On numerous occasions, Bernie has mockingly said he would release the transcripts of his paid speeches. He then proceeds to flail his arms in the air, proud of the fact he has never been offered money for his thoughts [probably because he is rather ineffective at achieving progress]. Point is — those that are in Congress are not legally allowed to give paid speeches due to conflict of interest. Hillary Rodham Clinton never gave a single paid speech while she served as First Lady, New York Senator, or Secretary of State.
The “Wall Street speech” attack is nothing more than a McCarthy-style smear. Character assassination. Innuendo.
Bernie was unable to give even one concrete example of how these speeches corrupted Hillary Clinton, proving this Wall Street attack is nothing more than an artful smear. Designed to raise questions where there are none. Innuendo at its finest.
However, some Bernie supporters use Hillary’s bankruptcy vote as an example of her supposed “corruption.”
"My experience has been that whenever you closely examine the attacks on Hillary, whether they come from the left or the right, they break apart under scrutiny."
~Zachary Leven
Hillary voted for a version of the bankruptcy bill after working with Congress to include amendments directly addressing Elizabeth Warren’s concerns about the bill — specifically those regarding women and children. The bill then went to the Republican-controlled House, which removed the amendments protecting women and children. When the bill was sent back to the Senate, Democrats [including Hillary] filibustered the bill. Later, a finalized version of the bill passed without Hillary’s support.
Voting for one version of a bill that never passed is not proof of corruption. The bottom line is: Hillary voted for one version of the bankruptcy bill which addressed the exact concerns that worried Elizabeth Warren — concerns regarding women and children. A finalized version of the bill, which removed the provisions protecting women and children, passed without Hillary’s support. Period.
Fundamentally, though, Bernie doesn’t believe you can take money and not be bought, which is why he has consistently mocked Hillary Clinton for forcefully telling Wall Street [prior to the crash] that their behavior regarding mortgages and derivatives needed to change.
Here is Hillary’s speech warning Wall Street on derivatives:
But isn’t it the height of irony and hypocrisy that Hillary is criticized for only “talking” to Wall Street about their risky behavior? “Talking” is about all Bernie Sanders has done during his entire career with regards to income inequality and corporate greed. Hypocrite?
Point is — when Hillary was First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State, she never gave paid speeches. However, after she left public office, she *DID* give paid speeches — just as other successful men and women have done. Hillary should wear these speaking fees as a badge of honor — her brilliant career should be given the same worth as successful men who charge similar and often much larger amounts. Is the root of this attack sexism?
At the end of the day, the Clintons paid a 35.7% tax rate [40 million in total taxes] over the last 7 years. They built their success from the ground up, dating back to their days together at Yale Law School. Both Clintons embody the American dream of using their own talents to achieve success — but they have both never forgotten their roots and they both pay their fair share to a country that has given them so much. The Clintons want to pay their success forward to the next generation of Americans.
Mitt Romney, a man who was born with a silver-spoon in his mouth, paid a 14.1% tax rate. The Clintons, who came from humble beginnings [Bill came from a widowed single Mother and Hillary's Father was a small business owner] paid a 35.7% tax rate [40 million in total taxes] over the last 7 years.
Why wouldn't the Clintons hold Wall Street and others to the same standard they hold themselves to?
Ironic, isn’t it?
Hillary’s plans have been deemed by experts to be tougher and more comprehensive than Bernie’s. Hillary’s plans go right after the root causes of the 2008 economic collapse: shadow baking and *DERIVATIVES*, something Hillary drew attention to back in 2007.
Hillary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders, saw the writing on the wall in regards to the 2008 economic collapse — especially with regards to derivatives, something Bernie voted to deregulate in 2000:
Bernie voted to deregulate derivatives in the year 2000, one of the direct causes of the 2008 financial crash. Hillary Clinton, on the contrary, addressed derivatives prior to the crash:
Clinton said she "called for addressing risks of derivatives, cracking down on subprime mortgages and improving financial oversight" early on in the financial crisis.
The crisis hit a peak in summer 2008, though it started to gain traction in 2007. Clinton began addressing the subprime mortgage issue in her appearances in March 2007. Later that year, she took on derivatives. She also proposed specific plans for solving these problems and increasing oversight of financial institutions.
SOURCE
Rated by PolitiFact as TRUE.
Hillary Clinton has since called for the “Buffet Rule” and ending the “Romney Loophole.” I sincerely hope Bernie Sanders will endorse both of those ideas.
We also know Hillary fought for unions and a higher minimum wage as New York Senator despite corporate contributions, similar to President Obama passing Dodd-Frank despite having a super-pac and receiving corporate contributions.
Personally, I have no doubt in Hillary’s commitment to take on corporate America just as President Barack Obama did. Both have used super-pacs and both have received corporate contributions. Both have also never given paid speeches while in office, and both pay their fair share in taxes.
Hillary Clinton wants all wealthy people like herself to be held to a 35% tax-rate. In-fact, the Clintons tax-rate has averaged almost 40% over the last 10 years.
