2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy would a Democrat support H. Clinton and her stand on Social Security?
Democrats have long been supporters of Social Security. We have a choice now of a candidate that has long supported SS and Medicare in Senator Sanders and a candidate that has fought for a decade, making the top 6% pay their fair share by raising the cap.
In 2008 Clinton said, “I’m certainly against one of Senator Obama’s ideas, which is to lift the cap on the payroll tax, because that would impose additional taxes on people who are educators, police officers, firefighters and the like.” She, of course, was insinuating that “ educators, police officers, firefighters” were making over $97,000 a year. Of course few if any “ educators, police officers, firefighters” were making over $97,000 per year. And if they were making $100,000, the additional tax would only cover the $3,000 that they previously weren't being taxed on.
In fact only 6% of Americans earn over $97,000. Raising the cap would make these 6%, that Clinton is favoring, pay their equal share as those of us earning much less.
Now faced with a true progressive challenge from Senator Sanders, Clinton has changed her stand from being solidly against strengthening SS by simply raising the cap to now “considering the possibility” of raising the cap. Sounds like just so much rhetoric to me. Recently Clinton responded to questions about cutting SS benefits, saying that she would like to see SS “enhanced”. That sounds scary. “Enhanced” is usually Republicon Speak for “Cut”.
Are H. Clinton's supporters willing to risk cuts in Social Security to prevent a progressive from becoming president? (Rhetorical question)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
EV_Ares
(6,587 posts)have always voted against their own self-interests. I have never understood it but from what I have found out, it is single issues they feel strongly about either for or against the candidate that they are willing to do it. Religion, guns, etc. a lot of times.
90-percent
(6,829 posts)Atwater and Rove really outdid themselves creating that part of the Republican playbook. It's worked to their advantage for DECADES.
Frank Luntz, who I think is the Father of climate change denial, is also good at this. But to be good at it, you have to be a sociopath, which is probably why the Dem side doesn't use it nearly as much?
-90% jimmy
EV_Ares
(6,587 posts)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)"enhanced". For conservatives, it means "cut".
She doesn't want to make the top 6% pay their fair share. How do you feel about that?
dsc
(52,162 posts)and arguably more than it. They get benefits pegged to the upper cap and the formula greatly favors those with lower incomes plus they are taxed on their benefits if they have income above a certain level in retirement. I don't oppose lifting the cap on the taxes or the benefits but to be clear, they do pay their fair share in this instance. I think the cap should be lifted to the amount that would make the cap exclude the same percentage of earners as it did in the 1930's. I don't recall the exact figure but it would be around 250k or so.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)benefits to those paying more, would only provide 70% of projected short-falls.
I too am not opposed to raising the cap, but that's a pretty large tax increase when you factor in the employer's share. We have a lot of other things requiring a tax increase -- education, health care, welfare, etc. Yes, we need to cut military, but that will affect a lot of jobs
Like most of these issues, it is more complicated than people want to make it.
exboyfil
(17,863 posts)but Social Security is structured to subsidize the lower earners with those incomes made between around $50K to $117K. After $117K contribution to that subsidy ends. I personally think this is unfair because I think all income over $50K should assist those making less income as well. Education on how S.S. benefits are calculated is greatly lacking.
I don't agree with limiting the cap to $250K either for the same reason. I also not agree with creating a notch between $117K to $250K on contributions which is what Clinton apparently proposed at one point. I am also uncomfortable with doing any additional thinking with expanding the benefits except at the low end and increase the minimum income to something like $12 to $15 K instead of the around $10K that it currently sits at.
We do need to figure out how to get $150B/yr for the next 15 years or so to pay back the S.S. Trust Fund. I would propose that the removal of the cap be a part of that process with the additional cap money being used to pay the projected future short fall.
dsc
(52,162 posts)that is we should increase income taxes upon the wealthy and cut defense spending.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Explain how she will "enhance" it, since she won't raise the contributions. And don't forget to include something about how Republicans always say they'll "enhance" it too.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)For 80 years, Social Security has been America at its best. Social Security reflects our shared belief that every American should be able to retire with dignity after decades of hard work. That no American should face poverty because he or she is disabled, or when a loved one dies. That we all have an obligation to each other.
