2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHilary Clinton - Third Way - Social Security - Buyer's Remorse
There no doubt Third Way is pushing Hilary Clinton through their endless attacks of Hilary's opponents and massive Multi-$Millions donated to her Super PACs. Third Way itself is named after Bill Clinton's policies.
The only doubt is Third Way a Democrat organization
Hilary's proposals for changes to Social Security well prove to be the leading salvo of incremental legislation to unravel the fabric of the "New Deal"
Let me attempt again to make the basic facts clear. Third Way is not a liberal think tank. It does not take a centrist approach. It is not run by fellow progressives. It is not concerned with protecting entitlements. It is not even a think tank. Third Way is a creature of Wall Street. Its version of protecting the safety net was made infamous during the Tet offensive in Viet Nam when the American officer explained that it became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it. Third Way is the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party, which seeks to defeat Democratic candidates like Elizabeth Warren running against Wall Street sycophants like Senator Scott Brown and seeks to unravel the safety net programs that are the crown jewels of the Democratic Party. Wall Streets natural party is certainly the Republican Party, but Wall Street has no permanent party or ideology, only permanent interests. Third Way serves its financial interests and the personal interests of its senior executives. Wall Street has always been the enemy of Social Security and its greatest dream is to privatize Social Security. Wall Streets senior executives live in terror of being held accountable under the criminal laws for their crimes. They became wealthy by leading the control frauds that drove the financial crisis and the Great Recession. This is why Wall Street made defeating Warren a top priority.
Third Way is run by a man who Laursen terms an acolyte of Pete Peterson. Peterson is a Republican, Wall Street billionaire who has two priorities imposing austerity on America and privatizing Social Security. Privatizing Social Security is Wall Streets unholy grail. They would receive hundreds of billions of dollars in fees and ensure that their firms were not only too big to fail, but too big to criticize if they could profit from a privatized retirement system. (We do not know who funds Third Way because it refuses to make its donors public. Given who dominates its Board of Trustees, however, the donors must be overwhelmingly from Wall Street.)
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/12778-wall-street-uses-the-third-way-to-lead-its-assault-on-social-security
You can find a list of their board members and their background at the above link
Progressives really owe Third Way a debt of gratitude. Finally, some austerity hawks that come clean about the true intentions of their proposals to cut Social Security. Unlike Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, who were shamed into insisting that their proposed cuts were only for the purpose of strengthening Social Security, in their report, "Saving Social Security," Jim Kessler and David Kendall from Third Way effectively admit that cutting Social Security should be a part of deficit reduction.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/third-way-comes-clean-they-dont-inten
Pete Peterson - you need to remember that name - he runs Third Way
Like many of its constituent members, ICI is now pushing privatization more quietly "A lot of firms are trying to find a key way to support this," says Tim Penny, a former Democratic congressman from Minnesota and an adviser to the Cato Institute. "I don't think you're going to see a lot of this happening under their names. They'll stay behind the scenes, twice-removed." Adds a Democratic congressional aide, "They don't want to be seen as swarming over the dying carcass of Social Security."
http://www.globalaging.org/pension/us/socialsec/socials.htm
And if you take away anything from this long post let it be this ...
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1996/11/end-social-security-we-know-it?page=2
Which leads to Hilary's proposals for "Changes" to the Social Security program. They are designed to make the program Highly Unpopular with a large segment of the voting public. The First Step to the final goal of Privatizing Social Security
Any plan that maintains one groups payouts while diminishing others risks deflating support for the program as a whole.
This is a problem for those who want to see Social Security survive. As the old adage, common in policy circles, has it, programs for the poor have poor support: A change that cuts benefits for the middle- and high-income Social-Security recipients could at the same time cause those groups to be less supportive of the program as a whole.
Last week, Douglas Elmendorf, the former director of the Congressional Budget Office and the future dean of Harvards Kennedy School of Government, laid out a plan for Social Security in The Washington Post. He focused on two main points. He said that the age at which people can collect full benefits should not be raiseddoing so would produce benefits cuts to those who need Social Security the most. And he said that the program needed to raise more revenues. The way to do that would be to raising the salary cap below which all earnings are subjected to Social-Security taxesits currently about $118,500 and is adjusted according to wage inflation year to year. Raising this cap would increase the tax revenues coming into the program, and could make it solvent.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/hillary-social-security/411901/
Hilary has stated many times stumping during 2015 she was in favor of "tweaking" Social Security but doesn't support raising the cap.
