thus, the wealthy taxpayers say, their taxable income is taxed, but so are the benefits.

I don't know how this may or may not affect the discussion.

Hillary has to figure out how many votes she would gain or lose, and whether Jamie Dimon and the rest of Wall Street would approve.

and I'm not saying that as a Hillary-hater (though I do actually hate Hillary Clinton and have no problem with being called a "Hillary-hater&quot ...Hillary has strong polling numbers and to my chagrin, probably has the nomination sown-up right out of the gate.

The control of the centrist DLC, corporatist wing of the Democratic party (let's be honest...HRC is their last gasp. If she loses in the GE or the primary, Clintonism and the Third Way is dead; Democrats catering to Wall Street to get their money hasn't/isn't/doesn't work) over the platform is waning fast, while liberal positions are slowly ascendent. The party is moving left...a counter-revolution to the tea-party's rightward pull on the far side of the aisle. Her platform will be the party platform (because she's not an idiot and she knows she will not be reelected if she spends her entire term fighting her own party)...and it will largely be dictated to her from her left, if not "the left." It's not only possible but probable that she will have a Congressional majority in at-least the Senate which is to the left of her personal positions. Fortunately, Mrs. Clinton has been playing the political game long enough to know to roll with the punches and play the hand she is dealt--she's going to break towards her personal position only where she can without losing a party base that may strongly favor her, but favors an agenda more liberal than her own.

I can't stand Hillary...but she's not a political neophyte or an idiot. She tried running on her own values in 2008 and those values lost her a primary...a mistake she's not going to make twice.

if the election is won is supposed to be acceptable.

She will not have the opportunity to govern according her personal positions any more than Obama did...DLC partisans dictated the agenda to him and a party more liberal than she is will dictate to her.

(I concede figurehead presidency is not really any better that governing differently than you campaigned. It is not the same thing however.)

But I certainly do not think that "a party more liberal than she is will dictate to her". I think she will pursue her corporate agenda with the help of Conservatives, and call it "bipartisanship".

of the time. This means no real change, but more of the same. However, if Hillary
should win the Democratic primaries, I'll vote for her against any Republican. This
is for the sheer survival of the Democratic Party. She would, at least, keep the
Democratic Party half alive. Maybe then in 2020 or 2024 some Progressive would,
finally, win the presidency and be able to make real changes with sufficient backing
from both Houses of Congress.

The only real hope is for more and more Americans to finally realize that business
corporations are the real power behind the throne right now, and their only interest
is to gain more power through making more money, so that they would have more
control over the country. The American people are nothing more to them than tools
to be used -- and to be discarded when they are of no further use to the Corporatists.

When more people realize the above, they'll begin to vote more Republicans out
of office. It's the only way for Democrats to win.

the Democrats like cheap fiddles. Every time the Democrats give them what they demand the ante gets raised. We should follow Iceland's example and have them leave through the back door of the court house in chains.

here on DU. Interesting positons, many is not going to secure Social Security beyond the current projection of 2036 but maybe there will be some miracles coming.

(benefit cut) in 2012 did a lot of damage by persuading people that there's a SS crisis. But the two commissioners were able to add to their retirement plan, from the speaking fees they received on tour.

The cap should be about doubled IMO. There is a cap on the benefit paid out = to the maximum paid in.

I do not agree with an unlimited payin amount because then we would have some wealthy who will get huge ss checks. That would change the solvent account to insolvent overnight.

A change I would like to see is no more 'guaranteed checks' for extremely wealthy persons, like the romneys and the kochs. If they go broke, and poverty is an issue then start to issue their checks.

There's a real question as to its popularity would continue if it were seen as a program for poor people as opposes to something everyone pays into for their own retirement.

That way it stays solvent for a good long time and it won't go into that welfare possibility. Also put Social Security back to 65.

to provide for the material needs of beneficiaries. Nothing in the language of the law suggests that the system should be tailored around merely preventing poverty, it is to provide for material needs. The more affluent and progressive a society becomes, the notion of that which are 'material needs' expands, and language such as that which exists supports any level of benefit which is financially possible and considered to be caring for material needs. If the language actually said 'to keep people out of poverty' then expanding the benefits to be inclusive of a more liberal idea of what is a 'need' would be impossible, and frankly right now the average Social Security benefit keeps one person out of poverty according to the standards used for poverty.

If I agree to see to your material needs, definitions are required as to what 'material needs' mean in this context. If I agree to pay you enough to keep you out of poverty, a definition exists already, it will be much less than you think you have material need for and that's why the SSA language is better and more progressive than the rhetoric about keeping people above a basic poverty level.

set the bar very high. That way Rs have something to chip and tear away and barter their riders over.

Perhaps Congress will adjust the 'Federal' poverty level number up and the Federal minimum wage up this century.

the cap on Social Security withholding coupled with the very good idea of eliminating the income tax burden for Social Security beneficiaries making under 50K a year.