Social Security isn't just a program—it's a promise. As president, Hillary will:
Defend Social Security against Republican attacks. Republicans are using scare tactics about the future and effectiveness of Social Security to push through policies that would jeopardize it. The real threat is Republican attempts to undermine the bedrock of the system. Hillary believes that Social Security must remain what it has always been: a rock-solid benefit that seniors can always count on—not subject to the budget whims of Congress or to the fluctuations of the stock market. She fought Republican efforts to undermine Social Security when she was a senator and throughout her career, and she will fight them as president. As president, she would:
-Fight any attempts to gamble seniors’ retirement security on the stock market through privatization.
-Oppose reducing annual cost-of-living adjustments.
-Oppose Republican efforts to raise the retirement age—an unfair idea that will particularly hurt the seniors who have worked the hardest throughout their lives.
-Oppose closing the long-term shortfall on the backs of the middle class, whether through benefit cuts or tax increases.
Expand Social Security 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. Social Security works well, but it should work better. Hillary will fight to expand Social Security for those who need it most and who are treated unfairly today. For instance:
-The poverty rate for widowed women 65 or older is nearly 90 percent higher than for other seniors—in part because when a spouse dies, families can face a steep benefit cut. For a two-earner couple, those benefit cuts can be as much as 50 percent. Hillary believes that we have to change that by reducing how much Social Security benefits drop when a spouse dies, so that the loss of a spouse doesn’t mean financial hardship or falling into poverty.
-Millions of women—and men—take time out of the paid workforce to raise a child, take care of an aging parent or look after an ailing family member. Caregiving is hard work that benefits our entire economy. However, when Americans take time off to take care of a relative, that can reduce their Social Security benefits at retirement, since those benefits are calculated based on their top thirty-five years of earnings. No one should face meager Social Security checks because they took on the vital role of caregiver for part of their career. Americans should receive credit toward their Social Security benefits when they are out of the paid workforce because they are acting as caregivers.
Preserve Social Security for decades to come by asking the wealthiest to contribute more. Social Security must continue to guarantee dignity in retirement for future generations. Hillary understands that there is no way to accomplish that goal without asking the highest-income Americans to pay more, including options to tax some of their income above the current Social Security cap, and taxing some of their income not currently taken into account by the Social Security system.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/social-security-and-medicare/
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)She doesn't say she will reduce the retirement age.
She doesn't say that she will not raise the retirement age.
She doesn't say how many will be included in her expansion (only those that need it the most). No commitment as to who that would include.
Will ask the wealthy to contribute more. Ask? How by monogrammed notes? How much more? No specific commitment.
Karma13612
(4,552 posts)Expand Social Security for those who need it most.
Bull$h!t.
Expand it period.
Don't you dare tell me that mine won't be enhanced because I make $1 more than some arbitrary cut-off based on income.
Raise the darn cap, cut back on military spending and stop siding with Wall street.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)restrict help to only those that needed the most. So how many? 100? 1,000? And how does she plan to pay for it? Ask the wealthy to contribute more. How will she ask? Personal letter? Maybe email? And if they tell her no way? Then what? And how much would she ask for? She is a master of the open-ended rhetoric.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)"ended as we know it", just as she did in 1996. Also the rest of that ridiculous excerpt is a bunch of flowery language to disguise her intent to cut benefits.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)longer be a plan in which everyone has a stake, and will become "a free handout to lazy people" and those who were "too stupid to plan for their retirement".
If it only benefits the poor then nobody of affluence will give a shit when Social Security goes on the chopping block. Old people will go back to eating cat food and freezing to death in their homes.
eridani
(51,907 posts)That would give them what they would have had without the "enhancement," assuming that they live to be 85. This is a Catfood Commission proposal, defended by slamming those wealthy seniors living on $1400/month in the middle quintile who want to selfishly deprive the first quintile of that experience.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)As soon as some people get paid "more than they deserve" (which really means "more than me"
, that opens the doors to cuts and killing it.
Means testing turns it from a program "for everyone" to a program for the poor.
earthside
(6,960 posts)http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/10/15/trojan-horse-clintons-pledge-enhance-social-security
“Well, I fully support Social Security,” Clinton began. “And the most important fight we’re going to have is defending it against continuing Republican efforts to privatize it.”
Case closed? Not quite. Bash pressed on: “Do you want to expand it?”
That yes-or-no question got neither. “I want to enhance the benefits for the poorest recipients of Social Security,” she said, singling out “particularly widowed and single women” who didn’t make a lot of money during their careers. “I will focus on helping those people who need it the most,” she concluded.
What alarmed Social Security activists is that underneath Clinton’s positive language – “fully support,” “enhance” – appears to lie support for policies, including from leading conservatives like Pete Peterson – that would actually undermine Social Security.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)rather than relying on brief media interviews.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/social-security-and-medicare/
"... options to tax some of their income above the current Social Security cap".
The actual policy comports with the analysis to which I linked.
Face it, Sen. Sanders is much more positive and aggressive on protecting, preserving, and expanding Social Security.
Dems have ‘strong disagreement’ on Social Security, Sanders says
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/dems-have-strong-disagreement-social-security-sanders-says
“I do not believe in raising the retirement age for people who have been on Social Security,” Sanders continued. “I am categorically against what many of my Republican friends are talking about, cutting Social Security benefits.”
He went on to say he that favors raising or eliminating entirely the cap on taxable income for social security, so that more money would flow into the system to expanded benefits. Currently, only the first $118,500 of income is covered subject to payroll taxes, which funds Social Security. “We need not only to extend social security benefits, we need to expand them,” he said.
Clinton on Wednesday raised some eyebrows on the left during her own appearance in the Granite State when she did not categorically rule out Social Security benefit cuts or raising the retirement age. And she declined to endorse an across-the-board expansion of benefits, as favored by many progressives.
Duval
(4,280 posts)more blab, which she is very good at doing. I, too, noticed that she really didn't answer the question.
PatrickforO
(14,576 posts)I don't want to be screwed over when I'm old and not working by some 'enhancement.' I've paid in for nearly 40 years and I need that money when I retire. It should be expanded, not enhanced.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)1. Anyone who wants to know if a candidate will expand social security "hates Hillary"
2. No one has ever asked a male candidate for president about his plan for social security. Hillary is the only candidate ever asked.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)what her position is, they will support her even if she pledged to privatize SS. I bet Goldman-Sachs is whispering that in her ear.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)and I simply DO NOT TRUST HER to keep my social security and my medicare out of the hands of her greedy wall street oligarch buddies. She has done nothing but 'enhance' my concerns
Karma13612
(4,552 posts)means she is going to dance around all sorts of ideas about SS and when elected she will not raise the cap on payroll tax, and will complicate who gets what on the receiving end of SS benefits.
Bernie is so much clearer on so many issues.
I am sick of having to look at a calendar or Ouija board or the alignment of the stars to determine where Hillary stands on specific issues. And of course, my favorite: if Bernie supported it last week, Hillary will, next week.
reallygosh
(15 posts)please do the math.
Response to DanTex (Reply #2)
Name removed Message auto-removed
eridani
(51,907 posts)We've been through this already with the Catfood Commission in 2010. "Enhancing" benefits for the poorest quintile of recipients means that everybody's check gets cut (most likely by chained CPI), but that those with the lowest incomes get the cuts put back--presumably they will live to be 85 to catch up with what they previously would have gotten.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Hillary will never scrap the cap she will only cut deals with the GOP
Response to Cheese Sandwich (Reply #5)
Name removed Message auto-removed
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)They're on board with for-profit healthcare, capital punishment, more war on terror, poverty-level minimum wage, charter schools, and tax cuts instead of healthcare. They call it pragmatism, but judging what's happened to the party during their ascendance, I don't know how pragmatic it is.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)that the public doesn't trust at all.
That should tell the pragmatic and sensible chipmunks something.
The current Democratic Party offers no real vision that's connecting with Americans. They continue to hope they can get elected by not being a Republican. And, Republicans WILL act up sometime in the near future to allow Democrats to regain power. Unfortunately, these pragmatists will holler from the rooftops that they were correct, but it will be just as fleeting as it was the last time the Democrats had control of Congress. When the Democratic Party is infested with corporate toadies legislation that will benefit average Americans will not pass. American lives will NOT get better (more financially secure), and Democratic voters will stay home. Guarantee.
