Missed Opportunities - Media Failure
The media tends to have a lot of unforced errors - stuff they're more than capable of getting right but they can't avoid getting in their own way. You put politics into the mix and they can't seem to avoid going for the easy pot-shots, banding about their faux masks, and the like. Such is the case with the Clinton wealth matter of the last few days.
The Clintons are wealthy. They are very wealthy. They're not in the league of super wealthy, but relative to the average person they certainly are very, very, well off. So it can be difficult to imagine how they at any point would have thought of themselves as anything but rich. After all you're talking about a former president., a couple of lawyers How in the world can they even be close to thinking they're not rich, let alone broke?
Chances are that if you don't understand how that's possible, you're not gonna hear it in most media outlets of any kind. That's because the debate is entirely focused on important questions like "how does this affect Hilary's run for president" or "should Bill try to defend Hilary".
Mitt Romney's issue was not that he was wealthy. It was a combination of the means by which he amassed his wealth and the routinely poor way by which he discussed how others who do not have wealth and how they might attain wealth. Of course, the media's explanation of that nuanced matter was to say that Americans just didn't like Romney because he was a rich white guy. Any politician who narrowed down issues with Romney to that and tried to run on inoculating themselves on that false assessment surely lost.
The Clintons are from a modest background. If you're old enough to recall the Bill Clinton campaign in the 90s, or Hillary Clinton's campaign for Senate in the 2000s, or her run for president in '08, you know that story already. Pundits often question if that really matters. I will tell you it does, but how varies based on the individual. Some recall their difficult times as a kid and say, "never again", willing to do just about anything to avoid being in that financially bad position even if it means bending the law, even breaking it. For others, they look at their past and forge a determination to help others as much as they can to get them to rise out of those economic doldrums. Obviously we hope that our politicians are the latter, not the former.
But we need to understand how money works, something we are far too ignorant of. We are lazy about economic management. We treat the economy like a living thing that can take care of itself and somehow just works. Without getting into that debate, we tend to treat our personal economies and look at other people's economies, with the same distance. That is why we look at people with lots of money and think, "wow, they've been set all their life. There's no way they could ever need money".
Hilary Clinton in the comments that stirred this controversy, clearly stated how it happens, and why someone might think that way, when it comes to having and not having money. The fact is, they left office with a lot of debt. And guess what, president, despite the illusions to the contrary, is a job. We hold it in a higher plateau than most, but it is still a job for which one gets paid, and when you have no job and tons of debt, guess what, you're usually considered broke.
Did the Clintons have options after Bill's presidency ended? Of course. As I said, today they are very, very wealthy. But if you're out of work, not sure what your next step is, have millions of dollars in debt, broke is a pretty accurate description. Of course I understand that it's more than a little absurd to think that a former president would end up on the streets living in squalor or something like that. We have a basic assumption that there is an impossibility of that happening. Nonetheless there is no guarantee that it cannot. Which is a nuance that was missed in Hilary's comments, ignored in the media, and which the Clinton's have refrained from stressing.
Look at some of the richest people in sports and entertainment. I'm sure that at the height of their fame they were pulling in tons of cash and no one assumed they would ever be in need of money ever again. Their talent and experience were so great they could simply sell of their knowledge alone as public speakers or songwriters or producers or whatever. Yet time and again you can read stories about people who, after they retire from the game due to age or injury, or their star dimmed as an entertainer, found themselves with debt mounting, income shrinking, and soon declaring bankruptcy. For
The statement by Hilary Clinton regarding the end of her husband's presidency is an accurate one that I think reflects an issue many former residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue have faced. Being president is a job for which you are paid, about $400,000. Your spouse does not hold a paid job while you are president. When your time as president is up, you are now unemployed, and in some cases you likely have tons of bills now to contend with. It is, in that moment, that you will likely realize very quickly you are broke. And as you have lived your life in a very prescribed way for the last 4-8 years, it is usually not immediately clear how you may leverage what talents you have to earn an income, nor how soon you might be able to do it. Having several million in debt and an income of $400,000 dropping to $0 even briefly, is certainly a frightening thing.
But no, let's just stay in our stupor and knee-jerk politics and say that Mrs. Clinton is aloof and out of touch for simply noting that upon leaving the White House her family was not flush with cash to live a life of luxury. Let's not try to analyze her statement with a critical eye or mind and just hop on whatever political rhetoric bandwagon we can find. Instead of trying to learn or teach from what she said, like how money management is important, or what it is really like for ANY politician leaving office, let's just start blaming, bashing, insulting people. Because... well, just because.
The Clintons are wealthy. They are very wealthy. They're not in the league of super wealthy, but relative to the average person they certainly are very, very, well off. So it can be difficult to imagine how they at any point would have thought of themselves as anything but rich. After all you're talking about a former president., a couple of lawyers How in the world can they even be close to thinking they're not rich, let alone broke?
Chances are that if you don't understand how that's possible, you're not gonna hear it in most media outlets of any kind. That's because the debate is entirely focused on important questions like "how does this affect Hilary's run for president" or "should Bill try to defend Hilary".
Mitt Romney's issue was not that he was wealthy. It was a combination of the means by which he amassed his wealth and the routinely poor way by which he discussed how others who do not have wealth and how they might attain wealth. Of course, the media's explanation of that nuanced matter was to say that Americans just didn't like Romney because he was a rich white guy. Any politician who narrowed down issues with Romney to that and tried to run on inoculating themselves on that false assessment surely lost.
The Clintons are from a modest background. If you're old enough to recall the Bill Clinton campaign in the 90s, or Hillary Clinton's campaign for Senate in the 2000s, or her run for president in '08, you know that story already. Pundits often question if that really matters. I will tell you it does, but how varies based on the individual. Some recall their difficult times as a kid and say, "never again", willing to do just about anything to avoid being in that financially bad position even if it means bending the law, even breaking it. For others, they look at their past and forge a determination to help others as much as they can to get them to rise out of those economic doldrums. Obviously we hope that our politicians are the latter, not the former.
But we need to understand how money works, something we are far too ignorant of. We are lazy about economic management. We treat the economy like a living thing that can take care of itself and somehow just works. Without getting into that debate, we tend to treat our personal economies and look at other people's economies, with the same distance. That is why we look at people with lots of money and think, "wow, they've been set all their life. There's no way they could ever need money".
Hilary Clinton in the comments that stirred this controversy, clearly stated how it happens, and why someone might think that way, when it comes to having and not having money. The fact is, they left office with a lot of debt. And guess what, president, despite the illusions to the contrary, is a job. We hold it in a higher plateau than most, but it is still a job for which one gets paid, and when you have no job and tons of debt, guess what, you're usually considered broke.
Did the Clintons have options after Bill's presidency ended? Of course. As I said, today they are very, very wealthy. But if you're out of work, not sure what your next step is, have millions of dollars in debt, broke is a pretty accurate description. Of course I understand that it's more than a little absurd to think that a former president would end up on the streets living in squalor or something like that. We have a basic assumption that there is an impossibility of that happening. Nonetheless there is no guarantee that it cannot. Which is a nuance that was missed in Hilary's comments, ignored in the media, and which the Clinton's have refrained from stressing.
Look at some of the richest people in sports and entertainment. I'm sure that at the height of their fame they were pulling in tons of cash and no one assumed they would ever be in need of money ever again. Their talent and experience were so great they could simply sell of their knowledge alone as public speakers or songwriters or producers or whatever. Yet time and again you can read stories about people who, after they retire from the game due to age or injury, or their star dimmed as an entertainer, found themselves with debt mounting, income shrinking, and soon declaring bankruptcy. For
The statement by Hilary Clinton regarding the end of her husband's presidency is an accurate one that I think reflects an issue many former residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue have faced. Being president is a job for which you are paid, about $400,000. Your spouse does not hold a paid job while you are president. When your time as president is up, you are now unemployed, and in some cases you likely have tons of bills now to contend with. It is, in that moment, that you will likely realize very quickly you are broke. And as you have lived your life in a very prescribed way for the last 4-8 years, it is usually not immediately clear how you may leverage what talents you have to earn an income, nor how soon you might be able to do it. Having several million in debt and an income of $400,000 dropping to $0 even briefly, is certainly a frightening thing.
But no, let's just stay in our stupor and knee-jerk politics and say that Mrs. Clinton is aloof and out of touch for simply noting that upon leaving the White House her family was not flush with cash to live a life of luxury. Let's not try to analyze her statement with a critical eye or mind and just hop on whatever political rhetoric bandwagon we can find. Instead of trying to learn or teach from what she said, like how money management is important, or what it is really like for ANY politician leaving office, let's just start blaming, bashing, insulting people. Because... well, just because.
Comments
Post a Comment