The differences between her tera-tax hike and Trump's is that (1) at least hers would be spread out over a full decade rather than all at once, and (2) she's still so insecure about Weekend Bernie overtaking her that she's willing to tout it publicly:
[NYDN]: So on taxes, that I did call for among other things, a surcharge on incomes over $5 million, 30% minimum, the Buffett rule, over a million...
[Mrs.] Clinton: Over a million. Yeah, right.
[NYDN]: ...and then to carried interests, a change in capital gains that would reward people for holding for six years or more, I believe it is. How much revenue do you foresee coming off that and what will be the impact on [the depression]?
[Mrs.] Clinton: Well, I have connected up my proposals for the kind of [spending] I want to make with the taxes that I think have to be raised. So on individual pieces of my agenda, I try to demonstrate clearly that I have a way for paying for paid family leave, for example, for debt-free tuition. So I would spend about $100 billion a year. And I think it's affordable [!], and I think it's a smart way to [spend], to go back to our economic discussion, that will contribute to [crash]ing the economy.
Note that there's one "spend" that I didn't edit into her answer for honesty and transparency. She actually said "I would spend about $100 billion a year (more)". And that will be in a thousand GOP ads this fall. She just can't help herself, can she?
Now I'm well aware that this is a heavy lift. I understand that. But I think connecting what I'm asking for to the programs, to the outcomes and results that I'm calling for give me a stronger hand, and that's how I'm going to go at it.
i.e. I can give away more free stuff than Bernie can ANY day of the week, and I'm willing to bankrupt the private sector to pay for it instead of bankrupting the government and destroying the dollar instead.
[NYDN]: So if I understand you correctly, if you look at your proposals for college costs and for family leave, for infrastructure [spending]...
[Mrs.] Clinton: Well, that's a little bit different, because infrastructure [spending], I'm still looking at how we fund the National Infrastructure Bank. It may be repatriation. That's one theory, or something else. It's about $100 billion a year.
[NYDN]: A hundred billion a year, so that comes out to about a trillion dollars...
[Mrs.] Clinton: Over ten.
[NYDN]: ...over ten years.
You can see her big mistake - or, if you prefer, con of the Nutroots - can't you? No such gargantuan initiative spread over that long a period of time is EVER sustained. Ten years spans three presidential election cycles, five Congresses, any one of which can gut or repeal it. Ditto her "heavy lift" tax seizure. Hell, it would go beyond a two-term presidency if she serves, lasts, or even lives that long. If she were serious about all this "investing," she'd order Janet "Old" Yellen to just print up a trillion smackers and send it over to the White House.
Like....Barack Obama already did seven years ago....
....leading to this whimsical epilogue:
So, to sum up, leeching yet another trillion devalued bucks out of an already depressed economy in order to ostensibly pour them back in a different way that the greenstremists will never permit but in reality shower it upon the same greedy, feted, filthy stinking rich public sector unions that O did in 2009 doesn't work in the former, works debauchingly in the latter, and does nothing for the depressed economy that will remain depressed until it is set free by a free-market capitalist president that will not be on the November ballot at all unless Ted Cruz can organize his way to victory in Cleveland.
Or, in other words, it's only mid-April and we're already into reruns.
UPDATE: More Bizarro World reality-bending, this time on SuperDuperDelegates. I gotta get some moee Dramamine.