Obama Supporters, Use This Info Or STFU: Bill & Hillary's Recent Meteoric Rise In Wealth

[KittyWampus]

Dear Obama Supporters, either start using this info on a daily basis or STFU when it comes to the Clinton's negative campaigning.
I've seen relevant info be posted here on DU time and again, but sink into oblivion because too many Obama supporters get distracted by some stupid, disruptive flamebait.

The Clinton's have had a stratospheric rise in wealth in the last few years. They can claim that Bill has suddenly started getting hundreds of thousands of dollar more per speaking fee but they'd have to release their tax returns to prove that... and they won't. Even though some of that huge wealth was loaned to their current primary campaign.

The Media has allowed the Clintons' to go unvetted on this.

We KNOW that Gupta was sued by shareholders for paying Bill Clinton millions for doing absolutely nothing.

We KNOW Clinton lobbied for Dubai during the Ports Deal. He can say he wasn't paid anything for it, but without their joint tax information, we would have to take them at their word.

Bill and Hillary Clinton's Recent Meteoric Rise in Wealth
(Graphs, Links, and Thoughts)
http://thememlingindex.com/hillary_clinton_net_worth-wealth.html

Since they first entered politics back in mid 1970s until as recently as 2003, the Clintons maintained a relativly modest level of net wealth. Even in the three years following Bill Clinton’s presidency their combined net worth remained surprising low - with much of Hillary’s $8 million book deal and other earnings getting eaten up by outstanding legal fees associated with numerous investigations during the presidential years.

So what exactly happened between 2004 and the present that explains the Clinton's meteoric growth in person wealth? The conventional wisdom is that Bill Clinton’s new career giving speeches explains the sudden increase. If this is true, how and why did the speaking circuit proved so much more lucrative in the three years between 2004 and 2006 than it did in the three years between 2001 and 2003?

Just how is it that the three years of speaking gigs before January 1, 2004 had little effect on the Clinton’s net wealth while the three years of speaking gigs after January 1, 2004 caused it to multiply by more that 15 times?

Perhaps there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for all this but I think the subject certainly merits some more scrutiny by the press, if for no other reason than confirm or put to rest Dick Morris’s conspiracy theories.

The links under the graphs below show that the MSM is starting to take a closer look at Bill Clinton’s recent business activities. However, the question of how, or if, these activities have contributed to the Clinton's post-2003 exponential growth in wealth still remains unanswered. The fact that the Clinton campagn is now starting to tap into this recently-created fortune.

THE FACT THAT THEY WON'T RELEASE THEIR TAX RETURNS makes this all significant.

[whatchamacallit]

1. Looks like help from your neighborhood BFEE to me

Poppy and the boys done bought themselves an ex-president.

[OzarkDem]

2. BS

Welcome to DU :eyes:

[goldcanyonaz]

4. Great night for Ohio, Ozark!

:woohoo:

[truebrit71]

6. Why won't your candidate tell the truth? What is she hiding?

?

[blm]

22. Dubai and Saudi royals aren't BFEE? They were when they were staking terrorist bank BCCI

and isn't that the same terrorist bank that had so many outstanding matters pending when Bill took office and deep-sixed all those matters for GHWBush, Jackson Stephens (the man who groomed and bankrolled Clintons political careers)Marc Rich, Bin Ladens, AQ Khan, Adnan Khashoggi, James Bath - along with the Dubai and Saudi royals who have been lining Bill's bank accounts by the tens of millions in recent years?

[frylock]

24. yep..

that's the one.

[truebrit71]

3. What are they hiding?

.

[ClassWarrior]

32. Long time since I've seen that meme on these boards.

NGU.

[Flabbergasted]

5. That's amazing

[Fox Mulder]

7. Well obviously they're hiding something.

What it is, I don't know but it's unsettling nonetheless.

[KittyWampus]

9. Wonder if Dubai DID pay Bill Clinton some lobbying fees while he helped them get that Port Deal

[katty]

8. Obama needs to really fight back-now-that is how politics

works. It maybe unfortunate to have to do that, but that is the reality.

[rinsd]

10. Here are Hillary's Senate financial dicslosure forms.

2005 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/fin_dis/2005/c001041.pdf

2006 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/fin_dis/2006/c001041.pdf

More info at WaPo's Congressional database http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/c001041/

[KittyWampus]

11. I want to know where all BOTH their income orginates. Did Bill get paid by Dubai

[aquart]

31. Is Dubai money illegal?

[KittyWampus]

35. LOL! You have no problem with Clinton essentially being a lobbyist for Dubai & other countries?

[blm]

46. It would be if Bill hadn't PROTECTED THEM for their roles in BCCI along with GHWBush and

Jackson Stephens, Bin Ladens, Marc Rich, AQ Khan, James Bath.....

I wonder what protecting Dubai and others' roles in BCCI matters throughout the 90s has been worth to Clintons?

[Skinner]

12. Just a guess:

Perhaps all he money they earned from 2001 to 2003 went toward paying off their multi-million dollar debt. If they paid off the debt sometime around 2003/2004, then everything they earn after that goes toward increasing their net worth.

The graph above might be more enlightening if it subtracted their debts from their net worth. I suspect they would have had a negative net worth for most of the last decade. Also, there would not have been such a sharp up-tick in the curve around 2003/2004.

According to this article, the most debt they had at any point was $10.5 million. So, your graph should have started way below the $0 line.

[KittyWampus]

13. the link provided goes into detail- it has plenty of supporting links and does mention legal debts

" I have read in several places that the Clinton's were almost broke in the late 90s due to legal bills so if anything the post-1992, pre-2003 numbers might be a bit lower than my estimates. But again, adjusting for this would have little impact on the graph and if anything make the "J" curve at the end of the timeline all the more dramatic

1991 = $ 697,000
Got figure from...
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/1992/07/01/87389/index.htm



1993 = $ 1,126,508
(I used the midpoint of the reported range of $633,015 - $1,620,000)
Got figure from...
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE4DB1438F93BA25756C0A962958260



2003 = $2,076,000
(I used the midpoint of the reported range of $352,000 to $3,800,000)
Got figure from...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/senators.finances/



2006 = $34,900,000
Got figure from...
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/moneymag/0712/gallery.candidates.moneymag/index.html



I have read in several places that the Clinton's were almost broke in the late 90s due to legal bills so if anything the post-1992, pre-2003 numbers might be a bit lower than my estimates. But again, adjusting for this would have little impact on the graph and if anything make the "J" curve at the end of the timeline all the more dramatic

[Skinner]

15. I'm not quibbling with any of the stats provided. I'm just answering the question posed in the OP:

"So what exactly happened between 2004 and the present that explains the Clinton's meteoric growth in person wealth?"

As I said, my response is just a guess. But perhaps what happened right around 2003/2004 is that they paid off their multi-million-dollar debts. So their earnings from 2001 - 2003 all went toward paying off their debt, and their earnings from 2004 - present went toward increasing their net worth.

In other words: They might have been earning a lot of money from 2001 - 2003. I think it's likely that they were. But it doesn't show up in a net-worth graph.

[Celebration]

14. "net: worth", by definition

has the debt subtracted.

Assets minus liabilities=net worth

Not saying that the graph is accurate, or inaccurate. But it cannot be called net worth without the debts being included (as a negative).

[redqueen]

17. Thanks for pointing that out. (nt)

[Skinner]

18. I don't think we can assume that whoever created the graph...

...was subtracting debt when he or she calculated the Clinton's net worth. In fact, considering that the person who created it is advocating for a particular point of view, I think there is a good chance that debt was not included.

ON EDIT:

If you look closely at the graph, you will see that *no* actual numbers were provided for the years 1994 - 2002. THEY ARE ALL ESTIMATES, which appear to have been determined by simply drawing a straight line from their 1993 net worth to their 2003 net worth. 1994 to 2002 would have been their PRIME YEARS for accumulating debt. For all we know, the real numbers may have dropped like a stone from 1994 to 2000, down to somewhere in the negative millions of dollars, and then started climbing back up in 2001, after Bill left office.

So, the real answer to the question is this: Based on the data provided, we don't have any clue what happened to the Clinton's net worth between 1993 and 2003. THE SHARP TURN AT 2003 IS AN ILLUSION BASED ON THE WAY THE AUTHOR OF THE GRAPH ESTIMATED THE CLINTONS' NET WORTH. The only years we have actual data for are 1991, 1993, 2003, and 2006!

[KittyWampus]

20. Chicago Tribune June2005- Clintons paid off Legal Debts, estimated at 8 million

That number of 8 million is mentioned on the website I linked to..

It's figuratively a blip in the bucket on that graph.

[Skinner]

23. Not a blip in the bucket. Whether it's 8 million or 10 million...

...it's about a quarter of their maximum net worth in 2006.

But let's not miss the point here. Obviously, the Clinton's are fabulously wealthy. That they have made a lot of money since Bill left office is obvious. No one can disagree.

My point is this: There is an insinuation here that something inappropriate occurred somewhere around 2003, which led to a sudden acceleration in the rate at which they acquired wealth. But the apparent sharp turn in 2003 could very well be an illusion, caused by the manner in which the author of the graph estimated their net worth. The sharp turn might not be real. It is possible (in fact, it is likely) that the Clintons have been earning money hand-over-fist since the moment Bill left office in 2001. But that fact doesn't show in your graph because the data provided from 1994 through 2002 is almost certainly wrong. It's just a straight line drawn by the author of the graph. The real data would almost certainly look like a "U" or a "V" with the Clinton's net worth sinking from 1993 through 2000 while they accumulated legal debts, and then taking a sharp upward turn in January 2001 which has continued through 2003, 2006 and beyond.

In other words: There is no evidence that *anything* unusual happened in 2003.

[aquart]

33. I hate to break it to you. $34 million is NOT "fabulously wealthy."

It's more than most of us have, but it ain't fabulous. It isn't even close. So please stop lying because you never imagined anyone could actually earn that much. Not when mere executives were getting $17 million dollar annual bonuses ten years ago when the dollar was worth something. Have you even looked at executive compensation?

Bill Clinton's name and appearance are worth money. Are you saying he doesn't have the right to charge what the market will bear?

[Skinner]

39. You have got to be kidding me.

Perhaps you didn't read my post very closely. I'm defending the Clintons.

You're calling me a liar because I called them "fabulously wealthy"? Apparently the bar to be called a liar has been lowered so much that you can be called one if you don't use the appropriate adjective for "very." How's this: They're "somewhat more affluent than the average American family"? Am I a liar now?

[blm]

44. Have you even HEARD of Dubai ports deal? Or that those dollars STAKED a giant share of BCCI?

The same BCCI whose matters were deep-sixed throughout the 90s.

[KittyWampus]

36. 8 million in debt divided by 4.5 years is less than 2 million a year. So the sudden MASSIVEark

jump is inexplicable.

That goes to the first point you brought up.

And as for estimating the Clintons' wealth in interim years- the person compiled as much data as was available. It makes little difference if there were slight rises and differences year to year when it comes to the reported massive spike. There is enough information about how much the Clintons have earned to show something happened to flush money their way.

[Skinner]

38. You are missing the point.

The reason the graph shows a sharp turn at 2003 is because there are only four "points" on the graph. Someone took a straight edge and connected the points. One of the points is at 2003, so that's where you get a sharp turn.

Think.

Imagine if the graph only had three points: 1991, 1993, and 2006. Connect the dots with a straight edge. What would it look like? It would look like the Clintons got a massive and sudden increase in wealth starting in 1993.

Now, imagine if the graph had four points: 1991, 1993, 2000, and 2006. Connect the dots with a straight edge. What would it look like? It would look like the Clintons got a massive and sudden increase in wealth starting in 2000. (Except the starting point of the spike would be lower than the 2003 starting point -- probably somewhere in negative territory.)

So, the point is this:

Obviously, the Clintons have made a lot of money. Obviously, sometime between 1993 and 2003 the rate at which their wealth increased accelerated significantly. But your graph does not prove that 2003 is the year when it happened. It might have been 2001 -- the year when Bill Clinton became a private citizen. The only way we can know for sure is if we fill in the blanks with *real* information about the Clintons' net worth for the years between 1993 and 2003.

Do you need me to draw a graph?

[Lucinda]

16. Thanks for the perspective.

:hi:

[Phillycat]

27. Off-topic: Skinner, do you support one candidate or the other?

Just curious...

[Skinner]

40. I voted for one of them in the DC presidential primary.

But I would have gladly voted for both if I could. I like them both and I do not have a strong preference.

For the purposes of this thread, it should be obvious that I'm defending the Clintons. Just as I have defended Obama on occasion when I happen to see him being attacked unfairly.

[NashVegas]

19. Here's One of the Articles That's Based On

Although she takes in $165,200 a year as a senator, these days Bill is breadwinner-in-chief. His presidential pension is $201,000 a year, and he grabbed a $12 million advance for his 2001 memoir, "My Life." (Her "Living History" won an advance of $8 million and $7 million in royalties.)

But it's been Bill's great gift for gab that has really feathered the Clintons' nest. He earned an astounding $41 million speaking to groups and corporations in the first six years since he left office. Standard fee: $150,000. The fact that he may be married to the next President can only burnish his star power.

more ...

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/moneymag/0712/gallery.candidates.moneymag/index.html

[KittyWampus]

21. Clintons' Legal Debt was at most 8 million. That figure doesn't make a dent in the graphs

[Hutzpa]

25. Thanks for posting n/t

[Mutley]

26. How many people here said John Kerry shouldn't have to release his tax information

in 2004? A lot, I remember.

[ProSense]

28. Kerry released his becaus he had nothing to hide. n/t

[Mutley]

29. That was not the point I was making. n/t

[aquart]

30. Dick Morris?????

Definitely, you should go with the toesucker. Of course, he's been out of the Clinton loop how long?

[Perry Logan]

34. Democratic Underground here. That's DEMOCRATIC.

[NorthernSpy]

37. Tell you what. You tell that to the Hillary supporters who've justified "OJ"ing Obama's photo...

... first.

Or how about that business where Hillary herself boosted McCain against Obama, our own frontrunner? Nice how you people defended that too -- just like every other shitty thing she's done.


Under the circumstances, don't you dare preach Democratic loyalties to us.

[Perry Logan]

43. Spare me your smears. You Obamites have disgraced yourselves and DU.

[blm]

47. Did you tell that to Bill when he protected BushInc throughout the 90s after HONEST Dems

had worked for years to uncover and expose the crimes of office of GHWBush and his cronies like Jackson Stephens, Dubai and Saudi royals, Bin Ladens, Marc Rich, et al?

Had Bill Clinton acted like a Democrat with integrity he would have allowed TRUTH to matter and the nation's historic record to reflect an accurate telling of what occured - which also would have made a Bush2 impossible and made it unlikely that 9-11 event would occur, lat alone this Iraq war.

[NorthernSpy]

41. you're right, cryingshame...

We should use this.

It would not have been right to do it before, but now it's just self-defense.


I like your Dubai angle. Very good counter to Hillary's FUD spreading against Barack.

[1776Forever]

42. Bill Clinton May Get Payout of $20 Million - New York Times Article & 3 Mill from Gupta Ties

Bill Clinton May Get Payout of $20 Million

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120097424021905843.html?mod=blog

By JOHN R. EMSHWILLER
January 22, 2008; Page A1

Former President Clinton stands to reap around $20 million -- and will sever a politically sensitive partnership tie to Dubai -- by ending his high-profile business relationship with the investment firm of billionaire friend Ron Burkle.

Mr. Clinton is negotiating to end his relationship with Mr. Burkle's Yucaipa Cos. as part of a broader effort to protect the presidential campaign of his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, from potential conflicts of interest. Details of Mr. Clinton's involvement in Yucaipa and his efforts to unwind it come from documents and interviews with people familiar with the matter.

..............

And the $3 million from Vin Gupta tie along with free use of his jet and free trips all over the world!;

http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/may/30vin.htm

Vin Gupta: The man the Clintons love

Aziz Haniffa in Washington, DC | May 30, 2007

Vinod 'Vin' Gupta, 60, founder, chairman and CEO of infoUSA -- one of America's largest consumers of information with millions of clients -- is probably the single biggest contributor to the Democratic Party over the years.

He is a longtime Clinton benefactor, who has suddenly found himself thrust into the public domain in the wake of major articles in the New York Times and the Washington Post regarding his use of his company's private jet to fly the former President and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on personal, business and campaign trips.

Some shareholders in infoUSA have filed a lawsuit alleging that all of this was 'a waste of corporate assets', and an effort by Gupta to 'ingratiate himself', with these high-profile guests.

(snip)

From then on, Gupta courted the Clintons and in turn, was afforded the opportunity of spending a night in the White House Lincoln Bedroom -- the first Indian American to do so.

As his sustained contributions to the Democrats continued to flow, Clinton offered him the post of first Counsel General to Bermuda and then the Ambassadorship to Fiji, both of which Gupta declined. While he maintained this was for business reasons, it was rumored to be because there were doubts his nomination would be confirmed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee due to alleged violations of Securities and Exchange Commission rules.

Just before his second term ended, Clinton appointed Gupta as a member to the prestigious Board of Trustees of the John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. But even with Clinton out of the White House, Gupta's friendship with the now former President grew, and he brought him on as a consultant to infoUSA and, according to the lawsuit, beyond nearly $3 million in consulting fees, had flown the Clintons and himself to Acapulco, Mexico, on a vacation in 2002 and also to Switzerland, Hawaii and Jamaica. He was also said to have provided corporate jets for Mrs. Clinton at least seven times since 2002, although it was unclear whether he had done so after she began her Presidential campaign.

..............

Oh yeah - And Clinton's are talking about Resko????????? ROTFL!!!!!!!!!! Right - And what do they think won't stick when she is "vetted" by the Repub's - time for Obama to get tough and start talking about this!!!


:applause:

[KittyWampus]

45. Yes, this is about 10's of millions being funneled into Clintons' coffers.