Quote:
Originally Posted by mudwhistle
When you look at it do you want somebody who doesn't have a pot to piss in?
The Clintons didn't even own a home when they moved into the White House. By the time they left they were millionaires.. Where did they get all of their money from?
Do you want somebody who's independently wealthy or do you want someone who is living month to month and thus more likely to be on the take? I would rather have someone in there that is taking a step-down in pay then a step-up.
I really think the Democrats have their priorities out of whack.
|
Your statements here make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
The Clintons were not rich upon leaving office. They got rich shortly after they left office and wrote their books and gave their speeches.
Bill Clinton and his administration is the only one in about a century in America that actually reversed the trend of digging deeper into debt. His experience as Governor was partly due to that, but even more so, I bet it had to do with a strict moral value of his about not buying anything you can't afford, since he came from a working poor background.
The Bushes were independently wealthy and they bankrupted the country. Reagan was wealthy and he did no better.
Rich, middle, poor, doesn't matter; don't buy what you can't afford. It's common sense. But since the American public no longer accepts wanting to hear the truth, adults among them get elected to go to Washington and represent the worst among us instead of actually electing truth-tellers who have the good sense to tell us that we can no longer afford the crazy spending and borrowing habits we now have.