Hey juggie! This is 2016! They got a handy-dandy research tool out there called "Google!" Ever hear of it? It will bring up thousands of sources of info in, oh, say, milliseconds! No hours involved at all! But thanks for your concern, however misplaced.
All ya gots ta do is type in "Bill Clinton income," or "Clintons income," or whatever you want, really, and then the fun starts! I like to start my fun with liberal rags like the Wash Post, or the NYTimes, which have pretty good research departments of their own; but sometimes, just for chuckles and grins, I'll see what FauxNoise is up to, or the Wash Times or Examiner, or the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute.
Glad to see you marveling at my persistence in getting the facts out.
Especially since it blows up your insinuations and innuendo.
August 8, 2016 at 3:24 p.m.
Do you whack-a-doodles realize Bill Clinton has been out (OUT) of office and off the public payroll for16 years? And that Hillary was off the public payroll for 8 years, until Obama tapped her to be Secretary of State?
Have you been paying attention at all to anything besides the right-wingnut bubble?
Bill has been paid $105 M for 542 speeches AROUND THE WORLD between January 2001 and January 2013, according to the Wash Post. His income from speaking is detailed in annual public disclosures, unlike the incomes of other former presidents, because his wife held public office, according to the Wash Post. They also give speeches for free. Bill makes frequent visits to the Clinton School of Public Service at the University of Arkansas.
Paid speeches are the biggest source of income for the Clintons, although both have made tens of millions of dollars writing books, and smaller amounts through investments, according to the Post.
One long-time Clinton friend and advisor said, "I don't think he's viewed as an ex-president. I think he's viewed as a world leader. And because of that stature, his demand far exceeds the supply."
And of course, the Post points out that Ronald Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, as well as Dubya himself, made millions speaking to various groups after their terms expired.
No big story here.
August 6, 2016 at 3:59 p.m.
Maybe all you Clinton-Obama haters need to join hands with the Wash Post and go back and watch what Comey said the day after his testimony before Congress. Don't take my word for it! Just take a look at the tape! That's what you need to do, of course, but you won't, because you already convicted Hillary in the court of public media. You gave in to the lazy "gotcha" tactics of the Republicans on the committee, and now you minds have snapped shut.
By the way, there is PLENTY to criticize the Clintons and Obama for without making up fantasies about emails, sexual escapades, and birther nonsense! Of course, it's easier to create and fixate on bizarre stories than it is to do the difficult civic work of steering political leaders in the right direction and providing them either the public popular support to get the job done or bouncing their butts down the road when you get to the ballot box -- yeah that would require a populace with some real stones, some maturity, some sense of the world beyond narrow self-interest.
(What? Am I nuts? Are humans even capable of that kind of citizenship?)
August 6, 2016 at 3:28 p.m.
Actually, Hillary's net worth is about $30M, Bill's is around $80M, so you really don't know diddly squat, do you?
Try doing even the most rudimentary research, will ya?
Your posts are just freaking ignorant.
August 6, 2016 at 11:31 a.m.
Soviets is an idiot who can't read?
How about just a plain old, garden variety idiot?
That pretty much sums it up just fine.
August 5, 2016 at 12:12 p.m.
Actually, juggie, Obama was a good president.
That is an undeniable fact.
Too bad Republicans spent their tax-payer funded terms blocking everything he proposed, claiming their #1 priority was to prevent a second Obama term, which they failed miserably to do, but which provided them cover when called on the carpet to explain why things were not getting better -- "We were spending all our time and energy making sure the Kenyan didn't get a second term!"
How do we KNOW THIS TO BE A FACT? We got it straight from the horse's mouth when the senate majority leader crowed that it was their #1 priority.
Likewise, Kevin McCarthy, Republican rep, characterized the Benghazi hearings as a Republican effort to reduce Hillary Clinton's poll numbers. For that revelation, he lost his chance to become speaker of the house.
It was in this climate of political hostility from across the aisle that President Obama was able to do some pretty remarkable things.
July 30, 2016 at 4:39 p.m.
These Republicans offer no support for their assertions. None.
They hate "big government," even though Bill Clinton did more to reduce the size of government than their patron saint, R. Reagan; they hat taxes, even though they use and enjoy the important infrastructure that those taxes make possible, and, anyway, effective tax rates for businesses hover in the 10-12% range; they hate regulations even though these protect workers, consumers and the environment from their irresponsibility.
So, I don't know why they don't take their money and businesses and set up shop somewhere where taxes are low, and regulations virtually non existent, somewhere like Russia, or China, or India, or Zimbabwe.
July 28, 2016 at 7:18 p.m.
Which rules and regulations do you consider excessive? Any specifics?
Because of you object to rules protecting workers, rules that insure workplace safety, then you need to get out of the business world.
If you don't believe in rules regarding the discharge of waste water by businesses, or the disposal of hazardous materials, or the handling of food and drugs, or the labeling of products, or full disclosure of lending terms, or how banks may use depositors money, or how much money banks must hold in reserve, or what products may be safely marketed to children, or what smokestacks may not discharge into the air, or what chemicals agri-businesses may spread on crops, or hundreds of other rules that protect workers, consumers, and the environment, then you do not belong in business, and you need to get out of it, now, before you sicken, or injure, or kill a worker, a customer, or, simply, someone living next door.
Obviously, in states like Colorado, where, for example, there are thousands of abandoned mines leaching deadly chemicals into waterways and aquifers, there ain't enough regulation! There need to be rules to prevent mine operators from walking away from their messes, or hiding themselves in jungles of bankruptcy filings, leaving the rest of us to clean up after them.
Or states like West Virginia, where there are thousands of formers miners suffering from the effects of years of lax workplace safety rules, leaving sick old men who must then be cared for at the expense of the rest of us!
These are a couple little examples among the many, illustrating my point of view; I'm waiting for some specific examples of what you mean by "excessive regulation."
Got any? Or are you simply satisfied to parrot platitudinous generalizations?
July 27, 2016 at 11:11 p.m.
No, you did not say "that government, especially of the type Hillary wants, provides no incentive to create wealth."
You said "Big government, more regulations and higher taxes is no incentive for private industry to create wealth." Those are your exact, literal, words verbatim. But don't take my word for it -- just take a look at the tape.
And I said, what do you need incentives from government for? Why? Are not record profits enough of an incentive? Why does an intelligently run, productive business that makes or does something that the consuming public wants or needs have to have a relaxation of the rules and reduction in taxes?
Does not business use the roads, the police and fire protection, the airways -- all those things we provide, collectively, co-operatively for ourselves -- in the conduct of their business? Do businesses not use the courts to arbitrate their disputes? Do they not rely on schools to educate their work force? Are they, rather, completely private, autonomous, independent entities conducting business in a void, or bubble, without relying on any of the socio-economic super-structure to supply themselves, move their products to market, etc.?
And if they do use these things, should they not help pay for them?
That's all I said. Businesses should follow the rules (regulations) and pay their bills (including taxes).
Otherwise, they have no business being IN business.
Simple as that.
July 27, 2016 at 4:11 p.m.
Guns don't put bullet holes in the house next door! Neighbors put bullet holes in the house next door . . . Actually, whiskey doesn't make you drunk -- you make yourself drunk! So why regulate whiskey sales?
Anyway, why did those ignorant people build their house in the path of his right to shoot up his own home?
July 27, 2016 at 2:33 p.m.