Why is it ok that Hillary Clinton is a 1%er but liberals had problems with Mitt being one? (Harry Reid, salary)

[LauraC]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

Hillary grew up in a working family, earned scholarships to pay for her education and became financially successful. Romney was born to money, went to private schools, never worked for anything and made more money because of his father's accomplishments and his willingness to hurt other people in the process. It's too bad that people on the right equate the two.

The difference is Romney wasn't crying poverty or claiming he was our savior and champion.

Nobody begrudges the Clinton's their wealth. It's her hypocriticalness and that of her supporters. She should be touting her accomplishments as it relates to her wealth so she can be "appreciated" more for earning it.

"Estate tax champions Bill and Hillary Clinton are doing just about everything in their power to stave off hefty estate taxes on their own personal fortune, according to Bloomberg News. The report out Tuesday shows that the two heads of the political dynasty have been seizing on legal but slippery loopholes to minimize taxes on inherited wealth - maneuvers not atypical of multimillionaires but which will inevitably drum up cries of hypocrisy based on the Clintons' active support for the estate tax in the past. Bloomberg cites county property records that show the Clintons divided ownership of their New York home into separate 50 percent shares, then placed those shares into trusts. The moves ensure that any growth in the house's value will occur outside their estate and that they can claim a discounted value for the home, which could save the Clintons hundreds of thousands in estate tax avoidance."

After touting estate tax, Bill and Hillary Clinton seize on loopholes - CBS News

A year after the hubby left the white house:

"Bill Clinton made $13 million in speaking engagements and Hillary earned an advance for her first memoir that totaled $8 million. Their debt was erased by 2004 and tax returns from the 2008 campaign showed that they earned $109 million over eight years. The Clintons have earned millions more since then. Hillary Clinton’s last federal financial disclosure filing (PDF), covering 2012, shows that Bill Clinton made more than $16 million that year in speaking fees, including $700,000 for a speech in Lagos, Nigeria, and $400,000 or more for numerous other speeches. (The former president also continues to receive retirement benefits and other perks from the federal government, including more than $900,000 in fiscal 2014 for his offices, staff and pension. In all, The Washington Post reported, he has gotten nearly $16 million in such benefits since leaving office.) As of 2012, the Center for Responsive Politics estimated Hillary Clinton’s net worth at between $5.2 and $25.5 million."

In June of 2014 Mother Jones estimated Hillary made $5 million for speeches over 15 months.

Just How Rich Is Hillary Clinton? | The Fiscal Times

Then there's the spin:

Sally Kohn, a progressive activist and Clinton critic, said she handled the wealth question poorly and "certainly has enough money to hire a better speaking coach."..."Why people do have a problem with her is not because of her personal wealth, it is because of her coziness with Wall Street. That is the problem," Kohn said.

How Hillary Clinton flubbed the wealth question - CNN.com

Oh, so it's not because she earned her wealth. It's because rich people gave it to her. That definitely makes her more in touch.

[jmking]

Originally Posted by lifeexplorer

Did Romney not lease his tax statement? Slave wage in China is the Chinese problem not ours, not sure what your point is to bring that up.

Romney was a businessman and what's wrong with using offshore accounts? I would if I have any use of it.

Paint it anyway you like. If you want to become the President then don't get rich on offshoring, perceived as undermining American workers, then hint at some degree that our workers are worthless. Deposit large amount of profits generate by American purchasers and slave wages in offshore accounts. And managing to have a 100 million dollar IRA? This guy is a successful hustler born with a silver Rolls in his mouth. He can do what he wants, but President he's not ever going to be.

He was a bad nominee for the republican party and also that hack he chose as a running mate. I'm not a democrat either. Billary will never get my vote.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by jmking

Paint it anyway you like. If you want to become the President then don't get rich on offshoring, perceived as undermining American workers, then hint at some degree that our workers are worthless. Deposit large amount of profits generate by American purchasers and slave wages in offshore accounts. And managing to have a 100 million dollar IRA? This guy is a successful hustler born with a silver Rolls in his mouth. He can do what he wants, but President he's not ever going to be.

He was a bad nominee for the republican party and also that hack he chose as a running mate. I'm not a democrat either. Billary will never get my vote.

So you wont be voting for Clinton then?

[AONE]

Originally Posted by VTHokieFan

I feel like it's a bit hypocritical

No one has a problem with Mitt being wealthy. we have a problem with him holding the country's auto industry for ransom while he extorts hundreds of millions from the government.... hence why he wouldn't release the previous years taxes...It would show how he used Delco to blackmail the government.

He also was one of the greatest job creators....for China. What did he do for this country?

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by AONE

No one has a problem with Mitt being wealthy. we have a problem with him holding the country's auto industry for ransom while he extorts hundreds of millions from the government.... hence why he wouldn't release the previous years taxes...It would show how he used Delco to blackmail the government.

