2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary's direct quote on Raising the Retirement age: 'I would consider it'!
Since we're editing out full quotes and posting only part of them in titles, this OP will at least post that full quote!
Clear as can be. If someone can present her with a plan that would exclude SOME workers, she would consider supporting Raising the Retirement Age.
No Democrat should be willing to do that.
Edited for accuracy. Hillary said she 'would' not she 'will' consider it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)But the title says "will" the quote says "would"...
I mean if we are going to go that far into the details...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)these days. I USED to put a lot more effort into what I wrote here but things have changed quite a bit on DU lately. I know a lot of Bernie supporters have gone elsewhere where they can promote their candidate without any of what goes on here. But I'm stubborn I guess. At least for now.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Both sides better be ready for a reality check.
It's just under 100 days until the election, we all better be doing real things off DU to get out candidates elected.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)approach to this primary in the face of what we are witnessing here. That most of us do elsehwere now, in Real Life mostly. To be honest, I'm here just for the sport of it, which appears to what it is for Hillary's supporters. Hey, no probem, if games is what they want to play, that's fine. Keeps everyone busy here, but doesn't do much for the country.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)I volunteered today, I worked with some great fellows and volunteers in NH to prepare for a canvass day tomorrow. We worked hard and smart and are doing everything we can in real life to support Hillary in the primary and get her message out.
I'm not here to disrupt but I know some are, again on both sides. I work to maintain an ethical approach to the primary and I think, at least IMO, I do a good job for the most part.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)also here in a very rural part of upstate NY. I am amazed to find that people here even know who he is. He is resonating with a part of the country that is quite Conservative, though not the extreme kiind. Just hard working people who are surprisingly interested in someone they have been taught to oppose. It's quite exciting actually. I am seeing Bernie stickers in towns up here where I never expected to find them.
And for the first time ever, in a conservative area, I am not worried about wearing a Bernie t-shirt because it seems he doesn't have a negative effect even on Republicans.
I've been on DU a long time and never been a disrupter, but this is the first time I have ever been called a racist, a white supremacist, simply for supporting someone other than Hillary.
It has caused many good longtime DUers to go elsewhere. Thankfully it is a big internet now unlike when we first signed up on this site, so there are places where Bernie's supporters can do what they WERE doing here at first, simply support their candidate, until the vile smears began, the personal attacks, the flame baiting threads etc.
No I don't count you or others among the disrupters. But I know that even some of Hillary's supporters are feeling very uncomfortable about what is going on here now.
Utopian Leftist
(534 posts)Sabrina, thank you.
Although it has been interesting here, seeing some of the mud they have chosen to throw at Bernie, in their desperate and transparent attempts to get something, anything to stick. But the thing is, at least as far as I'm concerned, all they have had against Bernie so far has been vilest shit. Shit they created, like Bernie is a racist, first for standing up to BLM, then for not standing up to BLM. Hmmm. . . both positions cannot make him a racist, nor would I assume that either of those two positions would automatically indicate anyone is a racist . . . not even the Coronated One, herself. But then no one on Bernie's side wants to see a tag of 'racist' get added to Hillary. Whereas many of Hillary's followers appear to firmly believe this about Bernie, or at least to not bare any shyness or compunction at having labeled Bernie a racist, themselves, and this no matter what Bernie does in response to BLM. And further, regardless of the sort of harm such a label might do Bernie when he has to face off against a true racist such as Trump. This unwillingness to be reasonable leads me to believe that Hillary's followers are not altogether facing reality.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I would hope Iowa doesn't elect our president. We'd be fucked.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)this ignored portion of your quote.
Asteriks added for emphasis and visibility
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)extend the Retirement Age for everyone OTHER than workers who do hard labot, 'I would consider it'. Not sure what your complaint is. Are you saying she did NOT say what she clearly DID say?
PatrickforO
(14,578 posts)Because we cannot allow the establishment its own echo chamber without challenging it.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)look to distract by all kinds of methods. Anything to avoid actually explaining if they support HRC's stands, like on fracking or raising the SS age. One has to sympathize, because HRC seems to change her stance and that could trip up supporters if they take a stand.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)I think the real problem is, at least in GDP is that you can't have a real conversation. Tempers flare, personalities clash, it just doesn't work.
I find that there are plenty of people on both sides who are more than willing to discuss the issue, and then others that aren't.
The statement about one persons supporters is just not factual, and is way to broad brush IMO.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I see any HRC supporter taking a stand on an issue. This is a great opportunity to give some quotes and tell whether you agree with her or not. For example, how do you think she stands on Social Security and is that how you stand?
frylock
(34,825 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)related to issues. I should quit. Some of them are followers and don't care what she did or does. Some think she is sympathetic to the 99%, like "let them eat cake". In our authoritarian culture, some really want someone tough to take good care of them. Our founders do not approve. This authoritarians side with authority because they can't or won't think for themselves. Which is the definition of liberal. DU is supposed to be for "politically liberal" people, but if you support HRC you can't be considered "politically liberal". HRC is a puppet of the 1%. Goldman-Sachs loves her and will probably be her running mate should the big money steal the nomination.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)You've burned that bridge.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I sympathize, really I do. Where does HRC stand on fracking? She has recently changed her mind. Now she isn't sure, but before she stood side by side with Chevron against the 99% peons. Odd that you would choose Chevron's profits over People's clean drinking water. But I guess you think that's a small price to pay for the tough authoritarian leadership that you need so badly.
I ask that you think of the 16,000,000 American children living in poverty. Do you honestly think that a billionaire sponsored administration will see that as a priority? Goldman-Sachs wants higher profits, poverty be damned. Is that how you think?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Yet it's HRC supporters who won't discuss issues? All you do is make false accusations against me, over, and over.
Again engaging in "honest discussion" with you just isn't worth it anymore.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Anytime we do try to discuss issues we get mocked, called names, told we are too stupid to understand what's really going on.
Look right up thread you did it to me... just now...
How can we be expected to have any kind of substantiative debate when that's what we have to deal with? It's bullying plain and simple, no way around it.
What we do is engage, we volunteer, we contribute and we work to get Hillary elected. I spent several hours today getting ready to canvass in NH today, and worked with some great volunteers who were excited to work for Hillary and support her for many reasons.
I'm not going to engage in flinging shit around GDP, it's not fun, I don't enjoy it. But if you want to know why I'm not about to try to discuss anything with you... Check our history together. It's been less then pleasant, and we both are equally guilty there.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
reformist2
(9,841 posts)The closest they get to the issues are when they parrot that she is a "progressive" all of the sudden, but they never back it up.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)And she us giving herself her usual room to be interpreted in different ways.
The paragraph without all of excessive verbiage is I would prefer not to, but I would consider it
Armstead
(47,803 posts)If you didn't see that part, ahem, the full paragraph has been posted numerous times.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)just for clarification, asterisks added for visibility.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)And it's clear we've all got agendas.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Read the quote...she says she is against it twice in that one short paragraph. Misleading headline.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)I'm not the OP.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Thanks for letting me know.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)ejbr
(5,856 posts)
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)about the truth you'd also go on to the next paragraph.
Kind of fun watching Sanders supporters melting down.
Oh, and thanks for pointing out she does NOT say what you claim unless you ignore her first sentence and conditional clause.
Carry on with the melt down.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)did NOT do, I included the entire quote so people can judge for themselves.
So where is the lie? Did she NOT say she would consider a plan to Raise the Retirement Age for Workers if someone could present one that excluded SOME workers?
Help me out here. I posted her entire quote. Are we reading something different?
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)a Damn thing Sabrina posted. Hillary said, "I would consider it." And:
But I have yet to find any recommendation that I would think would be suitable.
We can be damn sure she would have those "recommendations" she has yet to find, on her freakin' desk ASAP if she were elected. We're not as stupid as the Third Way thinks we are. We're onto their bait and switch games.
<snip>
Thirdly, we do have to consider ways to make sure that the funding of Social Security does maintain the system. I think we have a number of options; this would be something that I would look at, I would not favor raising the retirement age. And I don’t favor it because it might be fine for somebody like me, but the vast majority of working people who have worked hard and have had a difficult, maybe last couple of decades trying to continue to work, it would be very challenging for them. If there were a way to do it that would not penalize or punish laborers and factory workers and long-distance truck drivers and people who really are ready for retirement at a much earlier age, I would consider it. But I have yet to find any recommendation that I would think would be suitable.
And I want to look at raising the cap. I think that’s something we should look at how we do it, because I don’t want it to be an extra burden on middle-class families and in some parts of the country, there’s a different level of income that defines middle class. So what do we skip and what level do we start at? And we have to consider that. So those are my three priorities in looking at Social Security
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)same thing except they POST THE ENTIRE QUOTE. It's actually HILLARIOUS! To be honest, I'm only here now for the fun. For serious stuff you have to go elsewhere.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)
And you're very welcome. I'm so sick of their blatant lies.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)whining when we steal their tactics isn't it?
Meantime I will be signing up as many Bernie supporters as i can in the Real World to make sure he wins this election.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Sanders supporters.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)stay as swishy as you can so you won't get criticized for doing nothing to strengthen Social Security.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)preservation of SS against the Corporate Right Wing, Heritage Foundation attempts to chip away at one of the Democratic Party's most popular and life saving Programs ever.
Do I know you btw?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and complain about taking quotes out of context?
'I will consider it' IF someone can present here with a plan to Raise the Retirement Age that excludes SOME workers. Did you notice that part of her quote or would like me to post it AGAIN?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Oh I know, just look at the OP
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)quote?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Not you.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)But I intended to type squishy but I tripped over my fingers.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)That's why I asked, I had no memory of every meeting someone who claimed to know my history on this issue.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Again they were talking about Hillary, not you.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)My thatagirl was directed at HRC. I'm now and have been a Bernie supporter since before he announced.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)workers, when she says she "would consider" raising the retirement age in a way that would "not penalize or punish laborers and factory workers and long-distance truck drivers and people who really are ready for retirement at a much earlier age."
So, if she's singling out certain groups she doesn't want to do that to, just which workers would she "penalize or punish"?
I do not trust her. I know my retirement is not safe with her.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)language have to do with people's Retirement? It seems to me she is saying 'I'm will to penalize and punish SOME workers though not ALL workers'.
I can't express in printable words what those words mean to me in terms of a very privileged woman who has never had to struggle in her life, let alone in her later years, where she is NOW. That she even entertains the thought of 'penalizing and punishing' ANY worker in this country is simply beyond words.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to penalize and punish because of my work as a teacher?? Why would she want to do that? To teachers and nurses and presumably people in the Service Industry. I really would like to know what she means by that 'I would be willing to consider' penalizing and punishing' people like that? For WHAT?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I think she was, in typical Hillary fashion, rhetorically dancing around the question without answering it. She knows at least two things:
1. Her owners really want to get rid of Social Security.
2. She needs to fool working class people into thinking she cares about them.
Acting on those two pieces of information, what she said could be interpreted this way:
"I know that raising the retirement age would really be a kick in the teeth for working Americans, and I don't want to commit to such a course of action if doing so would destroy the carefully crafted image I'm selling to them, so I'll pretend I'm concerned about it while subtly reassuring my real constituents that I'm still open to doing it."
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)any more than she cares about teachers, really - it just makes good sound bites to pander to them. And that's really all I think it is, pandering. Truck drivers and laborers are probably more palatable to the Third Way than are teachers and nurses for purposes of her speechmaking. But I have no doubt if she ends up in the White House, she will do whatever her Third Way/corporate puppetmasters want her to do.
Even when she tried to pretend that she cared about a very vulnerable group - i.e., “widowed and single women” - it was chilling to me because it sounded like she wanted to create a new category of welfare, just for women, instead of increasing benefits for everyone including them. It's ironic how she says “I will focus on helping those people who need it the most,” when that's the last thing it sounds like she wants to do.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Sure they all answer to the huge money and the "security" spooks but within the Turd Way sphere she is very much an alpha, make no mistake nor underestimate her deep connection to the ideology she had a significant role she had in crafting the current iteration of this foul ideology.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)sound too far left? Scary.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Remember how howling mad they got at Obama for his weak ass wink and a nod finger wagging despite him perhaps almost literally standing between them and the torches and pitch forks and despite all the money they raked in?
Some of those natives are really easily made restless so it all works together. The fake ass "middle" can grumble and help her look like she is on our side while the really entitled and greedy dumpster fires can blow off a little steam.
jfern
(5,204 posts)
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Fingers in the ears as usual.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Broward
(1,976 posts)She can't be trusted.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Trust her?
I don't think so.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)the vagueness! HAHAHAHA
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)Oh, yeah, that's right, she was volunteering for Nixon's campaign when Bernie was marching with MLK!
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Raising the retirement age means more unemployment across the board. But, the ones who are hit the hardest are entry level workers mainly young entry level workers who pay into Social Security. Young workers pay more into Social Security than older workers for two reasons many are able to work longer hours and they don't have as many sick days. So if they are serious about raising the age for retirement they are doing so at the expense of keeping younger people from being able to pay income taxes and to contribute to the Social Security fund.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)But not what was actually said. OP has been pushing a cherry picked, and out of context snippet.
frylock
(34,825 posts)by a Hillary supporter that does the same. Walk it, man.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)You are shoving more supply into a market that is in a demand crisis that can only realistically be expected to grow with time as is.
Social Security is funded by a percentage of those ever shrinking wages and jobs.
There is no good reason to consider raising the age for any workers even if their job is having drinks and bullshitting or playing video games and smoking weed or competitive napping, it is all doomed to be counter productive because there is no fucking demand and cannot probably ever going to be any more than it is now.
There is no possible proposal to consider, nothing to be open to in any foreseeable environment and especially so in the next eight years. Any permutation of consideration means you are trying to maneuver to fuck us over because there is no other possible outcome.
There is no nuance. There is nothing to consider the only answer is not only no but fuck no.
I don't give a damn about about longevity increases either, I can go on about how it is mostly smoke and mirrors but there is little point because the reality of the situation of productivity levels and technological levels and trends is that even if people were living to a healthy and hale 10,000 years old we still don't have the demand for labor to support the workforce we have and again will need even less all the time no matter how intractable the math would become for funding retirement.
We have no such issue though since left expectancy from the age when one would start making contributions hasn't gone up much. Lowering the age to some degree or another would probably grow the fund by taking some slack out of supply which would lift wages and reduce bouts of unemployment but we have actual tools available that would more than resolve any funding concerns for as far as can be projected by eliminating the cap (yes, even rich people get bigger payouts) and raising the contribution if need be (even .5% would go a long way and would likely at least cover the projected shortfall alone if everything else stays the same).
The biggest problem Social Security has is dirty fucks trying to kill it. It doesn't take much to make the fund flush as fuck but nobody wants to take simple steps to actually fund it or even to stop taking from it and trying like hell not to pay it back.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)That's the problem in a nutshell
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I think I heard that here over the last 6 years over and over, and again just the other day.
It still exists??
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)is complete nonsense.
No one cares if you manufactured some goofy fantasy theory to rationalize away bald facts.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)If you are so sure Obama actually intended to implement chained CPI ... why did it DIE when the GOP took control?
Or better yet ... why was it not in the Budget deal that just passed ... you know ... the one in which most of DU shit its pants claiming Obama was making a deal to destroy Social Security.
My point is simple that the folks on DU who have been bursting into flames on this topic have been wrong, over and over and over.
Each time they are absolutely sure, positively, that Obama is about to make that deal. And then it does not happen.
But hey ... let's pretend that they've been right each and every time ... after all, that's what they do.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)obvious by who he chose for the Committee on the Deficit, longtime enemies of SS from the far right.
And it is STILL on the table. Election time though they won't talk much about it but WE WILL.
Broward
(1,976 posts)Are you suggesting he didn't really mean it?
Phlem
(6,323 posts)That famous political speak I'm so tired of.
homegirl
(1,429 posts)for the politicians to address the obvious solution-RAISE THE CAP!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)for the brief time during his first term.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)or, something.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)problem when it comes to 'hard choices'.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
aspirant
(3,533 posts)kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)as many potential consequences as possible. And one can only honestly reject an idea after giving it consideration and discovering solid grounds for rejecting it.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)like abandoning core principles
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Should a 'good leader' consider ending all the Social Prograsm?
Should a 'good leader' consider increasing the prison population?
Should a 'good leader' consider privatizing EVERYTHING?
You said 'everything'.
Can you explain what you mean by that? That's a pretty all encompassing statement.
Some 'good leaders' at least in the eyes of those who supported them considered demonizing segments of their populations. Then eliminating them.
Are there any limits to what 'good leaders' should consider doing or not doing?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)me and my family without working or stealing, I would consider it. But I haven't, so guess where I'll be tomorrow morning?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)being confused considering Hillary's choice of words 'penalizing, punishing'. We are talking about the retirement age in this country for people who have worked all their lives. She is willing to consider the Republican policy for cutting SS benefits, keep people working until they are no longer around to collect it.
Not sure what YOU are referring to.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)where do you get I was talking about people being criminals?
My point was ... She is NOT willing to consider the Republican policy for cutting SS benefits, keep people working until they are no longer around to collect it, BECAUSE there is no way to do it without hurting people.
Just like there is no way plan for me to stop working and feed, clothe and house my family without me working.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)If someone can present her with a plan to raise the retirement for everyone OTHER THAN those she mentioned 'I would consder it". THAT means ME and half the people I know. You know, nurses, teachers, service workers. I'm not sure why you are disputing it, SHE said it, not anyone else! She also used the words 'without penalizing or punishing' the ones she would exclude.
So clearly she considers raising the retirement as a 'punishment, a penalty'. Who IS this person who talks and thinks this way about America's working class? She seems to feel disconnected from them, to look at 'them' as the 'other'. Not of her class.
Sorry, but when you have a candidate who continually has to be EXPLAINED, who has to be protected from her own decisions and words, it is going to be a difficult job to continue to do so.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Would you "consider" raising the retirement age, in exchange for:
1) The raise being limited to certain class of occupations, and wealth levels;
2) the establishment of Universal Healthcare for everyone;
3) the establishment of a guaranteed income for everyone:
4) the halving of the Pentagon budget;
5) the scraping of all mass surveillance programming;
6) the immediate withdrawal from all military theaters;
7) the termination of Citizens United;
8) the re-instatement of Glass-Steagel and breaking up of all big banks;
9) puppy therapy programming for all republicans
Would you consider raising the retirement age under those conditions?
Yes, I know that any one of these would, likely, not be enough or likely to be offered ... but my point is political "considerations are, and should never be, black and white and/or announced in advance.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I will not raise the retirement age
Or
I am going to seriously consider raising it.
Nice and straightforward, and would actually inform voters of where she stands.
Bernblu
(441 posts)issue in the way that will alienate the least amount of people.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)she is, both, rarely foreclose on "opportunities"/Decision paths, even when they no what they will and will not do.
Let me ask ...
Would you "consider" raising the retirement age, in exchange for:
1) The raise being limited to certain class of occupations, and wealth levels;
2) the establishment of Universal Healthcare for everyone;
3) the establishment of a guaranteed income for everyone:
4) the halving of the Pentagon budget;
5) the scraping of all mass surveillance programming;
6) the immediate withdrawal from all military theaters;
7) the termination of Citizens United;
8) the re-instatement of Glass-Steagel and breaking up of all big banks;
9) puppy therapy programming for all republicans
Would you consider raising the retirement age under those conditions?
Yes, I know that any one of these would, likely, not be enough or likely to be offered ... but my point is political "considerations are, and should never be, black and white and/or announced in advance.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Even though unforeseen circumstances can always arise, there has to be a framework people can count on. Life is complicated, but core principles are straightforward -- or should be.
There are simple ways to state principles, without foreclosure options. But she is so concerned with NOT taking stands on so many issues that it comes out as muddled and untrustworthy. Her stated frameworks are generally so convoluted rather than reflective this it is impossible to gauge what her principles or intentions really are, or where her "change point" might be.
Social Security is a social compact. It makes a difference how much a candidate is willing to change the terms of that, and whether they are likely to continue to bargain it away. Is she willing to keep goosing up the retirement age, or make it overly complicated? (I'm nearing that age where I can start collecting, and I get so many conflicting suggestions of when to start collecting that it is mind boggling.) Is she willing to screw younger generations?
It is easy to say "I am committed to not raising the retirement age, unless totally unforeseen circumstances arise." That leaves some wiggle room, but makes it clear where she stands.
Or "I believe we have to in order to keep SS solvent, and it may be necessary to reevaluate the retirement age."
Neither of those answer cut off options, but it lets voters know what her core positions and plans are.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)she did not state her opposition in the manner you would have preferred.
There is not much distance between what she said, i.e., "I would consider "X" under these conditions" (conditions not being met, consideration ends) and what you said.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)She's always making it so you can n ever know what her intentions are.
It feels like we could either get a great president or a disaster, because there are never any clear answers, except on apple pie.
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)Currently, the full benefit age is 66 for people born in 1943-1954, and it will gradually rise to 67 for those born in 1960 or later.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)That is one of the ways they want to cut benefits, to keep the people's money in the fund so they can use to start their wars and give tax cuts to the rich etc.
Dems are SUPPOSED to be the ones trying to stop them.
Thanks Hillary, but we would all to be like you, rich, not dependent on the miserly amount we will get when we are too old to keep slaving away for Corporations, probably earning less etc.
Maybe we should all run for office, then give speeches to Wall St and we also won't need that pittance you're considering pushing further away.
Another reason I don't support her.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Not sure what your point is.
glinda
(14,807 posts)and ill to find work I am not happy about this.If she would consider this I may well become homeless. We live on the edge right now with my husband's medical and still making house payments, etc....
She is not Progressive. Reminds me of old time Republican.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)etc it appears Hillary will 'consider penalizing and punishing' you for working your entire life. To say I am not happy about this is putting it mildly but to say I am surprised would be false.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)A bragging point for Hillary/Obama supporters.