What we have to do is get true FDR-style Democrats through primary processes so that when the Republicans go apeshit overboard and piss off so many of us, that when Democrats get elected as a result of this (inevitable in a 2 party system) that the Democrats can actually pass progressive legislation that helps Americans. THAT is how we will get control of Congress for 40 years again.
No. Other. Way.
Broward
(1,976 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Fight any attempts to gamble seniors’ retirement security on the stock market through privatization.
Oppose reducing annual cost-of-living adjustments.
Oppose Republican efforts to raise the retirement age—an unfair idea that will particularly hurt the seniors who have worked the hardest throughout their lives.
Oppose closing the long-term shortfall on the backs of the middle class, whether through benefit cuts or tax increases.
Expand Social Security 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. Social Security works well, but it should work better. Hillary will fight to expand Social Security for those who need it most and who are treated unfairly today. For instance:
The poverty rate for widowed women 65 or older is nearly 90 percent higher than for other seniors—in part because when a spouse dies, families can face a steep benefit cut. For a two-earner couple, those benefit cuts can be as much as 50 percent. Hillary believes that we have to change that by reducing how much Social Security benefits drop when a spouse dies, so that the loss of a spouse doesn’t mean financial hardship or falling into poverty.
Millions of women—and men—take time out of the paid workforce to raise a child, take care of an aging parent or look after an ailing family member. Caregiving is hard work that benefits our entire economy. However, when Americans take time off to take care of a relative, that can reduce their Social Security benefits at retirement, since those benefits are calculated based on their top thirty-five years of earnings. No one should face meager Social Security checks because they took on the vital role of caregiver for part of their career. Americans should receive credit toward their Social Security benefits when they are out of the paid workforce because they are acting as caregivers.
Preserve Social Security for decades to come by asking the wealthiest to contribute more. Social Security must continue to guarantee dignity in retirement for future generations. Hillary understands that there is no way to accomplish that goal without asking the highest-income Americans to pay more, including options to tax some of their income above the current Social Security cap, and taxing some of their income not currently taken into account by the Social Security system.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/social-security-and-medicare/
People can also read about her Medicare policy at the link above.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)
Because Sanders is stagnating?
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)She is talking about "enhancement" of social security not for all, but some.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/hillary-clinton-indicates-she-is-open-to-raising-the-retirement-age.html
As to raising the retirement age she said this, "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."
So, essentially if someone comes up with a means test, she would 'consider' raising it, but not at the present time.
About raising the cap she said this, "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?"
So her definition of "middle class" may vary for taxes versus raising the cap for social security. She has not yet defined what that would be and has promoted no exact figure for what the cap would be.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)The policy is there. I know its all the rage to refuse to read her actual policy statements and instead mine quotes and use them to imply nefarious attempt. That's your problem. For voters who actually care about what the candidates plan to do, the policy is provided on her website.
If hundreds of millions of dollars had been devoted to scouring Bernie's every word, there would be plenty of contradictions as well. People, even Bernie, change over the years. That is what human beings do. Times and circumstances change.
As for raising the age for non-physical labor, I agree. Life expectancy and work itself is radically different from when SS was implemented in the thirties. As Clinton pointed out, the problem lies in finding a way to differentiate, which may in fact be more costly than maintaining the current age. It's also true that many people die shortly after retirement
I myself plan to work into my 70s. I've paid into Social Security since I was 13, and I've paid to support the older generation with no expectation it would be there for me. I know the sole concern for most is that they, as current recipients, continue to be supported. Well they will be. They've ensured it. The rest of us, however, are another story. We are told every day on this site how much less we are worth, and that we are expect to vote to support the upper-middle class, so their children don't have to work to go to college, with zero concern that schools for the poor are so bad that those children will never be prepared to go to college. I've seen outrage that Clinton had the audacity to suggest a jobs program for coal laborers. They are outraged that she aims to cut taxes on the poor. How dare she? How dare she not focus government resources on the upper-middle class? How dare she not return America to the great days of the 1950s, when the people who mattered prospered and the majority were denied the most basic rights and opportunities.
I will not be voting in the interests of the upper 10-20%, and that makes me the enemy here. Too fucking bad.
Karma13612
(4,552 posts)segments of workers:
As to raising the retirement age she said this, "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."
