Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Had Clinton pushed hard for partial privitization of Social Security...

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: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
nickshepDEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-05 06:56 PM
Original message
Poll question: Had Clinton pushed hard for partial privitization of Social Security...
Edited on Thu Aug-25-05 06:56 PM by nickshepDEM
Would you have supported him?

Discuss please...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-05 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. Absolutely not
Social security is INSURANCE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-05 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Ditto that. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-05 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. NO, its is not a solution
It doesnt matter who suggests it, it still takes money away from the Soc Security fund and IS NOT A SOLUTION.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-05 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
4. No, but SS+ might have been a good thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickshepDEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-05 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. SS+?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-05 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Social Security Plus.
The version that appealed to me was the idea of issuing an investment bond to newborns that could be added to by contributions over time. This money would be invested in a stock fund and be available for education or a few limited purposes or left to build as a supplemental retirement fund. It would show young people the advantages of investment and compounding without upsetting Social Security. The initial investment would have been funded by the surplus instead of giving a tax break to the wealthy and would have guaranteed that money was invested in our economy. There were a few variations but the basic concept was both an investment in our economy and teaching young people the economic principals of investment and saving.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-05 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
5. What a ridiculous idea -- a bad idea is a bad idea, no matter whose
Edited on Thu Aug-25-05 07:40 PM by Eloriel
it is. Only REPUGS think everything should be based on partisanship alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-05 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
6. Definitively NO, the idea is bad, period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-05 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
7. No (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-05 08:31 PM
Response to Original message
10. Another Straw Man?
Clinton never would have supported it. Why bring it up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickshepDEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-05 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Just wondering if people oppose it soley because Bush proposed
Edited on Thu Aug-25-05 09:19 PM by nickshepDEM
the idea. Or if its an overall bad idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-05 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
12. I didn't support him when he acquiesed on Welfare Reform
and I would have more than "not supported him" (ala fought him) on any ss privatization scheme.

But why are we asking this - he never did - and never would have done so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andromeda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-05 09:18 PM
Response to Original message
13. No!
n/t
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 Thu Dec 26th 2024, 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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