Very much worth reading, where Chelsie claims she doesn't like money

http://neveryetmelted.com/2014/06/24/the...a-clinton/

(06-30-2014 07:21 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Very much worth reading, where Chelsie claims she doesn't like money

http://neveryetmelted.com/2014/06/24/the...a-clinton/

My life experience has taught me it is easy to say you don't like money when you have money.

I grew up dirt poor. My mother and father were from the hills of eastern Ohio and West Virginia. To say their families had a pot to piss in is being generous. Both of my grandfather's died at an early age and my grandmother's were left raising a familyo n their own. I was also a teen-age pregnancy (my dad was 17 and my mother 16). My dad graduated from high school and my mom got her GED. Truth be told there was a couple generations of poverty on both sides of my family already. My parents continued the cycle.

I decided that was not for me. I studied and worked my way through college and a post graduate education. I make a very fine living. I also married well. I have lived with and without money and I would take having money over the alternative every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

(06-30-2014 07:45 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(06-30-2014 07:21 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Very much worth reading, where Chelsie claims she doesn't like money

http://neveryetmelted.com/2014/06/24/the...a-clinton/

My life experience has taught me it is easy to say you don't like money when you have money.

I grew up dirt poor. My mother and father were from the hills of eastern Ohio and West Virginia. To say their families had a pot to piss in is being generous. Both of my grandfather's died at an early age and my grandmother's were left raising a familyo n their own. I was also a teen-age pregnancy (my dad was 17 and my mother 16). My dad graduated from high school and my mom got her GED. Truth be told there was a couple generations of poverty on both sides of my family already. My parents continued the cycle.

I decided that was not for me. I studied and worked my way through college and a post graduate education. I make a very fine living. I also married well. I have lived with and without money and I would take having money over the alternative every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

For me it is a balance. I grew up with decent money. My dad is a lawyer, and while not "rich" or "wealthy", we took vacations, went to private school, and spent our summers at a country club. Problem is, my dad worked all the time during the week and traveled relatively frequently. I decided that wasn't the life for me. I found myself a niche that pays pretty well, but I am home by 6:00 probably 29 days out of 30 and maybe put in 12 hours of work on the weekend throughout an entire year. I don't make probably half has much money as my dad, but I'd rather have my life than his. I have also been poor... got cut off from my parents money and/or assistance at 22 and was living on my own, making $9/hour for about 3 years before I got my first decent job. I'd rather have money than be poor, but I'd rather not make a lot of money than work 80 hours per week and not be able to spend a lot of time with my family. Going on a couple of big vacations every year was nice, but it didn't make up for the time dad wasn't around. We still go on vacations too. Instead of big family ski trips to Colorado, we dive to the Pennsylvania and ski there. Instead of going to the Caymans or Aruba, we drive down to Hilton Head. I believe we have just as much fun.

I loved this line;

Quote:No, Hillary, contra your interview in The Guardian, you didn’t strike it rich by “hard work.” Swanning around the world staying in five-star hotels, reading speeches drafted by someone else and signing your name to books written by someone else is not exactly quarry labor.

How awesome is this pic....

(06-28-2014 11:53 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 05:46 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 04:45 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Because it's a great usage of pathos. In a nation that is as class conscious as we've every been (with little ability to actually be that way) you have to demonstrate where you stand and with poorer people that means you have to be "real". Rich people who acknowledge their wealth aren't well received (example: Romney) because in some people's eyes, they aren't capable of understanding anything besides fancy dinners and being socialites.

I know at one point it was almost impossible to not hear the words "Scott Brown" and "pickup truck" in the same sentence, trying to appeal to the voters that value that type of thing.

I think what you say has a lot of truth to it, and frankly it's rather sad and pathetic and discerning and maddening.

Since when, in THIS country do we celebrate or cater to or wish to "identify" with the losers? Not to say that all poor or lower rung folks are losers, but what the hell is it nowadays with the working class worship crap? Why are "we" now apologizing for those that achieve? Why would anyone want to say they can identify with being poor if they actually can't?

Does that make one more virtuous? More "pure" or something? Salt of the earth, perhaps? Hell I do what I do and live how we live so that someday, hopefully I can make damn well SURE that neither of my kids will ever have to worry about a place to live or their next meal.

There was a time, not so long ago, when everyone (loosely speaking) had ambition to identify with the climbers and achievers. Optimisim, go get it ism, chasing your dreamsism. Now? It's depressing. Dress like a bum, live like a bum, work for a bums wage and you're celebrated. Make it on your own and drop a cool couple hundred Mill in the bank account and your vilified and derided as some kind of social pariah.

It's the Country I once knew turned upside down. Makes NO sense.

A lot of what you said is true, but the left doesn't hate everyone who's successful. The don't seem to mind actors and musicians being rich. Or Bill Gates or the Facebook guy. And John Kerry and Edwards had how much money between them? They don't hate Bloomberg or Soros.

The left is stupid. Someone tells them to hate persons A, B, and C and they do even though the people dictating that hate are doing the same this A, B, and C are.

LOL. Like that never happens on the right.

(06-30-2014 07:21 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Very much worth reading, where Chelsie claims she doesn't like money

http://neveryetmelted.com/2014/06/24/the...a-clinton/

And those stupid people that vote for these kind of demoncrats actually believe what these people (the rich democratic politicos) say.

Ever Respect, you really had it bad. The only skiing I went to was the curb next to my house when the streets froze overnight.

Buddy, as much as you try to portray yourself as needy you're just a poor little rich kid that DOESN'T KNOW what being in need really is. I can sympathize Clifton Avenue, "he got ya beat" Big Time.

(06-30-2014 04:47 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Ever Respect, you really had it bad. The only skiing I went to was the curb next to my house when the streets froze overnight.

Buddy, as much as you try to portray yourself as needy you're just a poor little rich kid that DOESN'T KNOW what being in need really is. I can sympathize Clifton Avenue, "he got ya beat" Big Time.

I don't think he tried to seem needy. He just seemed to enjoy a more modest lifestyle.

I also come from some pretty poor stock, though I could never consider myself anywhere close to the level they were. We're talking slaves down to sharecroppers (my mother's family only stopped in the late 60s/early 70s), who have lived in the same spot since the 1700s. Neither parent had indoor plumbing until the 70s.

I'm glad my parents wanted to move up. There were plenty of people trying to hold them down at times (mostly family and friends actually).

Nomad, I don't care how you try to spin it but Ever was never modest. Maybe when he was un-subsidized a little but I don't believe that they just threw him out on the street. Instead of a mercedes he was probably given a geo and that to him is suffering. It was laughable.

(06-30-2014 05:50 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Nomad, I don't care how you try to spin it but Ever was never modest. Maybe when he was un-subsidized a little but I don't believe that they just threw him out on the street. Instead of a mercedes he was probably given a geo and that to him is suffering. It was laughable.

I wrote that last one poorly. I meant that he enjoys being more modest than what he was.

Sorry, NOmad, but I'm siding with Ollie on this one. Ever's pulling a "Hillary" with his story on this one.

We didn't get to go skiing in Colorado, we 'slummed' it a bit in Pennsylvania?

I'm not knocking Ever for having the fortunate comfort of his situation, isn't that we all want for our family, but when Ever said "I wasn't poor, but I struggled with a $9/hour job...." it just comes across the wrong way.


EDIT: This was written prior to your restatement....

(06-30-2014 05:55 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(06-30-2014 05:50 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Nomad, I don't care how you try to spin it but Ever was never modest. Maybe when he was un-subsidized a little but I don't believe that they just threw him out on the street. Instead of a mercedes he was probably given a geo and that to him is suffering. It was laughable.

I wrote that last one badly. I meant that he enjoys being more modest than what he was.

Ok, I'll agree with you on this point.

(06-30-2014 04:38 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 11:53 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 05:46 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 04:45 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Because it's a great usage of pathos. In a nation that is as class conscious as we've every been (with little ability to actually be that way) you have to demonstrate where you stand and with poorer people that means you have to be "real". Rich people who acknowledge their wealth aren't well received (example: Romney) because in some people's eyes, they aren't capable of understanding anything besides fancy dinners and being socialites.

I know at one point it was almost impossible to not hear the words "Scott Brown" and "pickup truck" in the same sentence, trying to appeal to the voters that value that type of thing.

I think what you say has a lot of truth to it, and frankly it's rather sad and pathetic and discerning and maddening.

Since when, in THIS country do we celebrate or cater to or wish to "identify" with the losers? Not to say that all poor or lower rung folks are losers, but what the hell is it nowadays with the working class worship crap? Why are "we" now apologizing for those that achieve? Why would anyone want to say they can identify with being poor if they actually can't?

Does that make one more virtuous? More "pure" or something? Salt of the earth, perhaps? Hell I do what I do and live how we live so that someday, hopefully I can make damn well SURE that neither of my kids will ever have to worry about a place to live or their next meal.

There was a time, not so long ago, when everyone (loosely speaking) had ambition to identify with the climbers and achievers. Optimisim, go get it ism, chasing your dreamsism. Now? It's depressing. Dress like a bum, live like a bum, work for a bums wage and you're celebrated. Make it on your own and drop a cool couple hundred Mill in the bank account and your vilified and derided as some kind of social pariah.

