Higher education has gotten so expensive it pays to remain a low brow!
Before the government began the student loan program and insuring student loans, education was much less costly. However, when colleges realized the government was subsidizing education they began to raise tuition.
This is a wonderful and prime example of the law of unintended consequences and why government intrusion always comes at a high cost - either direct or hidden. (See 1 below.)
However, the Obama government is good at covering up its mistakes, sheltering liars and losing documents in a convenient manner. (See 1a below.)
===
Absolutely fabulously clever! Wish I had thought up this one! (See 2 below.)
===
I post a lot of articles that make my wife cringe which I allow myself the privilege of having reached the ripe old age of being an 81 year old curmudgeon.
Since everything I am posting below has already appeared in print I do not feel constrained.
I know from a friend of mine, who served on the Clinton's Secret Service Detail, she is vulgar, has a mouth like a toilet bowl and treated her Secret Service Personnel in an arrogant and disdainful manner.
I trust my friend explicitly. (See 3 and 3a below.)
===
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Escaping the Student-Debt Trap
An economist-entrepreneur inspired by equal parts Milton Friedman and David Bowie says income-share agreements could rescue higher education.
Nashville
Student debt in the U.S. now tops $1.2 trillion, spread among 37 million borrowers, 5.4 million of whom have already defaulted. Washington took notice this week, rolling out the usual non-solutions: On Monday, President Obama expanded a federal program that allows students to repay debt based on what they earn, eventually forgiving the balance. Taxpayers pay the rest. On Wednesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren's idea to tax millionaires to pay for broad student-loan refinancing stalled in the Senate.
But there's one way to slow student-loan debt that didn't make Washington's agenda. What if a tool could help any student pay for college without a loan or government subsidy? If that sounds impossible, ask Miguel Palacios, assistant professor of finance at Vanderbilt University's Owen School of Management. He's the creative force behind income-share agreements.
Opinion Video
Assistant Editorial Features Editor Kate Bachelder on a profitable new idea for financing college education and relieving students of debt. Photo: Getty Images
"College is on average a good investment, but it's a risky investment," Mr. Palacios says. More than 40% of college students don't finish in six years, and in 2012 45% of those who did graduate had jobs that didn't require a degree, according to Federal Reserve data.
Here's his solution in a nutshell: Suppose an industrious young person wants to get a degree at a top university but needs about $50,000. Under an income-share agreement, the student promises an investor a certain percent of his income over a fixed period in exchange for cash. The agreements are not loans, and there is no outstanding balance. Students who earn more pay more, and students who earn less pay less.
Mr. Palacios has seen these income-share agreements in action and thinks they can revolutionize higher education. The startup he co-founded in 2002 with entrepreneur Felipe Vergara, called Lumni, has funded nearly 5,000 students in five countries. In April Sen. Marco Rubio and Rep. Tom Petri, both Republicans, introduced legislation that would give income-share agreements the legal and regulatory clarity to flourish in the U.S.
At first handshake, Mr. Palacios seems easily typecast as an academic. He's poring over spread sheets when I arrive at his Vanderbilt office. A dry-erase board behind him is scribbled with graphs and values of "x," and the bookshelves are stocked with finance textbooks. Even the décor is industry-specific: On white walls hang two pieces of contemporary art, both using outmoded currency notes as a medium.
It's quickly evident, though, that the 40-year-old scholar is part economist, part entrepreneur. "When you were starting college, did you know how much money you would make in the first 15 years of your life?" he asks in his crisp Colombian accent. No, and I still don't.
Federal loan programs "encourage students to pursue any degree regardless of price," he says. Students can borrow cash directly from the feds through Stafford loans. Parents have an even easier line of credit: Under the federal Parent PLUS program, mom and dad can borrow up to the cost of tuition after a credit check. "People are sometimes mortgaging their homes on what their kids will do," Mr. Palacios says.
Ken Fallin
It's not working. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau estimated in 2013 that 22% of federal student-loan borrowers who have entered repayment are now in default or forbearance. More than 600,000 borrowers who graduated in 2010 had defaulted by 2012, according to Education Department data.
In response, the Obama administration has taken the "throw money at the problem" approach, as Mr. Palacios puts it, by expanding the Pay As You Earn program, under which students can curb their payments if their earnings don't keep up. Those programs "do not help students make better choices about where to go and what to study," Mr. Palacios says. The federal programs forgive loans after 20 years, 10 years if the borrower works in "public service" (government or nonprofit). But how long can the taxpayer bear that expense?
Mr. Palacios says income-share agreements, or ISAs, can mitigate the damage from what he calls the coming student-loan "train wreck." First, they "send a strong signal about value," he says. Want to get a peace-studies degree for $100,000? Be prepared to pay a hefty portion of your income for a really long time. ISAs give students much-needed information about which programs are more likely to lead to employment. Over time, colleges would be forced to lower costs and offer better value. Most important, ISAs take away "the risk of financial ruin," Mr. Palacios says. If you don't earn any money, you don't pay any money.
Mr. Palacios explains that economist Milton Friedman floated the notion of buying a "share" in an individual's earning prospects in the footnote of a 1945 paper and explored it more deeply in 1955 amid debates over financing higher ed. "The idea morphed into an income-contingent loan," says Mr. Palacios, who calls himself "a liberal in the 19th-century sense," and "not left or right" but "pro-freedom."
Yet David Bowie, not Milton Friedman, first inspired Mr. Palacios. In 1997, the rock star announced that he planned to finance his next album by selling shares of future revenues. "I was intrigued." he recalls. Working in Chile as a financial analyst, the 23-year-old Mr. Palacios thought: Why can't bright, talented college students do something like the Bowie idea? In college, he saw "very brilliant people who just wouldn't make it because they didn't have the right funding."
In 1999 Mr. Palacios moved to the U.S. to attend the University of Virginia's business school, where he began researching how to implement human-capital contracts. In 2001 a friend introduced him to fellow Colombian Felipe Vergara, an entrepreneur who liked ISAs and "wanted to do it," Mr. Palacios recalls. "That's how Lumni was born."
Mr. Palacios's first boss chipped in capital, as did a few other investors. Then they needed students. "We had a spy," Mr. Palacios confides. Messrs. Palacios and Vergara asked someone they knew attending university in Chile to identify good students who needed financial aid.
In October 2002, Lumni signed contracts with four Chilean university students for one year of funding, later adding two more to the first class. The investment totaled roughly $12,000. The students agreed to pay a small percentage of income—about 3%—for roughly five years. The students thrived: Gonzalo Labbe, for example, met his obligations and now manages corporate accounts for Hewlett-Packard HPQ +5.30% in Chile. The investors did well, too. "We had returns in excess of 10% and on the order of 15%," Mr. Palacios says.
By 2009 the company had expanded to Colombia, Peru and Mexico and reached more than 1,000 students, funding many in community colleges and vocational programs. Nearly all of Lumni's students come from low-income backgrounds, and most are the first in their family to attend college.
How has the fund held up? Pretty well. "The returns have been lower, by design," Mr. Palacios notes. Investors can design the return they want within a certain range, and "many have simply liked the work we do and asked for little or no return." Lumni has raised about $50 million from individuals, corporations and foundations.
In 2009 Lumni began offering contracts in the U.S., funding 27 students so far. Growth has not happened quickly, and here's one major reason: There are lingering questions about the legal enforceability of the contracts. It's also unclear how they'd be taxed or regulated, details that Lumni has mostly worked out in Latin America.
The murkiness has thwarted others interested in ISAs. In the mid-1990s, an entrepreneur named Roy Chapman started Human Capital Resources, seeking to do what Lumni does now. Chapman lobbied Congress for legal and regulatory clarity, and then-Rep. Lindsey Graham introduced a bill in 1999. It went nowhere. In the early 2000s, a firm called My Rich Uncle offered ISAs but soon gave up because, Mr. Palacios thinks, the founders realized that "raising capital for something risky in the regulatory sense is tough."
Most recently, the lending platforms Upstart and Pave began offering the contracts. That didn't last long for Upstart. "We're still huge fans of income-share agreements," company founder Dave Girouard wrote on Upstart's website on May 6, but the startup feared it will "likely take many years" to sort out the regulatory issues.
Why so long? In part because ISAs are often portrayed by critics as indentured servitude. "Part of that is fear, and I think it's completely misplaced," Mr. Palacios says. "ISAs in no way tell anyone what to do. The contract can't force anyone to work." He maintains they are more liberating than student loans: "You have the same freedoms, but you don't have the same worries."
Others view ISAs as exploitation. Dave Bergeron, of the left-leaning Center for American Progress, told Reuters in April that ISAs are unfair to students because some would pay back "substantially more" than they borrowed. "That takes a static view of the student," Mr. Palacios argues, noting some rich ideological inconsistency. "These people who talk about exploiting students have no qualms saying the 1% should pay much more of their income to the federal government. If that student has to pay a lot, it's because that student became part of the 1%. To them, the right tax rate for the 1% is always just 'more.' "
Do ISAs also encourage students not to work? Mr. Palacios suggests keeping payments as a share of income as low as a state income tax rate so students won't be tempted "to go to the beach for the rest of their paying-contract lives."
ISA funds also run the risk of adverse selection, as the best students might see federal loans as a better option. "That's why we don't offer everyone the same contract," Mr. Palacios says. Pricing allows Lumni to be sure it can recoup enough of its investment. The firm also employs psychologists to evaluate whether students are being honest about their career intentions. "The concern that we're going to end up with a bunch of French literature students who said they wanted to be investment bankers hasn't panned out," Mr. Palacios says, adding a playful apology to his wife, who teaches French literature.
The biggest hurdle might be Congress. The Rubio-Petri bill would give ISAs a chance by making them legally enforceable contracts, capping the percentage of income at 15%, setting a maximum repayment period of 30 years, with a repayment exemption for those who earn less than $10,000 a year. Contracts would be required to define what constitutes income, and not permitted to dictate career choices.
The bill may pass the House, but it would be dead on arrival in Harry Reid's Senate. Mr. Palacios thinks it might fare better if Republicans retake the Senate in the fall, but then it looked that way for ISAs in the 1990s. Still, Mr. Palacios is bullish: "The momentum for ISAs has never been this strong."
The momentum may reflect the moment. "At this rate," he says, "student debt could be $2 trillion in five or six years."
Lumni isn't waiting around. The organization pledged in 2010 to fund 10,000 students world-wide by 2020, and Mr. Palacios says Lumni is on track to meet the goal. With a little push from Congress, more firms could jump into the market. ISA funds could be run someday by everyone from institutional investors to enthusiastic alumni.
ISAs are "a bright spot in finance," Mr. Palacios says, because they better the lives of individuals and society. "How could anyone be against that?"
Ms. Bachelder is an assistant editorial features editor at the Journal.
1a) The IRS Loses Lerner's Emails
And other news that the Beltway press corps won't cover.
The IRS—remember those jaunty folks?—announced Friday that it can't find two years of emails from Lois Lerner to the Departments of Justice or Treasury. And none to the White House or Democrats on Capitol Hill. An agency spokesman blames a computer crash.
Never underestimate government incompetence, but how convenient. The former IRS Director of Exempt Organizations was at the center of the IRS targeting of conservative groups and still won't testify before Congress. Now we'll never know whose orders she was following, or what directions she was giving. If the Reagan White House had ever offered up this excuse, John Dingell would have held the entire government in contempt.
The suspicion that this is willful obstruction of Congress is all the more warranted because this week we also learned that the IRS, days before the 2010 election, shipped a 1.1 million page database about tax-exempt groups to the FBI. Why? New emails turned up by Darrell Issa's House Oversight Committee show Department of Justice officials worked with Ms. Lerner to investigate groups critical of President Obama.
How out of bounds was this data dump? Consider the usual procedure. The IRS is charged with granting tax-exempt status to social-welfare organizations that spend less than 50% of their resources on politics. If the IRS believes a group has violated those rules, it can assign an agent to investigate and revoke its tax-exempt status. This routinely happens and isn't a criminal offense.
U.S. Director of Exempt Organizations for the Internal Revenue Service Lois Lerner Reuters
Ms. Lerner, by contrast, shipped a database of 12,000 nonprofit tax returns to the FBI, the investigating agency for Justice's Criminal Division. The IRS, in other words, was inviting Justice to engage in a fishing expedition, and inviting people not even licensed to fish in that pond. The Criminal Division (rather than the Tax Division) investigates and prosecutes under the Internal Revenue Code only when the crimes involve IRS personnel.
The Criminal Division knows this, which explains why the emails show that Ms. Lerner was meeting to discuss the possibility of using different statutes, specifically campaign-finance laws, to prosecute nonprofits. A separate email from September 2010 shows Jack Smith, the head of Justice's Public Integrity Unit (part of the Criminal Division) musing over whether Justice might instead "ever charge a 371" against nonprofits. A "371" refers to a section of the U.S. Code that allows prosecutors to broadly claim a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. You know, conspiracies like exercising the right to free political speech.
The IRS has admitted that this database included confidential taxpayer information—including donor details—for at least 33 nonprofits. The IRS claims this was inadvertent, and Justice says neither it nor the FBI used any information for any "investigative purpose." This blasé attitude is astonishing given the law on confidential taxpayer information was created to prevent federal agencies from misusing the information. News of this release alone ought to cause IRS heads to roll.
The latest revelations are a further refutation of Ms. Lerner's claim that the IRS targeting trickled up from underlings in the Cincinnati office. And they strongly add to the evidence that the IRS and Justice were motivated to target by the frequent calls for action by the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats.
One email from September 21, 2010 shows Sarah Hall Ingram, a senior IRS official, thanking the IRS media team for their work with a New York Times NYT -2.44% reporter on an article about nonprofits in elections. "I do think it came out pretty well," she writes, in an email that was also sent to Ms. Lerner. "The 'secret donor' theme will continue—see Obama salvo and today's [radio interview with House Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen ]."
Several nonprofit groups have recently filed complaints with the Senate Ethics Committee against nine Democratic Senators for improperly interfering with the IRS. It's one thing for Senators to ask an agency about the status of a rule or investigation. But it is extraordinary for Illinois's Dick Durbin to demand that tax authorities punish specific conservative organizations, or for Michigan's Carl Levin to order the IRS to hand over confidential nonprofit tax information.
And it's no surprise to learn that Justice's renewed interest in investigating nonprofits in early 2013 immediately followed a hearing by Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon White House in which he dragged in officials from Justice and the IRS and demanded action.
***
It somehow took a year for the IRS to locate these Lerner exchanges with Justice, though they were clearly subject to Mr. Issa's original subpoenas. The Oversight Committee had to subpoena Justice to obtain them, and it only knew to do that after it was tipped to the correspondence by discoveries from the watchdog group Judicial Watch. Justice continues to drag its feet in offering up witnesses and documents. And now we have the two years of emails that have simply vanished into the government ether.
New IRS Commissioner John Koskinen promised to cooperate with Congress. But either he is being undermined by his staff, or he's aiding the agency's stonewalling. And now that we know that Justice was canoodling with Ms. Lerner, its own dilatory investigation becomes easier to understand. Or maybe that was a computer crash too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Subject: Ike and the Wuss In Chief
By Peter Lucas
Here is a transcript of the trans-Atlantic telephone
conversation that would have taken place between General
Dwight D. "Ike" Eisenhower, commander of the
Allied Expeditionary Force, and President Barack Obama on
the eve of the Normandy Invasion, June 6, 1944. Friday is
the 70th anniversary of the landing.
