Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
14. More to the point, there was no way
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 06:10 PM
Apr 2016

they were going to stay "dead broke" because they knew each of them could give speeches for hefty sums. I believe Bill hit the lecture circuit just about immediately. Plus the Clinton Foundation came about immediately after he left the Presidency.

For most people "dead broke" means living in their car. They were so far from that situation that it's laughable.

And the lecture circuit has been highly profitable for decades. Bill Clinton did not create the "get rich on speaking fees paradigm". What he did was give pretty much one speech a day for a year or more. Which indicates greed to me more than anything else.

And even if their wealth was modest by some standards back when he entered the White House, it was still far above what the average American had then or now.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

But let's not forget that they were dead broke when they left the White House. SheilaT Apr 2016 #1
you think 700k is a lot? for two lawyers? MariaThinks Apr 2016 #2
Bill Clinton was not an active lawyer from 1983 on Art_from_Ark Apr 2016 #20
yes, he took a lower salary to serve the public MariaThinks Apr 2016 #22
They really were in the red, had to get a loan from Terry McAuliffe. joshcryer Apr 2016 #9
Problem is conflict of interest egalitegirl Apr 2016 #10
That is Non-Sense-A Ex-Preident Doesn't Have to Sit at Home Because His Wife has a Job Stallion Apr 2016 #12
He doesn't have to sit at home egalitegirl Apr 2016 #13
More to the point, there was no way SheilaT Apr 2016 #14
Of course. joshcryer Apr 2016 #16
more than I have now. But when I was married and we had 2 incomes it was different hollysmom Apr 2016 #11
Well, they will probably be billionaires before it's over. Skwmom Apr 2016 #3
Their stocks did well and their nearly $200K retirement account was included. IamMab Apr 2016 #4
The money laundering thread: A DU collaborative investigation (July 2010) suggest you review this bobthedrummer Apr 2016 #6
"Public service" has certainly laruemtt Apr 2016 #5
Welcome to DU, egalitegirl! bobthedrummer Apr 2016 #7
Thank you! n/t egalitegirl Apr 2016 #8
And? I don't see how this matters one bit, unless we can only elect people who have no BreakfastClub Apr 2016 #15
The standard Bernie has brought is honesty egalitegirl Apr 2016 #21
Compare that to Bill and Hillary's now estimated net worth of ~$45 Million. TumbleAndJumble Apr 2016 #17
So? Zynx Apr 2016 #18
Good for them! NurseJackie Apr 2016 #19
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Clintons reported a net w...»Reply #14