Still can't believe this conversation took place.

[SheenaR]

And people wonder why Sanders supporters are angry and aggressive. This talk of a political revolution is not talk. I and many others are prepared to take to the streets, march on our cities, because we are tired of the assholes on the other side and we have to deal with this stuff from our own "progressive" leaders. It's insane

Melvin then said, “I think the unnamed candidate probably Hillary Clinton, safe to say there, senator. Nick Confessore of The New York Times reporting Thursday Goldman Sachs has paid Hillary Clinton $675,000 for three speeches in recent years. She was paid millions more by other Wall Street firms. Along with her husband, they’ve been paid more than $125 million for paid speeches since 2001. That is, of course, not the kind of money that most Americans can relate to. Were the speeches a mistake, senator?”

“Listen, voters are angry, and I don’t blame them, because they’ve been watching a Washington that has been divisive, that hasn’t worked together,” Shaheen claimed, avoiding Melvin’s question. “And I believe we need a candidate who’s not going to further divide this country, but who’s going to unite it.”

“That’s not my question. Senator, that’s not my question,” Melvin interjected.

“That’s one of the reasons I’m supporting Hillary. Well, your first question was, are voters angry? And I would say yes,” Shaheen continued to argue.

“No, no, I never asked that question. I think that’s well established. The question was, are the speeches, were the speeches a mistake? Did it make sense to accept close to three quarters [of a million dollars],” Melvin asked.

“Listen, they’re done. So it doesn’t matter whether you support that or not. The fact is, that’s in the past, just as Bernie’s socialism, he claims, is in the past,” Shaheen claimed.

[Liberal Jesus Freak]

1. It's really crap.

I was a major Hillary Clinton supporter until 2008. Now she comes across to me--a white woman of her generation--as mean and bitter. Her followers? Just the same

[SheenaR]

2. They are massively underestimating

The number of people who will stay home in November, young and old. This entire strategy is ass-backwards. Day by day they alienate those who would normally gladly support the nominee blindly if it were her.

[reformist2]

26. They don't care at this point. The only goal of "Big Money" now is to stop Bernie.

[draa]

36. That's spot on.

Their elitist attitude will come back to bite them though. The only thing hated more in this country than Wall Street is the 1%. Oh, and the establishment. Clinton is seen as all three at once.

[TheBlackAdder]

46. I still can't believe that this conversation took place (TWICE)!

.

.

[passiveporcupine]

50. He's a master of his craft

I don't always like him, but much of his dialogue is right on...like this one.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

64. We need Olberman back

for this election, more than any other past election.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

98. many many many thanks

the list of the unforgivable offenses has continued to grow

so sad that so many choose to be blind to this fact

[Lucinda]

3. Politicians make speeches after elected office.

And the popular ones make quite a bit per speech.
It is standard practice and has been all throughout modern political history.

Most will use the opportunity to make the case for causes important to them, and stress the need for Democratic political support to maintain a strong country. They have a big platform after a successful political career, and the smart ones make use of it, and the money these speeches generate. It's only with the Clinton's that this is suddenly made out to be something nefarious.

[Empowerer]

6. I've often wondered how these people think former politicians are supposed to make a living.

Since they don't seem to ever want them to earn any money doing anything.

[Lucinda]

8. Yep. I don't think some people think things through,

they just jump on the bandwagon if it make their candidates opponent look bad.

[retrowire]

12. But do you agree that an average of 226,000

for a speech is reasonable?

That's 5 times my income and I actually do work. A lot of that money can go to more important things.

And when she was asked to explain what those speeches were for, she said they were because the people wanted to hear her opinion on things today and such....

Couldn't they write her an email asking her? Maybe do a google search? Save them a lot of money.

That amount of money, for a meeting where someone gives their perspective... is asinine.

What did Jimmy Carter do after his presidency? Charity? Volunteer work? That sounds good. Not like he'll ever go without anyways.

[Lucinda]

16. I think whatever people are willing to pay, is fine

especially when it is put to good work like it has been for Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

Heck...I'll even say it's good for little George Bush. It's keeping him in paint supplies and off the national stage for the most part, which I think is a pretty darn good return of investment.

I do get your point that is an obscene amount of money to here someone talk, but like I've said above, it is an enormously helpful platform for getting ideas out there that can make a difference in the world. And it seems to be a standard practice, not just in politics, but fees for sports starts and motivational speakers are huge too.

[Empowerer]

20. Yes, I think it is reasonable if that's what the going rate for those speeches is

If the organization paying that fee thinks it's worth it to them, then it's a reasonable fee. It's no less reasonable than an athlete making millions of dollars per game or a lawyer earning $1500 per hour or consultants making much more than that. When someone pays Clinton that kind of money (and most of his speeches don't command anything close to that), it's because they can afford it and his presence is bringing value to whatever event he's participating in.

The Clintons do an enormous amount of charity work. Much of the work that Bill Clinton does, he does for no money at all - I know this because I have been involved in efforts that he has supported and he has traveled and spoken on their behalf for no money at his own expense. And remember, those fees go to the Foundation, not to the Clintons personally. The fees help to pay staff salaries, expenses, but more importantly, they underwrite the work that the Foundation does around the world. And the Foundation does outstanding work and has made a tremendous difference, something that we as progressives should be very proud of.

Everybody is not Jimmy Carter and I don't think everyone should be expected to be Jimmy Carter. I also do not begrudge a former president making a lots of money after they leave office. Frankly, I don't understand this notion that earning a lot of money is per se bad. Yes, I think we have misplaced values in this society and I don't like that we so substantially undervalue and underpay our country's most valuable workers - e.g., teachers, firefighters, police officers, paramedics, etc. But the fact that we don't pay them enough doesn't mean that we should hate on people who earn good money that people are more than willing to pay them. Attacking Clinton for making money, in my view, is just petty.

[retrowire]

33. Thanks for your reasonable response.

I think it's not really hating a Clinton for making money. It's moreso the distrust that forms from whom the money is changing hands with.

[MeNMyVolt]

29. What's "reasonable" is what people will pay.

And the Clinton Foundation does a lot of good work. Not everything requires a hammer.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

92. People keep saying "the Clinton Foundation does good work" like it's well known.

[retrowire]

13. See post 12 because I want your opinion too. nt

[daleanime]

32. After 5 years it looks pretty good to me....

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0ahUKEwiZqv2nlb_KAhXKnYMKHUniD00QFghBMAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.senate.gov%2Freference%2Fcommon%2Ffaq%2Fretirement_for_members.shtml&usg=AFQjCNHL28PBw_mgVr-5ELbsb7PLYa-Lzg&sig2=iRQAdFso3c8UkU_iIngOEg

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwj7gZWXlr_KAhWos4MKHbREAKgQFggeMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSalaries_of_members_of_the_United_States_Congress&usg=AFQjCNGwFUYIkhpf6VN46mj1R5wIctpqXQ&sig2=SMx77u5H98lVmpzo7tWxCA

[retrowire]

35. Damn! The more you know.

Yeahh... There's no reason she needs to be paid that much for a speech.

[draa]

39. I'm glad someone pointed that out.

They're set for life. There's no way they need $225000 an hour for anything.

Of course when you have a Global Network worth $3B you can never have too much money. It's obscene though considering ChP at 22%. Just disgusting.

[catnhatnh]

95. Cattle futures trading

seems Hillary had a real flair for it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy



Various publications sought to analyze the likelihood of Rodham's successful results. The editor of the Journal of Futures Markets said in April 1994, "This is like buying ice skates one day and entering the Olympics a day later. She took some extraordinary risks."[12] USA Today concluded in April 1994 after a four-week study that "Hillary Rodham Clinton had some special treatment while winning a small fortune in commodities."[7] According to The Washington Post's May 1994 analysis, "while Clinton's account was wildly successful to an outsider, it was small compared to what others were making in the cattle futures market in the 1978–79 period." However, the Post's comparison was of absolute profits, not necessarily percentage rate of return.[13] In a Fall 1994 paper for the Journal of Economics and Finance, economists from the University of North Florida and Auburn University investigated the odds of gaining a hundred-fold return in the cattle futures market during the period in question. Using a model that was stated to give the hypothetical investor the benefit of the doubt, they concluded that the odds of such a return happening were at best 1 in 31 trillion.[14]

[Empowerer]

96. This was investigated ad nauseum in the 1990s and even Ken Starr couldn't find anything wrong

But it's interesting to see Democrats rehashing completely debunked Republican-Ken Starr witch hunt accusations.

[catnhatnh]

99. No-although with the Clintons it is easy to get confused

Ken Starr's only Hillary contact was in the context of the real estate scandal...

"On January 26, 1996, Hillary Clinton testified before a grand jury concerning her investments in Whitewater. This was the first time in American history that a First Lady had been subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury. She testified that they never borrowed any money from the bank, and denied having caused anyone to borrow money on their behalf. Over the course of the investigation, fifteen individuals—including Jim and Susan McDougal, White House counsel Webster Hubbell, and Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker—were convicted of federal charges. Other than Jim McDougal, none of the convicted agreed to cooperate with the Whitewater investigators, and Clinton pardoned four of them in the final hours of his presidency (see list of people pardoned by Bill Clinton)."

The cattle thing-different scandal w/ different investigations...

[Babel_17]

25. But this is prior to seeking the highest office, not after

And even when it's after there can be an appearance of "and now we can actually straight up pay you".

We watch for this everywhere, like judges and DA's that move on to work for law firms, and people who's spouses pull down fortunes while they are in the Congress that supposedly regulates the industries that their spouses work for.

[Lucinda]

57. The HRC speeches being discussed were after her tenure at State and before announcing...

If you have links to previous speeches I'd love to see them!

[Babel_17]

58. Ah, so she was as surprised by her announcement as was I, and the fee payers?

What a happy coincidence for those who payed the fees; how prescient so many of us felt when the announcement was made!

[Lucinda]

61. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

If you'd like to elaborate, I'd be happy to respond.

[Babel_17]

62. It was obvious she was thinking of running

Nobody I know was surprised. Clinton didn't surprise herself, at that's the salient point about taking speaking fees. That and the state of mind of those offering those fees. They thought they were offering them to a likely candidate, and winner, of the position of POTUS.

[Lucinda]

63. So? She wasn't in office, and there is nothing unusual about the speaking engagements.

Public speakers from all walks of life are offered all sorts of big dollar speaking arrangements after they leave office or their sport, or publish, etc. Hillary was the first Lady of Arkansas, and of the United States, Senator from NY, and the Secretary of State for the United States. I'm pretty sure those credentials alone make her opinions of interest to most groups who bring in speakers.

Retired sports figures and motivational speakers also make good fees for speeches. This is not unusual.

[Babel_17]

67. OK, it is what is, and the voters will certainly hear that viewpoint

And they'll hear from others. I'm of the opinion that there has been a miscalculation by the Clintons as to how the voters are going to see things. The polling, and the voting, will let me know if I'm wrong about that.

[Lucinda]

69. That's the beauty of our incredibly messy political election system

The people are the ones who decide. As long as a Dem is elected I will be quite happy.

[Babel_17]

70. And that's the winning sentiment of this evening/morning!

Have a great one! I'm going to look at the snow, then grab a few hours sleep. Good night (or morning).

[Lucinda]

72. Same to you! It's tried to snow here, but not doing a very good job of it!

Happy dreams!


- deleted a dup post below - I didnt think this one replied to you! I'm getting tired.

[Babel_17]

74. :) Good night! (nt)

[Spitfire of ATJ]

59. Betcha Jimmy Carter didn't run to Wall Street.

[Lucinda]

60. She was a well respected Senator from NY - the financial hub of this country

I can certainly see why they would value her comments about what she has seen at State, and where she thinks the country should go.

As for Carter, I have no idea who he has given speeches for, and I suspect you don't either.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

65. I bet I do....

It's not about MAKING MONEY.

http://www.cartercenter.org/video/

[Lucinda]

68. I love Carter, but that has nothing to do with his post POTUS speaking engagements

He is listed with APB dealing with wonderful topics.
http://www.apbspeakers.com/speaker/jimmy-carter

But those are speeches he gives on those topics.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

79. His speeches are public....

It's nonsense to try to equate Carter's post POTUS speaking engagements with Hillary's private speaking engagements to the 1%.

[Lucinda]

80. No...it was nonsense to throw a Carter Center video up to counter my point

but I love Carter, so I was happy to see the video.

Here is an article about her speeches with lists of who, when, and how much.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-12/the-very-valuable-words-of-hillary-clinton

Only one of the videos is of any length...but I imagine more will be forthcoming. Check out the summary of what they were for... it's very informative!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

81. "I imagine more will be forthcoming"

That's quite an imagination you have there.

[Lucinda]

85. Not really. These pieces exist. I'm sure there are others. Did you even

bother to look at the speech list? The event titles? Who they were given for? Even a ten second skim might be pretty eye opening.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

91. The "American Society for Clinical Pathology in Chicago" gave me a chuckle....

Nothing from Goldman Sachs or other Wall Street firms which was the point.

The Carlyle Group is listed. No doubt the usual war profiteers were there smacking their chops.

The list is incomplete.