President Obama: General, are you sure we are doing the
right thing by going ahead with this invasion?
Ike: It's too late to turn back now.
Obama: I should have flown to Berchtesgaden and talked with
Mr. Hitler. Or at least called.
Ike: He won't take your calls.
Obama: OK, Ike. But listen, my speech writers have gone over
your proposed pre-invasion remarks to our brave troops. We
have a problem with parts of you speech.
Ike: What's the problem?
Obama: Well, you say the Allied forces are about to embark
on "a great crusade."
Ike: So?
Obama: We think the term "crusade" might be
offensive to our Muslim friends. You know, reminding them of
the awful Crusades of the Middle Ages.
Ike: Really?
Obama: Not that I'm a Muslim, even though I grew up in
Indonesia. I'm a Christian -- an Episcopalian, or
Baptist, or something. I just know a lot of Muslims. Islam
is a religion of peace. Everyone knows that. Didn't you
read my Cairo speech?
Ike: No, I was busy fighting the Nazis in North Africa.
Obama: North Africa? I'm not sure we should be invading
countries like that just because they don't like us. We
should partner with them, use international law, build
coalitions, use diplomacy, food stamps and EBT cards and, as
a last resort, draw a red line in the sand, before we nail
them with economic sanctions.
Ike: Mr. President, North Africa is a region, not a country
Obama: I know that.
Ike: Besides, we also just invaded Sicily and Italy.
Obama: I read about that in the Washington Post this
morning. Nobody told me. Just like nobody told me our brave
> Marine Corpse is fighting the Japanese in the Pacific.
Ike: It's Marine Corps, not Corpse.
Obama: I know that. I am, after all, the commander in chief,
just like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. And I was
> elected to end wars, not to start them.
Ike: Mr. President, we didn't start this war. The
Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.
Obama: Don't tell me about Pearl Harbor. I grew up in
Hawaii, remember? We used to dive for pearls in Pearl Harbor
when we were not getting high in high school. High in high
school, get it?
Ike: I was at West Point.
Obama: I know West Point. I make speeches there. Nobody
claps. I don't think they like black folks. Anyway, your
speech to the troops needs work. You should not be telling
the soldiers that the "hopes and prayers" of
liberty-loving people are with them. Hope is all right. We
believe in hope and change. But as a president who taught
constitutional law, I think mentioning prayer is going too
far, given the separation of church and state and all that.
Ike: The troops take comfort in believing in God, Mr.
President. Every combat unit going into Normandy Beach has a
chaplain with it.
Obama: Yes, and we are going to have to do something about
that. Also, you are really putting me in a difficult
position when you say, "We will accept nothing less
than full victory" over Germany. That boxes me in. I
need you to rewrite that to say that we need a
"responsible" end to the war, not total victory.
That's not the way we end wars these days. A negotiated
settlement would be even better. I need you to say something
about women, too.
Ike: Women?
Obama: Yes. Your opening is terrible. You say,
"Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied
Expeditionary Force." What about the women? And gays,
and transgenders? Your personal driver, Kate Summersby, is a
woman, right?
Ike: You leave her out of this.
Obama: All right, don't get touchy. I know you're
married. I was just making a point. I just think we should
not have too easy of a victory. We don't want to
embarrass the Germans. I may have to negotiate and partner
with them later. We have to make them like us.
Ike: You can't negotiate with tyrants, terrorists and
war criminals.
Obama: I do it all the time. As we used to say at the
faculty lounge: War is a criminal enterprise, and we are all
war criminals. Our soldiers are victims as well. That is why
I don't want any signing ceremonies aboard battleships
or aircraft carriers when this is over. There is nothing to
celebrate.
Ike: How do you know so much about war?
Obama: I watch war movies. We used to dissect them during
class breaks in the faculty lounge. War movies are hell, but
I do love them so. There are no victors in war, only
losers.
