BREAKING NEWS: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton & Bill Clinton Release Seven Years of Tax Returns

[Hissyspit]

Source: MSNBC / AP

Clintons report $109.2M for 7 years
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer
1 minute ago

WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former President Clinton reported $20.4 million in income for 2007 and more than $109 million since 2000 as they gave the public the most detailed look at their finances in eight years.

The campaign released tax returns from 2000 through 2006 and gave highlights from their 2007 return. The Clintons have asked for an extension for filing their 2007 tax returns, citing the dissolution of a blind trust last year. The Democratic presidential candidate and her husband paid $33.8 million in taxes from 2000 through 2007. They listed $10.25 million in charitable contributions during that period.

Clinton has been under pressure to release her tax returns, especially from rival Sen. Barack Obama, who posted his 2000 to 2006 returns on his campaign Web site last week. Neither Obama nor Republican Sen. John McCain have made their 2007 tax returns public, though both say they will this month.

- snip -

Clinton's tax returns show that of the remaining presidential candidates, she is the one most able to access large amounts of personal money. She lent her campaign $5 million in late February and could contribute more if she finds herself falling far behind Obama's proficient fundraising.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080404/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_taxes

---

Also: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23959987

[bigworld]

1. Friday evening bury-the-news dump

... the Clintons have learned well from the Bushes.

[bigworld]

2. $109m over the past 7 years. Not bad.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former President Clinton report nearly $109.2 million in income for seven years in newly released tax data.

The Democratic presidential candidate and her husband paid $33.8 million in taxes from 2000 through 2007. They listed $10.25 million in charitable contributions during that period.

Clinton has been under pressure to release her tax returns, especially from rival Barack Obama, who posted his 2000 to 2006 returns on his campaign Web site last week. Neither Obama nor Republican Sen. John McCain have made their 2007 tax returns public, though both say they will this month.

[Winterblues]

29. Exxon makes that much in Net Profits every single day

Ain't "War Profiteering" grand?

[Psephos]

49. Exxon also pays more in taxes than the bottom 50% of Americans

So what is your point?

109 million in seven years. Wow. How much hidden influence comes with that much lucre? How many conflicts of interest?

The Clintons are plutocrats...and she's trying to pass herself off as "just folks" to lock down the blue-collar Dem vote.

[Bandit]

86. Clinton's paid thirty four million in taxes and gave twelve million to Charity

That was a much much much much bigger percentage of their income in taxes and Charity than Exxon.

[TankLV]

104. or the obamas...

[davekriss]

93. Exxon profit to working class income comparison fallacy

Exxon pays taxes on their profits, not their sales revenue. The bottom 50% pays taxes on the equivalent of "sales revenue" (minus a comparatively small ratio of exemptions and deductions) -- i.e., on the whole of what they get for selling their labor in our "free" market. Unlike Exxon, they don't get to deduct what it costs to maintain and operate this very human means to production before paying taxes. Comparing Exxon profit to working/middle class "sales revenue" (income) is apples-to-oranges.

If you want to compare Exxon profit and taxes paid on that profit to the working/middle classes, then you'd have to look at working/middle classes discretionary income or perhaps savings rate, which is nil. Only then would your comparison be fair. Based on these figures, the working/middles classes pay several hundreds of percent in taxes and made a fraction of what Exxon made in profit.

To back this up: Quickly gleaning some stats from the internet, Exxon made $67 billion in profit in 2006 and paid $28 billion in taxes. In 2004, the bottom 50% made $922 billion in income and paid $27 billion in taxes. Looks like Exxon paid more than their fair share, right? But wait, the working/middle class income figure should be profit after deduction of expenses and depreciation. After all, Exxon got to do that before arriving at the $67 billion figure. If the U.S. has a savings rate of 2% in 2004 (right now the U.S. has a negative savings rate), then the income figure for comparison is 2% of $922 billion, which is about $18.5 billion. Seems the bottom 50% are comparatively carrying far more of the tax load then Exxon IMO.

