HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Hillary is open to raisin...

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 12:33 PM

Hillary is open to raising the retirement age? Retirement is for losers anyway.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/say-it-aint-so-hillary-clinton-youre-open-idea-raising-retirement-age



Sheesh. What a freeloader!

29 replies, 3624 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 29 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hillary is open to raising the retirement age? Retirement is for losers anyway. (Original post)
pa28 Oct 2015 OP
randys1 Oct 2015 #1
PatrickforO Oct 2015 #3
randys1 Oct 2015 #4
dreamnightwind Oct 2015 #11
randys1 Oct 2015 #14
dreamnightwind Oct 2015 #16
azmom Oct 2015 #13
randys1 Oct 2015 #15
erronis Oct 2015 #18
sabrina 1 Oct 2015 #6
pa28 Oct 2015 #7
daleanime Oct 2015 #21
Faux pas Oct 2015 #2
in_cog_ni_to Oct 2015 #10
bkkyosemite Oct 2015 #5
sabrina 1 Oct 2015 #8
erronis Oct 2015 #19
sabrina 1 Oct 2015 #22
phantom power Oct 2015 #9
BlueJazz Oct 2015 #12
Jack Rabbit Oct 2015 #17
Tierra_y_Libertad Oct 2015 #20
pa28 Oct 2015 #28
George II Oct 2015 #23
pa28 Oct 2015 #24
A Simple Game Oct 2015 #25
JackInGreen Oct 2015 #26
stopbush Oct 2015 #27
6chars Oct 2015 #29

Response to pa28 (Original post)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 12:38 PM

1. Well, not EXACTLY what she said, now is it!

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 donít 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.


Trust me, I dont want her to even leave that amount of the door open, but nice to get the record straight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randys1 (Reply #1)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 12:42 PM

3. I agree...but look at that last line.

She has yet to find any recommendation she thinks would be suitable.

Bernie has talked about expanding Social Security by removing the payroll tax cap so that very high earners pay in the full percentage. Isn't that suitable?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Reply #3)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 12:47 PM

4. Lift the cap for sure. And she is wrong to leave even this much open, for sure.

But accuracy is good too.

I am a Bernie supporter, but there is a very good chance she will be the nominee, so the REAL question is how do we get Wall Street out of her pockets?

It can be done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randys1 (Reply #4)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 01:10 PM

11. Really? I can't even imagine that

How would you get them out of her pockets? For one thing, she doesn't want them out of her pockets. What were you thinking of as a way to do that, serious question not just snark...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #11)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 01:14 PM

14. Why was 3rd way or DLC created? Democrats were tired of losing to the assholes

because the assholes were getting tons of dough from Wall Street and for the most part, Dems werent.

right?

OK, so first we rewrite all campaign financing law and get public financed campaigns, well not first but we strive for that while at the same time we organize donations to typical Dem candidates so they dont need Wall Street.

This isnt just about Hillary, you know, it is most dems and all cons.

If their money comes from US, they answer to US, if it comes from Wall Street, etc.

How about a national campaign of Democrats collecting money for the Dems who traditionally get their dough from WS...

Eventually it will work if we are revising financing law simultaneously.

Right?

Worth a try at least?

Any politician will answer to who funds them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randys1 (Reply #14)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 01:29 PM

16. Totally agree about public money for elections, disagree with the rest of your post

I support Sanders for a number of reasons, foremost among them is that he refuses the very money you want to get out of politics. If Hillary was worth her rhetoric, she would refuse corporate money for the primary, Bernie is, and it would be a fair fight. She doesn't need it for the primary, yet uses it anyway, because that's who she is and who she represents.

The DLC/Third Way was actually started by representatives of large corporate interest, not by Dems frustrated that they were losing. There have been a ton of great OP's on this site about it, some of them by MadFloridian or whatever her user name is. It was their way to move the whole spectrum and frame of debate away from populist interests. You seem pretty uninformed, frankly.

How are you working to change campaign finance laws? I like groups like RootStrikers, they are serious about it.