Ike: Are you calling me a loser?
Obama: Not yet. But I will if you lose at Normandy. I'm
not taking the blame. You'll take the fall. You see,
everything is political. And I know you're a closet
Republican who wants to run for president.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
conversation that would have taken place between General
Dwight D. "Ike" Eisenhower, commander of the
Allied Expeditionary Force, and President Barack Obama on
the eve of the Normandy Invasion, June 6, 1944. Friday is
the 70th anniversary of the landing.
President Obama: General, are you sure we are doing the
right thing by going ahead with this invasion?
Ike: It's too late to turn back now.
Obama: I should have flown to Berchtesgaden and talked with
Mr. Hitler. Or at least called.
Ike: He won't take your calls.
Obama: OK, Ike. But listen, my speech writers have gone over
your proposed pre-invasion remarks to our brave troops. We
have a problem with parts of you speech.
Ike: What's the problem?
Obama: Well, you say the Allied forces are about to embark
on "a great crusade."
Ike: So?
Obama: We think the term "crusade" might be
offensive to our Muslim friends. You know, reminding them of
the awful Crusades of the Middle Ages.
Ike: Really?
Obama: Not that I'm a Muslim, even though I grew up in
Indonesia. I'm a Christian -- an Episcopalian, or
Baptist, or something. I just know a lot of Muslims. Islam
is a religion of peace. Everyone knows that. Didn't you
read my Cairo speech?
Ike: No, I was busy fighting the Nazis in North Africa.
Obama: North Africa? I'm not sure we should be invading
countries like that just because they don't like us. We
should partner with them, use international law, build
coalitions, use diplomacy, food stamps and EBT cards and, as
a last resort, draw a red line in the sand, before we nail
them with economic sanctions.
Ike: Mr. President, North Africa is a region, not a country
Obama: I know that.
Ike: Besides, we also just invaded Sicily and Italy.
Obama: I read about that in the Washington Post this
morning. Nobody told me. Just like nobody told me our brave
> Marine Corpse is fighting the Japanese in the Pacific.
Ike: It's Marine Corps, not Corpse.
Obama: I know that. I am, after all, the commander in chief,
just like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. And I was
> elected to end wars, not to start them.
Ike: Mr. President, we didn't start this war. The
Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.
Obama: Don't tell me about Pearl Harbor. I grew up in
Hawaii, remember? We used to dive for pearls in Pearl Harbor
when we were not getting high in high school. High in high
school, get it?
Ike: I was at West Point.
Obama: I know West Point. I make speeches there. Nobody
claps. I don't think they like black folks. Anyway, your
speech to the troops needs work. You should not be telling
the soldiers that the "hopes and prayers" of
liberty-loving people are with them. Hope is all right. We
believe in hope and change. But as a president who taught
constitutional law, I think mentioning prayer is going too
far, given the separation of church and state and all that.
Ike: The troops take comfort in believing in God, Mr.
President. Every combat unit going into Normandy Beach has a
chaplain with it.
Obama: Yes, and we are going to have to do something about
that. Also, you are really putting me in a difficult
position when you say, "We will accept nothing less
than full victory" over Germany. That boxes me in. I
need you to rewrite that to say that we need a
"responsible" end to the war, not total victory.
That's not the way we end wars these days. A negotiated
settlement would be even better. I need you to say something
about women, too.
Ike: Women?
Obama: Yes. Your opening is terrible. You say,
"Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied
Expeditionary Force." What about the women? And gays,
and transgenders? Your personal driver, Kate Summersby, is a
woman, right?
Ike: You leave her out of this.
Obama: All right, don't get touchy. I know you're
married. I was just making a point. I just think we should
not have too easy of a victory. We don't want to
embarrass the Germans. I may have to negotiate and partner
with them later. We have to make them like us.
Ike: You can't negotiate with tyrants, terrorists and
war criminals.
Obama: I do it all the time. As we used to say at the
faculty lounge: War is a criminal enterprise, and we are all
war criminals. Our soldiers are victims as well. That is why
I don't want any signing ceremonies aboard battleships
or aircraft carriers when this is over. There is nothing to
celebrate.
Ike: How do you know so much about war?
Obama: I watch war movies. We used to dissect them during
class breaks in the faculty lounge. War movies are hell, but
I do love them so. There are no victors in war, only
losers.
Ike: Are you calling me a loser?
Obama: Not yet. But I will if you lose at Normandy. I'm
not taking the blame. You'll take the fall. You see,
everything is political. And I know you're a closet
Republican who wants to run for president.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Warning:Very obscene language, but are quotes from Hillary!!!
Subject: She wants to be president?EIGHT QUOTES FROM 8 DIFFERENT BOOKSher actual words:(1)
"Where is the Godamn flag? I want the Godamn fucking flag up every morning at fucking sunrise."From the book "Inside the White House" by Ronald Kessler, p. 244;Hillary to staff at the Arkansas Governor's mansion on Labor Day 1991.
I'm not going to talk to you, too!!Just do your Godamn job and keep your mouth shut."From the book "America Evita" by Christopher Anderson, p.90; Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with "Good Morning."
(3)
"If you want to remain on this detail, get your fucking ass over here and grab those bags!"From the book "The First Partner" p. 259; Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident. (4)
"Stay the fuck back, stay the fuck back away from me! Don't come within ten yards of me, or else! Just fucking do as I say, Okay!!?"From the book "Unlimited Access" by Clinton’s FBI Agent-in-Charge, Gary Aldridge, p. 139; Hillary is screaming at her Secret Service detail.
(5)"Where's the miserable cock sucker?" (otherwise known as “Bill Clinton”)From the book "The Truth about Hillary" by Edward Klein, p.5; Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer.
(6)"You fucking idiot" From the book "Crossfire" ~pg. 84;Hillary to a State Trooper who was driving her to an event.
(7)
"Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those fucking sunglasses! We need to go back! |From the book " Dereliction of Duty" p. 71-72; Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while en route to Air Force One.
(8)
"Come on Bill, put your dick up! You can't fuck her here!!"From the book "Inside the White House" by Ronald Kessler, p. 243; Hillary to Gov. Bill Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female.* * * * *
This ill-tempered, violent, loud-mouth, hateful and abusive woman wants to be your next President, and have total control as Commander and Chief of our Military, the very Military for which she has shown incredible disdain throughout her public life.Remember her most vile comment about Benghazi: “what difference at this point does it make?”
Remember what class Laura and George W. Bush brought to the White House and how they treated the Secret Service detail and the military. They even spent some Christmas holidays at Camp David instead of the Texas ranch so the Secret Service detail could spend the holidays with their families
2a)
Chelsea: The Poorest Clinton
Mere $600K salary suggests aversion to capitalism
BY: Andrew Stiles
Today, we learned that Chelsea Clinton has been taking home an annual salary of $600,000 for her work as a “special correspondent” for NBC News.
In case you had no idea NBC News was employing the Clinton scion, here is an example of her “work”:
On the one hand, $600,000 seems like a fair salary for an only child who has to support her struggling parents. On the other, Chelsea’s annual income is equivalent to what Hillary Clinton receives for three hours of work on the public speaking circuit. It also pales in comparison to Bill Clinton’s nine-figure speaking windfall.
Left-wing reporter Lee Fang makes a sensible observation:
On a related note, NBC is owned by Comcast, a company that has effectivelybought the Democratic Party, and is currently awaiting the Obama administration’s approval for its proposed acquisition of Time Warner Cable—a move that would create the largest cable conglomerate in the country.
Maybe the fact that Chelsea Clinton got paid $600,000 to conduct fake interviews with animated lizards is an example of influence peddling. Or maybe it shows a disconcerting aversion to capitalism. While her parents are struggling to become billionaires, Chelsea is barely scraping by on six-figures. That’s not very American.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment