Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How much did Hillary Clinton lose in her 401K ? Does she have one ? I haven't seen or been able to find where she has one. Why no fact checking on crooked Hillary ? Does the MSM just assume she is lying so it won't need to fact check ?
Yet in her speech she said "we lost " a huge amount of money on the UK exit from EU.
Maybe that was when she was under sniper fire again and dropped her portfolio among the flower girls.
How much did Hillary Clinton lose in her 401K ? Does she have one ? I haven't seen or been able to find where she has one. Why no fact checking on crooked Hillary ? Does the MSM just assume she is lying so it won't need to fact check ?
Yet in her speech she said "we lost " a huge amount of money on the UK exit from EU.
The "we" means us Americans. She may or may not have a 401k plan, but that's irrelevant. She is talking about Brexit obliterating our 401k.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phma
Maybe that was when she was under sniper fire again and dropped her portfolio among the flower girls.
Opening up the 401k to include real estate, commodities, etc; is a smart idea. That doesn't mean those instruments are for everyone, but it gives savvy investors more options. You actually can invest your 401k in real estate now (via a roundabout way) so why not just be honest and say,"Here, if you want to invest in properties, you do it. You don't have to go through loopholes anymore."
.
The "we" means us Americans. She may or may not have a 401k plan, but that's irrelevant. She is talking about Brexit obliterating our 401k.
So when she says "we" she isn't including herself because "we" really means "us".
Seems like "us" is "we" too, when it is defined including the speaker.
Simple Definition of us —used to refer to the speaker and another person or group of people as the indirect object or direct object of a verb
Maybe what she meant was "you" which would exclude her. She does have the charity slush fund foundation with 90% of the donations going to expenses and funding her life style. It would also be consistent with an elite bureaucrat telling us what is good for us. When it isn't something good enough for them and they would not and don't use it. It would be consistent with her globalist view also.
Quote:
Opening up the 401k to include real estate, commodities, etc; is a smart idea. That doesn't mean those instruments are for everyone, but it gives savvy investors more options. You actually can invest your 401k in real estate now (via a roundabout way) so why not just be honest and say,"Here, if you want to invest in properties, you do it. You don't have to go through loopholes anymore."
If a 401K was good for everyone why wouldn't she have one ?
She does have the charity slush fund to finance her life style. That is where her personal experience is, which is so important according to her supporters. Why not champion that kind of retirement program and support everyone getting that kind of program that has worked so well for her ? I would think there would be very little down side to her explaining why that would be better than a 401K.
I do have the ability to learn the double speak of democrats and crooked Hillary but never before had the desire. I'm getting interested in how a political criminal empire operates on the outside chance one is elected. I'm sure as a supporter of crooked Hillary you have all this down already. I'll catch up soon.
I doubt Hillary has a 401k with the wealth she has accumulated, Mostly 401k's are for middle class and the poor. Why would a rich person like Hillary just invest in individual stocks? It is possible Hillary being a former Walmart board member{ I think} she has some money invested there. Which is a good bet since all stocks just took a hit except Walmart.
I think the bigger concern is Hillary has that lady on her campaign staff { can't recall name} who basically wants to nationalize 401k and other like investments. Where everyone will be promised a 3% return on good years and bad. It will be like social security part 2 where a percentage of your pay check will be invested.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
