2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAmerica’s Seniors Can Count on Hillary Clinton
Last edited Sun May 29, 2016, 01:10 PM - Edit history (1)
Doris Matsui
U.S. Representative, Californias 6th Congressional District
In May, we celebrate Older Americans Month and the fundamental commitment our country makes to its seniors. In November, we will determine whether we honor that commitment.
Every day, thousands of American seniors reach retirement age after a lifetime of working hard to support their families. Because of Social Security and Medicare, older Americans can mark these milestones with the peace of mind that their retirement future is secure. We created these lifelines so that hard working seniors never have to worry about putting food on the table, or landing in debt after their next trip to the pharmacy.
Yet, Donald Trump seems willing to put these programs at risk, and take a gamble on our seniors future. He has called Social Security a Ponzi scheme, claiming privatizing the program would be good for all of us. He has repeatedly flip-flopped on his position on Medicare, first claiming he would avoid cuts, then having his senior advisor place those cuts back on the table. He wont even agree to AARPs call to put out a Social Security plan.
Donald Trumps radical and unpredictable policies undermine the promises weve made to Americas seniorspromises that Hillary Clinton has fought for her entire life, and will honor as president.
Full Op-Ed at Huffington Post
Appreciate all the kicks form the Bernie Sanders dead enders, BoBs, and other miscellanious Clinton haters. Thanks!
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)hollysmom
(5,946 posts)and when they overturn that new law that they have to give good advice and not just advice they can profit from - well all bets are off.
Her son-in-law could profit nicely from that.
lmbradford
(517 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)She won't do it at once. She'll means-test it which will make it a "poor person's" program. Once it's that, it will be lobbied against by both Republicans and Third Way Dems and the Pragmatic Ones will determine the only way to save it is to turn it over to the Complicated Designers of Wall Street.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Trash thread.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,836 posts)yourout
(7,532 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)chained CPI, or raising the retirement age, or means testing? Is Clinton firmly against all of those scenarios as well?
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Sun May 29, 2016, 01:25 PM - Edit history (1)
to have to consider some unthinkable adjustments to SS or there will be automatic cuts -- already in the law -- should the trust fund fall into a deficit position. Any politician that denies that -- for sound bytes to simpletons -- is lying to us. That why she says she will "consider" anything. Most of the awful stuff, she would consider and immediately reject.
Unfortunately, merely increasing the cap does not solve the entire problem. Wish it weren't that way, if for no other reason that as soon as I stop working, I'll be living almost entirely off Social Security. Fact is, they can cut my Social Security significantly if they figure out a way to house, feed and provide coverage for almost all medical conditions for me and others.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Those "unthinkable adjustments" can remain just that, unthinkable. I trust Bernie's position on this, as backed up by Robert Reich and many, many others that properly adjusting the cap is all that is needed while maintaining a donut hole between $110k and $250k/yr.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Sorry, but you are wrong that adjusting the cap is all that is needed. I wish it were that simple because I'm fine with it -- won't affect me. Heck they could slash the cap and I wouldn't hit the threshold.
You can read SS Administration reports looking at the impact, and the assumptions are hard to imagine applying for 50 years.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/provisions/charts/chart_run132.html
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/provisions/payrolltax.html#E2
Even further, the 12.4 percentage point "tax increase" we are talking about by increasing/removing the cap is money we are planning to spend in other ways -- education, jobs, healthcare, welfare, etc.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Meaning those who meet the means test get more money.
...Which makes it very easy to declare Social Security a "welfare" program, and then we can "innovate", just like with welfare!!
The error in your analysis is the large size of the trust fund has always been a temporary measure to handle the retirement of the Boomers.
The Boomers did not have enough kids, so the Greenspan commission recommended raising taxes (HORRORS!!!) and creating a large trust fund to pay for the retirement of the Boomers.
The plan has always been to spend the entire trust fund on the Boomers, because later generations had more children (so far), solving the inverted-pyramid problem.
Actually, it does. Capture the percentage of income that Social Security taxes captured in the 1970s, and you solve the problem....and that does not even require completely eliminating the cap. Just raising it to around $250-300k.
See, the concentration of wealth over the last 40 years means much more income is being made above the cap than in previous generations.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)solve the entire problem unless you don't increase benefits which according to you would make it a welfare program. Look it up.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Then several different years in the 2010s. Then in the 2020s. Now they're in the 2030s.
Somehow, I'm not supposed to notice this trend.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)But, they did something.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)with the general agreement on trade in services.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Social Security, along with details about the guy who wants to be her Treasury Secretary (surprise: he is one of her Wall Street friends),
https://monetarysov.wordpress.com/2016/03/03/how-hillary-will-privatize-social-security/
Henhouse
(646 posts)I remember surplus as far as the eye can see....
ASK FACTCHECK
The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
FULL ANSWER
This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clintons predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)She might be trying to pick your pocket.
JonathanRackham
(1,604 posts)No Hillary endorsement from her. She doesn't trust anyone who has never gotten their hands dirty for a living. Dad was a steelworker, Hillary slammed the coal miners.
BootinUp
(47,186 posts)completely ignored her message. Her message was that coal mines were going away already and she wants to invest 30 billion dollars to revitalize the communities there. Did she deliver a phrase clumsily that got turned around on her? Yes.
JonathanRackham
(1,604 posts)ABC, CBS, NBC. That's the first impression old blue collar retirees are going with. And you know corporate media won't fix it.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)Karma13612
(4,554 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)getting the shaft (pardon the pun). We want them, or at least I want them, to be taken care of: Jobs, education, healthcare, decent retirement, etc. Like everyone else, really.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)and that report you all keep poo pooing exposes her lies for the last year. Lies are lies no matter who tells them and only a fool trusts or counts on a liar. That IOG report from the very department she was the head of, took over a year to complete was very clear. She lied.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2842460/ESP-16-03-Final.pdf
vintx
(1,748 posts)Because when it comes down to protecting the needy vs. protecting the incomes of the rich, the New Dems and the Republicans are on the same side!
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)The end game will be exactly the same whether it's death by a thousand cuts or one or two big hatchet swings.
Both of these players gotta go!
Andy823
(11,495 posts)I have seen this same kind of bullshit when pretty much the same crowd here on DU went after Obama, and made up shit so they could make him look bad. There is no way in hell anyone here can foresee what Hillary is going to do or not do. Like with President Obama though, the same bunch "assume" all kinds of shit that never happened, and instead of just waiting around to see the final results, they ran around spreading bullshit day in and day out. When their predictions did not come to be, did they apologize for their mistake? Hell no, they just went on to the next insane rant about things that had not happened, and never would.
Sadly this year the same gang, and a whole bunch of Rove and Trump trolls have merged and now then have a monopoly on DU where they can post all kinds of shit they pull out of their_____________, and as long as their gang of bashers accept whatever it is, they get away with it. God I can' wait till this shit is all over and hopefully DU goes back to a site for Democrats, the trolls go back under their bridges till the next election, and the trouble makers stay get banned for good.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Vinca
(50,303 posts)In fact, I would assume she would "reach across the aisle" for compromise just to get something done. We need a candidate who refuses to give an inch on either because it's too important.
BootinUp
(47,186 posts)Vinca
(50,303 posts)for a private fund instead of SS. Bill couldn't compromise enough. Why do you think Hillary will be any different?
BootinUp
(47,186 posts)next time around.
Vinca
(50,303 posts)For fracking, against fracking, for TPP, against TPP and on and on and on and on . . . I think she invented the phrase "go along to get along."
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Not a fucking second.
Hillary v. Trump... two truly abysmal choices. Ugh.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)BootinUp
(47,186 posts)If you're a serious politician. Which Bernie is demonstrating everyday, he is not. If you are running for Senator and the issue wins in a state election than use it by all means. Try to get this through your filter: Just because she didn't commit to it, doesn't mean she doesn't agree with it philosophically. And doesn't mean she won't back it if there is enough Senate and Congressional support to pass it.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)I don't have poll numbers on raising the 250k cap unfortunately, but let us look at another issue that Sanders is "too far left" on
http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/polling
63 percent of Americans support an even greater federal minimum wage increase to $15.00 by 2020
That is over a 5 year period. I believe Sanders' plan is over 6 years. Sanders is actually slightly right of center on that issue.
Sanders is closer to the center on almost all issues for which there is polling data, except death penalty. And history will eventually prove him right on that one, just like it did on racial segregation and gay rights.
BootinUp
(47,186 posts)if you believe it does, then you ignore the fact we have higher populations in Blue states, but that you have to win purple states in a Presidential election.
Clinton's campaign fully supports 15 dollar minimum wage fights in California and New York.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Seems like a big assumption without data.
BootinUp
(47,186 posts)Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Ash_F
(5,861 posts)I was really thinking about the 250k cap, for which there is little data.
I feel that most voters would agree to raising it.
I just think it is folly to assume that an issue is not important or popular with voters, just because some millionaires would obviously not like it.
BootinUp
(47,186 posts)XemaSab
(60,212 posts)If you vote for Bernie, you're voting for kicking old ladies in the teeth.
Hillary 2016!
Carolina
(6,960 posts)from the Hill crowd
HA! As a senior, what I count on from Hillary Clinton is NOTHING. In case I didn't make myself clear: NOTHING!
Alex4Martinez
(2,198 posts)Fully.
BootinUp
(47,186 posts)Anyone else?
k8conant
(3,030 posts)This little pig went to market;
This little pig stayed at home;
This little pig had roast beef;
And this little pig had none;
This little pig said, "Wee, wee, wee!
All the way home."
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
elleng
(131,104 posts)but do recognize reality. Many of us depend on social security, and don't want our grandchildren to be continually sent to war.
Would also like to be able to rely on our investments (such as they are,) and on a future for our grandchildren's educations and employment.
I see these things in jeopardy if we continue on the 'established' path, so I do NOT support hrc.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)HillCo simply can't be trusted.