Clinton releases 2015 tax returns, pushing Trump for his
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton gives a speech on the economy after touring Futuramic Tool & Engineering, in Warren, Mich., Thursday, Aug. 11, 2016.
WASHINGTON >> Hillary and Bill Clinton earned $10.6 million last year, according to a tax filing released by her campaign that sought to pressure presidential rival Donald Trump to disclose his tax returns.
The filing shows that the Clintons paid a federal tax rate of 34.2 percent in 2015. The bulk of their income — more than $6 million — came from speaking fees for appearances made largely before Hillary Clinton launched her campaign in April 2015. They gave more than $1,042,000 to charity, with $1 million going to the Clinton family foundation. That is the financial vehicle the family uses to give money to museums, schools, churches and other charitable causes. It is not the same organization as the better-known Clinton Foundation.
The Clintons’ income puts them well within the ranks of the top 0.1 percent of Americans, though they pay a higher tax rate than many of their elite peers, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, based on 2013 data.
The release on Friday is part of an effort to undercut Trump’s character by questioning the celebrity businessman’s record. Trump has refused to make his filings public, saying they’re under audit by the Internal Revenue Service and he’ll release them only once that review is complete. All major U.S. presidential candidates in modern history have released their returns.
Trump steered clear of mentioning his personal taxes Friday. A spokesman pointed to Clinton’s move to delete tens of thousands of personal emails from her private account as secretary of state and questions about whether she used her government post to benefit the Clinton Foundation.
“Hillary Clinton has turned over the only records nobody wants to see from her — the American public wants to see the 33,000 emails she deleted to obstruct an FBI investigation,” said Trump spokesman Jason Miller.
The Clintons have disclosed tax returns for every year since 1977, in part due to laws requiring public officials release returns. She put out her most recent eight years of tax filings last summer and several years during her first presidential bid.
Seeking common ground with blue-collar workers who have been attracted to Trump, Clinton frequently mentions his returns as a way of underscoring how his economic plans would benefit his personal interests and questioning whether he’s as wealthy as he claims.
Democrats believe Trump’s returns could be a trove of politically damaging information. They want to see his tax rate, charitable giving, and business dealings with foreign governments.
“Here’s a pretty incredible fact: There is a non-zero chance that Donald Trump isn’t paying (asterisk)any(asterisk) taxes,” Clinton tweeted, after releasing her own returns.
Protesters at Trump afternoon rally in Erie, Pennsylvania, held up signs reading “Tax Forms” before being escorted out by security.
Clinton’s strategy borrows from President Barack Obama’s winning playbook against Mitt Romney in 2012. Obama repeatedly used Romney’s business dealings against him and seized upon his reluctance to release certain tax records.
Clinton’s campaign also released 10 years of returns from running mate Tim Kaine and his wife, Anne Holton. Over the last decade, the couple has donated 7.5 percent of their income to charity, the campaign said, and paid an effective tax rate of 25.6 percent last year.
Kaine, the Virginia senator who’s spent much of his life in public service, reported a far lower income than the Clintons. Over the past decade, he and his wife earned the most in 2014, more than $314,000 in adjusted gross income. The Clintons made about 90 times more, reporting nearly $28 million for the same year.
Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence, has yet to say if he will release his taxes, which he has not done as governor of Indiana. A spokesman for the governor’s office referred all tax-related questions to his vice presidential campaign. The campaign did not respond to messages.
Clinton has tried to paint Trump as an out-of-touch business mogul. But her substantial wealth has caused headaches. Republicans have seized upon the millions in speaking fees and a tone-deaf comment by Clinton in a 2014 interview that she was “dead broke” after leaving the White House in 2001. The couple owed millions in legal fees, but quickly generated far more from book deals, paid appearances and consulting fees.
In total, the Clintons earned than $139 million between 2007 and 2014, according to eight years of federal income tax returns released by her campaign last July.
The bulk of their income came from speeches delivered to corporate and interest groups, which paid Bill Clinton and later Hillary Clinton after she resigned as secretary of state in early 2013.
Clinton delivered six paid speeches in 2015, including one to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. She commanded her highest rate from EBay, which paid her $315,000 for a March 2015 address in San Jose.
