Hillary lying again

[Jameerthefear]

Same place. Said she only receives 3% of her donations from people in the finance and investment world.

Hillary Clinton is raking in donations from Wall Street, and her attempts to downplay it are under fire.

Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley both hit Clinton hard for her Wall Street ties in Saturday night's Democratic debate.
Clinton responded with this claim: "I think it's important to point out that about 3% of my donations come from people in the finance and investment world. You can go to OpenSecrets.org and check that. I have more donations from students and teachers than I do from people associated with Wall Street."

The audience applauded, but factcheckers were quick to challenge it. CNN's Factcheck team called the claim "false," and Martin O'Malley's campaign dubbed it "one of the most glaring false statements of the night."
On Monday, OpenSecrets.org added its thumbs down. It says Clinton's Wall Street cash is actually 7.2% of the total -- more than double what she stated in the debate.

"Hillary Clinton, thank you for using OpenSecrets. Next time, just call us, maybe," wrote Will Tucker of OpenSecrets in a blog post.

[Akrazotile]

It's all good. Those wall street contributions will trickle down and make all of the donations more valuable.

[Jameerthefear]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=hGC2vg27bFI

[StephHamann]

Family of liars

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs

[KevinNYC]

Same place. Said she only receives 3% of her donations from people in the finance and investment world.
From the article you didn't link to. (http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/21/investing/hillary-clinton-wall-street-donations/)


Here are the numbers: Clinton received $2 million in itemized contributions from Wall Street (listed as "Securities and Investment"), out of a total of $77.5 million.
That works out to just under 3%.
OpenSecrets acknowledges that Clinton's claim is "technically right,
Right now if you got to Open Secrets, you see that Hillary's Campaign (https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000019)has raised $77,471,604

Then if you click the Industries group, you can see that the Securities & Investment industry gave her campaign. $2,044,471

That's 2.64%.

[UK2K]

She dodged sniper fire, yo.

She deserves some respect.

[Jameerthefear]

From the article you didn't link to. (http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/21/investing/hillary-clinton-wall-street-donations/)

Right now if you got to Open Secrets, you see that Hillary's Campaign (https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000019)has raised $77,471,604

Then if you click the Industries group, you can see that the Securities & Investment industry gave her campaign. $2,044,471

That's 2.64%.
Nice try little buddy!

OpenSecrets acknowledges that Clinton's claim is "technically right," but it says that's bad math.
First, when talking about Wall Street, OpenSecrets says it's appropriate to add contributions from commercial banks as well. That brings Clinton's Wall Street total to $2.5 million.
But the bigger flaw in Clinton's math is that it doesn't include any donations to super PACs, the political action committees that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money.
This is important because Wall Street is the second highest contributor (behind only Hollywood) to super PACs that have said they are supporting Clinton and only Clinton.
Clinton's Wall Street haul jumps to $6 million when super PAC money is included.
According to OpenSecrets, Clinton's Wall Street donors make up 7.2% -- not 3% -- of her fundraising because that's what you get when you divide $6 million by $83 million (the total for Clinton campaign contributors + Clinton super PAC money - small donors that Open Secrets can't trace).

[UK2K]

From the article you didn't link to. (http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/21/investing/hillary-clinton-wall-street-donations/)

Right now if you got to Open Secrets, you see that Hillary's Campaign (https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000019)has raised $77,471,604

Then if you click the Industries group, you can see that the Securities & Investment industry gave her campaign. $2,044,471

That's 2.64%.

In the interest of fairness...


"I think it's important to point out that about 3% of my donations come from people in the finance and investment world. You can go to OpenSecrets.org and check that. I have more donations from students and teachers than I do from people associated with Wall Street."

Break it down...


"I think it's important to point out that about 3% of my donations come from people in the finance and investment world.

Depends what donations she's talking about. If she isn't including the biggest portion of her donations (the PACs), then she's technically telling the truth. However, the 3% of her donations (she didn't specify which ones, so that leaves ALL donations) claim is a lie.


You can go to OpenSecrets.org and check that.

This much is true. You can go there and check it.


. I have more donations from students and teachers than I do from people associated with Wall Street."

Again, a lie, unless donations to her super pac are not considered donations to her.

[KevinNYC]

So why does Open Secrets say this "technically correct" number is false?

They do it two ways. Both of which I think you can quibble with

One is they don't count just one industry as Wall Street. They count two.
The second is the count not just contributions to her campaign. They also count money to outside groups supporting her.

So are these legit criticisms?

So in addition to the Securities & Investment industry, they include Commercial Banking. That is, regular old banks. Kaw Valley Bank (www.kawvalleybank.com) in Topeka is not a Wall Street Bank. North Alabama Bank is not a Wall Street bank. People use the term "Main Street Bank" all the time to distinguish between Wall Street Banks and regular community banks. Here's the Senate Banking head (http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/12/sen_richard_shelby_its_time_to.html) using it.


So let's see the context in which Clinton spoke. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/19/3rd-democratic-debate-transcript-annotated-who-said-what-and-what-it-meant/) I didn't see the debate and haven't read this transcript yet.

OK. So she said this in response to an attack from O'Malley
I have demonstrated the ability to have the backbone to take on Wall Street in ways that Secretary Clinton never, ever has.....she tried to hide her cozy relationship with Wall Street big banks.....the worst type of concentration, Secretary Clinton, is the concentration of the big banks, the big six banks that you went to and spoke to and told them, oh, you weren't responsible for the crash, not by a long shot.


you still cannot support, as I do, breaking up the big banks and making sure that we pass a modern-day Glass- Steagall, like we had in late 1999,

Clinton responded
Secondly, I think it's important to point out that about 3 percent of my donations come from people in the finance and investment world. You can go to opensecrets.org and check that.

So she says "my donations" not "my campaign donations." Is that an issue? Campaigns legally cannot work with outside groups, so would she be discussed PAC donations? She can't touch that money. My donations would be the money I can use, wouldn't it?

Also the context is abundantly clear, that this is about the big Wall Street Banks that caused the crash and she clearly says finance and investment world. So I don't think this stands up at all. However, some of the big Wall Street banks like Citi and Chase have commercial banking divisions, so there is overlap. I wonder if you work at JP Morgan Chase if your contributions are categorized differently depending on where you work within Chase.

[KevinNYC]

In the interest of fairness...Yeah, ......I was writing that part up. :D

Depends what donations she's talking about. If she isn't including the biggest portion of her donations (the PACs), then she's technically telling the truth.The bold is false. PAC is less than 1/4 of her total money. From Open Secrets.

Campaign Committee..............$77,471,604
Outside Groups......................$20,291,679
Combined Total.......................$97,763,283


However, the 3% of her donations (she didn't specify which ones, so that leaves ALL donations) claim is a lie.

Again, a lie, unless donations to her super pac are not considered donations to her.I think this Unless is the heart of the matter. She can't touch that money. It's illegal to talk to or coordinate with outside groups.
Perhaps this is a matter or perspective.
As Open Secrets, you are thinking about money in politics, the total picture.

As a candidate you think the money you control.. Given the laws on illegal coordination, you go out of your way to avoid the appearance of coordination. If she started talking about money she doesn't control as "my money" or "my contributions," I think that would raise eyebrows as well.

[NumberSix]

Just an interesting thought exercise......


If I have 100 donors and only 3 of them are women and the other 97 are men, if I say "only 3% of my donations come from women" is that accurate?

What if those 3 women donated a larger amount of money than the 97 men put together? Is it still accurate to say 3% of donations come from women?

You obviously couldn't say 3% of the money donated comes from women. But saying an amount of donations isn't a statement of the contents of said donations. 3 donations out of 100 is in fact 3% of donations, regardless of the contents of each individual donation.

[KevinNYC]

She dodged sniper fire, yo.

That one is on the mark.


Anyway, even if accept the higher percentage, that means she gets over 93% of her money not from Wall Street.

If you look at Open Secrets, money from the FIRE sector, Finance-Insurance-Real Estate goes twice as heavily to Republicans as to Democrats (https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/)
66.6% to 33.3%

If that number surprises you, you've been hoodwinked.

[KevinNYC]

Just an interesting thought exercise......It seems that in this case, they are discussing donations and not donors.

[knickballer]

Hillary is just a PC Republican.

[SugarHill]

you can't spell hillary without liar

[HitandRun Reggie]

It's kind of funny seeing all these Pro-Obama people attacking Hillary for "Wall Street Bucks" when Obama has hauled in more campaign contributions from Wall Street than any president since Bush senior.

[UK2K]

That one is on the mark.


Anyway, even if accept the higher percentage, that means she gets over 93% of her money not from Wall Street.

If you look at Open Secrets, money from the FIRE sector, Finance-Insurance-Real Estate goes twice as heavily to Republicans as to Democrats (https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/)
66.6% to 33.3%

If that number surprises you, you've been hoodwinked.

Well sure, 8 years of Democrat control and our economy is barely crawling. Probably every business sector donates to Republicans more than Democrats, especially lately, given all the talk of socialism Bernie and free everything. :confusedshrug:

Nobody I know wants our economy moving towards socialism, except the government, and the poor. Especially not businesses.

That's why I knew Bernie could never win. He'd never get the donations from the big boys who like to make money.

[Nanners]

you can't spell hillary without liar

i like this, surprised i havent heard it before.

[KevinNYC]

It's kind of funny seeing all these Pro-Obama people attacking Hillary for "Wall Street Bucks" when Obama has hauled in more campaign contributions from Wall Street than any president since Bush senior.
President or Candidate?
Romney raised almost three times as (https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/select.php?ind=F07)much from the Securities and Investment and Commercial Banking (https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/select.php?ind=F07) Industries as Obama.


Yeah, Obama did well in 2008 and then Wall Street shifted the Repbulicans in a major way in 2012. Obama's Wall Street take was 5 times larger in 2008 than 2012.


The center’s website shows that Obama raised about $49 million ($42.8 million in 2008 and $7.5 million in 2012)

Gee I wonder why that is? (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-signs-sweeping-financial-reform-into-law/)

[KevinNYC]

Well sure, 8 years of Democrat control and our economy is barely crawling. Probably every business sector donates to Republicans more than Democrats, especially lately, given all the talk of socialism Bernie and free everything. :confusedshrug:

Nobody I know wants our economy moving towards socialism, except the government, and the poor. Especially not businesses.

That's why I knew Bernie could never win. He'd never get the donations from the big boys who like to make money.

Dude can you count to 8? It's 7 years of Democratic control and FFS our economy has recovered from the freefall of the financial crisis without going into a Depression.

And the Republicans promised 6% unemployment by Jan 2017.

HALPERIN: Would you like to be more specific about what the unemployment rate would be like at the end of your first year?

ROMNEY: I cannot predict precisely what the rate would be at the end of one year. I can tell you that over a period of four years, by a virtue of the polices that we put in place, we get the unemployment rate down to 6 percent, perhaps a little lower. So that happened sometime last year.

[MMKM]

I think the presidential debate should be re-formatted to include a lightning round, polygraph section, and karaoke. Hillary wouldn't make it to karaoke.