He also was one of the greatest job creators....for China. What did he do for this country?

How did he hold the auto industry for ransom while extorting hundreds of millions from the government?

The Clinton Foundation gets $16 million a year from the government.

[Spaten_Drinker]

Originally Posted by chad3

Mitt Romney’s company Bain Capital created a series of firms that specialized in relocating jobs done by American workers to new facilities in low-wage countries like China and India.

Yes Romney did provide services and have workers (workers that specialized in moving American jobs to Asia.)

Romney

Bain's role is to SAVE the company. Workers can be replaced. Companies do not exist to provide jobs.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Spaten_Drinker

Bain's role is to SAVE the company. Workers can be replaced. Companies do not exist to provide jobs.

Whats even more comical is that it was Clinton who signed the China Trade agreement into law, but shhh, dont tell them.. They need their fake outrage.

[Spaten_Drinker]

Originally Posted by jmking

Paint it anyway you like. If you want to become the President then don't get rich on offshoring, perceived as undermining American workers, then hint at some degree that our workers are worthless. Deposit large amount of profits generate by American purchasers and slave wages in offshore accounts. And managing to have a 100 million dollar IRA? This guy is a successful hustler born with a silver Rolls in his mouth. He can do what he wants, but President he's not ever going to be.

He was a bad nominee for the republican party and also that hack he chose as a running mate. I'm not a democrat either. Billary will never get my vote.

Not one dime was moved from the US to an "offshore" account. Money generated overseas remained overseas just like every other global corporation.

[TimTheEnchanter]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

Hillary grew up in a working family, earned scholarships to pay for her education and became financially successful. Romney was born to money, went to private schools, never worked for anything and made more money because of his father's accomplishments and his willingness to hurt other people in the process. It's too bad that people on the right equate the two.

Hillary Clinton hasn't done anything on her own since graduating law school. You got a job at the most prestigious law firm in AR because her husband was the states new Attorney General. When he became Governor two years later she became a full partner. No one goes from junior associate to full partner in two years in a large firm.

Then she was placed on the boards of Walmart and TCBY with zero corporate experience. She "earned" almost $100k in futures trading on a $1k investment. The best investment pros in the world can't do that.

She won the Senate seat in NY as a carpet bagger. She and Bill had never lived in NY, but it was deemed the easiest, safest seat to go after. She won on her name alone.

She then ran for president on her name alone.

She has zero accomplishments on her own other than law school.

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

Romney's inability to relate to average Americans is one of the reasons he lost. Hillary may or may not have forgotten what it is like to be "one of us", but Romney never knew.

Have you seen Hillary's demands for when you are paying her $300,000 for a speech?

Plans for UCLA visit give rare glimpse into Hillary Clinton

Talk about out of touch with the common man.

Originally Posted by SyraBrian

Why does the right resent the success of people who disagree with them but bend over to give them tax breaks?

No one resents Hillary's earnings, they resent the double standard of "rich is bad" when it is a Republican and "rich is good" when it is a Democrat. No one bats an eye on the left when a Democrat speaks at a $38,000 a plate dinner. How many average Americans are there at those dinners?

Originally Posted by SyraBrian

She's worked at private law firms.

She spent a few years at a law firm where she was hired because her husband was the state AG and then made full partner two years later when he was elected Governor.

Originally Posted by burdell

My dislike of Mitt had nothing to do with his wealth, it was due to his support of both the Vietnam War and the draft that manned it along with his avoidance of both. He demonstrated he's just another "do as I say, not as I do" politician with no courage behind his alleged convictions.

Mitt Romney never got drafted, his number was too high. The one deferment he got was because he was on a mission. Other than that, his number simply never came up.

Originally Posted by Myghost

Because Mitt made his money by putting people out of work to make the rich become richer, while Hillary has used her influence to fight for the subjects of Mitt's "work".

The topic is about the hypocrisy of hatin' on the rich when they are Republicans and ignoring them when they are Democrats. Romney made his money by making distressed firms more viable and valuable. It had nothing to do with "putting people out of work".

Originally Posted by beb0p

Hillary Clinton is a 1%er who looks out for the middle class.

That you believe that is sad and pathetic.

Originally Posted by CK78

Obama got to where he is because he's a NWO/Black C.I.A. operative and so are Bill & Hillary. You are a tool box. You and 10's of millions of others.

I'm gettin' my tin foil hat adjusted so I'll be able to type a full reply later when they can't read my thoughts.....

Originally Posted by mlassoff

As the Republicans continue to alienate everyone except four old white guys living in Alabama, I just wonder about the wisdom of this plan. Women are half the population. You can't alienate them and see Ted Cruz in the White House...

