HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Hillary Clinton on Worker...

Mon May 18, 2015, 12:21 PM

 

Hillary Clinton on Workers Rights, Labor Unions, and the Social Security Tax Cap.

I was Googling around to see if Clinton had anything concrete to say about strengthening our declining unions.

Wikipedia:

Workers' rights, labor unions, and Wal-Mart

In 2006, Clinton praised a Maryland law that required Wal-Mart to contribute to certain levels of health insurance for its employees.[44] When asked what she had done to help Wal-Mart employees obtain better benefits when she served on its board while First Lady of Arkansas, she answered, "Well, you know, I, that was a long time ago ... have to remember..." and added, "obviously I believe every company should [contribute to benefit plans]."[44]

The Clintons were stockholders in Wal-Mart at the time she was a board member,[44] and Rose Law Firm, where Clinton was a partner had Wal-Mart as a client.[45] While a board member, Clinton had been silent about the company's famously anti-labor union practices,[46][47] although she pushed successfully for the chain to adopt more environmentally-friendly practices[46] and had pushed largely unsuccessfully for more women to be added to the company's management.[46]

A January 31, 2008 article from ABC News states, "An ABC News analysis of the videotapes of at least four stockholder meetings where Clinton appeared shows she never once rose to defend the role of American labor unions."[48]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Workers.27_rights.2C_labor_unions.2C_and_Wal-Mart


Social Security tax cap

Just below the unions section is her stand on raising the Social Security Tax Cap, she calls the idea a tax increase on the Middle Class. (I'd love to join her middle class)

Social Security tax cap

Hillary Clinton supports retaining the Social Security tax cap.[49] The tax cap makes income in excess of $102,000 untaxable. The result is that the top 6% of income earners don't pay the social security tax on income above $117,000. Hillary Clinton called repealing the Social Security tax cap a "tax increase on the middle class."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Social_Security_tax_cap


If anyone has anything more up to date, if the candidate has revised her positions on unions and on raising the cap, I'd be happy to see them.

62 replies, 9274 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 62 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hillary Clinton on Workers Rights, Labor Unions, and the Social Security Tax Cap. (Original post)
NYC_SKP May 2015 OP
upaloopa May 2015 #1
leftofcool May 2015 #3
Exilednight May 2015 #49
NYC_SKP May 2015 #4
upaloopa May 2015 #5
NYC_SKP May 2015 #10
upaloopa May 2015 #11
NYC_SKP May 2015 #12
upaloopa May 2015 #13
NYC_SKP May 2015 #15
hootinholler May 2015 #17
Jackpine Radical May 2015 #52
NoJusticeNoPeace May 2015 #27
99Forever May 2015 #14
cali May 2015 #24
JEB May 2015 #34
Jackpine Radical May 2015 #53
peacebird May 2015 #2
closeupready May 2015 #9
Sobax May 2015 #56
NoJusticeNoPeace May 2015 #30
Cerridwen May 2015 #6
Cerridwen May 2015 #7
cali May 2015 #26
Cerridwen May 2015 #28
NCTraveler May 2015 #42
Cerridwen May 2015 #43
NCTraveler May 2015 #44
Cerridwen May 2015 #45
KMOD May 2015 #8
msongs May 2015 #16
LineLineLineReply .
KMOD May 2015 #18
salib May 2015 #19
progree May 2015 #20
NYC_SKP May 2015 #21
KMOD May 2015 #22
progree May 2015 #25
progree May 2015 #23
NYC_SKP May 2015 #29
KMOD May 2015 #31
progree May 2015 #32
KMOD May 2015 #33
kenfrequed May 2015 #35
progree May 2015 #37
kenfrequed May 2015 #41
progree May 2015 #48
progree May 2015 #39
progree May 2015 #47
NYC_SKP May 2015 #50
progree May 2015 #51
NYC_SKP May 2015 #54
progree May 2015 #57
progree May 2015 #60
cali May 2015 #58
NYC_SKP May 2015 #59
progree May 2015 #61
KMOD May 2015 #62
truebluegreen May 2015 #36
6000eliot May 2015 #38
JoePhilly May 2015 #46
daredtowork May 2015 #40
NYC_SKP May 2015 #55

Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Mon May 18, 2015, 12:27 PM

1. Well as you know Hillary will check in with you

soon to see where she stands on the issues so don't worry your little head about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #1)

Mon May 18, 2015, 12:51 PM

3. I have yet to figure out why he gives a rip.

If one is not voting for Hillary no matter what, why care what she stands for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #3)

Tue May 19, 2015, 09:40 AM

49. Do you have something against people being informed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #1)

Mon May 18, 2015, 12:53 PM

4. "We do have a plan. We have a plan for my plan."

 

That's what she said about her campaign finance agenda.

She has not so much as sent me a text message in the past 9 days, which really burns me up. I mean I like every one of her Facebook posts and share them a LOT!

In a brief interview with The Washington Post, Clinton said she had developed a plan to overhaul the way money is spent in political campaigns. Earlier in the day she said she wanted to fix the country's "dysfunctional" campaign finance system, even backing a constitutional amendment if necessary.

Asked about her campaign finance agenda, Clinton said, "We do have a plan. We have a plan for my plan."

Clinton added, "I'm going to be rolling out a lot of my policies...Stay tuned."