BTW: Are you aware that she's claiming the big banks weren't to blame for the crash? I'd love to corner her on that and see if she blames "people who bought a house they couldn't afford". She claims investment firms like Lehman Brothers was to blame.

I wonder if they paid her to speak.

[Lucinda]

93. She isn't the only one with that point of view - Sorkin goes in depth and interviewed Warren

in this article:

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/reinstating-an-old-rule-is-not-a-cure-for-crisis/?_r=0

[Spitfire of ATJ]

94. LOL! Go watch "The Big Short".

[Warren DeMontague]

4. "Well, your first question was---" followed by something that wasnt the first question.

I wonder what her DU name is.

[passiveporcupine]

55. I wonder what her DU name is?

Well the answer to your first question is...


I wish I knew!

[Warren DeMontague]

75. I just mean I see that sort of argument tactic all the time in certain corners, here.

[passiveporcupine]

76. I know what you were getting at.

And I was agreeing with you!

[Warren DeMontague]

78. Gotcha.

[Skwmom]

5. From Jan 2014 to May 2015 Hillary made more than $25 million and Bill in 2012 earned 16.3 million.

Not sure about 2013 - 2014.

To say since 2001 is misleading b/c a majority of the money was made during her time as SOS and after.

[Lucinda]

10. I think her speeches were all after she left State.

I haven't seen any evidence of her making paid speeches during her time as SOS.

[Uncle Joe]

7. What was that from?

Thanks for the thread, SheenaR

[JonLeibowitz]

37. Here you go, Uncle Joe

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/01/22/nh_sen_jeanne_shaheen_defends_hillary_wall_street_speaking_fees_are_in_the_past_like_bernies_socialism.html

That video reminds me of Hillary's barack Christianity remark.

What the fuck is wrong with our country.

[draa]

40. It's run by bullies.

And there nothing we can do to stop them but fight back.

Just like with any victim of bullying, sometimes you have to bust some heads before they stop. And Bernie is our way of busting heads. Our muscle if you will.

[Uncle Joe]

42. Thanks for the link, JonLeibowitz, that was serious pretzel making.

Peace to you.

[thesquanderer]

100. Here's the link

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/01/22/nh_sen_jeanne_shaheen_defends_hillary_wall_street_speaking_fees_are_in_the_past_like_bernies_socialism.html

[Live and Learn]

9. K&R It looks like some of the conversations on DU. nt

[Doctor_J]

11. Hillary is going to unite the country?

Do they think anyone believes them?

[sadoldgirl]

14. Many people are upset about how former

office holders are making money out of their former
positions, but that is not the question here, at least
not for me.

The point is that for years HRC had in mind to run
for the presidency while doing just that. And that to me
is not the same as someone, who is finally retiring.

That is the important issue: she planned to get into
the WH, yet using her former positions to get very
wealthy.

[CorporatistNation]

15. That Is Indeed THE SOLID Point! Ed Rendell Practically called Her An Idiot!

In not so many words. Clearly ill advised to do speeches for CA$H if you plan to run for President!

[murielm99]

24. Oh! A mindreader!

[daleanime]

34. Was that anyone who paid attention to politics in this nation...

who didn't know that?

[pnwmom]

17. Money going to the Clinton foundation goes to the charity, not to them personally.

Hey, but if you're going to sling mud, this works.

[Bread and Circus]

45. thats not always where the speaking fees go and you know it

Clintons have personally made millions of speaking fees. It is outrageous

[pnwmom]

48. And yet she isn't taking any positions that benefit the financial industry

which is why, according to the liberal (Nobel prize winning) economist Paul Krugman, they're "doing all they can to elect a Republican."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/democrats-republicans-and-wall-street-tycoons.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders had an argument about financial regulation during Tuesday’s debate — but it wasn’t about whether to crack down on banks. Instead, it was about whose plan was tougher. The contrast with Republicans like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, who have pledged to reverse even the moderate financial reforms enacted in 2010, couldn’t be stronger.

For what it’s worth, Mrs. Clinton had the better case. Mr. Sanders has been focused on restoring Glass-Steagall, the rule that separated deposit-taking banks from riskier wheeling and dealing. And repealing Glass-Steagall was indeed a mistake. But it’s not what caused the financial crisis, which arose instead from “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers, which don’t take deposits but can nonetheless wreak havoc when they fail. Mrs. Clinton has laid out a plan to rein in shadow banks; so far, Mr. Sanders hasn’t.


SNIP

As I said, this lopsided giving is an indication that Wall Street insiders take Democratic pledges to crack down on bankers’ excesses seriously. And it also means that a victorious Democrat wouldn’t owe much to the financial industry.

If a Democrat does win, does it matter much which one it is? Probably not. Any Democrat is likely to retain the financial reforms of 2010, and seek to stiffen them where possible. But major new reforms will be blocked until and unless Democrats regain control of both houses of Congress, which isn’t likely to happen for a long time.

In other words, while there are some differences in financial policy between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, as a practical matter they’re trivial compared with the yawning gulf with Republicans.

[Bread and Circus]

52. not reinstating glass steagall benefits them. that took me 2 seconds to come up with.

You will have to try harder to peddle lies

[pnwmom]

53. Maybe you should read what Krugman has to say about that. n/t

[Bread and Circus]

56. here is something to read before you go to bed

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9049992

Quit being so naive about how money and influence works in America.

[Lucinda]

71. No it doesn't.

Glass-Stegall was put in place in 1933.
Hillary's propositions are very specific about placing restrictions on the problems in the industry in 2016.

CNN basic article:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/14/investing/democratic-debate-what-is-glass-steagall-act/

HRC specifics:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-08/hillary-clinton-s-plan-to-prevent-the-next-crash

[Bread and Circus]

83. ok you and the other person above need better reading comprehension

I didnt say whether reinstating glass steagall was a good idea or not. Or whether abolishing glass steagall caused the crash of 2008.

I said not reinstating glass steagall, which hillary's position, does benefit the financial industry, and more specifically the financial institutions that paid her millions to speak.

And yes not having glass steagall in place does benefit them.

Why do you think they conned Bill Clinton into getting rid of it in the first place?

Thus this immediately disproves the other poster's point.

This whole Paul Krugman, Paul Krugman, Paul Krugman mantra ya'll keep repeating has nothing to do with what I said. What Paul Krugman is addressing is a seperate issue.

The problem I have with Hillary supporters here is you all sounds like Republicans of the George W Bush era where as soon as we shootdown one of your falsehoods you have another lined up. It's like shooting down a pack of serial lies.

The reason is it so egregious is because you, like Republicans, have decided you don't need to adhere to simple logic and just spout talking points instead.

[Lucinda]

87. Krugman has nothing to do with my post. if you'd read the links you'd know that. n/t

[Bread and Circus]

88. Well, you are just wrong and your point is a non sequiter

[jalan48]

18. Bill and Hillary turned into big time Yuppies. Bernie did not. He's more like the average American.

[SoapBox]

19. Wasn't this posted by this person either earlier today or yesterday?

You seem to be trying to stir a pot with this.

[SheenaR]

21. I did not post this

I posted about Planned Parenthood. Sorry if this thread wasted your time.

[Babel_17]

22. That was pretty lol inducing

"that’s in the past"

[restorefreedom]

28. lol. one of my oft used clips! nt

[Babel_17]

30. They took a cliche and made it magnificent

[restorefreedom]

31. geniuses, truly. nt

[PoliticalMalcontent]

23. They know accepting those fees is a political liability, so let's just change the topic now.

You heard him. Let's just change the topic, everybody...

...

...

We on to a different topic now?

[PatrickforO]

27. Well, Shaheen IS Third Way, and Third Way IS

the establishment, and we KNOW the establishment will get as ugly as it needs to to keep Bernie from winning the primaries, let alone the general election.

But you know what?

The establishment no longer controls the message. We do.

[valerief]

38. +1

[Z_California]

41. The premise is wrong here

She doesn't get paid to "speak". Please. No speech is worth a quarter million. She gets paid off, by the banksters, and quid pro quo is expected. Let's drop the pretense that these are "speaking fees".

[Juicy_Bellows]

54. Exactly!

If they were looking for content they could have hired AC/DC for that kind of money, they want access, not content.

[LoveIsNow]

43. Did he ever say it was in the past?

His socialism that is. I feel as though that would have been all over the news as a flip flop, since he at least began this campaign identifying as a democratic socialist.

[Samantha]

66. That was my reaction as well

I never heard Bernie say that. I did hear Bernie say before his campaign started he was a Democratic Socialist. He defined it as believing in the same principles the Democrats do, but takes his politics a step further to say the Government should work for all of the people, not just corporations and the wealthy. During his Congressional service, he was labeled an Independent because there was not a category for Democratic Socialists. Bernie did caucus with the Democrats. He changed his registration to run because he needed the foundation of a party to buttress his campaign, and he could only do that be registering as a Democrat. He has publicly talked about all of this, so people who imply otherwise either do not listen, or do not pay attention, or are deliberately distorting Sanders' position.

