Hillary Clinton's American Dream Initiative now available for download at the DLC website.

[madfloridian]

This is the issues paper drawn up by the Democratic Leadership Council in conjunction with a few other think tanks and presented at their National Conversation in 2006.

About the American Dream Initiative

At the 2005 national conversation in Columbus, Ohio, DLC Chair Gov. Tom Vilsack asked Sen. Hillary Clinton to lead a year-long project to shape an economic opportunity agenda for the country. Over the past year, the American Dream Initiative has engaged political, business, labor, civic, and intellectual leaders in an effort to address the central economic challenge of our time -- saving the American Dream.

The recommendations of this Initiative, presented at the DLC's 2006 National Conversation in Denver, Colo., are the work of many of the brightest leaders and thinkers in the Democratic Party and the country. Under the leadership of Sen. Clinton, DLC Vice Chair Sen. Tom Carper, and Gov. Vilsack, a broad and unprecedented coalition of progressive think tanks took part in developing this agenda: the Democratic Leadership Council, the Progressive Policy Institute, the Center for American Progress, NDN, and Third Way. In addition, this coalition solicited input from other groups focused on the future of the American Dream, including Hope Street Group, a nonpartisan public policy network of private-sector professionals.

Here is the link to the entire download in html. I have not read all of it. I did zero in on the Social Security part, as the new savings accounts she has introduced, called in this download the American Dream Accounts...concern me. I think it is way to start changing Social Security. The wording of part of it does not ease my concerns.

An aging society has no choice but to act. Just as FDR ushered in the Social Security system in the last century, we need to make new provisions for economic security in this one. That means asking every employer to give workers the chance to save, and challenging every American to make the most of it.

The American Dream Initiative

Those words rather contradict something Hillary said recently about not being willing to discuss Social Security because it was not in trouble. I would like to have that clarified.

I hear the accounts she speaks of would be separate from Social Security. However, according to what I read here, it sounds like a burden on business owners who are already taking out Social Security.

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.

So much of that sounds like Social Security anyway, so I am having trouble with the concept of these new accounts. They would require more government money that could be used to stabilize whatever needs stabilizing about Social Security. If indeed anything does. If indeed, anyone knows. :shrug:

DLC chairman Harold Ford says the DLC will be the "policy shop" for the 08 nominee.

Here is the policy available for download.

American Dream Initiative

Editing this to show today's front page at the DLC website. This issues paper along with the picture is featured there. Since my timing was questioned, I thought I would edit to show why it stood out more today....even though it was presented in 2006 at the DLC convention.

www.dlc.org

Also, one more comment...I think we should have seen more "progressive" groups included in the policy making.

[MethuenProgressive]

1. "Now" available? Been up over a year.

Try to stay current.

[madfloridian]

2. Here's the front page just recently. Now featured front page with picture

http://dlc.org/

Thank you for the very nice abrupt put down. So much appreciated.

Yes, it came out last year, but now it is featured front page with her picture.

[MethuenProgressive]

9. "Yes, it came out last year," - madfloridian

Thanks for your honesty.

[madfloridian]

13. Are you saying I was not honest?? I very much resent that.

I think you just called me a liar. I was clarifying it for your mind, and you insult me again.

[MethuenProgressive]

18. "Thanks for your honesty." is "calling you a liar"??

:rofl:

[madfloridian]

17. I think you owe me an apology for implying I lied.

Don't you?

[MethuenProgressive]

19. "Thanks for your honesty." is implying you lied??

:rofl:

[madfloridian]

20. Yes, it is.

In this case.

[MethuenProgressive]

22. On This Planet?

:rofl:

[liberalnurse]

11. Thank you so very much!

I will download it and share it with friends....many who don't seek out the data like we here do...but they sure do soak-up the information when I share it.

O8)

[liberalnurse]

12. What jumped up your anal meatus?

Or. are you sitting on the bleeding rroids?

You behavior needs outed!

