2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSay It Ain't So, Hillary Clinton - You're Open to the Idea of Raising the Retirement Age?
Say It Ain't So, Hillary Clinton - You're Open to the Idea of Raising the Retirement Age?Zaid Jilani
Alternet
Question: You mentioned something very interesting: enhancing Social Security. So can you tell us how you might strengthen Social Security?
Clinton: Yes, you know, I think there are three parts to what we have to do with Social Security, and the first is we really have to defend Social Security from the continuing efforts by some to privatize it, which I have been studying and opposing for a long time because the numbers just dont work out. And in the Bush administration when I was in the Senate I was one of the leaders in the fight against the plan to privatize and it is something that I, number one, will focus on: we are not going to privatize Social Security.
Secondly, I am concerned about those people on Social Security who are most vulnerable in terms of what their monthly payout is. That is primarily divorced, widowed, single women who either never worked themselves or worked only a little, so they have either just their own earnings to depend on or they had a spouse who also was a low-wage worker, and the first and most important task I think is to make sure that we get the monthly payment for the poorest Social Security recipients up. So that would be the first thing I would look at.
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 dont 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 thats something we should look at how we do it, because I dont want it to be an extra burden on middle-class families and in some parts of the country, theres 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.
To be clear, Clinton is not outright endorsing a clear hike in the retirement age like many of the Republicans are. But while she also seems to be open to raising the tax cap, she is not giving a figure or specific plan yet, and is making the suggestion that raising payroll taxes on families that earn over $100,000 would be an extra burden to those people, when actually the increase would be fairly modest.
Opening the door to any hike in the retirement age or offering opposition to simply eliminating the tax cap would put her out of step with most Americans on this issue, according to polls.
Related:
A Trojan Horse In Clintons Pledge To Enhance Social Security?
Why It's Misleading to Swear to Protect the Poor's Social-Security Benefits
Seems like "The Third Way" is another way to describe what is popular among Democratic Party voters.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)But I don't expect anything else.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Zaid is a Bernie fan so I expect nothing less than distortion.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)throwing **** against the wall to see if anything sticks.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)Apparently it's opposite day on DU.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If she's not in favor of it, why would she consider it?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Too many anti-Clinton posts in the Latest Threads this morning. I hope they're getting well paid for their efforts.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)She clearly used ALL of the words necessary to support the OP's interpretation, doing so in the correct order and arrangement, as I demonstrate below.
She said ...
I've kept the original word order, and simply removed all the words Hillary really did not mean to say.
Its easy!!!! You just need a piece of construction paper that only shows some of the words and hides the others.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Not surprising, though.
"I would not favor raising the retirement age. And I dont 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. "
I put key phrases in bold, because it seems you don't understand the words.
Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #3)
Post removed
azmom
(5,208 posts)She would do it. Correct?
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)would you be opposed to it?
Here's a hint: there's nothing that's going to fulfill those requirements, which is WHY she stated those requirements.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Why even talk about something that has no possibility at all?
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Some people like to EXPLAIN their positions. I prefer a politician who actually discusses WHY they feel the way they do. Easily digestible soundbites are for the plebeians.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Isn't that just an attempt at giving the illusion of "I'm negotiable on this subject" when she isn't?
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)If you can't see it, I can't help you.
seaglass
(8,171 posts)wrong with that?
This OP is shameful.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Let them make proposal after proposal.
Then shoot it down.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Let those idiots keep reminding people that they want to destroy SS.
azmom
(5,208 posts)You think they would stop trying to destroy it?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Your desire to support your candidate does not actually change what she said.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)IF is the operative word.
The criteria has not been met.
I will buy a large house IF I win the lottery.
You would admit you were wrong IF you were intellectually honest.
dsc
(52,162 posts)portlander23
(2,078 posts)Instead of dancing around one.
dsc
(52,162 posts)azmom
(5,208 posts)If this happened.....
It needs to be looked at.....
We need a review.....
Armstead
(47,803 posts)In typical Clintonian doublespeak, she leaves all options on the table and takes no position whatsoever.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Her position is she has not yet seen a proposal to raise the age that she likes. Not that she is opposed to raising the age, period.
LiberalArkie
(15,715 posts)will she veto it or sign it. She could still say that she opposes the bill, but I am signing it because this bill also eliminates that dreaded capital gains tax. Or what ever it is attached to.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)her positions. Fact is, people in general are living far longer and some are staying healthier far longer. IMO, delaying the age when we start drawing SS for another 20-35 years and more, for those who are perfectly able to work, is an option that should be considered along with all the others. Including shaking down the billionaire class until it no longer exists.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Be joking?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Half of all Americans alive at 65 can expect to live to 85, especially women. The 85-and-over age group is the fastest growing one in America, expected to more than triple over the next couple of decades. Further, although America's average life span is significantly lower than other advanced nations, many have lived healthier lives deliberately or inadvertently avoiding what are causing experts to scratch their heads over this and will live longer than current data suggest.
We also (related to above but not entirely explaining it) are in the middle of massive epidemics of obesity, diabetes, kidney failure, vascular disease, and dementia; also lung disease and heart disease. People have been starting to live healthier for some time, but the costs of care for those epidemic illnesses will be enormous before they start declining to healthier levels.
The miracles of modern medicine assure that not nearly enough of them will die early enough to avoid running bills and to offset the costs of the healthy ones who live long. Quite the contrary! Most of those people, of course, will not be able to work on, those who actually are able to work at all at 65, and somehow the money has to come from somewhere.
Not at all impossible, but nothing's free. And should it be for those gifted with an extra 15 to 35 years over what the less fortunate will have had?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Nor even asking the well off to pay a little more.
Payment should be progressive. Payback should be consistent for everyone. Period.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)That would mean no Social Security until 102.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Ridiculous conclusion. No one said any age raise, but it would probably be anywhere from 1 to 3 years -- if at all. It's just speculation about an option to be considered.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)To quote you:
We start drawing Social Security at 67 now. What's 67+35?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)I'm sorry I presented such a heavy challenge, but I would expect readers to say, hmmm, she couldn't have meant THAT -- Oh! Gotcha! She meant when we START drawing SS for the rest of our lives.
We're long-lived in my family, btw; three of us lived over 100 in the past decade. You don't really want to support me for 40 years, do you, the first 15 of which I cautiously but reasonably expect to spend traveling, gardening, doing fun volunteer work with my friends?
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Ridiculous conclusion. No one said any age raise, but it would probably be anywhere from 1 to 3 years.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)"She offered an honest and organized summary of our options and
her positions. Fact is, people in general are living far longer and some are staying healthier far longer. IMO, delaying the age when we start drawing SS for another 20-35 years and more, for those who are perfectly able to work, is an option that should be considered along with all the others. Including shaking down the billionaire class until it no longer exists."
I have to ask what else could you conceivably being attempting to express?
If you meant something entirely else then consider recalibration of your writing to be a clearer representation of your intent for others to digest.
WDIM
(1,662 posts)More proof Hillary is a right winger. Wolf on sheeps clothing. And is being blindly followed out of a false idoletry.
mythology
(9,527 posts)You can't have increased life expectancy and cut the number of years people pay into the system and have that balance out just on raising the cap.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Because eliminating the cap raises that much more money.
WDIM
(1,662 posts)We have people making millions per year. Completely removing a cap from SSI would be more than enough to allow people to retire at 60 and support the disabled.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)She is open to all possibilities, she has preferences but she will explore all options and study it, and look at possible exceptins or extenuating crcumstances..........
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Robbins
(5,066 posts)trying to sound like she supports SS but giving code words to top 1% that shows i am really with you.
more and more reasons why I would never vote for her.
mythology
(9,527 posts)If you are going to misstate what somebody says, at least don't paste the part where they say the exact opposite of what you're claiming. At least then people have to click the link to see that you are misstating things.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Or did you not actually read all of her statement?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)her "detractors" have succumbed to cherry picking what she actually said and twisting her words.
For some strange reason, they're posting as many anti-Clinton posts as they can this morning. I actually thought I'd logged on to the Freeper site for a moment.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You op is what the spreading of a lie and propaganda looks like.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Keep acting as if these attacks are coming from the left. Good on you.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)She said she's waiting to hear the "right" proposal for raising the retirement age.
Yes, I know, if you stop at the first sentence of the paragraph, she says the opposite. That might be kinda what people are talking about when they accuse her of having no firm positions.
seaglass
(8,171 posts)This is the sentence:
"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."
Not this:
I would consider it.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Again, her objection is not that raising the retirement age is wrong. It's that she has not seen a "good enough" proposal for it.
seaglass
(8,171 posts)her sentence:
laborers and factory workers and long-distance truck drivers and people who really are ready for retirement at a much earlier age
The only ones I can figure out who are left are those who don't want to retire.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)I have a desk job - I write computer software. It isn't physically intensive. I could probably physically do it for a very, very long time.
That doesn't mean I want to do it for a very, very long time.
I can pretty much guarantee I'm going to be on the losing side of any "only raise retirement age for some people" proposal.
Also, raising it for some people but not others is a fantastic step for dismantling the entire program. Make it "unfair" to enough people, and the program will lose support, allowing more cuts and "unfair" parts, allowing more and more cuts until it can be killed.
Social Security can not be destroyed head-on. It can only be broken piece-by-piece. Different retirement ages is a piece.
seaglass
(8,171 posts)"people who really are ready for retirement at a much earlier age."
There is nothing wrong with me physically or mentally but I am ready, so why would that not include me?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If we're going to say some people can retire earlier and some people can't, we have to define that "can't" group.
What Clinton describes as defining that "can't" group as people who are still physically able to do their jobs.
Social Security already has incentives for retiring later - you get lots more money per month. So someone who doesn't feel like signing up already won't sign up.
But if we're going to make Social Security not available for some people until later, that will need a hard rule on who has to wait.
seaglass
(8,171 posts)is pointless.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)But you are free to take your ball and go home.
seaglass
(8,171 posts)assume and just plain make shit up but it is no longer interesting to me. Am I required to make a certain number of replies before I can depart the conversation?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)seaglass
(8,171 posts)portlander23
(2,078 posts)Wherein she both said she was against it and open to it.
Nitram
(22,801 posts)"...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."
Nice misleading title you got there, dude.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Nitram
(22,801 posts)She clearly stated her intentions. You are distorting the meaning of the entire exchange. I do appreciate that you included the whole context in your post. I consider your title misleading.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)That's quite a bit different from "she opposes raising the retirement age", don'tcha think?
Also, not my title. I'm not the OP.
Nitram
(22,801 posts)But please don't put words in Clinton's mouth. She didn't say, "she's waiting for a proposal to raise the retirement age" or anything similar. She was quite clear that she is against raising the retirement age. Period.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)She literally says she would consider proposals to raise the retirement age, but has yet to see one that she likes.
That is not "against raising the retirement age. Period."
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Godhumor
(6,437 posts)Last edited Fri Oct 30, 2015, 12:18 PM - Edit history (1)
She gave her answer on raising the age (No, in case you missed it) and then explained why she is against it. She says right there that someone who works like her might be planning on working later in life, but that for a large chunk of workers, retirement is needed at the current age.
There is no plan to change the retirement age that accounts for those who need to retire due to the work they perform, so she does not support raising the age of retirement for Social Security.
Amazing that providing an explanation for her thoughts is used to ignore what she actually said.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Broward
(1,976 posts)Response to portlander23 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Broward
(1,976 posts)Faux pas
(14,681 posts)she's got her's. I can't believe how dug in her supporters are. They must not be 'listening'.
wilsonbooks
(972 posts)portlander23
(2,078 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)it is. These issues are much more complicated than her detractors will admit. Hillary takes the time to explain the issue fully. She has studied the issues and has developed an understanding of the complexities and tries to pass that on to us.
Bernie on the other hand and his supporters are satisfied with one or two word talking points without any real investigation of what the outcomes will be.
Raise the cap, Medicare for all, break up the banks, free college education, raise taxes. All nice sounding words but what does it take and what will the out comes be for everyone involved? Crickets!
So if Hillary doesn't mimic their sound bites she is an evil,corporate, Wall Street loving third way sellout to the middle class.
It doesn't take much work to say hooray for a sound bite.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Nuance isn't allowed. Black and white thinking only!
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Either that or his visual system is impaired such that his brain is unable to see every word in a quote, and as a result ... when he looks at this quote ...
.... he sees it like this ...
The author should go get a CAT scan.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaid_Jilani
He's not mentally impaired, and he's done a lot of great reporting.
You know, it's ok to just say you disagree with someone.
riversedge
(70,218 posts)"I would not favor raising the retirement age." HRC
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Perhaps you AND the author of the article should take a reading comprehension class.
The author of that article totally misrepresented what she actually said.
That's poor Journalism.
As a result, I do not care what his background is or what his credentials are.
brooklynite
(94,571 posts)riversedge
(70,218 posts)story that is published. Do the right thing.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)Last edited Fri Oct 30, 2015, 03:40 PM - Edit history (1)
Point 1, the title of the linked article:
Exactly the title I've used.
Point 2, Zaid Jilani's analysis:
Point 3, The part of the quote from which the conclusion was drawn:
Is left in full context, and leads to the analysis in point #2.
What is the problem? Disagree with Zaid Jilani's analysis, but there's nothing misleading in the article or what I've posted.
Also, please refute thiis with Mrs. Clinton's policy positions. As far as I've been able to find, she's been fairly consistent in being against outright privatization, but she seems flexible on the cap (and whom would be affected by raising the cap), suggesting means testing, and she has definitely not come out in support of increasing benefits as Sanders and O'Malley have.
Hillary Clinton on Social Security
Source: Megan R. Wilson in TheHill.com weblog, "Clinton vs. Warren" , Aug 24, 2014
No lifting cap on payroll tax; that taxes middle class
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary , Apr 16, 2008
Bipartisan commission, like in 1983, to address crisis
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary, Apr 16, 2008
FactCheck: No, teachers & police won't pay if cap over $102K
Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate , Apr 16, 2008
etc.
I've looked, and I can't find any clear statements of her policy in 2015. Please post them if you can.
We're not going to skip debate just because the conversation makes you uncomfortable.
riversedge
(70,218 posts)Enjoy our delusion.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Last edited Fri Oct 30, 2015, 04:28 PM - Edit history (1)
... so that others can mock it for the silliness that it is.
riversedge
(70,218 posts)Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)extremely war mongers and would not be in office without the support of the most famous and wealthy libertarians.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)and their gender.
But I'm supposed to be all reassured because she claims she's against privatizing Social Security?
I don't see how her proposals are much better. And her prevaricating on the cap is just total disingenuousness.
SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)She's open to the idea?
What she really means: I'll put it on the back burner and make it the next president's problem.
Want the truth? http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017305337