• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary rakes in $275,000 at state colleges giving speeches. Is she disconnected?

Pretty much all of our elected officials in Washington are the "Do as I say and not as I do," type. Why should anyone running or contemplating running for office be any different?
At least Mitt worked for his money. John D student Kerry just marries dumb rich old money clams for his wealth. He's the male equivalent of a bimbo, so I guess he's a mimbo?
 
That wasnt the point I was making. The point is, that many/most liberals, including people like Hillary are constantly complaining about how the rich earn their money unfairly, through either nefarious means, through the exploitation of people below them, or by obscene profiteering at the expense of people who are in much worse financial condition than themselves. Well.........Isnt that exactly what Hillary is doing? Doesnt that make her just as guilty as other wealthy people who profit obscenely at the cost of those who are struggling? isnt it also true that the university president there was not FORCED to hire Hillary, nor was she forced to charge soooooo much money for just 1 hour's speech?

She cant run around acting like a regular person while being a member of the same wealthy elite who use their connections for personal gain!

Oh no, you've uncovered a politician who is a phony. I wouldn't have believed it.
 
"Hillary rakes in $275,000 at state colleges giving speeches. Is she disconnected?"

No, she is wealthy. As believers in the private enterprise system, we should applaud her ability to sell her speaking services for big money. If one is envious of her ability to do that one should complain to those who hire her. I think it is perfectly American and perfectly fine. I wish I could get speaking engagements that pay like that. Or, I wish I could hit a baseball as well as Miguel Cabrera or run an NFL offense as well as Peyton Manning or act in a movie as successfully as Tom Cruise. Some people have talents or situations that pay well, others don't. Reality is like that. Accept it and embrace it. It is what made our country great.

That's total crap and you know it. Given the policies and ideology she pushes, she ought to be speaking for free and living in public housing. Her idea of utopia is where we're all the same. I don't applaud a goddamn thing she does or stands for.
 
Paul Krugman nailed this a long time ago:
Wait — it’s not just about me and the wingnuts. If you remember the 2004 election, which unfortunately I do, there were quite a few journalists who basically accused John Kerry of being “inauthentic” because he was a rich man advocating policies that would help the poor and the middle class. Apparently you can only be authentic if your politics reflect pure personal self-interest — Mitt Romney is Mr. Natural.

So to say what should be obvious but apparently isn’t: supporting policies that are to your personal financial disadvantage isn’t hypocrisy — it’s civic virtue!
 
I do legitimately wonder what benefit one receives from a $275,000 speech.

Even the people I agree with, even the people I happen to like, I cannot see myself paying large ticket prices for hearing them talk. What are they going to say that is going to provide that much value-added?
 
saint ronnie received two MILLION dollars in the 80's for his speeches in japan

compared to that, frau hillary is but a piker

:lol: "But a Piker Hillary" has earned half that in the last six months alone, and ole Bill has earned more than 100 million dollars for speaking engagements.
 
Even the people I agree with, even the people I happen to like, I cannot see myself paying large ticket prices for hearing them talk. What are they going to say that is going to provide that much value-added?

For $275,000 I expect to be turned into a being of pure energy and light.
 
LOL.
What Paul krugman nailed a long time ago ago is that you can get very rich selling lw BS to gullible dupes.
CUNY to Pay Paul Krugman $225,000 for Part-Time Job Studying Income Inequality | National Review Online
Krugman is very wealthy and advocates for public policy positions contrary to his personal interests. Although he is in the top 1%, he wants higher taxes on the top 1%. That's civic virtue. The difference between rich liberals and rich conservatives is that rich liberals don't mind paying higher taxes for the good of the country.
 
Krugman is very wealthy and advocates for public policy positions contrary to his personal interests. Although he is in the top 1%, he wants higher taxes on the top 1%. That's civic virtue. The difference between rich liberals and rich conservatives is that rich liberals don't mind paying higher taxes for the good of the country.

awwwwwww, how kewt.
The IRS must get swamped with all their checks.
LOL
 
During the 2012 election, the mantra of the democrats was that Romney was disconnected because he was worth approx $175,000,000. Well. I will remind the readers that just 2 election cycles earlier, the democrat nominee was John Kerry, who's family net worth was then 2 billion dollars. Lets do some math! 2 billion dollars is approximately 12x more than 175 million. But nobody in the media or elsewhere bothered to even ask if he was disconnected. Surprised?