So I am sure you were a huge supporter of Sarah Palin?

Originally Posted by LexusNexus

The Conservative ideology is repulsive, which is what Mitt represented. That's THE problem.

The hate that the left has and the willingness to lie, cheat, do whatever to further their warped ideology is what is repulsive.

Originally Posted by chad3

Liberals don't have a problem with 1%ers. Liberals have a problem with 1%ers having lower tax rates than middle class Americans.

They don't have lower tax rates, they have tax liability based on the law. Congress writes tax codes to encourage some behaviors and discourage others.

If you have $60 million in income from state and municipal bonds you'd pay $0 in income taxes because Congress wanted to encourage people to buy bonds that fund government projects. The investor could have gotten a much higher rate of return in other investments because government bonds do not pay well, but the tax benefits work to motivate people to buy them.

Similarly deductions for charities encourage people to support worthy causes that lower the burden on government. Why someone has a problem with someone donating millions to a hospital is beyond me.

Originally Posted by chad3

Millionaire CEO Dick Cheney has a 6% federal tax rate. And Americans making $250,000 a year have 27% federal tax rates. How can Americans making $250,000 a year get 6% tax rates like millionaire CEO Dick Cheney. -But you could care less about Americans making $250,000 a year.

Your post is quite dishonest.

You talk about Cheney's effective rate, but you want to use the book rate for the $250k earner. In 2005, the year this return covers, Cheney's tax rate was 35% and someone earning over $250k had a rate of 33%. Everyone has the same opportunity to use deductions like Cheney did. No one in the $250k is paying the actual rate. It also depends on where the income came from as all income is not treated equally.

A flat tax rate, 19% across the board, no deductions for anyone other than a personal exemption would be the fairest tax of all, but someone the leftie mindset can't get their heads around that. They want confiscatory rates and rates that demotivate investing to punish the rich.

Originally Posted by chad3

Obama tried to pass a law called the "Buffet Rule" that would make millionaire/billionaire CEO's pay at least 30% tax rates. But the republicans stopped the law from passing.

Warren Buffet is among the most dishonest, disingenuous men of all time. He can choose to pay any tax rate he wishes by adjusting where his income comes from and which deductions he takes. He can even voluntarily cut a check to the U.S. Treasury to make his rate 30%

The U.S. Treasury is still waiting for the check.......

Originally Posted by chad3

How will forcing millionaire/billionaire CEO's to pay 30% tax rates hurt the economy?

It will hurt the economy because it takes money away from the productive uses that they have for it and send it to the government that wastes a good portion of it. Taxing capital gains at higher rates or as ordinary income removes the incentive to invest in new ventures. It takes a few years for the rates to effect behavior, but you can see the effects of the Reagan tax cuts on the economy that boomed for 20 years until the 2001 recession.

Originally Posted by 601halfdozen0theother

Self made wealth v inherited wealth. Why do Republicans keep on pickin' rich daddy's boys?

Romney was already successful when his father passed in 1995. He did not inherit a lot of money from his father and what he did he donated to BYU to fund a school in his father's name. The jobs he got were on his own and his success was because of hard work and talent.

Rather than stay in business and be a rapacious capitalist like Buffet, Romney decided he didn't need more money and went into public service.

Originally Posted by mmmjv

My God do you have any idea how dumb you sound? Who the hell doesn't wear designer clothes? Unless you make them yourself then all clothes are "designer clothes"

I am guessing you don't know what designer clothes are. Wearing St John Knits and DVF originals is not the same as wearing the Cheryl Tiegs Collection from Sears & Roebuck.

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

Mitt Romney never showed any contempt for the 47%. He said the 47% wouldn't vote for him. That's all he said. I've seen the actual quote. All he said was he needed to fire up the votes of taxpaying Americans because he couldn't count on the votes of the 47% who don't pay taxes. That's it.

We are both wasting our breath on about...... well about 47% of the people.... even if it is true.

Here is what Romney said:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like. I mean, when you ask those people…we do all these polls—I find it amazing—we poll all these people, see where you stand on the polls, but 45 percent of the people will go with a Republican, and 48 or 4…

Frankly I agree with what he said 100%. His delivery might have been inelegant but the essence was 47% are baked in for the Democrat, 45% are baked in for the Republican leaving 8% in the middle, undecided. Romney needed to connect with that 8% to win and he didn't do it, but his math was right.

A bunch of lefties want to act as if the remarks were completely literal as opposed to a generalization, but the basic facts are true. The Democrats do have the dependent class wrapped up. Under $35k in income voted 63% for Obama and under $50k it was 57%. Even at over $100k the Republicans only have a 54-44% gap. There is nothing like the huge gaps at the lower end.

[jmking]

Originally Posted by pghquest

So you wont be voting for Clinton then?

Hell no.