I watched the Democratic Debate Tuesday night, and enjoyed it thoroughly. Of course, I’m one of those who slows down to look at a train wreck, and boy, was this a train wreck.
A someone who spends a great deal of time on this blog attacking liberal hypocrisy, I have to give a big “Thank You” to Hillary Rodham Clinton for making my job so much easier. Hillary not only says stupid things, she continues to repeat them. The problem is, the liberal media never pushes her on any of her comments, and never checks into whether her personal life meshes with her professional declarations.
Last night, Tim Russert comment that the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is a strong supporter of Hillary’s campaign, and he wants to repeal the alternative minimum tax and add a 4% “surtax” on the rich, which he defines as $150,000 annual income for a single individual, and $200,000 for a married couple. Russert commented that Bill Clinton, speaking in Harlem, stated “Charlie Rangel wants me to pay more taxes so you can pay less, and I think that’s a good idea.” Russert asked Hillary if that was also her view, to which she responded “…George Bush and his cronies can’t figure out how they can give even more tax cuts to the wealthiest of Americans, and I never though Bill and I would be in that category… it’s a new experience and it’s not one that makes us very comfortable.”
So there is her public stance, that they never expected to be wealthy, and that the wealthy need to pay their fair share. Does her private life jive with those statements? Even going back to Bill’s run as President in 1992, the Clinton’s always portrayed themselves as middle-class folks trying to do the right thing. “We’re not about money” Hillary was often quoted as saying.
But the Clintons have always been about money, and Hillary’s appetite for the material things in life is well known in the press, just not well reported. In that campaign, Clinton repeated over and over again that he was the “lowest paid governor in America” and that Hillary had given up huge amounts of income to devote her time to charitable causes. The first year Clinton was governor they made $408,000, putting them in the top 1% of wage earners in America. That doesn’t even include a food allowance of $50,000 per year, free residence in the governors mansion, an entertainment budget, a state credit card for travel, free babysitting, health insurance, chauffeurs, bodyguards, etc…. Just a normal middle class family.
In the final days of 2000, as she was getting ready to enter the senate and they would leave the White House, Hillary put out the word that she wanted some things for their two new homes. She registered at two luxury retailers, and calls were made by her friends asking wealthy donors if they could help the Clinton’s get set up in their new home. However, they were quick to point out that these gifts needed to be received before January 3rd, when the new Senate ethics rules kicked in.
In all the Clinton’s received over $190,000 in gifts. This does not include the $360,000 in other gifts that had been donated to the White House that they took with them. The White House curator said that these items were shipped to the Clinton’s new home on Hillary’s orders, and when the scandal went public, Hillary blamed it on a clerical error.
As for taxes, Bill was once quoted as saying “I must be the only person in America that every time I sign that tax form, I smile.” And yet a study of the Clinton’s income tax returns reveals that since 1991, the Clinton’s have paid about 7% less to the IRS than others in their income group. While most Americans in their tax bracket paid 27%, the Clinton’s have paid 20%.
How did they manage this? By taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in write-offs, during a time when they didn’t even have a mortgage to deduct. A look at their “write-offs” to charity included $30 for a used shower curtain, $80 for an old pair of dress shoes, and – get this - $4 for each pair of Bills old underwear. According to the accountants at Money Magazine: “The Clinton’s appear to have repeatedly overstated their charitable contributions.”
The Clinton’s also took numerous write-offs on Whitewater, the real estate development that they never actually put any money into. A Senate committee investigating Whitewater disclosed that in 1985-85 the Clinton’s took thousands in deductions that Hillary admitted at the time SHE KNEW they were not entitled to.
On their 1980 returns they failed to report Hillary’s profits from commodities trading (close to $100,000), but instead CLAIMED A LOSS. They also never reported $74,234 in loans, payments and forgiven debts that the IRS claims as income.
