Home | About | Donate

A Trojan Horse In Clinton's Pledge To "Enhance" Social Security?


A Trojan Horse In Clinton's Pledge To "Enhance" Social Security?

Isaiah Poole

Unless you listened carefully, you might have missed the expanse of daylight between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders when asked about their plans for Social Security at the CNN Democratic debate Tuesday.

It’s a gap that is alarming people who are fighting to protect and strengthen Social Security – just as the program is getting renewed attention because of today’s expected announcement that Social Security recipients won’t be receiving a cost-of-living adjustment in their checks in 2016.


What qualifies into the calculus of the "cost of living allowance" likely doesn't take food prices into account, either. Although I don't eat meat, I occasionally peruse the meat case in pursuit of bones for my dogs. That's how I notice the prices. Lamb is $21.99 a pound and many steaks are $11.99 a pound and upwards. For families who eat meat, they must spend a fortune. However, as "Zen Practice" so frequently points out, this meat eating may come to a halt (or financially induced slow-down) due TO these prices.

Heck, 6 eggs now cost me close to $2.00 and fruit costs were quite high this past summer.

Gas is low. Where I live, the water company just instituted a cost increment. The paper may say something like .01 increment per gallon, but until the customer sees the bill, they can't envision the cost increment.

I also get a bulletin in the mail and I was SHOCKED to see Ford truck prices at $50,000. That's more costly than many of the HOMES in my area.

The Republicans sure are courting Paul Ryan. He's the only one who can attack the poor with a straight face and tie his Scrooge-like sinister policies to notions of freedom and such. This guy is a CURSE to humanity.


When Bernie let her get away with that answer during the debate he was again being way too nice. Ryan as Speaker of the House and Hillary in the White House is a disaster waiting to happen.


Clinton's behind-the-scenes supporters (major funders/campaign donors) would like nothing better than to get their slimy paws on social security funds so they can drain the accounts and privatize the system thus creating HUGE profits from exorbitant fees they would charge for ANY account activity (not unlike JPM Chase, Wells Fargo, or BofA currently do); make anyone seeking disability go through months/years of "processing/vetting" until they send out the notice years later that their application has been declined (by that time the applicant might well be six feet under); reduce any and all payments to pennies on the dollar and otherwise make huge profits for themselves and squeeze blood out of the SS recipients (disabled, children of deceased, elder retirees, e.g.). And that is probably why she couched her reply in obfuscation and gave out just enough to not seem to be a proponent of privatization...in whole or part. I smell a rat.


Why is there no button on this page to make a comment? The existing comments have buttons for replying, but there's no way to make an original comment.

Anyway, I want to know why nobody - not even Sanders as far as I know - is talking about making the government return to Social Security all the money Bush "borrowed" from it to pay for his damned wars? Social Security would be fine if that hadn't happened. That was OUR money, put into Social Security so we could "withdraw" it after retirement. How could it have been legal for him to take that money for ANY other purpose at all??


Clinton, like Obama is a Trojan horse for the banks and the national security state. The bottom line is that if you want to get Social Security, vote for Sanders. I've got another 6½ years before I can collect and as a long term jobless discard of this economic scam system I doubt I'll make it that far but for many of us and for the country as a whole Sanders is our last chance.


To post go to the bottom of this page, or any page, see the blue box with the arrow-reply, click, bingo.


FICA and Self-Employment revenues, by law, fund the Social Security Trust Fund. The fund is invested in the National Debt. Such investments are interest bearing and known as "Treasury Securities", or "Treasuries" for short. They are equivalent to the Treasuries (bills, notes, and bonds) purchased at U.S.Treasury auctions by other investors such as banks, wealthy individuals, and foreign governments.

That's why we owe so much money e.g. to China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, who buy Treasuries because they have no better place to put their surplus dollars accumulated by selling things that are consumed in the USA. So China funds our wars too, and we owe China the same way we owe the SSTF.

And we pay interest on Treasuries. e.g. if you own a Treasury Bond you get paid interest every 6 mos. until the Treasury bond matures. Before modern electronics bond holders had to clip coupons off the security to collect the interest. The expression "coupon clipper" was used, derisively, to describe someone rich enough not to have to work for a living.

Because Treasuries are loans, they have to be paid back like any other loan (i.e. redeemed) at the end of their designated time periods. If they're not redeemed, they're rolled over into a brand new Treasury. The quality of a government is judged by the faith investors have in its debt as a place to park money.

I hope that, if future events cause panic selling or redemption of Treasuries, the SSTF will be honored as much as other Debt holders are honored in such a situation. So far the Treasury has been able to auction off its debt whenever it wants or needs to. Buyers magically appear when needed at the auctions. Let's hope that condition persists, and any security holder is redeemed at maturity, or can sell his/her security whenever he/she needs the money. (The amount of interest is determined by the selling prices that occur at the auctions.)

The problem with Social Security is actuarial. i.e. all the bonds in the SSTF will eventually not be enough to cover the expected number of retirees, unless the size of the SSTF is increased. That would be easy to do, if everyone in Congress wanted it to happen. Also, sadly, some in Congress want to stiff all the National Debt holders. But the buyers keep magically appearing at the debt auctions.


I am sick of the GOP mantra of all them doggone poors taking all them ssn dollars .....They could fix it but the GOP party wants nothing short of dismantling all together so people would have nothing but the good charity of all them GOD fearing Christians that are in the GOP.....lol cough cough hahah christians...my ass..


You smell a rat because there is a rat. Bill and Hillary are strong supporters of the now defunct Democratic Leadership Council that pulled the Democratic Party to the right and supported privatizing portions of Social Security. They are not what they present themselves to be. They are bought and paid for by big moneyed interests. Amoral , in my opinion.


In addition to the reply button at the bottom of the page as mentioned by HisStory, it is also at the bottom of the short extract of the orignial article at the top of the page. They don't make it a normal reply box like so many other sites do.


Yes. Bernie needs to toughen up a bit re HRC and O. Stop letting them off the hook, or worse yet. supporting their awful policies.

Go Bernie.


here's hoping you will "make it that far." :O)


iirc, at least one, large teachers' union is planning to endorse her, over many of their members' opposition.


First, Obama is not a disaster. Second, if that were he criteria, the US would NEVER elect another white male president after George W. Bush.


The idea of capping benefits and lifting the cap on premiums for the wealthy was floated 20 years ago - as a Republican tactic. If you lift the cap on premiums, you must also lift the cap on benefits, which defeats the purpose. If you separate benefits from premiums, then SS would no longer be insurance. It would be an entitlement program. And once it is an entitlement program, it can be cut and eventually eliminated.


I had to read some of these comments twice because it sounded so Tea Party like discussion against one of our Democratic candidates. But alas, we have some crazies in our party too.