The Devil is in the details and Hilary's position mirrors the position of Wall St interest that have vowed to privatize Social Security
djean111
(14,255 posts)As a side note - there would be sickening defenses of that right here at DU.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)by all means lets go on record here
Because with Hilary's Flip-Flopping on positions, her reluctance to commit to Protecting Social Security, and her refusal to consider raising the cap confirms what all these Progressive Groups are saying - Hilary will be the demise of Social Security
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)I don't apologize to folks who support dismantling the New Deal - I expose them
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)...that you intentionally mangled my words.
Quote where I said this.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)IS Hilary unequivocally tied to Third Way - Yes or No
IS Third Way committed to Privatizing Social Security - Yes or No
IS Third Way attacking proponents of Strengthening Social Security - Yes or No
You sure you want this debate
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)You will get nothing from me but ridicule.
So typical that if someone does not support a Sanders supporter's ridiculous claims that they suddenly hate Social Security or are defiling the grave of FDR or some other silly claim.
You've been exposed for what you are, and I am done her. Please continue with your conjured outrage.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)If one defends, then I think it is safe to assume that one supports their policies.
If one is righteous in their support of the issues and identifies with the policies that Third Way advocates, there should be no shame in admitting one is in fact a Third Way-er.
You don't have to answer the posters question if it makes you feel uncomfortable, but your non-answer- I think, speaks for itself.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Because Third Way is not merely an insult, It is an actual entity who's goal is to bleed every cent from the common mans pockets.
Now, you may not consider yourself a common man and that you are safe from being victimized by the establishment. However, when they are done with us, we the people on the lower rungs of the ladder- I can guarantee, they're gonna work their way up through the rungs above us.
It's just a matter of time.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)or tax them instead. Or a New Trump Tax Deal?
https://www.bing.com/search?q=confiscation+of+deposits+in+banks+in+europe&form=EDGNTC&qs=PF&cvid=8c56ea9dce3e41ef937fdc88d85b7700&pq=confiscation%20of%20deposits%20in%20banks%20in%20europe
I can see Hillary Clinton in the Trump revolving door Defense Department.
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Are you in charge?
2banon
(7,321 posts)and not the devastating representation of dismantling fundamentals of FDR's New Deal policies until Reagan/Bush/Clinton.
As far as explanations? Summarized in the OP with specifics.
Rose colored glasses or wool veils will not change these facts.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)if only Third Way had not been adopted by the Sanders crowd as something other than an insult.
2banon
(7,321 posts)during this campaign?
This has been discussed on DU for over a decade, long, long, before Sanders came on the national scene as candidate.
But then, you already know that. just throwing out "stuff" to see what sticks.
Hows that working so far?
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)"I'm so upset at you right now. You made a comment that was accurate and benign, but I am changing the context in a weak attempt to make you look horrible. Watch my outrage: 'How! Dare! You!'"
a bit slow on your game this morning, but I've got it now.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)claiming that those who use the term Third Way are using it to insult people who support their policies.
As I said if you are certain that your support is righteous, you should have no shame in admitting it.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Anyone that expect this cabal to be on THEIR side, is in the 1% club. Or very low on information
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)you need to put up some kind of warning
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)There article is several pages long, with extremely detailed explanation.
Seriously, what's wrong with you conservadems? Jerking knees seem to have replaced all of their thinking.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)Hillary's rap sheet:
Foreign Policy
Iraq
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/hillarys-pro-iraq-war-vot_b_9112232.html"Hillary has now apologized for her Iraq War vote. But even her apology feels more like political calculation than genuine contrition. A meaningful apology would be directed to the Iraq war vets and Iraqi civilians who lost life or limb, to the American taxpayer for wasting over a trillion dollars, and to the rest of the world for making it less safe.
Hillary Clinton lost the 2008 Democratic nomination to Barack Obama in large part because of her Iraq vote so she must now try to immunize herself with her weak apology in the hopes that 8 years later, Democratic caucus and primary voters have short memories.
Moreover, none of her apologies give any indication of what she learned from her supposedly mistaken vote. Has she learned that using American military power to instigate regime change in the Middle East leads more often than not to chaos, anarchy, increased terrorist threats, refugee crises, and even the destabilization of Europe?"
Syria
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/19/hillary-clinton-isis-strategy-ground-troops-airstrikes-no-fly-zone-syria"Hillary Clinton distanced herself from Barack Obamas strategy for defeating Islamic State extremists on Thursday in a sweeping foreign policy speech that called for greater use of American ground troops and an intensified air campaign.
Though ruling out deploying the tens of thousands of US troops seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, the former of secretary of state made clear she would take a notably more hawkish approach than the current administration if she is elected president."
Libya
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-ab-top-region&_r=0"This is the story of how a woman whose Senate vote for the Iraq war may have doomed her first presidential campaign nonetheless doubled down and pushed for military action in another Muslim country. As she once again seeks the White House, campaigning in part on her experience as the nation's chief diplomat, an examination of the intervention she championed shows her at what was arguably her moment of greatest influence as secretary state."
"Libya's descent into chaos began with a rushed decision to go to war, made in what one top official called a "shadow of uncertainty" as to Colonel Qaddafi's intentions. The mission inexorably evolved even as Mrs. Clinton foresaw some of the hazards of toppling another Middle Eastern strongman. She pressed for a secret American program that supplied arms to rebel militias, an effort never before confirmed."
Saudi Arabia [y'know, the people who made ISIS's brand of Islam]
http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2016/01/10/445291/US-Hillary-Clinton-Saudi-Arabia-/Its tough to call her comments anything except the pot calling the kettle black, John Miranda said in an interview with Press TV.
The Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clintons presidential campaign have enjoyed numerous donations from Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabias various corporations and princes that have dealings with the United States, he noted.
For her to say that we need to talk to them [Saudis] about this; she honestly could care less, he added.
Miranda said that Saudi Arabia is committing the same crimes that the American people associate with the Daesh (ISIL) terrorist group rather than a long-time US ally in the Middle East.
Everything thats happening with the unrest in northern Iraq and Syria, they are doing the same exact things that happen in Saudi Arabia, he said.
Saudi Arabia is also one of the countries that is funding the terrorists in Syria and northern Iraq, so obviously they are practicing the same type of things, the analyst added.
Hillary Clinton is a complete hypocrite. That is the only way I can describe her, Miranda stressed.
Honduras
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/08/exclusive_hillary_clinton_sold_out_honduras_lanny_davis_corporate_cash_and_the_real_story_about_the_death_of_a_latin_america_democracy/Though its less sexy than Benghazi, the crisis following a coup in Honduras in 2009 has Hillary Clintons fingerprints all over it, and her alleged cooperation with oligarchic elites during the affair does much to expose Clintons newfound, campaign-season progressive rhetoric as hollow. Moreover, the Honduran coup is something of a radioactive issue with fallout that touches many on Team Clinton, including husband Bill, once put into a full context.
Colombia
http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-pushes-colombia-free-trade-agreement-latest-email-dump-2326068"One of the 2011 emails from Clinton to U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and Clinton aide Robert Hormats has a subject line Sandy Levin a reference to the Democratic congressman who serves on the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees U.S. trade policy. In the email detailing her call with Levin, she said the Michigan lawmaker appreciates the changes that have been made, the national security arguments and Santos's reforms -- the latter presumably a reference to Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos. She concludes the message about the call with Levin by saying, I told him that at the rate we were going, Columbian [sic] workers were going to end up w the same or better rights than workers in Wisconsin and Indiana and, maybe even, Michigan.
Froman a former Citigroup executive who as trade representative was lobbying for passage of the deal responded by thanking Clinton for her "help and support. Hormats, a former vice chairman of Goldman Sachs who subsequently was hired by Clinton at the State Department, later chimed in, telling her terrific job and GREAT line on Columbian [sic] workers!!!!!
Social Policy
TPP Support
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160129/23451533466/hillary-clinton-flip-flopped-tpp-before-so-big-business-lobbyists-are-confident-shell-really-flip-back-after-election.shtmlIsn't politics just great? Politicians aren't exactly known for their honesty on things, often saying things to voters just to get elected. But Hillary Clinton's views on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement have received quite a lot of scrutiny. After all, while she was at the State Department, she was a strong supporter of the TPP, and so it was a bit of a surprise last October when she came out against it. Of course, the fact that the deal is fairly unpopular with the Democratic Party base probably contributed quite a lot to that decision -- and Clinton's weak attempt at revisionist history to pretend she never really supported it.
