Follow the Money – Trump v Clinton

Posted by Jack

Trump has actually spent over $76M of the $99M he has raised.  Of that total, self-financing accounts for over $49M or about 56%.   He has $22M on hand and has zero debt.  About $25M of the total money raised came from small contributions or about 28% and zero funds came from PAC contributions.

Over $86M from outside agencies has been spent against Trump, $61M has been spent for Trump.

Hillary Clinton has been fund raising since 1999 and has over $546M, PAC contributions amount to about $6M, self-financing amounts to about 2% of the total or $14M.   Clinton carries over $144K in debt.

Her largest 5 donors include:  Emily’s List $1,037,789$1,028,869$8,920 University of California $971,266 Citigroup Inc.  $941,278 JPMorgan Chase & Co $923,538, Piper $905,656

Her average fund raiser dinners run about $33k per plate.  One was $100K per plate.  The lowest was a one time student rate of $20.

PS.  Trump has loaned his campaign millions, so he can recover that via donations.  Looks like he will recover a substantial portion given current ratios and carrying no debt.  A smart move on his part.  By comparision Hillary’s campaign is being by pigs at the public trough and she stands to gain millions  after being elected, just as her husband has done. Trump will not gain much, if any.  His fortune is already made, and chances are it might even cost him thanks to the wealthy and disgruntalled liberals who will boycot the Trump Towers.

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Follow the Money – Trump v Clinton

  1. Tina says:

    Reminds me of others who took personal risks for the nation.

    It’s refreshing to see someone run who manages his money well rather than spending like an open faucet. I am certain he will pay more attention to the budget and have more respect for the source of the tax dollars they’re spending in DC.

    His speech in West Bend near Wisconsin was excellent: “… I am running to listen to your voice, to hear your cries for help. The quiet voices in our society, not the loudest demonstrators, need to have their demands heard…”

    • Lee says:

      How can you possibly know that Trump manages his money well when he refuses to release his tax returns?

      • Tina says:

        Tax returns wouldn’t necessarily tell how Trump manages his money. Tax returns are a snapshot of conditions present on particular day in the life of a company or person. A business could be showing a loss on December 31 and within a couple of months be showing a profit. Tax returns are busy work the government imposes so they can collect taxes.

        Debt on the other hand is an indicator and so far Trump’s campaign has no debt. Trumps good management skills are reflected in is his ability to attract attention without spending. Why spend if you don;t have to? Hillary has spent buckets of money on ads and yet has gained nothing for it, polling remains about the same excluding the convention bumps both candidates got.

        It’s easy to criticize when there have been chapter 11 filings but Trump weathered the financial crisis and legally positioned to come out of it to the benefit of others as well as himself and gone on to greater success. People who manage money poorly don’t come back.

        I’m in favor of transparency. Trump should release his tax returns.

        On the other hand in a race where your opponent is not just the Hillary campaign but also the media, the elites of both parties, and big money donors from George Soros to Wall Street bankers, Wealthy Hollywood stars, and Silicon Valley, any defense he can muster is probably one he will use. Hillary will not be targeted for destruction as Trump will even with her reputation for non-transparency, and her lies, deceit, and failures.

        If the playing field was level, if the press was even handed, we would be seeing a different race.

        Do you think Hillary should release the transcripts from her Wall Street speeches?

        • Lee says:

          Sorry, I forgot to answer this:

          “Do you think Hillary should release the transcripts from her Wall Street speeches?”

          If this is standard procedure, then sure. Is it? Are all candidates expected to release transcripts of speeches? If so, then she should. If not, then it isn’t a big deal.

          Releasing tax returns is a tradition that all candidates have followed since the seventies. Trump not releasing these is a much bigger deal than transcripts.

          If you are angry about Clinton not releasing her transcripts but not angry about Trump not releasing tax returns, you have a bias problem. That goes double if you were one of the people asking for Obama’s birth certificate or college transcripts, which was never commonly done before.

