Hillary and Bill Clinton's Tax Returns Released

Hillary and Bill Clinton released their tax returns today for the years 2000 to 2007. Previous years had already been released.

The Clintons have now made public thirty years of tax returns, a record matched by few people in public service. None of Hillary Clinton's presidential opponents have revealed anything close to this amount of personal financial information.

What the Clintons' tax returns show is that they paid more than $33,000,000 in federal taxes and donated more than $10,000,000 to charities over the past eight years. They paid taxes and made charitable contributions at a higher rate than taxpayers at their income level.

The individual tax returns are available at the above link. Now, let's talk about John McCain:

Following Clinton's tax return release, DNC Communications Director Karen Finney released a statement "on John McCain's 26 year history of refusing to release his tax returns":

"While both Democratic candidates for president have released several years worth of full federal tax returns, John McCain has not. As a self-professed champion of disclosure and ethics, John McCain should explain why for the past 26 years he has not seen fit to provide this important financial information to voters. Presidential candidates have disclosed several years worth of returns for decades, John McCain stands as a disturbing exception."

Update: Comments at 200, thread now closed.

< Friday Evening Open Thread | Who's Winning the Popular Vote Total? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    That's my favorite family (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:16:18 PM EST
    What the Clintons' tax returns show is that they paid more than $33,000,000 in federal taxes and donated more than $10,000,000 to charities over the past eight years.

    OMG (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by ChiTownDenny on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:23:41 PM EST
    They made a lot of money.  They paid a lot of taxes.  They contributed a lot to charities.  My gosh, they're just evil.  (snark)

    In 2006, all $1.5 mil of that charity (1.33 / 3) (#27)
    by JJE on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:40:18 PM EST
    went to.....the Clinton Family Foundation!  Charitable indeed.  Have to check on the other years.

    Huh, would that be the same (5.00 / 14) (#36)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:47:50 PM EST
    Clinton Family Foundation from which Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea took exactly $0 in compensation in 2006?  And which gave money in 2006 to such nefarious causes as the Katrina Fund, the Arkansas Cancer Research Center, the Bishop Tutu Peace Foundation, and Heifer International?

    Those Clintons. Once again they are trying to destroy America.


    Well you're going to be very (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:57:57 PM EST
    disappointed to know that the people that they were connected to regarding the coal industry... remember 'that' article... well, the Clinton Foundation got a great deal of money from 'those' people and, and, and, and you know what.... it was to be used specifically to buy (gasp) aids drugs for people with critical need.  

    My original questions was.. do you think Obama supporters are going to let this go now?  :)


    Uh, I never said that the Clinton foundation (1.00 / 2) (#49)
    by JJE on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:54:24 PM EST
    didn't do good work.  But if Edgar08 is going to pretend Bill Clinton is Mother Teresa, it should be put in the appropriate context.  Sorry if that offends you.

    You just tried to imply it (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by badger on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:20:52 PM EST
    and Mother Teresa raised a lot of money for her own charity too.

    You are mistaken about Mother Teresa.. (none / 0) (#187)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:34:48 PM EST
    she was a Catholic nun. All funds donated to her hospital were sent on to the Vatican. The Vatican then disbursed such funds as they deemed necessary to Mother Teresa. The funds disbursed did not match what was donated by millions of dollars. The rest went into the Vatican coffers. Her clinic did not even have an autoclave to sterilize instruments and syringes and needles. They washed their equipment in Calcutta tap water. Then used it as if it were sterile. So, don't hang that halo on Mother Teresa quite yet.

    if you're sorry (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by RalphB on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:25:24 PM EST
    then stop being deliberately offensive.  you might like it for a change.

    They Can't Help Themselves (none / 0) (#202)
    by Daryl24 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:27:40 AM EST
    This is why we need another special comment from Keith Olbermann.  

    Of course (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:48:33 PM EST
    Some are gonna take a crap on this.

    Your comment was very predictable.


    Yes - some people can't be satisfied (none / 0) (#138)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:00:28 PM EST
    Obama supporters have been screaming for the Clintons' tax records while continually reminded they were to be released mid-April.
    So now - after the Clintons have released decades of personal financial info, perhaps more than any other family in U.S. history - Obama supporters are deriding the "Clintons Bush-esque doc dump", because they were dumped on a Friday, Bush's usual doc dump day.

    Those initial comments transition to the next set of illogical comments such as - "the Clintons and the Bushes are just alike" - "there is no difference in Hillary and Bush policies" - "the Clintons are evil", etc.


    Funny b/c (5.00 / 5) (#139)
    by Andy08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:05:38 PM EST
    Obama dumped his on a Fiday as well.

    He dumped on a Friday, his earmarks, the meetings with the Chicago papers regarding Rezko; that Rezko gamo more money than original admitted to his campaign and of course the Wright explannations... All came on a.... Friday.


    that should have read "gave more money" (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Andy08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:06:10 PM EST
    dumped on a Friday (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:13:50 PM EST
    you mean like Obama's Rezko interviews with the Chi-town papers on Friday at 7pm, right around the time of the Wright fiasco?

    Seriously, what do you think is going to be the number one topic on every morning show this Sunday?


    So what? (5.00 / 11) (#43)
    by Step Beyond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:50:41 PM EST
    Media Matters

    Additionally, while suggesting some sort of malfeasance on the Clintons' part, Solomon and Mosk left out the fact that the Clinton Family Foundation's tax forms, which have always been open to the public, indicate that the foundation spends very little on administrative costs. The American Institute of Philanthropy recommends that a charity's fundraising and general administration costs be less than 40 percent of total expenses. The Clinton Family Foundation's tax forms indicate the foundation has consistently spent about 1 percent or less of its total annual expenses and disbursements on operating and administrative expenses.

    Dang! That's a very low pecentage. (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:56:00 PM EST
    a few charities I can think of should really check out how they do it  ;)

    I'd cut out the middleman (1.00 / 5) (#55)
    by JJE on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:56:46 PM EST
    But if you think it's valuable to put a haircut on the contribution so that Bill Clinton can promote himself, that's cool.

    Using their charitable organization against (5.00 / 7) (#63)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:59:44 PM EST
    them is really low.

    You ought to be ashamed of yourself.


    I'll assume you weren't one of those (1.00 / 1) (#71)
    by JJE on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:03:38 PM EST
    complaining about how stingy Obama's contribution was, or making hay about how much of it went to his church.

    Sorry, but if people are going to put Bill on a pedestal for giving so much to his foundation, I'm going to point out that some portion of that money is going to promote Bill Clinton.


    I've never said anything negative about anyone's (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:06:46 PM EST
    charitable contributions. Certainly I've never looked at anyone's tax returns.

