Some of Hillary Clinton's statements on Social Security.

[JDPriestly]

On increasing the payroll taxes (Social Security taxes) on people over $102,000 and under $250,000?

"CLINTON: I don’t want to raise taxes on anybody. I’m certainly against one of Senator Obama’s ideas, which is to lift the cap on the payroll tax, because that would impose additional taxes on people who are educators, police officers, firefighters and the like."
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Social_Security.htm

The article points out that Factcheck has shown that very few teachers, etc. earned over $102,000 per year in 2008.

CLINTON: I am totally committed to making sure Social Security is solvent. You’ve got to begin to reign in the budget, pay as you go, to try to replenish our Social Security Trust Fund. And with all due respect, the last time we had a crisis in Social Security wa 1983. Pres. Reagan and Speaker Tip O’Neill came up with a commission. That was the best and smartest way, because you’ve got to get Republicans and Democrats together. That’s what I will do. And I will say, #1, don’t cut benefits on current beneficiaries they’re already having a hard enough time. And #2, do not impose additional tax burdens on middle-class families.

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Social_Security.htm

Catfood Commission anyone? That was bipartisan. That was Hillary's response in 2008. It did not work.


There is much more at this website.

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Social_Security.htm

Hillary Clinton is starting her campaign. Every American needs to think about what her real agenda is.

Here is an article on Bill Clinton speaking at a Pete Peterson event in May of 2013:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/07/bill-clinton-hillary-having-a-little-fun/

Here is another article about Hillary's stance (or lack thereof) on Social Security from the 2008 campaign.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2007/10/post-148.html

If Hillary wants to run in 2016, she had better be on the right side of Social Security. The bi-partisan commission idea failed. She has stood against privatization. So what does she have to say now?

Social Security is one of the issues on which Hillary's allegiance and close ties to Wall Street may prevent her from standing up for ordinary American people. I want to know where she stands on this issue and just what she plans to propose in order to protect the retirement incomes of ordinary Americans.

One thing I note is that she seems to think that people earning $150,000 per year are middle class. Well, that is upper middle class in middle America. Is she so far away from middle America that she actually thinks that the average person is making $150,000 per year?

[Cleita]

1. Mike Papantonio stated today on the Thom Hartmann show that she has

the same Wall Street deep pockets behind her that Chris Christie did. I would have to verify this myself but it's something to think about.

[Egalitarian Thug]

6. Please let us know what you find. n/t

[Victor_c3]

11. I totally wouldn't doubt it

And, like Obama, the right leaning citizens of our nation will be frothing at the mouth calling her a "socialist". Hell, Obama and Clinton could hardly be described as "liberal".

[antigop]

12. Papantonio: Hillary Can’t Shed Corporate Stripes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017171223

[Scuba]

2. You can watch her spin the pretzel logic here ...

I like what the guy debating her had to say. Wonder whatever happened to him????

[monmouth3]

3. She really scares the hell out of me..n/t

[JDPriestly]

5. Thanks. That's a great clip.

[hfojvt]

8. you haven't seen it before?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2618869

[El_Johns]

14. Obama has some pretzel logic too, with the Warren Buffett reference. Buffett pays SS on

100% of his wage income of $100K. Raising the payroll tax wouldn't affect the rest of his income, because it isn't wage income.

Only workers pay payroll taxes.

[JDPriestly]

16. That is precisely what needs to change.

[El_Johns]

17. Why? And that's not what Obama's proposing, you know.

It was actually a misleading statement, & since OBama knows better, it was intended to mislead.

[ProSense]

19. That is

""Why? And that's not what Obama's proposing, you know."

...exactly what he was "proposing."

<...>

Sanders points out that President Obama himself endorsed this idea on the campaign trail in 2008. “What we need to do is to raise the cap on the payroll tax so that wealthy individuals are paying a little bit more into the system. Right now, somebody like Warren Buffet pays a fraction of 1 percent of his income in payroll tax, whereas the majority…pays payroll tax on 100 percent of their income. I’ve said that was not fair,” said Obama during the campaign.

<...>

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/25/304387/bernie-sanders-introduces-bill-to-lift-the-payroll-tax-cap-ensuring-full-social-security-funding-for-nearly-75-years/

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Social%20Security%20Statment%20-%208-24-11.pdf

President Obama: ‘Medicare and Social Security Are Not Handouts’

Speaking by sattelite at the AARP's annual conference on Friday, President Obama took a subtle jab at Mitt Romney's claim that 47 percent of Americans were "victims" who saw themselves as "entitled" to food, housing, and health care, among other things.

"There's been a lot of talk about Medicare and Social Security in this campaign, as there should be," Obama said. "And these are bedrock commitments that Americas makes to its seniors, and I consider those commitments unshakable. But, given the conversations that have been out there in the political arena lately, I want to emphasize, Medicare and Social Security are not handouts. You've paid into these programs your whole lives. You've earned them."

Obama suggested that Social Security's finances could be "put on more stable footing" in part by raising the cap on taxable income. He dismissed as flatly "not true attacks from Romney on $716 billion in Medicare savings included in the Affordable Care Act (and Paul Ryan's budgets), saying that it "strengthened" the program.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/president-obama-medicare-social-security-are-not-handouts

As for the raising the payroll tax for high income earners and taxing income that isn't "wage income," that was done as part of the health care law.

Net Investment Income Tax

A new Net Investment Income Tax goes into effect starting in 2013. The 3.8 percent Net Investment Income Tax applies to individuals, estates and trusts that have certain investment income above certain threshold amounts. The IRS and the Treasury Department have issued proposed regulations on the Net Investment Income Tax. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail or hand delivered to the IRS. For additional information on the Net Investment Income Tax, see our questions and answers.

Additional Medicare Tax

A new Additional Medicare Tax goes into effect starting in 2013. The 0.9 percent Additional Medicare Tax applies to an individual’s wages, Railroad Retirement Tax Act compensation, and self-employment income that exceeds a threshold amount based on the individual’s filing status. The threshold amounts are $250,000 for married taxpayers who file jointly, $125,000 for married taxpayers who file separately, and $200,000 for all other taxpayers. An employer is responsible for withholding the Additional Medicare Tax from wages or compensation it pays to an employee in excess of $200,000 in a calendar year. The IRS and the Department of the Treasury have issued proposed regulations on the Additional Medicare Tax. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail or hand delivered to the IRS. For additional information on the Additional Medicare Tax, see our questions and answers.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Affordable-Care-Act-Tax-Provisions

[El_Johns]

20. Obama is not proposing extending payroll taxation to Warren Buffett's capital income.

Payroll taxes are only paid on wage income.

Warren Buffett's wage income is $100K.

[Wilms]

4. ^

[NYC_SKP]

7. I can't recommend this OP enough. I hope we can get a decent candidate.

Right now we have the same typical exploitative efforts to circumvent the primary.

I'm fighting back starting today.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024385340

K/R

[liberal_at_heart]

9. K&R

[joshcryer]

10. Obama: "Everything on the table."

Hillary of 2016 will have evolved sufficiently that you won't have to worry about Social Security.

[KoKo]

13. What do you mean "evolved sufficiently?"

[xchrom]

15. du rec.

[Quantess]

18. Sounds like Republican-lite.

K & R

[Herself]

21. the problem for any candidate is there is no one policy that will appeal

to every faction within a party, economic/social group, or religious

The burden on the Soc Sec has increased, not just because of the baby boomer's retiring but because many states, like the red states shift their state welfare tax burden to fed dollars, by approving disability claims. Not to say that they are not legit either. Living in SC the disease rates, disabilities are higher, because of dietary lifestyle. Also at play? The big corps are seduced by the state with the right to work laws, along with the state siding with the corps on unemployment, OSHA and labor law violations.

I've seen the manufacturing corps and the blatent, bold way they put workers at risk, dodge the repetitive injury claims by firing people before they can file, preventing them from filing, and the state ruling for the corps even when they do.

[JDPriestly]

23. South Carolinian working people will see, sooner or later, that their right-to-work laws and other

pro-corporate policies are not improving the lives of working people. They will tire of being taken advantage of.

And you are right, a big issue is work-related disabilities. You need strong unions and politicians who represent working people to get companies to take responsibility for the injuries their workers incur.

In fact, work-related injuries might be a good campaign issue for South Carolina Democrats.

I have to add that many people do not realize how little Social Security recipients receive. The average benefit

The average benefit in 2013 was $1,293.83 or $15,525.96 per year.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/

If a workers works 40 hours a week, he or she works 2,200 hours per year.

Thus, the average Social Security recipient gets the equivalent of $7.05 per hour.

That's less than minimum wage and after a life of working most likely at an average wage and contributing to Social Security.

Aware that the baby boomers' retirement would require greater benefit outlays than for previous generations, during the Reagan era, between 1983 and 1985, the government adjusted the amounts that working people paid into the Social Security Trust Fund to build a reserve. That reserve is there and has been loaned to our government.

Many Social Security recipients receive only maybe $500 - $700 per month. They rely on food stamps and other programs to survive.

Social Security cannot be cut because many, many seniors rely on it to survive. Further, nursing homes and other refuges for the very elderly and helpless rely on the Social Security payments of their patients to stay in business.

By the way, the federal poverty level of income is $11,490 for one person. So the average Social Security recipient receives less than $1000 per year over the poverty level.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm

Don't fall for the Republican propaganda on this.

When I present these fact, generally people stop dissing Social Security. The alternative to Social Security is to require the children of seniors to support their parents and to require the local and state governments to support those who cannot be helped by their children. Generally, young people do not like that solution. It is tough to have to pay the way for your parents in those years when you are raising your own family. But that is part of life.

Another interesting chart.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/central.html

Wages for working people have declined since the LBJ era. That's the problem in our country.

[kelly1mm]

27. 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year is 2080, not 2200. Thus $7.46 per hour. A bit over

minimum (federal) wage.

[JDPriestly]

28. Thanks. You are right.

But nearly the same. Seniors are not receiving much money. And if all seniors who could try to work were in the job market, the pressure on wages to become even lower would be great.

[LittleBlue]

22. If she wants to be president, let her run as a Republican

No Social Security slashers on the Democratic ticket, thanks.

SS is the bedrock of the party, our raison d'etre. We cease to have meaning if we compromise on the New Deal.

[Demo_Chris]

24. Like Obama, Hillary would be (and was) an excellent Republican. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Has the "Not as bad" brigade arrived yet?

[djean111]

26. Don't forget the "Social Security needs to be cut" brigade.

I have seen Chained CPI defended here.
As if the only answer to strengthening Social Security is to slash at it.
Third Wayers.

[wyldwolf]

29. So who are you out pounding the pavement for on weekends?

Just curious. Unless that person is a political newbie with no record, it's going to be pretty easy to pull out old quotes from him/her as well.

I recall how invincible Dean supporters, then Obama's earliest supporters, were in the leadups to 2004 and 2008. They got defensive pretty quick when the oppo research hit full stride.

I am a Clinton supporter but will have no issue supporting whoever eventually wins. I also plan to take the usual primary sniping on DU off - the election won't be won or lost here.

[JDPriestly]

30. Here you go.

The most recent discussion about cutting benefits has focused on something called the Chained-CPI. Supporters of the chained CPI say that it’s a more accurate way of measuring cost of living increases for seniors. That statement is simply not true. Chained CPI falls short of the actual increases in costs that seniors face, pure and simple. Chained CPI? It’s just a fancy way of saying cut benefits.

. . . .

“The absolute last thing we should do in 2013 – at the very moment that Social Security has become the principal lifeline for millions of our seniors — is allow the program to begin to be dismantled inch by inch.

“Over the past generation, working families have been hacked at, chipped, and hammered. If we want a real middle class — a middle class that continues to serve as the backbone of our country — then we must take the retirement crisis seriously. Seniors have worked their entire lives and have paid into the system, but right now, more people than ever are on the edge of financial disaster once they retire — and the numbers continue to get worse.

“That is why we should be talking about expanding Social Security benefits — not cutting them. Senator Harkin from Iowa, Senator Begich from Alaska, Senator Sanders from Vermont, and others have been pushing hard in that direction. Social Security is incredibly effective, it is incredibly popular, and the calls for strengthening it are growing louder every day.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/11/18/elizabeth-warren-dont-cut-social-security-expand-it/

Bernie Sanders has also talked about running, and I would support him gladly.

Here is is a summary of the bill he proposed to strengthen Social Security: S. 1558:

Guarantee Social Security can pay 100% of promised benefits for the next 75 years. Currently, with no action, Social Security will have sufficient income and assets to pay all monthly benefits in full and on time until 2036. S. 1558 extends that through 2085, as estimated by the Social Security Administration.
Preserve currently scheduled benefits. Many proposals claiming to “strengthen” Social Security either undermine the program’s universal values, or the adequacy of its benefits. S. 1558 closes Social Security’s funding gap without doing either.
Ensure everyone pays their fair share to Social Security. While nearly all Americans must make Social Security tax contributions on all of their wages, the wealthiest only do so on the first $106,800 of their annual earnings. S. 1558 rights this wrong. Social Security payroll tax contributions are only paid on wages up to $106,800 in 2011. S. 1558 gradually lifts the cap on taxable wages so that all workers contribute on all of their wages. It applies the Social Security payroll tax to covered earnings of $250,000 or more right away, but maintains the current-law benefit base. Importantly, it leaves the current cap temporarily in place, creating a donut hole so that a person’s earnings between $106,800 and $250,000 are not subject to a precipitous one-year increase in their payroll tax contributions. The donut hole would close over time, since the $106,800 cap rises with average wage increases. Once the cap reaches $250,000, in approximately 25 years, all wages would be subject to the Social Security payroll tax contribution. Benefits would continue to be calculated on the basis of capped wages, as they are under current law.
Affect a small number of Americans. Few Americans would be affected by this change to the Social Security payroll tax cap. Just 1.2% of workers had earnings over $250,000 in 2009, including 0.4% of women, 0.3% of African American workers and 0.3% of Latino workers.

http://www.strengthensocialsecurity.org/media/blog/2011/sanders%E2%80%99-bill-s-1558-guarantees-social-security-for-75-years

I also strongly oppose Hillary's support for the TPP and for HB-1 visas. I would have a very hard time backing Hillary. She is a nice person, but I cannot vote for someone who supports many of the policies that she backs. And she is too close to Wall Street for me. She gets too much money from Wall Street. It is shameful the way that she and Bill have made money on speeches, etc. to anti-labor Wall Street and other corporate organizations. It's disgusting really.

[wyldwolf]

31. Good luck to Bernie

[azmom]

32. K&R