So, does that mean that a person who sat at a desk for 40 years in a highly stressful job who worked lots of overtime to make ends meet, is not in good physical health and has poor eyesight has to just keep plugging away until flippin' 70 years of age??? And then die after being in retirement a year or two. You call that fair??
We all have worked hard, some physical, some mental, and when you start to decide who among us gets to retire sooner is just crap on toast.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)As is common here, this snarky thread is void of facts and fraught with distortions and lies about Clinton's position.
She is the most qualified candidate ever to run for President. She has been a fighter for women and children and the middle class her whole political life.
And many here on this board ignore all of that to believe anything shit thrown their way no matter who flings if (even Putin for god's sake!).
I honestly believe if she were a man, no one would have run against "him." Instead she is vilified as a Cruela Divile character with hatred spewed and with distortions and flat out lies about her history and her stances on issues.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)Sanders provides vague platitudes. Clinton provides concrete plans, and yet more is demanded of Clinton than any other candidate.
Backwards and in high-heels.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)BainsBane
(53,035 posts)while he and others have repeatedly refused to read what her actual policy is.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)and how Clinton is more culpable for the war than John Kerry or Joe Biden. Seriously. For some reason women are held to a higher standard. And I honestly believe that the outright disrespect of her here on a democratic board is due to sexism so ingrained in our society that it is acceptable behavior.
Obama was treated with blatant disrespect given no other President, due to racism.
Clinton gets the same treatment due to sexism.
Perhaps it is difficult to face. It is a difficult conversation to have, just like addressing racism. I suggest before you automatically deny...you truly think about it.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)btw..This is a position she has said she was wrong on.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)The sex of the voter doesn't mean anything to me.
It was a mistake which she admitted to herself. I didn't vote for either of those gentlemen because of that vote. There are some lines that shouldn't be crossed. Regime change masked as hidden WMD's is one of them.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)But I DO hold women to a higher standard. They are much smarter than I am and know, as a Thai Buddhist monk once said, "What is what." In fact, I hold them to such a high standard I married two of them.. Not at the same time, of course.
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)Hillary Clinton will not cut SS benefits-which is the cornerstone of being a Democrat. I like 99% of what Bernie Sanders has to say but he does not MOVE me emotionally or politically. I was a Hillary supporter in 2008, but Obama earned my vote so I switch to Obama. Bernie Sanders says all the right things, but unfortunately he will not be able to get done.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)to say she would expand Social Security or raise the cap, but she didn't say either. She is a conservative labelled Democrat.
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)Quite fortunately never gonna happen... How can you like 99% of Bernie's stuff and be ok with eve 25% of her "stuff"
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)Actually I agree with 99% of what Hillary says as well. Hillary is the most qualified pure and simple. She has given numerous and specific policy points on how she will handle the problems we face. I have watched all of the debates and campaign speeches. Bernie does not off hope and change. He tells us about the problems and the unfairness, but offer no specific solutions. He gets everyone fired up, but it ends there.
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)You have an opinion on her qualifications, you are entitled to that opinion, but basically your opinions are not necessarily facts just opinions, my/our opinions are just as valid as yours....
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)Hillary Clinton's qualifications are FACTS, and not opinions.
Carry on with your opinions I have seen nothing of the sort..meanwhile thank you for the polite discourse, we can agree to disagree ok without any serious animosity..
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)at the expense of clean water for the 99%? Do you support the TPP? Her stand on not helping students with college loan problems? Her "specific policy points" are usually just rhetoric. For example, she wants more study on the effects of medical marijuana. More study is open ended and shows a lack of commitment. Tell me something specific she wants to do with regard to Social Security.
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)Neither does Hillary Clinton and I don't care how she arrived at not supporting the TPP, at least she is there now. She is a politician just like Bernie Sanders. Hillary wants to strengthen SS benefits, not cut it. As far as student loans, she has stated her specific positions which are realistic. And she is for medical marijuana. President Obama was against gay marriage but he has evolved and now he is for it. I love the fact that Bernie Sanders is super liberal because he forced Hillary Clinton to move to the left on some issues, Again,I don't care how Hillary arrived on the issues, so as long as she is there NOW.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)issues but she doesn't commit herself. Look up her quotes on SS and explain to me how she is going to "strengthen". She has said in the past that it might be necessary to cut some benefits to strengthen the overall program. I guarantee you she won't ask her friends in the 1% to contribute more. She may be pretending to have moved slightly to the left, but don't believe her.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)-You like 99% of what Sanders says. Is that not enough?
