Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

RNC talking point:...... But Clinton supported privatization of Soc Sec

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
yankeedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-05 04:06 PM
Original message
RNC talking point:...... But Clinton supported privatization of Soc Sec
I've been hearing this one all week.

I had a wingnut hit me with this talking point. Since this wingnut was not worth wasting facts on, I just said "So you're saying that Clinton was right and his plan was a good one?" He found something else to do real quick.

The difference between Clinton's plans and the Cons? Clinton's plan would have invested some of the SS surplus in equities, along with the standard investment in Treasuries.

Clinton's plan wouldn't have cost $10 trillion (that's the real number, folks) in transition costs.

Clinton's plan wouldn't have resulted in benefit cuts to those who "opt out" or fail to make good investments.

Clinton's plan wouldn't have diverted funds to Wall Street.

Clinton's plan would have spent some of the surplus (remember the surplus) to shore up Social Security.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Sandpiper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-05 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. Clinton was also running a budget surplus
And hadn't bankrupted the treasury with unneccessary wars and tax cuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-05 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
2. Oh, it's "blame Big Dog" again
I am so sick of the Repugs CONSTANTLY blaming BC or bringing up his "support" of certain programs to innoculate themselves. The world has changed DRASTICALLY since Clinton endorsed anything along the lines of *'s proposal -- no more surplus, corporate scandals, war expenses ... It's ludicrous to try and say what MIGHT have been attractive 5-6 years ago would still be supported today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-05 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
3. Absolute Complete Bullshit
The Social Security trust fund holds government bonds. Clinton explored changing that to a mix of bonds and stocks.

It had NOTHING to do with private accounts or diverting money from the system. Unless I missed something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UdoKier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-05 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. Clinton supported a lot of right-wing policies including the IWR.
Just because a very conservative, albeit charismatic and brilliant democrat supports something doesn't mean liberals who believe in a very different philosophy should have to line up behind him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stirk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-05 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
5. Since when did the right start idolizing Clinton?
I never understand this argument.

"Well, Clinton did it!"

"But you despised Clinton."

"Damn right!"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-05 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
6. I thought he supported a limited amount of privitazation in
addition to, not instead of Social Security, which is what the Republicans are pushing for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
d_b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-05 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
7. Well shit.
If that's the case, let 'em have it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-05 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
8. They were going to use the surplus. Now there is no surplus.
We are in deficit. They were going to do them in addition to, supposedly.

I happen to even disagree on that, but it are not feasible now in a defict.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC