Are the Clintons in the top 1% of the top 1%?

posted at 5:31 pm on June 28, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Live by the class-warfare sword, die by the class-warfare sword. The One Percenter argument that effectively painted Mitt Romney in 2012 as an out-of-touch patrician in a nation full of populists has boomeranged on Bill and Hillary Clinton in 2014, thanks in large part to Hillary’s own declarations of poverty and struggle. With Democrats paving the way two years ago to attacks on wealth, the Wall Street Journal’s Tim Hanrahan looks at financial disclosures and other public records and concludes that the Clintons aren’t just One Percenters — they’re among the top One Percent of the One Percenters:

The nationwide level to make the top 1% of households in 2012 was $567,719,according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center,  a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute. And the level for the top 0.1% was about $2.9 million, a bar the Clintons easily surpassed.

The Tax Policy Center data stop there, at the top 0.1% — or the top 10% of the top 1% of Americans.

Did the Clintons reach the top 1% of the top 1%, based on their 2012 income? A different measure offers a strong clue. The Tax Policy Center says that IRS data for 2011, the most recent numbers available, show 11,500 total tax returns with adjusted gross income over $10 million that year, out of 145 million total returns. So a $10 million adjusted gross income puts one in the top 0.007% of all tax returns, and the Clintons’ income was well above that — likely putting it into the top 1% of the 1%.

The AP noted yesterday that the last public disclosure of the Clinton’s net worth was in 2012, when it ranged from $5 million to $25 million. That’s not exactly hereditary peerage level, but it’s far from “not truly well off,” let alone “struggling.” That’s apart from their earnings, which have surpassed the nine-figure mark over the last thirteen years; Bill Clinton by himself has made over $100 million just in speeches. Every speech either gives can be measured in multiples of annual average household incomes for Americans. For instance, two speeches at UCLA brought in more than 10 times the annual US household income, the Washington Post reported yesterday:

Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton was paid $300,000 to speak to students and faculty at the University of California Los Angeles in March, the university confirmed Friday.

UCLA spokesman Jean-Paul Renaud said Clinton’s fee was paid through a private endowment established for a lecture series by Meyer Luskin, an investor and president of Scope Industries, a food waste recycling company.

In 2012, former president Bill Clinton was paid $250,000 to deliver the inaugural address in the Luskin lecture series, Renaud said.

Meyer Luskin is a diffident Democratic donor, but apparently enough of a fan of the Clintons to cough up more than a half-million dollars for a couple of hours’ worth of speeches.

There’s nothing wrong with making a living off of the speaking circuit, of course. Ronald Reagan did that for years to hone his political craft before running for governor in California and then President, unsuccessfully in 1976 and successfully in 1980. Even the amount of money wouldn’t be a problem if it weren’t for the fact that Hillary and her apologists (now including Bill) have to shoehorn it into the demagoguery of the class-warfare strategies of their party — a class warfare strategy that worked in 2o12 but looks like it will backfire in 2014 and 2016 if Hillary runs for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Ruth Marcus has some advice for Hillary Clinton today. Either shut up entirely — including a retirement from the six-figure fees on the speaking circuit — or retire from politics, and pronto:

The issue isn’t that you’re rich, or even that you and your husband became rich after leaving office. American voters don’t have a problem with wealthy candidates or even wealthy ex-presidents and ex-officials.

They have a problem with wealthy candidates who are whiny and/or defensive about their wealth; who are greedy and/or ostentatious in their acquisition and display thereof; or whose wealth makes them, or makes them appear to be, out of touch with the concerns of everyday people. Your difficulties, at the moment anyway, appear to be chiefly in the first two categories: defensiveness and greed. …

Madam Secretary, enough already. This behavior borders on compulsion, like refugees who once were starved and now hoard food. You’re rich beyond your wildest imaginings! You don’t need any more! Just. Stop. Speaking. For. Pay.

In the midst of a book tour (and with the ample cushion of a multimillion-dollar advance), you don’t need to be hustling for another $200,000 or so from the United Fresh Produce Association and Food Marketing Institute. On the verge of a potential presidential bid, please feel free to say yes to the University of Nevada at Las Vegas if you want to speak there. But you don’t have to hit its foundation up for a $225,000 fee, even one you plan to donate to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

Fix this now, or decide not to run. Then you can rake in the fees to your heart’s content.

I suspect that Marcus is not alone in this sentiment on the Left, not even among Hillary’s supporters. The more Hillary Clinton talks, the more the media will keep dissecting her remarks and compare them to the reality of the overwhelming Clinton earnings and wealth, and the more ridiculous the class-warfare arguments from Democrats will look.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Populists eat their own, always.

thebrokenrattle on June 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM

Headline’s an incomplete sentence (extraneous to include “… of psychopaths”), right Ed?

No question at all about that …

ShainS on June 28, 2014 at 5:48 PM

Here’s Bill ….. in the beginning.

fogw on June 28, 2014 at 5:43 PM

Heh.

Here’s Hillary (or is it Chelsea, I forget?) in the end

ShainS on June 28, 2014 at 5:51 PM

Easily in the top 0.00001% of sh!t heads.

abobo on June 28, 2014 at 5:51 PM

Ya gotta admit: this is Hillaryous.

Kraken on June 28, 2014 at 5:51 PM

Even the amount of money wouldn’t be a problem if it weren’t for the fact that Hillary and her apologists (now including Bill) have to shoehorn it into the demagoguery of the class-warfare strategies of their party — a class warfare strategy that worked in 2o12 but looks like it will backfire in 2014 and 2016 if Hillary runs for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Class warfare? The Democrats had absolutely no problem nominating an idiot worth $285 million (and whose trophy wife is worth another $1 billion) in 2004. Did you know he also served in Vietnam?

Oh, and he and his wife own at least 4 houses. But they are the correct kind of rich, unlike Romney, who actually had to work for his assets.

Del Dolemonte on June 28, 2014 at 5:57 PM

I suspect that Marcus is not alone in this sentiment on the Left, not even among Hillary’s supporters. The more Hillary Clinton talks, the more the media will keep dissecting her remarks and compare them to the reality of the overwhelming Clinton earnings and wealth, and the more ridiculous the class-warfare arguments from Democrats will look.

Making the case for Fauxcahontas to enter the race from the hard left….

The problem is, with Hillary, she’s still going to continue to ignore the first rule of hole digging. It’s in her nature (and ego) to keep trying to demonstrate that she’s as good of a campaigner as her husband…and that hole will keep getting deeper.

Athos on June 28, 2014 at 5:59 PM

So a $10 million adjusted gross income puts one in the top 0.007% of all tax returns, and the Clintons’ income was well above that — likely putting it into the top 1% of the 1%.

Actually, and this is simple math barely out of arithmetic, 11,500 returns out of 145 million is 0.008%, not 0.007% (one rounds up when confronted with 0.0079 and want to use a three decimal place number.

And while I am at it, if Clinton’s income was well above $10M then “likely” is not the correct modifier, “clearly” is, or “well into the top”

Heck I might as well do a trifecta … if you begin a sentence talking about people and using “puts one”, then one should end with “puts one”, not, by inference with the use, switch to writing about the income and using “puts it”.

Does any media group employ editors anymore?

Dusty on June 28, 2014 at 6:01 PM

I like it when Hillary talks … and talks … and talks.

Keep talking, Hillary.

Carnac on June 28, 2014 at 6:03 PM

I’m sorry. Is there some confusion? Bill Clinton was President. Did he forget that? This is such a stupid gaffe on their part. Oh well. This is welfare reform and NAFTA karma. You create the DLC, you deserve every bit of populist outrage. Morons. I really don’t want her to win. But, since its inevitable…

libfreeordie on June 28, 2014 at 6:03 PM

God, she’s one ugly broad.

rogerb on June 28, 2014 at 6:06 PM

— or retire from politics

Well as Willie Sutton said…That’s where the money is…
It amazes me how much money these politicians acquire while in office and then after. Look at Harry Reid. Makes me sick.

BeachBum on June 28, 2014 at 6:09 PM

the Clintons aren’t just One Percenters — they’re among the top One Percent of the One Percenters:

But are they truly well off?

Stoic Patriot on June 28, 2014 at 6:13 PM

She’s constantly putting her foot in her mouth to prove she ain’t no ways tie-ard of sole food.

Flange on June 28, 2014 at 6:13 PM

Ronald Reagan did that for years to hone his political craft before running for governor in California and then President, unsuccessfully in 1976 and successfully in 1980.

Reagan also did a lot of speaking at fundraisers for the GOP on the rubber chicken circuit, although it did have a payoff for him – once he started his presidential runs, he had a rolodex of GOP contacts all around the country.

Hlllary wouldn’t come to Philadelphia to help her daughter’s mother-in-law in the Dem House primary this spring.

Wethal on June 28, 2014 at 6:14 PM

I’m sorry. Is there some confusion? Bill Clinton was President. Did he forget that? This is such a stupid gaffe on their part. Oh well. This is welfare reform and NAFTA karma. You create the DLC, you deserve every bit of populist outrage. Morons. I really don’t want her to win. But, since its inevitable…

libfreeordie on June 28, 2014 at 6:03 PM

Your choice would be Granny from Massachusetts, right? Doesn’t it bother you that she’s only a year younger than Hillary is, and that your Party is rapidly turning into the Old White Woman Party?

1. Dianne Feinstein = mid 80s

2. Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer = mid 70s.

3. Hillary and Grandma = late 60s.

Or would you be happier with a younger Democrat woman President? I understand that DWS from Floriduh is eminently qualified!

Del Dolemonte on June 28, 2014 at 6:18 PM

Are the Clintons in the top 1% of the top 1%?

Are we talking wealth?

Or of arrogance?

Or a sense of entitlement?

Or of ego?

Or of being just plain tedious?

Or of just being corrupt?

Athos on June 28, 2014 at 6:18 PM

But, since its inevitable…

libfreeordie on June 28, 2014 at 6:03 PM

It is? Obama was a media con/shame job. No way there’s enough “con” in the media to get this scumhag as Schadenfreude would call her, elected.

Judge_Dredd on June 28, 2014 at 6:20 PM

Class warfare? The Democrats had absolutely no problem nominating an idiot worth $285 million (and whose trophy wife is worth another $1 billion) in 2004. Did you know he also served in Vietnam?

Oh, and he and his wife own at least 4 houses. But they are the correct kind of rich, unlike Romney, who actually had to work for his assets.

Del Dolemonte on June 28, 2014 at 5:57 PM

I’ll disagree with you here. Teresa Heinz-Kerry is no trophy.

Corporal Tunnel on June 28, 2014 at 6:22 PM

Your choice would be Granny from Massachusetts, right? Doesn’t it bother you that she’s only a year younger than Hillary is, and that your Party is rapidly turning into the Old White Woman Party?

Age wasn’t a problem for your beloved Reagan…right?

And frankly, I have a lot more trust in classic white feminists like Warren, than I do with neoliberals like the Clintons. Yeah, the Native American thing is kind of classic liberal whiteness. But, ultimately, it’s fairly innocuous. Her ideas represent the most pro-middle class policy of any candidate in either party. She’s stiff as a board. Who cares. You all aren’t really able to counter her proposals.

libfreeordie on June 28, 2014 at 6:22 PM

And frankly, I have a lot more trust in classic white feminists like Warren, than I do with neoliberals like the Clintons. Yeah, the Native American thing is kind of classic liberal whiteness. But, ultimately, it’s fairly innocuous. Her ideas represent the most pro-middle class policy of any candidate in either party. She’s stiff as a board. Who cares. You all aren’t really able to counter her proposals.

libfreeordie on June 28, 2014 at 6:22 PM

The problem with older politicians, though, is they have more baggage. Some is good baggage and some bad. Hers is all bad. Once someone lies you can never trust anything they say.

crankyoldlady on June 28, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Here’s what I take from all this. Bill and Hill have, combined, in some 13 years accumulated an income of some $130 million, yet as of somewhere around 2012, have a net worth in the range of $5 to $25 million.

This means that over this period, they have, in combination, managed to accumulate debts to cancel and/or just merely spent a total $125 to $105 million dollars or the equivalent of 96 to 81% of their income.

In this era of hard times and people being short of money do we really want a President and first husband who spend like drunken sailors?

Dusty on June 28, 2014 at 6:27 PM

But, since its inevitable…
 
libfreeordie on June 28, 2014 at 6:03 PM

 
It is? Obama was a media con/shame job. No way there’s enough “con” in the media to get this scumhag as Schadenfreude would call her, elected.
 
Judge_Dredd on June 28, 2014 at 6:20 PM

 
That’s just the excuse that clears his conscience to vote for her without having to think about his imaginary moral opposition to her wealth, Iraq vote, enabling her misogynistic husband, gay marriage position, etc.
 
It’s inevitable. Easy as that.

rogerb on June 28, 2014 at 6:28 PM

In this era of hard times and people being short of money do we really want a President and first husband who spend like drunken sailors?

Dusty on June 28, 2014 at 6:27 PM

Lets see. When was the last president who DIDN’T spend like a drunken sailor? Reagan? Not sure about him either.

crankyoldlady on June 28, 2014 at 6:28 PM

But, ultimately, it’s fairly innocuous.

libfreeordie on June 28, 2014 at 6:22 PM

Why of course one misrepresenting themselves in order to obtain an Affirmative Action advantage is ‘fairly innocuous’. After all, lying is ‘fairly innocuous’ too.

Athos on June 28, 2014 at 6:29 PM

“Are we talking wealth?

Or of arrogance?

Or a sense of entitlement?

Or of ego?

Or of being just plain tedious?

Or of just being corrupt?

Athos on June 28, 2014 at 6:18 PM

All of the above, Athos

Lord Whorfin on June 28, 2014 at 6:31 PM

Or would you be happier with a younger Democrat woman President? I understand that DWS from Floriduh is eminently qualified!

Del Dolemonte on June 28, 2014 at 6:18 PM

You just know libfleeandlie is rooting for this ticket:

The Mooche/Jeantel 2016!

ShainS on June 28, 2014 at 6:33 PM

Truly? Ruth better watch her step. She might get the same treatment Diane Sawyer received. Killary shudda stuck to the war on wimmin and being the first fleamale pressy.

Kissmygrits on June 28, 2014 at 6:35 PM

Dusty, at 6:27pm. We have already done that with the current drunken sailor occupants.

Kissmygrits on June 28, 2014 at 6:37 PM

Lets see. When was the last president who DIDN’T spend like a drunken sailor? Reagan? Not sure about him either.

[crankyoldlady on June 28, 2014 at 6:28 PM]

That is true, crankyoldlady. I believe there is a difference, though. One is taking a chance on those who are frugal with their own money as it may not reflect their penchant with public money, but at least it is clear they they know what being frugal means and how to be so. One can then argue with them on the subject of doing so and they would be able to comprehend your argument even if disagreeing with it.

To all appearances, that quality appears to be absent with the Clintons, making the taxpayers work immensely more difficult, if not impossible.

Dusty on June 28, 2014 at 6:37 PM

Impeached serial adulterer and the BenghaziGate perp-a-traitor?

Someone put a tracking bracelet on that kankle.

Parmenides on June 28, 2014 at 6:40 PM

Hillary being a Black Preacher

LMAO! Fraud

Key West Reader on June 28, 2014 at 6:55 PM

In the old days we knew government was corrupt and wasteful and we sort of accepted that as normal as long as they more or less represented our interests. But this bunch now are different. Outside of the conservatives they don’t represent anyone but themselves, whichever party they are. Some of us knew they would be this way and we warned others but they wouldn’t listen.

crankyoldlady on June 28, 2014 at 7:00 PM

God, she’s one ugly broad.

rogerb on June 28, 2014 at 6:06 PM

She’s old, pudgy and pasty. And she has cankles.

Srlsy.

Key West Reader on June 28, 2014 at 7:05 PM

Kissmygrits on June 28, 2014 at 6:35 PM

I always respected Diane Sawyer.

I suppose her “termination” was as a result of the semi-hard hitting interview with a Clinton.

Thou shalt not .. To a Clinton. Or a steaming pile of Obama.

I hope she joins Fox News.

Key West Reader on June 28, 2014 at 7:08 PM

You just know libfleeandlie is rooting for this ticket:

ShainS on June 28, 2014 at 6:33 PM

Ha! Libfleeandlie! I love it!

Judge_Dredd on June 28, 2014 at 7:13 PM

Age wasn’t a problem for your beloved Reagan…right?

And frankly, I have a lot more trust in classic white feminists like Warren, than I do with neoliberals like the Clintons. Yeah, the Native American thing is kind of classic liberal whiteness. But, ultimately, it’s fairly innocuous. Her ideas represent the most pro-middle class policy of any candidate in either party. She’s stiff as a board. Who cares. You all aren’t really able to counter her proposals.

libfreeordie on June 28, 2014 at 6:22 PM

Lying about one’s background or Heritage to personally gain is not “harmless”, it is called lying. Once a Liar, always a Liar. Especially when it counts.

Johnnyreb on June 28, 2014 at 7:23 PM

I wish I didn’t have to see her face every time I visit this site.

DontDroneMeBro on June 28, 2014 at 7:26 PM

There’s nothing wrong with making a living off of the speaking circuit, of course. Ronald Reagan did that for years ….

Yeah, yeah we know you don’t “begrudge” Hillary for writing books or being on the speaking tour, but now you bring Reagan in to buttress your argument?

Comparing the Clintons to Reagan?

Dumb again, Ed.

Sherman1864 on June 28, 2014 at 7:27 PM

God, she’s one ugly broad.

rogerb on June 28, 2014 at 6:06 PM

The cackle.. the fake laugh that she uses when she needs second to think what’s the most politically astute answer to an inconvenient question. The 10th level of hell resonates with that cackle.

V7_Sport on June 28, 2014 at 7:29 PM

I hope she joins Fox News.

Key West Reader on June 28, 2014 at 7:08 PM

Diane Sawyer lost her job? They probably just can’t afford to pay her. And they can’t all get jobs at Fox. She’s old. She can write books and blog and stuff.

crankyoldlady on June 28, 2014 at 7:32 PM

Hillary won’t even end up running, but will ironically net even more $$ over this supposed “gaffe”. It all seems calculated to me. Her supporters must be very proud!

DontDroneMeBro on June 28, 2014 at 7:36 PM

I always respected Diane Sawyer.

I suppose her “termination” was as a result of the semi-hard hitting interview with a Clinton.

Thou shalt not .. To a Clinton. Or a steaming pile of Obama.

I hope she joins Fox News.

Key West Reader on June 28, 2014 at 7:08 PM

Actually, Diane Sawyer has a bit of a problem with the booze, just like Hillary. And FOX News already has their hands full with Greg Jarrett’s recent issues along those lines.

bimmcorp on June 28, 2014 at 7:42 PM

Top or bottom, depending on the nature of the pile.

formwiz on June 28, 2014 at 7:42 PM

Diane Sawyer lost her job? They probably just can’t afford to pay her. And they can’t all get jobs at Fox. She’s old. She can write books and blog and stuff.

crankyoldlady on June 28, 2014 at 7:32 PM

She should take up knitting… or croquet.

Key West Reader on June 28, 2014 at 7:44 PM

Lying about one’s background or Heritage to personally gain is not “harmless”, it is called lying. Once a Liar, always a Liar. Especially when it counts.

Johnnyreb on June 28, 2014 at 7:23 PM

We don’t call her ‘Liawatha’ for nothing, do we?

bimmcorp on June 28, 2014 at 7:44 PM

We don’t call her ‘Liawatha’ for nothing, do we?

bimmcorp on June 28, 2014 at 7:44 PM

Err.. Elizabeth Warren was crowned with the Liawatha feathers.

Hillary? Meh. She’s just so friggin pasty – seriously. Pasty. Like a doughboy kind of pasty, but not ast cute.

Key West Reader on June 28, 2014 at 7:46 PM

Here’s what I take from all this. Bill and Hill have, combined, in some 13 years accumulated an income of some $130 million, yet as of somewhere around 2012, have a net worth in the range of $5 to $25 million.

This means that over this period, they have, in combination, managed to accumulate debts to cancel and/or just merely spent a total $125 to $105 million dollars or the equivalent of 96 to 81% of their income.

In this era of hard times and people being short of money do we really want a President and first husband who spend like drunken sailors?

Dusty on June 28, 2014 at 6:27 PM

I suggest another explanation; the rules for that particular disclosure said that the money in various Clinton family trusts need not be included.

slickwillie2001 on June 28, 2014 at 7:55 PM

Way the by, here’s the first one-percent: The Millionaire Cop Next Door

It’s said that government workers now make, on average, 30% more than private-sector workers. Put that fantasy aside. It far underestimates the real figures. By my calculations government workers make more than twice as much. They are America’s fastest-growing group of millionaires.

Doubt it? Then ask yourself: What is the net present value of an $80,000 annual pension payout with additional full health benefits? Working backward the total NPV would depend on expected returns of a basket of safe investments–blue-chip stocks, dividends and U.S. Treasury bonds.

slickwillie2001 on June 28, 2014 at 8:00 PM

Key West Reader on June 28, 2014 at 7:46 PM

True. The bottom line is that both of them are dishonest and will say and do anything to further their own personal ambitions and goals.

bimmcorp on June 28, 2014 at 8:02 PM

Hillary Clinton:

“I’ll never be hungry again!”

Evi L. Bloggerlady on June 28, 2014 at 8:03 PM

I suggest another explanation; the rules for that particular disclosure said that the money in various Clinton family trusts need not be included.

[slickwillie2001 on June 28, 2014 at 7:55 PM]

Okay, I appreciate the clarification.

Dusty on June 28, 2014 at 8:08 PM

Ruth Marcus’ advice: Either shut up or get out.

Ruth got it wrong.

Shut up AND get out.

Diluculo on June 28, 2014 at 8:14 PM

The Dems are screwed.

John the Libertarian on June 28, 2014 at 8:47 PM

A top 1% of one percentagers who pays taxes? Nope, something’s not right.

HiJack on June 28, 2014 at 9:03 PM

And frankly, I have a lot more trust in classic white feminists like Warren, than I do with neoliberals like the Clintons. Yeah, the Native American thing is kind of classic liberal whiteness. But, ultimately, it’s fairly innocuous. Her ideas represent the most pro-middle class policy of any candidate in either party. She’s stiff as a board. Who cares. You all aren’t really able to counter her proposals.

libfreeordie on June 28, 2014 at 6:22 PM

If you truly want to gain knowledge of Elizabeth Warren, both good and bad, visit legalinsurrection.com. There is an entire section devoted to her background.

herm2416 on June 28, 2014 at 9:17 PM

Her ideas represent the most pro-middle class policy of any candidate in either party. She’s stiff as a board. Who cares. You all aren’t really able to counter her proposals.

libfreeordie on June 28, 2014 at 6:22 PM

You seriously are a joke. Her ideas only lead to the destruction of the middle class and a return of a feudal system with wealth stemming only from how well connected one is in the government.

Count to 10 on June 28, 2014 at 10:19 PM

I don’t really care how much money they have, even if some of it was ill gotten by Universities and the book publisher who gave a donation to Hillary for her run. Except what they did to Gov Romney because of the money he made. BTW, in case some don’t know, he donated his inheritance to charity.

And also, does anyone doubt that they didn’t have his IRS tax returns in the White house?
No wonder she had to loose all her emails – you wonder how much more she had given out.

Bambi on June 28, 2014 at 11:03 PM

Yeah, the Fake Native American thing is kind of classic liberal whiteness. But, ultimately, it’s fairly innocuous.

libfreeordie on June 28, 2014 at 6:22 PM

Fixed.

W-

Del Dolemonte on June 28, 2014 at 11:37 PM

Perfect for the Clintons

Schadenfreude on June 28, 2014 at 11:42 PM

Actually, this time I agree with President Obama:

(his last statement here)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0JkyZx1LdQ

fred5678 on June 28, 2014 at 11:47 PM

And yet they still feel like it’s not enough.

For people like that money will never be enough… I would usually say that their wants exceed their income, therefore they always feel like they are running out of money.

But this kind of money is so far out of my imagining, that I can’t even begin to know what you could possibly want that you couldn’t buy!

Your own country? Ohhhhhhhhhh…… she wants to be PResident because she doesn’t have her own country yet! Bill got his. Now she wants hers, and they simply won’t be satisfied until it is a set!

You would think the minute the word “broke” came out of her mouth there would have been some kind of warning light come on. But she still feels poor because she hasn’t bought the office of President of the United States yet!

These people can’t relate to me. They have no idea.

petunia on June 29, 2014 at 12:03 AM

I get the feeling that the movers and shakers on the left prefer the squaw from Massachusetts.

celtic warrior on June 29, 2014 at 12:19 AM

….but why is there a picture of Ben Franklin accompanying this post? And I was not aware Ben got the radial keratotamy surgery in his later years- thought them bifocals were a trademark look for him.

GrassMudHorsey on June 29, 2014 at 12:29 AM

…they are low life’s…money doesn’t matter.

JugEarsButtHurt on June 29, 2014 at 12:51 AM

Elizabeth Warren is making over $500,000 per year salary, so she is also in the 1%.

Techster64 on June 29, 2014 at 1:01 AM

I suggest another explanation; the rules for that particular disclosure said that the money in various Clinton family trusts need not be included.

slickwillie2001 on June 28, 2014 at 7:55 PM

As long as they get to choose who gets the money from the
Foundation, then they are “spending” it.

AesopFan on June 29, 2014 at 1:04 AM

Do you remember this right wing conspiracy hardly covered in the media? Please feel free to correct this with facts which give sites so I can see for myself.

Some of the controversy was called the Dubai Ports Deal, but mostly, it is the Clinton Global Initiative as an educational front for business opportunities for the Clintons. All Good Works, and a non profit foundation to boot, with highly paid daughters working for ya.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/3325/dubai-dubai-do-the-sweet-sound-of-bill-clintons-20-mill-emirates-payoff/

Fleuries on June 29, 2014 at 10:41 AM

As to Granny Warren. Geez, they idolize her. She really only knows how to stand up and lecture, she has very few transferable skills, kinda like the big O.

Fleuries on June 29, 2014 at 10:42 AM

Bills. Fees. Mortgages on houses.
HousES.

You know, like we All have.
Right?

TimBuk3 on June 29, 2014 at 11:24 AM

http://postimg.org/image/lcy0p3yc5/

Star Bird on June 29, 2014 at 3:35 PM

For those who think Elizabeth “cheekbones” Warren will be less of a problem than Hillary, I beg to differ. The comment on Liz’s lying is appropriate but there is something about her that is very, very shallow. She dodged a bullet by not getting the Consumer Watchdog position – but the real question, as what should have been applied to Obama, is “Who is behind Elizabeth Warren?”

FWIW, Reagan earned his way, as did Clinton and Bush – all were governors; agree or disagree, they had management experience before running for president. Heck, so did Carter. I do not want a Senator running the nation – period. They rarely know how to manage. Their job is to appease and compromise. A leader, a true leader, must make tough decisions. Rarely, if ever, has a senator made a really tough decision. Witness Obama.

MN J on June 30, 2014 at 7:01 AM