It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ChesterJohn
BTW, she says now she wont run...
Her cash windfall will make the Democratic war on inequality at least a little more awkward, although she’s no different than other Democratic scourges of inequality who almost always sop up as much money as possible as soon as they’re out of government. For liberals, to paraphrase an old Ronald Reagan quip, fair reward for hard work and talent is when you get rich; a crisis in income inequality is when someone else does. But Hillary would know nothing about these gradations within the upper stratosphere of wealth. She’s working too hard just to make ends meet.
They own two homes, one valued at $5 million in Washington, and another valued at $1.8 million in New York state. Last summer, they rented an $11 million mansion in the Hamptons.
Such is their wealth that they are using complicated tax maneuvers to limit their exposure to the estate tax.
originally posted by: Diderot
I agree that the Clintons are quite comfortable. But isn't that the American way? Let's face it; there is no way on earth (USA earth that is) that a humble middle class politician is going to run for president in the 21st century, without a backing of millions of $ (billions by the time I write this). What is truly telling is what their politics are: does she support the minimum wage worker, does she support the middle class (compared to the Repubs). Does she support an equalizing of national wealth compared to the Repubs. Of course there are those that will say that Dem = Rep, but I do not buy it.
Poor Hillary, it just sucks being so poor.