Hillary Clinton is rich. She is not Mitt Romney rich.

[ErikJ]

Last edited Tue Jul 22, 2014, 04:15 PM - Edit history (1)

AND she pays her taxes... unlike Romney.

For those who are out of touch with RW antics,
the GOP's latest strategy is to attack Hillary for her wealth, trying to paint her as an out of touch
1%er to keep the far-left and youth home if she runs.



Hillary Clinton is rich. She is not Mitt Romney rich.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/08/hillary-clinton-is-rich-she-is-not-mitt-romney-rich/

By Aaron Blake July 8
Hillary Clinton's wealth is still all the rage -- first because of some "inartful" comments she made about it and more recently because of scrutiny of her massive speaking fees. But just how rich is Clinton? Well, as the chart below shows, she would likely be wealthier than any other major 2016 presidential candidate or recent president who has filed an official federal financial report.

But she's not really in the same ballpark as two other recent candidates: Massachusetts' own Mitt Romney and current Secretary of State John Kerry -- or at least she wasn't as of 2012.

Here's how that looks, according to the most recent federal filings:
You'll note that Clinton's maximum estimated net worth ($25 million) was about 1/10th that of Romney, with whom Kerry is in the same ballpark. It's important to note that the Clintons likely upped their net worth significantly after Hillary Clinton left as secretary of state -- some have estimated it at $55 million or higher -- but that's a lot of ground to make up.

Does it matter that Clinton's wealth is not quite on-par with the Romneys and the Kerrys of the political world? Maybe not. Clearly, they are all far wealthier than the vast, vast majority of Americans, and it's becoming clearer and clearer that, just like Romney, Clinton will have to deal with questions about whether she's out of touch with average Americans (and $225,000 speaking gigs won't do anything to quell that).

............More http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/08/hillary-clinton-is-rich-she-is-not-mitt-romney-rich/

[NightWatcher]

1. Her cars have to use the stairs?

[Jackpine Radical]

6. Ba da…

[KamaAina]

12. DUzy!

[LittleBlue]

2. Bill and Hillary's net worth is $101.5m

Source: http://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/10-richest-politicians-america/#!/8-bill-and-hillary-clinton-net-worth-101-5-million_2576/

[Warpy]

3. She's making Romney's mistakes, though

by trying to back away from her wealth as though wealth itself is what is objectionable.

What's objectionable is the idiotic conceit of that. What's objectionable is being so cloistered by wealth that one thinks one's own viewpoint should be forced upon the non wealthy so they can get rich, too. What's objectionable is being so cloistered by wealth that one is completely unaware of the conditions forced on the 99% by wages that don't keep most of us in safe housing with nutritious food and medical care and the ability to save for retirement.

Clinton needs to tell us what she's going to do about those conditions, not back away from the fact that people are willing to pay her more than most of us make in two years of hard work to speak for an hour or so.

If she keeps making the Romney mistake, she's toast.

[DirkGently]

26. Bingo. Anyone playing this game is wrong.

HRC got nailed initially not for being rich, but for glibly suggesting she and Bill had been "broke" when they left the White House. That it was hard keeping up the mortgage(S). What that communicated, fairly or not, is that Hillary may not be very sensitive to what being poor or broke in America really means. Whether that gaffe really supports that criticism or not is open to debate, but it hits her right where some liberals doubt her.

As for being merely very rich as opposed to Romney's mega-rich, that's pretty irrelevant. It's not a numbers game; it's a question of the perspective each of them take from it. We know Romney's: He views tax avoidance as a fun hobby, and the half of America that's too poor to pay income tax as feckless "victims" looking for government to absolve them of personal responsibility. In short, he's an arrogant idiot who believes he owes nothing to the country that fostered his wealth, and that anyone in bad financial straits lacks his character.

Clinton or anyone else looking for liberal support don't need to show they're poor. They just need to show they understand that their proposed constituents include people struggling with just the one mortgage.

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. To be fair ...

"Broke" has very different meanings to people ... to someone facing a utility cut off, a missed rental or car payment being broke means one thing; but for more financially secure, being broke might mean something like, not having a bunch of money in one's pocket or in this instance, temporarily having more debt than assets, despite there being no concerns about missing a meal or a house payment.

Honestly, how many of us have said we were "broke" when we just didn't have (or did want to spend) money on hand? Come on folks, ... this all , really is much to do about nothing ... and the left got sucked in by the right's outrage ... again.

[DirkGently]

36. Agree it was a careless exaggeration. Unfortunately for her,

glibly complaining about a slight and temporary dip in her otherwise extraordinarily privileged financial well-being touches on a primary area of criticism for her among liberals -- the Clintons' shared "Third Way" philosophy of integrating the needs and wants of the mega-wealthy into a supposedly liberal platform.

That's a real problem, not a figment of rightwing Hillary hate.

So it was actually pretty obtuse of her to put that particular foot in her mouth.

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. My only concern for HRC is ...

no matter how she comes down on the issues, a segment of liberals will not listen to/believe her. I project she will run, and govern ... if she runs and is elected ... much farther to the left than DUers will give her credit ... and no one on DU will believe her.

But, unfortunately, the loudest voices on DU (as measured by rec count ad frequency of posts) don't have a particularly good predictive record.

[DirkGently]

45. And no matter the legitimacy of the criticisms, some will support her.

That is the way politics goes. Some people make up their minds without fair consideration of the facts.

I do recall the loud pro-Hillary voices being wrong in 2008 of course. "Inevitable," and "No one else could be elected," seemed to be the thrust then, just as now.

We shall see. But if Hillary does want to be a contender, as it appears she does, she will need to address her perceived insensitivity to the needs of the many vs. the needs of the few.

[1StrongBlackMan]

46. True ...

I will be one of those that will support her, assuming she is the Democratic nominee ... no matter the legitimacy of the criticism. But I think it, after a fair consideration of the facts. Simply put, if she is the Democratic nominee, I will vote for her.

Though my hope is that the 2014 elections gives her both something to work with, if she proves a leftward shift, or to give her progressive legislation, should she not.

[Lex]

4. I don't dislike rich people. I dislike rich people who screw the poor like Romney

and the Koch Brothers, etc.

[ErikJ]

7. RW rich want their taxes cut vs LW rich who dont

Greedy RW rich use their wealth to buy govt to have their taxes and regulations cut.

[closeupready]

5. As others are saying, I actually like rich people. My experiences with them

is that they are genial, have good social skills, and enjoy nice lives. I'm being sincere.

The Democratic Party, however, is NOT associated traditionally with those of high net worth. And it's offensive to me for either this pundit or Hillary to argue that there is a substantive difference between net wealth of $25 million and $250 million.

Even at $1 million, you won't be hurting anytime soon. Most working people however are living paycheck. To. Paycheck. They struggle to pay rent and car insurance, and we're supposed to sympathize with those who say Hillary is really not that rich?

[closeupready]

8. Oh wait - this is from the Washington Post, Beltway Bubble Bible.

Not worth getting riled up about.

[CBGLuthier]

9. The problem is not how rich she is. the problem is how poor she claimed to be

The problem is someone with two houses bemoaning their expense. When she says shit like that, she sounds every bit as out of touch as Romney.

[ErikJ]

10. But they WERE in debt to lawyers which can be scary even for very rich.

Something about a sex lawsuit impeachment I think.

[Beacool]

19. When you owe $12M and do not have even 20% of it, then you are broke.

She never said that they weren't able to earn money after they left the WH, but when they needed to buy a house to establish residency in NY (she was running for the Senate while still first lady), they had to have Terry McAuliffe guarantee the loan.

The Clintons were the poorest couple to enter the WH since the Trumans.

[former9thward]

28. Well they made up for lost time didn't they?

And they certainly did not follow Truman's example after they left the White House.

[Beacool]

39. Yeah, they made money.

So what?

[former9thward]

44. Doesn't bother me.

And it doesn't bother me when anyone makes money or what they do with it. But then I don't go around trying to promote class war. A concept the Democratic Party dismissed long ago.

[closeupready]

29. You don't need to buy a house in New York State to run for Senator.

Signed, a New Yorker.

[Beacool]

40. I see, a former WH couple should just trent a railroad apt. in the Bronx.

Would that have passed your purity test?

[1StrongBlackMan]

35. Thank you ...

"Broke" has very different meanings to people ... to someone facing a utility cut off, a missed rental or car payment being broke means one thing; but for the more financially secure, being broke might mean something like, not having a bunch of money in one's pocket or, in this instance, temporarily having more debt than assets, despite there being no concerns about missing a meal or a house payment.