I also like, and have myself advocated for, the idea of setting up a mechanism for swapping public money for corporate money, allowing honest candidates to get their money the right way without unilaterally disarming. Sanders has co-sponsored legislation to do just that. So on that, you and I agree.

Another way to be comng up with a mechanism for stamping a candidate with some widely recognized certification, not black and white but showing degrees of corporate sponsorship, with the ability to drill down into it by donor/relevant issue, and make it socially uncool to vote for anyone accepting such money. It could effectively neutrailze campaign ad buys, since the ad buys would just feed into the negative certification and people would turn off to the candidate.

None of this would do a damn thing to get Wall St. out of Hillary's pockets. The best way to do that is to support Sanders. Rewriting the laws will take a long butter struggle if we ever are able to do it. So will the other things. Start now, with a candidate who actually lives what you say you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randys1 (Reply #4)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 01:11 PM

13. It would take a political revolution

Where millions of ordinary Americans stand up and say enough is enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azmom (Reply #13)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 01:14 PM

15. I am honestly up for that, BTW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randys1 (Reply #4)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 02:30 PM

18. Uhhhh. Get Wall Street out of her pockets? How about getting these political pros

from grabbing whatever is possible from the WS pockets?

I think the money ($$$) that is passing hands (and pockets and other places) is not real money anyway. It's not the type of stuff that is really reported to the FEC (does that still exist, have funding?)

Most of that $$$ is recirculated waste-water. Maybe comes from some small donors (more from some Owners), goes into the campaigns, advertising, consultants, MSM (owned), and back to to the eyeballs of the original donors. No value accumulated. No "job creators". Just bimbos and news flashes and stupid comments.

Oh, this comment is not paid for by any political campaign. My wife would actually like me to rake the leaves and stop kvetching.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randys1 (Reply #1)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 12:54 PM

6. Not exactly a resounding condemnation of it, is it? If someone can come up with a way to

maybe, raise it for SOME workers, and not include the more physical labor jobs, she would consider it.

NO! NO! Hillary. I am sure your Third Way Think Tank already has such a 'way'.

This question has only one answer from a Democrat: 'Are you crazy? I am a Democrat and under no circumstances would I consider this'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randys1 (Reply #1)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 12:54 PM

7. I'm not a laborer. She stated in plain english she would consider raising my retirement age.

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.


It's a very clear statement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randys1 (Reply #1)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 02:44 PM

21. No....

see how easy that is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Original post)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 12:39 PM

2. Like I said in another thread today

she's got her's so what does she care?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Faux pas (Reply #2)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 12:59 PM

10. Exactly.

That's how the Right of Center thinks. Everyone should work until they're 70+ years old. Then if the Establishment elites are lucky, the cat food eating retirees will DIE very soon after retirement so they can't collect EVERYTHING they've paid into the system since they were 18 fucking years old.

Bloody rat bastards. The whole lot of them. They belong in jail for the crimes committed against the people of this country. Some just keep falling for more of their same BULLSHIT. Actually. Voting for more of the same BULLSHIT - While knowing full well it's more if the same BULLSHIT!

STOCK UP ON CAT FOOD! Hillary doesn't want you to go hungry!

Oh, and just a little reminder! NO COLA INCREASE FOR YOU THIS YEAR to help you buy that cat food, but we have PLENTY OF FUCKING MONEY to send MORE TROOPS and equipment into SYRIA! See how this works?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Original post)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 12:49 PM

5. A smart woman which many believe she is.

She knows that what Bernie Sanders is stating is absolutely true. You take the damn cap off the rich and make them pay according to their wages just like everyone else. Why the hell do they rate a cap on their income. The constant smell sickens me.

Her quote above is exactly what it looks like. She is white washing it. She will hurt the middle class because she is in bed with the elite, corporate rulers. I wouldn't vote for her if you tried to pay me off, which is happening all through our government on a daily basis and if she is elected it will continue.

