America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 9 years ago by teedubbya. 18 replies replies.
Not bad for a couple of “dead broke” people
mikey1597 Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 05-18-2007
Posts: 14,162
http://nypost.com/2014/06/17/clintons-use-loophole-to-avoid-estate-tax-they-helped-create/



and you dems want her for prez
jetblasted Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 08-30-2004
Posts: 42,595
Is that why they stole the white house china ?
mikey1597 Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 05-18-2007
Posts: 14,162
Ya, they had to pawn it to pay their bills
cacman Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
Not bad for a married couple that was BROKE after serving term as President ($400,000/annually) and starting their own Foundation that amply provides support for their daughter.
rfenst Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,360
Quit bitching. Everyone here would use any legal tax strategy/loophole they could. If you say you don't take every deduction you are allowed to, I am calling bull$hit. Besides, the 1% need to be allowed to keep their money to create jobs for the rest of us.
TMCTLT Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
rfenst wrote:
Quit bitching. Everyone here would use any legal tax strategy/loophole they could. If you say you don't take every deduction you are allowed to, I am calling bull$hit. Besides, the 1% need to be allowed to keep their money to create jobs for the rest of us.



Miss the point much? And calling bull**** on what? Have you signed up yet to carry water for all the campaign workers on Hillary's Team?
Abrignac Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,327
rfenst wrote:
Quit bitching. Everyone here would use any legal tax strategy/loophole they could. If you say you don't take every deduction you are allowed to, I am calling bull$hit. Besides, the 1% need to be allowed to keep their money to create jobs for the rest of us.


Reminds me of an old sayin, "Don't tax me, tax the guy behind the tree."

I don't think anyone here has a problem with tax planning. The problem is Hillary is on record biotching about the need to raise estate taxes for the rich who use tax strategies not available to the average citizen. Then her and Bill do the exactly that.

Kinda like Al Gore shaking the global warming pom poms while having one of the largest carbon foot prints of any one individual.

But, there's plenty of Kool Aide for those who are thirsty.
teedubbya Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
rfenst wrote:
Quit bitching. Everyone here would use any legal tax strategy/loophole they could. If you say you don't take every deduction you are allowed to, I am calling bull$hit. Besides, the 1% need to be allowed to keep their money to create jobs for the rest of us.



She should just refuse to release her tax forms which seems to be acceptable.
rfenst Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,360
TMCTLT wrote:
Miss the point much? And calling bull**** on what? Have you signed up yet to carry water for all the campaign workers on Hillary's Team?


Look, I don't care for her or hypocrisy but I don't expect anyone to pass on a legal tax loophole they want closed- until everyone else of their wealth has to. I find it to be a non-issue.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,507
TMCTLT wrote:
Have you signed up yet to carry water for all the campaign workers on Hillary's Team?



Frying pan Frying pan Frying pan

I almost spit coffee out on that one!
TMCTLT Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
rfenst wrote:
Look, I don't care for her or hypocrisy but I don't expect anyone to pass on a legal tax loophole they want closed- until everyone else of their wealth has to. I find it to be a non-issue.



You seem to find many things a non issue as long as they come from the Democratic Party. If you look at this woman's political history... And can STILL pull the lever for her, I find Mind Blowing
gryphonms Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 04-14-2013
Posts: 1,983
I think it was a miscalculation on her part. I do not want her for president, but am tired of her every comment causing mass hysteria on the far right. Meh, it's just a statement.
Burner02 Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,884
She in some regards would probably have been better than "O".


But I would not vote for either in any case.


teedubbya Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I wouldn't vote for her, but in fairnes to rfenst I don't think his comment had anyting to do with the democratic party.

over the years he has been pretty consistent on tax law. Take it if it's legal right now and available. Don't if it isn't. If you don't like it fix it. Until it's fixed.... it's there.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,507
gryphonms wrote:
I think it was a miscalculation on her part.



Seriously?

She's the most cold and calculating person to ever roam the halls of the White House. Rose Law firm documents? Backroom dealings for healthcare that got rammed down our throats by President Clownshoes? Then there's my personal favorite...coining the phrase "Vast Right WIng Conspiricy" because her husband had to get blowjobs from ugly women all the time and it just wasn't HIS fault...or HERS!!!Frying pan Frying pan Frying pan


Hillary Clinton: From “Stand By Your Man” to “Stand By Your Lies”



Once upon a time, I admired Hillary Clinton. I respected the fact that during the trials of Monica Lewinsky and all the other “mistresses” that came out of the woodworks, Hillary chose to stand by her man and tried to make things work our for the sake of her family. I thought she was an advocate for women and that she would not ignore the toils and troubles of the regular wife, mother, single mom, working or stay at home. In addition, I admired her seeming independence to be her own woman. Thus when she was appointed to be the Secretary of State, I assumed that there would be some semblance of balance within this lopsided administration.

I was wrong. It was all for show.

Over the past several years, respect has turned into disgust as I’ve watched Clinton’s flip flops, lies, and scandals (including her Benghazi performance). Now I believe the only reason she stuck with her marriage contract was to predetermine and push her forward to possibly run in the 2016 elections.

Of course, only because they’re both women, people compare Hillary’s credentials to Sarah Palin’s. In my eyes, there is no comparison. Say all you want about Sarah Palin but she laid it all on the table. She also successfully ran a state, and when she felt her leadership abilities were diverted by her VP campaign, she resigned gracefully. The only thing Ms. Clinton seems to run is the constant cover up of scandals. There is no comparison.

Do you remember her words in 2008, “Shame on you Barack Obama!”? Well, shame on you, Ms. Clinton!

Of course, as usual the MSM is trying to protect her and shield her as much as they are with Barack Obama. Thus I write this to ensure that we do not forget what kind of person we want—and don’t want—as our U.S. leaders and this is certainly not Ms. Hillary Clinton. In this arena of politics, she has shown where she stands on integrity of an administration and the transparency it was supposed to be.

But mostly, we will never forget Hillary Clinton’s words: “What difference does it make?” and her strange, ongoing performance in the Benghazi hearings.

8 months following Obama’s re-election hoopla, the hearings still haven’t answered America’s questions including:

-Why this was blamed on a video?

-Why forces were told to stand down when they allegedly could have assisted?

-Why do they continue lying and saying they didn’t know anything?

So many involved in the horrifying fiasco that is Benghazi, have retired or have “disappeared”. Ironically Susan Rice, the one who relayed that the attack was due to a “video”, has been rewarded with an appointment as National Security Advisor on June 5, 2013.

All of this reminds me of Hillary Clinton’s presidential ad, asking America “who is coming out and answering that call in the middle of the night?” “It’s 3 A.M. and your children are safe and asleep. But, there’s a phone in the White House, and it’s ringing. Something’s happening in the world. … Who do you want answering the phone?”

Ms. Clinton is supposed to be the Champion of Women as the media touted her, but instead I feel the real “War on Women” is directed at my daughters, my female friends and myself. There are reports that Clinton allegedly ignored or “wasn’t aware” of many sexual allegations coming forth, including:

•An unnamed State Department security official in Beirut “engaged in sexual assaults” on foreign nationals hired as embassy guards.

•Yet another unnamed individual, this time an ambassador who “routinely ditched … his protective security detail” and the IG believes this was in order for him to “solicit sexual favors from prostitutes.”

•Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s security detail “engaged prostitutes while on official trips in foreign countries” — a problem the IG describes as “endemic.”

CBS News reported, “In one specific and striking cover-up, State Department agents told the Inspector General they were told to stop investigating the case of a U.S. Ambassador who held a sensitive diplomatic post and was suspected of patronizing prostitutes in a public park.” CBS also reported on June 10, 2013 that in an internal State Department Inspector General’s memo several recent investigations were influenced, manipulated, or simply called off.

Many of the above were children prostitutes. So when I heard Clinton’s statement that “we learned of it from the media” I was appalled as well as disgusted. How is it that as Secretary of Sate, Hillary Clinton seems to have known very little about what her duties entailed? How is it that she seems to have been completely in the dark about what anyone under her authority was doing? Did she ever actually work? She was paid $186.600 a year; her travel and expenses were all paid for by American tax dollars. So what did she do? Was everything done simply for photo ops prepping her for a 2016 presidential run?

During her husband’s indiscretions as President, Hillary’s mantra was “Stand by your man”. Now it’s, “Stand by your lies”. At least that is what it seems to me—but then again, “What difference does it make?”

As a woman and a mother, I would someday love to see a woman as President of the United States—but not her. Never her. In my eyes, she does not embody or represent what I am as a woman. I do my best to teach my daughters to live right and straight and to be accountable and to respect life and as a woman, it does make a big difference who will champion my life–and I know it won’t be Hillary answering anyone’s call at 3 in the morning.

http://politichicks.tv/column/hillary-clinton-from-stand-by-your-man-to-stand-by-your-lies/



"Look, I'm not some Tammy Wynette standing by my man baking cookies, here." - Hillary Rodham Clinton

Yeah, you are. You did. Still are too, and now because it's an old habit you did it for the Kenyan King while you shammed the American taxpayer while you were Secretary of State doing nothing but traveling around the globe. It's a real shame that not more people see her for what she really is.
teedubbya Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
She is cold and calculating but also makes mistakes. While I agree with rfenst that if its a legal loophole jump on in, from a political perspective she'd be better off not doing so. It was a bad move.

I don't beleive she will be the nominee and I'd never vote for her even if the Republicans ran lucifer or the clone of Bush (similar I know)
TMCTLT Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
teedubbya wrote:
I wouldn't vote for her, but in fairnes to rfenst I don't think his comment had anyting to do with the democratic party.

over the years he has been pretty consistent on tax law. Take it if it's legal right now and available. Don't if it isn't. If you don't like it fix it. Until it's fixed.... it's there.



I understand to a point where your coming from, but it leaves an Incredibly Bad Taste in people's mouths when it's as TWO FACED as Anthony already pointed out. I would think nothing of it IF they weren't the ONES driving the need for change of Law regarding these matters. Let's face it.... If it weren't for attorneys.....We Wouldn't Need Them!!!
This in my estimation IS one of the problems Washington has....Too many lawyers running for public office and not near enough of them interested in " fixing IT " just want to manipulate the laws on the books and create even more for the Rest of US to live by
teedubbya Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
TMCTLT wrote:
I understand to a point where your coming from, but it leaves an Incredibly Bad Taste in people's mouths when it's as TWO FACED as Anthony already pointed out. I would think nothing of it IF they weren't the ONES driving the need for change of Law regarding these matters. Let's face it.... If it weren't for attorneys.....We Wouldn't Need Them!!!
This in my estimation IS one of the problems Washington has....Too many lawyers running for public office and not near enough of them interested in " fixing IT " just want to manipulate the laws on the books and create even more for the Rest of US to live by



We agree for the most part there. In the biz I beleive they call it bad optics. In real life we call it hypocracy.
Users browsing this topic
Guest