Clintons Get Rich, Avoid Criticism by Paying Taxes, `Tithing'

[MethuenProgressive]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aFf1gT.S2w7I&refer=home

April 7 (Bloomberg) -- Hillary and Bill Clinton got rich in the seven years since they left the White House, and by paying plenty of taxes and giving a large chunk to charity, they may avoid the criticism expected with the release of such detailed financial information.

The Clintons, who earned $109 million in eight years, gave about 10 percent of their income to their charitable foundation and paid almost a third in federal taxes, forgoing many of the strategies such as trusts that wealthy people use to cut their tax bills.

The returns so far have yielded few surprises, and show the political sensitivity the Clintons have honed in the last three decades, where their every move has been scrutinized. The revelation of their new wealth is unlikely to hurt them unless details in the returns eventually lead to allegations of wrongdoing, political analysts said.

``You often hear about the affluent doing tax dodges, etc.; they were pretty honest about it,'' said Rhodes Cook, publisher of a non-partisan political newsletter. ``And that $10 million to charity, that's close to the biblical tithing.''

10.3 Million to charity!! God BLESS this generous family!

[PBS Poll-435]

1. Doesn't Count

Not nearly enough...

:sarcasm:

K/R!

[MethuenProgressive]

14. Looks that way...

They wanted blood. They got kindness.

[PBS Poll-435]

22. The sleezy and bitter politics of personal destruction.

I thought we were going to turn the page and write a new chapter? Oh wait, they did.

What they didn't tell us though, is that it is the Gingrich/Rove playbook.

[lisa58]

2. They gave the $10 million to their own foundation...

...I think their generosity is great - I beleive in generosity.

[onenote]

5. and that foundation gives money to charities -- that is all it does

This causes you a problem?

[polmaven]

48. Exactly!

Just like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation....Charitable all the way....I wonder if that poster has a problem with that one too.

[roguevalley]

43. apparently, by doing so they can parcel it out or not. they can keep

it and not pay taxes. lots of rich folks do that with their foundations.

[onenote]

51. all foundations operate that way

No well run foundation reduces its assets to zero each year.

And not just "rich folks" set up private family foundations, or at least not very rich. Here's an example of a family foundation set up with about $10,000.

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/331/331000119/331000119_200312_990PF.pdf

The point of "parceling" out the money is to ensure that the foundation is around to continue making charitable gifts after the originators are gone. If you set up a foundation you don't get to "keep" the money. It belongs to the foundation -- the interest the money earns belongs to the foundation as well as the balance. There are strict limits on "self dealing".

[MyNameGoesHere]

3. Look if they would have shed their worldly

possessions and worn burlap bags for clothing, the people here would still find fault. Maybe they made some money, maybe they could have made more. It doesn't matter they would be scrutinized regardless.

[qnr]

15. How dare they take those burlap bags from the truly needy! n/t

[mrreowwr_kittty]

4. You just don't get it, do you?

It's not about whether or not they paid their taxes or how much they gave to charity. Those tax returns reveal who has been paying them all those millions. And it ain't pretty. You Obama-haters can scream "Rezko!" at the top of your lungs until the cows come home but he has nothing on the Clintons' shady alliances.

[mtnsnake]

7. Go and drip your negative shit in someone elses thread. This is a positive one

[onenote]

8. yeah, all those damn book purchasers -- ain't pretty

"all" those millions came from "shady alliances"? Hyperbole much?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

10. All that money isn't from books and you know it.

Disingenuous feigned ignorance much?

[onenote]

11. I never said it was. I believe it was you that suggested "all" those millions were shady

[qnr]

16. Typical Clinton supporter.... There was no "suggestion" there, it was a flat-out statement.

:evilgrin: Typical, willing to give a poster with an opposing viewpoint the benefit of the doubt - such ugly politics.

[onenote]

21. self delete

[MethuenProgressive]

13. I get it. You're heartbroken the records showed nothing but success and generousity.

Some people (you?) would throw rocks even if they gave it all away.

[ProSense]

23. No,

there's more, the questionable income from InfoUSA and Ron Burkle.

[rodeodance]

30. kicky poo

[ProSense]

32. What did the Clintons do in return for Burkle's $15 million?

kicky poo!

