called for what he called Social Security Plus, which would allow people to do something similar. Why? because it is very difficult for people to live on social security alone. Especially after Medicare premium deductions. IRAs and 401Ks were created not to privatize social security, but to supplement it for those that could save a little money to those accounts while they were working.

When bush tried to push for a 2% privatization of Social Security just before the market imploded, Hillary along with 95% of the Democrats were against it.

The only ones who ever talked about getting rid of Social Security were republicans.

Attributing incorrect speculation regarding Hillary's "real motives about social security", is disingenuous at the least, and intentional deception at the worst.

From a speech in NH she said the following:

"...Clinton also took a moment to discuss the need to preserve Social Security. She chastised Republicans – though not by name – as “just wrong” for wanting to change the retirement program. “What do we do to make sure it is there? We don’t mess with it, and we do not pretend that it is a luxury – because it is not a luxury. It is a necessity for the majority of people who draw from Social Security,” she said."

This nonsense comes out of Jay Ambrose, and the right-wing propaganda machine.

There is NOT one Democrat running, including Bernie who has accused Hillary of that, and they won't. Her record speaks very clearly on her support for, and preservation of social security.

This sounds a lot like the threads that were spewing out garbage how Hillary was actually against women's rights.

If you are going to criticize Hillary, then do it on more than just wild speculation.

Her plan would have made everyone eligible for a 401K, not just those whose employer provide it. It would have given a 1 to 1 tax credit of the first $1,000 saved for low or moderate income earners.

The plan had nothing to do with reducing or privatizing social security.

http://campaignemails.blogspot.com/2007/10/hillary-clintons-american-retirement.html

was a valid one. Our illustrious media made fun of it, but it made sense, because Congress was borrowing from the Social Security surplus for other expenditures, and his idea was to stop that "stealing"

At least that is how I understood it.

Thanks for the link

The biggest complaint I have with 401Ks is that when they are part of a company, some plans do NOT let the employee invest the money where they want, but provided a limited set of funds, many times with high fees or loads.

Hillary Clinton campaign floats yet another retirement savings vehicle idea despite a plethora of available options. Her new American Retirement Accounts plan forgets, among other things, that a) current 401K accounts are already fully portable to other companies and rollover IRAs, 2) Americans are already eligible for Roth IRAs, deductible IRAs, non-deductible IRAs, SIMPLE IRAs, SEP IRAs, Keogh Plans and annuities, and 3) since 2002 low to moderate income taxpayers have already been eligible for the Savers Credit which can be up to $1,000 per person.

American Dream Accounts. Americans deserve to know that a lifetime of work will ensure a secure retirement. We need a new approach that requires every employer to open a retirement account for every worker; enrolls workers automatically unless they opt out; increases their contribution automatically over time unless they direct otherwise; gives employees the advice and guidance to allow them to invest wisely; and enables workers to take their pensions with them when they change jobs.

are saying I believe?

I wish I could find the entire download link, but most DLC links are dead now. You are misreading what I posted.

Actually I wonder like Josh Marshall if those plans were devised to gradually phase out SS.

replace it with private accounts.

In fact your post is reminiscent of one you posted in 2007:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2277660

Again it sounds like Al Gore's Social Security plus, which had nothing to do with replacing social security

In addition, it is a well known fact that social security is not the problem. Once the baby boomers are gone, social security will resume adequate funding. In addition, if they want to do something short term they can increase the cap. The other issue, which is what Al Gore wanted to do is prevent Congress from borrowing from the Social Security fund

I wrote about the issue several times then and later.

I did NOT say she wanted to eliminate it,in fact I made a point of saying she did not now advocate privatizing.

I do tend to think considering the groups involved in that policy...that it was a first step toward changing Social Security to formats like 401ks.

Yes, I posted in 2007 about it several times. One was in the OP. The quote I got from Josh Marshall was in the link you posted, I just found his original and posted that link.

This is a fair post. The fact we have had to fight for SS the last few years makes the question a good one.

borrowing money from the social security fund. I may be wrong, but I believe bush used the social security fund to help fund the Iraq war.

I am especially leery about the personal accounts because of the backstory of Bill Clinton's efforts to privatize. I can only find these two for now but have seen more. Very revealing.

From Cato Institute..yes I am aware of what they are..

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

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/05/29/the-pact-between-bill-clinton-and-newt-gingrich

Interesting reading. I stay very much on guard about any plans toward Social Security.

They beat me to it.

Better luck next time.

When all you have is the proverbial hammer the whole world looks like a nail.

there are a number of complications though, so I'll mention one.

In some states (like way up North in GA), some public employees like school teachers work for counties and districts who are allowed to opt out of SS. I know this is true, because my wife and I taught in GA where I was getting SS and she was not. Her public school district did not contribute to SS. Even if there is a retirement plan, you may not realize that you could work in that district for 20 years and earn no SS quarters of employment.

Some of those states without unions (who won't stand for such abuse), might benefit from an optional "private SS". Over the last 20-30 years I've seen a few of those type accounts suggested to fill in the holes. Maybe some of that old legislation or proposals will surface from time to time.


Frankly, there should be no way to avoid SS for all employees.

That being said, NONE of the Democratic candidates would likely do anything except expand SS if they were able to do so.

politicians that means raising the cap, to other politicians, it means paying out less. I always wait for that other shoe to drop - how will it be strengthened?

Bearing in mind that the 1% really doesn't give a rat's ass about that Social Security making us dependent canard - they simply do not want business to pay the matching contribution. That is all they really care about.

How much more money would corporations have if they did not have to contribute? A lot more than it costs to make a politician beholden. Kind of funny - Wall Street wants that big pile of money, corporations want to stop paying into it.
Maybe the only reason we still have it - Jamie Dimon arm-wrestling with the Koch brothers.

Still Unclear on Privatization/Personal Retirement Accounts?

Here are the three basic problems with Social Security privatization/personal retirement accounts:

Personal retirement accounts dramatically worsen the long-term financing of Social Security by siphoning off money that will be needed to pay benefits.

Personal retirement accounts require enormous cuts in guaranteed benefits, for retirees for the disabled, and for surviving spouses and children. It further exposes an increasing share of one's retirement income to economic risk, rather than spreading that risk throughout the whole of society. Privatization will have a particularly devastating impact on women, minorities, orphans and the disabled.

Personal retirement accounts turn the insurance concept of Social Security on its head by rewarding higher-wage earners with uninterrupted work histories. Social Security was designed to provide income protection, especially for lower- and middle-income families due to death of a family wage earner, disability or old age. Social Security was created as an insurance program, not an investment scheme.