[Yael]

3. "DLC chairman Harold Ford says the DLC will be the "policy shop" for the 08 nominee"

:rofl:

[Totally Committed]

5. I dunno.... that's actually more scary than funny.

But, given who they seem to be assuming the '08 nominee will be, I don't doubt their sincerity. ;)

TC

[Yael]

6. Laugh or cry. Sometimes it is hard to pick.

[Totally Committed]

8. I hear THAT!

TC

[wyldwolf]

10. so, what policy papers are "progressives"* offering as an alternative?

[martymar64]

40. The alternative is not privatizingSocial Security

Not so difficult, is it, Joey?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

44. Here ya go

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/index_pubs

That took me 5 seconds on Google.

[wyldwolf]

45. what?

Cause and effect studies and scare-articles. Where are the policy alternatives? Let's take social security for example.

Most can't live comfortably on social security insurance alone. The program wasn't designed for that. The DLC proposed reducing the payroll tax by 2 percentage points and shifting those funds into retirement accounts owned and managed by individuals. It doesn't touch social security. But it would benefit those who only have social security to fall back on.

Another plan from the DLC would employers open retirement accounts for every worker; enrolls workers automatically unless they opt out; increase their contribution automatically over time unless they direct otherwise; and give employees the advice and guidance to allow them to invest wisely; and enables workers to take their pensions with them when they change jobs. This is a more profitable and more addvance version of pension plans many companies have/used to have and, again, does not touch social security

Now, if these are bad ideas, where are the "progressive"* alternatives?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

48. I saw plenty of papers offering solutions. You are choosing not to see them.

You are also cherry picking this one issue*, SS, and ignoring the larger point that the DLC is positioning itself as the 'policy shop' for the Dem nominee. AFAIC, the DLC has nothing to offer but more shitty free trade globalization and blithe dismissals of working folk's concern about that.





*Had you bothered to look through the titles, rather than jumping to conclusions about "scare-articles" you would have seen that the EPI has a policy paper called "A Proposal for More Retirement Income Security" where they are essentially agreeing with you on retirement accounts. Looks like they actually have a plan and everything!

[wyldwolf]

51. I picked SS because that's the issue the OP stressed.

:shrug:

So where is a policy proposal from them on a companion to SS to ease the financial burden of retired people?

You are also... ignoring the larger point that the DLC is positioning itself as the 'policy shop' for the Dem nominee.

uh... so?

When I go to the mall, there are over 200 shops competing for my business. There is nothing wrong with the DLC saying they have a message any given candidate may be interested in. Instead of whining about it, why doesn't "progressive"* groups open their own "policy shops?"

Had you bothered to look through the titles, rather than jumping to conclusions about "scare-articles"

I jumped to no conclusions.

* Shifting risk: Workers today near retirement more vulnerable and with lower pensions
* Two Steps Back: African Americans and Latinos will lose ground under Social Security "reform"
* Social Security price indexing proposal means benefit cuts for workers

etc. etc.

you would have seen that the EPI has a policy paper called "A Proposal for More Retirement Income Security" where they are essentially agreeing with you on retirement accounts. Looks like they actually have a plan and everything!

LOL! Looks like they're agreeing with the DLC and Hillary Clinton.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

55. EPI is also NOT agreeing with Clinton and the DLC on many things

They are strongly pro-labor, while the DLC is more pro-Big Biz.


And it's a funny thing about shopping malls. After a while the stores start to look indistinguishable from each other.

[wyldwolf]

56. but on retirement accounts, which is the issue of this thread, they are

If you can, show me examples of policie this group has in contrast to the DLC? By the way, the DLC is not anti-labor. You can't show me a document from them demonstrating that. They had some scathing words to say about organized labor bosses in the 90s, but have never been anti-labor.