But, of course, when you do a pandering flip flop like that just to get votes, you have to remember that plenty of people will see right through it, and some of those people might reveal the strategy. Like, for instance, the head of the US Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest lobbying organization, who is leading the charge in support of the TPP. Its top lobbyist, Tom Donohue, flat out admitted recently that he knows that if she actually got elected, she'll revert back to supporting the TPP, because of course she will:
The Chamber president said he expected Hillary Clinton would ultimately support the TPP if she becomes the Democratic nominee for president and is elected. He argued that she has publicly opposed the deal chiefly because her main challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), has also done so. "If she were to get nominated, if she were to be elected, I have a hunch that what runs in the family is you get a little practical if you ever get the job," he said.
Destruction of internet freedom
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/09/hillary_clinton_and_internet_freedom/What Hillary Clinton is condemning here is exactly that which not only the administration in which she serves, but also she herself, has done in one of the most important Internet freedom cases of the last decade: WikiLeaks. And beyond that case, both Clinton specifically and the Obama administration generally have waged a multi-front war on Internet freedom.
First, let us recall that many of WikiLeaks disclosures over the last 18 months have directly involved improprieties, bad acts and even illegalities on the part of Clintons own State Department. As part of WikiLeaks disclosures, she was caught ordering her diplomats at the U.N. to engage in extensive espionage on other diplomats and U.N. officials; in a classified memo, she demanded forensic technical details about the communications systems used by top UN officials, including passwords and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks for official communications as well as credit card numbers, email addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers and even frequent-flyer account numbers for a whole slew of diplomats, actions previously condemned by the U.S. as illegal. WikiLeaks also revealed that the State Department very early on in the Obama administration oversaw a joint effort between its diplomats and GOP officials to pressure and coerce Spain to block independent judicial investigations into the torture policies of Bush officials: a direct violation of then-candidate Obamas pledge to allow investigations to proceed as well being at odds with the White Houses dismissal of questions about the Spanish investigation as merely hypothetical. WikiLeaks disclosures also revealed that public denials from Clintons State Department about the U.S. role in Yemen were at best deeply misleading. And, of course, those disclosures revealed a litany of other truly bad acts by the U.S. Government generally.
Manhattan Project against encryption
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/hillary-clinton-wants-manhattan-like-project-to-break-encryption/Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has called for a "Manhattan-like project" to help law enforcement break into encrypted communications. This is in reference to the Manhattan Project, the top-secret concentrated research effort which resulted in the US developing nuclear weapons during World War II.
At Saturday's Democratic debate (transcript here), moderator Martha Raddatz asked Clinton about Apple CEO Tim Cook's statements that any effort to break encryption would harm law-abiding citizens.
PATRIOT Act support
https://ballotpedia.org/Hillary_ClintonClinton voted in support of HR 3162 - USA Patriot Act of 2001. The bill passed on October 25, 2001, by a vote of 98-1. The bill allowed law enforcement more authority in searching homes, tapping phone lines and tracking internet information while searching for suspected terrorists.
Secure Fence Act
https://ballotpedia.org/Hillary_ClintonClinton voted in support of HR 6061 - Secure Fence Act of 2006. The bill passed on September 29, 2006, by a vote of 80-19. The bill authorized the construction of 700 miles of additional fencing along the United States-Mexico border. The Democratic Party split on the vote.
H-1B Visa support
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Libya, Syria, there is not a single location where she doesn't support a more muscular boots on the ground approach.
Notably, no one in HER family served.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)benefits at lower end. Clinton has not supported privatization. It's not needed because people can always start their own Ira if the want their own retirement account.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)We all know it needs to be done to keep social security solvent - John Kerry/Dem Party ran on that platform in 2004
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)She's against privatization too.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/social-security-and-medicare/
Are you deliberately misleading people, or just uninformed?
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)You would do better to actually read the post before you try to dismiss it
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Hillary Clinton is inexplicitly tied to Third Way - and her rhetoric mirrors the 3rd Way plan
I thought most people understood the significance the Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Shultz reversing Obama's policy of Democratic Candidates not taking Corporate money. That reversal alone opened the door for 3rd Way to run rampant through out the Dem party squashing a popular uprising of Progressive candidates
Only problem being these people are dedicated to unraveling the New Deals as well
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)will run anything.
pottedplant
(94 posts)Bill and Chelsea have advocated for Simpson-Bowles. It will raise the retirement age and cut social security benefits. Erskine bowles was part of bill's administration. Chelsea and stephanolous were judges in some lame "the can kicks back" youth brainwashing effort a couple years back. Someone needs to get Hillary on the record saying she opposes Simpson Bowles. Several supposedly progressive democrats are using this as their way of "strengthening " social security.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I guess if someone supports that, you could call them supporters of Simpson-Bowles, even though there are other aspects that aren't so cool.
