Have you noticed that the two presumptative nominees for the presidency.......

[socialist_n_TN]

have BOTH said they were open to "changes" in the social security system? Considering that's 90% of mine and my wife's income, that's pretty scary.

[RiverNoord]

2. WTF?

Very large numbers of retired Americans depend on Social Security benefits as their principal means of income.

As do quite a few, but not nearly as many, severely disabled people.

What is the meaning of your comment?

[deathrind]

7. Other than...

Displaying a gnawing chasm of ignorance it has no meaning.

[Katashi_itto]

8. It means that that Clinton Supporter could give two shits about you and your problems.

[Marr]

22. That's exactly it. /nt

[RiverNoord]

25. I've seen an awful lot of rotten stuff on DU

over the years, especially during the past year (well, I was out for about 6 months of that - just wasn't worth my time or energy to participate in such a hostile environment.)

That post by Buzz Clik made the 'top' 5 worst of all time.

And, for anyone who missed it, the post was (probably not quite verbatim, but close):

"It's alarming that 90% of your income is from SS."

And that's got nothing to do, I believe, with whether he (I'm pretty sure) is a Clinton supporter or not. I know lots of decent Clinton supporters. Hell, I'm just glad he's not a Bernie 'supporter.' We actual Bernie supporters would have to put a DU 'watch' on the guy, to keep him from making asses of us by association.

[newthinking]

54. It doesn't really have anything to do with the campaign

Narcissistic Personality Disorder is an epidemic.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/basics/symptoms/con-20025568

[RiverNoord]

63. I didn't just want to go straight there :-)

But, yeah, he and several others on DU are straight-up narcissists. There's a guy who goes by 'Lewebly4,' I think, who's much worse...

Nothing to do with politics. They've got convenient places to get gratification by telling people that are very sharp, keen, and knowledgeable, and then enjoy the fallout when lesser minds like ours inevitably get things wrong.

Of course that'll happen on a site like this, but even 'Buzz Clik' had the good sense to delete his post after he apparently realized how really offensive it was. So, maybe a bit of hope there... Or not.

[Katashi_itto]

90. +1000

[hfojvt]

108. that's all?

Because now that he mentions it, 90% does seem high.

When it comes to bad statements, seems to me it is not very nice to call somebody a narcissist or to talk about them behind their back.

[RiverNoord]

126. 'that's all?' What is wrong with you?

Good God. The guy was saying he's either retired with minimal retirement assets generating any revenue or both he and his wife are disabled. And you'd really think that saying that to someone receiving SSI or SSDI is acceptable behavior?

Hell, even if it seemed like a person claiming to be receiving SSI or SSDI and wasn't, I wouldn't want to go there. If I was wrong, the possibility of being wrong and seriously insulting someone in a grossly inappropriate way would be an unacceptable risk.

If you don't understand that, then you don't have a clue about what Social Security benefits are for in the first place.

Even Buzz Clik realized he'd gone way too far and got out fast, which is unusual for him.

And, really, the guy I'm referring to is actually 'lewebly3' - got the digit wrong, but there's no 'lewebly4.' Just have a look at some of his posts, then come back and tell me what I said wasn't nice. Look for ones where he posts exactly the same thing repeatedly, entirely out of context, in the same thread, then waits to argue with people who notice.

Since I've repeatedly had 'discussions' with him on the subject of his inappropriate insults, etc., and finally made it clear to him that I'd be ready to call him out for really bad behavior, I don't consider my discussion of him 'not very nice.' Not for a guy who routinely inserts inappropriate insults into others' discussions.

[hfojvt]

137. thank goodness you don't want to

go about insulting people.

Your own insulting behaviour is justified. Taking umbrage at statements which are not directly insulting is also justified.

Got it.

[RiverNoord]

143. Yeah, you're really wrong there - just read what I've got to say and then decide.

If I make a statement that insults someone unfairly, that's something that I need to atone for. So I try very hard to go through life without insulting people in general. If you read my original response to 'Buzz Clik,' you would have seen this:

Very large numbers of retired Americans depend on Social Security benefits as their principal means of income.

As do quite a few, but not nearly as many, severely disabled people.

What is the meaning of your comment?


I don't see anything insulting there. I was asking for clarification.

But telling someone that receiving 90% of their income through social security benefits is 'really high' is very, very insulting. Especially when it's combined with what is a mean-spirited play on the words of the person who shared that information.

Now, here's the thing that you don't know.

I spent 7 years surviving exclusively one Social Security Disability Benefits. I recovered from a debilitating condition that I was convinced was going to deprive me of anything like a life that I might find worth living. I got very, very lucky, something that I'm always conscious of.

However, I was ashamed at the time. I felt like a drain on everyone and everything simply because I lived solely on a small amount of money paid to me by the federal government. I shouldn't have been. SSDI exists for a good reason, and people who do get lucky, like me, are just part of the strong arguments in favor of its extraordinary importance.

So if I see a person behaving as poorly 'Buzz Clik' did, toward someone who indicates being a recipient of Social Security benefits, I get a little bit pissed. And I don't feel any obligation to treat such people with kid gloves. Sorry, but they don't merit that.

Try filtering that through your own words and see what you come up with. If you think that what you said is justified, then you're messed up. Simple as that.

[merrily]

128. Behind whose back? Buzz can see their posts and respond to them, if he wishes.

[hfojvt]

138. behind thexe people's backs

"But, yeah, he and several others on DU are straight-up narcissists. There's a guy who goes by 'Lewebly4,' I think, who's much worse..."

Yes, that person and several unnamed people who are included in the insult certainly CAN see it, but since they are not currently here, not currently participating in this discussion, I would say it is happening behind their back.

Not that insults to people's faces are all that nice either.

[Doctor_J]

162. Buzz is one of the worst

The politics and morals of a republican.

[CoffeeCat]

86. And Clinton and her supporters represent Democratic values?

I don't know what in the hell they stand for any more.

Democrats used to fight tooth and nail against Republicans who wanted to cut and privatize Social Security.

What's left of the Democratic party--and all that it has stood for, will be destroyed if Hillary gets near the Presidency.

And of course, her sychophants will cheerlead every last thing she does--including wars for profit, Wall Street screwing average Americans, trade negotiations that further destroy the middle class, the destruction of our environment through increased fracking--and apparently the erosion of the Social Security program.

What a dangerous combination: An authoritarian Republican candidate with minion followers who have no cre principles. Frightening.

[Divernan]

102. Just what I expect from this particular Clinton supporter.

[SammyWinstonJack]

109. Nailed it!

[RiverNoord]

50. Yeah. This is not the place you want to go there.

My response had nothing to do with Clinton. Zip - nothing at all. It had to do with a particularly revolting statement by 'Buzz Clik,' which had no connection with any candidate, and which he deleted after a large number of people were really, really offended.

And you have the fucking gall to say "Educate yourself before you talk trash."

Either you apologize right now or you have absolutely no right, whatsoever, under any circumstances, to make a statement like that.

[Rex]

148. You have to excuse some here

they are into brand loyalty. And seem to have no shame at all.

[RiverNoord]

151. Oh, that's no surprise.

I've been around here a while too . Took a long break for about 6 months after the dialogue got so toxic last year, but decided it was more valuable to be subject to toxic discussions and yet gain from others' sometimes very valuable perspectives.

When I'm in the wrong, and have stupidly written or said something that has caused pain or just unnecessary unpleasantness, I apologize and do what I can to atone to the fullest of my ability. I'm not sure I was quite that serious about honor and decency toward others before my illness and everything that recovery required of me, but it was always a significant aspect of my identity to some extent.

I have a hard time comprehending people who are very free with abuse and to whom the concept of apology is alien.

But I guess we're all human...

Thanks for the kind words

[annavictorious]

153. I meant to reply to the OP

I was referring to trash talk and scare mongering by the OP.
The "educate yourself" comment was a response to the OP's distortions of Clinton's platform.

Your candidate wants to "change " SS as well. The changes that both Democrats are proposing would be positive for the system and benefit those who rely on programs like SS for their very subsistence.

I deleted and re-posted the comment down thread. I'm relatively new here and my comments often wind up somewhere other than where I wanted them to be. I meant you no offense.

[RiverNoord]

154. Well, that's not an apology, but it's close.

Responding to the wrong person and using really hostile language might not be a good habit to get into...

And it might have been better to simply say 'I'm sorry - I thought I was replying to...xxx' than to try explain to the person you say you mistakenly replied to the basis for your statements meant for the other person.

But there may be hope for you yet.

[merrily]

130. Is expanding OASDI what she and Pete Peterson have been discussing?

[Gmak]

132. You are the one who needs educating. After NAFTA, welfare reform, repeal of Glass-Steagall, etc

you cannot see that the Clintons cannot be trusted to protect our safety net?
Watch this video: https://www.facebook.com/RealProgressivePolitics/videos/1159205724099319/
Or, maybe you believe Paul Ryan has our best interests at heart as well.

[Katashi_itto]

5. Spoken like a true Clintonista.

[libtodeath]

6. Welcome to what is reality to too many people

what a crappy thing to say to the op.

[Iggo]

10. Mean.

[truebluegreen]

12. Your (lack of) empathy is noted.

[Octafish]

76. And to think Buzz Clik wants me banned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511889497#post1

[ChisolmTrailDem]

125. What did he/she say before he/she deleted their apparently stupid comment? nt

[TacoD]

134. Something to the effect of "SS is 90% of your income? That's just sad" (nt)

[ChisolmTrailDem]

136. Thanks, the poster apparently bravely scurried away. nt

[truebluegreen]

149. There are very few who rank lower, imo.

Keep up the good work, Octafish.

[Rex]

150. Well I have no idea how they stay under the radar,

I guess they don't have to. However it is good to know where that one stands.

[demmiblue]

17. Shit statement. n/t

[scscholar]

103. If you're going to attack someone...

you should have the decency to quote what you're attacking so we know your attack is justified. Going just by your post makes it look like you're hateful. You provided no evidence to justify your hate.

[HOPNOSH]

127. Read the thread

And the ole "your just a hater" is past its due date. Need better material dude.

[LanternWaste]

171. Is it a standard human trait to explain, support and justify ill-will towards others to strangers?

Is it a standard human trait to explain, support and justify ill-will towards others to simple and irrelevant strangers?

[deathrind]

3. Yes it is.

What is even scarier is the complete lack of understanding by many of what SS is because it is government run as opposed to being run by GS.

[BillZBubb]

4. Yes, I've noticed.

I would say though, that if you are currently on SS, the changes won't effect you too much except with changes to the COLA.

Younger workers are going to get screwed and they know it. Neither presumptive nominee can be trusted on this issue.

[-none]

55. What COLA?

There is still a COLA?

[heaven05]

57. what cola?

haven't seen much cola in the last 7 years of my retirement dependency on SS.

[Thinkingabout]

9. What have you heard was going to change, I know Sanders wanted to remove the max cap when he started

campaigning, Hillary wanted to start the FICA on wages $250,000 and now Sanders has migrated to her position. Maybe it is all three candidates. We should be more concerned about the younger generations and hopefully they will have the same an opportunity to receive SS in the future.

[Triana]

16. Raise retirement age to 70 - which is a HUGE cut and most people won't make it

to that age before they need to retire.

The age should be LOWERED to 55-60, not raised. That and/or dump it onto Wall St.

Kochs, Pete Peterson's "Fix the Debt" (off the backs of old people) et al. are hoping people will drop dead before collecting.

[notemason]

27. Read somewhere that it was set at 65

because that was the average life expectancy of males who smoked.

[newthinking]

74. It's not just about "making". People live to 70 but their health is sufferring

We have a very serious empathy issue in this country. Most civilizations protect their elderly and understand that being elderly means your body is weak and many simply can't work the way they could when younger. Our society seems to be losing the ability to put themselves in that place.

What is really bizarre is that many of the people who would make these changes are older which to me indicates a really PRONOUNCED inability to empathize. Why do we even want people like that in leadership positions.

[Triana]

79. "Why do we even want people like that in leadership positions."

[notadmblnd]

11. You don't need no stinking Social Security

The rich need more money damnit! Now cough it up and hand it over.

[liberal N proud]

13. Link?

Do you have a source for this?

[liberal from boston]

43. Social Security

Since Reagan when Allen Greenspan said you can take money from Social Security Trust Fund & transfer it to the General Fund--some of the following Presidents have also done this. Social Security is not part of the budget--it is self funding.
http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/ronald-reagan-and-the-great-social-security-heist/

[liberal N proud]

80. That doesn't support the OP's claim

[moonbabygo]

14. I anticipate changes in SS

however; I do believe those who are on it now or close to it will get grandfathered in. At least I hope so

[jwirr]

38. There are changes that need to be made - lift the cap, expand

it for more coverage - but both Trump and Hillary want it privatized. That is the last thing we need if we are going to save it for the future.

[moonbabygo]

46. I don't think we can save it

for the younger folks. We have spent it all and the numbers just don't add up

[KPN]

56. I don't think you have looked into SS sufficiently to say this.

Have you? Make your case please. Because I have, and think you are wrong. We need to raise the cap to make it viable 30 years out, but that should be a relatively easy lift with a progressive President and more Dems/progressives in Congress.

[moonbabygo]

58. I only know what I have heard

on different shows. Trust me I hope you are right

[KPN]

61. Good to know. Look into it. I think you will agree that SS can be made whole and viable

for today's young people with the right adjustments ... and better program administration including as hard look at "disability" admin.

[Enthusiast]

139. Different shows...........The mainstream media speaks with forked tongue.

The MSM speaks for Wall Street only.

[jwirr]

67. You know that is what my daughter tells me - I look at her

and reply: "Damned right we cannot save it if you are not going to fight for it." That is my reply to you also. They have spent decades convincing everyone that it cannot be saved and now we think it is okay to listen to Hillary say "it cannot be done."

This single program is one of the most important programs out government has ever created. I was around before there was anything like it. The states had something called "Old age assistance" which was supposed to help the elderly and another program for the disabled.

If you were starving you were eligible for those two programs. And I mean literally starving. If Social Security is lost you that are saying we will have to work until you die - well it will most likely be from starvation. And I have news for all of you - they are already refusing to hire over 50 and the disabled.

We have no choice but to fight for the future generations. The rest of the industrialized world already did this but not the USA. Because our Oligarchy doesn't want to have any help for the 99%.

[newthinking]

81. It has always been "spent" (turned into treasury bonds). What has changed is our priorities as a

society.

Keep in mind those treasuries are still there. They are the same as other treasuries that are owned by private individuals and other countries.

What is a really interesting question to ask is why it is those treasuries that are considered expendible? Maybe because the population is vulnerable to being exploited?

[chervilant]

106. "We" have spent it all?!?

I think you need to do a little more research.

The corporate megalomaniacs (who've usurped our media, our politics, AND our global economy) arranged to "borrow" the entire SS fund and now consider this gaping hole a part of the deficit they just don't want to repay.

You'll want to look specifically at St Ronnie Raygun's tenure. He was our first definitive simulacrum, used by the oligarchs to accelerate their thefts of our politics, our media, AND most of our planet's resources.

It's a good thing I'm a nobody. I think the vile oligarchs target those who are most likely to threaten their hegemony (our whistle blowers du jour, Occupy, and Don Siegelman come readily to mind...).

[jeff47]

112. This is actually an enormous lie, propagated by people who want to cut it.

The Social Security trust fund will be spent by the end of the Baby Boomer's lives.

Which was the plan all along.

The fact that GenX is smaller than the Boomers created a problem for Social Security. Since the Boomers did not have enough kids, those kids could not fund Social Security for the Boomers under the existing system.

So in 1983, the Greenspan commission recommended raising Social Security taxes, and creating a large trust fund that would be spent during the Boomer's retirement.

So yes, the trust fund is going to go broke....just like it was supposed to. Since Millennials are larger than GenX, it is less likely that we need a massive trust fund (It will come down to how many kids the Millennials have).

There needs to be a minor tweak - raising/lifting the cap on Social Security taxes, because income inequality means Social Security taxes are not hitting the same percentage of income as they used to. But that's it. And we don't need to do it now, either. We can easily wait a decade or two, because we do not need to build up a large surplus for GenX.

The "OMG Social Security is going broke and we have to change it NOW!!!" camp is making that claim in order to scare people into dismantling the program.

[merrily]

131. Eliminating the cap is the very least that should be done, along with

a safeguard against dipping into the "lockbox" to fund wars and other crap.

[jeff47]

135. The "lockbox" isn't a problem either.

The trust fund is invested in US government bonds. Which means the "lockbox" doesn't exist and can not exist. Once the government sells bonds to the trust fund, the government can do whatever it wants with the money it gets from selling those bonds.

And that has been the case ever since the trust fund was created. The money is not suddenly being raided to pay general fund costs.

Not paying on those bonds means the US government defaulted on its debt. We're not going to do that, because it creates an enormous problem with all US debt, including debt owned by banks and other wealthy interests. It is not possible to contain that damage via "We're only defaulting on this chunk of debt. We'd never do that to any other debt. Honest!".

[merrily]

166. Thanks, Jeff47. The funds should be segregated, IMO.

Failure to segregate funds was one of the mistakes of the bailout, IMO. Not that I would have trusted the bookkeeping, anyway.

[Enthusiast]

140. Huge +1!

[madokie]

165. Raise the cap

Problem solved.
to suggest anything else is bullshit

[-none]

65. The real problem with Social Security is the loss of all those Living Wage Jobs that used to

easily sustain it.

Off shoring our manufacturing jobs. Firing people, then hiring them back as contractors at lower wages.

Let's fix the root problem and stop offering diddled solutions that will only result in the eventual demise of Social Security.

[jwirr]

68. That is needed also but maybe we should have started fighting

for this long ago.

[newthinking]

88. There is no "problem" with Social Security" that is not related to warped priorities and moralities

We are still the wealthiest country in the world even with our current situation. What is is about a society that diddles away trillions and then talks about not being able to support it's elderly? Most countries do this out of the general fund! Our system even takes most of that money out of our paychecks in advance.

We are really screwed as a country when our people are falling for this shit.

[Triana]

15. ONE candidate will EXPAND (not cut) social security: BERNIE SANDERS n/t

[stevenleser]

124. No he won't. He might propose it but the Republican House wouldn't even discuss it. nt

[Triana]

145. ARE YOU AWARE that 80+ % of congress is up for grabs in November 2016?

The SOLUTION to the Congress problem is to ELECT. DIFFERENT. PEOPLE.

The congress we have now will NOT be the congress the new President will have.

So that argument is invalid.

[stevenleser]

159. Have you not be paying attention to the redistricting issues for the past 6 years

No, sorry, it's not as simple as "electing other people". The districts have been gerrymandered to hell such that we won the popular congressional vote in 2012 and still lost the house by a large margin. There is no winning back the house until this is undone, and that will be 2023 at the earliest.

[rhett o rick]

158. Well that's a step better than Hillary would will sign the cuts and blame the Republicons. nm

[stevenleser]

160. Nope it's not better. Bullshit bluster is bullshit bluster. Nt

[rhett o rick]

163. Yes, I will yield to the expert.

[liberal N proud]

18. Six things we know about Hillary Clinton's Social Security stance

1. Clinton is willing to pledge not to cut Social Security benefits
2. She won't reduce cost-of-living adjustments
3. She won't agree to raise the retirement age
4. She's not in favor of a partial or full privatization of Social Security
5. She wants to expand benefits for widows and caregivers
6. She wants wealthier Americans to contribute more

http://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/02/13/hillary-clintons-social-security-stance-6-things-w.aspx


Hillary will:

• Fight any effort to privatize or weaken Medicare and Social Security, and expand Social Security for today’s beneficiaries and generations to come by asking the wealthiest to contribute more.