Evan Bayh, a former chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, has a career AFL-CIO rating is 91. Tom Vilsack, another former chair, was backed by labor.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

64. The thread is about retirement accounts but we are in a subthread

And the subthread started with a poster expressing dismay at the DLC being used as a 'policy shop' for Democratic candidates. That is a more broad subject. You asked where progressive policy alternatives were, not specifically referencing the subject in the OP. I gave you one. As for the ratings, they are helpful but don't tell the whole story. Politicians are rated on their voting record and sponsorship of bills. I would expect most of the Dems to get good ratings because in a GOP controlled legislature (which we've had for the better part of 12 years) the bills coming up to vote will be highly egregious.

As for being backed by labor, large organizations often have to choose between the lesser of evils when endorsing candidates. Then there is also the perception that you should back the winner, lest your group reap the political consequences. Having been involved in several campaigns, I can tell you that pragmatism will trump idealism more often than not. Having sat on endorsing boards, I can tell you that the best candidate does NOT always get the nod.

[wyldwolf]

yes, one about the lack of "progressive"* policies on retirement accounts

:shrug:

If you want to divert from the fact that "progressives"* have nothing substantial to offer on the subject by changing the subject to "policy shops" or to the DLC's relationship with labor, you still won't get the "gotcha" moment you're looking for.

The fact remains that the "progressive"* contribution to the political discourse in the last 40 years has been to tell everyone what they think is wrong without offering plans to fix it.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

69. You have to determine what's wrong before you can fix anything.

And the DLC's contribution to the discourse is triangulation and embracing the GOP's voodoo economics. As a result the country has moved farther to the right than at any time since prior to FDR.

[wyldwolf]

71. and 40 years of complaining equates to determining that?

And the DLC's contribution to the discourse is triangulation

A technique actually deployed masterfully by FDR and JFK...

and embracing the GOP's voodoo economics.

Which never happened. :) The DLC proposed "trickle-up" economics as opposed to "trickle-down" economics. And comparing the two, we see which worked.

[xxqqqzme]

43. that's depressing considering the dlc is as corporate loving,

war promoting, free trading embracing as the publicans.

[wyldwolf]

4. Madfloridian - where are plans in these areas divised by "progressive"* groups?

[madfloridian]

15. There are quite a few groups they could have included

who have been doing great ideas for years.

One of them is the Campaign for Anerica's Future.

www.ourfuture.org

There are others, but it is not my job to post them because ww wants me to do so.

Hey, don't jump my butt. This is the policy of which Hillary was chairman. She is our frontrunner, and her initiative is getting great attention.

That is great for her.

[wyldwolf]

21. "they" could have included?

And I don't see any solutions on that link. :shrug: They link to information on the issues but don't offer solutions. They tell readers to "take action" but that's only telling politicians what not to do.

[madfloridian]

23. You must not be famliar with that group.

That is your problem not mine.

[wyldwolf]

24. Sure I am. What I stated about them stands.

Let's see. Detailed policy solutions to America's problems. Nope.

[Bitwit1234]

7. OH well you know this guy's supporters, they spend the whole day

surfing the search engines, just trying to cull out the negative stuff against Hillary. If they spent as much time trying to post "good" stuff about their candidate they might make a difference. Must not be much out there.

[madfloridian]

16. I am not supporting anyone. Who are you talking about?

I am in the no man's land of Florida which is run by idiots with their heads off running around and suing everyone when they broke the rules.

I am not voting for anyone in the primary.

[madrchsod]

14. wow ....what a joke

funny i`m not laughing..really is this the best they can come up with?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

25. "..unprecedented coalition of progressive think tanks..."

Progressive??? That pack? Uh huh. And I'm packing a pair of hairy boys. :eyes:

Yeegads they disgust me to no end.

Thanks for the info, MF! :hi:

[LWolf]

26. The DLC:

Death to Liberal Conscience.

[Totally Committed]

29. Excellent.

Because F*cking Neo-con DINO's would be FND. (Interesting fact: that sounds like "fundie" when you say it. Just a coincidence, but a fun one. No?)

TC

[LWolf]

38. That is a fun one.

;)

[madfloridian]

27. The Social Security question ....

and the difference between "there is no problem", and "here is your new Dream Savings Account".....why aren't more concerned about this discrepancy?

In the late 1990s the DLC was openly advocating private accounts. The opposition caused them to reword, but keep the sense of privatizing it.

Is that what is happening in this plan? I honestly can not tell.

[wyldwolf]

28. so where's you camp's proposals?

In the late 1990s the DLC was openly advocating private accounts. The opposition caused them to reword, but keep the sense of privatizing it.

Are you intentionally trying to cloud the difference between social security and private accounts? From Josh Marshall:

Whereas Republicans wanted to phase out Social Security and replace it with private investment accounts, Democrats wanted to preserve Social Security and supplement it with investment accounts, often with the idea of setting up every child at birth with an account and a small contibution to start them on their way to building their own savings either for college, a first home, a business or even for retirement. Some suggested doing it at birth; others thought to have it kick after each child finishes high school, thus adding an incentive to finishing a basic education.

[madfloridian]

30. Some thoughts.

http://www.ourfuture.org/issues_and_campaigns/socialsecurity/key_issues/money_trail_and_wall_street/readarticle50.cfm

"Marron of PaineWebber is especially concerned about moderate Democrats, since the GOP is solidly lined up in favor of individual accounts, called PSAs in the jargon of Washington, for "personal savings accounts" or "personal security accounts," or PRAs, for "personal retirement accounts." Not long ago, Al From, the head of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, had lunch with Marron and another PaineWebber official. The DLC, whose purpose is to realign the Democratic Party away from its traditional alliance with the AFL-CIO, is strongly leaning toward NCRP-style privatization. The November/December 1998 issue of The New Democrat, the DLC's bimonthly magazine, is filled with a series of pro-privatization stories under the heading "Less Than Secure: Rebuilding Social Security for the 21st Century"; it includes a piece by Senator Breaux outlining the commission's proposals. "

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=250222&kaid=125&subid=164

"Retirement security in America is at a crossroads. The debate over Social Security solvency remains mired in partisan politics, more and more Americans are forced to work longer into their retirement years in order to maintain their standards of living, and in the wake of Enron many Americans are concerned about the safety of their retirement nest eggs. Meanwhile, the private pension system is simply not expanding enough to meet the needs of future retirees.

While Congress regularly adds new incentives to the growing array of tax savings vehicles, retirement security remains stagnant. The U.S. personal savings rate continues its steady decline and too few Americans are saving enough for retirement. Many low-income individuals do not have any savings, and pension coverage for those employed at small businesses was less than 20 percent. And among those who do have savings plans, a large number of them are depleting their retirement savings by cashing out their 401(k) plans when changing jobs.

To really boost savings, we must overhaul the current system to let workers decide how much they can save up to some uniform limit, give workers control over their investment choices, and fold all the existing tax-favored savings accounts into one "universal pension" that workers would take from job to job."

(Social Security DOES go from job to job with us)

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251076&kaid=125&subid=165

Social Security Pledge Failed Democrats

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 (UPI) -- "Nothing better epitomized the hackneyed and reactive character of the Democrats' 2002 midterm campaign than "The Pledge." Like camp meeting converts swearing off demon rum, nearly every Democratic candidate for Congress dutifully took the Pledge. They vowed to never, ever allow working Americans to divert some portion of their Social Security payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts. In leftish circles, this goes by the name of "privatization" and is regarded as the ultimate political thought crime.

And lest Democrats entertain any impure thoughts about reforming Medicare, the pledge also requires them to swear fealty to a new prescription drug entitlement "that will cover all drugs beneficiaries need" and that won't "push beneficiaries into HMOs and other managed care plans."

The pledge is the brainchild of the Campaign for America's Future, a union-backed organization that is to Social Security and Medicare what the Inquisition was to medieval Christiandom. Its latter-day Torquemadas enforce New Deal-Great Society orthodoxy and ferret out heresy with religious zeal."

Marshall protesteth too much.

