because the top investment banks are in a nuclear arms race with each other for faster computers and better algorithms to siphon money from the market making millions of trades back and forth per second.

I believe that is one of the features of this plan. The revenue would be raised from these articular speculators and not long term investors, like 401K's. These are the traders who game the system and manipulate the markets. They are the elites with special access to the trading stream.

That goes without saying. The issues vary from tax to tax but essentially come down to tax aversion strategies which essentially come down to high power tax lawyers and corporate lobbyists. But that is not a reason to give up on progressive taxation.

Her record and her language when she speaks to the issue is telling voters
what to expect from her. I do not feel there is any ambiguity, not really,
not if you're listening to her.

Clinton's failed attempt at the last debate to use Obama as her shield
b/c he received money from WS was telling as well. She seems to think
Bernie will back down from that cynical approach of hers..and all it will
do is remind voters how corrupt the system is.

I was taken aback when she referred to Citizens United recently, She said
the right wing hates me so much I ended up being the case before the
SCOTUS. I thought, omg, why in the hell would you want to remind voters
that you invoke so much vitriol it ended up making our election system
worse now than before.

That was fucking nuts to go down that road, she thought it proved
she was in fact the tougher one on WS as a result of their intense
hatred, but she also left herself wide open to the question, why vote
in the primary for such a person with so much baggage.

Thanks for the thread, Tom Rinaldo.

raking in millions of bucks. Once you get used to the loot it's hard to give up the lifestyle.

of establishment politics. It's much bigger than her personal needs or wants. It is our entire system at work, defining what is and is not an acceptable price to ask the rich to pay.

It's all about personal enrichment

To me this is as clear as it gets on the influence of Wall Street and the hyper wealthy on our politics. Strip away the arguments over how feasible free public colleges are and simply look at the proposed funding mechanism and he revenue it can raise for any worthwhile initiative. 50 Billion a year is nearly as much revenue as the amount raised annually from having allowed part of the Bush Tax cuts to have lapsed. That was considered a big fucking deal we it finally happened. But our politics can't touch low hanging fruit like a small trading fee that only really bites those who make thousands of trades - mostly the ones who play the Stock Market as a casino.

..and a little money she made on speeches.

Is ANY investment in the stock market "speculation"? My 401(k) and IRA? The Union pension fund?

There is more information on it at the links I provided above in the OP. I don't know all the specifics but something like it is already being used in other nations as cited in the links. I am just using the following example to illustrate a basic premise, the actual figures are probably different, but if you as an individual paid a half cent to purchase a share of stock and added a thousand shares to your retirement portfolio, that would cost you $5. If a day trader bought and sold a thousand shares per day, timing the market swings to profit from them, that would cost that day trader $5 a day. If a hedge fund moved around a million shares a day that would cost them $5,000 a day to do so.

I quoted this above from my first link; "Backers of a so-called financial transactions tax say it's an effective way to deter excessive risk-taking by investors, while also raising substantial amounts of government revenue." This is from the second link:

"Short-term speculation doesn't add value to the real economy, and it threatens near- and long-term economic havoc. This is not just speculation. (Pardon the pun.) We have witnessed the continued fallout from Wall Street's excessively risky short-term trading activities, from the 2008 financial crisis to the 2010 flash crash and, most recently, Knight Capital's rogue algorithm trading debacle.

A financial speculation tax in the U.S. would redirect activities to more productive and efficient allocation of capital and foster long-term investment that would boost job creation and strengthen our economy.

Even a miniscule tax, such as the 0.03 percent fee -- that's three pennies on $100 of Wall Street trading and is one-tenth the size of Hong Kong's "stamp tax" rate -- as proposed by U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), would cut down on speculative activities like computer-driven high-frequency algorithm trading. At the same time, those pennies would quickly add up, raising more than $350 billion dollars over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation."

No, there really is no such thing as a free lunch, but still we all have to eat. This is a solid example of progressive taxation. You and I may pay a few dollars, but millions will come from those who not only can afford it, but who endanger our economy with their excessive non productive financial gamesmanship.

I wish it explained Hillary's proposal more though.