Clintons Sell Possibly Troublesome Stock

[Toro]

Why not answer the question?

How much more in taxes do you want the small minority of payers to fork over to the government?

Well, since I want the economy and stocks to do well, and since you keep referencing the Dow's all time high as proof that Bush's policies are working, and since Sweden's stock market has done twice as well America's, I guess the answer is to have that small minority pay even more.

That's only logical, right?

 

[red states rule]

Well, since I want the economy and stocks to do well, and since you keep referencing the Dow's all time high as proof that Bush's policies are working, and since Sweden's stock market has done twice as well America's, I guess the answer is to have that small minority pay even more.

That's only logical, right?

Ok. How much more?

Consider with all the other taxes, the producers are paying over 50% of their income in taxes.

Also, under Pres Peanut Carter, the top rate was 70% and the economy was in the toilet

Sweden's economy is equal to what - the economy of NJ?

 

[Toro]

Okay, look at France, with their high taxes, high unionization and restrictive labour policies

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=EWQ&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=spy

French stocks have doubled US stocks.

Therefore, by your logic, France has a better economy and better policies than America.

 

[red states rule]

Okay, look at France, with their high taxes, high unionization and restrictive labour policies

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=EWQ&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=spy

French stocks have doubled US stocks.

Therefore, by your logic, France has a better economy and better policies than America.

France jsut tossed out the libs and went with conservatives. France has come a long way since workers rioted in the street when they found out they would have to work a 40 hour week -

 

[red states rule]

ABC Pretends Bill Clinton Left White House In Deep Debt, Forgets Hillary's Book Deal
Posted by Tim Graham on June 16, 2007 - 22:45.
On Friday's Good Morning America, ABC reporter Dan Harris relayed the news that Bill Clinton and Al Gore are now very rich men. But he couldn't do it without mangling a fact or two. Harris began:

"Think about it, when Bill Clinton and Al Gore both left the White House, they both had some serious financial problems. Now they both have some serious cash. President Clinton left power in 2001 dogged by legal bills. But last year, he made more than $10 million in paid speeches, according to new federal filings released by his wife’s presidential campaign."

When Bill Clinton left the White House, his wife had already agreed to an $8 million book advance. If the Clinton marriage means their assets are held in common, it couldn't accurately be said Clinton "had some serious financial problems" with the legal bills. Harris also ignored the Clintons had a multi-million-dollar legal defense fund to defray costs. Listen to NBC's Andrea Mitchell touting Bill's big $12 million book deal in August 2001:

"The deal is so big, Clinton will be able to pay off his lawyers, still owed almost $4 million, after raising more than $8 million in a legal defense fund. And he’ll even have money left over for the mortgages on his two luxury homes -- the $2.8 million Washington mansion and the $1.7 million house in Chappaqua."

http://newsbusters.org/node/13518

 

[Toro]

France jsut tossed out the libs and went with conservatives. France has come a long way since workers rioted in the street when they found out they would have to work a 40 hour week -

I don't think they've come "a long way" but I do think its a good start.

There is a long way to go still.

 

[red states rule]

I don't think they've come "a long way" but I do think its a good start.

There is a long way to go still.

It is like San Francisco tossing out the Speaker of State Belosi

 

[mattskramer]

Why not answer the question?

How much more in taxes do you want the small minority of payers to fork over to the government?

Notice how he subtly changes the subject since he was caught on the issue of the blind trust.

 

[red states rule]

Notice how he subtly changes the subject since he was caught on the issue of the blind trust.

Why didn't you post the question I was responding to?

Originally Posted by Toro
Well, by your logic, it would be better for stocks and the economy if taxes were higher.



I did address the blind trust issue - you seem to have "overlooked" it

 

[mattskramer]

Why didn't you post the question I was responding to?

Originally Posted by Toro
Well, by your logic, it would be better for stocks and the economy if taxes were higher.



I did address the blind trust issue - you seem to have "overlooked" it

Then direct me to the specific post #.

Look at post # 11 on this thread. Look at the comment and your reply in post # 11.

Similarly, look at post # 15. Look at the comment and your reply in post # 15.

Again, RetiredGySgt explained “Blind Trusts” very clearly on post # 16 and 19.

Yet, you never admit that since it was a blind trust, the Clintons did not know what was going on with this particular investment. Oh well. I guess that I should not expect any significant degree of class out of you. In other financial dealings the Clintons might have known what their money was going toward. You might raise points with other examples, but in this case it was a blind trust. Therefore, your argument falls flat.

 

[hjmick]

Look, I don't much care for the Clintons, but this is perhaps the biggest nonstory of last weeks news cycle.

 

[mattskramer]

Look, I don't much care for the Clintons, but this is perhaps the biggest nonstory of last weeks news cycle.

I don’t like the Clintons. I think that Bill Clinton was an embarrassment to the nation and that he should have resigned or been forced by congress to leave office. What gets me is that RSR made an obvious technical error in this thread. Yet, probably due to his strong anti-Clinton bias, he will not admit to it.