nickshepDEM
(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...
|
nothingshocksmeanymore
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-25-05 06:57 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Social security is INSURANCE
|
bemildred
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-25-05 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
LSK
(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.
|
dogman
(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. |
nickshepDEM
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-25-05 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
dogman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-25-05 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
|
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
(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.
|
Mass
(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. |
jpgray
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-25-05 07:10 PM
Response to Original message |
OzarkDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-25-05 08:31 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Clinton never would have supported it. Why bring it up?
|
nickshepDEM
(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.
|
salin
(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.
|
Andromeda
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-25-05 09:18 PM
Response to Original message |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 28th 2024, 08:17 AM
Response to Original message |