Hillary Clinton: A Lifetime Champion of Income Opportunity

[upaloopa]

“With all due respect, it is not rich people who made America great. It is the vast American middle class. It is the upward mobility of people who thought they could do better than their parents.” –Hillary Clinton

BACKGROUND: Hillary Clinton has dedicated her life to ensuring that all hardworking Americans have the chance to succeed, no matter their circumstances. Leading the charge for equal pay for equal work, expanding access to early childhood education and healthcare, working to raise the minimum wage, and advocating for out-of-work Americans, Hillary’s record reflects the belief that every American should have the right to achieve economic security and income opportunity.

Hillary Clinton’s record proves she believes that every American should be able to earn an equal day’s pay for an equal day’s work. As a Senator, Hillary Clinton introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act and was an original cosponsor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
In the Senate, Hillary Clinton supported increasing the minimum wage and voted repeatedly to protect and increase it. She was an original cosponsor of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, and authored the 2006 and 2007 Standing with Minimum Wage Act to tie Congressional salary increases to an increase in the minimum wage.
As a Senator, Hillary Clinton supported progressive tax policies that required millionaires to pay their fair share. She opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and she supported a variety of middle-class tax cuts, including tax credits for student loan recipients, and keeping in place the tax cuts for those who make under $250,000 a year.
Clinton has said “that inherited wealth and concentrated wealth is not good for America,” and she has consistently voted against repealing the estate tax on millionaires, doing so in 2001, 2002, and 2006.
Hillary Clinton supported working families going through difficult times through no fault of their own. In the Senate, she was a bipartisan leader on fighting to extend emergency unemployment benefits.
Hillary Clinton knows that tomorrow’s shared success starts with today’s child, and her dedication to children began long before she ever entered public office. In fact, her first job out of law school was for the newly-formed Children’s Defense Fund, an organization she would later chair.
Hillary Clinton has worked to increase health coverage for millions of children in low-income and working families through the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, a program she helped created as First Lady. In the Senate, Hillary Clinton looked for ways to strengthen the program, introducing bills to allow states to expand it.
Hillary Clinton has worked to expand access to early childhood education for children of lower-income families. As First Lady of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton introduced her husband to the HIPPY program, which expanded early childhood education to economically disadvantaged children. In the Senate, Clinton partnered with Kit Bond in an effort to expand voluntary full-day pre-K for children from low-income families.
Today, as part of the Too Small to Fail Initiative to improve the health and well-being of children five and under, Hillary Clinton is working to close the “word gap” for kids in low-income families who often have smaller vocabularies than their classmates.

BOTTOM LINE: The lack of income opportunity is hurting working families across the country and poses a threat to the American ideal that if you work hard and play by the rules, you should have the opportunity to succeed. Hillary Clinton’s record reflects the belief that your ability to get ahead should be determined by your hard work, ambition, and goals – not by your circumstances.

http://correctrecord.org/the-points/hillary-clinton-a-lifetime-champion-of-income-opportunity/

[boston bean]

1. ayup.. +1

[leftofcool]

2. K&R

[NCTraveler]

3. K&R

Thanks.

[Octafish]

4. Do you believe that?

As an attorney for the Rose Law Firm, Ms. Clinton did all she could to advance the interests of the Walton family and their Walmart.

Later as a member of the Walmart board of directors while her husband was governor, Ms. Clinton did all she could to advance the interests of Walmart.

Today the Walton family is among the wealthiest on Earth. The people who work for Walmart are among the poorest working in the United States.

SOURCE: Clinton Remained Silent As Wal-Mart Fought Unions

[Jumpin Jack Flash]

5. Ouch! Nice burn there.

I don't think it's something that Correct the Record SuperPAC can spin or fix.

[upaloopa]

6. Always he said she said but never any direct link. Always innuendo no evidence.

You had a crystal ball back then and knew what the Waltons were going to be up to 30 years later. Hillary didn't have one.

[Fred Sanders]

13. The hits are getting weaker and weaker. Pathetic innuendos based on working for a huge law firm 30 years ago....pathetic.

Even more pathetic than the pathetic attacks come from Democrats.

Have folks SEEN the GOP clown car? How about saving some of the acid throwing for them, is my response.

[Octafish]

17. Eyes Wide Shut

32 years of Trickle Down and here in Detroit squalor and squat to show for it. Oh, the downtown and the gentrified yupdom are doing better, where'd all the jobs and money go?

[Art_from_Ark]

19. Hillary was on Walmart's board from 1986-1992

By then, Walmart was already the largest retailer in the US, and Sam Walton had already been the richest man in the US for several years before that.

[Octafish]

21. No crystal ball needed.

Corporations and the wealthy have done very well over the past 32 years, thank you.



Gee. Just the last seven years...

The Shocking Redistribution of Wealth in the Past Five Years

by Paul Buchheit
Published on Monday, December 30, 2013 by Common Dreams

Anyone reviewing the data is likely to conclude that there must be some mistake. It doesn't seem possible that one out of twenty American families could each have made a million dollars since Obama became President, while the average American family's net worth has barely recovered. But the evidence comes from numerous reputable sources.

Some conservatives continue to claim that President Obama is unfriendly to business, but the facts show that the richest Americans and the biggest businesses have been the main - perhaps only - beneficiaries of the massive wealth gain over the past five years.

1. $5 Million to Each of the 1%, and $1 Million to Each of the Next 4%

From the end of 2008 to the middle of 2013 total U.S. wealth increased from $47 trillion to $72 trillion. About $16 trillion of that is financial gain (stocks and other financial instruments).

The richest 1% own about 38 percent of stocks, and half of non-stock financial assets. So they've gained at least $6.1 trillion (38 percent of $16 trillion). That's over $5 million for each of 1.2 million households.

The next richest 4%, based on similar calculations, gained about $5.1 trillion. That's over a million dollars for each of their 4.8 million households.

The least wealthy 90% in our country own only 11 percent of all stocks excluding pensions (which are fast disappearing). The frantic recent surge in the stock market has largely bypassed these families.

2. Evidence of Our Growing Wealth Inequality

This first fact is nearly ungraspable: In 2009 the average wealth for almost half of American families was ZERO (their debt exceeded their assets).

In 1983 the families in America's poorer half owned an average of about $15,000. But from 1983 to 1989 median wealth fell from over $70,000 to about $60,000. From 1998 to 2009, fully 80% of American families LOST wealth. They had to borrow to stay afloat.

It seems the disparity couldn't get much worse, but after the recession it did. According to a Pew Research Center study, in the first two years of recovery the mean net worth of households in the upper 7% of the wealth distribution rose by an estimated 28%, while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4%. And then, from 2011 to 2013, the stock market grew by almost 50 percent, with again the great majority of that gain going to the richest 5%.

Today our wealth gap is worse than that of the third world. Out of all developed and undeveloped countries with at least a quarter-million adults, the U.S. has the 4th-highest degree of wealth inequality in the world, trailing only Russia, Ukraine, and Lebanon.

3. Congress' Solution: Take from the Poor

Congress has responded by cutting unemployment benefits and food stamps, along with other 'sequester' targets like Meals on Wheels for seniors and Head Start for preschoolers. The more the super-rich make, the more they seem to believe in the cruel fantasy that the poor are to blame for their own struggles.

President Obama recently proclaimed that inequality "drives everything I do in this office." Indeed it may, but in the wrong direction.

FORUM HOSTS, PLEASE NOTE: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

Paul Buchheit is a college teacher, an active member of US Uncut Chicago, founder and developer of social justice and educational websites (UsAgainstGreed.org, PayUpNow.org, RappingHistory.org), and the editor and main author of "American Wars: Illusions and Realities" (Clarity Press). He can be reached at [e-mail].

Original Article: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/12/30-0

I think we need a change of direction, as well as economic strategy, taxation and fiscal policy. Don't you?

[OnyxCollie]

42. No crystal ball needed.

Just look at Haiti.

Perhaps the most important modern institution in the field of group power-and it contrasts dramatically with Maitland's picture of clubs, religious associations, and charities preferring the hedge of the trust and the anonymity of unincorporated status- is the "foundation" which flourishes in contemporary America.

The foundation is largely an American creation. No doubt the accumulation of vast wealth was one reason for its rise; another-at least in the days when Carnegie, Rockefeller, and others perpetuated their names through their now world famous bequests-was unquestionably a desire of wealthy and successful men to purge their consciences before God and man and to justify the acquisitive society which had enabled them to accumulate enormous riches by leaving a vast proportion of their wealth for the benefit of mankind.6 But in recent years these reasons for the earlier foundations have become less important, and the incorporated foundation or trust has become predominantly a business device, a paramount instrument in the struggle between the demands of the modern Welfare State and the wish of the individual entrepreneur to perpetuate his fortune and his name. The greatest and most influential of the foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie) are the creations of individuals or families, but the large foundations of the future will increasingly be the creations of corporations. The desires to give and to perpetuate the name of the individual or corporate donor are undoubtedly still important motivations, but the immense growth in the number and size of foundations in recent years7 suggests that business considerations play an increasing role. By either bequeathing or giving during his lifetime a proportion of his estate to a permanent institution established for officially recognized charitable purposes, the donor, usually the controller of an industrial or business empire,8 achieves a number of purposes.9 In the United States gifts to such organizations are exempt from gift taxes, and bequests to them are deductible for estate tax purposes. The organizations themselves are normally exempt from income tax, property tax, and other taxes. A charitable gift intervivos is an allowable deduction from the taxable income of the donor.10 The absence of the latter privilege in English law may be one reason why incorporated charities are not so widespread in Britain (apart, of course, from the vastly greater capital wealth of United States business). Otherwise, motivations for the establishment of charitable companies are very similar." The arithmetics of these benefits vary from year to year and are, of course, subject to legislative changes. Unless, however, there were to be a fundamental change in legislation in regard to charitable gifts,12 the advantages of transferring both capital and annual income away from the personal estate of a taxpayer in the high income brackets or away from a corporation are very considerable.13 But in the age of the managerial revolution and the Welfare State, a motive at least equal to that of providing a suitable mechanism for philanthropy and a tax free reservoir for an otherwise highly taxable income is the power which the foundation gives to the controller of a business or industry to perpetuate his control.14

Friedmann, W. G. (1957). Corporate power, government by private groups, and the law. Columbia Law Review, 57(2), 155-186.

The Clinton Foundation - About
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/main/our-work/by-initiative/clinton-foundation-in-haiti/about.html

The Clinton Foundation has been actively engaged in Haiti since 2009, focusing on economic diversification, private sector investment and job creation in order to create long-term, sustainable economic development. After the devastating earthquake in 2010, President Clinton formed the Clinton Foundation Haiti Fund and raised $16.4 million from individual donors for immediate earthquake relief efforts. Since 2010, the Clinton Foundation has raised a total of $34 million for Haiti, including relief funds as well as projects focused on restoring Haiti's communities, sustainable development, education and capacity building. In 2012, the Clinton Foundation concentrated on creating sustainable economic growth in the four priority sectors of energy, tourism, agriculture, and apparel/manufacturing, working to bring new investors, develop and support local organizations and businesses, and create access to new markets. The Clinton Foundation also continued working to support government efforts to improve Haiti’s business environment and supported programs in education and capacity building.

Washington Backed Famous Brand-Name Contractors in Fight Against Haiti’s Minimum Wage Increase
http://www.haiti-liberte.com/archives/volume4-47/Washington%20Backed%20Famous.asp

The U.S. Embassy in Haiti worked closely with factory owners contracted by Levi’s, Hanes, and Fruit of the Loom to aggressively block a paltry minimum wage increase for Haitian assembly zone workers, the lowest paid in the hemisphere, according to secret State Department cables.