[wyldwolf]

31. counter-thoughts

You said: In the late 1990s the DLC was openly advocating private accounts. The opposition caused them to reword, but keep the sense of privatizing it.

1. The DLC and Democrats as a whole were advocating private accounts though not to replace social security.

2. I've yet to see where the opposition caused them to reword anything. Link to that?

While you're searching for that link, let's take a look at the actual document written by Senator Breaux.

Democrats must state clearly that Social Security should not be fully or even mostly privatized... We should make individual accounts a small portion of Social Security... I have developed a bipartisan proposal (see box, right) to reduce the payroll tax by 2 percentage points and shift those funds into retirement accounts owned and managed by individuals an asset they can pass on to heirs.

This does not even TOUCH Social Security. Why would you have problem with this? Social Security was never set up as a retirement account. It was set up as insurance. Do you have problem with company pension plans? Why or why not? They're private accounts! Do you have a problem with 401K? Why or why not? They're private accounts! Interesting you trust the government to handle Social security but you have an issue but would rather leave private accounts in the hands of companies.

[madfloridian]

32. It's all in the wording. "partial dismantling" on the table now.

"Not long ago, Al From, the head of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, had lunch with Marron and another PaineWebber official. The DLC, whose purpose is to realign the Democratic Party away from its traditional alliance with the AFL-CIO, is strongly leaning toward NCRP-style privatization. The November/December 1998 issue of The New Democrat, the DLC's bimonthly magazine, is filled with a series of pro-privatization stories under the heading "Less Than Secure: Rebuilding Social Security for the 21st Century"; it includes a piece by Senator Breaux outlining the commission's proposals. ""

http://www.ourfuture.org/issues_and_campaigns/socialsecurity/key_issues/money_trail_and_wall_street/readarticle50.cfm

"In his State of the Union speech, President Clinton fired the first shot in the battle, proposing to use the projected budget surplus to bolster the existing Social Security system. He avoided support for the private accounts privatizers want but, in a nod to free-marketeers, proposed investing part of the system's reserve funds in stocks and bonds and suggested a separate system of government-aided private accounts over and above Social Security.

That the partial dismantling of the crown jewel of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal is even on the table is due, in large part, to a sophisticated effort by Wall Street and its conservative allies in both political parties. Yet, like Lackritz and Fink, the financial-services industry--not only Wall Street but banks and insurance companies--is trying to keep out of sight. Fearful of being accused of trying to gorge itself, vulturelike, on the carcass of Social Security, the money men are instead maneuvering quietly, behind the scenes, to guide the debate over privatization. "Everybody perceives that we have an enormous self-interest here," says Lackritz.

In reality, Wall Street's fingerprints are everywhere. Some firms, like State Street Boston, PaineWebber (along with the ubiquitous Pete Peterson of the Blackstone Group) and the SIA, are frankly backing privatization; others, like Merrill Lynch, Fidelity, American Express and ICI, are operating more quietly, financing academic studies and providing technical expertise to Congress and the White House. And most important, since 1995 Wall Street has helped to shape the debate by supporting a series of think-tank blueprints that have now been adopted as revealed truth by the GOP and many middle-of-the-road Democrats, while seductively tempting the White House."

[wyldwolf]

33. The wording by who? ourfuture.org?

You've yet to make your case.

1. You haven't offered an alternative from another "progressive"* group.

2. You've tried to cloud the difference between social security restructuring and creating private accounts ON TOP of social security funded by two percent of your payroll tax (which is what Sen. Breaux proposed.)

3. You're using a source that I've already shown has misrepresented what Bill Clinton, the Democrats, and the DLC proposed in the 90s - and you continue to quote them (as biased as they are) as "proof."

4. I would still LOVE to see a link showing your claim that the "opposition caused 'them' to reword..."

[madfloridian]

34. Who misrepresented Bill Clinton? Not Dreyfuss. "partial privatization"

His article is spot on. It was originally from The Nation. Oh, I forgot, maybe you have discredited that source as well.

