Heck, I used to be paid to give Talks. Not a lot, to be sure. There was that three-day event at a Tournament in Perth a few years back, mind you, where the travel and hotel was 'paid-for' luxury and the $12000 fee was quite majestic.
But then I am a King.
I talked for three entire hours for that. I am still drinking to whet my partched throat. And the subject matter was of quite useful economic importance for the audience. And for the Company of Germanic motorised Knights that paid me.
But some folks do far better than that.
Take Hillary Clinton. Please. She has her eye on a crown too. Queen of America.
People just love Hillary. She says so. Businesses vote with their wallets (well, OK, their shareholders' wallets). The ordinary folk in the street pay with stupidity. And boy oh boy does Hillary roll in all that cash and stupidity.
“Behind every great fortune,” Balzac maintained, “lies a crime.”
If there were any justice, the Clintons would be in prison for a generation of criminal activity that has left America corrupted.And Hillary does have a fortune.
Without having made anything tangible nor run a business that made a widget or a wooden spoon, she has a fortune.
Let's see what Ted Rall had to say this morning.
Hillary Clinton’s lucrative life of crime
Bill and Hillary Clinton “earned” — can a mortal earn such stratospheric sums? — “at least $30 million over the last 16 months, mainly from giving paid speeches to corporations, banks and other organizations,” The New York Times reports.
“They have now earned more than $125 million on the [lecture] circuit since leaving the White House in 2001.”
This is an important issue. But the big story has little to with what actually matters.
Coverage of the Clintons’ spectacularly lucrative speaking career has focused on how it affects Hillary’s 2016 presidential campaign — specifically the political damage caused by the public’s growing perception that Hillary is out of touch with the common man and woman. It is a promising line of inquiry for her detractors (myself included).
Allow me an interruption here, Ted ...Hillary is out of touch. She hasn’t been behind the wheel of an automobile for nearly 20 years, is a multi-multi-millionaire who nevertheless considered herself “dead broke” and still believes that she and her husband are not among “the truly well off.” (Maybe Bill still drives.)
Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton says she regrets saying that she and husband Bill Clinton left the White House "dead broke" in 2001. "I regret it. It was inartful. It was accurate. But, we are so successful and we are so blessed by the success we've had. And my husband has worked incredibly hard," Hillary Clinton told Fusion TV's Jorge Ramos in an interview Monday.
So she lies then regrets it and promptly lies again ! You have to hand it to Hillary for 'brazen'. 'Inartful'?? This is just farting in the general direction of the TV camera. OK, carry on Ted. Sorry about that.
Ostentatious wealth coupled with tonedeafness didn’t help Mitt “47 percent” Romney in 2012, or John “I can’t remember how many houses I own” McCain in 2008 — and they were Republicans, a party that gleefully despises the poor and jobless. For a Democrat under heavy fire from her party’s progressive base — with Elizabeth Warren, Bill di Blasio and Bernie Sanders leading the charge — this stuff could be politically fatal.
But the media ought to focus on the real issue. FDR was wealthy, yet he created the social safety net as we know it (what’s left of it, anyway). JFK and RFK came from money, yet no one doubted their commitment to help the downtrodden. Liberals distrust Hillary due to her and her husband’s long record of kowtowing to Wall Street bankers and transnational corporations, supporting jobs-killing “free trade” agreements, backing the NSA’s intrusions into our privacy and as an unrepentant militarist. Her progressivism appears to have died with her law career.Conflict of interest: that’s why we should be concerned about all those $250,000 speeches.The big question is: Why do corporations and banks shell out a quarter of a million dollars for a Hill Talk?Corporations and banks don’t pay big bucks to Hillary Clinton because they’re dying to hear what she has to say.
After having been front and center on the national political scene for a quarter century, she and Bill don’t have new insights to share. And even if I’m wrong — even if you’re a CEO and you’re dying to learn her ultimate (new) recipe for baking cookies — you don’t have to invite her to speak to your company to get the dish. You can ask one of your CEO pals who already had her speak at his firm — or pay to attend one of the zillions of other lectures she gives.
This is not about Hillary’s message.Corporations and banks bribe the Clintons to buy political favors.
Again, an interruption for a practical example. How about this for creative influence buying....
The speaking racket is a (flimsy) cover.Like, there’s the time Goldman Sachs paid $200,000 for a Bill Talk a few months before the financial conglomerate lobbied Hill when she was secretary of state. At least 13 companies paid Bill and Hill at least $2.5 million in similar sleazy deals.Those are just the brazen quid pro quo deals.Among the companies that have lined Hillary’s pockets over the last 16 months are “a mix of corporations (GE, Cisco, Deutsche Bank), medical and pharmaceutical groups (the California Medical Associationand the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association), and women’s organizations like the Commercial Real Estate Women Network,” the Times says. “Mr. Clinton’s speeches included a number of talks for financial firms, including Bank of America and UBS, as well as technology companies like Microsoft and Oracle.”
NBC took flak back in 2011 when it hired Chelsea Clinton as a correspondent despite her lack of journalism experience. It might have taken more if people knew how much the network was paying her:
$600,000 a year, reports Politico.
The plum salary is gone, however, because Clinton has now switched to a month-to-contract given her pregnancy and the possibility that you-know-who will run for president.
The report has media tongues wagging, with plenty of tweeted jokes about the Clintons being "dead broke” and general astonishment that she made more than former New York Times editor Jill Abramson. And what did NBC get for that salary? Not much, writes Joe Coscarelli. Her "work included little of note, either journalistically or personally."
Chelsea, out from school. Some first job eh. She now is in charge of the 'Trust' that holds all the millions, being paid a small fortune from her Mum's 'Trust' of very large millions. It's a 'Trust' to 'minimise' Tax, of course.
Go on Ted.
GE, Cisco and Deutsche Bank aren’t run by idiots. Nor are lobbying groups like the female realtors. Their boards know that Hillary may well become president. Even if she loses, those bribes — er, speaking fees — are a smart investment in Washington influence.
No, the companies are not run by idiots. Those are out there in the streets. They will vote for Hillary despite her track record for honesty, let alone her track record for political criminality. Just listen and weep.The Clintons have strong ties at the highest levels of the Democratic Party establishment and on Wall Street. If you’re GE, it makes sense to make nice with people whose help you might want someday, so they’re likelier to pick up the phone when you call to, say, grease the skids for a merger in danger of getting derailed by antitrust laws.
Laws governing the sale of political access are relatively clear, but rarely enforced. The ethics, however, are simple: Honest people don’t take money from people they may be charged with governing or regulating in the future.“Behind every great fortune,” Balzac maintained, “lies a crime.” If there were any justice, the Clintons would be in prison for a generation of criminal activity that has left America a corrupted, Third Worldified nation, poorer for having been looted by the companies and banks whose criminality they aided and abetted.
They will vote for her because she is a woman.
The Stupid outnumber the Sane.
The Stupid outnumber the Sane.
They have no idea at all about her policies, behaviour, morals or even her political affiliations !!
Amazing ! Or is it?