Hillary Clinton Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cider
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
At the National Action Network Convention in New York, Clinton announced a plan to fight for environmental and climate justice.

She didn’t go into details during the speech, but her campaign released a fact sheet outlining how to reduce the environmental burdens felt within low-income communities of color. That fact sheet, “Hillary Clinton’s Plan to Fight for Environmental and Climate Justice,” is remarkable for a number of reasons, not least of which because, after explaining how “the burdens of air pollution, water pollution, and toxic hazards are borne disproportionately by low-income communities and communities of color,” it reads: “Simply put, this is environmental racism.”

I didn’t expect I’d ever hear a presidential candidate say those words.

She also plainly notes: “And the impacts of climate change, from more severe storms to longer heat waves to rising sea levels, will disproportionately affect low-income and minority communities, which suffer the worst losses during extreme weather and have the fewest resources to prepare.”

Her detailed plan includes these goals:
    • Eliminate lead as a major public health threat within five years.
    • Protect public health and safety by modernizing drinking and wastewater systems.
    • Prosecute criminal and civil violations that expose communities to environmental harm and work with Congress to strengthen public health protections in our existing laws.
    • Create new economic opportunity through brownfield clean-up and redevelopment.
    • Reduce urban air pollution by investing in clean power and transportation.
    • Broaden the clean energy economy, build career opportunities, and combat energy poverty by expanding solar and energy efficiency in low-income communities and communities of color.
    • Protect communities from the impacts of climate change by investing in resilient infrastructure.
    • Establish an Environmental and Climate Justice Task Force to make environmental and climate justice, including cumulative impacts, an integral part of federal decision-making.
This represents a serious commitment to environmental justice, and, in an election where whoever the eventual Democratic nominee is will face a Republican opponent who thinks the jury is still out on climate change and/or doesn’t care a single whit about entire communities being endangered by contaminated water, environmental pollutants, and climate change, it’s refreshing that there is someone serious running for the job who’s determined to bring sensitivity and real plans to the Oval Office.
 
zz912 said:
Perhaps you missed the question in my post. I asked if you had a link to her 2015 tax return so we could review it to substantiate the claims made about her charitable contributions.

Do you have a link?
Click to expand...
I will try to get it this evening. I have to go to class right now. I apologize.

Edit: Here, I was wrong; the 14 million given to charity covered several years. I will look for the detailed breakdown this evening.

"As the returns detail, since 2007, the Clintons have paid $43,885,310 in federal income taxes. In the two most recent years, 2013 and 2014, the Clintons paid an effective federal tax rate of 35.4 percent and 35.7 percent, respectively. When accounting for state and local taxes, the Clintons’ combined effective tax rate was 44.6 percent in 2013 and 45.8 percent in 2014.

“Since 2007, the Clintons have also made $14,959,450 in charitable contributions. In 2013, charitable giving represented 11.4 percent of their income. In 2014, it represented 10.8 percent.”

hillaryclinton.com/tax-returns/

They don’t SEEM to take advantage of loopholes.
 
Sy_Noe said:
:rolleyes: If those without sin aren’t allowed to post on the Trump thread, then it seems that would apply to all threads and CAF will have to shutdown.
Click to expand...
I never used that quote as a deflection to ignore character issues, as lily did for Hillary.

I think it’s very appropriate to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
Do you feel threatened with the truth on the Trump thread? Actually, I defend Trump more than some of his own supporters do.
Click to expand...
So you think “the truth” should only be discussed for your political opponents, but not for your candidate? Hypocrisy is another word for that approach.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
I have no objection to tax dedecutions unless they allow the super-rich to pay no tax at all, but the Clintons paid millions in taxes last year. Mostly, I object to corporations paying no taxes, and most corporation in the US paid no taxes last year.

I used no loopholes; I used legitimate deductions.
Click to expand...
Loopholes are legitimate. We need to overhaul our tax laws.
 
rmartensjr said:
A “legitimate” deduction is the one I can use.

A “loophole” is the deduction I cannot use.

😃
Click to expand...
or

“Legitimate deductions” are what I use, but the same regs are called “loopholes” when used by people I don’t like. The other people don’t morally deserve the deductions like I do!
 
Would environmental justice include getting rid of contraception? It gets into the drinking water…I won’t say how…but it’s obvious
 
Theo520 said:
So you think “the truth” should only be discussed for your political opponents, but not for your candidate? Hypocrisy is another word for that approach.
Click to expand...
She paid millions in taxes, and I don’t personally know anyone who could argue with that and put up an honest argument. How does that compare with the taxes Trump paid? Oh! We don’t know! He won’t release his returns! Could be he paid no tax!
 
Lily_Bernans said:
She paid millions in taxes, and I don’t personally know anyone who could argue with that and put up an honest argument. How does that compare with the taxes Trump paid? Oh! We don’t know! He won’t release his returns! Could be he paid no tax!
Click to expand...
I expect they both have made good use of available deductions, don’t you?
 
Maybe we can get Harry Reid to leak Trump’s tax return on the Senate floor. 🤷
 
qui_est_ce said:
Loopholes are legitimate. We need to overhaul our tax laws.
Click to expand...
I agree. One of my first targets, if I were a legislator, would be the total tax exemption for foundations, particularly those over which the initiators retain control.

The Clinton Foundation’s assets appear to be in the hundreds of millions. Chelsea Clinton was paid a salary by the foundation (and perhaps others, the Clintons have several) Their political people are employed at times by their foundations, like Sydney Blumenthal who was making deals in Libya when Hillary Clinton and Obama turned it over to terrorists.

When you’re talking about the very rich, you can’t just look at their nominal incomes and taxes paid, because they often have other “pockets” where they can have huge sums without ever paying any taxes on them at all, and without disclosing their income in political contests.

But my irritation is not limited to the Clintons. Harvard’s endowment is about $37 billion, or $1.7 million per student. Tuition and room and board together cost about $63,000/year. Income on the per-student endowment at 5% (I’m sure it’s more) is about $85,000/year.

Harvard could charge students half what it does or less and still have a handsome net income to add to that $37 billion. And people sometimes wonder why students have so much debt.

And it’s all tax-free to Harvard, whereas students pay with after-tax dollars. Granted, Harvard has the largest endowment, but there are others with multi-billion dollar endowments and a very large number with endowments of a billion or more.

Instead of charging taxpayers to send people to community colleges for free,(which won’t happen anyway) maybe Hillary Clinton should be talking about limiting federal loan funds to colleges that won’t share their tax-free wealth.

But of course, that won’t happen any more than taxing private (slush fund) foundations will.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
She and Bill paid millions to the IRS. And they gave 14 million to charity, about a tenth of their income.
Click to expand...
She paid millions to the IRS and 14 million to charity, yet she claims she was not only dead broke when she and Bill left the White House, but she was in serious debt. .
 
Tomdstone said:
She paid millions to the IRS and 14 million to charity, yet she claims she was not only dead broke when she and Bill left the White House, but she was in serious debt. .
Click to expand...
I’m sure they were when they left the White House. That was a long time ago. Bill’s legal bills had eaten through all their money. Since then they’ve both had book deals, speaking fees, investments, etc. Between 2001-2016 one’s finances can change dramatically. My own did.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
I’m sure they were when they left the White House. .
Click to expand...
If Hillary was dead broke when she and Bill left the white house, then how come they bought a five-bedroom home in Chappaqua, N.Y., for $1.7 million. In December 2000, just as they were leaving the White House, they bought a seven-bedroom house near Embassy Row in Washington, D.C.for $2.85 million. She said she was dead broke, but she owned two houses worth a combined total of $4.5 million? I don’t see how that qualifies a person for being dead broke?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top