• Reform our health care system to incentivize and reward quality care.

• Demand lower prices for prescription drugs for seniors receiving Medicare.

•Expand Social Security benefits for widows and those who took time out of the paid workforce to care for a child or sick family member.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/social-security-and-medicare/


I guess it is just easier to perpetuate right wing lies than find the truth.

[ancianita]

21. Good to know. I remember her saying these things at different times.

[MH1]

29. Weird. It seems those would all count as "changes" to the Social Security system

So the OP is correct. But I wonder why so many DU posters are categorically opposed to "changes" to SS when "changes" could be things that make it better?

[liberal N proud]

31. One quickly presumes change is bad

Even the OP sounds a voice of concern over change and makes it sound like it is going to be a bad thing. Appears they wanted to distort the facts or had not taken the time to check them out first.

[Kip Humphrey]

45. Changes so far have raised the vested retirement age from 65; advocacy to use chained CPI

(the catfood rule) reducing COLA amounts; advocacy to further raising the vested retirement age to 70; Bush & Obama both advocating for these changes - these are possibly why sensitivities exist around changing Social Security.

[KPN]

64. Chained CPI is a huge issue. I know Bernie will fight that tooth and nail ...

and would veto any bill that included it (well, who can really say anymore with all the add-ons/amendment/shutdown games Congress plays with legislation these days?). At any rate, no way Bernie would support Chained CPI.

But I haven't seen anything from Hillary on Chained CPI -- and with her tendency to "triangulate" for "incremental progress", I wouldn't be surprised if she remaoins silent on this throughout her run.

I'd like to know where she stands on it frankly.

[Kip Humphrey]

83. My recollection is when her campaign first began she was using the same dog whistle phrases we

have long heard "restoring the viability of Social Security for future generations" and "protecting Social Security for the future" without providing any specifics. Of course, the history of employing these dog whistle phrases has involved raising the retirement age, incorporating chained CPI, and reducing benefits so their use by Hillary raised concerns for me as I was approaching retirement. Since those early days of the campaign she has evolved, forced by Sander's position. What she would actually do? I have my own expectations and they are not reassuring.

[KPN]

92. Yup. I'm with you on that.

[Joe Chi Minh]

51. I don't think improvements to pensions

occur anything like as often as the other way around, be they never so cleverly sugar-coated. Although, it can sometimes happen, to win the votes of old folks' brigade.

[RiverNoord]

40. Huh.

Here's her entire 'plan' to generate revenue to make these things possible:

(My emphasis in bold)

"Preserve Social Security for decades to come by asking the wealthiest to contribute more. Social Security must continue to guarantee dignity in retirement for future generations. Hillary understands that there is no way to accomplish that goal without asking the highest-income Americans to pay more, including options..."

Pure weasel words. It means that she has a simple escape route to dodge most of what she stole from Sanders's... I mean, most of the steps her deep personal convictions concerning the value of the Social Security system have resulted in her... publicly claiming to support.

All she has to say after a failed bill is 'well, we asked.'

Oh, and, of course: "The real threat is Republican attempts to undermine the bedrock of the system."

So... Apparently Democratic efforts to do that are OK?

Oh, and none of the positions her campaign's web site says she is 'committed' were ones she declared the last time she ran for the office, although, of course, 8 years is an eternity in terms of how someone may 'evolve' on an issue.

[liberal N proud]

72. It is all your emphisis because there is no link

No link, no value!

[annavictorious]

41. The only things Sanders supporters have left are lying and scare-mongering.

[joeybee12]

52. Exactly...it's pathetic the lying and ignorance...nt

[KPN]

66. For example?

Waiting patiently.

[liberal N proud]

75. Wait no more...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7826020

[KPN]

59. I hope she stands by her campaign promises/positions.

I would like to also see her support expanding SS benefits for stay at home Moms who entered the workforce later after raising kids.

[Omaha Steve]

62. W Post: How Hillary Clinton’s positions have changed as she’s run against Bernie Sanders

I guess it is easier to only read certain points of view!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/29/how-hillary-clintons-positions-have-changed-while-running-against-bernie-sanders/

By Max Ehrenfreund April 29

Snip: In the course of fending off Sanders’s challenge, Clinton appears to have conceded to him on a couple of major economic policy issues. The former U.S. senator and secretary of state has abandoned the centrist positions she previously held on trade and Social Security and taken stances closer to Sanders’s views.

Once presidential candidates have beaten out other primary contenders, they sometimes shift their positions and rhetoric to appeal to voters outside the party. On the other hand, there’s some reason to think that Clinton might not revert to her previous positions on economic issues in the general election. Sanders wasn’t the only force pushing her to the left.

[liberal N proud]

82. And that is a problem?

[Omaha Steve]

89. Would she have evolved without Bernie in the race?

IF she is nominated, her feet aren't in cement!

