April 5, 2008

"On one day in Canada, he made $475,000 for two speeches, more than double his annual salary as president."

What do we think of all the money Bill Clinton has made giving speeches in his post-presidential life? It makes up more than half of the $109 million the Clintons have earned in the past 7 years.

57 comments:

Bill_45 said...

"Deserve's got nothin' to do with it. "

Bill_45 said...

Perhaps some might prefer this old Marshall Crenshaw song I've been listening to this morning, Somebody Like You (audio):

I'm so bewildered when I think about you
How can you mean all the things that you do?
Well baby
Somebody, somebody like you
Somebody, somebody like you
Somebody, somebody like you
I shouldn't be expectin' too much
From somebody like you

rhhardin said...

They're not counting the days of speech preparation, rehearsals, soul-searching and making stuff up.

Bill_45 said...

Maybe a quote from Legends of the Fall, since it was on at 5am. The son wants his father's blessing to run for congress. The father (Anthony Hopkins is a little cranky:

And what do you gentlemen hope to get out of this? What do you want for yourselves, should my son be elected? Do you think these men back you out of patriotism and admiration?

The Drill SGT said...

Obscene comes to mind.

George said...

It's what he's worth in the marketplace.

What do Bob Geldof, Elle MacPherson, Jesse Jackson, or Sara Ferguson get? Here's their agent for speechifying. No fees listed.

I'd like to see the list of all the audiences to whom Clinton has spoken.

al said...

Beats working for a living.

tituszenmasterextra said...

Its the free market and that is what he is able to get on the market.

We as republicans should respect that.

AJ Lynch said...

It sure is a great country the old USA. Wonder how the Clintons can go around saying otherwise.

I am with George too - let's see the list of WJC speech consumers.

And how about their charity? I heard they gave all or most donations to their own foundation!

The plot thickens for the two scuzzy grifters. Can Chelsea avoid ending up like her parents? I think not.

AllenS said...

Once Hillary becomes president, they'll be back to making less money. They'll be restricted on making large amounts of dough, because of the appearance of impropriety. Why would they do this? They do it because they care. They do it for America's children, chipmunks, butterflies, bunnies. You know, like Hillary's been doing for 35 years. Bill, not so much.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Bill likes Bunnies.

AllenS said...

Ruth--

After I clicked Publish, I realized that I should have used kitties. I know how this crowd thinks.

Roger said...

If WJC can make money giving speeches, I agree with Titus. Its the way the market works.

Richard Fagin said...

Echoing George, if people are willing to pay, more power to Pres. Clinton.

On the other hand, here's a guy with (effectively) no employees and no capital plant making $12 mil a year. Fine, I don't begrudge him a penny. So why is it such a "crime", as in his public expression and in the minds of many of his supporters, for corporate bigwigs to make as much or more when they have responsibility for hundreds of millions or billions in shareholders' property snd thousands ot employees? Even admitting the bad apples, most corporate bigwigs really have to perform to get all that money. What's that grudge all about?

It's just a little galling coming from the person who branded the "decade of greed."

Crimso said...

"Its the free market and that is what he is able to get on the market."

Absolutely. But it sure seems to be at odds with HRC's stated position that the government should take the oil companies' profits. Guess Marxism is great, as long as it's somebody else's money being taken. At least Big Oil actually does something for their money.

Middle Class Guy said...

I guess people will pay a lot of money to here a real, good, ole Southern boy to speak. Uncle Festus probably puts on a good show too.

There is nothing wrong with making big money. There is something wrong with making big money and attacking people who make big money. But, hey, Hillary just changed her tune. She now has nothing against rich people.

Ann Althouse said...

Remember that the poor man left the White House with $19 million in debt (from legal fees). What was he supposed to do? He needed powerful ways to rake in lots of cash and he was driven to sell himself. Who are we to judge?

Maguro said...

Capitalist pig. He should have gone into the helping industry like Michelle Obama.

Middle Class Guy said...

I never begrudge anyone making a killing. America is all about prosperity and oportunity. God bless him.

I do have disdain for their hypocrisy. It is OK for them to rake in the dough while criticizing, even demonizing others who do the same.

Middle Class Guy said...

...he was driven to sell himself. Who are we to judge?

Massive debt drove him into a life of prostitution. Randi Rhodes was wrong. Bill is the whore, not Hillary.

TMink said...

I try to avoid reading Titusoftheeverchangingname's posts. But he was spot on and brief and lucid and modest with that one. Funny too.

Bill gets what he can charge, more power to him. He is a rock star.

Trey

Fran said...

Is anyone else struck by the irony of this family raking in $50+ million from speeches, at the same time they've both been denigrating Obama as, essentially, only a speech-maker?

Also--I haven't seen anything about interest or dividend income being reported. What the heck are they doing with all that money? They don't seem to be spending it.

AJ Lynch said...

Fran:

I saw someone mocking the Clintons with this retort.."Just speeches" juxtaposed of course with Obama's "Just words".

Rer dividends, I looked at their 2006 return and it had about $500K or more in interest and dividends.

Their net worth today should be about $40 to $50 Million or therabouts.

Ann said who are we to judge? That's what your blog is for- if you take that away from us, you should just close shop.

joe said...

An audit would be interesting. I wonder if all that cash is really from making speeches or if the speechmaking business is just a front to launder money from supporters.
HA HA just kidding Bill...

Fran said...

from a.j. lynch:
Rer dividends, I looked at their 2006 return and it had about $500K or more in interest and dividends.

Their net worth today should be about $40 to $50 Million or therabouts. [end quote]

Interesting. So they've got all that money tied up in investments that return about 1% a year. Sounds like a lot of something other than bonds and blue chips. Could be real estate but if they'd bought houses or land I think we would have heard about it--that's public information. Growth stocks? Doesn't sound prudent for a couple in their 60's. Tax shelters, maybe? That's my guess.

rcocean said...

I remember when Reagan was attacked for making a post presidential speech - he was "selling the presidency" screeched the liberals.

Now its OK. I wonder if Clinton supported NAFTA because of all the foreign money he's now raking in?

Kirk Parker said...

"What do we think of all the money Bill Clinton has made giving speeches in his post-presidential life?"

More to the point, what do we think of all the people willing to pay him such vast amounts? It's worrisome to think that they might consider it worth it; it's even more worrisome to think they might be right!

Cyrus Pinkerton said...

I remember when Reagan was attacked for making a post presidential speech - he was "selling the presidency" screeched the liberals.

I assume you're referring to Reagan's two million dollar fee for a few public appearances in Japan. (If I remember correctly, Reagan gave two twenty minute speeches.)

Here's the first segment of the NYT coverage of Reagan's appearances in Japan:

Representatives of Ronald Reagan were discussing a possible contribution to Mr. Reagan's presidential library with the Sony Corporation at the same time that the former President was defending the giant electronics company's proposed takeover of Columbia Pictures, a Reagan spokesman said today.

But the spokesman, Mark Weinberg, said Mr. Reagan's comments defending Sony's proposed $3.4 billion takeover of the American film studio had no connection with the discussion of a contribution. ''President Reagan's comments were unrelated to that,'' he said.

Spokesmen for Sony were unavailable for comment.

The visit by Mr. Reagan has generated considerable criticism in the United States because Fujisankei, whose owner is a wealthy businessman who is a big supporter of the former President, paid between $6 million and $8 million to bring Mr. Reagan here, including a $2 million honorarium for Mr. Reagan himself.

Mr. Reagan concluded his nine-day visit to Japan this afternoon with a speech to a group of businessmen in Osaka. Mr. Reagan was here as a guest of the Japanese Government and Fujisankei Communications Group, a newspaper and broadcasting conglomerate.

In return for the honorarium, Mr. Reagan has given exclusive interviews to newspapers and television stations owned by Fujisankei.

tituszenmasterextra said...

I think before Clinton was president he made something like $35,000 a year as governor of Arkansas.

So the moral of the story is if you want to become rich just become president, it's that easy.

Fritz said...

Just goes to show how much money our enemies are willing to pay Bill Clinton to criticize the United States when a Republican is in office. This is tainted money.

Trooper York said...

You know, I bet Bill could make a lot of money if the next time he went on TV he wore a T-Shirt that said:

I Paid for an Abortion.

Jim said...

I don't begrudge them a dime. Rush probably doubled that in the same 7 years, and the Hog of Titus required its' own tax bracket (and area code).

bearbee said...

As of today, 700,000 British Pound = 1,397,373 US Dollar

Sept. 2006 article
£700,000 - Clinton's bill for just three speeches in London and Dublin

dick said...

He may have left with $19 million in debts for legal fees but then you have to look at what he did to get those debts. They were self-inflicted. If you can't do the time or pay the fees, don't do the crime.

Chip Ahoy said...

I'd pay for him to STFU.

LutherM said...

EITHER
"My father makes book on the corner
My mother, she makes bathtub gin
My sister makes love for a dollar
My God, how the money rolls in!

(Chorus:) Rolls in, rolls in, my God, how the money rolls in, rolls in!
Rolls in, rolls in, my God, how the money rolls in!

My grandma makes cheap prophylactics
She pierces the end with a pin
My grandpa arranges abortions
My God, how the money rolls in!

My brother's a street missionary
He saves lovely ladies from sin
He'll save you a blonde for five dollars
My God, how the money rolls in!"


OR

"you can fool all of the people some of the time,
and some of the people all of the time,
and them's pretty good odds"

PatCA said...

All these post-office perks like speeches and libraries are conduits for soft money political influence. Not a peep though in the articles about the Arab money flowing to the Clintons. I guess that's going too far for them.

No wonder Bill campaigns so hard for Hillary: her election would really pump up his "speaking fees."

http://www2.nysun.com/article/5137

Cyrus Pinkerton said...

bearbee wrote:

As of today, 700,000 British Pound = 1,397,373 US Dollar

Sept. 2006 article
£700,000 - Clinton's bill for just three speeches in London and Dublin


The value of the Pound Sterling in US Dollars today is entirely irrelevant. The value, in US Dollars, of Bill Clinton's fees for those three speeches was $1,326,500 (approximately $442K per speech). Even without accounting for inflation, Clinton's fees pale in comparison to the Japanese corporate honorarium for Reagan.

Cyrus Pinkerton said...

Fritz,

No offense intended, but the description "scary dumb" always comes to mind when I read your posts.

bearbee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bearbee said...

May 2006 article
Bill Clinton Hauls in Foreign Cash

Sloanasaurus said...

I think its great that the Clinton's have gone out and gotten rich. I have no problem with that. They made their money fair and square and have given much to charity (10%). If their taxes were lower they probably would have given even more to charity.

rcocean said...

Exactly, Cyrus.

Bill is being treated differently. As Bob "Viagra" Dole would say: "Where's the outrage?"

blake said...

So, if I understand Cyrus, the liberal outrage is that Reagan could command bigger bucks?

Cyrus Pinkerton said...

blake wrote:

So, if I understand Cyrus, the liberal outrage is that Reagan could command bigger bucks?

No, clearly you don't understand. I was correcting bearbee's faulty logic, math and grasp of reality.

As far as "outrage" at Reagan's Japanese honorarium is concerned, I have no evidence that the "outrage" was widespread and/or restricted to liberals. If you want to discuss the "outrage" and its source, why don't you make some attempt to base those claims in reality?

Clearly a fair part of the criticism of Reagan was based on the fact that he appeared to be stumping for the corporate interests paying his fees and expenses. I suggest you reread the section of the NYT article that I posted for a more detailed explanation.

Cyrus Pinkerton said...

rcocean wrote:

Bill is being treated differently. As Bob "Viagra" Dole would say: "Where's the outrage?"

Anyone who claims that Bill Clinton's behavior in and out of office hasn't resulted in "outrage" by both liberals and conservatives simply isn't paying attention.

rcocean said...

I remember 1989-1990 and the liberal MSM, lead by the NYT, were outraged over Reagan's moneymaking Japan Speech - they are not Outraged over Clinton's money making speeches.

That's because liberals deal in double standards, double think, and double talk. Their only consistent position is "Liberal good, conservative bad".

PatCA said...

I have no problem with Bill Clinton getting rich either, but I do think the sources of his income should be revealed. And things like a $165 million "library" should undergo more scrutiny.

It's gotten out of hand, just like lobbying by legislators' family members or legislators voted out of office.

Cyrus Pinkerton said...

rcocean wrote:

I remember 1989-1990 and the liberal MSM, lead by the NYT, were outraged over Reagan's moneymaking Japan Speech - they are not Outraged over Clinton's money making speeches.

