Hillary Clinton is ahead in the polls, but it's more due to Donald Trump’s many blunders than excitement with Mrs. Clinton. She has benefited from being the anti-Trump. But new allegations about the FBI finding another 15,000 missing emails, as well as evidence of a possible “pay-to-play” donation system between her husband’s Clinton Global Initiative and the Secretary of State’s office, raises old perceptions about her untrustworthiness and dishonesty.
Unfortunately she probably won't do this; she's too centrist.
The fortunate thing is that she can probably win just by letting Trump self destruct. I mean, did you see his awkward "pivot" earlier on immigration?! It was so terribly managed it was hilarious!
Minimum SS payment per household equal to minimum wage. SS tax paid on all income above 250,000 per year gross at 9 percent, making the tax progressive not regressive. SS tax on all corporations of 1% of gross first billion and increasing to 5 % over 100 billion. Plenty money for poor and disabled. Now rich pay zero to help those with CP etc. who are disabled all their lives. Since they pay zero SS tax on their dividends and cap. Gains all the finds to help the sick and disabled come from the working poor and middle classes.
All good ideas but to get any of them implemented, they would not only need to have the next president enthusiastically behind them, using full "bully pulpit" powers and wiling to use "political capital" in support of them. The president would need a whole political party on the same page elected to Congress so the majorities could ensure that the bills are passed.
The US doesn't really have political parties. They're really just brand names, HRC uses the Democrat party to get backers for her election campaign and that's about it. If she does get elected, she and the others who claim to be Democrats are unlikely to be much concerned with working together to enact and implement these or any other humane reforms.
This is a great idea for the wrong presidential candidate. Bernie or Jill would surely listen and promote these kind of ideas but almost assuredly it will not be Clinton.
Here's a bold idea for the Hillary campaign- RESIGN FROM PUBLIC LIFE.
Seem to be an awful lot of articles these days asking us to ignore reality and just accept the perception we are told we should accept.
I would think the best thing for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party to do at this point would be to withdraw from the Presidential election and back the Green Party for the Presidency while also promoting actual real progressive Democrats for Congress and state legislatures. Clinton is hurting the Dems up and down all election races.
I look at this article as being about social security, not Clinton. And from that perspective, it's spot on. I'm surprised it doesn't mention the military budget though.
But as for Clinton, unfortunately she doesn't have to promise to do any of the common-sense things in this article to get herself elected. She seems quite content to win simply by being the lesser evil. That's the point she's only too happy to relentlessly drive home for the next two and a half months: Vote for me because I'm not Trump.
And the sad thing is, we will.
Vote your conscience.
The fantasy that Clinton would pay attention to any pundit to her left is risible.
The author would better spend his time and energy examining why he thinks the Clinton campaign is worth helping. Is there some merit in covering a pro-war corporatist with a liberal sheen?
The headline is wrong.
It should read ".....Hillary's Troubling Campaign."
When Hillary wins, and she will win because the oligarchy has seen to that, her next four years will be a nightmare for her if....if...the Left and Progressives do their job.
Thank you, Steven Hill for making this excellent case and providing the sound financial data to back it up.
It's a shame that you have belittled the writer.
When a poster shows up first and sets the tone and that tone is designed to damage the writer's credibility, the importance of his subject matter--and in this case, serious research behind it--is lost on some would-be readers. (I wonder who the 10 people are who already gave your comment a like by 10 a.m. Tag Team, I suppose.)
It's a known fact that many Americans skim headlines and don't read full articles.
Long ones like this scare some off.
I usually like your posts but too many are sitting in this forum with only ONE agenda: that of bashing Mrs. Clinton, Democrats, and any who lend either the faintest of support.
That type of narrow-minded agenda blocks OTHER issues from being honestly discussed.
Forget your team loyalties for a minute (whether to Jill Stein or Trump... with too many here feigning support for Stein to essentially prop up Trump)... and give some consideration to the important data offered in this article that soundly supports the expansion of Social Security.
THAT is the topic. NOT Mrs. Clinton!
I call your bull-shit!
Steven Hill's interest is in expanding Social Security.
He is offering his thesis to Mrs. Clinton since it would represent a policy that would benefit lots of Americans.
That the Tag Team is, as usual, up first to do their utmost to denigrate something important JUST BECAUSE Mrs. Clinton's name is brought up is really sickening.
How come this site did a survey and polled its readers and a majority poll Democratic yet the comment threads sound much more like a Donald Trump rally?
Someone is paying for (as in funding) this level of infiltration!
I would not be surprised if you and the others who happen to be repeating the same essential Talking Point are not funded by a Koch Brothers' subsidiary. Using your hatred for Mrs. Clinton as a smokescreen, the real intent seems to be to silence any discussions about expanding Social Security.
After all, I showed up here at 10 a.m. and already FIVE posters have stuck to the same Narrative and it's a Hillary bash-fest which is very useful for keeping the spotlight OFF the subject.
So far, only 2-3 posters have responded to the ACTUAL topic.
Should we expand Social Security? Sure. We should lower the age
of eligibility and we should begin
taxing those making more then $117,000. the current cut-off point.
What is Hillary's policy on SS?
Hillary is a free-market Capitalist who likes going to war.
She ain't our friend.
Good idea, and how about coming clean with the American people too?
I can't blame Steven Hill for the misleading headline — how many readers would a SS headline draw? — but it has fostered the deflection into Hillary bashing.
The beginning of the article is also misleading by failing to directly clarify the common misconception that SS has anything to do with the federal budget.
That said, Hill's suggestions are pretty good. I do appreciate @Duckpins's raising the point that SS includes support for the disabled (which Hill didn't mention), and their specific suggestions for expanding the pay-in to the trust fund. It really doesn't take a whole book to figure it out. I also wish Hill had mentioned the parallel program of Medicare.
Why don't we simply institute a minimum guaranteed income for each American, whether they're working or not?
Any amount made over the minimum income level by working or from investment income could be taxed using a graduated income scale.
So the bottom line is that both Hillary and Trump are full of crap?