• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Hillary Clinton says she and Bill were 'dead broke'

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
OutHouse said:
link?
Click to expand...

Anything posted by Oldgamer (or whoever is it that posts about the Koches, etc.), followed by replies by the usual suspects replying with:
- you jealous?
- why do you hate the rich?

It's pretty clear; no one cares about the financials of a rich person, unless you hate that rich person and want to simply bash them.
 
Watch this clip from the 2008 democratic debate. Hillary is fine working for min wage.... See how she completely misses the importance of the question, but Obama hits a home run.

would you work for min wage

Hilary is decietful in clever ways, rarely tells the truth, and doesn't esteem her peers let alone the American public.

Should be clear why Obama won his first term. Honest, upfront, understood average Americans. Hillary had none of those qualities then, and she's never bothered to develop them.
 
For like a month of their life their liabilities exceeded their assets but Clintons lives were not "broke" still living in million dollar mansions and quickly paying off that debt with $200,000 speeches at Goldman Sachs and 8-15m $ book deals.

Mrs Clinton is just trying to hit the progressive vane of her party when everyone knows thats a damn lie. All of our presidents we are allowed to vote for over the past 30+ years have been bought and paid for by Wall St and the multinationals. And so will President Hillary. Our "leaders" represent the monied interests over any political ideology. Proof. This is how we keep getting screwed. While we're arguing over which is the more evil, they are robbing us and our future generations blind. Bank on it.

The two biggest lies these parties tell is democrats feel poor ppls pain and republicans want "small govt". But it works year after year. Hillary is right on cue.
 
Last edited:
Attic said:
Watch this clip from the 2008 democratic debate. Hillary is fine working for min wage.... See how she completely misses the importance of the question, but Obama hits a home run.

would you work for min wage

Hilary is decietful in clever ways, rarely tells the truth, and doesn't esteem her peers let alone the American public.

Should be clear why Obama won his first term. Honest, upfront, understood average Americans. Hillary had none of those qualities then, and she's never bothered to develop them.
Click to expand...

Or so it appeared.
 
This is a lot like when Mitt Romney did his "I'm also unemployed" comment or when his wife talked about how poor they were in college that Mitt had to sell some of his hundreds of thousands of dollars in stocks to get by.
 
Do I want to discourage Republicans from fanning the flames of populism that will end up consuming them later? Nah, go right ahead 🙂
 
Zebo said:
For like a month of their life their liabilities exceeded their assets but Clintons lives were not "broke" still living in million dollar mansions and quickly paying off that debt with $200,000 speeches at Goldman Sachs and 8-15m book deals.
Click to expand...

This. Let me know when the Clintons go on unemployment for a year.

I bet they could have easily killed that debt by selling off a lot of their assets, but that would require leaving the patrician class.
 
Newell Steamer said:
Anything posted by Oldgamer (or whoever is it that posts about the Koches, etc.), followed by replies by the usual suspects replying with:
- you jealous?
- why do you hate the rich?

It's pretty clear; no one cares about the financials of a rich person, unless you hate that rich person and want to simply bash them.
Click to expand...

when did the Koch's claim to be broke?
 
dphantom said:
when did the Koch's claim to be broke?
Click to expand...

Never.

Oldgamer (or, again, whomever), posts something about the Koch bros getting X amount of more money, and then the Kochsuckers roll out in droves crying; "who cares?!", etc. etc.

Point being, that finances over the rich conservatives are dismissed, yet finances over rich liberals are placed under a microscope.
 
"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!
 
Newell Steamer said:
Never.

Oldgamer (or, again, whomever), posts something about the Koch bros getting X amount of more money, and then the Kochsuckers roll out in droves crying; "who cares?!", etc. etc.

Point being, that finances over the rich conservatives are dismissed, yet finances over rich liberals are placed under a microscope.
Click to expand...

Your fail is beyond epic, almost to the level of TH.
 
thraashman said:
You do gotta get a kick out of the definitions of broke between the average person and the upper class. There is a definite disconnect. It's like that Congressman a year or two ago who complained about how his $174k/year salary too little pay.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Exophase said:
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.
Click to expand...

They were bankrolling Bill right then. That's how they were able to get new mortgages, the banks bankrolled him.

Simply having more liability than assets doesn't make you broke. You are broke when you can't afford to make your required payments on your liabilities and still pay for necessities like housing, utilities, food and clothes. Despite Hillary's claim, the Clintons were not broke. They had sufficient money not only to make their payments, but also to assume additional payments in the form of two mortgages.

If they were worried about going broke, they would have had to sell some assets, not purchase new ones.
 
Attic said:
Watch this clip from the 2008 democratic debate. Hillary is fine working for min wage.... See how she completely misses the importance of the question, but Obama hits a home run. would you work for min wage Hilary is decietful in clever ways, rarely tells the truth, and doesn't esteem her peers let alone the American public. Should be clear why Obama won his first term. Honest, upfront, understood average Americans. Hillary had none of those qualities then, and she's never bothered to develop them.
Click to expand...
didnt watch it, but min wage for president is still well above what the average person makes and they still get how housing and utilities free
 
OutHouse said:
holy fuck.

I question any politician especially the first family who claim they were dead broke and in debt when they left the white house.

amazing you would even post such a dumb statement.
Click to expand...

Especially when she had the book deal in hand and an 8 million dollar advance from the publisher.
 
Cozarkian said:
They were bankrolling Bill right then. That's how they were able to get new mortgages, the banks bankrolled him.
Click to expand...

I said someone bankrolling him to pay his bills. The bank giving him a mortgage for his house was not that in the least.

Cozarkian said:
Simply having more liability than assets doesn't make you broke. You are broke when you can't afford to make your required payments on your liabilities and still pay for necessities like housing, utilities, food and clothes. Despite Hillary's claim, the Clintons were not broke. They had sufficient money not only to make their payments, but also to assume additional payments in the form of two mortgages.

If they were worried about going broke, they would have had to sell some assets, not purchase new ones.
Click to expand...

Why are you putting this as if they bought those houses during the period where Hillary said they were broke? They already bought them. 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. 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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top