Hilary Clinton - Third Way - Social Security - Buyer's Remorse

[FreakinDJ]

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"

Wall Street Uses the Third Way to Lead Its Assault on Social Security

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. It’s 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 Street’s “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 Street’s 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 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.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

Third Way Comes Clean: They Don't Intend To Strengthen Social Security


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

Pete Peterson, an investment banker, Nixon commerce secretary, and president of the conservative Concord Coalition, has sounded the alarm regularly since publishing an anti-Social Security polemic in the New York Review of Books in 1982.


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 ...

Rob Shapiro, vice president of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), agrees. "Only a Democrat can lead the effort for Social Security reform. The Democrats will just kill any Republican who tries to mess with Social Security. So, next year, we are going to run a big project on Social Security." (According to the Wall Street Journal, State Street is planning to help fund the DLC's think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute.)

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

Why It's Misleading to Swear to Protect the Poor's Social-Security Benefits

Any plan that maintains one group’s 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 Harvard’s 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 raised—doing 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 taxes—it’s 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]

1. I have no doubt that she will start to dismantle social programs. That's what the Third Way is for.

As a side note - there would be sickening defenses of that right here at DU.

[FreakinDJ]

2. Driven by Wall St Investment Firms to dismantle Social Security

[Ferd Berfel]

46. HIllary's "buddies'

[Buzz Clik]

3. "Third Way..." Translation: here come the insults. No explanation necessary.

[FreakinDJ]

5. So Hilary supporters are in favor of Privatizing Social Security

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]

6. Please quote where I said that. Otherwise, apologize.

[FreakinDJ]

7. Answewr the question "Privatize Social Security - YES or NO"

I don't apologize to folks who support dismantling the New Deal - I expose them

[Buzz Clik]

8. I'll answer nothing until you either provide the quote or admit ...

...that you intentionally mangled my words.

I don't apologize to folks who support dismantling the New Deal - I expose them

Quote where I said this.

[FreakinDJ]

12. Then argue the merits of the post before you attempt to dismiss it

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]

13. No. You started this tempest in a teapot by intentionally misquoting me.

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]

34. Your post implied defense of Third Way

"Third Way..." Translation: here come the insults. No explanation necessary.

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]

35. Wrong. But don't let that stop you...

[notadmblnd]

42. Then explain yourself

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]

52. Yes and how will they pay for a Hillary War? Confiscate the deposits of the 60% - 95%

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]

39. please answer the question YES or NO

[Buzz Clik]

41. LOL!

Are you in charge?

[2banon]

17. If only "Third Way" was merely an "Insult"

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]

19. Yes, if only...

if only Third Way had not been adopted by the Sanders crowd as something other than an insult.

[2banon]

22. Excuse me? with over 34, 000 posts here on DU you're just hearing about "Third Way"

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]

23. LOL! More conjured outrage.

"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!'"

[2banon]

28. I see

a bit slow on your game this morning, but I've got it now.

[Buzz Clik]

29. I doubt it.

[notadmblnd]

43. You are the one that came here outraged

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]

32. One of those "Inconvenient Truths"

[Ferd Berfel]

47. More than an Insult - it's an assault

Anyone that expect this cabal to be on THEIR side, is in the 1% club. Or very low on information

[FreakinDJ]

65. That picture made me shoot coffee out my nose

you need to put up some kind of warning

[Doctor_J]

91. No explanation?

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]

4. The last sentence. Of course it does!

[amborin]

9. this is surely one of the key reasons why Wall St. gleefully supports her

[FreakinDJ]

10. Third Way has been Hilary's Attack Dogs constantly attacking Bernie and Warren

[VulgarPoet]

11. This is the "experience" they'd have us "fall in line" for.

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 Obama’s 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-/

“It’s 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 Clinton’s presidential campaign have enjoyed “numerous donations from Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia’s 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 that’s 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 it’s less sexy than Benghazi, the crisis following a coup in Honduras in 2009 has Hillary Clinton’s fingerprints all over it, and her alleged cooperation with oligarchic elites during the affair does much to expose Clinton’s 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.shtml

Isn'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 Clinton’s 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 Obama’s pledge to allow investigations to proceed as well being at odds with the White House’s dismissal of questions about the Spanish investigation as merely “hypothetical.” WikiLeaks disclosures also revealed that public denials from Clinton’s 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_Clinton

Clinton 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_Clinton

Clinton 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]

79. Hillary's foreign policy bonafides only prove she would be GWB II, on steroids.

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]

14. Social Security needs some tweaking, both candidates are for that - likely increasing cap and

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]

15. Confusing because Hillary advocates Not Raising Taxes - Social Security Cap

We all know it needs to be done to keep social security solvent - John Kerry/Dem Party ran on that platform in 2004

[Hoyt]

18. Actually Clinton is supporting raising cap, expanding benefits for poor and those who raisedchildren

She's against privatization too.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/social-security-and-medicare/

Are you deliberately misleading people, or just uninformed?

[FreakinDJ]

25. That is EXACTLY to means 3rd Way advocates as the first step to dismantle Social Security

You would do better to actually read the post before you try to dismiss it

[Hoyt]

26. Who cares what the 3rd Way wants, Clinton does not support it. So there.

[FreakinDJ]

30. You have to deny a Lot of Reality to make that statement

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]

40. Heck, I'm for taking money from any source to beat the GOPers. Doesn't mean everyone who contributed

will run anything.

[pottedplant]

31. Beware of strengthening!

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]

36. Good points and welcome to DU!

[Hoyt]

37. Do you have a link. Simpson-Bowles did call for increasing benefits for poor and raising cap.

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]

55. simpson Bowles/Peterson and SS cuts

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]

58. Well if you can't copy a link, just tell us what website says Clinton support Simpson-Bowles.

That should be easy, if it exists.

[pottedplant]

64. Hope this helps

[link:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-sanders-social-security_us_56b3f533e4b01d80b245c04e|
[link:http://www.cbpp.org/research/bowles-simpson-social-security-proposal-not-a-good-starting-point-for-reforms|

[Hoyt]

68. That says absolutely nothing about Clinton supporting Simpson-Bowles.

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]

69. Trying this again

[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]

70. There you go again, here is what that link says --

"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.

[pottedplant]

72. Ok

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]

73. Clinton doesn't say that anywhere. I get it's important to Altman to push that belief, even if

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]

80. Yes there is

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]

82. She specifically says she's against it, and her history supports that.

[pottedplant]

83. She's against Simpson Bowles???

When and where? Is there a link? I would welcome that.

[FreakinDJ]

84. You realise that is former Clinton White House chief of staff Erksine Bowles

who wrote that tripe

[Hoyt]

86. That is probably where increasing cap and payments for people on lower end came from.

[FreakinDJ]

87. WOW - now your really reaching into the Alternate Reality Universe

Wouldn't have a link to back up that particular flavor of tripe would you

[Hoyt]

88. Simpson-Bowles was an attempt to come up with some workable solution between GOPers and Dems.

I believe raising cap and benefits came from Bowles. Maybe you ought to look a little deeper before posting.

[pottedplant]

89. This is from the first link I submitted which you obviously didn't read

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 recipient’s 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]

90. You do get that this was not a Bowles proposal or Simpson proposal. it was an attempt to come up

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]

54. #whichHillary

[Hoyt]

59. Maybe you can copy a link that says Clinton supports Simpson-Bowles, privatization, and similar crud

[DirkGently]

16. Pete Peterson runs an outfit called "Fix the Debt"

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]

21. Pete Peterson was involved in the Nixon administration and now runs 3rd Way

Talk about deceiving the American voters - the Biggest Switcheroo of the Century

Wall Street Uses Third Way to Lead Its Assault on Social Security

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]

24. Well there you have it. And yet it isn't discussed, at all,

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]

27. "compromising" with Republicans on "entitlement reform" goes all the way back to the Reagan years

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]

33. Some of our fellow Dems are "mind conservatives."

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]

38. thanks - my point exactly

[GoneFishin]

48. Their thinking is fucked up , and just doesn't mesh with reality.

[djean111]

49. And Third Way proudly advises that nest of DINOs - the New Democrat Coalition.

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]

50. Hence all of Hillary's Gleaming Endorsements

Bought and Paid for with Third Way CASH

[djean111]

51. Yup! You got it in one! n/t

[bbgrunt]

20. she is a tool of wall street. What do expect?

[Faux pas]

44. KICKING FOR THE TRUTH!!!

[DhhD]

45. A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to privatize Social Security along with the rest of the baggage

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]

53. people need to hear this far and wide; anyone who depends on Soc Sec should be scared of a

Hillary nomination

[MisterP]

56. the internet can say whatever facts it wants: SEIU will print 20 million fliers

saying that she'll double SS and Medicare

[FreakinDJ]

57. SEIU State Employees in many States don't participate in Social Security

Work for a state or local government agency, including a school system, college or university, may or may not be covered by Social Security.

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]

60. It is strange to hear Third Way does not want to strengthen SS when it is their positon of

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]

62. Don't know where you got your "Facts"

But its on widely known Third Way has been working tirelessly to privatize Social Security

Wall Street Uses the Third Way to Lead Its Assault on Social Security

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/12778-wall-street-uses-the-third-way-to-lead-its-assault-on-social-security

Third Way Introduces New Social Security Reform Plan

http://crfb.org/blogs/third-way-introduces-new-social-security-reform-plan

Third Way Misleads Hard in a Weak Effort to Discredit Social Security Expansion

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/02/third-way-misleads-hard-in-a-weak-effort-to-discredit-social-security-expansion.html

[Thinkingabout]

74. From Third Way site, I have provided this info before.

[FreakinDJ]

76. I see Denial is a river in Egypt

Without links any con artist can spew what ever they want

[pottedplant]

67. Means testing would be a total, unmitigated disaster

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]

77. Where did I say chsined cpi? Do you think Donald Trump needs SS?

[pottedplant]

81. Since you are making 3rd way's case

http://www.thirdway.org/memo/the-context-and-the-case-for-chained-cpi

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]

78. Means testing is a path to disaster for Social Security

[Avalux]

93. It's NOT an insurance program. SS is an entitlement.

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]

92. What the fuck is this means testing bullshit??

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]

61. Hmmm, they want us to vote for her in the GE. What did

you say were Trump's stands on Social Security again?

[Duval]

63. Great info. K&R nt

[erlewyne]

66. I'm voting for Bernie Sanders.

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]

71. Dems dismissive and even downright defensive of Third-Way.

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]

75. Most of Third Way are former Republican Lobbiest

so you are in good company

[Jitter65]

85. So it's ok for Bernie to be for raising the cap, but not Hillary? nt