2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumClinton's direct quote: I would NOT favor raising retirement age"
"I would not favor raising the retirement age"
She goes on to say she favors raising the cap.
So why are there now THREE threads in this forum blatantly lying about what Clinton said?
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)But I'm open to it. See how that works? It's the politician's way of leaving options open.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)See how that works?
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)I'm going to assume you are interested in a discussion. I hope I'm not being too charitable. My point is quite real. Clinton says she's not in favor or raising the retirement age. She also says she's open to it. This is what politicians do. They state their support or opposition in ways that allows them to go either way later on. They don't like to be pined down until they're sure they're safe in moving one way or the other. They don't lead. They follow. If you think Hillary Clinton is any different than other politicians, you are incorrect. Support her, admire her, worship her, or whatever you feel appropriate. But do not forget she is a politician.
artislife
(9,497 posts)jkbRN
(850 posts)That's quite sad from the person that responded to your comment in the first place. I guess it's to be expected.
I wish people would understand the use of language, and especially how lawyers use it to their advantage--my brother does it all the time.
"I would not favor raising the retirement age" does not equal "I will not raise the retirement age".
Fucking der.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)by pathetic speculative sightings of words unspoken.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Try again next time. We'll still be PAYING ATTENTION.
leftyladyfrommo
(18,874 posts)And not just about Clinton but also about Obama.
Makes me wonder who's really behind it all.
MineralMan
(146,350 posts)Too bad. What will they do when she is inaugurated in 2017? I shudder at the thought.
But, we have a taste of it. Attacks here on Barack Obama began apace the day after the inauguration, and never stopped. Maybe I should go look at who was making those attacks in 2009. I wonder if there's a connection...
leftyladyfrommo
(18,874 posts)There was a thread about how he was going to cut Medicare and blah,blah, blah. And none of it was true. It was just totally inflammatory.
You can't believe anything here until you fact check it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That made me laugh.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Obama was likened to a segment of excrement who was also a purveyor of vintage automobiles....!
He knew how to brush it off.
She does, too!
Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)
We're all democrats here, hence why we joined this site, Democratic Underground or DU for short. Are we just supposed to stay silent or heap praise on politicians just because they have a D next to their name but never criticize or question their motives? If that's what this site is about, never to criticize and question our politicians, then I'll quit and go seek another site where I'm allowed to express my feelings, question and/or criticize the politician with a D next to their name.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)These posts made me wonder if she changed her mind! SHE HAS NOT!
Thanks Kitty!
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I just read one where they said they won't vote for Hillary in the General because of the offensiveness of her supporters. I must have missed where a Hillary supporter accused the LGBQT community and POC of suffering from Stockholm Syndrome simply because they support a progressive.
MineralMan
(146,350 posts)Since a President cannot really do either of those things without Congress passing a bill, it's all theoretical anyhow. No President can actually say, "This is what I will do about Social Security." There's really not much a President can do. It's up to us, really.
If we elect people to both houses of Congress and get Democratic majorities, then it actually becomes an issue. I wouldn't predict that outcome in 2016, though. We might get a slim majority back in the Senate, but I see no chance of a House majority. I do think we'll pick up some seats, though.
ismnotwasm
(42,023 posts)lovemydog
(11,833 posts)That's where we keep up the pressure, regardless of who we support in the presidential primary and who wins in the general election.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)instead of stopping at the first sentence.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)not just the 'hook'
SunSeeker
(51,796 posts)in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)Cherry picking sucks.
MineralMan
(146,350 posts)Last edited Fri Oct 30, 2015, 02:56 PM - Edit history (1)
So, it won't happen. Besides, Presidents can't cut Social Security in the first place or remove the cap.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Make it so that people who have not-physically demanding jobs have to retire 4 years later.
Ta-da!
Hrm...if only they had some sort of influence on members of the branch that can do that. Or if there were these people called "voters" who might listen to what a president says.
Oh well!
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....disprove that point by quoting the entire comment.
(of course I'm being sarcastic by telling you to get real!)
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Like make things up about their opponent.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)From:
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/say-it-aint-so-hillary-clinton-youre-open-idea-raising-retirement-age
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Hillary maybe uses too many words to explain her positions.
She is after all speaking to supposedly intelligent people who would understand her meaning.
Of course her real meaning does not fit the narrative some people have prepared for her so they take her words out of context to make their case.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Sure circumstances might change -- but bottom line is people deserve to know whether a candidate stands here or there on an issue.
No, I will refuse to raise the retirement age becaue Social Security is a sacred trust we have to honor
or
Yes. We will probably have to raise it to ensure the long term viability of the system.
