Hillary Clinton $225,000 speaker fee at University of Nevada

[thinkforyoursel]

LINK

Does anybody see a problem with this? If you're a republican ...sure you do, but what if you're a democrat or just an American, still see a problem here?

But again, to my frustration people seem to miss the mark. This have ...not so much to do with Hillary in my view, but more the people (or individual) who feel the need to give the money to her. I find this practice so vexing and so very wrong, and I draw a parallel with this and these outrageous salaries for CEO's.
Again we see this mentality from many Americans some who will forever argue that a CEO deserves $75M a year, citing that if the salary for the same work was say $30M, no way you would find any good employee willing to work for that pittance.

That same person will then turn around and criticize a new NBA or NFL rookies salary why? Is it because he sense this rookie was once his neighbor and is now ...moving out of the neighborhood ...i.e. the classic envy and jealousy?

OK, now back to Hillary, I see her lack of understanding of this situation amazingly wrong, because ultimately who ends up paying that money?
I see this and wonder how many other politician in the past who may not charge as much as $225K, but a lesser sum (say $150K), get elected to office and then turn around and do all they can to make it even harder for these students with their votes?

Regardless of how this is settled, if now that the light is on Hillary she refuse the engagement, I still think that College needs to send a message to those in the organization who find it necessary to offer up this sum, by firing them!

 

[joG]

LINK

Does anybody see a problem with this? If you're a republican ...sure you do, but what if you're a democrat or just an American, still see a problem here?

But again, to my frustration people seem to miss the mark. This have ...not so much to do with Hillary in my view, but more the people (or individual) who feel the need to give the money to her. I find this practice so vexing and so very wrong, and I draw a parallel with this and these outrageous salaries for CEO's.
Again we see this mentality from many Americans some who will forever argue that a CEO deserves $75M a year, citing that if the salary for the same work was say $30M, no way you would find any good employee willing to work for that pittance.

That same person will then turn around and criticize a new NBA or NFL rookies salary why? Is it because he sense this rookie was once his neighbor and is now ...moving out of the neighborhood ...i.e. the classic envy and jealousy?

OK, now back to Hillary, I see her lack of understanding of this situation amazingly wrong, because ultimately who ends up paying that money?
I see this and wonder how many other politician in the past who may not charge as much as $225K, but a lesser sum (say $150K), get elected to office and then turn around and do all they can to make it even harder for these students with their votes?

Regardless of how this is settled, if now that the light is on Hillary she refuse the engagement, I still think that College needs to send a message to those in the organization who find it necessary to offer up this sum, by firing them!

I don't think anyone deserves anything. But if someone else is willing to give him/her $ 225K for a half hour talk? If someone is willing to pay the CEO $ 100 Million. It is their's to do and anyone that hates it has his own problem.

 

[AJiveMan]

At least with Ronald Reagan people got their money's worth, he'd ramble on for 2 hours and never make a point.

 

[The German]

Actualy most politicians make that kind of money through speeches and seminars that they hold as "advisors".

So nothing particulary exciting there.

 

[tres borrachos]

LINK

Does anybody see a problem with this? If you're a republican ...sure you do, but what if you're a democrat or just an American, still see a problem here?

But again, to my frustration people seem to miss the mark. This have ...not so much to do with Hillary in my view, but more the people (or individual) who feel the need to give the money to her. I find this practice so vexing and so very wrong, and I draw a parallel with this and these outrageous salaries for CEO's.
Again we see this mentality from many Americans some who will forever argue that a CEO deserves $75M a year, citing that if the salary for the same work was say $30M, no way you would find any good employee willing to work for that pittance.

That same person will then turn around and criticize a new NBA or NFL rookies salary why? Is it because he sense this rookie was once his neighbor and is now ...moving out of the neighborhood ...i.e. the classic envy and jealousy?

OK, now back to Hillary, I see her lack of understanding of this situation amazingly wrong, because ultimately who ends up paying that money?
I see this and wonder how many other politician in the past who may not charge as much as $225K, but a lesser sum (say $150K), get elected to office and then turn around and do all they can to make it even harder for these students with their votes?

Regardless of how this is settled, if now that the light is on Hillary she refuse the engagement, I still think that College needs to send a message to those in the organization who find it necessary to offer up this sum, by firing them!

I don't see a problem with it. It's their money, and they're free to spend it however they want. Not my business.

I don't think the optics are really good for Hillary but I don't begrudge her the fees she gets from speeches.

 

[ludin]

i don't see anything wrong with it.

what people are having a problem with was her "we are not well off and we are broke statment".

this is kinda of a hair in her net sort of speak. she gets paid in a half hour for what a hand ful of people make in a year. yet she and bill are broke and not well off.
they have no clue.

i would love to give a speech for a half hour and make 100k let alone 255k.

 

[Perotista]

LINK

Does anybody see a problem with this? If you're a republican ...sure you do, but what if you're a democrat or just an American, still see a problem here?

But again, to my frustration people seem to miss the mark. This have ...not so much to do with Hillary in my view, but more the people (or individual) who feel the need to give the money to her. I find this practice so vexing and so very wrong, and I draw a parallel with this and these outrageous salaries for CEO's.
Again we see this mentality from many Americans some who will forever argue that a CEO deserves $75M a year, citing that if the salary for the same work was say $30M, no way you would find any good employee willing to work for that pittance.

That same person will then turn around and criticize a new NBA or NFL rookies salary why? Is it because he sense this rookie was once his neighbor and is now ...moving out of the neighborhood ...i.e. the classic envy and jealousy?

OK, now back to Hillary, I see her lack of understanding of this situation amazingly wrong, because ultimately who ends up paying that money?
I see this and wonder how many other politician in the past who may not charge as much as $225K, but a lesser sum (say $150K), get elected to office and then turn around and do all they can to make it even harder for these students with their votes?

Regardless of how this is settled, if now that the light is on Hillary she refuse the engagement, I still think that College needs to send a message to those in the organization who find it necessary to offer up this sum, by firing them!

I think if Hillary hadn't had a foot in mouth moment with her statement leaving the White House dead broke very few people would have had a problem with the 225K speaking engagement. She since has compounded her original statement. But most people outside of political junkies are even paying attention to this. Now come primary and general election season, campaign season her opponents are bound to make a few political ads of this and her dead broke statement. Then it probably will garner a whole lot more attention than just a few political junkies than it has today.

Hillary is not her husband Bill. Bill could connect with the people like only two presidents and campaigners have done before, Reagan and FDR. Hillary does not have that ability, that is not a knock against here, it is just stating a fact. Neither does Obama, neither did either Bush's, Carter, Ford and on back.

No I do not have a problem with her receiving 225K to speak, but she should have kept her mouth shut about it, about being broke. Hillary's persona and the likability factor are not Bill's, not her fault, but she needs to be a heck of a lot more careful in what she says. She does not have the leeway for this kind of stuff her husband has. This will come back at her if she runs for president and it will hurt, not in a huge way, her supporters don't care, Republicans would not vote for her anyway, but it may sway a few independents against her.

 

[radcen]

I think anybody willing to pay that much is an idiot, but that's just a random opinion. I have no issue with it. More power to 'em.

And this is standard for lots of people at that level on all sides of the political spectrum, so to single out Hillary Clinton is disingenuous. She was dumb for making the "dead broke" comment, though.

 

[DB20]

Actualy most politicians make that kind of money through speeches and seminars that they hold as "advisors".

So nothing particulary exciting there.

I have no problem with her negotiating a fee for speeches she will give. More power to anyone who can negotiate the maximum income for themselves.

However when you're pulling in that kind of money and then you go on national TV and talk about how you were dead broke and how tough your financial life has been because you're running for president and want to create the image that you have a clue what being middle class is like then you're probably going to be viewed negatively.

It's insulting. How dumb does Hillary think people are. Well, having some level of contact with her supporters she must know they're idiots but if she expects the rest of us to buy her brand of crazy she's got another thing coming.

 

[Redress]

I have no problem with her negotiating a fee for speeches she will give. More power to anyone who can negotiate the maximum income for themselves.

However when you're pulling in that kind of money and then you go on national TV and talk about how you were dead broke and how tough your financial life has been because you're running for president and want to create the image that you have a clue what being middle class is like then you're probably going to be viewed negatively.

It's insulting. How dumb does Hillary think people are. Well, having some level of contact with her supporters she must know they're idiots but if she expects the rest of us to buy her brand of crazy she's got another thing coming.

Let's see here. She said they where broke when Clinton left office. That was a little over 13 years ago. Her speaking fees and current wealth have exactly jack and **** to do with how much money they had 13 years ago.

 

[Mason66]

I don't see a problem with it. It's their money, and they're free to spend it however they want. Not my business.

I don't think the optics are really good for Hillary but I don't begrudge her the fees she gets from speeches.

But whose money was it?

 

[radcen]

Let's see here. She said they where broke when Clinton left office. That was a little over 13 years ago. Her speaking fees and current wealth have exactly jack and **** to do with how much money they had 13 years ago.

Her statement that they were "dead broke" wasn't credible, even for that time. I have no doubt they had huge debt, most from what I hear over his legal defense fees, but they still had the wherewithal and resources to move to New York so she could run for Senate and purchase a multi-million dollar home. Most people with no debt can't do that. The balance might not have been an accountant's wet dream, but they weren't suffering by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Redress]

Her statement that they were "dead broke" wasn't credible, even for that time. I have no doubt they had huge debt, most from what I hear over his legal defense fees, but they still had the wherewithal and resources to move to New York so she could run for Senate and purchase a multi-million dollar home. Most people with no debt can't do that. The balance might not have been an accountant's wet dream, but they weren't suffering by any stretch of the imagination.

OK, maybe this is difficult...but what the **** does that have to do with her speaking fees today? How exactly did you miss that point in my post? Did you not bother to read the last sentence of that oh so long post of mine?

 

[radcen]

OK, maybe this is difficult...but what the **** does that have to do with her speaking fees today? How exactly did you miss that point in my post? Did you not bother to read the last sentence of that oh so long post of mine?

Translation: He made a point that I cannot refute, so I'll act all hysterical and indignant and hope he goes away.

:roll:

 

[soot]

OK, maybe this is difficult...but what the **** does that have to do with her speaking fees today? How exactly did you miss that point in my post? Did you not bother to read the last sentence of that oh so long post of mine?

Because she made the comment recently about her finances when leaving the White House in an attempt to establish some sort of rapport with middle class voters.

Kind of a 21st century take on that classic "I feel your pain" Clintonism.

This woman is a political machine. She doesn't do ANYTHING without there being some self-serving motivation behind it.

She didn't make that comment because she was interested on giving us some honest glimpse into ancient Clinton family history.

She did it to set the stage for the future, a future where she might need the support of middle-class and lower middle class independent voters.

As has been said, WJC could get away with that kind of aw' schucks good ol' boyish kind of behavior even though it was absolute nonsense.

He had the charisma to pull it off.

With Hillary doing it, it just comes across as patronizing, shallow, flat, and insulting.

You see, Hillary isn't talking to die-hard "Very Liberal" voters like yourself.

She knows that if she throws her hat in the ring you're going to vote for in the primary and that you're going to vote for her in the general.

You're a fanboy (or girl) already rooting for that team.

She could rape a kid and you'd find some excuse for it.

She's talking to folks like me.

People who would just as happily vote for a Democrat or a Republican if we thought one was a better fit for the job than the other. Or who would vote, and have voted, for a third-party candidate if we found both major party candidates unappealing.

As far as we're concerned, this tactic of hers is a swing and a miss.

 

[Redress]

Translation: He made a point that I cannot refute, so I'll act all hysterical and indignant and hope he goes away.

:roll:

No, that would be a mistranslation. Care to discuss what I said instead of building straw men?

 

[thinkforyoursel]

To the people saying..it's not a problem because it's their money..I say this. It's their money much the way our taxes belongs to Obama ...I hope the next time he takes it and I dunno....give to illegals for example....you have no issues. I hope when he goes on his next Air-force one world tour I don't hear anymore whining coming from you people on the right.

We must pay taxes ...much the way the students must pay tuition!

 

[DB20]

Let's see here. She said they where broke when Clinton left office. That was a little over 13 years ago. Her speaking fees and current wealth have exactly jack and **** to do with how much money they had 13 years ago.

They were broke. Yeah right and I'm the easter bunny.


Why do liberals only hate rich people when they are not leftists?

Mitt Romney's wealth was fair game to talk about when he ran but now we're not allowed to discuss Hillary's wealth?

If it wasn't for double standards liberals would have no standards.

 

[Redress]

They were broke. Yeah right and I'm the easter bunny.


Why do liberals only hate rich people when they are not leftists?

Mitt Romney's wealth was fair game to talk about when he ran but now we're not allowed to discuss Hillary's wealth?

If it wasn't for double standards liberals would have no standards.

I did not claim they where broke. Remember those old commercials, Reading Is Fundamental.

When did I start hating rich people? Oh yeah, that is just a mindless talking point, and a dishonest one.

Who has said you cannot discuss Clinton's wealth? Making **** up does not work very well.

No double standard in expecting the same standards for every one.

That was a lot of fail in just one post. You should probably try harder next time.

 

[DB20]

I did not claim they where broke. Remember those old commercials, Reading Is Fundamental.

When did I start hating rich people? Oh yeah, that is just a mindless talking point, and a dishonest one.

Who has said you cannot discuss Clinton's wealth? Making **** up does not work very well.

No double standard in expecting the same standards for every one.

That was a lot of fail in just one post. You should probably try harder next time.

Every liberal was attacking Romney for his wealth when he ran. Now they are all defending Hillary's boneheaded statements about her wealth and trying to change the topic.

Yes liberals do this all the time.

Koch brothers bad. George Soros and Tom Steyer good. Sound familiar?

Hypocrisy is the lifeblood of liberalism. Anyone paying attention knows this to be true.

 

[Thrilla]

LINK

Does anybody see a problem with this? If you're a republican ...sure you do, but what if you're a democrat or just an American, still see a problem here?

But again, to my frustration people seem to miss the mark. This have ...not so much to do with Hillary in my view, but more the people (or individual) who feel the need to give the money to her. I find this practice so vexing and so very wrong, and I draw a parallel with this and these outrageous salaries for CEO's.
Again we see this mentality from many Americans some who will forever argue that a CEO deserves $75M a year, citing that if the salary for the same work was say $30M, no way you would find any good employee willing to work for that pittance.

That same person will then turn around and criticize a new NBA or NFL rookies salary why? Is it because he sense this rookie was once his neighbor and is now ...moving out of the neighborhood ...i.e. the classic envy and jealousy?

OK, now back to Hillary, I see her lack of understanding of this situation amazingly wrong, because ultimately who ends up paying that money?
I see this and wonder how many other politician in the past who may not charge as much as $225K, but a lesser sum (say $150K), get elected to office and then turn around and do all they can to make it even harder for these students with their votes?

Regardless of how this is settled, if now that the light is on Hillary she refuse the engagement, I still think that College needs to send a message to those in the organization who find it necessary to offer up this sum, by firing them!

hmmm.. tuition prices skyrocket.. and Hillary takes 225k from a school to give a speech.



naaaaah, no problem there at all.

 

[Redress]

Every liberal was attacking Romney for his wealth when he ran. Now they are all defending Hillary's boneheaded statements about her wealth and trying to change the topic.

Yes liberals do this all the time.

Koch brothers bad. George Soros and Tom Steyer good. Sound familiar?

Hypocrisy is the lifeblood of liberalism. Anyone paying attention knows this to be true.

I did not criticize Romney for his wealth. I am a liberal. That makes you wrong again. At least you should be used to it.

Further, most liberals did not criticize Romney for his wealth. That is another of those dishonest talking points. In truth, he was criticizes for being out of touch, and for what he did with his money, both of which are significantly different from attacking him for his wealth.

 

[DB20]

I did not criticize Romney for his wealth. I am a liberal. That makes you wrong again. At least you should be used to it.

Further, most liberals did not criticize Romney for his wealth. That is another of those dishonest talking points. In truth, he was criticizes for being out of touch, and for what he did with his money, both of which are significantly different from attacking him for his wealth.

Of course they criticized him for his wealth. They did it all the time. I recall it vividly. But as you said, you're a liberal so I can hardly expect you to have any integrity. Now I will place you on my ignore list.

 

[Redress]

Of course they criticized him for his wealth. They did it all the time. I recall it vividly. But as you said, you're a liberal so I can hardly expect you to have any integrity. Now I will place you on my ignore list.

Running away when challenged....:lamo