"What's important about the NCRP is that its proposal for partial privatization of Social Security, released last May, was immediately translated into credible, bipartisan legislation in both houses of Congress by Breaux, Gregg, Kolbe and Stenholm. "We have put our name on a proposal that uses private markets for 2 percent of what's now going into Social Security," says Stenholm. Lorenzen, his aide, adds that "the legislation that we introduced follows the recommendations of the commission as much as possible." As with all plans for partial privatization, the NCRP's would intensify the shortfall that Social Security faces in the next century by diverting one-sixth of the system's funds into private accounts, thereby leaving even less money left over to pay for current retirees and the coming retirement of the Baby Boomers beginning in 2011. To pay for that shortfall, the NCRP proposes raising the retirement age to 70 (from the current 65, already slated to increase to 67) and instituting a sharp cut in Social Security benefits by adjusting downward the annual cost-of-living increase by 0.5 percent a year.

Part of the NCRP plan is constructed to deal with a major objection to Social Security privatization, namely, the staggering cost of administering tens of millions of private accounts that would contain only tiny amounts of money. Something like 30­35 million Americans, including part-time, temporary and low-wage employees, earn less than $10,000 a year. By putting aside 2 percent of wages, a person earning $5,000 would save just $100 in a private Social Security account and the $10­$20 cost of maintaining that account would eat up a significant chunk of the person's savings. (Maintenance costs are relatively much higher for small accounts.)

To get around this problem, one recognized not only by critics of privatization but by many Wall Street experts who fret about having to manage so many small investors' accounts, the NCRP proposes to bundle the small accounts into a single government-owned investing corporation that would do business with perhaps a dozen money-management firms, from Vanguard to Merrill Lynch to Chase Manhattan Bank, which would bid competitively to qualify. Though such an arrangement might be only marginally profitable for Wall Street, and then only for the handful of firms chosen to manage the government-supervised accounts, as the accounts grew, individual account holders might be offered the choice of setting up and managing their own accounts with private securities firms.

While the financial industry has been busy funding the theoretical underpinning for Social Security privatization, it has also continued its traditional heavy donations to political parties and campaigns. During the '98 election cycle, securities and investment companies contributed more than $23 million, almost evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. (In all, including insurance companies, banks, finance and real estate companies, more than $98 million was funneled into the 1997­98 election campaigns, both totals outpacing other industries' contributions.) In addition, lobbying itself was big business for the securities and investment company sector; in 1997 alone, it spent more than $31 million on Washington lobbyists. Just four organizations accounted for nearly half that total: SIA, with $5 million in lobbying expenses; ICI, with $3.7 million; Merrill Lynch, with $2.9 million; and the Bond Market Association, with $2.4 million"

http://www.ourfuture.org/issues_and_campaigns/socialsecurity/key_issues/money_trail_and_wall_street/readarticle50.cfm

And you, ww, should explain this to me:

" The DLC, whose purpose is to realign the Democratic Party away from its traditional alliance with the AFL-CIO, is strongly leaning toward NCRP-style privatization. The November/December 1998 issue of The New Democrat, the DLC's bimonthly magazine, is filled with a series of pro-privatization stories under the heading "Less Than Secure: Rebuilding Social Security for the 21st Century"; it includes a piece by Senator Breaux outlining the commission's proposals."

Tell me again, who discredited this source.

[wyldwolf]

35. Again, you keep falling back on the same source which, in itself...

...offers nothing to make your case.

The Nation? Not even a Democratic source. Pure "progressive"* purity. Can you even address my points or are you going to continue cutting and pasting from that piece?

[madfloridian]

36. Your statement is to your own shame in caring about progressive causes.

I have nothing more to say.

[wyldwolf]

37. In other words, no. You can't. But as usual you find one thing I've written, show fake outrage...

...then leave the conversation without ever making your case.

[madfloridian]

39. Still wondering what they are up to about Social Security

and not feeling very comfortable about it.

[madfloridian]

41. What does this statement mean? Still no answer.

"An aging society has no choice but to act. Just as FDR ushered in the Social Security system in the last century, we need to make new provisions for economic security in this one. That means asking every employer to give workers the chance to save, and challenging every American to make the most of it."

That sounds like something is up about Social Security, but she will not give a response.

Also what does this comment mean?

"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."

Why is there this drive for savings accounts "in addition" to Social Security?

My answer would be that they would be meant to replace Social Security over time with the savings accounts handled by private companies.

If it is the decree of this group...it will happen whether we want it to or not. We are all realizing now that we are just going through the motions of being a country or party in which we have a choice anymore.

[madrchsod]

42. are you really expecting anyone to defend this program?

the devil is in the details and you know we`ll never get an answer on those questions.

[wyldwolf]

46. what do you mean "no answer?" We went over this up thread.

:shrug:

Most can't live comfortably on social security insurance alone. The program wasn't designed for that. The DLC once proposed reducing the payroll tax by 2 percentage points and shifting those funds into retirement accounts owned and managed by individuals. It doesn't touch social security. But it would benefit those who only have social security to fall back on.

Another plan from the DLC and Hillary would have employers open retirement accounts for every worker; enrolls workers automatically unless they opt out; increase their contribution automatically over time unless they direct otherwise; and give employees the advice and guidance to allow them to invest wisely; and enables workers to take their pensions with them when they change jobs. This is a more profitable and more addvance version of pension plans many companies have/used to have and, again, does not touch social security

Now, if these are bad ideas, where are the "progressive"* alternatives?

[antigop]

47. Yes, they are bad ideas...if you know anything about pensions

1) "have employers open retirement accounts for every worker"
The Pension Protection Act allowed for the automatic enrollment of workers in company 401(k) plans. Anyone who knows anything about pensions knows that this was to get around anti-discrimination rules for 401(k) plans.

2) "and give employees the advice and guidance to allow them to invest wisely". Yep. And is there a provision for employees to sue employers who provide bad advice?

3) "enables workers to take their pensions with them when they change jobs."
Oh, yes -- the cash balance pension scam that even the WSJ reported on.

No, thank you. We've seen these before -- workers have gotten screwed.

Of course, I wouldn't expect the DLC or sHillary to support workers.

<edit to add> Fool me once.....

<second edit> I'll pass this to my pension expert friends. I'm sure they'll get a laugh out of it.

[wyldwolf]

49. ...but did you bother to address the second part?

Where are the "progressive"* alternatives?

[antigop]

50. so what part of my post did you miss? Sorry, not playing today. I gotta go. I'm not paid to post

all day on DU. n/t

[wyldwolf]

52. the part where I asked for a "progressive"* alternative. Did you name one?

[madfloridian]

53. The progressive alternative: LEAVE SOCIAL SECURITY ALONE

You discount every source I post, you call them "progessive" sites and not credible.

I quoted Campaign for America's Future, The Nation magazine, American Prospect is also mentioned because the writers are interchangeable.

Now who the hell are you to tell me The Nation is not credible. OR that I must present a plan from a progressive group to be credible.

Leave the program alone. Unprivatize the Medicare Drug Plan which is hurting people a lot, and stop referring to the FDR era in a condescending way.

I guess it is a very good thing there are so many righteous folks here to keep us peasants in line.

[wyldwolf]

54. as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, these plans do not touch social security.

Why do you want retired people to struggle to live off of a plan that was never meant to be used for retirement?

[madfloridian]

58. I have repeatedly pointed out to you that they are changing terminology

through the years. From the late 1990 when they talked of privatizing. That did not go over so well, so they called it other things.

[wyldwolf]

60. you;ve stated they have but you haven't shown they have.

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

67. Yes, I have many times. You have your own world view which exludes people like us.

No, Rahm, leave Social Security alone.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1566


Different ways to say privatization of Social Security
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1604


And the best about Will Marshall condemning Democrats who took a pledge to preserve Social Security.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1597

[wyldwolf]

70. links to things you've written is your proof of "changing terminologies?"