-But he doesn't MOVE you emotionally. Does that mean you vote with your emotions rather than with your brain, based on where a candidate stands on policies?
-He doesn't move you politically. I am not sure what you mean.. policy? If so, you said that you agreed 99% with his policies.
-Why did you switch from Hillary to Barack? Policy, emotion?
-You agree Bernie says the right things, but.. " he will not be able to get done."
SO-- what is your reason for not supporting him? His policy? It seems not, Not enough emotion? Have you watched him? OR because '" he will not be able to get done?"
-And, how do you know he will "he will not be able to get (things) done.." Why would Hillary, given the same House and Senate, be more able to 'get things done?"
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)that Bernie Sanders states the obvious, but no specific remedies. He talks about the billionaires and millionaires not paying their fair share, which I agree. But what is he going to do for me personally to make sure my taxes are reduced. Bernie Sanders is a politician like the rest. People want hope and inspiration, he needs to make me feel that everything is going to be alright. During his speeches, I feel doomed. In my opinion, he needs to inspire people more.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)However, a neoliberal would and we've got a large infestation of them in OUR party. A fair number of folks with cranial/rectal inversion also.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)A matter of life or death...
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)"...“Enhanced” is usually Republicon Speak for “Cut”..."
inˈhans,enˈhans/
verb
intensify, increase, or further improve the quality, value, or extent of.
"his refusal does nothing to enhance his reputation"
synonyms: increase, add to, intensify, heighten, magnify, amplify, inflate, strengthen, build up, supplement, augment, boost, raise, lift, elevate, exalt; More
pangaia
(24,324 posts)
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I mean, cut.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)How many on DU have been absolutely positively sure Obama was going to gut/cut/slash Social Security.
How many OPs written on DU predicting it? How many hair on fire posts acting as if it had actually happened?
Far to many to count.
How many .. "Ooops, we were wrong posts"?
None.
Broward
(1,976 posts)It was in his budget, but go on living in your fantasy world.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)How did that happen sparky?
GOP controls congress, and Obama "wanted to cut" ... and yet it did not happen.
Maybe Putin stopped him? Oh wait ... YOU stopped him!!!!
Broward
(1,976 posts)Are you a conservative? Perhaps, a former Repub.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Chained CPI. It's called "bait and switch". We were shown a progressive and given a conservative.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Any second, right?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)or do you support raising the age to "enhance".
think
(11,641 posts)“We’ve got to educate the American people at the same time we educate the President of the United States. The Republicans, Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor did not call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. The President of the United States called for that,” Conyers, who has served in the House since 1965, said. “My response to him is to mass thousands of people in front of the White House to protest this,” Conyers said strongly.
Read more:
http://www.crewof42.com/news/conyers-on-jobs-weve-had-it-lays-out-obama-calls-for-protest-at-white-house/
azmom
(5,208 posts)If necessary.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)conscience over their massive fraud. Suggested the solution to college student debt is to ask the states to keep tuitions down. On Social Security she would "ask" the wealthy to contribute more. And medical marijuana needs more study. Oh yeah, can't forget fracking. She would recommend that some prohibitions of fracking on some federal land be phased in over an undetermined time period. And some people believe she is decisive.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)candidate can beat the far-right nutjob the Republicans will ultimately nominate.
No Democrats WANT a Republican-lite (or at least few want such a compromise moderate) which is why there is more of a "falling in line" obedience than true enthusiasm among Clinton supporters. The support for Clinton is mainly the result of fear and insecurity that a true liberal might not win. Most Sanders supporters have a greater faith and confidence in our Democracy.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)rather than asking about cuts. CPI is neolib speak for SS cuts. They think we can't interpret their lingo, I remember Obama saying after the crash eg, that the average person 'doesn't understand what derivatives etc are'. He was wrong, we understand very well. They should stop underestimating the intelligence of the people they are supposed to be representing.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Great post, Rhett.
Chico Man
(3,001 posts)It appears you have given up on the recruitment of those currently in the majority. Just how will you win with such an attitude?
Response to rhett o rick (Original post)
AtomicKitten This message was self-deleted by its author.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)No Democrat should refer to Social Security as an "entitlement." No sir, I don't trust either Clinton on the social safety net.
Big k&r for this OP!
to bvar22 for the video the OP describes.
... and then there's her hubby huddling with Paul Ryan plotting to derail another so-called "entitlement", Medicare.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)You are legally entitled by formula to a certain amount of money. That is what makes it an entitlement. If Congress were to simply stop meeting and never pass any more spending bills, you would still be entitled to that money.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)It is meant to be incendiary politically, a mislabeling of our retirement (Social Security) and healthcare (Medicare) programs. It is meant to convince citizens that cuts and privatizing it are the only way to "save" it; what they really intend to do is transfer the $2.7 trillion in the SS Trust Fund to the increasingly unregulated stock market and the spoils a transfer of wealth to the top 2%. A simple adjustment of the cap for those making over $97K would ensure its solvency.
And both Clintons and their Third Way cohorts have amply demonstrated they are shit on protecting the social safety net.
Good essays on it:
Fight the Epic GOP Lie that Social Security and Medicare Are Entitlements
http://www.politicususa.com/2012/08/14/fight-epic-gop-lie-social-security-medicare-entitlements.html
Social Security is not an entitlement.
http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2013/02/op-ed_social_security_is_not_an_entitlement.html
Is ‘Entitlements’ the Best Word for Social Security and Medicare?
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/is-entitlements-the-best-word-for-social-security-and-medicare/
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The GOP dislikes mandatory spending (aka enitlements). We don't. Why surrender to them on that and act like entitlements are a bad thing?
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)The term goes back to the 1950s and was completely neutral when it was coined.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)If I have a deed to all the land that a Native American tribe hunts on, I have "title" to it, and am entitled to fence it off.
I may not have earned it, unless inheriting it counts as earning it.
If I did the needed work to make something, I'm entitled to it, by law and custom.
If the government passes a law saying I'm to be given that something, I'm then entitled to it. In that case it's government legislation that grants me title to it.
Edit: So yes, an earned benefit can be said to be an entitlement. But "entitlement" doesn't preclude that a benefit wasn't earned by labor. Entitlement also includes benefits generated directly as a result of government legislation.
Edit 2: Maybe if we just referred to the benefits as "an earned entitlement". We worked for it, but it only exists because of the legislation enabling the collection and disbursement of the funds. The Republicans really muddied these waters. I think we all agree on that. They say "entitlements" like everybody is looking to steal.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)and expanding social security if she can help get the votes in Congress necessary to preserve and expand it. With the great help and assistance of Bernie Sanders and other strong liberals in the Senate. Social security is often called the 'third rail' in American politics. Neither party wants to touch it.
I sometimes wonder if these kinds of questions are facetious or if people who ask them honestly don't understand why someone would support Clinton over Sanders, or Sanders over Clinton, or O'Malley over Clinton or whatever.
Can you truly not understand the different opinions that people actually consider in the democratic party?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Goldman-Sachs happy.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Like Bernie.
What is the basis for your belief that Hillary 'wants to privatize it to make Goldman-Sachs happy'?
Walk away
(9,494 posts)except talk revolution and fail to help Democrats elected.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Americans living in poverty. You apparently stand with Goldman-Sachs and the wealthy 1%. You and the billionaires may be successful in buying this election but you won't dampen the Populist Movement to clean the corruption that you accept out of Washington the DC.
Two sides to the class war and wealthy Clinton of the 1% isn't on our side. Why choose her when you can choose someone honest.
Getting Democrats elected isn't the goal. Some Democrats vote with the Republicons. Clinton betray Democratic Party and helped the Republicons in the worse decision in history.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)madville
(7,412 posts)We have a Republican House through at least 2022 and the Senate will remain around a 50/50 split. The simple fact is neither Hillary or Bernie will be able to "fix" social security during their term. However they can block the Republican Congress from destroying it.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)
and R 
Romulox
(25,960 posts)
zappaman
(20,606 posts)So maybe Clinton supporters are fascists or are just too dumb to know any better.
Which option do you think applies, Rick?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6660544
