Is Hillary Clinton the unelectable one ?

[lopri]

I think Hillary really evolved on same-sex marriage like the rest of America did unlike Obama who was for it before he was on the national stage. There is no shame in that.

Other than that I do not see anything egregious in that video. (sniper fire? whoop-dee-doo) Remember she not only has to make judgments but also represents constituents. Her positions have been remarkably consistent for a public official in the scrutiny for 3 decades.

 

[ivwshane]

I think Hillary really evolved on same-sex marriage like the rest of America did unlike Obama who was for it before he was on the national stage. There is no shame in that.

Other than that I do not see anything egregious in that video. (sniper fire? whoop-dee-doo) Remember she not only has to make judgments but also represents constituents. Her positions have been remarkably consistent for a public official in the scrutiny for 3 decades.

If you remove all the fake scandals she's been involved with over the years then what are we left with? We are left with policy positions. If you look at the Hillary detractors, policy is one thing I never hear them talk about or complain about.

 

[compuwiz1]

If you remove all the fake scandals she's been involved with over the years then what are we left with? We are left with policy positions. If you look at the Hillary detractors, policy is one thing I never hear them talk about or complain about.

What policy positions are there to talk about? She changes them as often as her underwear, if she wears them, and not depends.

 

[ivwshane]

What policy positions are there to talk about? She changes them as often as her underwear, if she wears them, and not depends.

And there it is folks, a little hand wave and the question is avoided.


Show me how smart you are and come up with a policy stance she has taken and why you disagree with her now or before her change in position.

As a bonus, tell us why you think politicians should never change their position on an issue or, if you believe they should, tell us what issues they should be consistent on and where Hillary has changed.

 

[Strk]

And there it is folks, a little hand wave and the question is avoided.


Show me how smart you are and come up with a policy stance she has taken and why you disagree with her now or before her change in position.

As a bonus, tell us why you think politicians should never change their position on an issue or, if you believe they should, tell us what issues they should be consistent on and where Hillary has changed.

https://youtu.be/Z7Ep7SpR0cQ?t=2m15s

 

[ivwshane]

https://youtu.be/Z7Ep7SpR0cQ?t=2m15s

I don't do YouTube links without an explanation of what I'm looking for, sorry.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't do YouTube links without an explanation of what I'm looking for, sorry.

Don't bother. The spin is obscene.

 

[glenn1]

And there it is folks, a little hand wave and the question is avoided.


Show me how smart you are and come up with a policy stance she has taken and why you disagree with her now or before her change in position.

As a bonus, tell us why you think politicians should never change their position on an issue or, if you believe they should, tell us what issues they should be consistent on and where Hillary has changed.

Many people have not needed to really examine her policy positions in detail. They aren't New Yorkers who needed to decide whether to vote for her as Senator, or a Democrat who needs to determine whether to vote for her in a primary/caucus. I know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about people who I can't even vote for. If unlike the last two elections she actually becomes the Dem nominee then people will start examining her policy positions in detail as a general election candidate.

That being said, even with that above disclaimer I can think of several things right off the bat that I disagree with. She's pledged not to raise taxes on those making less than $250k, if you're going to raise taxes then that income limit should be far lower, certainly not above $100k. The $250k limit is basically pandering to people in high-cost urban areas who should by no means be exempt from paying higher taxes to pay for the very stuff they're advocating.

A second would be her reflexive dismissal of any even tiny move towards de-federalizing retirement plans (e.g. "privatizing social security'). Even giving her (probably undeserved) credit that she's expressing her honest opinion that doing so is "saving us from ourselves" in case of stock market decline, etc. as a people we'd still be better off with assets that we have direct ownership over and aren't subject to the whims of Congress. I'd rather have a self-directed retirement account that went down 75% in a stock market crash than the zero I could get at any point because SS is entirely payable at the whims of Congress. And don't give me that "we'll vote them out" crap, that's not an acceptable answer. Either our own money that was taken out of our paychecks belongs to us or it doesn't, and right now it doesn't and is just another tax. SCOTUS even confirmed that fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor

A third would be her stupid and knee-jerk support for gun control policies. She wants to go back to the assault weapon and other bans despite the fact that (A) it should NEVER be a federal issue and (B) it doesn't fvcking work. It didn't even get renewed last go-around because the damn thing was so worthless. Everything about these types of positions tends to be completely arbitrary and idiotic, as if a black AR-15 variant in .223 was somehow a tactical nuke whereas the far more deadly Remington 700 is perfectly fine. Only morons could look at the picture below and think "we only need to ban the bottom gun because of how dangerous it is, but the top weapon is a hunting rifle."