The factory owners refused to pay 62 cents an hour, or $5 per eight-hour day, as a measure unanimously passed by the Haitian parliament in June 2009 would have mandated. Behind the scenes, the factory owners had the vigorous backing of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Embassy, show secret U.S. Embassy cables provided to Haïti Liberté by the transparency-advocacy group WikiLeaks.

The minimum daily wage had been 70 gourdes or $1.75 a day.

The factory owners told the Haitian parliament that they were willing to give workers a mere 9 cents an hour pay increase to 31 cents an hour – 100 gourdes daily – to make T-shirts, bras and underwear for U.S. clothing giants like Dockers and Nautica.

Report: State Department-Backed Garment Complex in Haiti Stealing Workers’ Wages
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/10/17/headlines#10179

A new report by the Worker Rights Consortium has found the majority of workers in Haiti’s garment industry are being denied nearly a third of the wages they are legally owed due to widespread wage theft. The new evidence builds on an earlier report that found every single one of Haiti’s export garment factories was illegally shortchanging workers. Workers in Haiti make clothes for U.S. retailers including Gap, Target, Kohl’s, Levi’s and Wal-Mart. The report highlighted abuses at the Caracol Industrial Park, a new factory complex heavily subsidized by the U.S. State Department, the Inter-American Development Bank and the Clinton Foundation and touted as a key part of Haiti’s post-earthquake recovery. The report found that, on average, workers at the complex are paid 34 percent less than the law requires. Haiti’s minimum wage for garment workers is between 60 and 90 cents an hour. More than three-quarters of workers interviewed for the report said they could not afford three meals a day.

Clintons' Pet Project for Privatized 'Aid' to Haiti Stealing Workers' Wages: Report
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/10/16-4

Haiti's Caracol Industrial Park—the U.S. State Department and Clinton Foundation pet project to deliver aid and reconstruction to earthquake-ravaged Haiti in the form of private investment—is systematically stealing its garment workers' wages, paying them 34 percent less than minimum wage set by federal law, a breaking report from the Worker Rights Consortium reveals.

Critics charge that poverty wages illustrate the deep flaws with corporate models of so-called aid. "The failure of the Caracol Industrial Park to comply with minimum wage laws is a stain on the U.S.'s post-earthquake investments in Haiti and calls into question the sustainability and effectiveness of relying on the garment industry to lead Haiti's reconstruction," said Jake Johnston of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in an interview with Common Dreams.

Caracol is just one of five garment factories profiled in this damning report, released publicly on Wednesday, which finds that "the majority of Haitian garment workers are being denied nearly a third of the wages they are legally due as a result of the factories’ theft of their income." This is due to systematic employer cheating on piece-work and overtime, as well as failure to pay employees for hours worked.
...
Financers included the Inter-American Development Bank, the U.S. State Department, and the Clinton Foundation, who invested a total of $224 million with promises to uphold high labor standards. Its anchor tenant is the Korean S&H Global factory, which sells garments to Walmart, Target, Kohl's, and Old Navy, according to the report.

The Clinton-Bush Fund has closed up shop in Haiti: Here are the fruits of neoliberal "charity"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022415607

[Oilwellian]

50. Excellent expose'

It's always good to shine the light on the truth.

[stonecutter357]

15. you seem desperate!

[Octafish]

23. Why? Because I pointed out some history few people seem to discuss?

It's only been the Have-Mores who get More and me and the middle class disappear for the last 32 years. In that way, I'm desperate: I want the middle class to thrive, not turn into the serfs and indentured servants of the 21st century, not to mention mopes for bailouts and cannon fodder for wars without end for profits without cease.

[cali]

7. oh, like supporting a bankruptcy bill written by banks and credit card companies

or like refusing to support raising the as cap.

Fuck super pac propaganda.

[boston bean]

8. was there something untrue in the OP?

[cali]

9. just pointing out the lies by omission

Fuck propaganda and sleazy super pacs

[boston bean]

10. So, everything noted in the OP is just propaganda?

None of that happened or took place?

Come on now...

At the very least, give credit where credit is due.

[cali]

11. evidently you don't know what propaganda is

Hint: no, it's generally not about lies. Do some research.

[boston bean]

52. Believe me I know it when I see it....

it's a two way street sometimes...

[jeff47]

12. Hillary Clinton: I will abandon all of my campaign promises to help Republicans.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026802170

[LittleBlue]

56. Jury results: 2-5

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Tue Jun 9, 2015, 10:42 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Hillary Clinton: I will abandon all of my campaign promises to help Republicans.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6804134

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This poster keeps making this assertion that Hillary will abandon all campaign promises to help republicans. Please put a stop to this nonsense. DU is better than this or I would at least like to think. Thank you.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jun 9, 2015, 10:48 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerting isn't a substitute for debate
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree with the alerter.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No worse than much of the other Hillary-bashing on this site.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[stonecutter357]

14. K&R!

[BrainDrain]

16. This is a rank attempt

at "oh look at how wonderful HRC is....." propaganda.

Period.The.End.

[cali]

20. you can always find lots of people totally theist blatant propaganda. Embarrassing

to watch it.

[Sheepshank]

24. so you will state the same anytime there is a pro policy Bernie post?

Isn't it all propoganda? Isn't all designed to portray an image, send a message?

You just don't like that Hillary has a record of having actually some skin in this game of politics. And a good one at that!

[leftofcool]

33. No, the poster won't do that cuz Bernie is GAWD!

[BrainDrain]

38. I have a simple question......

If HRC's street creds were so darn impeccable, why would she even need articles like this?

If HRC was such a woman of the people why would her supporters feel it is necessary to throw out the hard sell like this?


The answer my friends is blowin in the wind.......

It's 'cause she AIN'T...and anyone with the eyes to see knows it.

Period.The.End.

[Sheepshank]

40. again... the very same could be said about Bernie

Why all the hyper exaggerated "Bernie is the most perfect politician that has ever walked on US soil" posts...over and over and over. Someone is trying to comvince someone of his greatness. The fact that only want one politician to have their creds announced is incredibly naive.

[DonCoquixote]

48. "the very same could be said about Bernie"

Is the best you can offer the equivalent of "I stink but you stink double?" If Hillary had a clear record of standing up for those not rich, and clearly stated her views without sniffing the polls, then her supporters would not be so desperate as so throw up walls of information meant to hide the fact that she is the h1-b visa supporting, former Walmart executive that stated criticizing Wall Street is "foolish."

It is not that Bernie is perfect, it is that Hillary apparently is doubling down on what she thought would win 2008.

[cali]

49. fAil, dear. again.

Unlike you. I don't do adoration. And I must say you are a champ at that. I have repeatedly criticized Bernie on gun control and his support for the obscenely expensive f35. I don't do uncritical support. And if I ever found out that his ethics were as dubious as Hillary's, I'd drop supporting him in a heartbeat.

Now do continue with your single minded, uncritical support of your ever evolving candidate

[cali]

47. if it's bullshit from his site

that, for instance, claims he's a great champion of gun control, you bet. In fact, I've already repeatedly said that NRA rating is a pile of political shit.

[bowens43]

18. blah blah blah blah Hillary cares about Hillary....

[cali]

22. Hillary, your champion!

[L0oniX]

25. Bwahahahahaha

[upaloopa]

29. When you can't say anything post a smilie

strong comment!

[snooper2]

39. I understand this is all true about Hillary, she knows what it is like to be broke

after all....

[hrmjustin]

26. Thank you for posting this.

[closeupready]

27. LOL. This is so obviously false, it reads like a fan club manifesto.

[Alkene]

28. Oh. Well that changes my entire perspective.

Thank you for your input.

[jalan48]

30. I think it's fair to say that Hillary, like Bush , is part of the ruling class.

That is one of the reasons she engenders so little enthusiasm from the public. She is a career politician with ties to companies like Wal Mart and Goldman Sachs. Somehow, we are expected to suspend belief and pretend she is a "woman of the people". Obama was able to win with a progressive sounding "Hope and Change" slogan, Hillary will have no such luck. Even if she starts espousing more liberal views, who will believe her?

[leftofcool]

32. Funny that she has 86% of support from the Democratic Party!

I'd say that is pretty enthusiastic. She has been espousing liberal views for over 20 years but it isn't necessary for YOU to believe her.

[MoonRiver]

34. Yep, totally irrelevant.

[jalan48]

45. Irrelevant to the point of not voting for her.

Hillary can't win without the Progressive base.

[MoonRiver]

51. A lot of the progressive base, e.g. me, support her.

[jalan48]

53. What are a couple of "progessive issues" Hillary supports that you like?

I'd be more inclined to support her if I knew what progressive issues she has supported.

[MoonRiver]

54. She supports reforming voter rights, so no one is denied their right to vote;

she is a lifelong supporter of women's rights, around the world; she supports minority, including LGBT rights, among others. She's awesome, imo. Can't wait until she is our next President.

[jalan48]

57. I don't think supporting voter rights is a progressive position.

It's a position that should be supported by all Democrats since the suppression is coming form Republicans. I have yet to hear any Democrat, anywhere on the political spectrum support limiting the right of American's to vote. I think the same can be said of women and minority rights. Where she stands on the TPP , Wall St. regulation and the National Security State are more important in defining her "progressive' status.

[MoonRiver]

58. So vote for someone else you approve of.

My vote is for Hillary.

[jalan48]

59. Unfortunately your attitude is exactly why Hillary will lose.

Assuming progressives will simply support her because the Republican's are worse is a losing strategy. Think Hubert Humphrey 1968.

[MoonRiver]

61. That's not the reason I support her, but I guess you didn't get that.

Oh, and she's 40 points ahead of Bernie and 99 points of O'Malley. But don't let reality get in your way.

[jalan48]

62. Good luck with your "reality".

[jalan48]

43. I think you and I disagree about the meaning of liberal.

Support of Wal-Mart and Wall St. deregulation has never been a liberal position. Like Obama, she's a centrist, corporate Democrat.

[BrainDrain]

63. 86% support.....

of those polled. And to get those kind of numbers, I suspect, they asked mostly folks with "Ready for Hillary" stickers on the back of their cars.

It's not hard to gen up numbers like that...just be selective of who you ask. Oldest trick in the polling book.

[SidDithers]

31. DU rec...nt

Sid

[yikes1]

35. Hillary

Please, Hillary jumps on any band wagon that she thinks that will get her votes. She is a republican in her heart of black hearts. Her state department really went to bat for the Haitian victims. The workers were receiving 25 cents an hour, wanted 62 cents an hour( fruit of loom and hanes) Her state department got involved and had them settle for a 6 cents an hour raise. Oh yeah, the champion of the poor and working class. I am a Roosevelt progressive and her and Obama do not come any way near to any definition of progressives. At best she is a third way democrat, essentially republican.

[BrainDrain]

37. ABSOLUTELY!!!!

RIGHT ON!

[ibewlu606]

36. Wow!

Remember how we used to make fun of Teabaggers for being so blindly faithful and willfully ignorant not only to the detriment of themselves, but of the entire nation? Yeah, neither do some HRC supporters.

[Iliyah]

41. Yeah that was fun and still is, and oh, same can be said about Bernie supporters as well.

K & R this thread!

[Romulox]

44. I think this one backfires. Best for Hillary not to bring up inequality

it only highlights her weaknesses.

[Fumesucker]

46. Hillary has certainly taken advantage of available income opportunities

I don't think it's possible to deny that.

[Android3.14]

55. Has she submitted legislation for a living wage?

Thought not.

[AgingAmerican]

60. When I see OPs like this

I see, "Me too!, me too!."

Given a choice between Sanders and someone who acts like Sanders, voters will pick the real Sanders everytime.