Posts Tagged ‘dead broke’

Hold Multi-Millionaire Hillary Clinton To The Same Standard As ‘Out-Of-Touch’ ‘Filthy-Rich’ Mitt Romney Or Just Acknowledge You’re A Hypocrite

June 24, 2014

Hillary Clinton said she left the White House with her still-smiling-from-all-the-oral-sex husband “dead broke”:

“You have no reason to remember, but we came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt,” Clinton said. “We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education. It was not easy. Bill has worked really hard. And it’s been amazing to me. He’s worked very hard.”

I grant that Bill worked really “hard” and “very hard.”  But that was mostly Monica Lewinsky’s doing. truth to be told.

But the “worked hard” jokes aside, what an out-of-touch LIAR Hillary Clinton is.

Make that what a filthy RICH out-of-touch liar.

Even the reliably leftist Politifact rules Hillary’s ridiculous claim as “mostly false.”  And that after giving her every possible benefit of the doubt imaginable.

Do you know what “dead broke” means?  It means you’re begging your parents to let you have your old room back.  It means you’re sleeping on somebody’s couch.  Hey, it means you don’t have gracious parents or gracious friends and you’re HOMELESS.

It DOESN’T mean you’re paying your mortgages for multi-million dollar HOUSES (plural).

The year “dead broke” Hillary left the White House, she and “worked hard” Bill made over $12 million:

As Hillary Clinton backpedaled this week on comments that she and Bill Clinton were “dead broke” after leaving the White House, financial disclosure forms shed more light on just how shaky that claim really was.

Technically, Bill and Hillary Clinton were in debt when they left the White House. Financial forms filed for 2000 show assets between $781,000 and almost $1.8 million — and liabilities between $2.3 million and $10.6 million, mostly for legal bills.

But as the outgoing first couple, they had tremendous earning potential. And within just one year, their financial troubles were effectively gone.

Hillary Clinton’s Senate disclosure forms show that in 2001, they reported earning nearly $12 million. Most of that came from Bill Clinton’s speechmaking, and the rest came from an advance for Hillary Clinton’s book.

And that didn’t even include Hillary Clinton’s Senate salary, Bill Clinton’s pension or money made on investments.

As soon as they left the White House, Hillary Clinton entered the Senate and was earning a $145,000 salary; her husband’s pension was also north of $150,000.

All told, their financial snapshot in 2001 was drastically different than when they left the White House — assets were listed at between $6 million and $30 million; liabilities were between $1.3 million and $5.6 million. And despite their financial issues, they got help from family friend and fundraiser Terry McAuliffe (now, the governor of Virginia) to secure a loan at the time for a $1.7 million home in Chappaqua, N.Y.

These finer details made Clinton’s comment about being “dead broke” all the more questionable.

But it was a DEAD BROKE DOZEN MILLION, WASN’T IT?

And now this “dead broke” lady is worth at least $120 million:

NEW YORK, June 23, 2014 /PRNewswire/ — Hillary and Bill Clinton’s current net worth is US$120 million, according to a Wealth-X estimate released today, a far cry from the less than US$5 million they had in the bank in 2001 at the end of Bill’s tenure as US president.

The net worth of the former First Lady, US Senator, and US Secretary of State, who is a likely Democratic presidential candidate for 2016, is under intense media scrutiny after she said in a recent interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer that she and her husband were “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2001.

Wealth-X estimates that the combined net worth of the Clintons was below US$5 million when they left the White House. They amassed their current US$120 million fortune through fees from speaking engagements, revenues from their books, and her salary from her government positions.

Other sources have her wealth at $200 million, which she “earned” by “giv[ing] speeches to Goldman Sachs for $200,000 each.”  Which by the way puts her into Mitt Romney territory in pretty much every imaginable sense.

On the heels of her “dead broke” hypocrisy, hypocrite Hillary further twisted reality into a pretzel by declaring, “I’m not truly well off” like that arch-fiend who shall not be named [Mitt Romney]:

Hillary Clinton, who has a net worth upwards of $50 million, said in an interview that she is “unlike a lot of people who are truly well off.”

Clinton was derided for comments made last week that her family was “dead broke” when it left the White House in 2000 although they were far from the poverty line. Bill and Hillary Clinton have reportedly made more than $100 million since leaving the White House.

But Hillary, who charges a six figure speaking fee, says with a burst of laughter that she is not “truly well off” and that her wealth is the result of “hard work,” according to The Guardian.

America’s glaring income inequality is certain to be a central bone of contention in the 2016 presidential election. But with her huge personal wealth, how could Clinton possibly hope to be credible on this issue when people see her as part of the problem, not its solution?

“But they don’t see me as part of the problem,” she protests, “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 dint of hard work,” she says, letting off another burst of laughter. If past form is any guide, she must be finding my question painful.

Hillary’s attitude on wealth has been the target of criticism, even from the left. Howard Fineman called her “dead broke” comment “disastrous” and “offensive to even some Democrats.” MSNBC’s Chuck Todd said that Hillary comes off as a “politician who perhaps only hangs out with millionaires and donors and feels poor by comparison.”

I mean, what would she have us believe?  Who paid $200,000 a speech from this woman?  Homeless people???  Obviously not: she got filthy rich telling filthy rich people exactly what they wanted to hear.  And as for her “hard work,” how hard is it to put your name on books that three other people are known to have actually written for her???

She got paid MILLIONS of dollars for work she didn’t do; but she “feels little people’s pain”???

I suppose that’s better than when she was earning her living by slandering little girls who were victimized by child rapists and getting hard-core pedophiles off scott free with technicalities.

Hillary Clinton is a LIFE of quintessential, abject, demon-possessed hypocrisy.  Which is why liberals love her so much.  She campaigns on “the war on women” when SHE warred on women far more viciously than damn near any man but the rapist she got off.  And she has the man-sized balls to run on “economic fairness” when she is every bit as filthy rich and every bit as in bed with the filthy rich as the people she demonizes.

When the Republicans have a rich candidate, you can count on the demonic-hypocrite Democrat Party and their media propaganda machine to demonize that candidate over wealth; when it’s THEIR candidate who is filthy rich – like FDR, like JFK, and more recently like John Kerry and now Hillary Clinton – suddenly the wealth of the candidate is entirely irrelevant.

And of course, the left plays the same abject hypocrite game with “the war on women.”  Obama pays his females far less than his males while demonizing EVERYONE ELSE for doing what HE DOESObama was documented has having created a hostile workplace for women.  Female White House staffers called it a “boy’s club.”  I mean, literally, if a man is beating and raping a little GIRL, but he’s for aborting the child he fathers as a result of his raping, liberals like Hillary Clinton are FINE with it.

This is a sick nation that is about to die as a result of it’s voting for the wrath of God in the form of every Obama policy that Hillary Clinton would gleefully continue and accelerate.

You either care for America’s children the way Hillary Clinton “cared” for the little girl she demonized and raped a second time, or you would willingly lay down your life if it would stop A SECOND Saul Alinsky radical from taking office.

The Democrat Party, Liberalism OWN The Wealth Divide. Because They CAUSED It.

June 19, 2014

I came across this article from the Los Angeles Times a couple of days ago and something popped out at me.  I’ll bold face it when it appears in the article.  And then we’ll talk about it:

San Francisco leads the way with $15 minimum-wage ballot measure
By Lee Romney
June 15, 2014, 5:39 PM|reporting from SAN FRANCISCO

Eleven years ago, San Francisco set precedent with the first citywide minimum-wage boost, giving it the highest wage floor in the nation. Another first soon required all employers to provide paid sick days. Yet another mandated healthcare for all..

Now, the city that recently won dubious distinction for the fastest-growing wealth divide is leading again.

Let’s look at the timeline: San Francisco – THE most liberal, most Democrat Party-worshiping, city on earth – imposed their “highest wage floor in the nation.”

And then what happened as a result?  The city that “won the dubious distinction for the FASTEST-GROWING WEALTH DIVIDE.”  That’s what happened.

Because San  Francisco is FASCIST.  And FASCISM loves to pick who wins and who loses, who benefits and who gets punished.  Small businesses and new businesses that can’t afford to pay exorbitant wages get chased out, and the big, established businesses and the businesses that are started by wealthy elitists get to grow and grow and grow.  And the wealth divide is the inevitable result of liberal fascism.

What is true of fascists in San Francisco is just as true for our Fascist-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama:

Can You Guess Which President Had Worst Record On ‘Income Inequality’?

If Obama thinks he can pivot away from the failures of Obamacare towards the cause of relieving “income inequality,” he’s going to find even greater failures there already on the part of his administration.

The vast majority of gains in wealth have gone to the top earners, making income inequality increase drastically under Obama. In fact, of the last three presidents, the income gap didn’t change overall during the Bush years, increased second most during Clinton’s time, and has increased the most with only 5 years under Obama’s belt.

income-gap-obama

Obama himself has admitted this before questioning by George Stephanopoulos, where he amazingly tried to blame Bush for the 95% of income growth during his own “recovery” going to the top 1%.  

income-inequality-obamaAs we reported last year when Obama was loudly denouncing the nation’s “income inequality”:

President Obama… is presiding under epic Wall Street earnings (they crashed under Bush, remember?), deteriorating income levels for the middle class, an increasingly part-time nation partly fueled by the looming employer mandate of Obamacare, and long-term unemployment so persistent that millions of people are dropping off the labor force grid (that would be why the official unemployment rate is slowly going down).

And the Obamanomics failure extends to falling income across the board for the average American family. During the “worst recession since the Great Depression,” the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income fell by 1.8%, but fell by an incredible 4.4% during Obama’s “recovery.” That comes to each family making $2,400 less per year during Obama’s regime.

You would think the press would do its job and continue to question the president about his dismal record under this metric he keeps harping about, especially since the stimulus and Obamacare were so costly and supposed to relieve all of American’s ills.

Still waiting on the sea levels to lower, as well.

Notice, ALL of Obama’s regulations, all of his tax increases, all of his war on natural energy such as coal, oil and natural gas and all of his elevation of costly energy boondoggles, all of his policies of picking winners and losers, has done nothing but cause the wealth divide to soar, soar, SOAR.

What is interesting is that not only was Obama’s wealth gap worse than George W. Bush’s, but so also was Bill Clinton’s.  And keep in mind, this is the Bill Clinton who largely governed as a moderate, having renounced the big government liberalism that the Democrat Party embraces.  He assured us that under his presidency, “The era of big government is over.”  Because his “big government” period early in his presidency failed and failed the angry American people, and he had the wisdom to recognize it.

Obama brought it back.  And Hillary Clinton will grow it into even more of a fatal cancer than it already is under Obama.

We consider Obama’s policies and the result they have had on something that it turns out poor people need to live – FOOD – and we can only marvel at Obama’s hatred of the poor:

Price Index for Meats, Poultry, Fish & Eggs Rockets to All-Time High
June 17, 2014 – 11:20 AM
By Ali Meyer

(CNSNews.com) – The seasonally-adjusted price index for meats, poultry, fish, and eggs hit an all-time high in May, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

In January 1967, when the BLS started tracking this measure, the index for meats, poultry, fish, and eggs was 38.1. As of last May, it was 234.572. By this January, it hit 240.006. By April, it hit 249.362. And, in May, it climbed to a record 252.832.

“The index for meats, poultry, fish and eggs has risen 7.7 percent over the span [last year],” says the BLS. “The index for food at home increased 0.7 percent, its largest increase since July 2011. Five of the six major grocery store food group indexes increased in May. The index for meats, poultry, fish, and eggs rose 1.4 percent in May after a 1.5 increase in April, with virtually all its major components increasing,” BLS states.

Meat, Poultry, Fish & Egg Price Index Rockets to  All-Time High

In addition to this food index, the price for fresh whole chickens hit its all-time high in the United States in May.

In January 1980, when the BLS started tracking the price of this commodity, fresh whole chickens cost $0.70 per pound. By this May 2014, fresh whole chickens cost $1.56 per pound.

A decade ago, in May 2004, a pound of fresh chicken cost $1.04. Since then, the price has gone up 50%.

Imagine, if you make it vastly more expensive to grow food, while issuing one crippling regulation after another, food will become more expensive.  You’d think that was common sense, but it is like nuclear physics or neurosurgery to liberals.

Liberals believe you can hate job creators and love jobs.  You can’t.  These people are pathologically morally insane and their moral insanity is bearing the fruit that insanity produces: fewer and fewer jobs, jobs that pay less and less, part-time jobs because of ObamaCare, a lower standard of living, higher food costs, higher fuel costs, more pressure on more families just to keep their heads above water.

Hillary Clinton arrogantly, self-righteously, and in the face of all reality to the contrary, claimed that she and husband Bill were “dead broke” when they left the White House.  You want to talk about someone who is so utterly and so profoundly out of touch with reality and with ordinary people that it is beyond unreal?

“Dead broke” means asking your parents if you can have your old room back.  Or if they’ve passed, “dead broke” means begging a friend to let you sleep on their couch.  Or living in a shelter.  It doesn’t mean getting multi-million dollar loans to finance palatial “houses” while giving speeches for tens of thousands of dollars a pop.

But this out-of-touch crony capitalist fascist is actually going to run on the wealth divide that liberal policies impose on society.

These liberals are truly and simply nothing more than pure, cynical liars who count on the people’s ignorance and media propaganda (much the way Hitler and Stalin did) to secure their positions and entrench themselves.