Clinton: Go Slow on Social Security. Obama's plan may sound good at first blush, but...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gSSfAOqVVUc_KuAhGVDQk1AjLDfgD8SRO01O0

Clinton: Go Slow on Social Security
By MIKE GLOVER – 14 minutes ago

WATERLOO, Iowa (AP) — Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton marked Veterans Day by calling for new assistance programs, but said she would move more carefully than her rivals on dealing with looming shortfalls facing the Social Security system.

Her move came as rival Barack Obama said he would lift the income ceiling on the Social Security tax. Currently, only the first $97,500 of a person's annual income is taxed; the cap is scheduled to rise to $102,000 next year.

"I know it may sound good at first blush," said Clinton. "If you look at all the complexities of this, I think it's much smarter to say: Look, we're going to deal with the challenges by fiscal responsibility and we're going to use a bipartisan commission. And we're not going to do it by further burdening middle-class families."

In an interview Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Obama said increasing the income ceiling would allow relatively well-off taxpayers such as himself to pay a little more to rescue the system. Clinton rejected that argument.

"If you lift the cap completely that would be a $1 trillion tax increase," Clinton told reporters after a Veterans Day event.

more...

Clinton told reporters after a Veterans Day event.



Yeah, so?








On edit: I think we've hit the limit twice because of my husband's overtime. I have a mortgage, a ten year old car and six college tutions to pay for. I could use the money. I have to be honest though, we're better off than 90% of the people in this country. We should be paying more taxes!

If it helps keep SS solvent, fine.

It's the best run and most solvent entitlement program in the US. No CEO can honestly say for sure that his corporation will be around as long as SS

she knows what she said was a bunch of shit...

If you don't know anything about an issue, why yap about it?

Her comments are 1) correct, and 2) the PRECISE OPPOSITE of the republican line

How does that make it the opposite of the republican line, when that tax increase would land 100% on the wealthy? $102,000/yr is NOT middle class. That is wealthy. If you think it is middle-class, it is only because you are making that much, or expect to make that much, and you are fooling yourself about how much most people in this country make.

It is exactly the republican line that lifting the cap would hurt the middle class, and that it is a terrible, awful, horrible TAX INCREASE. When actually it is parity. I pay SS taxes on 100% of my income. A person with a million dollar income pays SS taxes on less than 10% of his income.

I reject Hillary rejecting parity.

There isn't. Anyone who pretends there is a SS crisis is a clueless vote-whore or a republican seeking to cripple SS (and line their pockets)

It would be hard to identify any aspect of government that is further from crisis than SS.

Not a big problem. Certainly not an unsurmountable problem. But it 35 years, payouts will amount to more than pay-in, requiring dipping into general revenue to make up the difference.

Removing the cap while reducing the % paid in to begin with would solve that. No need to raise the rates, or reduce benefits. Or 'privatize'.

That is, of course, assuming the trends stay as they are. Anything could happen over that time, from a pandemic wiping out most beneficiaries, or a pandemic like the Spanish Flu wiping out a few million of those young workers who were paying in, or a natural disaster or war killing millions, or a new baby boom bringing millions of new workers online.

The republicans don't believe that SS is an unsovable crisis - they just want to privatise it and skim hundreds of millions off the workers. They know full well that SS is solvent until '42, possibly longer (actually, by '50 most the boomers will have died off and thus reduce the payout - we're talking about a 5 year 'crisis' here).

The thing is, Hillary will not make any move to remove the cap. She would, however, raise rates or reduce benefits, as was done in '82. Just as the republicans would - assuming they fail to privatise it.

"Why should Mr. CEO pay Social Security taxes on 10% of his income, while Joe Voter is taxed on 100%?"

That sounds like a sure winner.

$1 trillion tax increase? Where the fu$% does that number come from? Is that $1 trillion next year, or $1 trillion over the next 50 years? It IS just like a Republican to a) overstate the size of a tax increase by statistical dishonesty, and b) to be oh-so-concerned about tax increases for people making over $97,000 which she still erroneously calls the fu$%ing 'Middle class'.

ANY Democrat who calls $97,000 a year middles class is both ignorant (or a liar) and repeating Republican talking points.

And $97K/yr is middle class

Then somebody is an idiot, and it's not me.

Total income going to wages in 2006 was 6.445 trillion. 1 trillion is 15.5% of that. However, the social security tax rate is only 12.4%. So, if all wage income was taxed, total revenue would only be about $800 billion. Social security is already taking in something like $700 billion (it was $611 billion in 1999). So, the net is $100 billion which is a trillion over ten years.

Do we always talk about ten years at a time, or is that some kind of Republican trick to make a $100 billion tax increase sound bigger than it really is?

And about the middle class. Here's a table showing only 16.47% of households make more than $97,500 a year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

That's for households too, which often have multiple earners. If people in the 80th and 90th percentile of income are middle class, then that is some strange definition of "middle" that I do not understand.