Apparently your memory is poor, and as far as I can tell, you've freely substituted fiction for fact. You haven't provided a shred of evidence to show that the "liberal MSM" was "outraged" over Reagan's honorarium. Also, you conveniently overlook media criticism of Clinton's post-presidency profiteering. In other words, you aren't being accurate or honest.

That's because liberals deal in double standards, double think, and double talk. Their only consistent position is "Liberal good, conservative bad".

This is pathetic partisan drivel of the worst kind. In the future, if you don't have an intelligent comment to contribute, how about remaining silent?

Trooper York said...

Hey I just got this new book:

"It's a Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environments" By Amanda Marcotte.

It's actually pretty amusing.

MadisonMan said...

I wonder what Ken Starr makes in speechifying these days.

Joe said...

Amazing that there are fools willing to pay to listen to blithering nonsense.

My only concern is how much of this money is an indirect way to pay off Hillary. Even if it's innocent, it smacks of corruption.

rcocean said...

"This is pathetic partisan drivel of the worst kind. In the future, if you don't have an intelligent comment to contribute, how about remaining silent?"

Once again, the left tries to silence what they cannot refute.

As for providing "proof", what would be the point? You're not an open minded independent commentator - you're a liberal hack. A left wing soldier fighting for the cause.

Revenant said...

I don't mind that Bill Clinton makes a ton of money giving speeches. I'm more bothered by the money he made selling pardons and renting rooms in the White House. *That* bugs me. Private citizens can earn money however the heck they want. If somebody wants to pay Bill Clinton to do something he regularly does for free, hey, it's their money. :)

Cyrus Pinkerton said...

rcocean wrote:

As for providing "proof", what would be the point?

Spoken like a true partisan hack.

Once again, the left tries to silence what they cannot refute.

Pure idiocy, as usual. First, I do not represent "the left." Second, my suggestion that you remain silent if you cannot provide intelligent commentary is no different than Lincoln's observation that it is "better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." In your feeble mind, does that make Lincoln part of "the left?"

bearbee said...

No, clearly you don't understand. I was correcting bearbee's faulty logic, math and grasp of reality.

Clearly you are a moron. My motive was to link to a 2006 article showing that this latest article on his speaking fees was nothing new, and to convert BSP into USD for a frame of reference. And yes, with the devaluing dollar, converting 2006 currencies into today's money is a distortion. That is why it was labeled 'as of today'.

There was no effort whatsoever to compare with Reagan fees or the fees of any other pol. That was where your peabrain chose to take it.

As a believer in a free market, if someone or group wishes to pay out obscene amounts of money, so be it. For myself, I would not pony up even $1 to listen to any pol.

Cyrus Pinkerton said...

bearbee wrote:

Clearly you are a moron. My motive was to link to a 2006 article showing that this latest article on his speaking fees was nothing new, and to convert BSP into USD for a frame of reference. And yes, with the devaluing dollar, converting 2006 currencies into today's money is a distortion. That is why it was labeled 'as of today'.

Bearbee, your general stupidity on this topic disqualifies you from judging the intelligence of others. Now, aside from those who choose to remain ignorant (rcocean for example), we are all aware of the many articles from the last several years that have reported Bill Clinton's speaking fees. And if you wanted to provide some kind of estimate for the value of the pound sterling relative to the dollar in 2006, it would have been sensible to provide any of the following:

- a very rough estimate applicable to September 2006 (e.g., $2 per £1)

- a better estimate applicable to September 2006 (e.g., $1.9 per £1)

- a rate based on an average daily value for a specific date for September (e.g., $1.8949 on Sept 26, 2006), or

- a rate based on some sort of average for the relevant time period in September 2006

What you did was not sensible. You used a current (April 2008) dollar-to-pound sterling rate, which is just plain goofy, and then reported the result to seven significant figures. This makes no sense logically or mathematically. I thoughtfully corrected your errors.

There was no effort whatsoever to compare with Reagan fees or the fees of any other pol. That was where your peabrain chose to take it.

This is simply untrue. You uncritically and without comment linked to an article that, among other things, compares Reagan's fees to those of Clinton. If you didn't intend to include that aspect of the article in your comment, you should have so stated. The fact that I read and understood the entire linked article and you did not indicates that the "peabrain" belongs to you, not me.

Please get a clue, bearbee. Given that there was a need to correct your faulty logic, math and grasp of reality, you shouldn't complain that I made the corrections. Get over it.