Just say NO WAY to Third Way!

http://thebernreport.com/5264-2/

Hillary Clinton & 3rd Way Are In Control Of DNC Ideals?

The think tank, 3rd Way, was formed 10 years ago, as an extension of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s political philosophies. At present, 3rd Way, is backed by Wall Street financiers, corporate donations, and a few select members of congress. They have advised Hillary Clinton and the DNC against alienating the wealthy, suggesting income inequality is not a real concern for the American people. And, they selected a politician to take down, both as a warning to other Democratic candidates and as a way to weaken the Progressive movement. Fortunately, the target’s supporters were strong enough for most Democrats to think the advice would be suicidal.

The target was Elizabeth Warren, the senator from Massachusetts. Four years ago she helped galvanize grass roots Democrats against the corruption of Wall Street, and helped bring the issue of income inequality to to Congress. 3rd Way advised Democrats to cut their support for her, in December of 2013, when its leaders essentially wrote in the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal, warning Democrats not to follow her and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio “over the populist cliff.”

At stake is the direction and future of the Democratic Party, and their support of the middle-class. Many people on the left were stunned and angered by the advice being given to the DNC. Warren’s supporters concluded 3rd Way was acting as a proxy, and being used by Wall Street enemies to try and scare candidates into taking more conservative positions.

On October 28, 2015, 3rd Way published a separate paper titled, “Ready for the New Economy,” which falsely argues,

FULL story at link.

[arcane1]

94. Yes. It proves she will SAY anything. It proves her words and deeds have no connection.

And we would be fools to believe a word she says.

[liberal N proud]

97. And if she didn't evolve you would be attacking her for being to rigid

You are just looking for reasons to hate her. Nothing more.

[arcane1]

100. You're making up shit now.

Just like Hillary does

[liberal N proud]

105. I think this thread started with shit being made up

And you can't tell me that you wouldn't criticize Hillary if she did not move on position. I don't think you are here because you believe that BS can win but rather because you have a hate in you for Hillary.

But that is what I believe and what I see from your rhetoric and that is where I will leave you hang.

[arcane1]

107. Believe what you want. Or who you want. n/t

[arcane1]

93. The problem is, Hillary's word is worth shit.

Especially when she's claiming to do things a president can't do alone. Saying she'll "reform" something is nothing more than an empty advertising slogan.

[liberal N proud]

95. You keep repeating that right wing rhetoric without anything to back it up

Nothing, natta, zip.

Just keep peddling the same right wing hate!

[arcane1]

99. Lying and calling it "right wing" just shows how easily is was for her to fool you.

I'm not stupid enough to fall for it.

[jeff47]

113. One thing you left out of your list

7. She wants to add means-testing.

Clinton has proposed a higher payout to poor people.

The main reason Social Security has endured is it benefits everyone the same. A means-tested "bonus" breaks that, and turns Social Security into a welfare program.

Remember, only a Democrat can dismantle Social Security. Just like only a Democrat could dismantle welfare.

[liberal N proud]

115. Do you have a link to that?

The information I posted was from two credible sources.

[jeff47]

116. Are Clinton's own words credible?

That yes-or-no question got neither. “I want to enhance the benefits for the poorest recipients of Social Security,” she said, singling out “particularly widowed and single women” who didn’t make a lot of money during their careers. “I will focus on helping those people who need it the most,” she concluded.

https://ourfuture.org/20151015/a-trojan-horse-in-clintons-pledge-to-enhance-social-security

[liberal N proud]

118. And you twisted that into means testing

Brilliant

[jeff47]

119. Feel free to explain how paying more to the lowest-paid group is not means-testing.

And you'll note I never claimed she would make ALL of Social Security means-tested. Just that she's adding a means-tested bonus.

[riderinthestorm]

117. She said she'd be open to raising the retirement age in October in NH

. If there were a way to do it that would not penalize or punish laborers and factory workers and long-distance truck drivers and people who really are ready for retirement at a much earlier age, I would consider it. But I have yet to find any recommendation that I would think would be suitable.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/hillary-clinton-indicates-she-is-open-to-raising-the-retirement-age.html

This is one example of her weasel words that fudge her positions.

I'm not interested in finding all the other examples of how she deliberately creates ambiguity despite her Web page positions because nobody's mind is going to be changed here. I just wanted it crystal clear that some of us have been listening to her and hear her very clearly.

[SusanLarson]

123. Positions can be easily changed just look at Clinton on Gay Marriage

You can say anything to get elected and the gullible will buy into it. However the reality is she is a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldman Sachs, and if they want it privatized it will be privatized God damn it.

[Gmak]

133. Then explain this if you can.

https://www.facebook.com/RealProgressivePolitics/videos/1159205724099319/

[Enthusiast]

142. She also wants to means test Social Security which would make it like a welfare program.

Those that want to preserve Social Security are against means testing!

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. But, their "openness" is different ...

HRC wants to expand Social Security.

[RiverNoord]

42. According to her web site,

only for these categories of people:

&quot T)hose who need it most and who are treated unfairly by the current system—including women who are widows and those who took significant time out of the paid workforce to take care of their children, aging parents, or ailing family members."