pottedplant
(94 posts)I would be happy to do that except I don't know how to link things here! There is an excellent Simpson Bowles overview on the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities website. In a nutshell, the plan is heavy on cuts and increasing the retirement age and light on revenue increases through higher taxation. Pete Peterson btw is tied up in all this can kicks back nonsense. Bill and Chelsea have advocated for this and in her language, it seems Hillary is on the same track. The chained CPI is just the beginning, I'm afraid.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)That should be easy, if it exists.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)We know what Simpson-Bowles said. I want to know where it says Clinton supports it.
If you can say anything and provide a link that says nothing to support that, I can do the same. Here is a link that says Clinton is the only candidate that will not plunge the USA into third world status -- http://www.andygriffithmuseum.com/
pottedplant
(94 posts)[link:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-sanders-social-security_us_56b3f533e4b01d80b245c04e|[link:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-sanders-social-security_us_56b3f533e4b01d80b245c04e|
Sorry.. I meant for this to be included. Not good at this. Hope this works.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-sanders-social-security_us_56b3f533e4b01d80b245c04e
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)"A Clinton aide instead referred The Huffington Post to the statement on Social Security on the campaign's website, which says the former Secretary of State will "oppose closing the long-term shortfall on the backs of the middle class, whether through benefit cuts or tax increases."
"The aide confirmed that the policy position on the site means she's firmly opposed to benefit cuts. She has no plans to cut benefits and, in fact, has a plan to expand them," the aide said.
Clinton pledges on her website to "expand" Social Security benefits for "those 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."
Then, the article goes on to quote Sanders' supporters who lie about Clinton's position by saying things like "progressives are worried Clinton will cut benefits" or some such BS.
Nancy Altman, a co-founder of Social Security Works who has 35 years of experience in the field, said that Clinton campaign's statement and the policy descriptions on her website, do not definitively promise not to cut the program.
"What Secretary Clinton has said about Social Security is completely consistent with the Bowles-Simpson plan," Altman said, referring to a Fiscal Commission proposal in 2010 that would have made major cuts to middle-class benefits, even as it marginally lifted those of poor beneficiaries. "From the very beginning, there have been those who have wanted to boost benefits at the low end and cut middle-class benefits -- pushing it in the direction of becoming a kind of welfare program. It is very important that the candidates not only expand benefits but promise not to cut them. Otherwise there could be cuts that undermine what the program is: insurance, where you get a fair benefit for the money paid."
You forgot this part.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)there is no evidence Clinton supports it.
Once Clinton has the nomination, Altman can start blasting those Republicans who do want to cut SS.
pottedplant
(94 posts)She isn't voluntarily going to say, "I support Simpson Bowles" but , as Altman noted, her plan is in line with the same. Let's see... Hubby and Chelsea on team Peterson, wiggle room enough to drive a truck through with her aide's response that Hillary doesn't "plan" on cutting benefits...
Someone, somewhere needs to straight out ask her if she supports it. Otherwise I think it is wise to connect .the.dots.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)pottedplant
(94 posts)When and where? Is there a link? I would welcome that.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)who wrote that tripe
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Wouldn't have a link to back up that particular flavor of tripe would you
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I believe raising cap and benefits came from Bowles. Maybe you ought to look a little deeper before posting.
pottedplant
(94 posts)The Social Security proposal that the co-chairs former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Republican Senator Alan Simpson included in their overall plan[1] to reduce long-term budget deficits would generate nearly two-thirds of its Social Security savings over 75 years and four-fifths of its savings in the 75 th year from benefit cuts (as opposed to revenue increases). It would cut benefits for the vast majority of Social Security recipients, weaken the link between a recipients benefits and past earnings (which could undermine public support for the program), and, despite the claims of the co-chairs, fail to protect most low-income workers from benefit cuts. Most Social Security recipients would be further squeezed by the higher out-of-pocket costs that Bowles-Simpson proposes for those on Medicare.
To say this is in any way comparable to lifting the cap is disingenuous. The is very slight cap lifting over a very long period of time. The call for getting rid of the cap completely preceded this and was not the mastermind of Bowles.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)with some compromise that would get something done even if not perfect. Kind of like FDR did with Social Security when the benefits were not very large and weren't even available to most minorities or women. Or Medicare when it was first enacted and later improved on.
I'm saying Bowles was for raising the cap and increasing benefits for those on the low end. That was a good thing. In fact, if memory serves me, what we are calling a "report" really was not official because they could not come to a consensus.
Another fact is that the ACA, through eliminating a major portion of the drug donut hole, has helped seniors.
My understanding of lifting the cap in S-B is that it would cover 90% of income when fully phased-in. I would not call disingenuous. And yes, it was likely Bowles and other Democrats on the committee calling for raising the cap and benefits.
Loudestlib
(980 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)DirkGently
(12,151 posts)The other backers are a handful of investment bankers. They run around the country telling everyone that Social Security will bury everyone's children because it's too expensive to maintain. Even though it's self-funding and running a significant surplus, and raising the cap would keep benefits steady for the foreseeable future.
In other words, they are simply lying.
Why, one wonders, are billionaire bankers so "concerned" about the terrible, awful, unsustainable (and completely non-existent) threat of Social Security to the nation's children and future?
Could it be they see a few pennies left on the table that could so easily be shoveled their way, if SS were privatized?
I read somewhere that Pete Peterson is part of the Clinton Foundation's inner circle and routinely attends their events. I cannot find evidence of that online now.
But the thought of someone like that having a seat at the table when the future of America's elderly, disabled, and retired is contemplated as perhaps needing to be handed over to the violent swings and bursting bubbles of today's unregulated financial sector chills me to the bone.
These are people who would see the most vulnerable Americans starve or freeze in their homes out of a conviction that no one should be permitted to receive benefits without them first taking a bite, such is their bottomless greed and utter contempt.
These are the Social Security "reformers" from whom Third Way Democrats take cues, and they are doubtless licking their lips at the thought they might be inching closer to the White House.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Talk about deceiving the American voters - the Biggest Switcheroo of the Century
Third Way is run by a man who Lautner terms an "acolyte" of Pete Peterson. Peterson is a Republican, Wall Street billionaire who has two priorities -- imposing austerity on America and privatizing Social Security. Privatizing Social Security is Wall Street's unholy grail. They would receive hundreds of billions of dollars in fees and ensure that their firms were not only "too big to fail," but "too big to criticize" if they could profit from a privatized retirement system. (We do not know who funds Third Way because it refuses to make its donors public. Given who dominates its Board of Trustees, however, the donors must be overwhelmingly from Wall Street.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/third-way-wall-street_b_2121372.html
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)as near as I can tell, when conservative Democrats talk about "compromising" with Republicans on "entitlement reform."
And effort was made recently to excoriate Bernie Sanders for criticizing President Obama, even suggesting we might benefit from a primary competitor, just when Obama was talking about this "entitlement reform." That talk disappeared shortly after, whether related to Sanders' comments or the general outrage I do not know.
But I remember it. I remember my jaw dropping, sitting in the car, hearing Obama talk about how the most successful social programs in the history of America -- the bedrock of the best contributions the Democratic Party has made -- were in some kind of real trouble that would need to be dealt with. I remember knowing that was nonsense and wondering what in the hell was going on.
You can't compromise with people looking to impoverish millions of Americans so their friends can buy another private island somewhere. And when I hear Democrats start this Pod People talk about how it's inevitable that programs we could just as easily expand and improve will have to go, because we just can't afford them, what with all the wars we need to start and all the banks we need to bail out, I get pretty angry.
We are the richest nation on Earth, and when these slithering eels stand in front of us and calmly explain how our elderly and disabled will just need to make do with less for "practical" reasons, I want to put my foot through something.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)and Peterson has been core to this issue
I don't understand how Hillary supporters could miss this or willfully choose to over look it
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)This is what I think about when Hillary Clinton tells us her "heart" is with liberals, but her "mind" is conservative. That she and other conservative Democrats (I want to be clear I don't think Hillary is the worst, or most outrageous conservative Democrat in the world, even if she is seeking to lead them) think American conservatives are generally right about things. About laissez-faire regulatory policies, about casual military adventures seeking business-friendly "regime change." About the "sad" and "tragic" need to keep abortion "rare" in this country.
About "entitlement reform."
But American conservatives are not right, not about any of this. Their fiscal policies are literally made up stories about how the wealthy and powerful best police themselves, that lowering taxes on the rich magically raises revenues and boosts the economy, that raising the minimum wage will generate $14 hamburgers.
Their foreign policy of intervention and "regime change" not only has literally not worked one single time, from Chile to Iran to Iraq, but consistently wreaks devastation on everyone involved.
Their social policies of crippling the welfare system out of an imaginary fear that people are choosing not to work because of the tempting lure of minuscule benefits and "privatizing" everything are essentially just theft.
Conservatives are not right. Not in the heart. Not in the head. I don't know why we would ever decide we need more of their thinking in the Democratic party.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)None of them will ever get my vote or support - and, believe me, there are a lot of them, and they are really DINOs - they boast of eschewing ideology and working with the GOP - and we all know how that turns out.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Bought and Paid for with Third Way CASH
djean111
(14,255 posts)bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)Faux pas
(14,695 posts)DhhD
(4,695 posts)Sanders made no mistake in voting for no War in Iraq, where Saddam had no part of 9/11 and allowed absolutely no Al Qaeda in Iraq. When on the other hand, Libya has become a IS weapons depot because of Clinton's or is it Obama's policies? We need to ask Obama about that.
Democrats have a dilemma facing them. Vote for Hillary Clinton's Middle East War or not vote for Trumps Middle East War. I already know that my family will lose 20% of our Social Security benefits either way. Those who do not work do not get ACA limited doctor visit, Hillarycare, anyway. Medical bankruptcy or indigent care is a better option for the poor as Clinton could care less about the poor as noted in her healthcare policies.
I would have to make up my mind on whether or not to vote for Hillary, when I think about how the poor could be drafted into Hillary's Middle East War with Iran and Russia. She will have to correct her mistake and clean up her Libya mess first. The thought of our kids and nieces and nephews going to war will help me make up my mind in the coming future. Who is going to pay for war? Most of America will be running the same scenario, do I want to vote for a huge, deadly and costly war, or not? Looks like Trump will be to blame if I vote the down ticket Democrats only. I have a big decision coming!
Independents have to make up their mind.
amborin
(16,631 posts)Hillary nomination
MisterP
(23,730 posts)saying that she'll double SS and Medicare
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/stateandlocal.html
But it sounds like your proud of the fact 200 Million Americans stand to get screwed
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)increasing FICA on incomes over $250,000 when this is the same position of Hillary and Sanders. Third Way also wants to means test those who do not need SS and the provide raises for those who truly need SS. If Third Way is not trying to strengthen SS neither is Sanders.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)But its on widely known Third Way has been working tirelessly to privatize Social Security
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/12778-wall-street-uses-the-third-way-to-lead-its-assault-on-social-security
http://crfb.org/blogs/third-way-introduces-new-social-security-reform-plan
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/02/third-way-misleads-hard-in-a-weak-effort-to-discredit-social-security-expansion.html
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Without links any con artist can spew what ever they want
pottedplant
(94 posts)Social security is an insurance program and should never be turned into a welfare program. Sanders never supported the chained cpi which also part of the grand bargain.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)pottedplant
(94 posts)It is include in third way's plan to "save" social security.
As I stated, social security was established as a social insurance program. It should never be turned into a welfare program. I make a living helping people get on benefits. I know about welfare. And so does Hillary as her husband dismantled afdc...a program on which my family depended when my father dropped dead of a heart attack at work.
Nothing is safe when it is deemed welfare. TANF is abysmal.
to answer your question, if trump or gates paid into the program, they are entitled.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Avalux
(35,015 posts)Everyone who pays SS tax is owed a specific benefit amount when they retire.
Reducing benefits or means testing is nothing short of stealing what's ours. This is an incredibly important issue for me at my age...45-55 y/o Gen Xers pay the bulk of taxes, yet SS may not be there for us.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)Social security is an ENTITLEMENT. If I paid into it, I deserve my benefits, not reduced, and certainly not taken away because the government says I don't need it. It's mine.
Your'e treading on dangerous ground.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)you say were Trump's stands on Social Security again?
Duval
(4,280 posts)erlewyne
(1,115 posts)On Tuesday March 15 at about 7a.
And I won't be alone.
We drink beer and make colorful signs.
Positive and futuristic and for fun.
OZi
(155 posts)Disheartening. I've learned from experience that Third-Way is not not the right way for me. I prefer to go left.
The term Machiavellian comes to mind.
Is knowing the difference between a D and a R all there is to being liberal anymore?
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)so you are in good company