Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Video & Multimedia

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts) Sun May 15, 2016, 04:46 PM May 2016

Hillary Clinton Slams Trump Tax Plan: 'Written by a Billionaire for Billionaires'

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hillary Clinton Slams Trump Tax Plan: 'Written by a Billionaire for Billionaires' (Original Post) SecularMotion May 2016 OP

The Clinton camp appears to be painfully unaware of irony. shakedown1970 May 2016 #1

A tax plan written by a multi-millionaire for multi-millionaires... KansDem May 2016 #3

well there IS a differnce.... Locrian May 2016 #4

Let's find out why Hillary Geronimoe May 2016 #2

shakedown1970

(64 posts)

1. The Clinton camp appears to be painfully unaware of irony.

Reply to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun May 15, 2016, 05:10 PM

May 2016

KansDem

(28,498 posts)

3. A tax plan written by a multi-millionaire for multi-millionaires...

Reply to shakedown1970 (Reply #1)

Sun May 15, 2016, 05:20 PM

May 2016

...is much different than a tax plan written by a billionaire for billionaires.

Locrian

(4,522 posts)

4. well there IS a differnce....

Reply to KansDem (Reply #3)

Sun May 15, 2016, 05:36 PM

May 2016

(depending of course what IS "is"...)

A tax plan written by a billionaire (trump) for billionaires (trump and buddies) ....
vs
A tax plan written by billionaires (goldman sachs, et all) for billionaires ...

See the difference? It's Yuuuge...

.

Geronimoe

(1,539 posts)

2. Let's find out why Hillary

Reply to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun May 15, 2016, 05:19 PM

May 2016

won't release her transcripts of her paid speeches to the too big to fail banksters.

Reply to this discussion