Having said that, yes, the Clinton's are plutocrats. No national candidate but a plutocrat or corpofascist survives to the ballots on election day. There are two votes in America, the dollar vote followed by the democratic vote. Nothing gets on the agenda of the democratic vote that does not first survive the dollar vote. The problem with this is those with more dollars get to vote in this pre-election far more than the rest of us, thus elections are about picking the near-fascist vs. the overt-fascist, about furthering the interests of thin slivers of the American population at the top of our socio-economic pyramid while maintaining the illusion of a free democracy. It's a rigged game, I tell 'ya!! But we can take the game back, we have that power.

[Trillo]

108. Thank you for your thoughts. n/t

[xioaping]

98. $109m over seven years is obscene

I'm not great at math but that adds up to about $100,000 a month, doesn't it. How much good could come from that. Why do they need all that money? They should take what they need to live on and then feed people, help people. I find it disgusting, obscene.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. I'll think this one will be around over the weekend?

people will be too curious to let this one bury

[Oleladylib]

36. Yes and I hope it stays around...a tax paying, charitable wealthy couple..

wow...that IS news.

[pnwmom]

27. Actually, part of the news is in their favor.

They paid taxes at a rate 50% higher than the usual at their income level, and their charitable deductions were three times as high as average for their incomes.

[lark]

101. I replied to wrong message and

don't know how to delete. I apologize.

[global1]

4. Many Happy Returns..........nt

[Blue_State_Elitist]

5. Now you can all let it go. Fucking hell.

[sellitman]

8. Prozac is your friend

Better late than never.

[Lucky 13]

33. Yes, she finally did the right thing.

Now she can be properly "vetted".

Way to go Hillary!

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blayne]

9. Please create a profile or go away!

Maybe you didn't have time. You probably hurt yourself rushing to the computer, or you have been staring at your screen so long waiting for your moment that all you could see to do was paste your copied text.

[Tuttle]

10. Enjoy your stay

as brief as it will be...

Tut-tut

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

24. What topping...

Do you want? NJ style or Chicago style? ;-)

[Journeyman]

18. Well, thank you for the list of names and places. . .

I have a receptacle built especially for such comprehensive collections.

[Gman]

25. Where did you find that list? Free Republic? Or maybe Ann Coulter

or some other right wing nut?

[blayne]

7. From Clinton's web site:

TAXES PAID: $33,783,507
The Clintons paid $33,783,507 in federal taxes - 31% of their adjusted gross income. According to the most recent data available from the IRS, in 2005 taxpayers earning $10,000,000 or more paid on average 20.8% of their adjusted gross income in taxes.

CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS: $10,256,741

The Clintons donated $10,256,741 to charity - 9.5% of their adjusted gross income. According to the most recent data available from the IRS, in 2005 taxpayers earning $10,000,000 or more contributed 3.1% of their adjusted gross income in cash contributions to charity. Information about the Clinton Family Foundation, including a list of charities to which the Clintons contributed through the Foundation, is available online in the Foundation's publicly available tax returns (www.foundationcenter.org).

AFTER TAX EARNINGS: $57,157,297

CUMULATIVE TOTAL(GROSS) INCOME: $109,175,175

Including, among other items:

* Senator Clinton's Senate Salary: $1,051,606
* President Clinton's Presidential Pension: $1,217,250
* Senator Clinton's Book Income: $10,457,083
* President Clinton's Book Income: $29,580,525
* President Clinton's Speech Income: $51,855,599

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/returns/

[Baby Snooks]

12. Is this with or without the "grocery money?"

Does this include the $20+ million he made off his investment with Ron Burkle which proved quite successful in the Persian Gulf with contacts made by Bill Clinton that were probably made for Bill Clinton by George HW Bush? With or without the "grocery money," the Clintons nonetheless have really raked it in since he left the White House. Which no doubt explains why she's so desperate to get back in. They want to keep raking it in. People laughed when it was suggested they were worth $50 million and they probably aren't laughing now and probably wondering how much they're really worth since no doubt they've invested quite a bit through the years.

They certainly know what middle America is going through - their advisors no doubt keep them up to date.

[blayne]

20. Don't ask me.

:shrug:

If anything is to be found, I am sure we will know by Monday.

[pnwmom]

30. They entered the White House with very little money. Neither of them

grew up wealthy. I'm sure they remember what it was like not to have the money they do now.

[northzax]

40. based on these records

I bet they aren't worth much more than fifty million, combined. You make it sound like, well, they lied to the IRS. They've made 109, they have paid 34 in federal taxes, surely at least 15 in state and local taxes, and given at least ten to charity. So if they haven't spent a penny in seven years, you get fifty.

[1776Forever]

11. Raw Story - Video - ABC anticipates Clinton tax returns to see offshore income

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Clinton_releases_her_tax_returns_Bill_0404.html

Clinton releases her tax returns: Bill & Hillary made $109M since leaving WH
Nick Juliano
Published: Friday April 4, 2008

......................

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/ABC_investigates_Clinton_income_offshore_accounts_0403.html

ABC anticipates Clinton tax returns to see offshore income - video on bottom of page
David Edwards and Nick Juliano
Published: Thursday April 3, 2008

...............



More to come on this!

[pinto]

13. In the sense of objective fairness, they also paid a chunk of taxes:

"The Democratic presidential candidate and her husband paid $33.8 million in taxes from 2000 through 2007. They listed $10.25 million in charitable contributions during that period."

[newblewtoo]

22. And the same can be said for the oil companies...

Looks like the Bush economy only sucks for us peons, the new aristocracy seems to be doing just fine.

[pnwmom]

31. The oil companies keep their taxes as low as possible, while the Clinton's

aren't dodging taxes. They paid at a rate 50% higher than the average taxes paid by people in their bracket, and their charitable donations were three times as high as the average.

[eilen]

42. Taxes are very high in NY

We have the state income tax, relatively high sales taxes and especially high property/school taxes.

[pnwmom]

44. These were Federal returns with Federal taxes. They paid NY taxes on top

of the Federal taxes.

And yes, I know NY taxes are very high; I have relatives there.

[Baby Snooks]

45. Oh, please...

The state income taxes were adjusted against the federal taxes.

[pnwmom]

48. You can't deduct sales taxes anymore. n/t

[onenote]

53. yes they got a deduction for state taxes, but its a deduction, not a credit

In 2006, they paid nearly $1.3 million in state taxes. A portion of that was deductible (the whole amount wasn't deductible because there is a limitation on the amount that you can deduct and they hit it, resulting in them not being able to deduct about 10 percent of their deductible taxes and charitable expenses). That deduction reduced their taxable income, so it saved them a portion of their taxes, but its not a one-to-one adjustment.

[eilen]

54. I almost forgot...

The state and property taxes from the previous year are deducted from the fed taxes.

[splat]

38. Wouldn't you love to be rich? It's the American dream

[benld74]

14. Fox News reports finding receipt for The Blue Dress,, more to follow at 10

[NJmaverick]

15. They are following the Bush tradition of the weekend news dump

Nice

[cseper]

16. You have the tax returns and....

you people are still bitching!

[Baby Snooks]

19. It's not that they have that much money...

It's how they GOT that much money.

[cseper]

21. It's how they GOT that much money.

Are you saying they got it illegally?

[Baby Snooks]

43. Well...

The Clintons certainly do have some shady associations and certainly have had the accusation made about them tbefore. Just what has he done to make that kind of money? He seems to spend most of his time on the golf course with George HW Bush. Or did until people started noticing.

[splat]

39. You think Bush started it? Newspapers always print bad news about themselves then!

[cseper]

17. Clinton's tax returns

Clinton's tax returns show is that they paid more than $33,000,000 in federal taxes and donated more than $10,000,000 to charities over the past eight years. They paid taxes and made charitable contributions at a higher rate than taxpayers at their income level.

How dare they make so much money, pay their fair share of taxes and give so much to charity! I'm outraged! This is a huge scandal of epic proportions!

[aggiesal]

23. "Shocked, shocked I say,that there is gambling going on here"

Inspector Renault from the movie Casablanca!

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

26. Well, you gotta understand:

Some people are presently a little prickly about politicians getting rich in and after being in office, while they are watching their economic lives swirling down the toilet. Especially when those politicians could do something and really haven't. Because if they had, things would be changing and they aren't.

So people get disgusted and angry with the status quo and post things like above.

And notice I said "do something". The time for mollifying words and tenderly-delivered nostrums is long past. Lovely missives about the essential wonderfulness of Free Trade ain't gonna work when 230,000 jobs have been lost since Jan 1 2008. NO politician can expect that the old "mesmerize 'em with one hand while you jerk them off with the other" is gonna work, especially when those politicians are getting go-to-hell rich while people lose everything.

Study your history, specifically about previous societies that experienced situations like this. They did not end well, but they ended. Boyee, did they ever.

[pnwmom]

32. Welcome to DU, cseper! n/t

[TankLV]

105. that still won't stop the obamababies from whining about SOMETHING....

and I rest my case by their idiotic posts HERE...

[Winterblues]

28. Exxon makes as much Net Profit in one day as Clinton's did in 7 years

And I am talking Net Profit, after every expense has been paid..Exxon is only one Oil company also. Put them all together and what they make every single day makes all but the billionaires seem like paupers. The Oil Companies love this Bush* Cabal I can tell you..

[bulloney]

34. That's an average of almost $16 million/year since 2000.

Apparently, all it takes to get rich is to do something to get a book deal.

They were supposed to have been relatively "poor" (compared to other people in politics).

[Ian David]

35. But Hillary still refuses to release her basketball brackets.

Relax, Hillary supporters! I'm kidding!

[Oleladylib]

37. Damn -and I was so waiting!

[TankLV]

106. but not by much...

[superconnected]

41. Now lets see bush and cheney's!

[harun]

47. They make them available every year. (n/t)

[harun]

46. Wow, that's a serious tax bill, and some serious income

Guess being President doesn't pay so well, but being an ex-president has its perks.

[BlueIris]

50. Oh, no. Run away!

I'm not exactly a fan of the decisions she's made over the last three years, but—so what? Color me non-plussed.

[druidity33]

51. why

why did they pay so much in taxes?

Couldn't they have found a better accountant?

:shrug:

[Olney Blue]

52. A few Obama supporters on DU have been unrelenting about this topic!

Glad they were released.

[Tafiti]

55. Clintons Made $109 Million in Last 8 Years

Source: New York Times

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and former President Bill Clinton released tax data Friday showing they earned $109 million over the last eight years, an ascent into the uppermost tier of American taxpayers that seemed unimaginable in 2001, when they left the White House with little money and facing millions in legal bills.

The bulk of their wealth has come from speaking and book-writing, which together account for almost $92 million, including a $15 million advance — larger than previously thought — from Mr. Clinton’s 2004 autobiography, “My Life.” The former president’s vigorous lecture schedule, where his speeches command upwards of $250,000, brought in almost $52 million.

During that time, the Clintons paid $33.8 million in federal taxes and claimed deductions for $10.2 million in charitable contributions. The contributions went to a family foundation run by the Clintons that has given away only about half of the money they put into it, and most of that was last year, after Mrs. Clinton declared her candidacy.

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign released the eight years of income tax information late Friday, following a rising clamor on the campaign trail for her to follow the lead of her opponent, Senator Barack Obama, who had previously disclosed his tax returns for the same period. In what proved to be an awkward juxtaposition, the disclosure of the records — which revealed the Clintons to be in the top one-hundredth of 1 percent, or roughly 14,500, of all taxpayers — came on the day that Mrs. Clinton called for the creation of a cabinet-level post to tackle poverty.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/politics/05clintons.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[BadGimp]

56. how akward no?

but hey this is Amerika right?

[emilyg]

57. Good. They were broke when

they left the WH.

[onehandle]

61. More than broke. Taxpayer funded investigations left them millions in debt. nt

[Diane R]

58. That doesn't include 2007, does it? I'll bet they earned a fortune last year.

[onenote]

65. Yes it includes 2007

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23959987

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/080404_Clinton_Tax%20Returns_2007_est.pdf

[SquireJons]

95. No, it only includes a summary of 2007

Which can be adjusted later. 2000 - 2006 are firm numbers. So if you want to include 2007, then you must say that they earned substantially over 109 million over an 8 year period. Good for them, but it does cause concern when she is running for Prez.

[more_pain_please]

59. ok.. is there dirt then?

Besides being filthy rich?

Where's the Monsanto money?

[aquart]

60. Well, how completely wrong of them.

Democrats should never be allowed to earn more than $50,000 a year.

Do you darlings NEVER tire of regurgitating Republican vomit?

[PSPS]

68. Boy, you've got that right.

All the Obamamaniacs on here pop a fuse because a popular president who gave us eight years of peace and prosperity, despite being relentlessly hounded by the right wing hate machine (whose talking points are, as you point out, gleefully regurgitated by their ilk,) is gladly paid for his thoughts in speeches and in print.

But I guess it's real important to them to slime a fellow democrat while the true enemy (bush and his cabal) are given a complete pass while they rob the treasury to the tune of over a billion dollars a day.

But hey! That's their priority!

[trthnd4jstc]

62. Personally not against wealth, but abuse of power, and the hoarding of wealth.

With Power, Responsibility. I am not happy with the ways that Bill Clinton serves the interests of BCCI. I think some of their money may come from his work to get the gas pipe ran through Afghanistan. Their Autobiographies, and Bill's speaking engagements are a big part of their wealth. I like Hillary. I am not too happy with Bill though. He suckered me. I supported, and worked for his campaign thinking that he would be the President for all of the people Overall his Money Policy was beneficial, but Nafta, and China as most favored nation, outsourcing, more mergers, and other Presidential acts that gave the Big Corporations even more Power. He was not the President for everyone. He was the President for everyone, and the Big Corporations. He helped big money get bigger!

[lark]

102. Bill helped working mothers keep their jobs

FMLA is one of the best pieces of legislation ever and we have him to thank for it. The economy was good when he was in control, he isn't even close to the bushcorpritistfacism clans mark.

[politicalcenter]

63. Clintons Prove Their Worth

The most accurate thing that can be said about thirty years of tax returns is that people apparently know how much they are worth, and regularly pay to hear them tell them what they think.
As a correlate, people do not care much about what those in the media say about them, or what Obama with his five to one expenditures against the Clintons say about them. People actually listen and choose with their consciences.

[sharesunited]

64. They're rock stars. Like Bono. How much did he make?

[WCGreen]

66. They paid 31.% in federal taxes...

How much did they pay in state and local taxes...

Jesus, if they are that well off, they should be able to find a better accountant or financial planner...

I bet I could get them down to at least under 30.%

I bet you would never see a Bush shelling out 31% of their income in any kind of tax...

As I said before, go to it John Edwards, make your cash...

Don't be afraid to make money...

This is America, after all...

[onehandle]

81. Actually, believe it or not, the Bushes pay a "regular" percentage too.

High profile politicians tend to not take advantage of tricky loophole knowing that their tax returns will be publically reviewed. After their political careers are over, their finance people will do whatever it takes to shelter every dime.

Bill and Hillary knew they were still in their "prime" and that's why nothing significant will be found in their returns.

[Codedonkey]

67. They must be moonlighting as starbuck shift supervisors....

[atal]

69. Clintons made nearly $109M since 2000

Source: Yahoo

Clintons made nearly $109M since 2000


WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former President Clinton made nearly $109 million since they left the White House, capitalizing on the world's interest in the former first couple and lucrative business ventures.

The Clintons reported $20.4 million in income for 2007 as they gave the public the most detailed look at their finances in eight years. Almost half the former first couple's money came from Bill Clinton's speeches.

"I have absolutely nothing against rich people," Hillary Clinton told North Dakota Democrats at their party convention Friday night in Grand Forks. "As a matter of fact, my husband — much to my surprise and his — has made a lot of money since he left the White House doing what he loves doing most, talking to people."

snip

Clinton has been under pressure to release her tax returns, especially from rival Sen. Barack Obama, who posted his 2000 to 2006 returns on his campaign Web site last week. Neither Obama nor Republican Sen. John McCain has made their 2007 tax returns public, though both say they will this month.

The Clintons last made their returns public in 2000 when they reported an adjusted gross income of $416,039 for 1999. Since then, the former president has embarked on a number of business ventures and has made millions from speaking engagements and books.




http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080405/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_taxes


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080405/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_taxes

---

Wow over $100 Million ....

[demobrit]

70. Big deal

So what,big deal they made money,good luck to them,we are all in the business of making money to live are we not.
So long as money is earned legitimately whats the problem?

[Judi Lynn]

71. Good question! Speaking of millions, Bush has killed over a million Iraqi citizens, who had NOTHING

to do with September 11th.

Now THAT'S something these a-holes should find outrageous.

[pretzel4gore]

73. exactly! and what about limbah-humbug? or o'really?

or murdock, or the creeps at clearchannel, or the sneaky petes at the nytimes etc? Peter jennings had a $58 million estate when he died: what did he do besides front for mr pig to earn that? I'm glad Bill and Hill built up some wealth; unlike too many, they tried to serve the public, though some might suggest, imperfectly! (btw, i suspect most of the 'dogfight' between HC and BO is fabricated by same punks who foisted that bush goon on us)

[SquireJons]

72. Wait a minute...

I 'm a long time FOB and I respect Hillary, thought I don't support her over Obama, but still $15,000,000 per year for speaking? I think not. I'll be interested in looking at those "investments" that they have made.

I have no problem with people getting rich, it's what most people want. But I would be very disappointed to learn that the Clinton's made money at the expense of progressive interests. Bill has been very cozy with H.W. Bush among other right wing fat cats. Hillary seems to have a good relationship with Rupert Murdoch... so questions of integrity do creep in. If they made all that money because Bill gave talks to universities and serious policy think tanks, then more power to him. If not, then this is a serious problem. They call it conflict of interest.

[jasmine621]

79. Did anyone here have a problem with Ronnie collecting 2 Million for

a 10 minute speech in Japan?

[SquireJons]

88. ...raises hand. n/t

[onenote]

84. check your math. Its not 15 million/year for speeches

it was 51 million over 8 years -- around 6.4 million/year -- a sizable amount, but less than half what your post suggests.

[SquireJons]

90. math?

109,000,000 / 7 = 15,571,428.57

That would be the $109M reported and the returns from 2000 until 2006 or seven years. So I stand corrected, the Clinton's made 15 and a half million dollars a year on Hillary's salary, interest income and Bills speaking engagements.

That's $1,297,619.05 per month.

That's $299,450.54 per week.


It's great work, if you can get it.

[onenote]

91. still need to work on your math

First of all, its eight years, not seven.
Second, while you've shifted away from your claim that they got $15 mill/year for speaking --which I've shown to be untrue -- you still misstate the sources of the income.

In addition to Hillary's salary and interest income and Bill's speaking, over $40 million came from book sales -- that's nearly 40 percent of the total.

And while making $40 million from book sales in a 96 month period -- or as you would calculate it, $8012.82 per week, is a pretty tidy sum, its hardly earth shattering.

[SquireJons]

94. You're arguing semantics

I wasn't specific enough to state sole sources of income, but spoke of the general substance of their income. As for 8 years, not really since 2007 is only summarized, so the actual period for firm numbers is 7 years; (2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006). Yes, a lot of money came from book sales, and I guess I was remiss in not specifying the book income. But imo, it's the same sort of thing. Huge sums of money for what? Lot's of people put out books and don't make very much money on them. So millions of dollars pouring in creates a problem of accountability. The only wealth I trust is when someone creates a very successful business or product and earns the money from that. Anything else makes it hard to tell what exactly they are being paid for. Could receiving over one hundred million dollars be perceived as being bought off? Obviously it could.

My point was that all of this income from dubious sources raises the conflict of interests issue, not to mention undermining their arguments regarding poverty. It's much like professional athletes. Do they deserve millions of dollars per year for what they do? Probably not, but I don't really begrudge them for their success. The difference being that athletes don't have any control over my laws. Politicians obviously do.

This is one reason I support Obama. He's not consumed with getting rich (yet). I trust people like that and it's one reason so many people supported Bill Clinton over HW Bush in the first place.

[xioaping]

99. I dont know math

but trying to say that $40 million is not a lot of money is pretty darn funny sounding. I'm inclined to think they have way more money than anyone should be allowed to have. People are dying because they can not afford to see the doctor and they are allowed to have more money than they can spend in a lifetime. That is not right. I don't care who they are.

[Dr.Phool]

74. But, I'm sure they still feel our pain.......

:sarcasm:

[DrCory]

75. So???

Isn't this rather like attacking on John Edwards for the square footage of his house? Disagree with the woman's views, but spare us the faux outrage over something you would be happy with yourself.

[liberal N proud]

76. They also paid $33.8 million in taxes and $10.25 million to charity

They did nothing to avoid paying taxes as everyone expected.

Everyone was so concerned that they were not reporting everything prior to their release. So many were just sure that the Clinton's had some dirt to be found in their taxes.

Looks to me like they were model tax payers.

Nothing to attack here move on to another angle.

[jasmine621]

78. Just another reason to hate them. What will the HRC haters do now?

A big search is on for book bags in the 60's.

[AlertLurker]

77. I love how this is BIG NEWS...

and Edwards' skinning $40 M or so off of the backs of the poor through mortgage-backed securities and hedge funds was NOT.

Just
Fucking
Hysterical.

[winston61]

80. I think this perfectly illustrates the difference

between doing well and doing good. The Clintons were never my kind of Democrats. The best thing these two could do is to crawl away and never be heard from again.

[onehandle]

82. Jealous? nt

[TankLV]

107. Yeah - I guess EIGHT YEARS of PEACE, HOPE AND PROSPERITY as far as the eyes could see

was pretty awful, right...?!

you obamababies are really clueless, aren't ya!!!

[Canuckistanian]

92. That's $6.8M per year between the both of them

Nice chunk of change.

[poppysgal]

83. Just a ploy

We need to realize that there is a lot of mud flying right now and news stories such as this are ways to manipulate voters. Check out the timing. I really don't care who you vote for (democratically speaking that is) but I do care when the MSM cooperates with the powers that be in an effort to get us to eat our own. We need to realize that these time-released news stories are propaganda-nothing more, nothing less.:wow:

[grahamhgreen]

85. ISN'T THAT ENOUGH?

[demobrit]

89. so what,we are all in the business of making money are we not

As long as money is made legitimately I cannot see what the fuss is about ,good luck to them and they tithe 10% of their earnings as well which is commendable to good causes.
Even O`reilly thought that was commendable.It looks like Hillary has a new fan.

[goforit]

87. Remember folks...this doen't even include overseas investments.

[Heywood J]

96. So, they made $109 million, but paid

31% in income tax. That's not that far from the percentage I pay, and they get free healthcare for life on top of it.

I know the line about CEOs paying less in tax than their secretaries, but this is kind of rubbing it in our faces that the superwealthy are in the same tax bracket as the rest of us.

[Bombero1956]

97. window dressing

The contributions went to a family foundation run by the Clintons that has given away only about half of the money they put into it, and most of that was last year, after Mrs. Clinton declared her candidacy.

[samsingh]

100. i'm glad they've done well.

[TankLV]

103. So what are the obamabots bitching about now...

it will never be enough

and they will completely ignore the enormity of their CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS which FAR outweigh the "saint obamas"...and I'm talking percentages here...