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.
None of them, from what I have read, came from families of privilege/money. McCain's father was career military; Hillary's father was a coal miner until he opened a store and became a business owner; and we all know the Stanley Ann/Obama Sr. story. ANY ONE of them can expect to be paid handsomely after serving as president for speeches, public appearances, consultant work and book deals with much of that money being invested.
How weird that anyone would think that somehow there would be poor people who can suddenly emerge and win a party nomination for president without money, experience, and a stellar education.
Since Hillary became a NEW YORK senator, how much of her $100 million has she given to bettering NY, hell NYC? She just donated to herself 5 million dollars. Just think what 5 million could do to improve poverty in NYC. She could build a fully funded daycare center for the working poor so unwed mothers could go back to work. She could build a work traing program to give working skills to uneducated people....but no, she decided to donate the money to herself so she could fund attack ads at Obama. how sad.
Since Hillary became a NEW YORK senator, how much of her $100 million has she given to bettering NY, hell NYC? She just donated to herself 5 million dollars. Just think what 5 million could do to improve poverty in NYC. She could build a fully funded daycare center for the working poor so unwed mothers could go back to work. She could build a work traing program to give working skills to uneducated people....but no, she decided to donate the money to herself so she could fund attack ads at Obama. how sad.
Oh, please. And yet everyone thought it was wonderful that Romney could fund most of his campaign himself and Bloomberg had the funds available to bankroll a presidential run, too. Why aren't you asking BLOOMBERG the same questions? He's FAR richer than any of the others.
Of course, the fact that the $109 million was earned over SEVERAL YEARS is blurred here and by the media. Meanwhile, that would likely be just one year of interest from Bloomberg's money and investments.
Since Hillary became a NEW YORK senator, how much of her $100 million has she given to bettering NY, hell NYC? She just donated to herself 5 million dollars. Just think what 5 million could do to improve poverty in NYC. She could build a fully funded daycare center for the working poor so unwed mothers could go back to work. She could build a work traing program to give working skills to uneducated people....but no, she decided to donate the money to herself so she could fund attack ads at Obama. how sad.
But I ask the question again... why would donating money to charity be acceptable to a socialist? Why don't you mention donating money to the federal government instead of private charities? If the government is the source of good in this country, why look elsewhere?
But I ask the question again... why would donating money to charity be acceptable to a socialist? Why don't you mention donating money to the federal government instead of private charities? If the government is the source of good in this country, why look elsewhere?
I didn't see the details, but they paid more in taxes than the average person in their income group. I assume that means they didn't use all of the loopholes and tax breaks available to them. I don't like Hillary and usually lump her and Obama in with other true socialists like Edwards, but did want to throw the facts out there that they do pay more than their share of taxes.
I didn't see the details, but they paid more in taxes than the average person in their income group. I assume that means they didn't use all of the loopholes and tax breaks available to them. I don't like Hillary and usually lump her and Obama in with other true socialists like Edwards, but did want to throw the facts out there that they do pay more than their share of taxes.
No disagreement here. As far as the amount earned, I say good for them. That what entrprenurialism is all about.
By the way, if anyone really likes numbers, take a look at the actual schedules and see why they did not use form 1040EZ. That stuff is heaven for accounting types. It looks like the forms and backup were typewritten, not computer generated, which really surprises me. Maybe it's best to not have lots of computer excel spreadsheets laying around on your hard drive.
But I ask the question again... why would donating money to charity be acceptable to a socialist? Why don't you mention donating money to the federal government instead of private charities? If the government is the source of good in this country, why look elsewhere?
First, charitable organizations likely do a lot more good with their funds than does the federal government.
Second, the Clintons have donated almost 10% of their income over the past 8 years...much better than most.
I'm not even sure donating money to the fed would be tax deductible, but why throw good money to a source you already know will waste it.
Same thing goes for the poster who wants to know why Hillary didn't give $5 mil to New Yorkers....perhaps some organizations in NYC should apply to the Clinton Foundation for a grant.
I didn't see the details, but they paid more in taxes than the average person in their income group. I assume that means they didn't use all of the loopholes and tax breaks available to them. I don't like Hillary and usually lump her and Obama in with other true socialists like Edwards, but did want to throw the facts out there that they do pay more than their share of taxes.
I know they paid federal taxes... and like you said, we don't know offhand if they accepted any tax breaks or took advantage of any loopholes. But these are the very people that are preaching the message of socialism where government is the answer to everything. Of course I know that the more money that is funneled into the government, the more power they gain... so it's in their interest to keep selling that message. But I would find it highly hypocritical for a socialist to make donations to private charity instead of funneling that money into the government that they claim does so much good.
First, charitable organizations likely do a lot more good with their funds than does the federal government.
I couldn't agree more.
Quote:
Second, the Clintons have donated almost 10% of their income over the past 8 years...much better than most.
This is where I have a problem. If socialism is the answer, why didn't they put their money where their mouths are and donate this money to the government? They wish to make us, the taxpayers, pay more in taxes under the threat of force... but when they are given the choice, they donate to private charities.
Quote:
I'm not even sure donating money to the fed would be tax deductible, but why throw good money to a source you already know will waste it.
I don't donate money for a tax deduction... I do it to help people. I don't send money to a source that will waste it, but that's exactly what socialists want me to do under threat of force. This is the point that I've been trying to make... I just don't see why people don't call them on the hypocracy of their actions.
Is it even POSSIBLE to donate money to the government? I highly doubt it. I know it's not possible to pay into a government program!
When I was without health insurance, I called Health and Human Services and asked if I could possibly buy into Medicaid since no private insurer would cover me. The answer was NO!
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.
