Is a Clinton Revival Timed-Out?

[antigop]

http://truth-out.org/news/item/28477-is-a-clinton-revival-timed-out

It may be difficult to see just how far the U.S. has fallen if you have two expensive and grand homes – in two of the best postal zips – to which you are driven in a limousine, dine and dish with multi-millionaires and billionaires, and require presidential suites for high-paying speech events.

Both Clintons give evidence that they have become detached from the realities of most Americans. “We are in the best shape of any big country in the world in the next 20 years,” Bill Clinton said recently. Perhaps Bill, who has rightly been called “the architect and primary spokesperson for the corporatist and pro-Wall Street wing of his party,” should have said: “We Clintons are in the best shape.”

It turns out that some of the primary beneficiaries of Clintonism and the “Third Way” concept of the so-called “pro-growth progressive” movement ended up being the Clintons, their cronies, the financial establishment and the other members of “the 1 percent” — including, of course, the Republicans who never pretended to be other than corporatists intent on destroying the parts of government they couldn’t own.

“Hillary Clinton is dangerously out of step with ‘the new zeitgeist‘ with her finance-friendly politics that supported her rise to power,” says prominent political journalist William Greider.

“Beyond recession and financial crisis,” notes Greider, “we are in much deeper trouble than many people suppose or the authorities want to acknowledge.”

[olddots]

1. I'd vote for George Clinton

[MannyGoldstein]

7. No doubt, he'd tear the roof off the sucker

The White House, I mean. Of course.

[ybbor]

9. But he wouldn't know how to deal with Congress...

He is only used to dealing with Parliament.

[Unknown Beatle]

12. Ha!

[Thinkingabout]

2. Hey, if you are good enough in your job you just may be rewarded with being driven around and

Have people who wants to be in your presence. It is the life of a past president, get elected and it will be yours.

[DonCoquixote]

3. yes

especially if you offer to support policies like the Keystone pipeline and the TPP and war in Syria and others that will grind the workign class into meat. It helps to have a track record of supporting polcies (NAFTA, killign Glass-Steagall, killing the Fariness Doctrine) that do exactly that.

and before you break out the standard "Hillary is not her husband" card, then let me say this, UNTIL she actually expresses polcies that are DIFFERENT from her husband, in clear terms, with no "depends on what the deifntion of is is" wiggle room, then yes, I have no reason to belive she will bhe differetn than her husband.

[Thinkingabout]

4. Are you thinking about running for president, the benefis are great.

Let me ask you, do you take the threats of ISIS seriously?

[cascadiance]

5. FDR was able to adequately protect our country and STILL rebuild our middle class and wealth balance

There's no reason why someone today can't do both that are NEEDED by this country. Corporate media might try to rationalize that we can't, but we know who they work for! The main question is who our nominee will be working for!

[Thinkingabout]

13. Our Social Security needs reforms, we are currently working through some reforms, the

retirement age is increasing and there was an increase in the wage max cap. This has allowed benefits to last a few more years. The problem is the funds will be running out in the future and there needs to be reforms to allow our younger generation to have benefits. I will not live to see the projection run out but I do care about the younger folks, it isn't about me. You talk about corporate media and what they should be doing, they need to say the reforms we are currently in is not going to last forever, the reforms proposed by Third Way is sensible, raising the wage max cap will not hurt the low wage earners. These reforms are for the working people, we need congressional members who recognize the need to shore up Social Security. There needs to a move to seriously to halt the fraud in the SSDI, the false claims needs to be met with serious consequences.

[cascadiance]

16. Why is retirement age increasing, when the longevity of non-rich people is NOT increasing!

There should be NO increase of retirement age, because only the rich people are living longer when only they have adequate health care, etc. to allow them to live longer. That is another means of orchestrated wealth redistribution to the rich.

There should be a removal of the wage max cap! This isn't a retirement plan, but an INSURANCE plan. Why should we that are under the cap have over a third of our payments where WE pay more in to it be applied towards paying out death and other early social security benefits that are not associated with retirement to others when that should be a COLLECTIVE responsibility for all of us to pay in to according to our means, not just those under the cap!

As I said before, we were able to help rebuild the middle class during and after world war II and not hobble our security infrastructure then. We should be able to do that now. But only if we get rid of the rich siphoning off of all of our taxpayer's money and paying less in to the system than we had then.

[Thinkingabout]

18. Are you really serious? The average life expectancy in 1935 for men was 59.9, women was 63.9.

Average life expectancy in 2015 for men is 76.40, women is 81.2. In 1983 the full retirement age was increased for those born after 1938, and those born in 1960 the full retirement age is 67. This is the average life expectancy, which means everyone of every income bracket.

