Correct take on Social Security...

...and making health care harder to get or afford. Nobody will live long enough to collect and why would they care? They retire from Washington with not only a great pension for themselves but they get jobs with lobbyists making seven figures.

and then decided to go ahead and lay out some preferences later on.

After all he's said about baby boomers.

If they are lucky, they have managed to save slightly more than they owe. A lot of the "wealth" of ordinary baby boomers is in their homes -- and we all know what is happening to the value of homes right now.

Most baby boomers will have to rely on Social Security. And, as it is, Social Security payments barely pay enough to allow a subsistence living standard. Cutting Social Security benefits is off the table. The American people are not going to let their parents starve or freeze to death in the winter. Cutting Social Security benefits will not work because cuts in Social Security benefits will have to be made good out of ordinary tax revenues.

Privatization is not the answer. The point of Social Security is that payments do not depend on the ups and downs of the stock market. Besides, privatization of Social Security has been tried in other countries and has not worked particularly well. It just shifts the problem. It does not resolve it.

Edwards' plan for "fixing" Social Security is the best: just tax all income except for a certain amount of the income of two-family earners in a limited middle class income bracket.

Clinton's dream of coming together with Republicans to work out a solution for Social Security is unrealistic. The Republicans of the Bush generation are extremist. They dogmatically revere the economic theories of the Chicago School of Economics. Naomi Klein writes about those economic theories and the horrors that the disciples of the Chicago School have visited on developing countries in which they have reorganized the economies. Think Chile in the 1970s, Argentina in the early '80s, etc.

John Edwards' statement that you can't sit at the table with these right-wing fanatics in big business is based on his many years of negotiating settlements with corporations and insurance companies. He knows that these guys are not the friends of middle class Americans. We Democrats have to learn to fight for ordinary Americans. We have to use the stick as well as the carrot when dealing with the right-wing extremists. If you think the Republicans can be dealt with, name one Republican congressman or woman who will consistently vote against Bush and in favor of policies that help middle-class America. You can't. Moderate Republicans do not get elected. There is no such thing in Congress at this time.

If you are disappointed with the results of the Pelosi/Reid approach, the Mukaseys, the "amended" FISA bills, the "aw shucks, we wouldn't want to hurt their feelings" approach to working with Republican fanatics, vote for Hillary. As the statement you cite proves, a vote for Hillary is a vote for more of the Pelosi/Reid soft-sell approach.

Personally, I prefer Edwards' honest appraisal of the situation. We need a president who knows what he stands for and who will not accept less than what the American people need and deserve. We will not be able to "come together" with Republicans until we show them who is boss. You don't "come together" with a two-year-old who is holding a knife and throwing a tantrum, and that is what the Republicans have been doing for years now. Hillary's approach is wrong. If you vote for her, you are in for a huge disappointment.

I know the Hillary devotees are going to be very offended by my post. I'll be accused of picking on Hillary. But, I'm old, and I've seen a lot of the world. I promise you. If Hillary is nominated and by some lucky chance elected, her approach will fail, and I'm going to be here on DU, reminding you that I told you all so.

Hillary's approach to Social Security is either dishonest or naive.

Hillary is the only one with the right answer - There is no problem to "fix" and those who say otherwise are fear mongering.

I'll also point out that SS was never meant to fully provide for our retirement. It was meant to provide just 1/3 of that.

so you can see the sort of discussion you might have if you didn't act like such a clown

Some years ago, I did research on the ERISA, which is the law governing employee benefits. I was horrified to read how little money the average person has saved for retirement. It is appalling. The reality is that Social Security is all that most people have. ERISA has let many people down. It provides loopholes that employers use to get out of their promises of pension benefits.

In addition, many people have lost their jobs and their retirement funds to outsourcing. Those in their thirties may still have some time to learn new skills and get new jobs. But if you are in your 50s and your job is outsourced, it is unlikely that you will find another job that pays decently. You end up taking "early retirement" forced of course, and the money you thought you were saving for timely retirement is soon gone. Then you sell your house, live off that and finally you are old enough to qualify for diminished Social Security benefits. This is happening more and more to people who have worked hard all their lives. I'm not even going to talk about the many people who are in fact disabled but not enough to qualify for disability. The baby boomers are going to feel this squeeze very soon. There will be a lot of misery.

SS was never meant to fully fund anyone's retirement. The intention was that it would provide 1/3, with another 1/3 provided by pensions, and another 1/3 provided by personal savings. The reason why the 2nd two are so hard to do is the result of the waning power of unions. The solution is to strengthen unions and not destroying SS with unfulfillable liabilities.

And Hillary's plan does include subsidies to encourage low wage workers to save. Granted, it's not extravagant, but $1000/yr ain't chicken feed either

unions will not help the people who will be retiring over the next ten to fifteen years. It is they who will suffer the brunt of the Social Security crisis. Bush has spent the wealth of our country on the War in Iraq, on tax cuts for the wealthy and on generous contracts that enrich his buddies in the private security and mercenary businesses. The dollar has lost value and with its decline the savings of the baby boomers and older people have decreased in buying power. Hillary's ideas are too little too late. Edwards' plan is the most likely to save the system and provide for the retirements of the baby boomers.

but I disagree on how to resolve these serious issues.

Future seniors are going to face some serious problems, but unlike you, I don't how legislation is going to solve the problem. It's not as simple as passing a law and giving everyone what they need. What is really needed, IMO, is for us to get out total economic house in order. Passing a law, without making sure our economy can fund it, is of no use at all.

I also don't think SS needs any fixing. As I mentioned in my earlier post, we need strong unions and a strong economy. Without those, legislation won't be sufficient. And I'm not going to knock Edwards plan. I just think that we need more than legislation.

I don't see how unions can be strengthened unless we renegotiate our trade agreements. Edwards is keen on renegotiating them to help American (and foreign) workers. That does not seem to be a priority for Hillary. What is Hillary's plan for strengthening unions?

to appoint the right people to the NLRB. Hillary has some proposals about this, and supports the other good proposals of other dems, and she has a good record on unions.

And another thing that we should do is to stop thinking that unions are limited to manufacturing jobs and low wage service jobs. There's no reason for not unionizing computer programmers, accountants and other white collar professions