Bill Clinton’s consulting work for GEMS Education, a global network of for-profit schools based in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, earned him more than $5.6 million in fees between 2010 and 2015, according to the tax returns.
He also earned more than $17 million over the same period for consulting work for Laureate Education, Inc., another for-profit education system based in Baltimore that makes most of its profits from overseas operations. Several students enrolled in some of the schools have sued the company. The cases have since settled.
Bill Clinton’s office previously said he had ended his consulting work with Laureate last year. On Friday, his office confirmed that Clinton also halted his business dealings with GEMS Education last year. His office said he had “engaged with GEMS students and faculty around the world and assisted the Varkey GEMS Foundation in its efforts to increase access to education to underprivileged children.”
———
Associated Press writers Eileen Sullivan and Jeff Horwitz contributed to this report from Washington. Associated Press writer Josh Lederman contributed from Erie, Pa.
———
Follow Lisa Lerer and Ken Thomas on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/llerer and http://twitter.com/KThomasDC
20 responses to “Clinton releases 2015 tax returns, pushing Trump for his”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
He will obfuscate to the end. One, he paid very little, if any taxes–think in the low single digits. Two, he actually makes far less than he brags about. Three, it will be no surprise to see him monopolizing a myriad of suspicious off-shore banking mechanisms. Four, there are NO charitable donations whatsoever.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Saturday that she’s been slammed with “obscene and sick calls” after a hacker posted Democratic congressional lawmakers’ personal contact information online.
The information was apparently stolen in a hack of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which has personal contact and other information for all of the Democrats in the House, as well as their top aides.
“On a personal note, I was in the air flying from Florida to California when the news broke. Upon landing, I have received scores of mostly obscene and sick calls, voicemails and text messages,” Mrs. Pelosi said in a letter to colleagues, telling them to prevent their family and children from getting to the messages, presumably because they were so upsetting.
She said she was changing her phone number and urged other House Democrats to do the same.
And she said the hack, which she signaled is likely attributable to Russia, is being investigated. The Capitol Police and the House Sergeant-at-Arms are looking at what vulnerabilities there may be from the hack.
A hacker known as Guccifer 2.0 claimed responsibility for the hack and uploaded the contact information online.
The information chiefly involved Democratic lawmakers, though House officials said some Republicans were mixed in. Some lawmakers’ home addresses and spouses’ names were also posted in the hack.
There the burrocrats go again, blaming the Russians. They call that the blame game. Who would want to call that old bag. I think she was passing out her number down on Hotel Street.
Les…aka Princess Hanalei.
Dear Establishment pundits, flacks, hacks, sycophants, apparatchiks, toadies, lackeys, functionaries, leeches and apologists: the more you label Trump as “singularly inappropriate,” the more attractive he becomes to the 81% who’ve been left behind by the financialized-globalized-neofeudal order that has so greatly enhanced your own wealth, influence and power.
I’ve never been interested in anyone’s tax returns no matter which party they represent. I think it’s safe to say, all presidential candidates have been wealthy. I’m more interested in seeing hidden or lost emails which could be hiding unethical or illegal activities in both parties. I care about integrity as should all Americans
ATP, agree with your post. Mr. Trump’s card is to have the Hawaii born President Obama’s IRS audit completed and then release. Mr. Trump will have a statement that the Obama IRS has audited his tax return and found nothing wrong or illegal. End of story. But, the erased emails create a huge problem for Ms Clinton for many incriminating 2nd party emails are showing up which Ms Clinton said was personal and deleted (erased).
Crooked Donald caught lying yet again.
Trumps ill advised attempt is based on the following: race, isolated and uneducated white folks, trouble with holding employment and those unaccustomed to immigration.
If Donald Trump loses the Presidential election, this week may be remembered as the point in the campaign when his defeat became obvious and inevitable. The number of controversies, reckless statements, and outright lies from Trump this week was dizzying. He toyed with the idea of political assassination, declaring that “Second Amendment people” could do something about Hillary Clinton or her judicial nominees if she were elected. He called Barack Obama “the founder” of isis. Trump kept the fact-checkers, the hardest-working journalists of 2016, busy. The Associated Press reported that Trump confused an expensive babysitting program for the children of guests at his exclusive hotels with a nonexistent company child-care program for workers. The Washington Post noted that a story, confirmed as true by the Trump campaign, about Trump ferrying stranded soldiers with his private plane in 1991, was untrue. And Trump once again refused to release his tax returns, a break with a tradition that goes back to the nineteen-seventies.
