Are you talking about their debt and high speaking fees? They had huge legal fees at times, after all, Bill was impeached!
I think they can ethically charge whatever the market will pay for speaking fees. I read recently that Chelsea Clinton had a tv gig that wound up paying her $25,000/minute of air time.
The Bengazi situation bothers me a lot more. I don't like being lied to by my government.
I remember when this was going on and everyone was upset, both professors and students. The university had been hiking up it's tuition saying it needed to for operating costs, but then went and paid a ridiculous amount to Palin to come and speak. It was rumored to be in the $1-200,000 range. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/20/palins-csu-speaking-fees_n_544454.html
And people are still willing to pay lots of money to hear them speak, especially Bill. I think anyone who can command a speaking fee has every right to do so.
In 2011,
"Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi [a reality "star" from Jersey Shore] was paid $32,000 by a student-run committee at Rutgers University to speak on campus Thursday night. It turns out that’s $2,000 more than the university is paying author Toni Morrison — the Nobel and Pulitzer Prize-winning author — to speak at the school’s commencement in May. Given the competition in the job market, that also may be at least few thousand dollars more than some Rutgers grads will make in their first jobs out of school." http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/c...n-toni-morrison/2011/04/01/AFIlaGGC_blog.html
To be broke people like the Clintons would have to have debts that outweigh their assets.
Clearly the Clintons assets (their value on the speaking circuit) was way more than sufficient to cover any debts they accumulated in gaining those assets.
That is called 'investment'.
Anyone here who wouldn't have invested a few million, if they had it, in that is nothing short of a total financial muppet.
When they give a speech who has to pay that big money? I'm assuming it's the tax payers? If they talk at a college wouldn't the students be the ones that have to pay for that? The rich get richer while others become poorer. Spending $4.5 million on two homes doesn't strike me as something Democrats are supposed to stand for either.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.