Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:06:27 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022202189.html
You provide a link to an account of a past presidents income to
disprove my statement that people are keeping close tabs on him? To
demonstrate that you were exaggerating his income? To confirm that
he makes most of it on the speaking circuit like I said?

Man, I'd hate to see what you would provide if you were trying to
*support* my position!

Stephen
I guess you don't remember typing, "I know he made close to that
before he got in office," which is clearly wrong.

Man, I'd hate to see you actually look at the facts!
The article did mention that they were close to broke when Hillary
was elected because they spent so much on campaigning, but it didn't
say how much they made prior to that. Did you mean to post some facts
about that?

Stephen
Do your own research! The Clintons were not very well off in the
scheme of things compared to Bush/Cheney. Please feel free to site the
instance in the article that said the Clintons used their money for
campaining and that was why they were broke.
"Indeed, the Clintons -- who left the White House with an estimated $12
million in legal debts rung up during the Whitewater, campaign
fundraising and Monica S. Lewinsky investigations..."

BTW, this was before Bill was elected. I think you need to re-read the
article.
Remember what this discussion was about? You know, the part you were
wrong about so you changed the subject? Don't you remember? About
whether Clinton was hiding payoffs from all the favors he did while he
was president? I said past presidents and VPs are watched carefully, so
it would be next to impossible for them to get any significant payoffs.
You responded by claiming Clinton was making 100 million per year? Then
you posted a link where a reporter knew his exact income?

Stephen

You can keep trying to twist the facts, but the truth is that there are
no requirements for presidents (current or former) to publish their tax
returns. The Bushs and Cheneys were wealthy before they took office and
will be wealthier when they leave office. The Clintons were relatively
less well off when they got to the White House, and eventually, they
paid their debts and Bill made a lot of money after he left office.

Bush and Cheney will make far more money for themselves (much of it will
not be examined after they leave office) and much more for their
friends. Bush and Cheney's "friends" are big oil, who now will not be
forced to be taxed on money they made from the run-up of gas prices. I
guess an extra $36B is a nice payment for Bush/Cheney and the
Republicans in the Senate.

Vote McCain for four more years of the same!
It was the Bush Administration that relaxed the rules regarding oil
speculation. That certainly worked to the advantage of some folks and
heavily against the interests of MOST folks.
Way off. You know that it is foreign oil driving up the prices, right? You
must not know that the rules you refer to are wrt domestic oil
speculation. I don't know how much domestic speculation has been
stimulated as a result, but if much has, that would drive down the price
of oil. It can't drive up the price.

Stephen



Huh? Where did you get that? Any uncertainty drives the price up. The source
is irrelevant. It's not like it's our oil vs. Saudi oil. Oil is oil, and it
fluctuates on the world market.

"Domestic speculation" refers to people looking for and presumably
finding oil in US territory. Finding more oil, especially locally,
drives down the price of oil for the US. Understand now?

Stephen