"If you lift the cap completely that would be a $1 trillion tax increase...Blah Blah Blah"

Has anyone recommended lifting the cap completely? She's arguing against a non-existent proposal. Lame. Typical.

that "trillion dollar tax increase" would only affect the people who currently reach the limit now - and most of them can afford it.

Why are our Democrats joining with right wing groups and Republicans on Social Security?

And also there is the American Dream Initiative with its Dream Accounts. Obama is right, Hillary is wrong.

Dream accounts

just less generous

Why are our Democrats joining with right wing groups and Republicans on Social Security?

Lindsey Graham. Read about the groups the DLC and PPI are working with. They are working with Republicans, not our Democratic groups.

The Heritage Foundation has had its eyes on Social Security as the grand prize for business for years.

Obama just announced his plan for the middle class, and it includes a similar savings plan

As far as commissions go, that's long been recognized as a way to either torpedo an idea by postponing it, or to give the patina of bipartiship to a preordained conclusion (because the president will be appointing the commission members and can find non-congressional repukes who agree with their position)

personal accounts, dream accounts, universal savings accounts...or other names. Of course I am told I am just wrong, but I don't think so. What Obama said makes sense, but Hillary dissed it. That bothers me.

Here is Rahm's new plan. It is like we already have. They say in addition to, but I wonder.

“Universal Savings Accounts” to Supplement Social Security

"To ensure low management fees, these accounts would be managed by the private sector but overseen by a quasi-public board with fiduciary responsibility for the types of investment options that workers could select. This system is used by the successful federal 401(k) program, or Thrift Savings Plan, where the annual management fees have averaged 30 cents for every $1,000 invested. With this approach, Americans will know that money put away for retirement will be available for retirement."

The DLC even used the words "partial privatization" and move toward full privatizing. They said it right out loud, and I am still told I am wrong.

Different ways to say privatization

""One of the major reasons the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) has supported a two-tiered or partial privatization approach (one that maintains a government-provided retirement "safety net" while moving towards private savings accounts for individual pensions) to Social Security reform is to give the poor a means for accumulating income-producing wealth for retirement. In the past, we have praised the Moynihan-Kerrey proposal to carve out a portion of the Social Security payroll tax to seed private accounts, in part because that may be the only way to get low-income families onto the savings ladder. "

They say it out loud. They are just changing terminology. How long will the government maintain that "safety net"? Good question, I think.

the repukes and the DLC want these savings plans to be subsidized using SS revenues and be accompanied by SS benefit reductions. None of the candidates plans use SS revenues or cut SS benefits

in edit: The non-bolded part of your quote even mentions the first part:

"In the past, we have praised the Moynihan-Kerrey proposal to carve out a portion of the Social Security payroll tax to seed private accounts, in part because that may be the only way to get low-income families onto the savings ladder. "

Then they will say they don't need the safety net anymore.

That's what repukes and the DLC want, but it's not a part of any of the dem candidates proposals, which is why your criticism of DREAM Accts makes no sense. What isn't clear about this?

Repukes - wants to carve it out of SS
DLC - wants to carve it out of SS
HRC - does NOT want to carve it out of SS

I see no reason to force businesses to take money out for both, and I doubt they would be happy to do it.

The system could be saved with simple tweaks, but Hillary doesn't want that.

I am not going to argue with you, but you should read all of this post, as what they are advocating is not necessary. They have changed the terms too many times.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1637

Here is the part that concerns me, then I am done arguing with you. You are picking stuff all over the boards today, not going there anymore.

"Her move came as rival Barack Obama said he would lift the income ceiling on the Social Security tax. Currently, only the first $97,500 of a person's annual income is taxed; the cap is scheduled to rise to $102,000 next year.

"I know it may sound good at first blush," said Clinton. "If you look at all the complexities of this, I think it's much smarter to say: Look, we're going to deal with the challenges by fiscal responsibility and we're going to use a bipartisan commission. And we're not going to do it by further burdening middle-class families."

It sounds good not only at first blush, but more than that. There is no need for that ceiling. Why is she arguing and saying that would burden people more than saving.

My head is spinning, but I have a sense of this...and they are not done with it.

"I see no reason to force businesses to take money out for both, and I doubt they would be happy to do it."

Do you oppose 401k's then? They cost businesses money

And since when is making business happy not a repuke concern? HRC's plan, the most expensive for business, will cost the employer about $20 week. IOW, it's like a $0.50/hr raise. Do you also oppose increasing the minimum wage by half a buck/hr?

"I am not going to argue with you, but you should read all of this post, as what they are advocating is not necessary. They have changed the terms too many times."

Who is this "they" you refer to? I thought we were discussing HRC's DREAM Accts and as far as I can tell, there is only one of her

"It sounds good not only at first blush, but more than that. There is no need for that ceiling. Why is she arguing and saying that would burden people more than saving."

One moment you're talking about "they", and the next you speak of HRC. And the reason why it would burden people more than saving is because increasing SS taxes does nothing to increase their savings. Have you ever ended up with a larger savings acct after a tax increase?

I don't understand why you link HRC's savings accts with SS, or why you link taxes to increased savings. The articles you link to don't do that.