 

[fskimospy]

Many people have not needed to really examine her policy positions in detail. They aren't New Yorkers who needed to decide whether to vote for her as Senator, or a Democrat who needs to determine whether to vote for her in a primary/caucus. I know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about people who I can't even vote for. If unlike the last two elections she actually becomes the Dem nominee then people will start examining her policy positions in detail as a general election candidate.

That being said, even with that above disclaimer I can think of several things right off the bat that I disagree with. She's pledged not to raise taxes on those making less than $250k, if you're going to raise taxes then that income limit should be far lower, certainly not above $100k. The $250k limit is basically pandering to people in high-cost urban areas who should by no means be exempt from paying higher taxes to pay for the very stuff they're advocating.

Ah, so you're okay for raising taxes so long as the right people get their taxes raised. Good news for you though, since cities are basically the economic engine of the entire country they are already paying for the very stuff they are advocating. Maybe it's time deadbeats like you picked up some slack.

Keep pinching your pennies, glenn! You're going to need them.

A second would be her reflexive dismissal of any even tiny move towards de-federalizing retirement plans (e.g. "privatizing social security'). Even giving her (probably undeserved) credit that she's expressing her honest opinion that doing so is "saving us from ourselves" in case of stock market decline, etc. as a people we'd still be better off with assets that we have direct ownership over and aren't subject to the whims of Congress. I'd rather have a self-directed retirement account that went down 75% in a stock market crash than the zero I could get at any point because SS is entirely payable at the whims of Congress. And don't give me that "we'll vote them out" crap, that's not an acceptable answer. Either our own money that was taken out of our paychecks belongs to us or it doesn't, and right now it doesn't and is just another tax. SCOTUS even confirmed that fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor

And then when you did lose it all you'd suddenly find religion and come crawling back, begging for money and people would end up paying for your broke self anyway. No thanks. That's why privatizing social security is stupid. You either have a safety net or you don't.

A third would be her stupid and knee-jerk support for gun control policies. She wants to go back to the assault weapon and other bans despite the fact that (A) it should NEVER be a federal issue and (B) it doesn't fvcking work. It didn't even get renewed last go-around because the damn thing was so worthless. Everything about these types of positions tends to be completely arbitrary and idiotic, as if a black AR-15 variant in .223 was somehow a tactical nuke whereas the far more deadly Remington 700 is perfectly fine. Only morons could look at the picture below and think "we only need to ban the bottom gun because of how dangerous it is, but the top weapon is a hunting rifle."

That is true, I would prefer her to promote far more widespread gun control instead of focusing on those in particular. Good news is that she's for that too. We all win!

 

[glenn1]

Ah, so you're okay for raising taxes so long as the right people get their taxes raised. Good news for you though, since cities are basically the economic engine of the entire country they are already paying for the very stuff they are advocating. Maybe it's time deadbeats like you picked up some slack.

Keep pinching your pennies, glenn! You're going to need them.



And then when you did lose it all you'd suddenly find religion and come crawling back, begging for money and people would end up paying for your broke self anyway. No thanks. That's why privatizing social security is stupid. You either have a safety net or you don't.



That is true, I would prefer her to promote far more widespread gun control instead of focusing on those in particular. Good news is that she's for that too. We all win!

You sure talk a lot of shit for someone that Hillary sides against when push comes to shove. Just look at the GINI coefficient, financial asset prices, and financial sector bailouts the last few years and you'll see that she cares more about my interests and well-being than yours even though you're the one who will likely vote for her.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'd rather have a self-directed retirement account that went down 75% in a stock market crash than the zero I could get at any point because SS is entirely payable at the whims of Congress.

The first part is easy to believe when you're still working & increasing your nest egg, another matter entirely when you're retired & income & principal drop by 25%. The second part is fear mongering bullshit.

