HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » What the 2016 Presidentia...

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:28 PM

 

What the 2016 Presidential election is about

Privatizing Social Security.

The banking industry has made the Clinton's billionaires in the last decade and now they want their return on that investment.

They have already taken your wealth from your home, you now pay 40-50% of disposable income over the 25% from a generation ago. They have already taken your wages, through offshorring to slave wage countries and union busting. They have already taken your education fund, through hyper-inflated tuition costs.

They are coming for your social security.

The Trump card is even in play to ensure they get their desired candidate who will sign the privatization bill that the Republican congress and senate delivers to her desk.



32 replies, 3067 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 32 replies Author Time Post
Reply What the 2016 Presidential election is about (Original post)
PowerToThePeople Mar 2016 OP
Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #1
PowerToThePeople Mar 2016 #2
Post removed Mar 2016 #3
PowerToThePeople Mar 2016 #6
Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #7
PowerToThePeople Mar 2016 #8
Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #11
highprincipleswork Mar 2016 #9
Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #10
highprincipleswork Mar 2016 #12
rhett o rick Mar 2016 #17
brooklynite Mar 2016 #4
questionseverything Mar 2016 #15
brooklynite Mar 2016 #20
rhett o rick Mar 2016 #18
brooklynite Mar 2016 #22
rhett o rick Mar 2016 #24
senz Mar 2016 #5
senz Mar 2016 #13
Capt. Obvious Mar 2016 #14
rhett o rick Mar 2016 #25
Ghost Dog Mar 2016 #27
rhett o rick Mar 2016 #29
farleftlib Mar 2016 #16
PowerToThePeople Mar 2016 #19
Beacool Mar 2016 #21
PowerToThePeople Mar 2016 #23
rhett o rick Mar 2016 #26
PowerToThePeople Mar 2016 #31
Ghost Dog Mar 2016 #30
geek tragedy Mar 2016 #28
highprincipleswork Mar 2016 #32

Response to PowerToThePeople (Original post)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:29 PM

1. The facts don't line up with this theory...

 

Not without some INSANE pretzel logic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:29 PM

2. explain

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PowerToThePeople (Reply #2)


Response to Post removed (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:33 PM

6. everything I read

 

is just silence from her on the SS issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PowerToThePeople (Reply #6)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:35 PM

7. Try reading more?

 

Privatization off the table; but maybe payroll cap increase
During her 2008 presidential bid, Clinton was relatively non-committal about reforms to the Social Security program. She said in 2007 that certain reforms such as cutting benefits, privatizing the program or raising the retirement age were "off the table." There were some articles at the time that gave mixed signals on whether she would be willing to increase payroll taxes.

One account from the Associated Press featured a conversation between a campaigning Clinton and an Iowa voter in which the candidate said she might consider committing more of workers' income to Social Security. "She told him she didn't want to put an additional tax burden on the middle class but would consider a 'gap,' with no Social Security taxes on income from $97,500 to around $200,000. Anything above that could be taxed," according to the article.

Ultimately, Clinton officially shied away from the increase in taxes, and stuck with official comments that revolved around improving the economy overall.
Source: Megan R. Wilson in TheHill.com weblog, "Clinton vs. Warren" , Aug 24, 2014

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Social_Security.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #7)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:39 PM

8. We will see

 

I stand by my OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PowerToThePeople (Reply #8)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:42 PM

11. I know, facts are hard to accept

 

When you refuse to accept them.

Classy avatar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #7)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:40 PM

9. The answers are too cute and obscure the fact there is no need to go this direction. Or this...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highprincipleswork (Reply #9)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:41 PM

10. That's not Hillary Clinton.

 

As to the rest of what you said... Are those just random words strung together?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #10)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:43 PM

12. You folks are hopelessly enraptured with a corrupt candidate. All we may have in response is ...

 

a whopping huge ability to say "I told you so". That is, if you truly do care about things like social services being privatized or diminished in some other way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #7)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:48 PM

17. It is fairly clear how she stands from what you posted. Well not that clear.

 

"She said she didn't want to" That rhetoric and no commitment at all. How many times have we heard "I didn't want to but had to."

"she might consider committing more of workers' income to Social Security." She might do this and she might do that and she might do nothing. This is rhetoric.

"would consider a 'gap,' with no Social Security taxes on income from $97,500 to around $200,000. Anything above that could be taxed," "Would consider" means nothing, "could be taxed" means nothing.

"Ultimately, Clinton officially shied away from the increase in taxes, and stuck with official comments that revolved around improving the economy overall. " So ultimately she didn't commit to anything. What makes you think she will save SS?

And improving the economy is bullshit. We've had a great economy for a long time, but the wealthy take all of the profits. "A rising tide for her only lifts yachts.

Even if raising the economy for all wouldn't be enough. We must reverse the trend of an every widening wealth gap. Make the Aristocracy pay their share. She sure as hell ain't for that. And I am guessing you aren't either. Some worship the golden calf.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PowerToThePeople (Reply #2)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:31 PM

4. Nobody has suggested Clinton would privatize Social Security

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to questionseverything (Reply #15)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:45 PM

20. I wasn't aware that Bill Clinton was running for President

I also wasn't aware that policy positions were locked in stone after 20 years.

But if it gives you something new to get angry about...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #4)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:51 PM

18. Do you support the privatization of SS? nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #18)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:49 PM

22. No...neither does Hillary Clinton

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #22)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 07:08 PM

24. I trust you but I don't trust her. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PowerToThePeople (Original post)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:31 PM

5. Social Security has been reviled as "socialism" from day one. Righties & 3rd Wayers target it.

 

It's a Big Deal to the Big Money crowd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PowerToThePeople (Original post)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:45 PM

13. DLC/ Third Way candidates are not to be trusted on Social Security.

 

Elizabeth Warren Fires Back at Centrist Dems on Social Security

December, 2013

Last week, the president and vice-president of the centrist think-tank Third Way accused Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) of ignoring what they call Social Security's "undebatable solvency crisis." In an interview with Mother Jones, Warren fired back, countering the charge, and elaborating on how Social Security could be expanded.


From Wikipedia:

The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was a non-profit 501(c)(4) corporation[1] founded in 1985 that, upon its formation, argued the United States Democratic Party should shift away from the leftward turn it took in the late 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. The DLC hailed President Bill Clinton as proof of the viability of Third Way politicians and as a DLC success story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PowerToThePeople (Original post)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:46 PM

14. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Tue Mar 22, 2016, 04:38 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Hillary has been consitantly on the side of social security.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1552911

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Rude. Please hide.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Mar 22, 2016, 04:43 PM, and the Jury voted 5-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Disruptive and rude.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If you don't want a bullshit call, don't post bullshit. Pretty simple really.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It seems pretty hopeless at this point, but yeah, vote to hide because of rudeness. Makes DU suck. We're not supposed to do that, or so they say.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: So post a link to disprove the OP; why do we have to get down in the dirt?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agreed

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #14)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 07:11 PM

25. What's the significance of posting those results? nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #25)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 07:19 PM

27. Calling out rudeness? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost Dog (Reply #27)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 07:22 PM

29. Oh I get it. Not pertaining to the OP but another post. Duh! I get it. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PowerToThePeople (Original post)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:48 PM

16. I really think you're onto something

 

SS has been the big prize for a long time now. Bill was on board but the Lewinsky scandal kept him from implementing his plan. I think she'd do it in a heartbeat.

Release the transcripts. I'd bet there are clues if not outright promises in them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farleftlib (Reply #16)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:08 PM

19. Imo this is why they stay locked away.

 

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PowerToThePeople (Original post)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:49 PM

21. Seriously???

A post devoid of facts. Let's start with the premise that the Clintons are not billionaires, that would be Trump. Let's continue with the lie that Hillary would privatize SS.

Keep crying wolf, you know what happened to Peter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #21)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 07:02 PM

23. I am serious.

 

Bill signed nafta, "reformed" welfare, and deregulated banking. All while being a Democrat.

Third way is big on privatizing SS.

It will likely start small, optional private accounts. But it will happen under HRC with cheering from corporate Dems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PowerToThePeople (Reply #23)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 07:13 PM

26. The Republicons will do the dirty work and she will have to sign the bill

 

because it will be attached to the budget or something like that. And Goldman-Sachs will give her another check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #26)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 08:24 PM

31. This is almost exactly the scenario I envision.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #21)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 07:24 PM

30. It is logically impossible to lie about hypothetical questions.

(Will Hillary privatize SS).

It is only possible to make accurate or inaccurate predictions about outcomes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PowerToThePeople (Original post)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 07:22 PM

28. Just like Obama slashed Social Security benefits!

 

Oh, wait ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #28)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 08:44 PM

32. Tried to, through C.P.I.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread