• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Clinton’s plans to gut Social Security

Schism

Destroyer of Propaganda
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
14,242
Reaction score
7,597
Location
Seattle, WA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What's scarier than Donald Trump? Hillary Clinton's plans to gut Social Security

The Democratic nominee recently came under fire in revealing articles by Naked Capitalism’s Yves Smith and International Business Times’ David Sirota, for her potential plans to introduce mandatory retirement savings accounts set up to enrich Wall Street — rather than expanding Social Security.

Under the new mandatory accounts, Americans would pay a 1.5 percent payroll tax to go directly into retirement accounts managed by Wall Street banks that would invest in private equity, hedge funds, and other investments that would come with hefty fees for fund managers, all courtesy of U.S. taxpayers. One of the biggest proponents of mandatory retirement savings accounts is Blackstone CEO Tony James — one of Hillary Clinton’s biggest campaign donors — who is a possible pick for Treasury Secretary in a Clinton administration.

In an email to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta leaked by WikiLeaks, James laid out the details of the retirement savings account proposal, while simultaneously making the case to dismantle Social Security.

“We do not believe the problem can be solved by making Social Security better funded and/or adding a higher minimum benefits for several reasons,” James wrote. “Social Security was designed as a safety net for those facing poverty in old age. It was never meant to be a vehicle to guarantee a middle class retirement,” he continued.

However, according to the Social Security administration’s website, Social Security was designed to “assure workers that their years of employment entitled them to a life income.”

Hillary Rodham - Liberal, Progressive :lol:
 
Misleading. The title should say "potential plans" as it says in the article.

.
 
Last edited:
Misleading. The title should say "potential plans" as it says in the article.

LOL. you mean like, once a focus group of Wall Street executives gives it the thumbs up?
 
LOL. you mean like, once a focus group of Wall Street executives gives it the thumbs up?

Does Clinton have any official position to dismantle Social Security or any WikiLeaks emails where it explicitly states that is her plan?

No, this appears to be conjecture based off an email for someone advocating these ideas, not an actual plan or position.

You are presenting it as if it is a plan, which is propaganda at best and dishonest at worst.
 
Yeah, no. Not buying it.

Too many older voters from both sides would march on DC.
 
That is ok. I don't collect social security, Never will. :mrgreen:
 
Yeah, no. Not buying it.

Too many older voters from both sides would march on DC.
The majoroty of Americans did want ACA but they passed it anyway with the assurance that we would like it. I see no reason they might not try the same tactic again since it already worked once

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Yeah, no. Not buying it.

Too many older voters from both sides would march on DC.
A Democrat President and a GOP Congress. We've pretty clearly established that most voters are tribalists, and prefer not to think for themselves.

Furthermore, you can do this without cutting benefits for low income seniors, and by slowing the growth on benefits for the upper half.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
A Democrat President and a GOP Congress. We've pretty clearly established that most voters are tribalists, and prefer not to think for themselves.

Furthermore, you can do this without cutting benefits for low income seniors, and by slowing the growth on benefits for the upper half.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

Sure, just like you can keep your doctor.
 


I am not a Clinton fan, but the quote "While Hillary Clinton has spent the presidential campaign saying as little as possible about her ties to Wall Street, the executive who some observers say could be her Treasury Secretary has been openly promoting a plan to give financial firms control of hundreds of billions of dollars in retirement savings." crosses the line of reality and absurdity. It isn't even Hillary's plan. It is a person who she might nominate as a Secretary Treasury. The writer then lablels them " the hedge fund and private equity industries". There is no retirement plan that will benefit hedge fund operator.

She has no plans. She will let the system erode just as the past presidents have.
 
Not a chance in hell this would get through congress.
 
Wow and I thought that is pretty much what Republicans have been pushing for years, strange...............
It's a common position among those who are A) not invested in riding the system all the way down and B) can do basic math.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom