on their behalf. They have street cred on the issue.”
There’s plenty of funny money in that circle, too. The consistently excellent Matt Continetti wrote an eye-opening (at least for me) expose on the well-oiled corporate-policy complex centered in Washington DC.
http://freebeacon.com/columns/divorce-beltway-style/
Some expert on CNN yesterday was stating as truth that no one had resented the Roosevelts or Kennedys for their growing up in wealth. BS. The East Coast historians from Harvard and Yale put the Roosevelts and Kennedys on the pedestal and then castigate a guy from the mid west named Harry Truman as that “failed haberdasher”. I for one, do not want some punk from a rich family, who went to Harvard and Yale, never had to work, speaks East Coast turdy turd and a turd lingo and does not know geography west of the Alleghanies. As to Bill and Hillary, they did not grow up in wealth. Big difference. And as to Romney. Well look up his Roma heritage. And for those of you who do not figure out Roma, Romanivich, Romney, then there is a lollipop waiting in your garage and a Romney wantin to seal your driveway.
Bushies: thief sends sons to Harvard and Yale and next generation to Midland and bingo. Kennybunkport and all that.
One way to avoid taxes is to set up a tax- exempt foundation. The Clintons have done that. Did the millions they take in go to the lawyers and mortgage holders? Or did others take care of those expenses while they built up the foundation?
The claim of having been dead broke is probably factually true, however, what galls is the lack of recognition of the vast resources at their disposal to turn things around.
Sonya Sotomayer also came from poverty.
Biden was a “least wealthiest”?
All this dissembling causes non cultists, independents who decide elections, do we want these lying SOS’s in the WH again? “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.”
The public is the jury.
In recent days and weeks elections have shown a lack of understanding of jury dynamics on the part of pundits and candidates.
JT wrote “Bill Clinton has insisted that the claim of being broke is ‘factually true'”
Democratic polling must be telling them that their claim of being broke is laughable, so Bill is trying to convince the many suggestible voters that he and Hillary are not really part of the 1%.
“everyone in Washington knows that these debts to Democratic law firms is funny money”
Just you wait until randyjet reads that.
“later told the Guardian”
The Guardian is Pravda 2.0, British, and only read by Bill’s base. Why not speak with the Huffington Post which loves the Obamas and the Clintons? Bill must be slipping.
“I am not sure why wealth is so polarizing in American politics”
Here’s a clue for you. In the not so recent past, someone would have a great idea, open a factory in the U.S., hire lots of Americans, and become wealthy. But today, someone has a great idea, opens a factory in China, hires almost no Americans, becomes obscenely wealthy, and then whines about paying taxes.
Americans never minded if a business owner became wealthy if the rising tide caused boats other than his to rise.
It’s called being ‘hoisted with their own petard.’ The Dems accuse the Republicans of being too rich, racist, and having a war on women, etc. Their ‘talking points’ are dishonest and they deserve to have their hypocrisy catch up with them.