      • Post Scripts says:

        Lee, thanks for asking the question. Is it your assertion that the only measure of a persons ability to manage their money well comes from their tax returns? Hillary has released her tax returns, she made 10.4M. Not bad for a public servant. She made over 28M the year before.

        • Lee says:

          Of course I don’t think tax returns are the “only” way to measure a person’s ability to manage their money, but it’s a standard that we’ve expected from every major presidential candidate for decades. Trump would be the first to refuse this.

          And no, “the media is mean to me” is not an excuse to refuse to do this. It’s just being a whiny baby, which is what Trump is. You would never accept this excuse from Clinton, and you shouldn’t accept it from your own candidate.

          It especially shouldn’t be expected of Trump since he has been so demanding of others in the past. He demanded Obama release a birth certificate when he had already done so. He is calling on Clinton to prove she’s healthy when she’s already done so. Trump, meanwhile, released a fake medical document signed by a dead doctor, who mysteriously sounds exactly like Trump. If he is going to demand transparency from others he must show it himself.

          (There’s also plenty of reason to believe he has lied about his wealth and past business practices, making releasing his tax returns even more necessary.)

          As for “getting attention,” if that’s how you evaluate a candidate’s success, knock yourself out. But that’s a very immature way to evaluate a candidate. Trump gets attention because he reveals on a daily basis that he doesn’t know how the government, constitutional rights, or basic human interaction work. Clinton doesn’t need to resort to outlandish media stunts to get attention–she’s winning by running a legitimately good campaign, not a “so bad you can’t look away” one.

          “polling remains about the same excluding the convention bumps both candidates got.”

          Aaaaaand this is yet another point where I have to conclude yet again that you’re deliberately hiding from media sources that rely on facts. This is not only false, it’s outrageously false. Trump is behind in every single poll, and has been in a freefall for weeks, since he attacked the parents of a fallen soldier, smeared their religion, and said they had “no right” to question his understanding of the Constitution (thus proving he does not understand the Constitution, and writing one of the greatest unintentional first amendment jokes in history). I don’t understand how you couldn’t know this, unless you’ve completely unplugged from real news over the past few weeks and have retreated to Trump Land, where he’s always winning even when he’s not.

          • Tina says:

            “Clinton doesn’t need to resort to outlandish media stunts to get attention”

            No (Chris?), she has to try to avoid attention so she won’t be asked any questions about her many failures and corrupt and negligent practices…not to mention her behavior toward the women who accused her husband of rape and assault.

  2. Libby says:

    So, you wanna legislate publicly financed presidential campaigns?

    You can’t complain about “their” campaign financing, if you are not willing to put yours on an equal footing … which you are not, because in 2020 you might have a candidate with prospects.

  3. Post Scripts says:

    Hillary has been a in government long enough to think a million bucks is chump change. Thats a problem. What could you do with one million dollars in your pocket right now?
    Would it be important, would it be life changing? Well of course, cause it’s still a big deal to you and most of working class types. But, to Hillary and other big shots who live off the public $$$ with your tax dollars, eh, its not so much. Michelle Obama would spend that and more on a simple plane ride to the Hamptons and never think a thing of it.

    Meanwhile, back here in reality land, here you are, living from pay check to pay check and giving too much of it to the spendthrifts in Washington who could care less.

    • Lee says:

      I can’t believe I am seeing so many Donald Trump supporters play the “greedy rich person” card against Clinton. Irony is truly dead.

      Trump has mismanaged his campaign from the beginning. He just fired his campaign chief who was still recieving money from a pro-Putin politician in Ukraine. On the same day his daughter was partying with Putin’s girlfriend. His spokespeople humiliate themselves on a daily basis. Watch this to get a sense of the denial that fuels the Trump campaign:

      http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/08/says-who-trump-stance-reality.html

      Omarosa, Trump’s head of black outreach, said Trump’s opponents will have to “bow down” to him when he wins:

      “Donald Trump is running for president because he really, truly believes he can turn the country around,” she said. “More importantly, every critic, every detractor will have to bow down to President Trump.”