Yeh, we'd all rather be the Lone Ranger or John Galt, right?

 

[glenn1]

The first part is easy to believe when you're still working & increasing your nest egg, another matter entirely when you're retired & income & principal drop by 25%. The second part is fear mongering bullshit.

Yeh, we'd all rather be the Lone Ranger or John Galt, right?

If you were really that concerned about a market decline you could just convert your holdings to 100% treasuries and have a direct ownership interest and still be "risk-free". Since SS is basically just an annuity anyway you might as well go with the private company version where you'll get better rates and have as much "guarantee" of getting paid as you do from Congress.

 

[fskimospy]

You sure talk a lot of shit for someone that Hillary sides against when push comes to shove. Just look at the GINI coefficient, financial asset prices, and financial sector bailouts the last few years and you'll see that she cares more about my interests and well-being than yours even though you're the one who will likely vote for her.

Haha, based on your previous posts it seems that your understanding of economics is poor at best. As for what's best for me and for you (most likely), just go look at the countries that followed your preferred policies and then look at the US. This isn't even ideology anymore, it's just math. When are you going to learn?

Also: your inept attempt at analysis aside, I don't vote.

 

[ivwshane]

I'll give you credit, you at least had something you can point at that you disagree with. I completely disagree with your points but that's irrelevant. So thank you!

Many people have not needed to really examine her policy positions in detail. They aren't New Yorkers who needed to decide whether to vote for her as Senator, or a Democrat who needs to determine whether to vote for her in a primary/caucus. I know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about people who I can't even vote for. If unlike the last two elections she actually becomes the Dem nominee then people will start examining her policy positions in detail as a general election candidate.

That being said, even with that above disclaimer I can think of several things right off the bat that I disagree with. She's pledged not to raise taxes on those making less than $250k, if you're going to raise taxes then that income limit should be far lower, certainly not above $100k. The $250k limit is basically pandering to people in high-cost urban areas who should by no means be exempt from paying higher taxes to pay for the very stuff they're advocating.

A second would be her reflexive dismissal of any even tiny move towards de-federalizing retirement plans (e.g. "privatizing social security'). Even giving her (probably undeserved) credit that she's expressing her honest opinion that doing so is "saving us from ourselves" in case of stock market decline, etc. as a people we'd still be better off with assets that we have direct ownership over and aren't subject to the whims of Congress. I'd rather have a self-directed retirement account that went down 75% in a stock market crash than the zero I could get at any point because SS is entirely payable at the whims of Congress. And don't give me that "we'll vote them out" crap, that's not an acceptable answer. Either our own money that was taken out of our paychecks belongs to us or it doesn't, and right now it doesn't and is just another tax. SCOTUS even confirmed that fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor

A third would be her stupid and knee-jerk support for gun control policies. She wants to go back to the assault weapon and other bans despite the fact that (A) it should NEVER be a federal issue and (B) it doesn't fvcking work. It didn't even get renewed last go-around because the damn thing was so worthless. Everything about these types of positions tends to be completely arbitrary and idiotic, as if a black AR-15 variant in .223 was somehow a tactical nuke whereas the far more deadly Remington 700 is perfectly fine. Only morons could look at the picture below and think "we only need to ban the bottom gun because of how dangerous it is, but the top weapon is a hunting rifle."

 

[ivwshane]

If you were really that concerned about a market decline you could just convert your holdings to 100% treasuries and have a direct ownership interest and still be "risk-free". Since SS is basically just an annuity anyway you might as well go with the private company version where you'll get better rates and have as much "guarantee" of getting paid as you do from Congress.

Americans are poor at saving and they certainly aren't good at making financial decisions and financial institutions have already proven they will do anything they can for a buck when there is minimal oversight and Republicans have consistently been against regulations and oversight so you'll have to excuse me for thinking that giving my retirement money to private companies to manage isn't a better idea than putting it into, historically, the safest space ever. You also fail to realize that social security isn't meant to be an investment where risk and reward is the name of the game, it's a social safety net and it's meant to exist no matter what the current economy is doing. Your 401k and other financial products are what you seek and lucky for you they already exist!

 

[Jhhnn]

A third would be her stupid and knee-jerk support for gun control policies. She wants to go back to the assault weapon and other bans despite the fact that (A) it should NEVER be a federal issue and (B) it doesn't fvcking work. It didn't even get renewed last go-around because the damn thing was so worthless. Everything about these types of positions tends to be completely arbitrary and idiotic, as if a black AR-15 variant in .223 was somehow a tactical nuke whereas the far more deadly Remington 700 is perfectly fine. Only morons could look at the picture below and think "we only need to ban the bottom gun because of how dangerous it is, but the top weapon is a hunting rifle."

Only a moron would contend that a bolt action rifle with a 5 round magazine capacity is more deadly than a semi-auto with a 15 or 30 round capacity in something like... I dunno... maybe a killing spree in a theatre.

 

[glenn1]

Americans are poor at saving and they certainly aren't good at making financial decisions and financial institutions have already proven they will do anything they can for a buck when there is minimal oversight and Republicans have consistently been against regulations and oversight so you'll have to excuse me for thinking that giving my retirement money to private companies to manage isn't a better idea than putting it into, historically, the safest space ever. You also fail to realize that social security isn't meant to be an investment where risk and reward is the name of the game, it's a social safety net and it's meant to exist no matter what the current economy is doing. Your 401k and other financial products are what you seek and lucky for you they already exist!

I think you may be misunderstanding what I'm advocating. My idea has nothing to do with who administers the plan or how it's funded; I'm completely agnostic whether the government or private sector manages the plan or if the current system of payroll deductions fund it.

Rather what I'm advocating for is moving SS from an entitlement base to one where the government is the fiduciary custodian. To explain, think of the difference between a pension plan and a 401(k) plan. You have no legal entitlement to your pension contributions, so if you leave the firm you're SOL. The plan itself is carried on the company balance sheet and even though the assets are supposed to be "segregated" that might not help much if the company goes bankrupt and you can't access your money for a while (or the company financed the plan with its own stock which is now worthless). Nothing stops the company from using unrealistic projections to underfund the plan for years, or carry pension liability deficits for years.

And then you have what I'm suggesting, which is to run SS like a 401(k) plan; government workers already have this arrangement via their Thrift Savings Plan. If you really want you can even restrict the accumulated balances to holding only Treasuries and not stocks or other investments (even though that's not ideal IMHO). When you retire you could have the choice to keep your assets in the plan and remain invested (to maximize capital appreciation) or annuitize them, essentially turning the account from a defined contribution type to a defined benefit. You could even maintain COLA adjustments for the later, although that's more for political reasons than sound financial ones.

Advantages? You own your contributions outright in your own personal plan that the government has a custodial and fiduciary duty to protect. Receiving them back someday would no longer depend on the grace of a Congressman as they're not an entitlement. And why is this important you say, because surely Congress will never vote to reduce or eliminate SS? Because having your contributions held in a private account means that unlike Social Security they can't be taken away because the Fifth Amendment protects them. It completely negates even the remote possibility of Congress not honoring the entitlement in the future, you don't lose your contributions if you die or move to another country (see the Fleming v. Nestor Supreme Court case I linked earlier), and actually gives people a reason to care about things like deficits (if your SS money is invested in T-bills, you might not be so gung ho about multiple years of $1T budget deficits).

 

[Jhhnn]

So we should put our money at the mercy of Wall St rather than the federal govt. And we should simply forego the insurance aspects of SS to seemingly better serve the better advantaged while we're at it. The fact that some die young means there's enough for those who don't.

While dying is a big concern for seniors it's only one notch above running out of money. For advanced seniors, it's not like they can just go back to work if they do. Your bullshit proposal doesn't account for that even as it disadvantages low earners even further.

I wouldn't expect it to, given your obsession with taking care of #1.

 

[Spungo]

pension stuff

I just want to see a system where the pension is not structured like a ponzi scheme. I'm not sure why we keep pretending to be surprised when ponzi schemes collapse.

teamster pension cuts

“We simply can’t stay afloat if we continue to pay out $3.46 in pension benefits for every $1 paid in from contributing employers,” said letters the fund sent to retirees facing the cuts.

All forms of defined benefit pension need to be replaced. They've burned way too many people. How many people have lost their entire pension because the counterparty went bankrupt? That is not acceptable. The pension should be paid up front. I pay 5% toward my 401k, my employer contributes an equal amount, and that's the end of the counterparty risk. From that point forward, it's my money. This company could collapse tomorrow, and my 401k would be safe.

I know Obama gets a lot of shit for his myRA idea, a retirement account consisting of government bonds, but. I actually like that idea. This is what social security should have been from the beginning. It's not a ponzi scheme. It's a simple savings account that pays interest, and it's ideal for people who have no interest in learning about stocks or investing.

 

[fskimospy]

I just want to see a system where the pension is not structured like a ponzi scheme. I'm not sure why we keep pretending to be surprised when ponzi schemes collapse.

teamster pension cuts

All forms of defined benefit pension need to be replaced. They've burned way too many people. How many people have lost their entire pension because the counterparty went bankrupt? That is not acceptable. The pension should be paid up front. I pay 5% toward my 401k, my employer contributes an equal amount, and that's the end of the counterparty risk. From that point forward, it's my money. This company could collapse tomorrow, and my 401k would be safe.

I know Obama gets a lot of shit for his myRA idea, a retirement account consisting of government bonds, but. I actually like that idea. This is what social security should have been from the beginning. It's not a ponzi scheme. It's a simple savings account that pays interest, and it's ideal for people who have no interest in learning about stocks or investing.

Neither pensions nor social security are structured like Ponzi schemes. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a Ponzi scheme is. Social Security is simply a system where current workers pay for current retirees. Pensions are systems that leverage contributions and investment returns to provide benefits. Neither of these things are even remotely like a Ponzi scheme.

I have issues with pensions, those being that research shows that employees don't value them enough as compared to their cost and that businesses and governments have incentives to assume unrealistic returns that jeopardize their viability. We should focus on those real problems instead of making up bullshit comparisons though.

 

[Jhhnn]

I just want to see a system where the pension is not structured like a ponzi scheme. I'm not sure why we keep pretending to be surprised when ponzi schemes collapse.

teamster pension cuts



All forms of defined benefit pension need to be replaced. They've burned way too many people. How many people have lost their entire pension because the counterparty went bankrupt? That is not acceptable. The pension should be paid up front. I pay 5% toward my 401k, my employer contributes an equal amount, and that's the end of the counterparty risk. From that point forward, it's my money. This company could collapse tomorrow, and my 401k would be safe.

I know Obama gets a lot of shit for his myRA idea, a retirement account consisting of government bonds, but. I actually like that idea. This is what social security should have been from the beginning. It's not a ponzi scheme. It's a simple savings account that pays interest, and it's ideal for people who have no interest in learning about stocks or investing.

Or maybe pensions are in trouble because of right wing policy to beat down union membership over the last 35 years, huh?

Pensions are a generational transfer in many respects. Members keep the plan afloat so when there are fewer & fewer members it starves the fund of money. Today's Teamster retirees, for example, paid the pensions of even older Teamsters now passed away.

 

[CountZero]

Hillary has been under the Rep gun for so long that there isn't much left for them to do to her or her reputation. Either you have already bought into the right-wing rhetoric or you haven't. The Reps have no surprises that would cause her to waiver. That being said she has almost no appeal to get out new voters. She isn't exciting at all, her opinions appear to be based solely on whatever polls say she should say and appearance matters to young voters.

If she gets the nomination and loses it will be largely due to how uninteresting she is to young voters. I believe the Reps best bet would be to keep it clean against her, sell their guy (whoever it is) to their own base and hope she can't rally enough people to come out and vote against their guy.

On the other hand Bernie will get absolutely shredded by the Rep machine. The same machine that turned a purple heart into a liability will have no problem spinning a Jewish democratic socialist into a handful of soundbites and "citizen groups" that hammer home any message they want since the word socialist scares the crap out of so many. I think Bernie would lose to an establishment candidate because the Rep machine is well oiled for that fight. If the candidate was Trump or Cruz it would come down to exciting the base for their candidate and scaring them into thinking the other guy is the anti-Christ. No clue how that would play out.

 

[ivwshane]

I think you may be misunderstanding what I'm advocating. My idea has nothing to do with who administers the plan or how it's funded; I'm completely agnostic whether the government or private sector manages the plan or if the current system of payroll deductions fund it.

Rather what I'm advocating for is moving SS from an entitlement base to one where the government is the fiduciary custodian. To explain, think of the difference between a pension plan and a 401(k) plan. You have no legal entitlement to your pension contributions, so if you leave the firm you're SOL. The plan itself is carried on the company balance sheet and even though the assets are supposed to be "segregated" that might not help much if the company goes bankrupt and you can't access your money for a while (or the company financed the plan with its own stock which is now worthless). Nothing stops the company from using unrealistic projections to underfund the plan for years, or carry pension liability deficits for years.

And then you have what I'm suggesting, which is to run SS like a 401(k) plan; government workers already have this arrangement via their Thrift Savings Plan. If you really want you can even restrict the accumulated balances to holding only Treasuries and not stocks or other investments (even though that's not ideal IMHO). When you retire you could have the choice to keep your assets in the plan and remain invested (to maximize capital appreciation) or annuitize them, essentially turning the account from a defined contribution type to a defined benefit. You could even maintain COLA adjustments for the later, although that's more for political reasons than sound financial ones.

Advantages? You own your contributions outright in your own personal plan that the government has a custodial and fiduciary duty to protect. Receiving them back someday would no longer depend on the grace of a Congressman as they're not an entitlement. And why is this important you say, because surely Congress will never vote to reduce or eliminate SS? Because having your contributions held in a private account means that unlike Social Security they can't be taken away because the Fifth Amendment protects them. It completely negates even the remote possibility of Congress not honoring the entitlement in the future, you don't lose your contributions if you die or move to another country (see the Fleming v. Nestor Supreme Court case I linked earlier), and actually gives people a reason to care about things like deficits (if your SS money is invested in T-bills, you might not be so gung ho about multiple years of $1T budget deficits).

So just to verify what you are saying; you want a safety net system that is untouchable by government and certainly not affected by the whims of Congress? So if we were to pass a law that says SS can't be touched by Congress, can I assume you'd support that?

If so, then I agree with you, SS shouldn't be a political football, it should be the safest safety net we have.

 

[Spungo]

Neither pensions nor social security are structured like Ponzi schemes. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a Ponzi scheme is. Social Security is simply a system where current workers pay for current retirees.

Isn't that definition of a ponzi scheme?

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/ponzischeme.asp

The Ponzi scheme generates returns for older investors by acquiring new investors. This scam actually yields the promised returns to earlier investors, as long as there are more new investors. These schemes usually collapse on themselves when the new investments stop.

That perfectly describes what happened to the Teamster pension fund. The fund is collapsing because there is a lack of new workers. The pension worked beautifully as long as there were more workers than retirees. Once that starts to reverse, the fund collapses.

Pensions are systems that leverage contributions and investment returns to provide benefits. Neither of these things are even remotely like a Ponzi scheme.

But pensions still rely on more people paying in than taking out. If more people are taking out, the fund collapses because the fund is forced to liquidate its investments. It doesn't matter if the fund actually had investments or not since the end result is the same - a lack of new investors causes the fund to collapse. That mechanism of relying on new investors is what defines a ponzi scheme.

I have issues with pensions, those being that research shows that employees don't value them enough as compared to their cost and that businesses and governments have incentives to assume unrealistic returns that jeopardize their viability. We should focus on those real problems instead of making up bullshit comparisons though.

To be fair, the non-ponzi elements of pensions had realistic expectations when they were created. ZIRP and NIRP are recent problems. In 1990, you really could get 10% every year from bonds alone. I remember regular bank accounts paying 5% interest. That was a really glorious time for savers and retired people.

 

[Spungo]

Or maybe pensions are in trouble because of right wing policy to beat down union membership over the last 35 years, huh?

You're complaining about the ponzi scheme not being big enough??
Any system that needs 5 people working to pay for every 1 retired person is doomed to fail because they rely on exponential growth.

First generation:
1 retired person, 5 workers are required to fund the pension.
Those 5 people eventually retire.

Second generation:
5 retired people, 25 workers are required to fund the pension.

Third generation:
25 retired people, 125 workers are required to fund the pension.