It's the Country I once knew turned upside down. Makes NO sense.

A lot of what you said is true, but the left doesn't hate everyone who's successful. The don't seem to mind actors and musicians being rich. Or Bill Gates or the Facebook guy. And John Kerry and Edwards had how much money between them? They don't hate Bloomberg or Soros.

The left is stupid. Someone tells them to hate persons A, B, and C and they do even though the people dictating that hate are doing the same this A, B, and C are.

LOL. Like that never happens on the right.

You're right. It doesn't.

(06-28-2014 03:46 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

Absolutely spot-on picture and article.

They have to pretend to be “poor”, not just to seem to be in line with the “regular people” so they can get elected, but also because their basic pitch is “rich and powerful is bad”. They believe it even though they are rich and powerful, it’s a part of their creed.

Quote:Hillary Clinton claimed that, at the moment she and her husband were signing up for $18 million in book deals, that they were “dead broke.”

Harry Reid (who lives in the Ritz-Carlton Hotel) said liberals are getting bullied by Republican billionaires but the Democratic Party “doesn’t have many billionaires” behind it.

Joe Biden (family earnings: $407,000 last year plus a free house, driver, meals, etc.) claims he “I don’t own a single stock or bond. . . . I have no savings accounts . . . I’m the poorest man in Congress.” (Triple fail: Joe isn’t poor, isn’t in Congress and wouldn’t be the poorest member of it if he were.)[ed.- and Joe was lying about that-he has stocks, bonds and a savings account]

Keep reading.....

Well at least you admit that regular people vote democrat.

The same reason why republicans insist on loving guns and being "family man" who reads the Bible every night....

The reason liberals lie about their wealth is simple; you see, conservatives gain wealth by going out there, seizing the opportunities, and generating wealth by building something.

Liberals gain wealth on the back of the liberal sheeple. If wealthy liberals talk about what their wealth, the sheeple may wise up, and dry up their gravy train. And then what would the liberals do then, get a real job to amass wealth? Yea right. Why do that, when race baiting, name calling, and mud slinging will get the idiotic masses to throw money your way.

(06-30-2014 06:30 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-30-2014 04:38 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 11:53 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 05:46 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 04:45 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Because it's a great usage of pathos. In a nation that is as class conscious as we've every been (with little ability to actually be that way) you have to demonstrate where you stand and with poorer people that means you have to be "real". Rich people who acknowledge their wealth aren't well received (example: Romney) because in some people's eyes, they aren't capable of understanding anything besides fancy dinners and being socialites.

I know at one point it was almost impossible to not hear the words "Scott Brown" and "pickup truck" in the same sentence, trying to appeal to the voters that value that type of thing.

I think what you say has a lot of truth to it, and frankly it's rather sad and pathetic and discerning and maddening.

Since when, in THIS country do we celebrate or cater to or wish to "identify" with the losers? Not to say that all poor or lower rung folks are losers, but what the hell is it nowadays with the working class worship crap? Why are "we" now apologizing for those that achieve? Why would anyone want to say they can identify with being poor if they actually can't?

Does that make one more virtuous? More "pure" or something? Salt of the earth, perhaps? Hell I do what I do and live how we live so that someday, hopefully I can make damn well SURE that neither of my kids will ever have to worry about a place to live or their next meal.

There was a time, not so long ago, when everyone (loosely speaking) had ambition to identify with the climbers and achievers. Optimisim, go get it ism, chasing your dreamsism. Now? It's depressing. Dress like a bum, live like a bum, work for a bums wage and you're celebrated. Make it on your own and drop a cool couple hundred Mill in the bank account and your vilified and derided as some kind of social pariah.

It's the Country I once knew turned upside down. Makes NO sense.

A lot of what you said is true, but the left doesn't hate everyone who's successful. The don't seem to mind actors and musicians being rich. Or Bill Gates or the Facebook guy. And John Kerry and Edwards had how much money between them? They don't hate Bloomberg or Soros.

The left is stupid. Someone tells them to hate persons A, B, and C and they do even though the people dictating that hate are doing the same this A, B, and C are.

LOL. Like that never happens on the right.

You're right. It doesn't.

It really doesn't. When have you seen any republicans blame a specific liberal in the same manner the left does? Reid has made the Koch bros a household name. And in every speech Obama is bitching about "Republicans." How many times did Bush make a speech which pointed to liberals being a problem? I can't think of one.

Obama is a divider, not a uniter.