- Jun 5, 2000
- 36,410
- 616
- 126
"Fail" because you're unable to make meaningful rebuttal to Steamer's point?
there is no rebuttal. i asked him to prove it and he failed, its as simple as that.
"Fail" because you're unable to make meaningful rebuttal to Steamer's point?
"MortgageS" "HouseS"
Oh dear, our private island started to get expensive, trying to build that castle just in the right spot almost drained our bank!
Apparently a friend gave them a big loan to help them out and that's how they started repaying things. That's the kind of thing you do when you can't pay your bills. Most people in such a situation don't have friends that can help them to such an extent but that's not really relevant to how broke they were.
Maybe for the Clintons "broke" was an exaggeration, but I still think it's stupid to act like just because you made a lot of money or even still are making a lot of money that you can't be in really bad shape financially. If anything you'll have opportunities to accrue far more severe debt than the average person. I'd much rather have no money than make $500k a year while owing millions. It happens to athletes, it happens to movie stars, it even happens to business execs, and while it might not be a common person's problem it's hardly enviable.
Under that definition virtually everyone buying a house is dead broke, which apparently has the same flexibility of definition as more well known brain twisters such as the meaning of the words "alone" or "is".Whether you're broke or not is about how much money you have and much debt you're in, not how much money you make. Just look at how many NFL players end up bankrupt not long after their career is over, despite having recently made millions. Anyone can make poor financial decisions. Doesn't make them worthy of pity though.
The article shows outright that the Clintons had more debt than assets. It says about $500k debt when it should say at least $500k because that's the difference between the maximum and minimum possible assets and debts respectively. Then they say that actually they had a lot more assets because they owned multi-million dollar homes, when the fact is they just bought those houses so their actual equity would be barely more than the down payments. And we have no idea what those down payments were. Besides, it's not like you can convert a house into cash instantly, so I think Hillary's claim that they struggled to pay their immediate bills is plausible. Whether or not Bill was sure to get many millions of deals in the future is entirely moot unless someone wanted to bankroll him right then.
Not sure why Hillary would even bring this up though, it just makes it look like her family had poor financial management. Even if they were hit hard by unexpected legal bills.
I said someone bankrolling him to pay his bills. The bank giving him a mortgage for his house was not that in the least.
Why are you putting this as if they bought those houses during the period where Hillary said they were broke?
They racked up a lot of debt quickly because of tremendous legal fees, probably after they got the houses.
Apparently a friend gave them a big loan to help them out and that's how they started repaying things.
Hillary and Bill were so confident that they could pay their bills that they assumed almost $2 million in debt in December 2000. That's not the kind of thing you do when you are "dead broke," or even partially-alive broke.That's the kind of thing you do when you can't pay your bills.
Maybe for the Clintons "broke" was an exaggeration, but I still think it's stupid to act like just because you made a lot of money or even still are making a lot of money that you can't be in really bad shape financially. If anything you'll have opportunities to accrue far more severe debt than the average person. I'd much rather have no money than make $500k a year while owing millions. It happens to athletes, it happens to movie stars, it even happens to business execs, and while it might not be a common person's problem it's hardly enviable.
