Why is no one else concerned? with hillary likely to become president, why is nobody seemed alarmed that a financial transaction tax will possibly become a reality? with her promise to provide free college and with bernie sanders supporting her, isn't it a real threat that this dreaded tax will become real? (especially if the dems gain control of the senate) In the past, the free college education was suppose to be paid for by this transaction tax. With hillary boasting free public education for families making less than 125,000.00 per year, why is there no talk or concern about this?
Because she's unlikely to do anything that disruptive to Wall Street, remember you're all screaming about the "Goldman speeches" and how corrupt she supposedly is in the pocket of Wall Street? Can't have it both ways.
Plus it's almost 100% certain that the (R)'s will continue to hold majority in the house. IMHO the Senate is a toss up at this point but if the Dems do take the Senate their majority would be very small (ie 2 seats or so). There would be probably a handful (if not more) Dem Senators that would vote no on a ftt also. Plus let's not forget that the only form of ftt that Hillary has talked about is some form of order cancellation tax aimed at the HFT crowd (to appease the Bernie crowd). The chances of the ftt seeing the light of day during a Hillary presidency is very, very small (IMHO). Also let's not forget that any revenue raising bill (ie a tax) has to come out of the house of representatives first. With the (R)'s still holding a majority (unless something crazy happens) any ftt won't even make it out of committee to come up for a vote. -Guru
Her preliminary talk is of no importance. If she does not care much about the FTT as you say then it's not her but ppl like Bernie & Kaine who are going to be driving the FTT. She will be just signing it off.
Just so you know, the Vice President of the United States can neither initiate nor veto legislation, so what Kaine "drives" is pretty immaterial unless you think he's going to lose and remain a senator. Not to mention the fact that he's shown absolutely no inclination as a senator or candidate to impose an FTT and it's not an area he's ever shown any interest in before. Sanders is an independent Senator, you give him superhuman powers if you think he can single-handedly push through an FTT. And once again, how is it that "corrupt Hillary" can be in the pocket of Wall Street and yet not even care enough to lift a finger against something they are universally against? You still haven't explained that to me, and I'm genuinely confused how one can hold these two mutually exclusive concepts in their head simultaneously without some serious mental gymnastics.