Later, much later.

Obviously, you feel a need to imply something you couldn't possible know.

And raising/eliminating the FICA will cost employers way more than the $1000/employee (maximum) that the DREAM Accts will cost. I don't understand why you object to raising employer costs when it comes to HRC's plan but have no problem when it's in the form of raising the FICA cap.

And whenever you make it back, I'll be around to debunk your mistakes on SS

he'd "listen to all sides" but that HIS plan was THE ANSWER. So much for 'listening to all sides".

Sorta sounded like "no matter what anyone else wants, it'll be my way or no way".

Hillary is avoiding the question. What new information is she waiting for? We need a president who has the courage to take a stand on the difficult issues, not avoid them. These are the kinds of responses that will defeat Hillary, whether it's in the primary or in the general election.

Hillary never said she is waiting for new information and she has answered the questions about SS. Her stand is that "there is no SS crisis". The cowards are those who echo the Repukes and say SS needs to be saved. The cowards are the ones who are caving into the right wing.

Obama is the most cowardly. He's trying to have it both ways. He says "everything's on the table" and then he takes things off the table.

This question was asked of Hillary in the debate. She's the one who said everything's on the table. I believe she said, she'd have to look at all options and there was something about a bipartisan commission. What she didn't say was that "there is no SS crisis". I think it's fair to say that the threat to the solvency of social security is as real as the threat of global warming, unless the economists and environmental scientists are all lying to us. I don't recommend backing a candidate who intends to ignore either issue.

It's a very politically sensitive issue. If it wasn't really a problem, then why in god's name would, for example, Biden suggest raising the age before SS could be collected as well as raising the cap on what is taxed for SS? Just to see if he could piss people off? No, he's taken a stand because that's what leaders do, even if it's unpopular.

Then I'm sure you can explain what the problem is?

"She's the one who said everything's on the table. "

That would be Obama. Hillary has ruled out benefit cuts and privitization


" think it's fair to say that the threat to the solvency of social security is as real as the threat of global warming, unless the economists and environmental scientists are all lying to us."

Then I'm sure you can explain what the problem is? And don't forget to cite and link to non-rightwing economists who say there is a problem. I hope they're better than Krugman


And you must have made up Biden's position. From Biden's website:

"Social Security does not face an immediate crisis. With no changes, Social Security can pay full benefits through 2041. After that it can pay 74 percent of benefits."

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=4107

Obama Misrepresents Hillary's Views On Social Security
11/11/2007 7:42:51 PM

In an interview Tuesday that just posted on National Journal, Barack Obama says that Hillary "is not willing to say" how she would address the long-term challenges of Social Security:

You know, Senator Clinton says that she's concerned about Social Security but is not willing to say how she would solve the Social Security crisis, then I think voters aren't going to feel real confident that this is a priority for her.

In fact she has. Here's an excerpt from an October 9 speech:

When I am president, we'll have our priorities in order. We will return to fiscal responsibility and fair tax policies first, and then we will address the long-term challenges facing Social Security.

When my husband left office, because we had a balanced budget and a surplus, there was a plan in place to extend the solvency of Social Security until 2055. That gives us plenty of time to figure out what else we need to do.

Once the country is on the path to fiscal responsibility Hillary will create a bipartisan process to meet the challenge, an approach that has worked before:

"But I am strongly advocating a bipartisan process, similar to what we had in '83, and when that gets set up, as I hope it will be when I'm president, then I'm going to see what the bipartisan members are going to come up with."

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman says she has exactly the right approach. From his appearance October 28 on ABC This Week:

KRUGMAN: Yeah, Social Security, if you go through the federal government, piece-by-piece, and ask which programs are seriously under-funded and which are close to being completely funded, Social Security is one of the best. It's not even for certain that Social Security has a problem. Why on earth - and, of course, it's something that the right has always wanted to kill, not because it doesn't work, but because it does. And for Obama to go after this program, at this time, you just have to wonder. All of my progressive friends are saying what on Earth is going through his mind to raise this issue.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you think basically the Hillary Clinton position, which we take care of it by fiscal responsibility, and basically it'll take care of itself, we can look at some small fixes is the right one?

KRUGMAN: Yeah. She is. Paul Starr in the American Prospect agrees. Not so long ago, Barack Obama agreed too. Here's Obama on May 14:

Everything should be on the table. I think we should approach it the same way Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan did back in 1983. They came together. I don't want to lay out my preferences beforehand, but what I know is that Social Security is solvable. It is not as difficult a problem as we're going to have with Medicaid and Medicare.

As The Washington Post's Dan Balz reported: "Barack Obama has spent the past few days calling out Hillary Clinton on Social Security. What has gotten much less attention is that Obama has changed his position on what to do about the government retirement system's financial problems."

But removing the cap makes fiscal sense in terms of widening the prospective tax pool and generating more revenue for the "trust fund".

Though I see the political problem with removing the cap (ie: a defacto tax increase), there will be tax increases with any of the Dem nominees. All need to rescind the Bush tax cuts to pay for their proposed programs.