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.

You must have lost track of what we were talking about because you are
now supporting my position. Funny. Past presidents and the like can
easily do very well income-wise speaking, writing books and a variety of
legal ways, just like Clinton has done, and so they have no reason at
all to do huge favors for anyone while they are in office.

Stephen

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
You must have lost track of what we were talking about because you are now
supporting my position. Funny. Past presidents and the like can easily do
very well income-wise speaking, writing books and a variety of legal ways,
just like Clinton has done, and so they have no reason at all to do huge
favors for anyone while they are in office.


Your contention was that politicians will not seek profit for their friends
while in office, and now you're claiming that they don't because they'll
make money after they leave office. In addition, you said that former
Presidents and VP are somehow accountable, and that their finances are
"tracked" with some requirement to do that. Both statements are patently
absurd.

You claimed that Clinton came into office well off. I provided a link that
disproved this.

I also provided a link that shows that Cheney was wealthy and will likely be
more so after he leaves office, all the while enriching his oil buddies. You
claimed that this will be closely monitored, which is also absurd.

Politicians have and will continue to break laws to enrich their friends.
Bush and Cheney are prime examples.

When asked by Martha Raddatz of ABC his reaction to 70% of the people
disagreeing with the reason and prosecution of the Iraqi war, Cheney's
response was, and I quote, "So?" Cheney would and has sacrificed what is
good for the US in the name of big oil and flawed ideology.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com