Despite the justifiable panic among Republicans who believe Trump’s post-Convention crater may swallow other G.O.P. candidates, Trump showed no interest in building a conventional political campaign. In an interview with CNBC, he bragged that he has spent “zero” dollars on television ads (he has actually spent some money). In an interview on Fox News, he noted, “I don’t know that we need to get out the vote.” This is the Trump we have come to know: flaunting every obvious weakness as a tremendous strength.
Unlike in the Republican primaries, when Trump’s serial untruths and shocking statements had little effect on his political standing, the damage in the general election has been swift and severe. As of Friday morning, Hillary Clinton led Trump in the last twenty-one nationals polls. New surveys in the most competitive swing states raise the possibility of a Clinton landslide. Important subgroups are repulsed by Trump. In one new poll, eighty-two per cent of Hispanics have an unfavorable opinion of Trump. Number-crunchers at the Times and FiveThirtyEight put Clinton’s chances of victory at close to ninety per cent.
But even if Trump loses, Trumpism won’t necessarily lose, too. Trump makes so much news in a single week that it’s sometimes hard to know how to process it all. The last few days did offer some clarity, however, in an ongoing debate about the nature of Trump’s supporters, who make up an enormous chunk of the electorate and will have influence over American politics for years to come.
To simplify somewhat, analysts have been divided into two camps when it comes to what’s driving support for Trump. One group places a great deal of emphasis on economics as the crucial factor, while another group places more weight on racism and bigotry as the key explanation. The two are, of course, intertwined: a Trump voter who is struggling economically might like Trump’s views on trade deals and his attacks on non-whites.
This week, Trump offered up evidence for both theories. In his economic speech on Monday, and in a later interview, he outlined several policies that the econocentric analysts often point to as evidence of his appeal to the working class: protectionism, restrictionist immigration policies, a commitment not to change Social Security and Medicare benefits, huge spending on infrastructure, and a willingness to borrow more for some spending programs, rather than a guarantee to pay down the debt.
The most noteworthy aspect of Trump’s economic speech may have been that he adopted many of the tax ideas of congressional Republicans and the Chamber of Commerce wing of the G.O.P. and that he actually had surprisingly little new to say to struggling wage earners. For example, his child-care proposal is in the form of a tax deduction, which benefits well-off taxpayers, not those who need the most help paying for their kids. Still, Trump has broken enough with the Paul Ryan wing of the G.O.P. to suggest that his appeal might have something to do with his economic policies, as muddled as they may be.
In addition, Trump returned this week to the issue that first endeared him to many Republicans: he attacked Obama as somehow foreign and anti-American. Recall that Trump, a notorious conspiracy theorist, was the most prominent proponent of the idea that Obama was born in Kenya or somewhere other than the United States. Trump led the effort to delegitimize the first black President as a Muslim or a Kenyan. Trump’s birtherism and then his embrace by a loud neo-white-supremacist movement led many to argue that his appeal was not much more complicated that old-fashioned racism.
On Friday, a researcher with Gallup brought some much-needed data and clarity to this debate. Jonathan Rothwell, an economist who drew on eighty-seven thousand interviews in the organization’s polling database, expected to find that Trump’s strongest base of support existed in areas of America adversely affected by international free-trade agreements and lax immigration policy. He made a surprising discovery.
“The results show mixed evidence that economic distress has motivated Trump support,” he writes. “His supporters are less educated and more likely to work in blue collar occupations, but they earn relative high household incomes, and living in areas more exposed to trade or immigration does not increase Trump support.” Rothwell adds that his results do not present a clear picture of the connection between social and economic hardship and support for Trump. The standard economic measures of income and employment status show that, if anything, more affluent Americans tend to favor Trump, even among white non-Hispanics. Surprisingly, there appears to be no link whatsoever between exposure to trade competition and support for nationalist policies in America, as embodied by the Trump campaign.
