same thing happened with tRUMP and his many bankruptcies...the Clintons did not go belly up...they continued receiving royalties from their many books and speaking engagements...

@thinktwice Yeah, but he made money from his bankruptcies most likely because I believe he did them on purpose for some shady reason. He's not as dumb as people think he is. A criminal, yes, but not dumb.

The Clintons were $16m in debt.

Bill Clinton is known to be worth about $75m. Hillary Clinton is known to be worth about at least $50m. They supposedly made $240m in 15 years. That's about $16m a year. Those must be some great royalties and speaking fees. Some of the biggest movie and rock stars don't make that much money a year. Her book sales for Hard Choices supposedly came with a $14m advance and sold somewhere in the range of 85,000 when it came out and the second week sales dropped by about 43% to 48,000 copies. First week sales account for about 30% of the total of book sales. Even if we say 200,000 more copies would add to the other 70% then the total sales would be close to 250,000 sales? The actual total is close to 340,000 including e-books etc. She reportedly made about $5m from the book. She probably had to give back $9m of that $14m advance. She sold maybe 3x the amount from her previous book. So that's $20m total from the 2 books.

Speaking fees are a different thing and could account for the other income, but any money they would get from the Clinton Foundation wouldn't be accounted for anyway. They're not stupid either.

The point is that people will think it of Trump, but not the Clintons. And those complaining about Bernie are ridiculous.

Elizabeth Warren and her husband have a combined net worth of about $11m. He's a law professor. Her own net worth is about $8.75m, and they own a $1.9m house. All the criticism is for Bernie though and his $2-$3m accumulated over about 40 years.

Perception is a funny thing.

@Piece2YourPuzzle At least we had their tax returns to look at to see if anything shady went on...accumulating $2-$3 million over that many years is nothing...

We think Hillary was a paragon of virtues. She was not. Democrats lost the 2016 election not because of Trump but simply because of a lousy candidate like Hillary.

@St-Sinner uh, speak for yourself. I find it condescending that you use "we", when you clearly don't include yourself in that "we", nor do you have any idea if "the rest of us" agree with you.

I'm sure there people who think HRC is a paragon of virtue, and I know there are lots of people who like her better than DT, but that means nothing beyond November 2015. The fact that you think the rest of us need to know about the political games that you don't like, is your problem not ours. Its not like this is an issue that bears any discussion.

@Burner I think it bears a discussion because many among us still think after almost 3 years of losing that Hillary actually won the election in 2016. That's how she come in the picture.

@St-Sinner HRC won the popular vote by over 3 million votes. I think that negates your claim,

@jlynn37 There you go again.

It's the Clintons, I'm sure there's about 300 nefarious conspiracie theories about them skating on the debt and getting all the money they have from illegal, immoral, toxic, people killing means.

@1of5 did they learn from Trump? Why bring this up two fucking decades latet?

@TheGreatShadow because Clinton bashing will never go out of style for some people. They're the root cause of everything that's gone wrong in this country since, like, 1842 or something.

It's hardly rich. It's just astronomical compared to the majority of workers.

@Burner Hardly rich? Lol

@Piece2YourPuzzle having a few million to throw around is nothing to the mega rich.

@Burner they're rich, not wealthy. The wealthy hire the rich.

@1of5 fine ok vocabulary

@Burner Except they're worth at least $125m as far as people know. I would call that rich, regardless of someone like Jeff Bezos being worth $140b.

@Piece2YourPuzzle the stats are super complex because the mega rich are very good at hiding their wealth, but it seems like the Clintons might be in the 95% percentile for assets, but it's still a drop in the bucket... the famous 1% control as much as tthe bottom 80%. That 19% sliver is clearly living a different life than the other 80%, but they're nowhere near as rich as the 1%. By some accounting, they're what would be considered middle class. They can afford college for thier kids, a stable life, health care, retirement....

@Burner I respectfully disagree. I don't think it's complex at all. You didn't say they weren't mega rich. You said they were hardly rich. By what accounting is a couple that's worth at least $125m "middle class"? With $125m you can afford a lot more than what middle class people can afford in terms of college for their kids, health care, and retirement. They could have 60 heart transplants EACH and still have about $30m left over. Middle class income is about $40K-$122K a year. They've averaged about $16m a year over 15 years from 2001-2016 according to Forbes. So they make 131 times more a year than what the highest income middle class household makes.

@Piece2YourPuzzle Forbes has defined middle class by very different criteria than we once used. Middle class, by modern terms, is "in the middle" for more income, but in terms of "the American dream", a person with 100k and a family would have a lower standard of living now, than as middle class American from the 70s.