"But I have yet to find any recommendation that I would think would be suitable." Oh please!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bkkyosemite (Reply #5)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 12:56 PM

8. Yes, she's more or less ASKING her Think Tanks to come up with something she can support. And they

will.

The only acceptable answer to that question from a Democrat is a resounding 'NO WAY'.

More triangulation from Clinton!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #8)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 02:38 PM

19. +++ up the chain of comments.

Let's replace triangulation (only three data points) with:

Polymorphism!

I can be anything you want me to be!

Don't like my position on free-trade agreements? Well, I only supported them because my hubbie told me to, or because I was just a SecOfState (no ability to influence policy.)

Don't like how I voted on DOMA? Well, I had my fingers crossed and muttered incantations.

Don't like my vote for the War In Iraq (WTF is the GWOT)? I purposely joined the group of YES so I could undermine it much later (12 years when I wanted to be Madame Presidente.)

Hillary - The Transformer (tm)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erronis (Reply #19)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 02:48 PM

22. Lol, perfect description, 'transormer'!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Original post)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 12:57 PM

9. Makes sensible sense to me!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Original post)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 01:10 PM

12. "25 sure-ways to disguise the taste of cat-food, more or less"

 

Geez...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Original post)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 02:29 PM

17. I want my COLA back

Republicans and Third Way Democrats drank my COLA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Original post)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 02:43 PM

20. So, why doesn't she retire and illustrate how comfortable it can be.

 

Assuming she's not "dead broke" again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #20)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 06:12 PM

28. I'd like to hear her explain why she said that.

She's talking about the possibility of moving my retirement age from 67 to sometime further in the future. Usually 70 is the age cited now.

For the sake of discussion I'd like to hear from Hillary's supporters why this idea should be considered. Maybe they can explain why their candidate thinks cutting Social Security might be a good idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Original post)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 03:11 PM

23. She's NOT in favor of raising the retirement age. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #23)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 03:14 PM

24. But she would consider it even though she doesn't favor it.

Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #23)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 04:23 PM

25. Then what is she in favor of? This has been a known problem since before Reagan was President.

In fact Reagan came up with a "solution" to the problem which allowed him to lower taxes on the rich but then replace the lost revenue by stealing the extra Social Security money being collected. This increased the problem because now more money was owed to Social Security by the government. Funny how neither party mentions that very often isn't it?

How much more time do you think she needs to come up with a workable solution?

OK, let me help, I'll tell you what a President Hillary will, not has to, but will do about Social Security. The Republicans will come up with a plan that includes cuts in benefits and a higher retirement age, make threats, and Hillary will say they forced her to accept their plan because otherwise the consequences would be more devastating. Tried and tested by President Obama. Plain and simple, it's pretty much the standard formula these days.

On edit: Let me correct your statement.
She's NOT in favor of raising the retirement age. Period.

That should be:
She's NOT in favor of raising the retirement age. Today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #23)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 04:29 PM

26. She could have said that

Instead it's 'if' she could make sure labor could still retire early (there goes me) and she hadn't 'yet'
But no go with what you said, easier to lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Original post)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 04:33 PM

27. The easiest, fairest way to "fix" SS is to lift the cap on FICA taxes, as Sanders is proposing.

The only - and I mean, the ONLY - "reason" for not doing this is that the millionaire/billionaire class would never see an increase in their SS benefits that would equal the amount of $ they had paid into SS if there was no cap.

But that is a specious argument at best, because there are millions of Americans who pay into SS for their entire lives and end up DYING before they draw a cent in benefits. Last I looked, the money they paid into SS for decades doesn't get refunded to their heirs if they die. If simply stays in the fund to benefit everyone else.

And there are plenty of people who die soon after retiring, receiving SS benefits for only a short time.

How is it fair that 97% of Americans pay FICA taxes on 100% of their income, while anyone making over $1-million a year is paying FICA taxes on only the FIRST 10% (or less) of their income?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Original post)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 06:17 PM

29. She's planning to work until she's 77

in a desk job, though

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread