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

[nickshepDEM]

Would you have supported him?

Discuss please...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Absolutely not

Social security is INSURANCE

[bemildred]

2. Ditto that. nt

[LSK]

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.

[dogman]

4. No, but SS+ might have been a good thing.

[nickshepDEM]

8. SS+?

[dogman]

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.

[Eloriel]

5. What a ridiculous idea -- a bad idea is a bad idea, no matter whose

it is. Only REPUGS think everything should be based on partisanship alone.

[Mass]

6. Definitively NO, the idea is bad, period.

[jpgray]

7. No (nt)

[OzarkDem]

10. Another Straw Man?

Clinton never would have supported it. Why bring it up?

[nickshepDEM]

11. Just wondering if people oppose it soley because Bush proposed

the idea. Or if its an overall bad idea.

[salin]

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.

[Andromeda]

13. No!

n/t