Anyway, now we have Hillary Clinton going to colleges and charging $275,000 for a darn speech that lasts a friggin hour! Remember, now at least 23% of college grads are forced to live at home. At least 15% of college grads are unemployed, and approx 45% of the employed college grads are underemployed and working at jobs that dont require a college education! In other words, THEY ARENT DOING WELL! Not only that, but they are saddled with huge college debt, because these liberal-run and staffed colleges are constantly raising their tuition at many times the rate of inflation.

Yet, here is Hillary, standing in front of them, while demanding more money for just 1 hour's 'work' than these kids will likely make in a few years of employment! But as usual, there is no claim of Hillary being 'disconnected'...... Dont you see that as a disgusting example of obscene profiteering by someone who claims to be anti-excess when it comes to wealthy people making money, at the cost of people who are financially suffering? Where's our fair and unbiased media to complain about this?

If you were trying to point out hypocrisy, you succeeded. Both parties are exceedingly, no, EXCEEDINGLY hypocritical. You post one example of democratic hypocrisy, then I'll post one of republican hypocrisy. We'll go back and forth all night, and neither of us will run out of examples, we'll just get bored. The partisan facilitates this by the way.
 
:lol: "But a Piker Hillary" has earned half that in the last six months alone, and ole Bill has earned more than 100 million dollars for speaking engagements.

but you may have missed the point
saint ronnie was knocking down one million per speech in japan - in the 80's
in comparison to that, frau hillary is still playing double A ball
 
but you may have missed the point
saint ronnie was knocking down one million per speech in japan - in the 80's
in comparison to that, frau hillary is still playing double A ball

True. Only Bill could command a million or more per speech.

But now we have the new justabubba standard for wealth. Having more than a hundred million bucks for reading teleprompters is double A ball and not worth commenting on. Got it.


Also worth noting. Reagan was paid $50,000 per speech, and spoke with no charge for charities and schools.

And, of course, predictably, the same people who now defend the Clintons were just scandalized that an ex-President would make money giving speeches.
 
Last edited:
Krugman is very wealthy and advocates for public policy positions contrary to his personal interests. Although he is in the top 1%, he wants higher taxes on the top 1%. That's civic virtue. The difference between rich liberals and rich conservatives is that rich liberals don't mind paying higher taxes for the good of the country.

:lol:

Democratic Tax Cheats Outnumber Republican, 72% v. 28%

three dozen Obama executive advisers and aides owe hundreds of thousands of dollars in back taxes

The Charles Rangel Saga Continues

Timothy F. Geithner, President-elect Barack Obama’s choice for Treasury secretary, failed to pay more than $34,000 in federal taxes over several years.

Every answer seems to lead to more questions regarding the nearly $320,000 worth of back taxes, interest, penalties and fees for a plane Sen. Claire McCaskill failed to pay personal property taxes on for four years.

Tom Daschle failed to report more than $101,000 in indirect income and $83,000 in direct income on his taxes.

Hell, even Obama uses the same tax loopholes he decries in others. You want me to go on with this stuff?


Rich liberals (by and by) are all in favor of others paying more taxes. They themselves rarely belly up to the plate.
 
No, but seriously, what are you getting for a $1,000,000 speech? I really want to know.
 
True. Only Bill could command a million or more per speech.

But now we have the new justabubba standard for wealth. Having more than a hundred million bucks for reading teleprompters is double A ball and not worth commenting on. Got it.


Also worth noting. Reagan was paid $50,000 per speech, and spoke with no charge for charities and schools.

And, of course, predictably, the same people who now defend the Clintons were just scandalized that an ex-President would make money giving speeches.
saint ronnie received two million for two speeches in japan soon after he left office
back in the 80's
quarter century later hillary receives one-fourth the rate reagan received as compensation
would think if it was ok for ronnie raygun to command and receive extraordinary speaking fees, it would be ok for hillary
 
Also worth noting. Reagan was paid $50,000 per speech, and spoke with no charge for charities and schools.

Correction: he was paid $1,000,000/speech.

No. 3: Ronald Reagan
$1 Million

Fujisankei Communications, 1989

The late former president was reportedly paid $2 million by the Japanese media company for a 1989 tour of Japan, which included two speeches. We rank Reagan a notch behind Trump because he also gave press interviews with Fujisankei-owned media outlets during his visit.

In Pictures: The 10 Most Expensive Speeches - Forbes
 
No, but seriously, what are you getting for a $1,000,000 speech? I really want to know.
I find it interesting that conservatives champion the free enterprise marketplace -- except when someone they don't like benefits from the free-market.

It's funny how conservatives bemoan the Clintons receiving speaking fees in the six and seven figures, paid by others' own free will while they don't make a peep about Limbaugh or Hannity earning large fees.
 
Correction: he was paid $1,000,000/speech.

Depending on how you count. He also gave interviews for media outlets, public lunches, and the like - all of which was included under the general $2 million tab. Do we know if (given that it also covered the 20% fees), he was also responsible for expenses?

The $50,000 was what he charged in the United States per speech - with no charge for things like charities and colleges.
 
I find it interesting that conservatives champion the free enterprise marketplace -- except when someone they don't like benefits from the free-market.

That is incorrect. I have no problem with the Clintons' making this money. I have problems with them making this money and then trying to posture themselves as anything except an extremely self-interested uberwealthy elite. It's not the earnings (though I wouldn't pay that much for a speech), it's the hypocrisy.
 
Depending on how you count. He also gave interviews for media outlets, public lunches, and the like - all of which was included under the general $2 million tab. Do we know if (given that it also covered the 20% fees), he was also responsible for expenses?

The $50,000 was what he charged in the United States per speech - with no charge for things like charities and colleges.

So the **** what? Did his money magically disappear when he returned home, like a carriage turning into a pumpkin after midnight? And what are you trying to throw "expenses" into the topic at the last minute for, as if that has any bearing on anything at all? I'm sure his expenses really ate into those $2,000,000. Hell, with those expenses, I would have just opted to stay home.
 
Last edited:
That is incorrect. I have no problem with the Clintons' making this money. I have problems with them making this money and then trying to posture themselves as anything except an extremely self-interested uberwealthy elite. It's not the earnings (though I wouldn't pay that much for a speech), it's the hypocrisy.

And yet here you are on the other side of your mouth trying to somehow champion Reagan as giving speeches for something closely approximating charity. It clearly makes you uncomfortable in some way.
 
During the 2012 election, the mantra of the democrats was that Romney was disconnected because he was worth approx $175,000,000. Well. I will remind the readers that just 2 election cycles earlier, the democrat nominee was John Kerry, who's family net worth was then 2 billion dollars. Lets do some math! 2 billion dollars is approximately 12x more than 175 million. But nobody in the media or elsewhere bothered to even ask if he was disconnected. Surprised?

Anyway, now we have Hillary Clinton going to colleges and charging $275,000 for a darn speech that lasts a friggin hour! Remember, now at least 23% of college grads are forced to live at home. At least 15% of college grads are unemployed, and approx 45% of the employed college grads are underemployed and working at jobs that dont require a college education! In other words, THEY ARENT DOING WELL! Not only that, but they are saddled with huge college debt, because these liberal-run and staffed colleges are constantly raising their tuition at many times the rate of inflation.

Yet, here is Hillary, standing in front of them, while demanding more money for just 1 hour's 'work' than these kids will likely make in a few years of employment! But as usual, there is no claim of Hillary being 'disconnected'...... Dont you see that as a disgusting example of obscene profiteering by someone who claims to be anti-excess when it comes to wealthy people making money, at the cost of people who are financially suffering? Where's our fair and unbiased media to complain about this?


Most people would say that Hillary is both smart and Very Rich. Makes you wonder why she would do this. I am not a doctor, but have to conclude that an adult lifetime almost exclusively in power has impacted her thinking.
 
That is incorrect. I have no problem with the Clintons' making this money. I have problems with them making this money and then trying to posture themselves as anything except an extremely self-interested uberwealthy elite. It's not the earnings (though I wouldn't pay that much for a speech), it's the hypocrisy.

It is the greatest expression of virtue to be wealthy but champion policies that help the poor.
 
It is the greatest expression of virtue to be wealthy but champion policies that help the poor.

:lol: no. It is a great (not the greatest) expression of virtue to be wealthy and give your own money to the poor. Signing up to give others money confers no virtue whatsoever, and often instead the opposite.
 
Back
Top Bottom