Pretty straightforward.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Sorry, but it suggests to me like she may still be looking for a way to raise ret. age, so
once she DOES find a way .. then waa-laa .. she can still support it, due to "new information" ..
and when she does, it wouldn't exactly be a lie, now would it?
That's how weasel wording works. She was an attorney, after all, before she became
a politician.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Talking about the entire quote isn't lying.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)If you can figure what ultimately that means beyond "maybe, maybe not" please let me know:
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.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)" 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."
Raising the cap because some people are in a different level of middle class...come on....the majority of people make less than $50,000 per year. She is white washing it. That different level that defines middle class is her interpretation of what that middle class is. Her statements are not sincere in my opinion. Wordy and trying to dance around the issue.
We have to consider that too. Do we want a person who speaks truth (Bernie Sanders) or one that uses many words with really no commit to anything.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)In the exact same paragraph you quote, Clinton says she is open to raising the retirement age, but has not seen any proposals she likes.
Broward
(1,976 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Those are your words.
She laid out conditions which would never happen so therefore she says she doesn't see any an that meet those conditions.
In short hand she doesn't favor razing the retirement age.
She doesn't just say something that fits a sound bite she explains her case
But that opens her up to her detractors who take her words out of context.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Boy, that is totally and utterly different!!!
Here's the two relevant sentences:
Feel free to explain how "I would consider it" means "I would never consider it", as you claim.
Workers with jobs that are not physically demanding have to wait an additional 2 years.
Ta-da! I just met her conditions.
Response to jeff47 (Reply #26)
upaloopa This message was self-deleted by its author.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)It would "hurt" Hillary's RICH friends ONLY,
and they wouldn't even notice it.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)"No...I....,don't....support...raising....the...retirement.....age."
"I believe Social Security is a sacred trust that is available to everyone, and that everyone should have the ability to retire at the age we have long agreed on."
OR if you choose:
"Yes. people are living longer and they are healthier at 65 than they used to be, and many are working longer. So I believe it's important to raise the age to protect the long trm viability of Social Security."
Take your pick. Either one lets people know what they're getting if they vote for her.
riversedge
(70,441 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Here's the whole paragraph.
Please point to where she is talking about the cap, and not retirement age...you know, the thing she explicitly said, and then continued to allude to it being difficult for older people to do certain jobs.
Why do you think we don't actually have the entire paragraph?
George II
(67,782 posts)"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."
Glad we're on the same side.
riversedge
(70,441 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)I know, it's tricky, but I'm confident you can.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)I mean, if you want the FULL context and quotation.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Where did she say she FAVORS raising the cap?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)You have to go alllllll the way to the end of the paragraph to read the part where she's open to raising the retirement age.
mcar
(42,465 posts)The others should delete their OPs.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I thought her strength is that she's Ready to Go on Day One, and is ultra prepared and has everything in order.
Then why the hell on most issues of importance are her favorite phrases: "I will have to consider that"...."We have to study that more"....."That is certainly a topic we as a nation have to consider..."
Most o these issues are NOT NEW. These are not some sudden crisis that recently emerged.
One would think, with all of her experience, and preparation, etc. that she would have made up her mind on SOMETHING, anything.
riversedge
(70,441 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)If she said an unequivacal NO, without any qualifiers, then that's good. If so, I'm glad she took a stand...finally.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Taking a firm, unambiguous STAND on anything?
Never happen.
She has learned too well from the Master.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)over and over, the hair on fire, find anything to complain about, jumping to all sorts of erroneous conclusions are always posted and the same crowd reccing the hell out of the post. At some point you'd think they'd be tired from all the jumping to conclusions...but no, apparently shame has no place in reality base conversations.
All of the issues just like raising the retirement age, reducing benefits, cutting benefits...non of it ever eventuated, but it didn't stop the falsehoods from being perpetuated. I got pretty sick of hearing about it all for 8 years, I can see the primers are already in place for another 4. Some people just dont want to learn.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I suspect, for example, if people didn't have their hair on fire, awful new Internet deregulation and Media Mergers would have sailed through quietly with nary a peep -- until people started feeling the affects after it was too late.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)The Obama Admn. sent up Trial Balloons early in his administration,
and they didn't do well. Americans with their hair on fire shot them down,
while the placid majority remained in their recliners.
If cutting YOUR Social Security and giving it to Wall Street does NOT light your hair on fire,
you aren't paying attention.
riversedge
(70,441 posts)read the story it contradicted the headline!!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)riversedge
(70,441 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)The best summary being the last sentence-and-a bit.
Now, please explain how "this would be something that I would look at" and "I would consider it" means "I would never do it", oh master of reading comprehension.
riversedge
(70,441 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)you can pretend she favors raising the retirement age.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Here's all three paragraphs.
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.
The paragraph before is about her proposal to add a means-tested "bonus" to Social Security, so the poor get more money. (Btw, this will be fantastic ammunition for those seeking to end all of Social Security)
The paragraph after is about lifting the cap.
Only the paragraph in the middle talks about raising the retirement age.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Those were her words, also.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)like not liking the tpp "as it is now".. gives them an out to change their mind.
and we know what a fan clinton is of changing her mind
C Moon
(12,226 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)She said that she wants to "look at" raising the cap, and after she said that she listed some of the pitfalls that certain ways of raising the cap might have. That is a bit different from her saying that "she favors raising the cap." It does suggest that she is very open to proposals to raise the cap, but it leaves her plenty of room to reject any such proposal.
You also omit the qualifications to her claim that she would not favor raising the retirement age, qualifications that give her some room to accept the right proposal for raising the retirement age. She does suggest, though, that she would not support proposals to raise the retirement age for everyone. It's hard to imagine a system where the retirement age depends on the nature of one's employment, but maybe such a system is possible.
Basically, I understand her to be indicating her general inclinations without closing off too many options. Why she doesn't want to promise to veto any bill that would raise the retirement age, and why she doesn't want to promise to fight for raising the cap, is arguable. It may be that she is just unsure what the best approach is, or maybe she wants to leave herself some wiggle room to move to the center for the general election. It is hard to say.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)We already have official "job codes" on various government forms. Declare some of those "physically active", and others "not physically active". If your job is "not physically active", then you have to wait 2 years.
What is hard to imagine about that?
fbc
(1,668 posts)For someone as slavishly devoted to the billionaire class as Hillary Clinton to come out so strongly against an idea favored by Republicans and The Third Way... wow, maybe she is starting to get it.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Do you think her statement is any kind of clear unequivocal opposition to raising retirement age?
Please consider this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=745824
frylock
(34,825 posts)Rather than "I DO not favor raising retirement age." Lots of wiggle room there. As with Obama, learn to read between the lines.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)As she has on so many other issues?
I don't know if I can trust her, her opinions have changed so many times.
George II
(67,782 posts)iandhr
(6,852 posts)Any positive facts towards the President and the former Secretary of State are not welcome here.
Today good news about the ACA could break. Tomorrow the top rated thread will be POTUS is a sellout because it not single payer.
But if you post something factual about Bernie's record your post gets hidden 7-0
frylock
(34,825 posts)to form an opinion. Why can't we just take her word at it and hope she doesn't "evolve" on the issue?
David__77
(23,624 posts)And so I ask: what is the condition? If she said "I DO not..." that would occur to me as a different statement, and it is, indeed, a different statement.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Because as her lead in the polls grows her opponents, on both sides of the aisle, will become more vitriolic and untethered from reality in their attacks.
stonecutter357
(12,698 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)It's actually amusing ...
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... Hilary wins the primary, it should get very interesting around here. Bernie, Warren and everyone else will get behind her, and these folks will be even more disgruntled than usual.
Might need to set up a hot line.
Gman
(24,780 posts)Red meat eating, meat eating, cow murdering Round Up loving corporatist or something like that. If I got it right. And Sanders isn't so it can't be true.
I think that's how it goes.
I probably left some stuff out.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...would be too tough on some individuals with income over $118,500 (the current cap).
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.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)reliant on assumption.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)I can only imagine a Republican saying this and getting completely torn apart. But hey, maybe your logic is all based on assumptions.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)My reply was not a response to an individual politician. Of course Bernie has talked out his ass, notice how said "Politicians". I cannot find any cases of it, but he is human and not all perfect.
Facts however do not equal assumptions.
Have a nice day.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)Facts please.
quickesst
(6,283 posts)...it looks good to them. Fanning the flames of a fire that turns out to be nothing more than a video slipped into a DVD player. Looks hot, but in reality, cold to the touch, and not real.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)This thread happens to have several Clinton supporters deconstructing her statement to "prove" she is categorically opposed to raising the SS retirement age. We find similar stuff explaining how Bernie Sanders is really strong on gun control because he got a D-minus from the NRA. People, people, people. Our candidates are politicians. Some of their baggage incudes contradictions, reversals, waffling, intentionally vague commitments, and so on. They're just trying to keep their options open. In some cases, they haven't decided yet, and don't want to commit right now, because issues are not simplistic. Our candidates are Democrats, and Democrats like to think about things, not make blunt pronouncements like Republicans do.
Opponents and supporters alike should realize candidate statements on the issues will sometimes not be all we wish they were. Maybe we should relax and wait to see what happens.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... you all you need to know about Hillary and Social Security.