Wealthy Clintons use trusts to avoid full estate tax they back:
There has been some coverage of Hillary being "dead broke" after they left the White House. Like a lot of criticism in our looking-glass media modern US, bias is really at the core of this entire discussion -- for both the media and us the media consumers.
First of all, EVERYONE, some of us more than others, go through transitions of "relative wealth". Having a quarter in your pocket when you are a kid, say $20 in early teens, $50 in college and some other figure in early work life are "feel good relative wealth". (Inflation has likely shifted these enough so that I'm off on the specifics, but the idea is sound) If you worked hard for you your whole life in what was the past world up to the age of BO, had some luck, maybe stayed married to one person, did some investing, etc, there are many who have a net worth sufficient so that getting down to your last few thousands of cash on hand, $100K or so in ready investments would be "poverty". In the actual world, Hillary feeling "poor" when she couldn't scrape together $10 million or so is understandable -- I'm sure that she DID feel that way and was being honest.
However, it certainly shows that she has close to zero actual feeling for the people that live from paycheck to paycheck or assistance check and were born into family trees of the same as far back as can be recalled. If she were a Republican it would be a boneheaded, hard-hearted enough thing to say that the media outlets would be hammering her mercilessly -- "born with a silver foot in her mouth", "born on third, thinks she hit a triple", etc. The MSM played gotcha with HW Bush in '92, and again with Giuliani in '07 on issues like "out of touch on common every day prices".
Certainly MANY people, poor, middle or whatever pay very little attention to everyday purchase items in the specific, because they are going to buy them anyway -- they have to drive and eat. Yes, they notice when products break $1 marks in some cases, but MANY people (me included) would be hard pressed to be anything better than the nearest buck or two. It is however a good way for the MSM to go after Republicans, so they like to do it, and then late night comedians like Jay Leno, who has 10's of millions of dollars in cars and motorcycles laugh about how wealthy the Republican is! It's Wonderland folks.
In the top linked article we see that SURPRISE! the Clintons have set things up to avoid estate taxes! You know, (I'm only guessing here), I bet they pull their hands rapidly away from a hot pan as well!
The point here is not what the Clintons do and the fact that they are hypocrites, it is what the media will really say about it. Bill Clinton is now considered the wealthiest living President http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/10-richest-us-presidents-f1C7100851
the entire Bush family net worth is $60 M that source lists Clinton at $80M based on trusts, off shore wealth and other aspects, it is hard to pin down the absolute specifics, but I think fair minded people can agree that both the Clintons and the Bushes are pretty much at the same wealth.
But are they treated the same in the press? That also seems like an easy question. The assertion is made that "well, they have their hearts in the right place" .. and if you look at the top 10 list, the Kennedys, FDR and LBJ would also be on this list. Is it REALLY "having their heart in the right place" when they CLAIM that they are going to re-distributed wealth to the "needy" (buy votes), but the money that they use will NOT be theirs or that of the people they associate with?
In the real world, vs the looking glass one, there would be SOME expectation that people would practice what they preach. If wealth is bad and redistribution is good, then SOME figure -- say $500K, or $250K or ?? in wealth would be "the top", and you would not be exposed to redistribution pressure until you hit that point. If you preached redistribution, THAT would be your level -- the valid level for "fair minded people" to live at. In today's world even big anti-wealth Ralph Nader comes in at $4.2 M
In my world, wealth is good -- but like good health, sound mind, torque, firearms, etc, it carries PERSONAL responsibility -- more responsibility for more of it. How you deal with what you are blessed with is between you and God, and only becomes a matter for the state if it is used in a way that threatens the rights of others. God gave us a universe with MANY unlimited or nearly so blessings, although in this world sin and death mean that they are temporal.
In the next world though, I believe that the limits are off -- this one is just a "foretaste". Unlimited High Performance motorcycles with no chance of untimely death! Count me in!
'via Blog this'