Saturday, February 24, 2007

Clinton enjoying the speech circuit

Story:"Former president Bill Clinton, who came to the White House with modest means and left deeply in debt, has collected nearly $40 million in speaking fees over the past six years, according to interviews and financial disclosure statements filed by his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Last year, one of his most lucrative since he left the presidency, Clinton earned $9 million to $10 million on the lecture circuit. He averaged almost a speech a day -- 352 for the year -- but only about 20 percent were for personal income. The others were given for no fee or for donations to the William J. Clinton Foundation, the nonprofit group he founded to pursue causes such as the fight against AIDS.

His paid speeches included $150,000 appearances before landlord groups, biotechnology firms and food distributors, as well as speeches in England, Ireland, New Zealand and Australia that together netted him more than $1.6 million. On one particularly good day in Canada, Clinton made $475,000 for two speeches, more than double his annual salary as president.

"I never had a nickel to my name until I got out of the White House, and now I'm a millionaire, the most favored person for the Washington Republicans," Clinton told a friendly audience in Kentucky last fall. "I get a tax cut every year, no matter what our needs are."

Am I upset that he's rich now? No, I think he's a brilliant capitalist, and people will pay what they think he's worth.
And the last comment cracked me up, even if it is a renewal of the 'tax cuts for the rich' jargon.

Now what I do find disturbing: That people will still pay to hear a man who had an affair while in office, lied about it under oath, and then was impeached by the house, one of only 3 men in US history to bear that mark of shame. And yet, people will still pay to hear him speak.


Gino said...

correction: one of only TWO to bear that mark of impeachment.

clinton is just proof that politics is little more than show business for ugly people.

kingdavid said...

It still amazes me that a man who was governor of a state that ranked in the bottom 5 of nearly every category which identifies the health of a state could go on to be president.

When it comes to the presidency, I'm of the opinion that there are other powers that be, who actually run the country, and they don't care what bozo is sitting in the seat. The guys that get to that level, whether democrat or republican, they all belong to the same little fraternity and clubs; everything leading up to elections is just a show. They may differ on some key issues, but they're all wolf's in sheep clothing.

Beware the Illuminati

J. Sutton said...

kingdavid: If they are just a "little club", then by definition they have limited influence over national elections. Are you dissing the millions of American people that care about the integrity of their government, vote with their conscience and the few in this category that do run for office? I think you might have your worldview expanded by studying some real history and real people who have run for President, and won. Then again, its easier to believe every gloppy conspiracy theory that comes along that justifies one's rage against legitimate authority.

It does amuse me, also, that Clinton rose from Arkansas to the Presidency, but this has more to do with his network of political connections than the state of Arkansas. Some might say that he could only have risen to the Presidency by becoming Governor in Arkansas, no other State would have allowed him to go as far as the Governor's office.

SolaMeanie said...

If Clinton wanted to be honest (snicker), he could have said, "I've been on the public dole all my life, and now that I'm out of the White House, I make millions just opening my big yap."

As for Arkansas, I don't judge the whole state by him. Mike Huckabee has been a great governor and is now a presidential candidate. He's spot on regarding most of the issues Christian conservatives care about. And I'm pretty sure he'd behave with the interns.

Palm boy said...

Gino, I stand corrected. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached, Nixon resigned.

Show buisness for ugly people, lol.

KD, I think Clinton became president for a couple of reasons.
1. He's one heck of a politician, and able to make a lot of back room deals that hold fast.
2. Clinton had Dick Morris, who is also one crafty man.
3. Clinton entered the race at the right time, and became 'the other guy', who no one was filled with animosity twoards. Thus, he won the nomination because he had the least amount of hatred from his own party.
4. It was a three way race, and Perot pulled a sizeable chunk away from Bush.

As J said, I don't think its the Illiminati, or that any group could have that kind of sway over an election.

Hey, whats up with ripping on arkansas??

Sola, I thought you were at a confernce. :D
Huckabee is a great guy.

kingdavid said...

I don't know. I still think it doesn't matter who's in the office; the country is run by the money men. Social issues and special interests may play a role in whether the guy is a Dem or Rep; but in the long term scheme of things, we (the voters) just get thrown bones.

I'm not really ripping Arkansas. I've driven through the state a couple of times and have loved it. I'd go back to spend some vacation time.

SolaMeanie said...

The conference isn't until March 6-11..but I've been getting ready for it.

It's difficult..I really mean to stay off blogdom but then something either happens that demands comment on my own, or I see something someone else has posted and I can't resist chiming in.

I'm a bad boy.

Palm boy said...

I don't think the country is run by the money men. Heck, we spend just as much nation wide on chewing gum as is spent by all the canidates in a presidential election year.
If money won elections, then Perot would not have lost.
Once they are in office, I think it is the entire culture of the DC area the affects them, rather then bribes by small groups. It is the combined weight of 70 years of liberal tradition, as well as a relentless media pressure, that alters our leaders for the worse.

I figured you weren't ripping the Arkansans, its a nice place.

Sola, glad you have you. :D

Daniel said...

I’m in kingdavid’s camp on this one. Those people that he is talking about are the ones who own the Federal Reserve and who run the monetary policy of the U.S. and other nations. Bush Jr. and Bush Sr. were both, at one point or another, members of the trilateral commission, and I have no doubt that Clinton’s ‘network of political connections’ were intertwined with this group. You don’t get any support from the ‘big boys’ running the show unless you do as they say. These guys control the media (most of it I should say). They have also created the ‘liberal tradition.’ The only person to buck the system in recent history was Ronald Regan. If any one wants I can give them a list of books on this subject. Almost everything in this arena is interconnected, so it is a lot to chew on.