    You're a sad, sad person (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:07:25 PM EST

    if you think the Clinton Foundation is all about promoting Bill Clinton.  You apparently missed the GQ article this past December about the Clinton Foundation and its work with African AIDs patients.

    Right (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:15:39 PM EST
    The Clintons gave time and charitable donations to fight AIDS in Africa while the Obamas gave money to support their hate-mongering, anti-American, Farrakhan loving pastor.

    Totally the same thing.  Glad we got that straight.


    I noticed the Obama contributions (none / 0) (#134)
    by hairspray on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:48:20 PM EST
    now that you mention it.  I thought he had a lot less to spend, but with a corporate working wife, maybe I was mistaken.

    Haircut? (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by Step Beyond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:28:52 PM EST
    Oh look a haircut story. Haven't heard one of those since that nonsense story done on Edwards. But I guess some people will do and say anything.

    Hey don't forget.... (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:36:04 PM EST
    ...Bill Clinton was the original haircut pariah.

    Your posts say a lot about you! (none / 0) (#133)
    by hairspray on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:44:40 PM EST
    And that (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:54:10 PM EST
    Clinton foundation mission statement...  "strengthen the capacity of people throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence."

    That foundation does so much ... It is really great that the Clintons are so charitable... I knew I like them for a reason!!!


    You are sort of showing your rear end .... (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:54:48 PM EST
    ....with that comment. Unless you don't know that a family foundation isn't set up to funnel money to a family, lol in which case I will excuse you for lack of information.

    I think that person is confusing family (none / 0) (#188)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:42:23 PM EST
    foundations with family trusts. Two entirely different things. My grandmother set up a family trust to fund education in the arts and the environment, two of her favorite things. And none of us get any money from it. The board of trustees are dollar a year people, no money paid to them. The family trusts, on the other hand, do pay us money. Not a lot, but I have a decent life with no worries about a pink slip. I am in the horse business, so I don't make a lot on my own..LOL

    Doesn't Go to the Clinton Family (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:56:44 PM EST
    I know that as an Obama supporter, you probably have very little knowledge of how charitable giving is done, since your candidate gives so little.  But, it's very common for folks who donate a decent amount of money - even those who make and donate far less than the Clintons - to fund a charitable fund to manage their donations.  It's all quite public and above-board.  You can see a list of places the Clinton Family Foundation donated to in 2006, here.

    You can see they selfishly donated to Katrina victims, the Arkansas Library System, and the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fun.  Selfish jerks!


    I never said it did go to the family (1.00 / 6) (#60)
    by JJE on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:59:12 PM EST
    But as a Clinton supporter, you probably have little knowledge of how to read simple English and draw appropriate conclusions.

    uncalled for... (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by kredwyn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:35:10 PM EST
    Hey JJE (1.00 / 1) (#74)
    by 1jane on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:05:22 PM EST
    Do ya think either candidate understands what the average working American is going through?

    I'd like to think they used to (4.50 / 2) (#79)
    by blogtopus on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:10:30 PM EST
    when they were being raised in less-than-wealthy conditions.  I know Bill was raised in a pretty ugly situation; I'd bet Obama didn't have it very good either.

    He sure didn't. Some of his best (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:13:46 PM EST
    friends were Indonesia street urchins.

    Obama was middle class (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:17:09 PM EST
    Upper middle class, but middle class. He wasn't raised in either luxury or poverty. His family sent him to top level private schools and he was able to attend top level colleges, but he didn't live in mansions. I suppose he had it as rough as any teenager, but not due to poverty or oppression.

    Scholarships and student loans (none / 0) (#110)
    by 1jane on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:01:25 PM EST
    Obama received a scholarship to attend the Private HS he attended.His white grandmother raised him. He and his spouse just paid off thousands and thousands of dollars for college loans and law school loans when their income began to rise..just facts.

    His white (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:42:44 PM EST
    grandparents raised him for a little while.  It's funny how Obama wants to continue the narrative that his grandma raised him when his grandpa was right there with her.  As well, he was desperate to paint them both as racist/suspicious in his book, when it's very clear that his grandfather was very, very accepting/the furthest from a racist you could get at that time.

    It's all in his book, if anyone ever took the time to read it.


    I am not sure but that BC (none / 0) (#136)
    by hairspray on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:53:53 PM EST
    didn't have scholarship money as well.  His family was working class and so anything he got did not come from a well off relative.  Hillary's father owned some kind of a small business and she was not poor. Just middle class.

    scholarship (none / 0) (#177)
    by kc on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:06:28 PM EST
    Wasn't Bill Clinton a Rhodes Scholar. And that certainly would be considered a scholarship.

    I'd say that (none / 0) (#118)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:08:21 PM EST

    Obama probably had it better than Bill, from what Obama wrote in Dreams from my Father.

    Both Clinton's understand... (none / 0) (#175)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:42:55 PM EST
    ...what is it like to deal with what the average working class American is going through. They've been working class American's and they have moved up in the world.

    2006 (2.00 / 1) (#53)
    by 1jane on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:56:15 PM EST
    The Obama's earned just under $1 million in 2006 and gave $240,000 of it to charity:reported by the associated press.

    Are you sure? (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:05:54 PM EST
    The Obamas increased the amount they gave to charity when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a bestselling book. The $137,622 they gave over those two years amounted to more than 5 percent of their $2.6 million income.
    Barack Obama, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, donated $240,000 to charity in 2007, according to his campaign, [...]

    The Obamas have not yet released their federal tax return for 2007, so it is unclear what percentage of their total income their charitable contributions represented last year or to which organizations their gifts were made

    before he decided to run... (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:12:58 PM EST
    ... he and his wife gave very little to charity.  Of course, in his defense, he didn't have a hundred million to play with, and he had a family to support. It's odd, though, that they suddenly found all of this extra money when he decided to run for President.

    Here is a link. And here is another.


    Didn't he write a book or two. (none / 0) (#113)
    by 1jane on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:03:42 PM EST
    So much for all the folks who (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by litigatormom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:18:19 PM EST
    thought the tax returns would show that the Clintons didn't pay their fair share.

    As for McCain, no doubt he doesn't want people to know how little he and his beer heiress wife pay in taxes. Might make him look a little less straight talkin'.

    They paid 31% compared to the average for (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Teresa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:30:05 PM EST
    their income of 20.8%. They are also triple the average in donations. They look pretty good to me. Info from Oculus' Huff Post article.

    On ABC Nightly news "Why didn't they (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:42:53 PM EST
    release them sooner?" Apparently, they put the Clintons in a good light compared to others. It was also mentioned that they knew they were in the public spotlight so they were very careful over the years. Can't remember who the guy was, but I got a good chuckle out of it. Especially 'cause the Haters are combing through everything looking for the gotcha. Methinks Mrs Wonk is going to disappoint them, lol!~

    They really should have released them on the first  ;)


    CNN's Cafferty (none / 0) (#103)
    by Suma on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:43:57 PM EST
    mentioned that there is something in the fact that they brought it out on a Friday at 3:30 pm instead of a Monday morning!!

    Some folks ...


    Poor Jack, he looked (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:06:41 PM EST
    so disappointed.  I actually thought the host was going to laugh at him.  The poor thing had to grumble his way through 'they are too rich to relate to the poor' spiel.  It was so sad. :(

    Disappointed, indeed (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by shoephone on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:21:41 PM EST
    Cafferty was probably hoping to tie the Clintons to Vince Foster's death, through the nefarious use of some arcane tax loophole.

    Curses. Foiled again.


    Politicians pay more taxes (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:43:07 PM EST
    They have to. If Hillary had stayed out of politics, then they could have sheltered their money the way most rich people do, but since she is in public office they have to be totally aboveboard. That doesn't mean that there won't be people making claims about something being amiss. Every investment is currently being scrutinized by interested parties for negative implications.

    During Bill's presidency, one of Hillary's books (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by jawbone on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:37:13 PM EST
    made a lot of money and they donated the profits to charity. There was some way they could have saved themselves taxes (by having the profits go directly to the charity, but instead they took it as income, paid the taxes on it and gave the profits to charity, iirc. Beyond my income level.)

    Anyway, they were actually criticized for not taking advantage of a shelter or loophole!

    Their take was since they believed in the good government could do, they didn't want to skimp on what they paid to it. :)


    Not for nothing, (none / 0) (#184)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:49:22 PM EST
    but no one is limited in what they can give the gvt.

    They're not hoping for that (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:32:29 PM EST
    I don't think even Clinton's detractors are thinking this will show that she hasn't paid taxes. They're looking for anything they can grab onto. I read a comment in Salon about Bill Clinton owning shares in a company that held an account in the Caymen Islands. Apparently, they haven't made money on the investments, but they "could" make a lot "if" the investments do well.

    The implication is that Clinton is up to something shady. I don't know how that will hold up when people realize that he made $100 Million with speaking fees. Who needs to be crooked when you can make so much more honestly? I am sure that by tomorrow, or more likely Monday (for the news cycle) there will be reports coming from mysterious sources about some implicitly shady aspects of the Clinton tax returns. Obama's campaign will not be connected with the reports in any way, of course. But if you keep your eyes open, you might learn a bit about how astroturf works.


    Schuster was saying something about some people (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by jawbone on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:40:52 PM EST
    Bill was in business with or on boards or something.  One person was being investigated for selling names of seniors or something. So we will surely hear all about that.

    The MCMers are looking for anything they throw at the Clintons--all will be revealed!

    After all this info, Tweety was very, very upset he didn't have records about Bill's library donations and their 2007 tax report. Stamped his little foot.


    According to ABC Nightly News (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by caseyOR on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:57:55 PM EST
    the Clintons applied for an extension for 2007 taxes because they liquidated a blind trust and all the relevant info isn't available yet. They did this to make sure everything was easy to follow and there would be no conflict of interest or appearance of such. And by liquidating and putting money into cash basically they are losing money.

    This kind of ticked me off though--- When Kate Snow started her report on Clinton's tax returns her opening was about how on the day Hillary called for a poverty czar, the Clintons released tax forms showing they were really rich.

    What is with this idiotic idea that if you are a wealthy Democrat your concern for the less-privileged cannot possibly be sincere?


    To be rich is the natural state for Republicans-- (none / 0) (#149)
    by jawbone on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:17:11 PM EST
    And it is unnatural for Dems beginning sometime in the 90's--ergo, Republican wealth is never to be investigated, analyzed, or even remarked up very much, as it just IS.  Democratic wealth is evidence of hypocrisy and must be invesitgated; the wealthy Dem is to be casitgated--unless said wealthy Dem comes from a wealthy family and had access to that wealth prior to, say, the mid-90's.

    Since Dems profess to not worship wealth, they indeed must be punished for being wealthy.

    That is the way of the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) world.

    (The wealth of MCMers is never to be addressed or questioned.)


    Unnatural for Dems to be rich? (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:52:50 PM EST
    I think the Kennedy's were never wanting for a few shekels to rub together. I'm not old enough to remember any farther back...

    Did Hillary call it a Poverty Czar? (none / 0) (#171)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:25:51 PM EST
    What I heard was position, but the media has her saying Czar.

    Yes, poverty (none / 0) (#176)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:51:48 PM EST
    A new position focused just on poverty.

    Predictable, but Huff Post headline (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:20:17 PM EST
    gives gross income for the entire period.  

    Figures.... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:21:53 PM EST
    ....does Arianna release her tax returns, I wonder? LOL.

    Huffington's Tax Returns (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by KD on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:44:23 PM EST
    As I remember it, when Ariana ran for California governor, Huffington was embarrassed because her tax returns showed that she hadn't actually had to pay taxes, because of everything in her life being owned by her corporation. She tried to explain that she wasn't a "pig at the trough," because in some years writers make a lot of money, and in some years they don't.

    Oh yeah, I remember that now. LOL. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:51:17 PM EST
    Would that be Arianna 'Patches' Huffington ... (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Ellie on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:03:13 PM EST
    ... well-heeled ex of a multi-millionaire pointing the hypocritical finger here?

    This is another fake gotcha, revealing yet again that Hillary -- AKA Those Damn Clintons! -- are naked under their clothes.

    Let the sniff through their tax records begin for those nostalgic for the nineties witch hunts.

    It's as bad as Bush & Cheney suggesting wrongdoing by the Dem candidates for office for not actually being poor. Of course, the filthy rich accusers never explained -- as Huffi fails to here == why the filthy rich accusers were in a position to level this indignation in the first place.

    Hey, let's see what's in HER wallet! [/goofy bank commercial]

    And let's see what the Obama's accumulate over the next couple of decades!


    They still pay a pretty high percentage (none / 0) (#6)
    by Teresa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:23:49 PM EST
    in taxes. Suprisingly high if I did the math right it my head.

    And 10% in charitable donations. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Teresa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:25:15 PM EST
    Let's point out, too (none / 0) (#151)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:19:35 PM EST
    that only 30% of charitable donations are tax deductible, so if you donate 10mm bucks, you only get credit for 3mm.  Haha, "only."  But, still--I wouldn't sneeze at 7mm bucks. (I would put it under my pillow and make gentle love to it all the livelong day)

    Hillary... (none / 0) (#199)
    by sumac on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:54:50 AM EST
    ...will do anything to win.



    NYT article about McCain (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:21:32 PM EST
    and the female lobbyist stated Ms. McCain's fortune is her separate property.  Of course, she may choose to share her wealth.

    Amazingly (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:33:12 PM EST
    the media does not care.  Per CNN, eh, now Obama and Clinton have released and Clinton did it before Penn like she said she would.... per talking head... I'm not going to be pooring over their tax returns.

    They did note that the Clinton's are up there and their tax rate and hit 10% in charitable giving.

    Yawn.... do you think the Obama supporters are going to let this go now?

    I am really quite interested to see (none / 0) (#157)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:33:15 PM EST
    what the reception will be like over the next few days.  Apparently this was supposed to be Christmas Day 2 for America.  What does Matt Lauer think?

    How times change (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by Step Beyond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:33:25 PM EST
    Earlier today I was reading dKos and saw they had on the rec list a mothership for going over the Clinton tax returns as soon as they were released to find dirt. Sometimes its as if I have stepped through a looking glass. I know that Dems have all the same character flaws as Repubs but I am still honestly surprised at some of the depths that people will go to support their candidate.

    At least some of the Obama supporters had posted against the diary, so I know there are still decent, rational people around. But just the number of recommends on that diary made me sad.

    Frankly, I don't care about anyone's tax (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:34:12 PM EST

    I don't either. I will say, they need to use the (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Teresa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:36:49 PM EST
    firm that does the returns for my old boss. Same income level, much lower rate. Plus it would make the Obama supporters happier.

    Wow (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by mbuchel on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:45:41 PM EST
    To not care about the sources of income of our candidates seems pretty naive to me.  I think there are legitimate questions to be raised about conflicts of interests.  Especially in light of the current administration.  Think Haliburton and KBR.
    If you don't think that Bill's library donors and post-presidential endeavors wouldn't be a big issue in the general election, I've got a mine in Kazakhstan I'd love to have you work in for me.

    Nope, I don't (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:48:48 PM EST
    I'd like to talk about issues, thanks.

    Do you know where JFK's money came from? FDR's?


    So you don't think... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by mbuchel on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:59:26 PM EST
    Bush's oil background and Cheney's connection to Haliburton was a problem in our current government?

    I think their ideology was more relevant (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:01:01 PM EST
    I don't judge people based on who they work for and what they own. What can I say? I'm not a Marxist.

    I would hope they would (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:00:26 PM EST
    I think that fundraising for flood victims and creating a massive charity to provide drugs for AIDS victims in Africa would be something to be proud of. Raising money for a Presidential library is pretty standard practice... did anybody ask W about the people who contributed to his father's library? Of course, they are Bill Clinton's accomplishments, not Hillary's. It's odd that some people are finding fault with Bill's activities since he left office. I am quite proud of them. He has been a credit to the Democratic Party. Reagan and Bush didn't do nearly as much to help the world as Clinton and Carter.

    I'm not discounting... (none / 0) (#125)
    by mbuchel on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:22:12 PM EST
    the good works he's done.  Believe me, he has really raised the bar for post-presidential activism.  I couldn't be more proud as a democrat.
    But there's a reason that there's now legislation being proposed to force Presidents to reveal their library funding sources now.  It's called conflict of interest.
    And I hope you're not saying that Bill's fundraising for the library and his presidential library don't present a possible conflict of interest in her presidency...

    Actually, I am saying that (none / 0) (#174)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:39:37 PM EST
    Bill Clinton's fundraising for the Presidential Library does NOT create a conflict of interest for Hillary Clinton. Neither does his fundraising for his charity. Why would it? They aren't benefiting from the money. Nothing from that fundraising goes into their pockets. Michelle Obama sits on a couple of Boards of Directors. Does that mean that anybody she does business with implies a conflict of interest for Obama? Not likely, although it is more of a connection than the Clinton's because the Obama's profit directly from her involvement.

    Generally speaking... (none / 0) (#196)
    by mbuchel on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:57:01 AM EST
    when someone donates millions of dollars to a political figure, they're looking for something in return.  See "Borat-Gate" for one example.  I think it's pretty obvious that Bill received a massive pledge of $$ in exchange for him going to Kazakhstan and propping up the regime of a 2-bit dictator, against US interests.
    Or how about the FALN pardons?  I'm sure Bill would have granted those unrequested pardons were his wife not running for the senate in NY is laughable.
    Is it not a reasonable question to ask what people will be expecting for their donations, and what the Clintons may be willing to give?
    Look, I voted for him twice.  The 90s were fantastic - but with a price.  I'm not trying to make him out to be the devil.  But for the majority of people on this board to pretend that something like the Rev. Wright is some sort of catastrophic, disqualifying event and Hillary has nothing in her closet that repubs won't hammer her on is simply being disingenuous.

    Do you have (none / 0) (#105)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:52:11 PM EST
    an analysis of Obama's earmarks?  Which items concern you?  How much of the $538 million did you think was unwarranted.  

    Lest you think otherwise... (none / 0) (#119)
    by mbuchel on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:09:57 PM EST
    I'm with you on the earmarks too - his and hers.  I think it's important that we have full transparency in our candidates so we can decide if there is a concern.  I'm not just picking on the Clintons here.  I'm saying that it's crazy to think that it's not an important issue.

    I have a question about one of his first (none / 0) (#190)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:59:22 PM EST
    earmarks. It went to the hospital group that his wife works for. She got a raise that more than doubled her salary at about the same time. I think that looks suspicious, personally. The thing is that even an appearance of impropriety should be avoided if you are planning to run for office. And to do something like that as soon as one gets into office doesn't speak well as to judgment. Of course, the hospital says she is getting the same salary as anyone in her position. But she didn't get that position until after her husband was elected to the US Senate, and shortly after he was elected, he sent funds to the hospital via earmark. Looks fishy. It just does.

    This one gave me pause (none / 0) (#197)
    by mbuchel on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:03:03 AM EST
    Absolutely.  Was it a coincidence that she worked there and he asked for the earmark?  Almost certainly not.  The raise, I'm not so sure.  I don't think the return on the investment for the hospital would be really worth it - she gained (I think) $200k vs. a $1 million earmark.
    Do I like it?  No.  Is it a disqualifier?  For me, also no.  But am I glad I have the information?  Absolutely.  It helps give me an informed view of the candidate and allows me to make a judgment.

    About what I expected (none / 0) (#173)
    by angie on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:33:17 PM EST
    Before the tax returns were released there was nothing but screaming for the tax returns to be released because "she's hiding something." Now that the tax returns are released and they fail to expose HRC as some devil who skins live puppies and eats babies the screaming starts for more information because "she's hiding something."  
    Change the record already.

    you forgot to add: (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by cpinva on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:32:31 AM EST
    "sacrifices virgins, in order to bathe in their blood."

    geez, everyone always leaves that one out!


    10MM donated. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:35:17 PM EST
    That's a lot of scratch, pretty much no matter how much you've earned. Good on them.

    Question: Has the presidency always been a route to such almost unimaginable wealth?

    I Believe Reagan (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:00:30 PM EST
    was a pioneer in speaking fee arrangements.  Although certainly Ford and Nixon didn't do too badly either.

    HST (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:03:07 PM EST
    From Wikipedia- usually I wouldn't quote this much but I think it adds some perspective
    Truman returned to Independence, Missouri to live at the Wallace home he and Bess had shared for years with her mother. His predecessor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, had organized his own presidential library, but legislation to enable future presidents to do something similar still remained to be enacted. Truman worked to garner private donations to build a presidential library, which he then donated to the federal government to maintain and operate--a practice adopted by all of his successors.
    Once out of office, Truman quickly decided that he did not wish to be on any corporate payroll, believing that taking advantage of such financial opportunities would diminish the integrity of the nation's highest office. He also turned down numerous offers for commercial endorsements. Since his earlier business ventures had proved unremunerative, he had no personal savings. As a result, he faced financial challenges. Once Truman left the White House, his only income was his old army pension: $112.56 per month. Former members of Congress and the federal courts received a federal retirement package; President Truman himself had ensured that former servants of the executive branch of government would receive similar support. In 1953, however, there was no such benefit package for former presidents.
    He took out a personal loan from a Missouri bank shortly after leaving office, and then set about establishing another precedent for future former chief executives: a book deal for his memoirs of his time in office. Ulysses S. Grant had overcome similar financial issues with his own memoirs, but the book had been published posthumously, and he had declined to write about life in the White House in any detail. For the memoirs Truman received only a flat payment of $670,000, and had to pay two-thirds of that in tax; he calculated he got $37,000 after he paid his assistants.
    Truman's memoirs were a commercial and critical success; they were published in two volumes in 1955 and 1956 by Doubleday (Garden City, N.Y) and Hodder & Stoughton (London): Memoirs by Harry S. Truman: Year of Decisions and Memoirs by Harry S. Truman: Years of Trial and Hope.
    Truman was quoted in 1957 as saying to then-House Majority Leader John McCormack, "Had it not been for the fact that I was able to sell some property that my brother, sister, and I inherited from our mother, I would practically be on relief, but with the sale of that property I am not financially embarrassed."

    In 1958, Congress passed the Former Presidents Act, offering a $25,000 yearly pension to each former president, and it is likely that Truman's financial status played a role in the law's enactment. The one other living former president at the time, Herbert Hoover, also took the pension, even though he did not need the money; reportedly, he did so to avoid embarrassing Truman. Hoover may have been remembering an old favor: Shortly after becoming President, Truman had invited Hoover to the White House for an informal chat about conditions in Europe. This was Hoover's first visit to the White House since leaving office, as the Roosevelt administration had shunned Hoover.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by wasabi on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:04:04 PM EST
    I think I heard that Poppy would make several million a speech.  Just one of the perks.

    Just Words? $$$$ (none / 0) (#159)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:41:16 PM EST
    I thought I paid alot in taxes (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by wasabi on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:41:03 PM EST
    I thought I paid alot in taxes, but their $33M is a bit more than what I've shelled out.

    That is a suprisingly high amount.  It would be interesting to compare that against what the Bushes or McCain's paid.

    I went to a tax specialist once and he said he didn't touch anyone who had less than a million in assets.  He said that once you reach that level, then there are ways to shelter your income from the government.  Looks like the Clinton's could have used his advice... ha.

    They chose not to (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:49:24 PM EST
    could you imagine if they had tried to take fair advantage of what others do? Yes, they pay higher taxes than Bush, but when they talk about higher taxes on the rich, they are already walking the walk. heh.

    Read above about Truman (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Manuel on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:01:13 PM EST
    67% Tax rate on $670,000.  It's amazing how high tax rates used to be.  The last part pf the 20th century sure was kind to the wealthy.

    almost a tenth of their income to charity (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Turkana on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:48:35 PM EST

    None of it counts (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:49:27 PM EST
    because it went to the Clinton foundation. That's a slush fund, you know. ;-)

    Why was this such an issue? (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:58:24 PM EST
    Some Democrats have Money Derangement Syndrome. John Aravosis used to write about that before, well, you know.

    you're right, (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by cpinva on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:27:19 PM EST
    you have no point.

    No point, just providing hopefully accurate information for people to draw their own conclusions for themselves.

    my conclusion: they made a fair amount of money, they donated a fair amount of money, they paid a fair amount of taxes, no one died because of it. aside from that, i can't imagine what other conclusion you think might be drawn.

    you overlooked an obvious "accurate" piece of data: the clintons are 15 years older than the obamas, that their income would be significantly higher is less than surprising. had they both been in private practice for the past 30 years, i'd wager their income would be greater still.

    i reviewed all the returns. big yawn. oh yes, they gave a significant chunk of change to the clinton family foundation. so what? so do the rockafellers, bill gates and his wife, the duponts, etc. unless you can show these charitable endeavors are less than what they appear, so what?

    As I recall Bill made $35k per (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by hairspray on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:13:29 PM EST
    year as Gov. until 1992 when he became the president.  Hillary served on several boards and made about 15k as well as her income as an attorney.  I don't know what that was, but I recall it wasn't big bucks.  Arkansas was not a high flying place. Then Bill made less than 200K (the stingy GOP raised it for Bush)per year as president. Hillary made zero during those years.  So their income years actually began with the book proceeds and Bill's speaking fees after he left office.  They were not in the same category as many of the millionaire senators.

    not only that, but (none / 0) (#164)
    by echinopsia on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:50:40 PM EST
    they left the WH $millions in debt for legal fees over Whitewater, etc. They had to borrow money from Terry McCAuliffe to buy their house in NY and Hillary's place in DC.

    Yes I remember now. And didn't (none / 0) (#194)
    by hairspray on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:18:40 AM EST
    the right wing and our liberal press make a big thing of where they got their money.  Went on for weeks.

    Wealth (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Natal on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:57:16 PM EST
    For persons having all that wealth flow to them, must have something going for them in this lifetime. More power to them. Maybe if she's elected she'll be the conduit for it to flow to the government. I desire it but don't get it -- not the right karma I guess.

    Taxing (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by lookoverthere on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:43:35 PM EST
    NYT article on the Obamas' tax info. Apparently the donation to the Congressional Black Caucus is an error.

    Lawyer's typepad:

    "Obama may have made  a legal mistake after all. According to Professor Sarah Lawsky (George Washington University), when she contacted the NYT reporter about this error, the NYT reporter informed her that the donation was indeed to "Congressional Black Caucus" and not to "Congressional Black Caucus Foundation."

    Just an FYI.

    I think it's kinda cool that the Clintons give away so much money. Sure, they still have a lot, but I know some rich people who won't even pick up the bar tab.

    But clearly Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea Clinton have some nefarious plot up their collective sleeve because as everyone knows, the each of them is trying to outdo the other in evilness.

    I've said it before: every time Hillary Clinton smiles, an angel explodes.

    It's funny (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by ChrisO on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:28:41 PM EST
    that Black Caucus thing jumped out at me. I'm not implying anything nefarious, but I always thought politial donations weren't tax deductible.

    Too funny (none / 0) (#179)
    by kc on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:25:07 PM EST
    -Every time Hillary smiles, an angel explodes.

    I'll have to remember that one.


    From an accounting point of view (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by Prabhata on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:57:33 PM EST
    The Clintons chose to pay a higher percent than they could.  The truth is that the rich can avoid paying taxes if they desire.  The way to do that is through non-taxable investments (state and municipal bonds) or choosing to invest in areas that are taxed at a lower rate.  They probably chose to to shield their income from tax for political reasons.  That was a wise choice given they have to deal with politicians like Obama who wanted their income tax returns to find slime material because all income tax returns must be accurate.  The more I get to know Obama, the more I want to puke.

    correct typo: chose to to (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Prabhata on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:00:02 PM EST
    above should read: They probably chose NOT to shield their income from tax for political reasons.

    Sorry, gotta call BS on this one. (none / 0) (#181)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:39:37 PM EST
    The Clintons could absolutely not avoid paying taxes on their considerable earned income ($100MM+) by investing what remained after they paid taxes in non-taxable investments.

    Sure, the income they derived from the non-STATE-taxable state and muni bonds would be non-taxable at the state level, but they sure would pay fed tax on it.

    And before they pay a dime in state taxes on their state and mini bond investment income, they'll have already paid both state and fed tax on the income they earned that enabled them to buy the state and muni bonds in the first place.


    Sorry, should have read: (none / 0) (#186)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:55:32 PM EST
    ...And before they pay a dime in Fed taxes on their state and mini bond investment income...

    You're right..... (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by kc on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:42:28 PM EST
    It is a sick obsession. We know it was started by the right wing in the 90s, and it continues on because of the obama campaign.

    But, why?  I don't think it is just because they didn't play the press right. Maybe the hate is because of the intersection of the peak Atwater tactics and the fact that the Clintons were really trying to do some good for the people (in other words, not playing ball with the right people).

    2007 not released (4.50 / 2) (#9)
    by andreww on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:29:07 PM EST
    Only highlights.  why not '07?

    Not filed yet? (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:30:23 PM EST
    Not finished yet. (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:31:04 PM EST
    Have they filed yet? I haven't... (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:31:10 PM EST
    extension apparently for 07 (2.00 / 1) (#19)
    by andreww on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:33:40 PM EST

    and I don't have near the complexity of the Clinton's return.

    I hope you don't also think badly of me. I couldn't sleep.


    They explained that. They need something they (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:45:30 PM EST
    won't have correct info for or some such thing. I'm sure it's as legit as their last 30yrs. of returns

    Did you see that they (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:09:31 PM EST
    file an extension EVERY YEAR!!!  Man, you are really searching, but you aren't finding, are you.

    Funny, me too. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:24:52 PM EST
    Extensions every year for almost the last decade.

    My accountant says he makes fewer mistakes after the pressure of the April 15 deadline is off him.

    Not no mistakes though, I got hit last month with a couple hundred in penalties for '06...


    In '07 they had to dissolve blind trust, so there (none / 0) (#203)
    by jawbone on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:42:27 AM EST
    are many more things to deal with, if I understand remotely what involves. Extension will probably be necessary.

    Now, the next thing will be questioning why there were certain stocks in their blind trust--even tho' they would have had nothing to do with selecting them--given it's a blind trust.

    However, that has not stopped criticisms of such things in the past....  The pols were supposed to have set up some kind of parameters for the trustee.  

    Of such things I have no knowledge other than what I read in the general press.


    If you'd followed the link (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Nadai on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:35:40 PM EST
    you'd see that they haven't yet filed the 2007 tax return.

    When you have that much money... (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:36:19 PM EST
    ...taxes are not a simple matter. I'm betting they have an entire team of people who are responsible for keeping track of their financial affairs. I had a small investment in a company last year and had to wait 6 months until that company was audited and the final financial statements were made available to file my return. It's not uncommon for people to estimate their income and pay the taxes, then file for a rebate when the final numbers come in. As long as you pay any taxes due, extensions aren't an issue.

    nah (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Turkana on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:51:50 PM EST
    it must be a conspiracy!

    Obama did not release (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Andy08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:12:44 PM EST
    his 2007 tax return yet either.

    They got an extension (4.00 / 1) (#22)
    by JJE on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:34:41 PM EST
    Pretty standard.  But the extension was needed to get "information related to partnership income."  Which sounds like it might be related to Yucaipa.

    yeah (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:53:07 PM EST
    Because 2007 is the year they decided to go hog wild. /snark

    Or itcould be related to (none / 0) (#191)
    by ChrisO on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:00:24 AM EST
    a host of other investments. I'm a  very small investor, but I always have to wait to file my taxes util I'm sent information from some investments that are classified as partnerships, as many investments are. Keep up the wild speculation, though.

    Do you think (4.50 / 2) (#56)
    by nell on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:57:58 PM EST
    voters will hold their income against them? My guess is they were hesitant to release because people do begrudge what they can't have...I hope not...I stopped watching the news, but from what I am reading, Matthews was awful, as usual, going after her for the 2007 returns (which apparently, Obama hasn't released yet either), but I read upthread that CNN said it was not a big deal...I guess how much it impacts the vote depends on how much hay the media decides to make of it...

    I don't think so (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:00:26 PM EST
    People assumed they were wealthy back when they were in the White House. I would only assume that they know they are even more wealthy now. It's pretty standard for former presidents (especially wildly popular ones like Bill) to write books, speak, etc and make a lot of money.

    We don't give the less-wealthy (like my family) enough credit. We don't begrudge wealth. We begrudge mis-begotten wealth (Frist, Bushies, etc).


    109 Million to 1.2 Million (4.00 / 1) (#8)
    by 1jane on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:27:58 PM EST
    The Clinton's and the Obama's released their tax returns. The Clinton's earned 109 million dollars over the past seven years since leaving the WH. In the past 7 years the Obama's earned between 200K to 275K until Obama wrote some books. In 2005 their joint income jumped to 1.2 million. Rough math: Clinton's have 107.5 more million than the Obama's. Obamas return indicates more charitable giving after he and his spouse began to earn more money. The Obama return shows little savings, stocks or bonds. All info easily obtained via web search or the candidate's campaign sites.

    I'm quite certain Senator Obama's income (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:30:01 PM EST
    wiill rise precipitously when he leaves the Senate or becomes a former President.  Seems to be inevitable.

    What's your point? (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:32:06 PM EST
    Providing facts Joan (4.00 / 1) (#35)
    by 1jane on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:45:51 PM EST
    No point, just providing hopefully accurate information for people to draw their own conclusions for themselves.

    what conclusions? (5.00 / 8) (#46)
    by Turkana on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:52:58 PM EST
    that after spending his entire life in public service, bill clinton decided to make some money? how horrible of him!

    LOL Turkana don't bother..... (5.00 / 6) (#59)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:58:30 PM EST
    ...it's absolutely horrible and beyond defense that the Clinton's make money. It's completely different from Kerry or Kennedy or Jane Fonda or any other rich person that supports Barack Obama. Their wealth is purified by virtue of their support for him.

    Or Oprah!! (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:01:06 PM EST
    The motherlode of wealthy!

    I believe your (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:55:25 PM EST
    point was to point out that Obama made less money than the Clintons in the last seven years. So thanks.  We already knew that.

    Also, FDR was ridiculously wealthy. Apparently though, it did not affect his ability to help the poor. See also: Edwards, John


    A Benefit of Being Old (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:59:40 PM EST
    Is the ability to make more money.  I suspect at the Obama's stage in life, the Clinton finances didn't look a whole lot different.

    In 1992 (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Dave B on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:11:20 PM EST
    The Clinton's net worth was $700,000.  I found it on CNN using google.

    HAhahahah (4.00 / 1) (#87)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:20:27 PM EST
    We can conclude that you are spinning the numbers. Not sure why, though? It makes you look dishonest.

    So what? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:34:05 PM EST
    The Clintons have been working longer (and incomes typically rise as you age) and they write better books.

    They pay a boatload in taxes and give away a h*** of a lot of money.  But, again, so what?


    Compare it to when the Clintons were the same age (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by ineedalife on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:49:23 PM EST
    It only makes sense to compare them at the same time in their lives. I think you will find the Obamas are much further than the Clintons were at their age on the personal wealth curve.

    New Math? (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:05:33 PM EST
    It must be... quick web search DOES NO support your opinion..... JUST THE FACTS MAME!

    The Illinois senator released his 2006 federal tax return Monday, a day ahead of Tuesday's tax filing deadline. Obama and his wife, Michelle, reported taxable income of $983,826, down from $1.6 million in 2005.

    And here is the charity....

    The Obamas gave $60,307 to charity. The largest gift was $22,500 to Trinity United Church of Christ, the South Side congregation they have long attended. Another $13,107 went to the Congressional Black Caucus, with $15,000 directed to CARE, an international aid organization that fights hunger, poverty and disease in the third world. They also gave $5,000 to the Muntu Dance Theater, a south side troupe that performs contemporary and ancient African dances.

    I have seen the light. Obamas donate (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:15:32 PM EST
    to dance troupe. Good for them.

    what about 2005 Obama returns? (4.50 / 2) (#101)
    by magisterludi on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:36:24 PM EST
    Have they been released?

    The experience factor (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by Saul on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:18:01 PM EST
    Just goes to show you who has more experience in handling their finances and who is  better qualified to deal  with the economy.  The Clinton administration did  create the biggest surplus ever in the history of any administration.

    Jealous because (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by badger on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:26:23 PM EST
    the Clinton's books outsold Obama's by $millions.

    Don't forget Michelle's raise! (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:25:06 PM EST
    you know the one where she had her income doubled and was promoted to a job that had not existed before yet had a remarkably similar description to the one she was holding before she got her big raise?

    Hey Kathy, (none / 0) (#183)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:44:18 PM EST
    did you hear that Rezko's wife bought the lot next to the Obama's house and sold them part of it? I bet you can get to the bottom of that one.

    Spin Central (3.00 / 1) (#86)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:18:04 PM EST
    Almost clever math trick, but way too obvious.  BTW- what point are you trying to emphasize by your misleading numbers?  That the Obamas are more like the Cleavers than the Clintons are?

    Being an ex-prez (4.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:51:20 PM EST
    is a nice racket. WOW! Henceforth you may have people wanting to be president just so they can hurry up and become ex-presidents.

    Why do you think (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Manuel on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:02:47 PM EST
    Obama is in such a hurry :-)

    LOL. When it's Obama's (3.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:04:24 PM EST
    turn he'll literally make billions. I am not exaggerating.

    And guess what? (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by shoephone on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:28:29 PM EST
    No one with any sense will care about his tax returns either.

    excuse me? (none / 0) (#135)
    by PastorAgnostic on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:52:05 PM EST

    the average joe, like mois must shake his tired, poor head.


    Sad... (3.00 / 1) (#111)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:01:46 PM EST
    A post on TL that actually calls out John McSame and all you people can do is carry on your silly, petty, little grade school Clinton v Obama feud?

    No, I take that back--it is not sad, it is pathetic.

    We got nuttin' (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:21:05 PM EST
    on McCain.  Nuttin' on taxes or we would be.

    That's the point (none / 0) (#127)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:33:59 PM EST
    isn't it.  Why aren't you calling for him to release his taxes?  

    Seems to me you all would rather spend your time and energy attacking each other. Fellow "liberals", people who are basically similar thinking people.  

    McSame does one stupid thing after another and nobody cares.  It would seem that you are more concerned about calling each other names than calling out the real danger in this country.  That danger is another four years of wingnut rule.    



    Why was the Obama campaign clamoring (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:09:59 PM EST
    for the Clinton's tax return and not McCain's?

    Because right now they aren't (1.00 / 0) (#195)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:19:43 AM EST
    running against McCain, they are running against Hillary Clinton. See??

    Because I don't care (none / 0) (#154)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:28:03 PM EST
    I don't care about Obama's, Clinton's or McCain's.  The Dems can play this game all they want, the Repubs are not going to bite.

    $12.6 million from Yucaipa, LLC (3.00 / 1) (#116)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:07:16 PM EST
    The Clinton's tax returns show a total income of $12.6 million from the Yucaipa LLC as follows.

        2003:  1 million
        2004:  4 million
        2005:  5 million
        2006:  2.6 million
        2007:  On Extension.

    Yucaipa is the LLC between Bill and Ron Burkle and involving the ruler of Dubai.  

    Since the Clintons obtained an extension for the 2007 return, there was no reason to hold up the release of the other returns until tax time this year.

    Yes, yes. (none / 0) (#129)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:39:07 PM EST
    We know about Yucaipa.  So what is it you're trying to imply?

    Getting millions of (none / 0) (#141)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:08:12 PM EST
    dollars from foreign sources, and in particular Mideast sources, is a source of concern.

    Here is the Wall Street Journal article today:

    Bill Clinton has few day-to-day duties in the firm beyond increasing the prestige of the company and meeting with clients, according to press accounts. He also made an investment in an international Yucaipa fund, along with Burkle and an entity connected to the ruler of Dubai. Taking money from foreign governments is always a sensitive political issue. The issue has flared up in the campaign during recent bailouts of several Wall Street firms.

    Here is an WSJ article about a $20 million payout last year (perhaps why the 2007 return is on extension):

    Former President Clinton stands to reap around $20 million -- and will sever a politically sensitive partnership tie to Dubai -- by ending his high-profile business relationship with the investment firm of billionaire friend Ron Burkle.


    Severing the tie to Dubai, a U.S. ally, will remove a potentially tricky problem for Mrs. Clinton. Questions raised about the activities of sovereign wealth funds -- giant pools of money controlled by foreign governments -- have become a campaign issue, as the funds have made a spate of multibillion-dollar investments in such corporate giants as Citigroup Inc. and Merrill Lynch & Co....

    ok I see you will always find something (none / 0) (#144)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:11:49 PM EST
    to criticize the Clinton's about.  If it isn't Dubay it will be England or maybe Canada?

    So...it's bad when we invest in them (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:30:33 PM EST
    but it's okay when they invest in us?

    Because I've got many multi-national funds in my portfolio.  I get paid by foreign businesses to do my business.  Does that mean I'm a terrorist?

    Because, let's be honest, that's the question that is being implicitly raised here, right?  In which case, let's talk two degrees of separation and ask Obama about Rezko and his good buddy Auchi.


    What makes me sad Kathy is that we (none / 0) (#162)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:46:14 PM EST
    criticized the Republicans for wasting taxpayers money in trying to bring Bill Clinton down.  But I guess it worked with some people judging by the way that most Obama followers talk about the Clintons as if they were the root of all evil.

    ain't that the truth. (none / 0) (#178)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:16:42 PM EST
    You already have (none / 0) (#182)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:40:32 PM EST
    It's not about being a terrorist but having a conflict of interest vis-a-vis a head of state in the Mideast....

    If the Ruler of Dubai calls Hillary, I think Hillary would take extra effort to make sure he was mollified.  He is someone who has put millions of dollars in her pocket....He will have more clout than any campaign contributor.

    Let alone the hundreds of millions of dollars that Bill got for his library from Saudi Arabia and Kazakhstan.  Progressives have tended to worry about that kind of money sloshing around politicians' cofers.  


    He's involved in a partnership (none / 0) (#192)
    by ChrisO on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:03:57 AM EST
    in which the government of Dubai is also an investor. I think t's a bit of a stretch to portray it as Bill getting money from Dubai.

    Wow that is quite a smear (none / 0) (#201)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:06:49 AM EST
    To say someone, anyone, is so weak and corrupt that they will bend their and national interest because someone put "millions into her pocket" is rather disturbing. I think there is a big difference between contributors who GIVE MONEY only to influence and BUSINESS DEALS which by definition have benefits for both sides.

    So by this logic we can only have poor presidents, or presidents who have only done business transactions with certain pre-qualified American citizens.



    Everyone knows this (none / 0) (#160)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:42:08 PM EST
    already.  Most people in the blog world have read it.  It's old news.

    A source of concern (none / 0) (#163)
    by Prabhata on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:49:30 PM EST
    It's what I say about Rezko.

    infoUSA (none / 0) (#97)
    by magster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:31:51 PM EST
    $800,000 in 2006 and 2007 from a company that scams old people in 2006-2007 (so says some guy at Kos, so who knows).

    Link (none / 0) (#98)
    by magster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:32:24 PM EST
    Huh? (none / 0) (#108)
    by Gabriele Droz on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:58:58 PM EST
    A Kos diary?  I won't go there. Can anyone still going over there check it out and give some feedback here.  I'm on strike over there, but am curious about these allegations.  Thanks.

    Nope, never go (none / 0) (#121)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:18:56 PM EST
    I will wait to here something from some legitimate sources like the NYT that endorses Obama or MSNBC. (sorry, couldn't help it)

    The diary has two links (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by magster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:03:23 PM EST
    so you can hold your breath until you're redirected.

    The diary did not get recced, so they might not buy it over there either anyways.


    apparently there was no there there (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:30:54 PM EST
    this isn't the first time someone at DK has tried to fly that flag. I've been noticing a lot of repeat outrage over there lately about crap that was found to be full of nothing but crap.

    They need some new material, but just can't seem to come up with any. The tax returns are going to be a waste of time for those poor souls.


    According to Wikipedia (none / 0) (#142)
    by ChrisO on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:09:14 PM EST
    those charges were investigated by the state of Iowa in 2004 and the company was cleared of all wrongdoing. Of course, Kos is much more objective than Wikipedia.

    Commenter JJE (none / 0) (#123)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:21:13 PM EST
    is suspended, I'll clean his posts up later tonight. Don't bother responding to them as your replies are apt to get deleted as well.

    I imagine the thing ticking off (none / 0) (#158)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:35:16 PM EST
    pundits and detractors most is the amazing book deals they got, and the tremendous royalties accumulated.

    That's really gotta hurt.  You know most of them want book deals, or got them at far, far less than they imagined they were worth.

    Can you imagine (none / 0) (#161)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:44:20 PM EST
    reading a book written by Tweety?  My god.  Then again, he might have a book.  My. God.

    This title is already taken (none / 0) (#180)
    by ding7777 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:26:48 PM EST
    I Taw a Putty Tat

    I think what bothers the pundits more than (none / 0) (#193)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:11:53 AM EST
    the book deals is the book sales. People wanted to read what the Clintons had to say. No way would any one of those pundits ever match them in sales, and I think that just galls them to the core. Hehehe.

    the ultimate non-issue (none / 0) (#169)
    by jay20 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:21:36 PM EST
    who cares? just like the kazakhstan thing, there is nothing to this, it is just the typical drivebys shooting at the Clintons. Its almost a sick obsession. Most former Presidents do strike it rich with speeches. But the Clinton-haters will cite Jimmy Carter. Do I admire Habitat? sure. But it seems no one wants him to speak? Maybe we should ask the Sha of Iran's corpse if he liked that surgery we let him in for.

    bear in mind, (none / 0) (#200)
    by cpinva on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:00:19 AM EST
    the carters were a fairly well-to-do peanut farming family, long before pres. carter entered politics. not everyone can be a peanut farmer, you have to own gov't allotments, his family does. obviously they don't have the wealth of the bush's, but they were doing ok, so finances weren't really an issue for them, after they left the white house.

    this is by no means intended as a slur against pres. carter, i think he's possibly done the most for this country, of any living ex-president, ever. just a matter of setting the record straight.

    i did notice, on the obama's returns, none of his book royalties were donated to charity. it means................nothing.


    Comments Closed (none / 0) (#204)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:07:24 PM EST
    we're at 200, this thread is closed. Thanks for your thoughts.