So no general expansion. Two very specific classes of persons.

[hfojvt]

110. "those who need it most"

is kind of a specific class that probably should get the most help.

[George II]

20. Simply not true.

[lagomorph777]

23. There is only one presumptive nominee (and one presumptuous candidate)

Minor correction.

[KPN]

69. Right Trump, and then Hillary ... in that order.

[liberal N proud]

35. You didn't see my post up thread - 18. Six things we know about Hillary Clinton's Social Security

18. Six things we know about Hillary Clinton's Social Security stance.

You might check it out before you call it kowtowing.

[liberal N proud]

78. I linked both for reference

What you consume is up to you.

[annavictorious]

44. You mean the changes protect and expand SS?

That can't be right. The bros said Clinton was evil.

[djean111]

26. Hillary is Third Way.

Third Way wants to tinker with Social Security until it can kill it. Count on it.

First, though, the Third Way wants to hand the fund over to Wall Street, so they can continue gambling while raking in fat fees.

Hillary won't raise the cap. Not because some people will pay more into it, but because corporations do not want to pay the matching contributions.

[annavictorious]

36. You're what's known as a "low information voter."

You have no idea of what you're talking about, but you have no problem with expressing your ridiculous opinion.

Sanders supporters are at that pathetic stage where the only things they have left are lying and scare-mongering.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/social-security-and-medicare/

[Major Nikon]

60. Results...

On Thu May 12, 2016, 08:42 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

You're what's known as a "low information voter."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7826012

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Low information voter? Added insults after that, including calling the poster a liar.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu May 12, 2016, 08:52 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Clinton Derangement Syndrome is showing every sign of replacing ODS and under the circumstances understanding should be shown to RW buffoonery passed off as conventional wisdom as can be seen in this post, the OP, and many other replies, threads, forums, social media etc. But it's still RW buffoonery and DU of all places should hold the line so hide.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This low-information, insulting-with-no-other-purpose post needs to be hidden.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
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 HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

[KPN]

71. Still waiting.

Sounds like all you've got (not just left, but ever had) is whining about scare-mongering with no actual basis for the stuff you make up.

"low information voter" -- consult a mirror.

[KPN]

70. Yup -- starve the beast.

Standard GOP modus operandi since Reagan.

[fbc]

28. Don't worry, they won't mess with elderly too much.

They are going to screw over the rest of us.

[jwirr]

32. It is 100% of my income. I really do not understand why

anyone wants either of them for president.

[annavictorious]

37. Actually read the policy paper

and you'll understand.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/social-security-and-medicare/

[dchill]

84. You believe that at your peril.

"Not gonna happen." It's as if you never heard her tell a lie or do a flip-flop. Some of us are better judges of character.

[riderinthestorm]

120. She said she'd be open to raising the retirement age in October in NH

If there were a way to do it that would not penalize or punish laborers and factory workers and long-distance truck drivers and people who really are ready for retirement at a much earlier age, I would consider it. But I have yet to find any recommendation that I would think would be suitable.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/hillary-clinton-indicates-she-is-open-to-raising-the-retirement-age.html 

This is one example of her weasel words that fudge her positions. 

I'm not interested in finding all the other examples of how she deliberately creates ambiguity despite her Web page positions because nobody's mind is going to be changed here. I just wanted it crystal clear that some of us have been listening to her and hear her very clearly.

[Enthusiast]

146. That's my problem with Hillary, a proclivity for weasel lingo.

[yourpaljoey]

87. That is a perplexing question. We have a chance for something better... why not take it.

[Stinky The Clown]

33. With respect to you and your wife, you will almost certainly not be affected

Even the tea bagger assholes know they can NEVER cut gramma's SS or Medicare.

The target is younger people. I cannot imagine people over 50 or 55 losing anything. This fight will affect those younger than 50 or 55.

[Enthusiast]

147. Please show evidence to support your assertions.

[moonbabygo]

47. why do the rich need SS?

I'm referring to the extreme wealthy

[jwirr]

91. Ah, first I must tell you that this is not a threat - just a reason

why they should want it. Marie-Antoinette could tell them.

[jeff47]

114. Because that is what keeps the program alive.

If you make Social Security means-tested, it will be destroyed just like Welfare was destroyed.

The fact that everyone gets the same payment is what has kept the program alive. And with the trivial number of very wealthy retirees, the cost to pay them is pretty small.

[FighttheFuture]

144. Simple, really. It makes it harder for them to steal our money and futures and cuts into theirs!

First, SS has a lot of money. $3-4 Trillion, ultimately. All paid by working people over the years for their retirement and disability. Now, if they can get that $$ into the wall street casinos, where they are effectively "the House", then great. If they cannot then well, all those SS US Treasuries must be honored by us, the taxpayers, to make good on.

So that's the other track of the plan. The meme that they are just "worthless paper" and we may have to make it up so we should cancel those obligations of the United States to its citizens. See how that works... debt to others, China, Europe, Japan, the Rich, et. al. must be honored at all costs, debt to us... not so much.

Then the extra bonus as SS goes kaput by their machinations and toadied help is it forces people to put more and more of their meager savings into the Casino that is the Stock Market. Remember, I said they are "the House" so they will always skim their cut of your money in these semi-rigged and capricious system.

Finally, as disabled and older people have no safety net... well, they die off sooner. A real win-win!!! If your "the house" in that you do not need to expend as much resources on those pesky freeloaders whose productive working days (for the rich and corporations, "the House&quot have past them by!!

The plan is simplicity itself. Just have to keep gnawing away at it slow enough so as to not rouse the ire of the rubes.

You see, the one thing the rich and poor have in common, everyone really, is their necks are still attached the same way, and they can die by very similar means. they don't want a French style revolution... but their uncontrollable lust of greed may well being one about.

It's a tough dynamic for the rich to not turn the heat up too fast in the pot of boiling water lest the Frog jump out. So far, they are succeeding.

[Logical]

164. Because they paid into it. It is not a handout you earn it!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

49. Bernie put EXPANDING Social Security on the table.....

Hillary says she doesn't need to adopt any of Bernie's ideas.

[Betty Karlson]

53. That's the establishment speaking - the status quo wants more status quo. eom

[Populist_Prole]

104. Or more to the point

"Do not...repeat, DO NOT mess with trickle-down economics". Be a social do-gooder if you like, but DO NOT govern in any way that doesn't assure the transfer of wealth from bottom to top. That is all."

[Octafish]

73. Bill Clinton very interested in Chile's changes to Social Security, post CIA coup...

Dick,
Sorry I missed you this morning.
It was great to have you and Dottie here.
Here's the stuff on Chile I mentioned.
Best,
Bill.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027550058#post8

[highprincipleswork]

77. VERY SCARY, and absolutely unacceptable. Who is responsible for selecting these two?

Whoever is bears a lot of responsibility and will get a lot of blame if and when this happens, I'll guarantee you that.

Actions have consequences!!!!!!!!!

[Cryptoad]

85. obvious u didn't take the time to read

what changes she wants to make,,,,,, then again anything negative u can make up post abt HRC fits in the GOP framework for bloggin. Trump needs ur help!

[zentrum]

96. Yes, be afraid.

Be very afraid.

Bill was already doing this kind of thing with Newt-y back in the 90's.

The Clintons care about power. About their place in history. Not us. We're just a means to that end. "Whatever it takes", is their motto.

[Ferd Berfel]

98. Yes I have noticed

and it about 80% of my income (I still have to work PT) and it is scary and it is disgusting and it really pisses me off.

If my SS and Medicare get whacked - even by a little - I'll loose my home so the rest of their combined RW neo-con bullshit won't matter to me any more because I'll be living out of a grocery cart.

[PatrynXX]

101. twins I say

not exactly surprised. maybe seperated at birth. X_X messed up a couple of years something like that

[lark]

111. Yes, but there could be positive changes.

Eliminating the income cap would be a totally positive change to make, it would extend the life of SSI forever. No other changes, that I can think of, should be considered.

[felix_numinous]

121. Yes

These policies are a matter of life and death to millions of people.

[spanone]

122. when did the democratic presumptive nominee say that?

[Gmak]

129. Have you seen this video by Progressive Politics of Creepy Bill & Paul Ryan plotting the destruction

of Social Security and Medicare? Hillary had just won NY and Ryan says to Bill: "Call me"

https://www.facebook.com/RealProgressivePolitics/videos/1159205724099319/

[Skittles]

155. LOL

stop posting such shyte

[CharlotteVale]

156. They sure sound like they're on the same side.

[FighttheFuture]

141. Obama could not get the cuts done with his "Grand Bargain" initiative so its up to the next servants

of power to attempt.

[CharlotteVale]

157. Obama just renominated a Republican who wants to privatize Social Security to the

Board of Trustees for Social Security and Medicare.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-blahous-trustee-20160509-snap-story.html

I guess he's still trying.

[FighttheFuture]

168. He's working hard to secure his ticket into "the club". He saw the millions made by the Clinton's

and he has two daughters, not just one!! So, keep on pushing the Oligarchs agenda (TPP, TPIP, Grand Bargain) while keeping the rubes subdued. that should get him his seat at the table, or spot at the trough.

[doc03]

152. Define changes, please. Bernie says he wants to expand SS, isn't that a change? n/t

[Doctor_J]

161. That is why they are the presumptive nominees. Corporate America wants that money

And is willing to sponsor presidential candidates who will help them get it.

[Progressive dog]

167. Bernie has proposed changes to Social Security

as part of his campaign.

[pnwmom]

170. Right. He is also "open to changes." But like Hillary, his changes would be positive. n/t

[pnwmom]

169. They have OPPOSITE positions. Hillary is open to changes like lifting the lid on social security

taxes and expanding the tax to investment income. She is also open to changes that would increase benefits.

Trump is open to cutting benefits.

They couldn't be more different.