I would bet it you spoke to a spouse of a deceased citizen and tell them they should not be entitled to some benefits for the care of the children of the deceased they would wonder why you are so against the working people. I had a sister who had an eighteen month old child and was pregnant with her second child when her husband was accidently killed while working, she started receiving benefits and those two children received benefits until they reached 18 years of age. She lost her means of support in 1953, she was pregnant, these benefits was the difference in total poverty and being able to provide for her children.

Since this happened the ACA was passed which just may increase the life expectancy of many of the income brackets. Those in the lowest income brackets actually have had Medicaid and should have been able to receive medical care.

Raising the wage max cap is a proposal of the Third Way, but you have to understand benefits from Social Security is based on the highest 35 years of reporting and are you sure you want those in the 1% getting benefits based on their wages? Means testing would be a better system, leave the wage max cap but those who has lots of resources does not receive benefits.

Reforming taxes would be a good idea but I don't see this happening with a GOP congress, it will take a DNC congress and president. The election of 2014 lost seats in Congress, there are more Democrats than Republicans, we have to get good candidates and then go and vote. The 99% should be focused on electing Democrats, quit voting against our best interest and voting for the party which helps the 90%.

[cascadiance]

20. Yes, I and the facts ARE serious! It is the rich who've had their life expectancy rise!

Read more here...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/21/why-rich-guys-want-to-raise-the-retirement-age/

...
Some of us have gained in life expectancy, of course. As you can see on this graph, since 1977, the life expectancy of male workers retiring at age 65 has risen six years in the top half of the income distribution. But if you're in the bottom half of the income distribution? Then you've only gained 1.3 years.



If you’re wealthy, you do have many more years to enjoy Social Security. But if you’re not, you don’t. And so making it so people who aren’t wealthy have to wait longer to use Social Security is a particularly cruel and regressive way to cut the program.

It’s also a cut that’s particularly tough on people who spend their lives in jobs they don’t enjoy.

You know what age most people actually begin taking Social Security? Sixty-five is what most people think. That’s the law’s standard retirement age. But that's wrong. Most people begin taking Social Security benefits at 62, which is as early as the law allows you to take them.
...

So.... By raising the retirement age, you screw those that aren't rich, because they collect LESS benefits than the wealthy do on average, that the wealthy don't really need AND AREN'T PAYING AS MUCH FOR!

And by having the retirement age higher, you have older people working longer and inflate the size of the work force. That screws younger workers as well, as it raises the number of workers looking for jobs, and reduces salary levels when you have a greater supply of workers.

And I did NOT say we shouldn't have survivor benefits or disabled benefits provided by Social Security. But because we have that as part of the plan, it is NOT a straight retirement plan, and therefore is something that those with more ability to pay SHOULD pay more as a PERCENTAGE of what they make (ie. NO cap not just a "raised" cap). And I'm not advocating that those that are wealthy putting more in to the system get more back. As I just noted, it is NOT a retirement plan that would work that way. It IS an insurance plan and a means to insure that everyone can keep from being buried in poverty if they are unable to work, or have the breadwinner of their family taken away from them that they are dependent on.

Please explain why someone who's making very little should pay a far HIGHER percentage of his salary to have a third of what he/she pays in pay off others' survivor and disabled benefits that they don't directly benefit from, and someone who's wealthy who pays far less and doesn't need the money pays relatively a far lower percentage of his salary and in many cases the same raw amounts relative to those making money right at the cap level. And as I noted, since the wealthy survive longer, they stand to get more benefits in the end too!

THIS is why people recognize the Third Way is the corporatist's mean to have Democrats destroy their mission of working for the average people and its constituency, and instead works for the benefit of the wealthy and the corporate lobbyists. And they ARE going to be thrown out of the party heavily over the next few years as people wake up and realize that the Third Way has been SCREWING them over the years!

This isn't a football game where we just pick the Bucks or the Ducks to win the national championship when saying "we should vote for Democrats". We should have REASONS for electing Democrats! And the Third Way is providing too many independents and others to NOT vote for Democrats, because the Third Way is NOT working for the average American citizen!

[Thinkingabout]

21. The numbers I furnished is the average life expectancy, the SS began in 1935 and the retirement age

was 65. Since then the full retirement age is 67, two years more but our life expectancy has risen more than two years since 1935. The program name is Social Security, if a person pays into FICA and should die before retirement and does not have dependents or a spouse there is not any money which is given, ergo, it is not an insurance program.

Since you are so critical of the Third Way reform ideas, what are your plans to have Social Security to continue after about 2036? This is not only the Third Way who believe this but also the Social Security Administration.

Yes the rate is 6.2% for everyone. If we all purchased insurance we would pay the same amount of premium for the same amount of the insurance policy and it does not have anything to do with the salary of the person insured.

On the SSDI, it is projected to run out of money in 2016. Normally there has been transfers from the Social Security fund, Congress has not voted to make the transfer. There is fraud in the SSDI program, in fact 20 20 had a guy who claimed to be blind and said he could not work any longer, got approved for the SSDI based on his inability to see. Guess what, he was back at work, his job to look at computer screens all day and guess how he got to work, he drove himself. Now this is fraud. There are other cases of fraud, it needs to stop for there are disabilities which needs support and the cheaters are sucking the system and do not need the funds from SSDI.

The bottom line is the Third Way is trying to help the working class, I know you want to deny this but facts are facts.

[cascadiance]

22. As the article says, REMOVE the cap, don't just raise it!

The answer is pretty simple! And it keeps Social Security paid for and doesn't break the people it is supposed to support in the process!

Um.... 6.2% of the amount of income UNDER THE CAP!!!! Is that amount 6.2% of someone who makes a billion a year? NO!!!!

It is a REGRESSIVE tax! It is hard to argue that it isn't. Cutting back benefits by raising the retirement age only makes it MORE REGRESSIVE! Is that what Democrats stand for? Only Third Way "Democrats"!

The bottom line is the Third Way is RIPPING OFF and DESTROYING the middle class and trying to pretend it isn't by hiding the facts on financial issues, and trumpeting social issues to obscure this!

[Thinkingabout]

23. Is this your plan?

Have you ever received a statement of benefits from SSA? The statements gives the amount of money paid into the trust fund and the salaries reported. Your monthly benefit is based on your total of the highest 35 years reported. If you only have 30 years working it is still divided by 35 years. Now is the cap is removed then those earning millions pays 6.2% and at the time of they request their benefits their benefits will be calculated the same as someone making $25000 per year and that person will get a big fat check from Social Security. With the means testing this person probably would not receive a benefit check therefore leaving the amount available for those who have earned much less over the years.

The Third Way is not ripping off anyone, they are trying to protect the middle class, trying to make sure there is funds to be given for benefits.

Again, what is a viable plan you think would provide the future generations. Oh, BTW, these are the same ones who votes Democrat, works to elect Democrats, runs as Democrats. Don't expect much from the GOP, they do not care if you have adequate food to feed the children they want to force births, don't care if there is a roof over their heads, they look at Social Security benefits as entitlements and want to do away or as Bushy said privatize them. It has worked since 1935 with some adjustments and with more adjustments they can be available in the future.

[DonCoquixote]

6. seriously enough

That I know Hillary's support of the Rebels against Assad was a major reason why Isis spread, because, once again, we took out a Baathist party dictator (or tried to, Assad has fared better than Saddam) and armed RELIGOUS JIHADIS to do it! I know that if Hillary topples Assad, we could see Hussein 2.0, save that this time, the Russians can get involved. So yes, I take the threat seriously, seriously enough I do not want Hillary and her advisors (who almost always back Tel Aviv) to continue pouring gas on the flames!

[Thinkingabout]

14. WOW, everything has been Obama's fault until now. You need to place the blame of the downfall and

invasion of Iraq squarely on the shoulders of Bush, he was intent on invading Iraq before his was president. He was supposed to use every means before attacking, he knew there was not going to be any WMD's found so he jumped the gun. As far as Assad, there might be an overthrow of Assad from within, you don't need to blame the problems of Syria on Americans.

You are claiming Hillary's support of the Rebels against Assad is the major reason for the spread of ISIS, who do you blame the rise of Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc?

[MannyGoldstein]

8. I think that far more Americans die each week from Republican/Third Way economic policies

Then ISIS will ever kill.

[Thinkingabout]

15. Now I know you can do better than this, which of the Third Way economic policies kills Americans?

Maybe it is the fight for minimum wage increase fight.

[rhett o rick]

10. “Hillary Clinton is dangerously out of step with ‘the new zeitgeist‘ with her finance-friendly

politics that supported her rise to power,” says prominent political journalist William Greider.

Bravo

[bbgrunt]

11. Greider has always been one of my heroes. He speaks plain truth. k and r

[KoKo]

17. "Indeed, what are Hillary Clinton's Positions":

From the article:

Indeed, what are Hillary Clinton’s positions: On the financialization of the economy and the power of the banks? Corporatism? Corporate welfare? Jobs? Poverty? Inequality? Education? Climate change? Environmental quality? On the austerity budget? The Middle Class? Militarism?

What does she believe is the role of government? What does she believe was the legacy of the New Deal? What does she believe the Democratic Party stands for? How does she define Fascism and Democracy? Is she still really a Goldwater Girl in Democratic camouflage? Is she still in the embrace of 1990s Clintonism, “New Democrats” centrism? Not only are her stated positions crucial but the basis for them, how she understands the world today and the history that has brought us here.

On foreign policy, is she a Neocon Lite who will support every militaristic call for interventionism around the world? What lessons has she learned, if any, from her vote for the Iraq War and her instigation of the “regime change” in Libya, two decisions that have contributed to chaos across the Middle East and North Africa.

[Fearless]

19. Agreed 100%!