To call him a socialist is not technically correct because Democratic Socialists do not exactly embrace the pure socialist platform. Some of the socialists in Vermont were debating whether or not to support Sanders because they did not necessarily agree with his stance on some of the issues. I do not know what they finally decided.

Sam

[Eric J in MN]

97. No. He's still a democratic socialist. NT

NT

[Bread and Circus]

44. ummmm... that was in the past so it doesn't matter?

Wtf?

Judge ya know I did rob that bank... but that was in the past... it doesn't matter...

[passiveporcupine]

47. they write their own scripts in their heads.

I'm not sure they even really listen or understand the questions being asked of them. They are too busy blurting out their practiced and prepared answers...before they even know the question or are asked the question.

And they are not even embarrassed by it.

[bhikkhu]

49. The whole speeches thing is ridiculous

I don't care if Hillary was paid to speak. I'd care somewhat if the money was used for something absurd, like car elevators and caviar or something, but the Clintons have traditionally given their speaking income to their charitable foundation, which does good work. I'd care more if the speaker was a bombast like limbaugh or trump, but she isn't. She's a moderate Democrat with a good stance on the issues.

If someone wanted to discuss the content of her speeches, that would be a discussion worth having. This one, quite a bit less so.

[peacebird]

82. IF we could, we would. The speeches were given in private, no media allowed.

So what was she saying? And why doesn't her campaign release the text of her specches?

[Bread and Circus]

84. you are confused. the speech income we are talking about is personal income. not foundation donation

It is right on her website.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/documents/13/HRC_2013_Speeches_-_Tax_Return_Addendum.pdf

My god people, open you eyes.

Since 2007 the Clinton have paid over $50,000,000 in taxes on personal income. Not earned $50,000,00.... paid takes on. According to her website that is an effective tac rate of 35%. That means they made nearly $150,000,000 from speaking fees in less than 10 years.


Also on her website they state they gave 14,000,000 in charity. Around 10% of their personal income.

$140,000,000 in take home personal pay before taxes.

This is NOT foundation money.

That is why it is on their personal taxes.

That's what personal income tax means.

It is right on her website.

In black and white.

Good grief.

[bhikkhu]

86. It has to be personal income before it can be donated

...but I looked and found you are right nevertheless - http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clintons-speeches-brought-in-12-million-for-foundations-since-2001-118195

most of the income was not directed to the foundation. Still, I don't care if the Clintons made money giving speeches.

I am voting for Sanders in the primary, but that has everything to do with his stance on the issues, and nothing to do with speech income. If Sanders made millions giving speeches I'd still vote for him.

[Babel_17]

51. “Anybody who thinks they can buy me doesn’t know me,”

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/266693-clinton-wall-street-cant-buy-me

If they even suspect that they can, and thus offer up the cash, we already have a problem.

Taking the money, from someone who thinks they are buying you, is an additional problem.

How is that not clear?

[tazkcmo]

77. lol

What a silly, double speaking, bullshit spewing ass. Sen Sanders owns his socialism while Clinton runs away from her Wall ST income. Game, set, match.

[MisterP]

89. one campaign represents real anger due to issues, the other fake anger from centrally-

mobilized talking points, carefully primed so that they can be ginned up at the push of a button

voters need Sanders to get in, Clinton needs voters to get in

[Orsino]

90. There's no way to spin this as a positive, hence the throwing shade.

However, were the transcripts revealed to the public, and if they contained strong admonishments and demands for reform instead of the rah-rah I suspect, they could work in Clinton's favor. That they haven't already been released is ominous enough, but if the campaign stonewall us, that'll be confession enough.

And we could instead tackle the larger question of whether or not Goldman-Sachs gets to claim Clinton as a dependent.

Were discussing the unsustainability of an economy based on speculation and greed not still taboo, the story might actually be damaging to such a candidate.

[Kalidurga]

101. I'd be mad, but I am too damn busy laughing.

“Listen, they’re done. So it doesn’t matter whether you support that or not. The fact is, that’s in the past, just as Bernie’s socialism, he claims, is in the past,” Shaheen claimed.

I don't care how much Hillary makes for speeches. In fact I wish she would go back to making money on speeches. The sooner the better. Pay her a bazillion dollars, I don't care.

[Faux pas]

102. Kicketty Kickin'