[MethuenProgressive]

39. You've stooped to spamming with links to your own post in this same thread?

That's below pity.

[rodeodance]

40. that poster does it a lot.

[Bake]

33. Gee, I never list "shady alliances" on my tax return.

I just staple my W-2 to it.

Bake

[kikiek]

34. Their commitment to those in need is inspiring. They are wonderful and generous people.

They are people we Democrats can be proud of.

[mtnsnake]

6. K&R for Bill and Hillary, who have always put others before themselves

[MethuenProgressive]

54. And get attacked for giving away "too much" money...

:kick:

[juajen]

9. I don't believe they will find anything out of the orginary,

except, of course, the talent of this couple, and their ability to earn that much.

[Tellurian]

12. Exactly... "They give marrying well" new meaning.. Mw²

Obama supporters will say they married TOO WELL!

:rofl:

[endarkenment]

17. Thanks for posting something actually positive.

I agree that the Clintons have been generous while experiencing a spectacular rise into the ranks of the rich.

[MethuenProgressive]

26. It's a shame that they're being attacked over being successful the way Edwards was too.

If they gave it all away, they'd still be attacked.

[calimary]

36. That's what went through my mind. I'm an Obama supporter, but when I saw the

ten percent charitable giving, that was a plus for them in my mind. AND they didn't take advantage of tax shelters, either - they paid quite a bit in taxes. Which is fair. It speaks well of them, at least to me. Because when you get up to the triple-digit millions in earnings, almost everybody else in that rarified air would be sheltering every last penny with EVERY ounce of energy and shrewdness they had (and we know how much energy and shrewdness the Clintons have, don't we?) - and they didn't. Show me one republi-CON or captain of industry or "kenny-boy" type who can say the same, on either count.

FURTHERMORE: I'm delighted to see the Clintons come into some big money. GOOD FOR THEM!!! I rather like the idea that somebody on OUR side gets to rake it in, for a change. And unlike the bushes or mccain and his trust-fund wife and romney and his hedge fund crap and all these other money-grubbing financial manipulators and loop-hole lovers, the Clintons came by it through their own hard work. As I recall, Bill Clinton was not born to wealth. He didn't have some ritzy, well-connected, high-rolling dad pulling strings for him to get his ass out of a jam and his companies bought up by cronies after he drove those same companies into bankruptcy. In fact, he had no father at all until his mom remarried - dubiously as I recall. He did it on his brains, and his energy, and his ingenuity, and came up from nothing. And Hillary was no Rockefeller, either. I'm rather pleased to see they've been able to rake it in. They deserve it. And I'd rather see them riding the gravy train than bush, cheney, rummy, wolfie, dougie feith (the latest trying to hawk an "I Didn't Do It" book) or anybody doing the American Enterprise Institute circuit. If somebody's gonna cash in, I want it to be the people on MY side. Because more people on MY side of the aisle tend to turn around and try to do some good things for others with that money.

I have many criticisms of both Hillary AND Bill. But this isn't one of them.

[polmaven]

49. Thank you, calimary..

If we did not all have some criticisms of all of the candidates it would, in my opinion, be scary indeed. I have criticisms of Senator Obama, and I also have some criticisms of Senator Clinton. She is my choice in this race, but that does not mean that I hate everything that Senator Obama says and does. (The only thing I really hate is the WORD hate. It is a very destructive word which I wish we would eliminate from the language.)

I am a little frightened by those of us here at DU who are absolutely unable to find a single criticism to make of his or her chosen candidate. I posted an answer to another post (one to an Obama supporter, as it happens) faulting Senator Clinton for her handling of the Bosnia flap, and asking him/her if he/she was able to fault Senator Obama for anything. ...I never got an answer.

I will not ask you for the same, however, because I do not think it is necessary. You apparently are a fair minded individual who recognizes that NO ONE is all good nor all evil.

Again...Thank you.

[SeaLyons]

18. K&R

[MethuenProgressive]

25. Thanks, Cricket!

:dem:

[Occam Bandage]

19. "If you believe there's nothing up his sleeve, then nothing is cool."

[ProSense]

20. Good article, from your link:

Moreover, there are unanswered questions about some of Bill Clinton's business ties that could cause trouble for his wife's campaign.

<...>

The former president earned $15.4 million from billionaire Ron Burkle's Yucaipa Cos. investment firm since 2003, according to the tax documents. Tax lawyers said the Yucaipa partnership income for Clinton, 61, looks to be a form of salary because it was in round numbers for most years, raising questions about what services he performed for Los Angeles-based Yucaipa, whose investors include the ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid al-Maktoum.

InfoUSA

Bill Clinton also earned $800,000 in 2006 and 2007 as an adviser to infoUSA Inc., a data-mining company owned by Vinod Gupta, a longtime supporter.

InfoUSA shareholders sued over the payments to Clinton and over the more than $146,000 it spent to fly the Clintons to Acapulco in 2002. Gupta has said the expenditures were legitimate. In December, the company's chief financial officer said the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating.

Clinton also invested in an offshore hedge fund, Quellos Alpha Engine LP, run by Seattle-based Quellos Group LLC. In 2006, a Senate panel detailed in a report how Quellos Group had ``designed, promoted and implemented'' an illegal tax shelter based on fake securities transactions and shell companies.

[MethuenProgressive]

24. Thanks for the kick!

:yourock:

[rodeodance]

28. and another good kick for the OP. Thank you

[rodeodance]

27. Yeah--I have pity for so many BO fans here on DU. Nothing there for them to smear.

[Blondbostonian]

29. I have pity for you when Hillary finally drops out

I'm sure that's going to be a tough day/week/month for you.

[LulaMay]

31. K & R... NOW, will you take out the trash?!

[MethuenProgressive]

38. Today's recycling day, not trash day? Crap. I threw away our plastic and glass!!

Sorry, sweetie!

[LulaMay]

44. Did you toss that cracked tupperware bowl? I was saving that! Damn.

oh well, see you at home!

[MethuenProgressive]

52. I keep telling you, real Tupperware doesn't say "Cool Whip" on the lid.

I think we need to suspend your eBay account. Again.

[guruoo]

35. Hospital gives Michelle $200K raise, Obama appropriates $1M for Hospital

Hospital officials say Obama's wife deserved big raise

Officials at the University of Chicago Hospitals say a promotion and large pay
increase given to Sen. Barack Obama's wife shortly after the Democrat was elected to
Congress were well-deserved boosts for an executive who is "worth her weight in gold."
The Chicago Tribune has the story.

"She's terrific," added Michael Riordan, who was president of the hospital in March 2005,
when Michelle Obama was promoted to vice president for external affairs and had her annual
salary increased from $121,910 to $316,962.

Riordan told the Tribune that the promotion and salary increase had nothing to do with
Obama's husband becoming a U.S. senator.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/09/hospital_offici.html


March 14, 2008
By CHRISTOPHER DREW and JO BECKER

Senator Barack Obama on Thursday released a list of $740 million in earmarked spending
requests that he had made over the last three years, and his campaign challenged Senator
Hillary Rodham Clinton to do the same.

The list included $1 million for a hospital where Mr. Obama's wife works, money for several
projects linked to campaign donors and support for more than 200 towns, civic institutions
and universities in Illinois.

Obama did release his 2007 earmark requests but his Senate and campaign office has refused,
without explanation, to disclose 2005 and 2006 until now.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/barryjamesmoore/gGBzF3

[ProSense]

37. Where is Hillary's earmarks list? What did the Clintons do for InfoUSA's $3 million and

Ron Burkle's $15 million?

[rodeodance]

41. gee, you don't have a LINK. You are slowing up!

[LulaMay]

46. I'm sorry....but doesn't 'Pro-Sense' sound like the name of a, well, you know, a um, uh-hum...sorry.

I'm being gross today. gag.

[guruoo]

47. Bet she's on the horn with the 'rapid response' bunker team right now

[Radical Activist]

42. Its Biblical! Making that money was a holy thing!

Jesus Fucking Christ give me a break.

[truedelphi]

45. Hey 10% went to a charity. Granted it was a

Charity foundation that Bill himself headed, but remember, charity begins at ...

Oh never mind.

[jackson_dem]

50. The Clintons, like the Edwardses, practice what they preach unlike some who utter just words

[MethuenProgressive]

53. After all those words crying for a peek at the tax returns: Success and Charity.

ObamaBots everywhere are crying in their koolaid...