Rothwell’s finding is similar to what researchers who have studied the Tea Party movement since 2010 have found. For example, Theda Skocpol’s careful work on the Tea Party showed that it was a movement of middle-class Americans, many of whom experienced a shock to their net worth after the 2008 financial crash when the value of their retirement accounts and homes plummeted.
So if Trump supporters are not necessarily the dislocated factory workers of media lore, what is driving them? Rothwell has two explanations, each of which gives both of the sides in the long-running debate over Trumpism some evidence to support their view.
First, he finds that “more subtle measures” of “longevity and intergenerational mobility” are key to understanding Trump. In other words, Trump voters aren’t living as long as they should be, and they seem to have serious concerns about whether their children will be as prosperous as their own generation is. “Make America Great Again” is not a bad slogan for the people in this situation.
But Rothwell also found a second factor that correlates highly with Trump support:
This analysis provides clear evidence that those who view Trump favorably are disproportionately living in racially and culturally isolated zip codes and commuting zones. Holding other factors constant, support for Trump is highly elevated in areas with few college graduates, far from the Mexican border, and in neighborhoods that stand out within the commuting zone for being white, segregated enclaves, with little exposure to blacks, Asians, and Hispanics.
In other words, race is important. Rothwell, discussing what is known to social scientists as “contact theory,” essentially argues that living in overwhelmingly white enclaves increases one’s chances of being a racist, as “Limited interactions with racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, and college graduates may contribute to prejudicial stereotypes, political and cultural misunderstandings, and a general fear of rejection and not belonging”
If Rothwell is correct, his research complicates our understanding of why voters support the most extreme aspects of Trump’s nationalist policies. It means that simply improving economic conditions isn’t enough. The Trump voter, according to this research, is driven not by simple economic self-interest but by something deeper and more psychological. Rothwell’s view is much more in line with the argument that Trump voters are whites who feel that their privileged place in America is threatened by forces they don’t really understand. If this is true, they can’t simply be won over by getting median wages raised or by bringing the local factory back from Mexico.
This week, Trump’s immaturity and recklessness made it more likely that he will be defeated in November. But his supporters will remain, and, going forward, it will take a more sophisticated and nuanced Republican leadership to figure out an agenda that speaks to their legitimate demands without exploiting their worst fears.
Wassup SA?
You know of course only your comrade Klastri read your comment.
Well, the fact that it’s an except from NYT article, I would say Klastri read it, and several other million folks….
Funny! Klastri can only read the comments, he can’t say anything till his band is lifted. 🙂
Here’s Why Americans Are Mad as Hell at Wall Street and Washington
By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: August 12, 2016
President Obama Walking in Cross Hall at the White House. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza.)
President Obama Walking in Cross Hall at the White House. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza.)
Yesterday we published our 1,007th article here at Wall Street On Parade on the insidiously corrupt financial system in the United States known as Wall Street. It’s a system that now operates as an institutionalized wealth transfer mechanism that is hollowing out the middle class, leaving one of every five children in our nation living in poverty, while funneling the plunder to the top one-tenth of one percent.
Tens of millions of Americans clearly understand that an entrenched system of corruption such as this, perpetuated through a revolving door between Wall Street and Washington, while enshrined by a political campaign finance system that recycles a portion of the plunder to ensure greater plunders, will inevitably leave the nation’s economy in tatters — again. That’s because systemic corruption and legalized bribery within the financial arteries of the nation can only create grossly perverse economic outcomes.
The actual role of Wall Street is to fairly and efficiently allocate capital to maximize positive economic outcomes for the nation. Under the current model, Wall Street is focused solely on maximizing profits in any manner possible, including fraud and collusion, to maximize personal enrichment. When Senator Bernie Sanders said during his campaign stops and a presidential debate that “the business model of Wall Street is fraud,” there was a long, substantive archive of facts to back up that assertion.
Consider the intensely corrupt Wall Street analyst research practices that led to the Nasdaq crash at the turn of this century. Writing in the New York Times on March 15, 2001, Ron Chernow said it best: “Let us be clear about the magnitude of the Nasdaq collapse. The tumble has been so steep and so bloody — close to $4 trillion in market value erased in one year — that it amounts to nearly four times the carnage recorded in the October 1987 crash.” Chernow compared the Nasdaq stock market, filled with companies boosted by intentionally corrupt Wall Street research, to a “lunatic control tower that directed most incoming planes to a bustling, congested airport known as the New Economy while another, depressed airport, the Old Economy, stagnated with empty runways. The market functioned as a vast, erratic mechanism for misallocating capital across America,” said Chernow.
The financial rewards for this corrupt model flowed to the research analysts at the biggest Wall Street firms and their CEOs who reaped lavish bonuses for the outsized “profits.” The poster boy for this era was Jack Grubman, an analyst at Salomon Smith Barney, a unit of the serially corrupt Citigroup. Grubman was charged by the SEC for fraudulent research. He never went to trial or was criminally charged. He merely paid a $15 million fine, was barred from the industry, and walked away rich. According to the SEC, Grubman’s total personal haul at Salomon Smith Barney “exceeded $67.5 million, including his multi-million dollar severance package.” Let that sink in for a moment: you are barred from your industry for corruption and you still receive a multi-million dollar severance package. There is simply no better testament to the principle that fraud is now both an accepted business model, as well as a profit center, on Wall Street.
After the 2001 collapse of Nasdaq, nothing materially changed to stop the systemic corruption model. In fact, corruption accelerated. Instead of allocating capital to build new industries and new jobs to ensure America’s future, Wall Street allocated capital to unsound derivatives and to subprime borrowers, whom it knew from its own internal reports, did not have the ability to repay the loans. Wall Street then offloaded its derivatives risk to AIG and suckered Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae into buying its toxic subprime debt. All three institutions collapsed under the weight of this Wall Street corruption and, jointly, received over $367 billion in taxpayer bailouts.
In our exclusive report on May 20 of this year, we explained how the U.S. government has quietly been paying billions of dollars to Wall Street banks in recent years on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for derivative bets they are still saddled with. The public has yet to receive any definitive explanation of what is going on with these derivatives.
The Wall Street bailouts that the public knew about during the 2008 crash and its aftermath were chump change compared to the $13 trillion in cumulative loans that the Federal Reserve was secretly funneling to its Wall Street banking pals at below-market interest rates. While Citigroup was charging struggling consumers, in the midst of an economic crisis it helped engineer, over 15 percent on credit cards, it was getting a secret infusion of more than $2 trillion in cumulative loans from 2007 through at least 2010 from the nation’s central bank, much of it at less than 1 percent.
The cataclysmic financial crash of 2008 resulted in promises from the Obama administration that the Dodd-Frank financial legislation would forever reform the scurrilous looting by Wall Street. Not only has Wall Street not been reformed but its arrogance has been unbridled. Consider the following:
On February 16 of this year we reported that “AIG’s Board of Directors just appointed hedge fund titan, John Paulson of Paulson & Company, to its Board – despite the fact that he is named in a SEC complaint as a willful participant in the disgraceful Goldman Sachs deal that was designed to rip off investors while financially lining the pockets of Paulson and Goldman Sachs. While Paulson was not charged by the SEC, its complaint made clear he played a key role and profited greatly to the detriment of misled investors.” AIG became a ward of the taxpayer during the 2008 crash, in no small part because of derivative bets it couldn’t pay to Goldman Sachs. The taxpayer, courtesy of the U.S. government, paid those bets off to Goldman Sachs at 100 cents on the dollar.
Sheila Bair was the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Federal agency that insures the deposits of our nation’s banks, during the financial crash of 2008. After Bair stepped down from that role she wrote a definitive book on the crisis, Bull by the Horns. In the book, Bair exposed the government deceit that had surrounded Citigroup during the crisis, writing:
“By November, the supposedly solvent Citi was back on the ropes, in need of another government handout. The market didn’t buy the OCC’s and NY Fed’s strategy of making it look as though Citi was as healthy as the other commercial banks. Citi had not had a profitable quarter since the second quarter of 2007. Its losses were not attributable to uncontrollable ‘market conditions’; they were attributable to weak management, high levels of leverage, and excessive risk taking. It had major losses driven by their exposures to a virtual hit list of high-risk lending; subprime mortgages, ‘Alt-A’ mortgages, ‘designer’ credit cards, leveraged loans, and poorly underwritten commercial real estate. It had loaded up on exotic CDOs and auction-rate securities. It was taking losses on credit default swaps entered into with weak counterparties, and it had relied on unstable volatile funding – a lot of short-term loans and foreign deposits. If you wanted to make a definitive list of all the bad practices that had led to the crisis, all you had to do was look at Citi’s financial strategies…What’s more, virtually no meaningful supervisory measures had been taken against the bank by either the OCC or the NY Fed…Instead, the OCC and the NY Fed stood by as that sick bank continued to pay major dividends and pretended that it was healthy.”
Consider what’s happening today at Citigroup with not so much as a peep from its myriad Federal regulators. Citigroup is today bulking up on over $2 trillion dollars in notional value (face amount) of the riskiest derivatives, credit default swaps, that brought down AIG and helped make Citigroup the recipient of the largest taxpayer bailout in U.S. history.
Given these facts on the ground, another President who takes a hands off approach to Wall Street while installing Wall Street cronies in the cabinet, will leave this nation terminally financially crippled.
” All major U.S. presidential candidates in modern history ”
I read that it was Republican candidates back to Richard Nixon.
“modern history” is often defined to have begun at the end of the Middle Ages
Seems like an exaggeration.
“The bulk of their income — more than $6 million — came from speaking fees for appearances made largely before Hillary Clinton launched her campaign.”
The concern of many people is the influence of big money on politicians running for office.
Feeding a candidate huge sums for speaking fees during and before candidacy is a standard way of doing this.
One small way she could alleviate the fears is to release the texts of the speeches she gave, such as the one to Goldman Sachs.
“He [Bill] also earned more than $17 million over the same period for consulting work for Laureate Education, Inc., another for-profit education system based in Baltimore”
“His office said he had “engaged with GEMS students and faculty around the world and assisted the Varkey GEMS Foundation in its efforts to increase access to education to underprivileged children.”
OMG, What a load of Bull.
Even if Trump’s returns said he paid zero, this would be result of having used good business accountants to take advantage of legal business provisions.
You pay your fair share when you follow the rules, paying just what you owe – no more or no less.
It is a weak attempt to deflect attention from the Clinton pay to play.
Word on the street; Wikileakes soon to reveal trump’s dumps, real big dumps.
This article belongs in the Classified.
Real Top News
Clinton took the lead role in organizing the so-called “Friends of Syria” (aka Al Qaeda/ISIS) to back the CIA-led insurgency for regime change in Syria.
Under oath Hillary Clinton denied she knew about the weapons shipments during public testimony in early 2013 after the Benghazi terrorist attack.
In an interview with Democracy Now, Wikileaks’ Julian Assange is now stating that 1,700 emails contained in the Clinton cache directly connect Hillary to Libya to Syria, and directly to Al Qaeda and ISIS.
Read His Full Testimony @ (Link: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com)
The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, insisted that all prisoners be released. Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked us by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the US from all, pass this on!
Multiple FBI investigations are underway involving potential corruption charges against the Clinton Foundation, according to a former senior law enforcement official.
The investigation centers on New York City where the Clinton Foundation has its main offices, according to the former official who has direct knowledge of the activities.
Prosecutorial support will come from various U.S. Attorneys Offices — a major departure from other centralized FBI investigations.
The New York-based probe is being led by Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Bharara’s prosecutorial aggressiveness has resulted in a large number of convictions of banks, hedge funds and Wall Street insiders.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/11/exclusive-joint-fbi-us-attorney-probe-of-clinton-foundation-is-underway/#ixzz4HHRMtJea
Three Siblings and Their Father
A father told his 3 children when he sent them to college: “I feel
it’s my duty to provide you with the best possible education, and you do
not owe me anything for that. However, I want you to appreciate it. As a
token, please each put $1,000 into my coffin when I die.”
And so it happened, one became a doctor, one a lawyer, and one a
financial planner, each very financially successful. When their father’s
time had come, and they saw their father in the coffin, they remembered
his wish.
First, it was the doctor who put 10 newly printed, crisp $100 bills onto
the chest of the deceased.
Then, came the financial planner, who also placed $1,000 in cash there.
Finally, it was the heartbroken lawyer’s turn. She dipped into her purse,
took out her checkbook, wrote a check for $3,000, placed it into her
father’s coffin, and took the $2,000 cash.
She is now running for President of the United States!.