Shortly after being elected President, Bill laid out a tax plan to create a “millionaires” rate, increasing the top rate from 31% to 36%. The plan would be retroactive, meaning that even if the bill passed in the fall of 1993, it would apply to all income from January 1993 and beyond. Meanwhile, as 1992 was coming to an end, Hillary made sure to draw her partnership proceeds from the Rose Law Firm - $203,172 – on December 31st, avoiding the retroactive task. In every year past she had received those proceeds in January.
The Clinton’s have been outspoken in their support of the Inheritance Tax, yet they have set there money up in a contract trust, which substantially reduces the amount of inheritance tax their estate will pay when they die.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Democratic Party, I give you YOUR candidate for President, Hillary Clinton.
A someone who spends a great deal of time on this blog attacking liberal hypocrisy, I have to give a big “Thank You” to Hillary Rodham Clinton for making my job so much easier. Hillary not only says stupid things, she continues to repeat them. The problem is, the liberal media never pushes her on any of her comments, and never checks into whether her personal life meshes with her professional declarations.
Last night, Tim Russert comment that the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is a strong supporter of Hillary’s campaign, and he wants to repeal the alternative minimum tax and add a 4% “surtax” on the rich, which he defines as $150,000 annual income for a single individual, and $200,000 for a married couple. Russert commented that Bill Clinton, speaking in Harlem, stated “Charlie Rangel wants me to pay more taxes so you can pay less, and I think that’s a good idea.” Russert asked Hillary if that was also her view, to which she responded “…George Bush and his cronies can’t figure out how they can give even more tax cuts to the wealthiest of Americans, and I never though Bill and I would be in that category… it’s a new experience and it’s not one that makes us very comfortable.”
So there is her public stance, that they never expected to be wealthy, and that the wealthy need to pay their fair share. Does her private life jive with those statements? Even going back to Bill’s run as President in 1992, the Clinton’s always portrayed themselves as middle-class folks trying to do the right thing. “We’re not about money” Hillary was often quoted as saying.
But the Clintons have always been about money, and Hillary’s appetite for the material things in life is well known in the press, just not well reported. In that campaign, Clinton repeated over and over again that he was the “lowest paid governor in America” and that Hillary had given up huge amounts of income to devote her time to charitable causes. The first year Clinton was governor they made $408,000, putting them in the top 1% of wage earners in America. That doesn’t even include a food allowance of $50,000 per year, free residence in the governors mansion, an entertainment budget, a state credit card for travel, free babysitting, health insurance, chauffeurs, bodyguards, etc…. Just a normal middle class family.
In the final days of 2000, as she was getting ready to enter the senate and they would leave the White House, Hillary put out the word that she wanted some things for their two new homes. She registered at two luxury retailers, and calls were made by her friends asking wealthy donors if they could help the Clinton’s get set up in their new home. However, they were quick to point out that these gifts needed to be received before January 3rd, when the new Senate ethics rules kicked in.
In all the Clinton’s received over $190,000 in gifts. This does not include the $360,000 in other gifts that had been donated to the White House that they took with them. The White House curator said that these items were shipped to the Clinton’s new home on Hillary’s orders, and when the scandal went public, Hillary blamed it on a clerical error.
As for taxes, Bill was once quoted as saying “I must be the only person in America that every time I sign that tax form, I smile.” And yet a study of the Clinton’s income tax returns reveals that since 1991, the Clinton’s have paid about 7% less to the IRS than others in their income group. While most Americans in their tax bracket paid 27%, the Clinton’s have paid 20%.
How did they manage this? By taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in write-offs, during a time when they didn’t even have a mortgage to deduct. A look at their “write-offs” to charity included $30 for a used shower curtain, $80 for an old pair of dress shoes, and – get this - $4 for each pair of Bills old underwear. According to the accountants at Money Magazine: “The Clinton’s appear to have repeatedly overstated their charitable contributions.”
The Clinton’s also took numerous write-offs on Whitewater, the real estate development that they never actually put any money into. A Senate committee investigating Whitewater disclosed that in 1985-85 the Clinton’s took thousands in deductions that Hillary admitted at the time SHE KNEW they were not entitled to.
On their 1980 returns they failed to report Hillary’s profits from commodities trading (close to $100,000), but instead CLAIMED A LOSS. They also never reported $74,234 in loans, payments and forgiven debts that the IRS claims as income.
Shortly after being elected President, Bill laid out a tax plan to create a “millionaires” rate, increasing the top rate from 31% to 36%. The plan would be retroactive, meaning that even if the bill passed in the fall of 1993, it would apply to all income from January 1993 and beyond. Meanwhile, as 1992 was coming to an end, Hillary made sure to draw her partnership proceeds from the Rose Law Firm - $203,172 – on December 31st, avoiding the retroactive task. In every year past she had received those proceeds in January.
The Clinton’s have been outspoken in their support of the Inheritance Tax, yet they have set there money up in a contract trust, which substantially reduces the amount of inheritance tax their estate will pay when they die.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Democratic Party, I give you YOUR candidate for President, Hillary Clinton.
4 comments:
Well, we will see about that. I remember when everyone was pretty sure that Howard Dean was going to run away with the nomination only to get his butt kicked in Iowa, then New Hampshire. By the time they got to South Carolina he was done. Yeah, that "liberal media" is really anxious for Hillary to be the candidate. I think Obama and Edwards nailed it when they inferred, "the GOP wants Hillary to be the candidate because they think they can beat her."
My friend Brother Tim recently branded Hillary as just another neo con and I think his comment has some merit. I'm more worried about your guys. If Hillary does win I will be forced to vote for her as compared with any of the "stay the course" candidates on the right...with the exception of Mr. Huckabee. He seems to be the only man on your side with true character and integrity. I would vote for him over Hillary. Or Ron Paul!!! I would vote for Ron Paul over Hillary. A Libertarian mind you. But I have no illusions that the GOP has the sense to give RP a fighting chance. He isn't phony enough.
And you guys just can't get over the Clintons can ya? That's okay. I'm thinking it will take a lifetime or two for us to forget about the "decider" too.
Well, there are a lot on the right that want to run against Hillary, but I'm not so sure. Lets face it, I think you guys were thrilled about running against GW in '04, and look what happened?
I want to see Paul vs. Kucinich myself, now THAT would be a run race. And honestly, I'm beginning to think that your voting for Hillary is the same as our so-called "stay the course" candidate.
As far as "you guys just can't get over the Clinton's" comment, last time I checked one of them was running for president, so I think that pretty much makes them fair game. Do you want to make a bet how often the word "Bush" comes up on your blog after he is out of office? I promise that if you guys can get her out of the campaign, I will never mention the word "Clinton" again.
While I do think that saying one thing and doing another is reprehensible, I am also aware that this is politics and that said actions are inevitable. That having been said, I find it highly ironic that someone who plans to vote for a Republican can act indignant when a scandal comes to light. Between Scooter Libby, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Tom Delay, Dick Cheney, Bill Frist, Donald Rumsfeld, Mark Foley and now Senator Craig, the Republicans bring more than their fair share of scandals to Washington Hill.
With that out of the way, I think it’s important to note that personal financial flaws or other like topics are not at all the deciding factors of who will and will not run this country. While I feel that personal morals are a strong pull for prospective candidates, I also feel that their political standings and ideas are much more an accurate judge of who is and who is not an adept leader of this country. Hillary Clinton, despite personal flaws, brings more ideas and (more importantly) plans of action for said ideas to the table than any other candidate.
In the end, I’d much rather have a candidate with strong plans for social security, health care, Iraq, Iran, rebuilding our national status, Darfur, national tax revenue, social programs, and the improvement of the national school system than a candidate who pays their taxes in full.
Adherents.com reveals Rangel role in that there mafia fascist casuistry
cabal, Al Smith's subantennae which hijacked recent East Europe policy,
letting them terrorists into our country. Joe Bruno opposed Iraq war since
Saddam right hand was from this cabal. Rangel arose when Tom
Boland prosecuted Adam Clayton Powell because Ike bombed Eternal Rome during
the war and aborted the Universal Concordate. They bring illegals as fifth
column which is why we must diminish their power by sending their jobs to
India.
Post a Comment