The Royal Clintons: Hillary Denies Vast Personal Wealth.

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton, former First Lady and Secretary of State under Barack Obama, has come under fire for claiming to be “dead broke” after leaving the White House in 2000, in what many accuse to be a transparent and flat-footed attempt at connecting with middle-class and lower-income voters ahead of a possible 2016 Presidential run.

As Business Insider reports:

We came out of the White House not only dead broke but in debt,” Clinton told ABC’s Diane Sawyer for an interview that previewed the Tuesday launch of Clinton’s memoir, “Hard Choices.” “We had no money when we got there and we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses, for Chelsea’s education. It was not easy.”

Both Clintons have embarked on a lucrative speaking career since then, reportedly earning over $100 million in speaking fees alone…

What a laugh. This is a fart in the face to all voters who don’t have the luxury of wiping their butts with $100 bills, and also to voters who have made considerable wealth and managed it wisely. It’s definitely an insult to everyone’s intelligence.

No matter how you look at it, this is a moronic statement. Hillary would have been better off saying nothing at all.

I’m not saying it’s all a lie. I’m willing to believe the Clintons left the White House with considerable debt. Modern political campaigns, most especially for the Presidency, run into the hundreds of millions. Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign spent at least $400 million, if not more. A lot of this money is financed by debt. I am not sure how much money Bill Clinton spent on his Presidential campaigns, but I’m sure it was in the tens of millions at the very least, part of which was likely financed by debt. At the time Bill Clinton was President, his salary was roughly $250,000. So it is not inconceivable that the Clintons could have left the White House still holding campaign debt.

But being in debt and being “dead broke” are two completely different things. I left the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee with nearly $20,000 of debt. I had a negative net worth until early this year, when I finally paid off the last of my debt after 5 years. At no time was I “dead broke”. I never went hungry. I was never homeless. I always had a car and could afford gas. I wasn’t living fancy by any means, but I wasn’t “dead broke”. This is because I did my best to make wise financial decisions and live within my means. It paid off.

Were the Clintons really “dead broke”? I don’t think there is a set definition for being dead broke; but I think most would agree that “struggling” to buy multiple lavish estates and send daughter Chelsea to school at Stanford, Oxford, and Columbia University is not really “struggling” or being “dead broke” at all. In my opinion, this sounds more like “living large” on “fabulous wealth”. I don’t doubt that the Clintons may have been in debt. Who knows, maybe banks really were wary to finance their mortgages for more than one multi-million dollar estate. But I think trying to pass that off as “struggling” and being “dead broke” is a straight-up slap in the face to all Americans who really are struggling and bankrupt. Especially considering that Hillary Clinton, when serving in the US Senate during the 2008 Financial Crisis, voted “yes” for the TARP bailouts. She chose to save the riches of crooked and/or idiotic bankers at the expense of taxpayers, whom at the time were losing their homes and jobs during the worst economic recession in years. Does that sound like solidarity with the genuinely struggling middle and lower-classes? I say, no.

Let us imagine, for the sake of argument, that the Clintons really were “dead broke” in a real sense after leaving the White House, as in not knowing if they could even afford to eat their next meal. This is a ridiculous notion, but let us entertain the possibility. Hillary is trying to establish her street-cred with the common man by wearing her alleged bankruptcy as a badge of honor. How, pray tell, is that something to be proud of? Hillary is saying that after making at least $250,000 per year for eight years straight, she and Bill were dead broke. You mean to tell me that the Clintons are entirely incapable of making wise financial decisions and managing their money in a smart way, and that this is something to be celebrated? Of course not. This whole “I’m not rich” thing is even worse if Hillary is being totally honest about it. Do you really want a President handling taxpayer money who can’t even wisely manage their own finances on a guaranteed quarter-million dollar salary for eight years straight? If Hillary really was dead broke after her time in the White House, than shame on her and Billy Boy for being financial idiots. Ain’t no way she’s qualified to make financial decisions regarding the budget of the United States.

Chelsea Clinton, whom some also project to be a future President (Heaven forbid), recently made comments in an interview with the Telegraph in which she said that she “tried to care about money on some fundamental level, but just couldn’t“. No matter how hard she’s tried, she just can’t bring herself down to the grotty, money-grubbing level of the middle and lower-classes.

What a load of baloney! I don’t doubt that Chelsea Clinton doesn’t care about money… because she has a net worth over $15 million. This is a demonstration of the Law of Diminishing Marginal Value in action: the more of something you have, the less each unit tends to matter. So in a way, Chelsea really has transcended caring about money. She has so much of it that it practically means nothing to her. It’s easy to not care about money when you were born into it, when you married into it, and when you make $600,000 per year at NBC as a “special correspondent” basically doing nothing at all. The rest of us aren’t so lucky. The rest of us are greedy and money-grubbing, comparatively. I guess we should be looking for rich spouses and cushy high-paying jobs too, if we want to ascend to Chelsea’s saintly state of mind.

The Royal Clintons are some of the most out-of-touch and condescending public figures in America. You’d think they’d watch their words more closely; but I really think they don’t care. Hillary knows that the media will cover for them, that massive donors will still buy them off, and that the Democratic Party rank-and-file will vote for her no matter what stupid things she says. Some conservative commentators say things like “America deserves better” than a Hillary Clinton presidency. I disagree. America gets exactly what it deserves. The mere fact that anyone says they would vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 is downright appalling. It deserves a good smack in the face. A Hillary Clinton Presidency will amount to a figurative good smack in the face.

Tags: , , , , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: