She’s finally released them - she and Bill made a mint after he got out of the White House…
And she’s not paying for her campaign workers’ health care? ( http://www.bluebloggin.com/2008/03/31/hillary-clinton-campaign-financial-deadbeats/ ) Must not be that important I guess…
Isn’t she in the 50% tax bracket? Why did she only pay a third of her $100 million in taxes?
and if she had any integrity, she’d send in all that she received due to the Bush tax cuts.
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
and if she had any integrity, she’d send in all that she received due to the Bush tax cuts.[/quote]
She personifies the “do as I say” (fiscal) liberal.
This’ll hurt her in the mostly blue collar (shrinking) middle class PA primary.
If we could be sure that when her run for President ends, she’ll never try it again… we can turn the page on the Clinton’s for good.
That’s the problem with your presidential elections.
Its dominated by individuals with money.
In Oz and UK you get the leader of the party which has control of the legislature as your Prime Minister (which is near enough to a president - but yes the Queen is the person in charge on paper but it is the PM for the past century which has been in control).
Makes a little more sense.
That said, the fact that they have money is not neccessarily a bad thing.
Perhaps it shows good financial sense or intelligence?
Bill Clinton, Ron Burkle - Hmmm…
[quote]Spry wrote:
That’s the problem with your presidential elections.
Its dominated by individuals with money.
In Oz and UK you get the leader of the party which has control of the legislature as your Prime Minister (which is near enough to a president - but yes the Queen is the person in charge on paper but it is the PM for the past century which has been in control).
Makes a little more sense.
That said, the fact that they have money is not neccessarily a bad thing.
Perhaps it shows good financial sense or intelligence?
Money isn’t a bad thing. It’s more how they abuse influence in obtaining money “in the public trust.”
[quote]Spry wrote:
That’s the problem with your presidential elections.
Its dominated by individuals with money.
In Oz and UK you get the leader of the party which has control of the legislature as your Prime Minister (which is near enough to a president - but yes the Queen is the person in charge on paper but it is the PM for the past century which has been in control).
Makes a little more sense.
That said, the fact that they have money is not neccessarily a bad thing.
Perhaps it shows good financial sense or intelligence?
You have a Queen. How insulting to all freemen.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You have a Queen. How insulting to all freemen.[/quote]
After some education (I’m doing Constitutional law this semester) I have learned that Queen has NO power whatsoever on her own.
She can only appoint or remove a Governor-General ON THE ADVICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER.
The Prime Minister is in charge (being watched by the two house of parliament of course).
Actually I’m pretty sure a Prime Minister has more power than your President (who needs a fair amount of approval from your Senate).
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Isn’t she in the 50% tax bracket? Why did she only pay a third of her $100 million in taxes?[/quote]
Well, in part because of the charitable giving, of course!
How much? $10 million.
Oh, and if you wanted to know which charity, it was…the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation!
And wouldn’t you like to know who benefits, and why…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120752549042393619.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks