So if being broke was really an issue why did they but TWO multimillion dollar houses?
I don’t claim they WERE broke, merely that they had a lot of expenses and it was possible.
I do find it appalling that a member of the political class can seriously contend that having some difficulty immediately paying for two mansions constitutes extreme financial hardship.
30 years ago I was in the condition mentioned above, where at times I quite literally didn’t have food for my family. I did some work for a lady who complained bitterly about the awful economy and the great financial hardship she was suffering.
Her definition of great financial hardship: She was only going to be able to spend one month in Europe that year, instead of her usual two.
It was a little difficult for me to summon up great sympathy.
I think it would do anybody who aspires to political power in this country to live a year or two in real financial hardship.
What our upper crust thinks of as base minimum lifestyle is wildly distorted. The guy who killed those people in Santa Barbara cited his having to drive an entry level Mercedes as an example of the social and financial humiliation he had to endure, and that justified his rampage.
If the Clintons were really broke on leaving the White House, why not rent modest digs, put Chelsea in public school, and hunker down for a year while the fees rolled in?
The answer, of course, is they think they’re ENTITLED to a lavish lifestyle.