The Cost of Serving...Clinton Poverty | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: Jim Bispo's weekly column appears in the Beaufort Observer.

    Did you ever take out a loan to buy a house?? If not, how about a loan to buy a vehicle??

    Either way, during the first year of your payments (in the case of a car) the amount you owed didn't decrease much. In the case of a house, the amount owed didn't decrease much in the first several years of payments. In fact, even if you made all your payments on time, it didn't go down much for seven or eight or ten years.

    So... Unless you had enough cash stashed away someplace to pay off the outstanding balance, you were in debt. And, depending on how you do your arithmetic, you were poor - especially if you counted only your debts.. And so it was with our erstwhile Secretary of State and her husband - eight years of free housing and a $400K per year salary not withstanding. When they had to give up their Government housing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave in DC they were dead broke.. This from a person who told the world that she had not driven a car in the last 10 years or so. Clearly she was not a"shut in" which would lead us to believe that perhaps she has been chauffeured about for all those years. Not bad for someone who is dead broke... Hmmm...

    When Bill became the latest ex-President it would seem that Arkansas (where they came from when they moved to Washington) had lost all its allure so they opted to stay in Washington - surely where money is much more readily available for displaced politicians (especially ex-presidents).

    So the ex-Prez and his wife purchased a house in the District of Columbia for a reported $2.85M. Without worrying about the down payment (if ex-presidents are required to make down payments) they had a loan in the $2M neighborhood. If they didn't have that much money squirreled away somewhere, they were in debt. It would seem that the erstwhile Secretary of State learned from her former boss how to tell stories that very likely sound plausible to the unthinking masses but are totally misleading. Based on the uproar we are hearing about her claims of poverty as the Clintons left their Government Housing it would seem that the American public is smarter than Ms. Clinton gives them (us) credit for (ergo the uproar)..

    And now reportedly that house is estimated to be worth over $5.4M. Another good Clinton investment??

    It gets better - or worse - depending on how one looks at it.. The Clintons bought another house - this time in Chappaqua NY (surely not just so she could claim to be a NY resident and run for the US Senate seat that opened up when Daniel Moynihan retired). Reportedly that house was in the $1.7M range. That must have really put them in debt. Not bad for poor folks. How do you suppose they found such a friendly lender?? They say it happens in Chicago. Why not New York?? Oh well...

    Her knowledge of income taxes would seem to be woefully lacking (i.e. non-existent). At one point in one of her interviews she indicated that they (She and Bill) are not among the truly rich in America. Her "proof" of that allegation was based on the fact that their income is taxed at "ordinary income" rates as opposed to the truly rich whose income is taxed at the much lower "capital gains" rates. Surely she wasn't trying to "fool" the populace. She is one of us - she pays income taxed the ordinary income rate..(Surely that makes them "ordinary" people.) I do remember that at one point in time (I can't remember if she was AR first lady or FLOTUS) she made about $100K in the futures market. I have been told that the Futures Market is a good place to either get very rich in a hurry or to get very poor just as quickly. At the time she made all that money (on a reportedly very small investment) there were rumors that her order was placed after the market had closed (which surely is a good way to ensure a profit). Regardless, the $100K she made was surely not taxed at ordinary income rates, but rather at short term capital gains rates. She must have forgotten (or more likely never knew). Do you suppose she is still trying to figure out what "is" means?? Hmmm...

    The long and short of it is that if you make your money making speeches at $200 - $250K or more each (as it would seem the Clintons do), your money is taxed at ordinary income rates. If you make your money "in the market" your income is taxed at capital gains rates.

    BTW, If you make large cash contributions to your not for profit, tax exempt "Foundation", (as the Clintons have been known to do in favor of the Clinton Foundation) that money escapes taxation altogether. But when the Clintons do it, that's probably "different"... Of course it is..

    We should all be so poor..

    D'ya think??