Am I the only person here who doesn't give a shit about the Clintons' taxes?

[Mooney]

Or Obama's? Or anyone else's, for that matter?

If there's been some kind of malfeasance, that's one thing, but trying to extrapolate something about the candidate's character based on how much money they have and what they've done with it seems a little... immaterial. I just don't think it has any bearing on how they'll govern.

[dchill]

1. Possibly...

but I'd guess not. :shrug:

[Boz]

12. The question wasn't about her taxes, it was what some hoped her taxes answered, who paid the loan

Dubai and China government linked funds, selling her donators names to a company that is being brought up on congressional contempt, and so on, Yucaipa, InfoUSA, Quellos Burkle its all in there.

But its just a judgment of conflict rather than a smoking gun, so it wont change anything and hillary knew it. The only one that was teh smoking gun was kept back.

[dchill]

16. If the returns from 2000-2006 were released,

then it's reasonable to assume that the 2007 return is the one they were asked about.

[Fredda Weinberg]

2. I knew they'd be released. That is all n/t

[JuniperLea]

3. No

x

[Mezzo]

4. nope.

but it will make a difference in how they govern.

[Mooney]

6. Please to explain?

Honest question, I don't see how that would be, so I'm interested in why you think that.

[MichiganVote]

5. Short answer. No. Media answer. You should be. Obama answer. Hot damn honey, let's win this sucker.

McCain answer. Goddamn, wish I'd won the nomination sooner.

[Lerkfish]

the real question is who PAID Bill for his speaking engagements?

Dubai did, is my theory, in RETURN for his brokering the Dubai Ports deal.

if I"m correct, then I certainly DO give a shit.

[dchill]

11. The script of that speech...

"Thank you very much."

[Clintonista2]

43. Except that you tend not to be correct. Ever.

You're one of the "jump-on-the first-conspiracy-theory-bandwagon-I-can-find-because-I-want-to-be-different" people.

[Lerkfish]

53. links? proof?

I know a lot of RIGHT WING websites label me that.

:lol:

and thanks for proving that clinton supporters ONLY ATTACK people personally instead of addressing issues.

at least some of them. Like you. Putting you back on ignore now. buh bye.

[crankychatter]

7. I want to see her earmarks

yup

[TK421]

8. nope...you're not the only one here who doesn't give a shit about the taxes

just primary fodder is what this is...

[Mooney]

9. That was kind of my feeling.

HRC isn't my candidate, but I just don't see why this matters.

[DerekJ]

10. What?!!

You don't want to know how your candidate made his /her money?!!!

[Mooney]

14. As I said in my original post

If there's some kind of malfeasance that's one thing, but trying to determine something about a candidate's fitness for office based on their taxable earnings seems kind of off the mark to me.

[glowing]

13. I don't care..

[BeyondGeography]

15. The Clintons thank you, really

That's why they released them at 4 p.m. on a Friday afternoon. They have nothing to hide or to be ashamed of, really.

[Mooney]

18. If there's been malfeasance then that's another matter.

There's enough stuff that's on the record, like senate votes, public statements, and that sort of thing that I think are a better indicator of how Hillary Clinton would govern than her taxes would. If there's evidence of wrongdoing that's something else. But it just seems bizarre to me to try to form conclusions about how she would govern based on her taxable earnings.

[BeyondGeography]

21. It's the sources of income that would completely hamstring her

Bill has spent the last seven years billing corporations tens of millions of dollars for his speeches. You also have the problem of an offshore fund for which he is a front-man. Anytime legislation came up that touched on any area of interest to the groups that have been lining their household's pockets for the past seven years and she decided in their favor it could be seen as payback.

When you go hog wild on private wealth, you compromise your ability to act in the public interest. Is that so hard to understand?

[Mooney]

25. Name one major American politician

who hasn't gone hog wild on private wealth. Particularly an ex-president.

If you want to focus on conflicts of interest and the Clintons, look no further than the little revelation about Mark Penn that came out today.

[BeyondGeography]

26. Name one ex-President who tried to get back into the White House

DUH

[Mooney]

27. That's a different issue.

The case that Bill Clinton is trying to circumvent the 22nd Amendment and get indirectly elected to a de facto third term is a valid discussion. This isn't that discussion.

[BeyondGeography]

30. Look, if you're fine with a South American model where power enriches people and they keep coming

back for more, we just disagree.

The Clinton's would have done just fine by me if they had leveraged their status to become overpaid celebrities, dressed it up by spending more time and money on charity than the average American and stayed the hell away from the White House forever. The fact that they obviously think they can have their cake and re-eat it too is what most thinking people should object to, IMHO.

[Mooney]

33. I have serious problems with them trying to return to the WH again myself.

That's a constitutional matter, and therefore a completely relevant issue to HRC's candidacy.

The Clintons' taxes are another matter entirely. And unless they broke the law somehow, I don't care about it, as it relates to her presidential bid.

[Hippo_Tron]

42. Teddy Roosevelt

[BeyondGeography]

47. I should have added "after using his first term to enrich himself"

[dsc]

51. that is totally false

His returns were released before noon as I heard about it on the radio on my way to see a student who I saw at noon. I live on eastern daylight time.

[Penndems]

17. I care nothing about the Clintons' tax return and neither do I care about Senator Obama's nor

Senator McCain's.

[JoFerret]

19. So...they made money

It's the American way.

Obamas do the same...just not so well...yet.

Big deal. I'm with you on this one.

Tax 'em all I say.

[Mooney]

23. Yup.

Former presidents normally don't languish in poverty. This is completely normal.

I'm surprised people are making such a big deal out of this.

[JoFerret]

24. Any stick to beat a

Hillary.

Politics as usual.

People need to grow up.
If the Obamas want to take a vow of poverty - or rather, not poverty, but modest means, that would be great. I could get into that.
Ain't gonna happen.
So Obama fans dump on Clinton.
Hypocrisy.

[Texasgal]

20. Nope.

I don't care.

[Blue_In_AK]

22. I really could give a care. n/t

[flvegan]

28. Know who else has a shitpile of money?

That Richard Branson guy. Seems like a good bloke, too.

Oh, and from what I understand, those Kennedy folks got some bucks too.

Al Gore, considering his ties to Apple and Google, probably has the green to outbling most of America.

So, no you aren't the only one. I could care less about their income, so long as its legal, taxes were paid, and it doesn't influence them.

But then, I don't care for neither Obama nor Clinton. Money, as it's being played about, wouldn't influence me.

[nxylas]

29. I thought *I* was the only one

I also have a hard time giving a shit about "snipergate", because I always assume that all politicians are liars anyway.

[Life Long Dem]

31. No, your not the only one.

There are the ones who ran around here screaming about John Edwards new home he was building - those are the ones who would love to ignore this. n/t

[Mooney]

35. I guess I missed that one too.

What was wrong with John Edwards' home?

[Life Long Dem]

40. The cost was in the millions. That's all.

[Mooney]

41. Wow.

What unbelievably trivial bullshit.

[Jed Dilligan]

32. I'll tell you why you are wrong.

There is a level at which professional success tops out, unless you yourself have founded a successful corporation like Google or Microsoft. You can make maybe a million or two million a year before getting more requires selling out to the people with the REAL money. To take half a billion dollars from the consumers of the world is the work of a (oftentimes evil) genius; to take half a billion dollars from those who possess hundreds of billions of dollars is the work of a sellout. Clinton didn't make his money selling paperbacks to the masses--he made it giving speeches that we can presume, in the vast majority of cases if not all cases, advanced the agenda of those who paid him to make the speeches.

They pay Obama-level money to people who are good at what they do. They pay Clinton-level money to people who leverage their agenda with the populace and advance the consolidation of their power.

[Mooney]

34. Thank you for giving me a reasoned answer.

That makes sense. I still don't think the matter of their taxes is totally relevant, but your answer makes sense.

[Jed Dilligan]

36. Thanks for acknowledging

BTW it was fun this morning in the Belfast Herald op-ed thread!

[Mooney]

37. No problem.

Once, long ago, it was possible to have reasonable discussions with people. Thank you for the journey into the past.

[redqueen]

56. Thank you.

I'm tired of being accused of trying to smear these people.

Are that many of us really this naive?

ROI - it's not a new concept.

[GoldieAZ49]

38. exactly right - immaterial

they report their income accurately and pay their taxes

thats it

[Mooney]

39. Before April 15th, even.

[Lerkfish]

44. geez, do you people even read? these are PREVIOUS tax returns, not this years

April 15th date is irrelevant

[krkaufman]

45. I don't care about Hillary's taxes 'cause she ain't gonna be on the November Dem ticket.

I'll leave it to the voters in New York to worry about her & Bill's financials.

[Perry Logan]

46. You're not alone. People should get away form their computers, get some air.

[Bolo Boffin]

48. On CNN Headline News, the spin was "Why is Hillary trying to get rid of Bush's tax cuts?"

I kid you not.

Two best-selling books and President Clinton's speaking fees make up the bulk of their considerable income. And I can think of about three different times I've heard President Clinton talk about how the tax cuts were definitely benefiting him, and he didn't need them.

Now that they are released, unless there's evidence of malfeasance (which I doubt), the issue should be over.

[intaglio]

49. Nope,not now they have been released n/t

[dogday]

50. It is a good thing that Kerry is not running now...

We would eat him alive for his wealth...

[rasputin1952]

52. I don't care either...where was the outrage at Reagan making

$350,000 for a 15 minute rally speech after he left office...RR cleaned up pretty good after he left tthe WH. He made millions, and w/o a book deal.

[DuaneBidoux]

54. unless it shows illegality I couldn't give a shit

[Zero Division]

55. Much as I don't trust the Clintons, I really don't care until...

someone actually finds some actual wrongdoing on their part. The straw-grasping on both sides is inevitable, but nevertheless irritating, much like a lot of the usual primary b.s.

[mmonk]

57. How will you know there's no malfeasance

without disclosure? There are reasons to hide past tax returns in conjunction with withholding donors to the Clinton library. Otherwise, why not disclose and end the speculation (which has been out there for a long time, not just now because there is an election).

[WinkyDink]

58. Not alone. I barely care about my own.