If Hillary is elected President we can say goodbye to Social Security.

It is well known that a Democrat will have to be the one to privatize SS, a Republican could never get that job done.

As no other Dem has done. At least not publicly if this is true about Clinton.

.

you can say goodbye to the 3rd way establishment Democratic party.. Hillary isn't going to get the same slack Obama got. People are pissed off and tired of being marginalized..

People are pissed off now, and the DNC is laughing at them, because lesser evil.

privatize Social Security Insurance Trust Fund benefits of individuals.


snip
According to three former top administration officials, President Clinton was strongly considering the partial privatization of Social Security prior to his impeachment in 1999. The revelation was contained in a paper delivered by David Wilcox, an assistant treasury secretary, Douglas Elmendorf, a deputy assistant treasury secretary, and Jeffrey Liebman, an aide with the National Economic Council, at a Harvard University conference last month.

snip
According to these officials, the Clinton administration spent nearly 18 months secretly studying issues surrounding individual accounts and concluded that:

Individual accounts were administratively feasible and would likely cost $20-30 per year per account to administer. However, to hold down costs, individual investment choices would have to be limited until accounts accumulated some level of minimum balance, perhaps $5,000.

Market risks were not a sufficient reason to oppose individual accounts. Administration analysts found that long-term investment was, in reality, relatively safe. The administration also noted that the current Social Security system contains political risks that may well be worse than market risks.

Concerns over redistribution could be addressed through the adjustment of benefit formulas, matching contributions or other means.
more at link

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/clinton-wanted-social-security-privatized


http://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/10/clinton-signs-privatization-bill/4725/

that all this time Bern was still hiding in the Basement of Congress.

Neither Sanders nor any other potential opponent got a chance to oppose the initiative because it was not rolled out.

Your comment suggests you did not read the piece, or do not wish to address it.

It is a passage from historian Steven Gillon's 2008 book, describing how the plan to reform SS through cuts accompanied by the introduction of individual retirement accounts was brokered by Clinton's chief of staff Bowles (of the Simpson-Bowles duo) and agreed on between Gingrich and Clinton, but ran into the Starr/Lewinsky matter before a public rollout of the details. They planned to keep the details under wraps and covered by a series of fixed town-hall-style meetings before pushing the legislation through the lame duck Congress in late 1998 - when instead the House was impeaching Clinton for the "sex scandal" bullshit, which the Republicans en masse mistakenly saw as the bigger opportunity to get everything they wanted. We can imagine how things might have gone if not for that, where the "retirement accounts" would have ended up in the 2007-2008 denouement of the great Wall Street scam.

My comment suggest that it is total Bull Shit.
and have no plans of addressing such.

for the passage from the historian Gillon's book. That would be Clinton's chief of staff, who brokered the deal with Gingrich and who remains a committed leader of the Social Security "reform" campaign.

Or, more simply, your "point" only works by not reading the passage at all.

that a person who preserves in a plastic bag a article of clothing with sperm on it. [this person] has no hidden agenda. Pick ur historians carefully!

Gillon did that?! Bowles did that? Clearly you are not interested in dealing but in distraction.

You support her.

Why are you people so damn obsessed with Sanders? Take your goddamn snark back to GDP where it belongs.

... "Tis better to be silent and thought a fool, than to post needless snark and remove all doubt."

All you have to say? Really? I don't understand Hillary supporters.....Obama called her out in 2008 for shifty positions and the fact she'll say anything to get elected. He gave her SOS after the election to appease the butt hurt entitled Clinton's. She then went on to use that office to further destabilize the middle east under a cloak of secrecy.

Reminder. These were all signed into law by Bill Clinton

1) NAFTA 1994 - responsible for outsourcing of labor
2) Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 - Mass incarceration...mostly minorities
3) Telecommunications Act of 1996 - allowed concentration of media....hence The Don
4) Commodity Futures Modernization Act 2000 - Know what credit default swaps are? Amongst other things
5) Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act(Glass-Steagall Act repeal) 2000 <---------banking deregulation
6) Welfare Reform 1996 <-------speaks for itself

What blinds you to this my friend? I just don't get it. I've never voted republican and i might never but i definitely will never vote for another Clinton. Sorry fellow Dems but the crash in 09' was the result of two of those laws and our non-existent Fourth Estate is attributed to one.

You're not even trying.

Try to keep up with the times.

They didn't have much of a deal on anything of the sort. There was talk of it as the stock market, driven by tech stocks drove the market through the stratosphere in the tech bubble.

But it's pretty stupid and ridiculous to assert they had a deal.

He didn't declare that Saddam Hussein had WMD and sign a regime-change act -- giving oval office approval for invasion years before Bush did?

Politics is not that black and white even at the worst of times, and these Republican assaults on Clinton just ensured he understood who's agenda was really being followed.

The Clintons are both bamboozlers. That's all they ever were. They could sell war to a Quaker.

You guys never give it up.

I'll put it this way... You had to have been there.

So were lots of people who were alive as adult observers in 1998. (Whom do you think you are addressing, exactly?)

Were you closer to the dealmaking between Clinton and Gingrich brokered by Bowles, as related by Bowles to the historian Gillon and published in this passage from 2008?

with giving something up.

http://history.ou.edu/steven-m-gillon

That would be Clinton's chief of staff at the time, since then a Wall Street consultant and part of the Simpson-Bowles "Catfood Commission" Team financed by Petersen.

Your comment suggests you read nothing of the piece before replying in ignorance, because your objection has nothing to do with it. The deal was made before the Starr report and "sex scandal" created a groundswell among Republicans who believed they could destroy the administration and have their way on everything without need of deals.

Their hands for many terms, and no one would look at what Gingrich, Livingston, etc, were doing behind their wives' backs.

If he wins reelection, they will try to take him out by assassination. I always felt impeachment was the alternative to assassination.

George W. Bush Quote - You Work Three Jobs.

when promoting social security reform with 'regular' citizens in Omaha, Nebraska, President Bush walked into an awkward unscripted moment in which he stated that carrying three jobs at a time is 'uniquely American.'

Who could have guessed he'd lie us into a war?

Even if you mock Bernie Sanders or call his proposals "pie on t he sky", DAM IT: he IS a New Deal Democrat, which is a hell of a lot better than the modern Democratic Party. It has become way too centrist-right.

SS is a sacred cow if there ever was one.

for keeping Social Security just as it is.

That being said, I don't trust Bill Clinton on SS or other 'entitlement' programs one bit.

Get a brain, or shove the snark.

Hillary went up against Obama with the party apparatus and Bill fully behind her. Obama did very well in spite of that. "Get a brain"? I think I'll continue to fight snark with snark, thank you.

Whatever the scare quotes are for....

No democrat could have beaten Obama in '08.

As for the snark, You started it by sarcasticlly asking me if I was "aware" that Bill.Clinton

wasn't running this year....I can see you're new, so get smart and drop the attitude -- It doesn't work well here.

The quotes substitute for the expression "so-called". In other words, casting doubt on your contention that Bill's influence is paramount. Your contention that no democrat could have beaten Obama is questionable at best. Obama was in a very similar position, and he handily beat the Clintons. In fact, some of Bill's "influence" may have actually hurt more than helped Hillary's campaign. You still haven't credibly answered my question about why Bernie can't do it if Obama did it.

You can see I'm new? LOL What does "new" mean where you come from? I like the way you keep suggesting I "get smart" and "drop the attitude", but you keep throwing more attitude and snark out there. Whatever it is you're doing, I can tell you it isn't working here or anywhere else.

Um, yes, I know what quote marks indicate. The problem is you put them around the word "influence" itself, rather than on a word which would indicate this "paramount" quality you incorrectly claimed I attributed to that influence - Check a dictionary, genius, because
Paramount doesn't mean "a lot", which is what I DID claim, it means "the most" and I never used that word...Get it?

"You still haven't credibly answered my question about why Bernie can't do it and Obama did it"

LOL. I never answered that question, credibly or incredibly, because you you never ASKED it

For real, bro.....check all your posts to.me...You never asked any question at all.

See what I mean about being funny?

"Two for the price of one" in their words (and there's more where that came from).

As far as I'm concerned, they still are a team.

Try to catch up, dude.

Which is why will still be a 2 for 1.

no reason in Massachusetts in 2016?

Didn't she embrace his acts and omissions in his administration when she ran in 2008 and thought so doing would help her? When confronted during her 2008 primary about DADT and DOMA, didn't she reply "I thought we did very well."

Doesn't she still try to claim what she perceives as the victories of his administration when she thinks it serves her?

Sorry, you can't have it every which way.

And you know, if Hillary helped fck up the country with her 90s whitehouse career, why should anyone let her off the hook for that?

She is running largely on the Clinton administration's supposedly successful record. Which is it, are they a team or does she have nothing to do with him?

How does she stand on establishing private retirement accounts within the Social Security system?

2- I don't trust the Clintonians as far as I can throw them.

The "voters" may be a little smarter than you think.

I've got such a heaping dose of "I told you so" ready, just in case Hillary wins the nomination. The only trouble - neither of us are going to like the taste of it.

I'm not sure what you're saying. -- The question I asked was how will the voters "not know about it"? -- the privatization of Social Security.

This isn't SS on this video, but there are ample reports of talks on privatization of SS.

until it is on CNN, America's 24/7 morphine dose disguised as "news," by which time it will be too late.

I hope you are right, but...

I am already on SS and it worries me greatly, which is why I support Bernard.

to establish a covering "dialogue" while Clinton and Gingrich prepared to push through the deal during the lame duck session after the '98 elections, without making it a salient issue for the electorate beforehand. Instead "Monica" happened - poor lady - and the groundswell among the Republicans was to destroy the administration and get everything with no need of deals.

...and lame. Poor lady? She had her 15 minutes of a brush with power.

The plan to privatize Social Security between Gingrich and Clinton was brokered by Bowles. WH chief of staff. Nothing to do with Lewinsky. You have in any case learned the magic word that's supposed to dismiss anything you don't want to know. However, this is on-the-record history. From Bowles. Of Simpson-Bowles. (And your hatred of an incidental victim in this theater is noted.)

Interesting, isn't t.

past a certain age exempt. Most of the folks that will be exempt won't give a damn, because they got theirs.

First, you need to apply something to make it a program for "those people". Something that gives an advantage to an out-of-favor group.

Such as Hillary Clinton's proposal to add a means-tested "bonus" to Social Security recipients. So that the poor would get more than the middle and upper classes.

That turns it into a welfare-like program, and now you can start dismantling it. Gradually cut payments, gradually privatize it ("It's your money! Invest it in Wall Street!&quot and in a little while you've effectively destroyed the program.

Also, this can't be kicked off by a Republican president. That would result in lock-step opposition by Democrats. Instead, you need a "sensible" Democrat to propose changes. Republicans will vote for them, and Democrats will be split.

He planned a leak about an affair with Lewinsky to make it look like he was cooperating with Gingrich but would avoid privatization of SS in the end. Counted up the possible votes for impeachment and knew he'd win. Brilliant!

so that Ken Starr would keep that investigation alive, long enough for Monica to start her internship at the White House. More BRILLIANT strategerizing by the Clintons - we truly did get Two For The Price Of One!

As the records failed to incriminate the Clintons, there could be no other logical explanation! Pure genius.

produce the records named in the subpoena, and get the investigation over with, but she, as always, knew better! (Sarcasm) And the rest is history!

even though it hurts them politically every time

On behalf of my fellow SS & Medicare benficiaries in every state of the union, a heartfelt thank you to Monica Lewinsky.

Clinton and Gingrich set Medicare reform on a slower track. On January 16, the president and speaker managed to convince two allies to serve as cochairs of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare. Clinton friend John Breaux, a moderate Louisiana senator known for his ability to forge compromise, was appointed chairman, and Gingrich colleague Bill Thomas, powerful head of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on healthcare, agreed to serve as administrative chairman. The president and speaker charged them with producing a set of recommendations by March 1999.

By mid-January, Bowles believed everything was on track. The president and the speaker were looking forward to the annual State of the Union address, scheduled for January 27, when they would make public the plans they had carefully laid over the previous months. No one, however, was prepared for what happened next.

Breaking news. Early on Wednesday morning, January 21, Bowles (y'all remember Bowles, as in head of the Catfood Commission Bowles) arrived at his office in the White House at his usual 7 a.m. starting time. He liked to spend a few hours getting caught up on the news in preparation for his daily briefing with the president. While some White House officials had learned the previous evening that the Washington Post was running a story about the president having an illicit affair with an unnamed White House intern, Bowles learned about it for the first time when he opened the paper sitting on his desk. There across four columns at the top of the paper read the headline: ''Clinton Accused of Urging Aide to Lie; Starr Probes Whether President Told Woman to Deny Alleged Affair to Jones's Lawyers.''


When Bowles asked the president about the story that morning, Clinton denied it. ''Erskine,'' he said, ''I want you to know that this story is not true.'' Bowles was crushed by the alleged charges, which he assumed were untrue. He was also devastated that a potentially great moment had been lost. Whether true or not, he understood the political implications: All of their hard work in building the alliance with Gingrich had been destroyed. There was no doubt in his mind that Clinton and Gingrich would have created a plan for reforming both Social Security and Medicare that year and, perhaps, set the stage for a new period of bipartisanship. ''Gingrich wanted to do it; Clinton wanted to do it. It was a real missed opportunity,'' he said. ''Monica changed everything.''

if toads had wings, they wouldn't bump their asses when then hop! and proud to announce teh bottom of barrel is approaching faster than expected. geeez

with her Means Testing pal, Pete Peterson.

http://truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/89607:family-friendly-cuts-to-social-security-the-myth-of-affluence-testing


Clinton's Enhancement, not Expansion:
https://ourfuture.org/20151015/a-trojan-horse-in-clintons-pledge-to-enhance-social-security


http://www.seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Features/2014/20141017_Majority-of-American-Senior-Citizens-Would-be-in-Poverty-Without-Social-Security.htm


How many Americans are going to be able to pick up taking care of their parents and the elderly so that the SS Trust fund can be given to Wall Street? Be careful of the toads setting something like this up; Paul Ryan.

Partial SS trust funds being given to Wall Street, were proposed, just like in the OP and other replies and sources in this thread.

Millionaires should not draw SS benefits.

Their taxes need to be back taxed as they can well afford it.


Say Yes to more taxes or no to a little tiny SS check:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/07/4-ways-democrats-want-cut-taxes-rich-senate-gop

arguing for Regressive tax Policies. The New Up is Down?

Thx, tells me all I need to know

in regard to taxes? I think not.

They should help support it, but none of our tax income should be wasted on those who don't need it. That would be about as regressive as you could get.

SS works is that it isn't means-tested: everybody in, everybody pays. Look how easy it is to cut any program for low-income people (moochers!): being able to cast SS in that light would be the beginning of the end imo.

otoh, the rich can pay a whole lot more.

…the story is not true and Bill did not have a deal with Newt about SS?

Or is it that, with or without your own research, you just have the conviction that no Democrat would ever do such a thing—let alone the Clintons?

Or do you think it is true, but it's the bringing of it to light that is the sleazy part?

Or is it just bottom of the barrel for us to think that privatizing SS is reprehensible?

Please clarify.

some of them find some of this stuff indefensible but are compelled/have to act like they did, because snark is a cure-all for such things.

Yes, it is a hatchet job on the Clintons, one of many. But there is a sucker born every minute.

….bringing this out. Dems are fools if they think HRC won't try for this too. She will. And is already making noises about it. Her talk of raising the age of retirement is what's known in sales as "the foot in the door".

It's unthinkable that a Democrat would try to diminish SS. This is far more dangerous than when the Repugs do it.

Thank you Monica!

She'll do what Wall St. wants no matter who it hurts. The Clintons disgust me.

Because it works.

Bill and Hillary Clinton, and don't think for a moment they are not a unit when it comes to their welfare, in future histories written of our country, will be shown as just as corrupt and ruinous to our country as the several generations of the Bushes. I don't believe in "evil" as an entity, but bad intentions, greed, and selfishness add up to the same thing.

which is why Hillarian numbers can only be explained by a combination of gross ignorance and full support of stuff like that.

eom

I bet she never realized that

by shredding what was left of Johnsons programs. Hill wants to finish up what the Bush presidency started. i.e. endless war and corporate kleptocracy.

These are not Democrats. At least they are not Democrats that I want to be affiliated with.

Wall street's hand picked candidate

This is bothersome. If she is not on the record then someone needs to get her on the record. Not that it would make any difference if she is open to doing something like this they will just shock the system to make it look like there was no choice.

Because a miracle this amazing is one for the history books.

Thank you Ms. Monica!

This is UNBELIEVABLE! After reading an article at Anonymous on the antics in Arizona, I noticed a comment attached to the article that stated there are widespread reports of voter registration manipulation in PA and NY.

See article: Anonymous Investigate Arizona Election Fraud, “Sanders Was Hacked”
Link: http://www.anonews.co/anonymous-sanders-hack/

Since I live in PA and am a Bernie supporter, I decided to confirm my registration immediately.

I checked the VotesPA website and, sure enough, voter registration information on both my husband and me is not available!!! We have been registered Democrats and voting at this location since 1987 and 1994 respectively.

This is the message that came up for both of us: "No Voter Registration information could be found for the data provided. Either search again using different data or contact your County Voter Registration Office."

Calling tomorrow and surprise (not), we are Bernie supporters!!! INCREDIBLE!!! Just coincidence in state after state???? I think not!!!

Seems like those two lapses in the firewall (both reported by the Sanders Campaign) are benefitting only one of our two Democratic candidates...

HIGHEST PRIORITY!!! PLEASE TELL EVERYONE WHO IS STILL WAITING TO VOTE IN PRIMARIES TO CHECK THEIR REGISTRATION...ESPECIALLY FRIENDS IN NY AND PA!!!

Thanks for the thread, eridani.

The are required to start taking their minimum distributions from their brokerage accounts at age 70 1/2.

Maybe Wall Street thinks a tsunami of Social Security cash is the only thing that can save the market now. Young people certainly don't have the cash to invest like the previous generation or two.

And where is he now?

I've never heard of Bill Archer.

I wonder what George Stephanopoulos thinks of this.
Or James Carville.
Since bother were aides that were close to Bill Clinton in 1996.

can whittle them away a little, protesting all the while it's because of some necessary this or that.

Who is going to fight Climate Change, like the end of the world scenario it is quickly becoming?
Who is going to really fight for some kind of economic prosperity for all Americans, not just the few?
Who is going to keep us from our usual interventionist ways in too much war?
Who is really going to be steadfast in fighting racial injustice?

I know my answer, and I remain confident (through his actions and words over so many years) that he will remain true to all these causes.

This "Let's help the poorest of Social Security recipients" really means "Let's cut Social Security, and then put back what was taken away only for the lowest quintile."

Thank you, eridani!

Very important history.

they talk in loose generalizations and never specifics like Bernie does. Then along comes a deal with the Rs that gives us exactly the opposite of what we thought they were talking about.

Bill did it then and Hillary is doing it now. There are a lot of unpleasant surprises coming for all of us if she gets elected and losing our Social Security is one of them.

You know, about helping SocSec recipients with lower incomes. That's exactly what the Catfood Commission wanted in 2010. Cut Social Security, and then replace the losses for the lowest quintile. Fuck that.