      These are the “best people” Trump surrounds himself with. This is the rhetoric of a dictator.

      Trump, his campaign and his supporters can’t accept that they are losing, and that Trump is responsible for this, so they blame “the media” for reporting on the crazy things Trump and his staff say and do.

      Republicans have nothing to lose and everything to gain by withdrawing support to this awful tyrant now. He’s not going to win, and his supporters will be on the wrong side of history. The more Republicans associate themselves with Trump’s brand now, the more damage they do to the Republican party and the country. Unless Trump drops out or more Republicans speak out against him, Democrats will win not only the presidency but the House and Senate in the next congressional race.

  4. More Common Sense says:

    “Her largest 5 donors include: Emily’s List $1,037,789$1,028,869$8,920 University of California $971,266 Citigroup Inc. $941,278 JPMorgan Chase & Co $923,538, Piper $905,656”

    University of California? What is a public University doing contributing to a political campaign?

    • J. Soden says:

      A TAXPAYER FUNDED public university! Excellent question!!!!!

    • Libby says:

      It’s probably the UC Foundation, which is funded largely by wealth alumni. Your media are reknown for its sloppy and misleading reporting.

      • Tina says:

        The money comes from the UC PAC.

        The “reporting” came from Open Secrets. There is nothing misleading or sloppy about it.

        Libby it seems you don’t even bother to read what’s posted. You just automatically spew the left talking points like a robot.

        The Democrat Party would love to exclude corporate participation. The reason is, their nonprofit special interest groups, unions, and government funded schools had an advantage when they were excluded. The law has not hurt them, big corporation works for them now too. Just shows how greedy, deceitful, hypocritical and intolerant they are.

        • Lee says:

          “The “reporting” came from Open Secrets. There is nothing misleading or sloppy about it.”

          Sorry, but there is. This is a fact sheet from the University of California, literally the first thing that shows up when you Google “UC PAC campaign:”

          Sometimes organizations that track campaign contributions, such as http://opensecrets.org,
          take the official data provided by the FEC about campaign contributions and report by
          demographic breakdown, such as by industry or employer. This type of data tracking and
          bundling can be misleading because it implies that the company or entity supports the candidate
          in question and provided the funds. In fact, the listing merely means that a particular group of
          contributors happens to work for the listed entity.

          http://universityofcalifornia.edu/sites/default/files/campaign-contributions_0113.pdf

          I found this within thirty seconds. It’s so easy.

          Why can’t you do this?

          • Tina says:

            Sorry but there isn’t!

            Disclosure fromOpen Secrets page:

            This table lists the top donors to this candidate in 1999-2016. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations’ PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

            The part that reads: “The organizations themselves did not donate” is highlighted in red. There is nothing misleading or sloppy about it.”

            I worked in real estate; I know EXACTLY how PACs operate. Usually those who are employed are pressed by someone tasking them to donate to the PAC “because it supports the industry, in this case the UC system or education in general. I told my boss I wasn’t sure I favored donations by PACs since I couldn’t be sure my donation would go to candidates and positions I would back. (To each his own.)

            “I found this within thirty seconds. It’s so easy.

            Why can’t you do this?”

            Yep, it’s Chris all right.

            I didn’t have to, it was prominently clear at the webpage “Open Secrets”

            What the matter…can’t defend Hillary’s big “fat cat” donations?

            UC salaries are mighty fat. As lefties always say, “Who needs that kind of money?”

            Who indeed when their product is not as good as it once was and is much more expensive.

            What happened to the “occupy” dogma? Or does it only apply when it can be used against republicans?

            You are such a phony!

  5. J. Soden says:

    The “Clinton Ca$h” graphic novel will make its debut on the NYT Best Seller Graphic Novel list this week at Number One!
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/17/clinton-cash-graphic-novel-debut-1-new-york-times-graphic-novel-bestsellers-list/

    It’s on sale at Amazon for $11.99 plus tax and shipping – if you’re not a Prime member.
    Started reading Dinesh D’Sousa’s “Hillary’s America” e-book from the local library. Got about 20% through it and decided I should have it as a reference book! So, it’s off to Costco ….
    Anyone who could read the first 3 chapters of that book and still vote for $hrilLIARy has no redeeming value.

  6. Lee says:

    Four years after falsely claiming that Barack Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery, Trump has released a forged medical document from a dead doctor that he obviously wrote himself.

    http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/14/donald-trump-releases-medical-report-calling-his-health-extraordinary/

    Trump, of course, has a tendency to pretend to be other people in order to praise himself; he admitted in court over a decade ago to posing as “John Barron” and calling into radio shows to talk about how awesome he was.

    I don’t expect this will force Trump supporters to speculate about Trump’s health as wildly as they have been speculating about Clinton’s, even though Clinton has released a legitimate medical document rather than an obvious forgery.

    • Tina says:

      Legitimate document? From Hillary?

      Ha!

      The frivolous “lying” you attribute to Trump cannot be compared to the massive lies, deceptions, and corruption in Hillary’s history. Moreover, she has been a public figure, living extravagantly off of taxpayer money, with a special obligation to be responsible, forthright and honest.

      The contrast works against both you and Hillary.

      • Lee says:

        “Legitimate document? From Hillary?

        Ha!”

        Do you have any evidence that the document is illegitimate?

        With Trump, we know the doctor who signed it is dead, and the phrases sound exactly like Trump–particularly this:

        “If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency,” Dr. Bornstein wrote in the final paragraph of the letter, which was dated Dec. 4 but not released until Monday.

        This Trump-like grammar and syntax is all over the document.

        Why doesn’t this bother you? Why must you always retort with “Well, Hillary!…” instead of addressing the argument put forth? Do you really think such comebacks are persuasive? Do you ever talk to people who don’t already agree with you?

      • Lee says:

        Tina, I am having trouble understanding your argument. Are you saying that only people who made their wealth in the private sector are “legitimate rich people,” whereas people who made their wealth in public service somehow have less legitimate wealth?

        And are all politicians greedy in your eyes, or only liberal ones?

        Thanks.

    • J. Soden says:

      Not really wise for a $hrilLIARy supporter to start on any birther topic when $hrilLIARy was the one who started the birther movement . . . . . . .

      http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/09/26/washington-post-confirms-hillary-clinton-started-the-birther-movement/

  7. Tina says:

    I can’t believe I am seeing so many Donald Trump supporters play the “greedy rich person” card against Clinton. Irony is truly dead.

    Your accusation shows ignorance about money, honest earnings, and what constitutes greed.

    Hillary is the epitome of the greedy person. She has become a very wealthy person mostly through deceit, manipulation, corruption, and phony dealings. She has built nothing and produced nothing. Even her charitable contributions were basically payments to herself. That phony foundation is a slush fund for the family where good works amount to symbolic gestures and political photo ops, a platform for gaining more power…and don’t fool yourself, it’s power over people they crave. Hillary and her family live large without building anything and without truly “giving back.”

    Trump’s wealth has been earned, first by his father who built a successful construction company from the ground up, and then by Trump who took his inheritance and expanded the building vision. The money they EARNED, through hard work and risk taking did provide them a better life but in the process it was also put back to work in the economy with new and bigger projects and increased job opportunities being the result. Whatever charitable contributions they make, often under the radar, exist on top of the contribution of jobs and product.

    Hillary likes high taxes because they fund the big government game. Our hard earned money finds its way into her pockets through this grand grifter scheme. The problem with you lefties is you don’t know the difference between a grifter who cheats you out of your money and a business man who offers a product or service that you can take or leave.

    It isn’t the money; it’s how the money is acquire and used that makes someone a greedy person. Hillary and her type are very greedy. They take money by force and by now they’ve spent and legislated in a way that has decimated the middle class and created a larger body of needy poor. They’ve singled out the wealthy this election because they’ve tapped out and destroyed much of the middle class and because they started this “greed” meme knowing many Americans will buy the lie.

    A big greedy government beast that holds the people hostage to its need is a disgrace because it is never satisfied nor is it held accountable. How long have politicians been yammering away about roads and bridges and better schools? They’ve taken trillions from the economy in taxes and nothing has been done to improve either. We have growing debt with little to show for it. We have complex laws and tax structures that cost the economy a second time in compliance costs.

    As Reagan said “Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.”

    The legitimately wealthy in America give back in many ways. They spend big bucks and they invest their money in way’s that creates opportunities for others to work and grow richer and that supports innovation. The current tax and regulatory structure has helped to drive this investment money elsewhere or into safe havens of inactivity. A more positive tax and regulatory structure will lift a huge weight of burden from the people, rich, middle, and poor, and create massive opportunities for good jobs and upward mobility.

    Irony isn’t dead. Your notions about greed are based in ignorance.

  8. dewster says:

    Trump Has never managed money well! He profits off of bankruptcies. Leaves contractors unpaid. Heck he even stiffs hotels! It’s so funny watching media control people.

    Trump needs to release his taxes. Clinton needs to release the transcripts.

    ANd no mention of all the foreign money in Both Campaigns?

    What Flavor Kool-Aide are ya drinking?

    Trump Supporters React to test Campaign Ads
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MubunsD-7g&feature=youtu.be

    • Tina says:

      “He profits off of bankruptcies”

      Nobody “profits” in bankruptcy filing. A bankruptcy filing restructures the enterprise so that it can resolve financing issues with as little harm as possible. In construction sub-contractors may have been payed less but they did get paid something. Without the bankruptcy filing they would have gotten nothing. They take these jobs KNOWING there is risk…or they SHOULD know. The last person/entity paid in these filings is the guy at the top (in this case Trump) That’s the law Dewey.

      “…he even stiffs hotels!”

      Please desist in making specious accusations unless you provide evidence!

  9. Tina says:

    Drive-by Dewey the clown still doesn’t have ideas or solutions.

    We have spoken of foreign money.

    You’re welcome to add your two cents worth.

  10. RHT447 says:

    Interesting, indeed.

    So the Dems had to pay actors to fill up seats at their convention & now we learn they paid Khan?

    Khan was paid $25,000 by the Clinton campaign to speak at the DNC, the speech was not written by Mr. Khan, but by two campaign staffers, the copy of the US Constitution that Mr. Khan held up was bought only two HOURS before his speech by a female staffer, to be used solely as a prop and Khan returned the book after speaking.

    5 Gold Star families turned down the opportunity to speak before Khan was contacted by the Clinton campaign. All five families were paid $5,000 and signed a non disclosure. Khan’s immigration law firm is in debt $1.7M and owes back taxes of upward $850,000 plus penalties.

    CNN paid Khan over $100,000 to tell his “story” and repeated interviews across networks. Khan was given a bonus of $175k by the DNC for his effort in the media. The IRS has since put Khan’s tax file on a “hold” status.

    Link—

    http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2016/08/interesting-if-if-true.html

  11. Peggy says:

    Economics: The Tax System Explained in Beer

    Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

    The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
    The fifth would pay $1
    The sixth would pay $3
    The seventh would pay $7
    The eighth would pay $12
    The ninth would pay $18
    The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59
    So, that’s what they decided to do.

    The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

    The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

    But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

    They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

    So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

    And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
    The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
    The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
    The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
    The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
    The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

    Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

    “I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, ´but he got $10!”

    “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

    “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

    “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

    The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

    The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill.

    And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

    Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

    David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
    Professor of Economics

    (TruthorFiction – Unproven)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.