[madfloridian]

75. I have noticed you only question, you never post substantive information.

You simply seem to question those of us who do post substance and want answers.

People are noticing.

[wyldwolf]

76. It takes numerous questions to pry clarifications and straight answers out of you

But posts 28 and 31 are where I made my case. Now I've just been trying to get you to make yours.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

57. Doesn't matter what you show wyldy anyway

I posted a link to the Economic Policy Institute, a well-established progressive and pro-labor think tank, and all he did was pooh pooh it because it wasn't 'positive' enough or some such nonsense.

Here is their site: http://www.epi.org/

They do seem to agree with setting up private retirement accounts (at least based on one policy paper that is on the site) but tend to disagree with the DLC on a host of other economic issues.

[madfloridian]

61. They also say the private accounts will divert money from Social Security

and result in lowered payments.

The Dream accounts appear to be setting up private acounts aside from Social Seurity. Looks good on paper, but how many employers will go along with contributing and doing paper work for both?

And why does Hillary say there is no problem, that she doesn't want to talk about it....and then put forth a proposal that says a new plan is needed to fix what FDR started?

All of this is meant to bring in private companies. It will end up hurting people already on the system.

I will look through the link more. Thanks. And I agree, talking to some is like talking to the wind.

[wyldwolf]

63. where?

[wyldwolf]

62. kitty, why are you misleading people on our conversation? It's in this thread. The can check it.

I posted a link to the Economic Policy Institute, a well-established progressive and pro-labor think tank, and all he did was pooh pooh it because it wasn't 'positive' enough or some such nonsense.

Nope, bullshit. On the issue of discussion, they offered up dire warnings about social security privatization before finally agreeing with the DLC on private accounts separate from SS. :shrug:

but tend to disagree with the DLC on a host of other economic issues.

Like what? And sense we're discussing social security, does it matter in the context of this discussion?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

65. Why don't you look at the site yourself and see

Gosh, do all DLCers have the same entitled attitude you do, thinking that others should do your grunt work?

Just kidding, I already know enough DLC types personally to know the answer to that one.

[wyldwolf]

66. I have

Gosh, do all DLCers have the same entitled attitude you do, thinking that others should do your grunt work?

The issues in these situations with "progressives"* is they always want to ignore the rule of burden of proof. They make a claim, then are asked for proof/examples/links, then they suddenly think they're relieved of an obligation to provide such, putting it on the one that asked for it.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

73. Because really, it's not that flipping hard to look things up on the damn website yourself

Click on the little linkies, clearly labelled with things like Education, Living Standards and Labor Markets, etc.

The reason some I no longer go out of my way to provide people like you with proof is because I know it won't meet some ever-shifting arbitrary standard you have set up and you will dismiss it. Why bother?

[wyldwolf]

74. so, seeing as you went to the trouble of making the claim, why don't you do it?

[Freddie Stubbs]

59. Who will not give a response?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

72. why, Q, must you always break a rule in your "discourse?"

One of the reasons I stopped posting here was because of those individuals whose 'job' seems to be to post here against anything liberal or anti-DLC. I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't indeed the case...considering the secretive nature of the 'real' DLC.

So you quit posting here because:

1. People were actually using a discussion forum to discuss things.
2. Your paranoia about the DLC became overwhelming.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

78. So, you say "I don't give a shit if they delete this post...or my account for that matter?"

LOL!

t's because of people like you that I decided that it wasn't worth my time to argue with those who seem to spend their life here trashing what was once a principled Democratic party.

No, we spend a little time defending what we believe in against the heirs of the late 60s New Left who somehow believe they are sole inhabitants of the Democratic party.

Your 'career' here at DU is outrageous. You've insulted great people and Democrats for years on this forum.

On the contrary, Q, the only time I insult someone is when then insult first. Look at your deleted post, for example.