Honestly, how many of us have said we were "broke" when we just didn't have (or did want to spend) money on hand? Come on folks, ... this all , really is much to do about nothing ... and the left got sucked in by the right's outrage ... again.

[Beacool]

41. They were broke because they owed millions of dollars and they didn't have the money.

It's a simple concept. I don't understand the fake drama over her remark. Yes, they have made a lot of money since they left the WH, and more power to them. They have also spent a considerable amount of time and resources to better humanity through their foundation.

I'm fed up with the barrage of attacks. It's all B.S.

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. Yes it is ...

but it's doing what DU does ... latch onto a RW outrage and make it their own.

[Lurks Often]

11. She is still richer then I ever expect to be n/t

[IronLionZion]

13. How rich were they before Bill became president?

The Clintons certainly didn't buy their way into political elections the way the Romneys and Bushes have. They certainly weren't born into wealth.

And while some will be jealous of her wealth, most on the left will be more interested in policy positions (I hope). The corporate media has an endless supply of bullshit to choose from to distract from the policy positions. Assholes.

[uponit7771]

22. They had trillions (aka 4,500 dollars in liquid cash) says the haters

[pnwmom]

24. Not rich at all. But they were well off for Arkansas,

with his $32K a year as Governor, and her higher salary as a corporate lawyer.

[leftstreet]

14. Wealthy politicians, 'relating' to the working classes

It must be campaign season

[rurallib]

30. like FDR - what ever happened to him? Or Jack Kennedy?

[Dawgs]

15. What does that have to do with me or anyone else besides the Clintons? n/t

[ErikJ]

16. GOP now heavily using Hillary's wealth to "tarnish" her as a 1%er

which they know works on a lot of liberals especially the youth vote. To keep them home.

[bigwillq]

17. I believe she is still out of touch

with what the average American is going through right now. Most of them, even if they came from meager beginnings, are out of touch with today's struggles.

[ErikJ]

18. You gonna stay home then like the GOP wants you to?

So we can have a Pres. Cruz?

[bigwillq]

21. Nope. I have never missed an election

And there are other choices besides Hillary (if she does decide to run)

[ErikJ]

25. I'd prefer Warren but GOP propaganda machine attacking her wealth too.

Maybe Bernie is the only qualified eh? But no chance of winning.

[bigwillq]

27. I want Warren to stay in the Senate

I think she can accomplish more in that body.
I love Sanders. I also don't really buy into the theory that he has no chance of winning.
Maybe he doesn't, but if we all vote for him, then he has as good a chance as anyone else out there.

[1StrongBlackMan]

38. I copletely agree ...

while I love her economic positions, she would be far more effective, focusing solely/largely on the areas of economic policy with a bully pulpit AND a vote, than a bully pulpit and a veto pen.

[uponit7771]

20. She's not out of touch, could care less if she's rich... she can relate at some level to the rest of

... us and not think that 47% shit

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. it's not the Clinton's wealth that's the dealbreaker for me. it's their 3rd Way, neolib, politics.

They're just cashing in on their celebrity now...which is not an unknown thing to do for politicians.

[former9thward]

31. Hilliary Clinton made her money the old fashion way -- cattle futures!

She turned $1000 into $100,000 in 10 months by trading cattle futures with the help of a "friend" and "reading the Wall Street Journal."

Hillary Rodham Clinton was allowed to order 10 cattle futures contracts, normally a $12,000 investment, in her first commodity trade in 1978 although she had only $1,000 in her account at the time, according to trade records the White House released yesterday.

The computerized records of her trades, which the White House obtained from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, show for the first time how she was able to turn her initial investment into $6,300 overnight. In about 10 months of trading, she made nearly $100,000, relying heavily on advice from her friend James B. Blair, an experienced futures trader.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm

[CincyDem]

32. She's rich. He's wealthy

Chris Rock has a point of view on this (along with some other topics).

Definitely NSFW and you should probably keep your distance if you're not ready for more than your fair share of four letter words.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

33. all our politicians are rich. nt

[Iggo]

43. To put it simply...

I don't care if they're rich. In fact I'm glad for them. It must be nice, for reals.

What does rub me the wrong way is when one of them tries to convince me they're not rich.

That makes it look like they think I'm stupid.

I do care about that.

[Jenoch]

48. Once your net worth is over $100 million,

a hundred million here and there does not make much of a difference.