When The Post asked about the role of Priorities USA Action, a pro-Clinton super PAC currently trying to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to help her campaign, Clinton shrugged her shoulders and said, "I don't know."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/14/hillary-clinton-we-do-have-a-plan-for-campaign-finance-reform/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #4)

Mon May 18, 2015, 12:55 PM

5. You have stated your opposition to Hillary

so who cares what you post?
She will get along just fine in spite of you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #5)

Mon May 18, 2015, 01:14 PM

10. Would it be OK if I post daily facts so that members who are still on the fence can decide?

 

I mean, sure, I know who I don't like but I worry that a lot of readers might not know about things.

Things like how odd it is that CNN gave Hillary's family member a paid position as journalist.

It paid $600,000 per year, very much a part time job.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/30/us/politics/chelsea-clinton-to-leave-nbc-news.html?_r=0

Jenna Bush had a similar gig.

I think it's just Fabulous how ordinary the Bushes and the Clintons are, don't you?

They are JUST LIKE US!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #10)

Mon May 18, 2015, 01:21 PM

11. I don't run your life

Just so you know. Hillary will be President and Chelsey will be First Lady

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #11)

Mon May 18, 2015, 01:24 PM

12. That's adorable!

 

And there's another little one who could grow up in the white house and come back later!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #12)

Mon May 18, 2015, 01:27 PM

13. Don't forget Chelsey's baby

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #13)

Mon May 18, 2015, 01:30 PM

15. That's who I meant by "another little one who could grow up in the white house"!

 

And come back later.

It'll be Hillary 2016-2024, then Chelsea 2024-2032, and then the grandbaby will have to wait a spell and then come back!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #11)

Mon May 18, 2015, 02:24 PM

17. "Chelsey will be First Lady" - Yow!

That tears it, the only reason I would ever vote for Hillary is to see the place settings Bill would create for the State Dinners.



Chelsey.



First lady.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #11)

Tue May 19, 2015, 09:46 AM

52. Alternating with Bushes, I presume?

There are a couple of shrubs out there who are coming along nicely in their elders' footsteps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #10)

Mon May 18, 2015, 03:57 PM

27. never mind, i forgot where i was for a minute

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #5)

Mon May 18, 2015, 01:28 PM

14. I care what he posts.

You and yours?

Not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #1)

Mon May 18, 2015, 03:54 PM

24. well, it's nice and all that you don't worry your beautiful mind on issues

 

I happen to believe that if a candidate is ready to run for office, they damn well should have positions ready to roll out on day 1. but hey, go with trust and the politics of personality. you shouldn't have to worry your beautiful mind about icky things like actual issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #24)

Mon May 18, 2015, 04:31 PM

34. Exactly right.

 

Why are the issues forbidden?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #24)

Tue May 19, 2015, 09:48 AM

53. That's not fair, Cali.

The full findings aren't in from the focus groups yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Mon May 18, 2015, 12:40 PM

2. Bernie is the real populist, he's been fighting for workers his whole career

Hillary... Not so much

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #2)

Mon May 18, 2015, 01:13 PM

9. That's the thing - is there really ANYTHING she WON'T say,

 

if she were convinced saying it would get her elected?

I honestly think she has ZERO qualms about making promises which she also has ZERO intention of keeping.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #9)

Tue May 19, 2015, 10:18 AM

56. Considering how she flip flopped on Iraq

 

And other issues, I seriously doubt there's anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #2)

Mon May 18, 2015, 03:58 PM

30. Yes, compared to Bernie, Hillary is to the right on the important issues. And, compared to ANY

con, Hillary is a flaming liberal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Mon May 18, 2015, 01:01 PM

6. Thanks for the link. "Media Forget Context In Effort To Scandalize Hillary Clinton's Assessment..."

"Media Forget Context In Effort To Scandalize Hillary Clinton's Assessment Of Trickle-Down Economics"

There are some good links at that wiki.

Here's one in which Media Matters addresses the "mainstream media's" attempts to twist the argument and scandalize what isn't a scandal.

Media Forget Context In Effort To Scandalize Hillary Clinton's Assessment Of Trickle-Down Economics

Mainstream media figures, following in the footsteps of conservative media, are trying to manufacture a scandal out of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent argument against trickle-down economics by stripping her comments of context to falsely cast them as a controversial gaffe or a flip-flop on previous statements about trade.

Conservative media outlets rushed to vilify Clinton's stance after she pushed for a minimum wage increase and warned against the myth that businesses create jobs through trickle-down economics at an October 24 campaign event for Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley (D). Breitbart.com complained, "Clinton told the crowd ... not to listen to anybody who says that 'businesses create jobs,'" conservative radio host Howie Carr said the comments showed Clinton's "true moonbat colors," while FoxNews.com promoted the Washington Free Beacon's accusation that she said "businesses and corporations are not the job creators of America."

Mainstream media soon jumped on the bandwagon.

CNN host John King presented Clinton's comments as a fumble "a little reminiscent there of Mitt Romney saying corporations are people, too," and USA Today called the comments "An odd moment from Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail Friday - and one she may regret." In an article egregiously headlined, "Hillary Clinton No Longer Believes That Companies Create Jobs," Bloomberg's Jonathan Allen stripped away any context from Clinton's words in order to accuse her of having "flip-flopped on whether companies create jobs," because she has previously discussed the need to keep American companies competitive abroad.

<snip to much more at link>


It's a good reminder to be careful of sources, how information is presented, how quotes can be mined to create a completely different and/or opposite representation, and so on.

P.S. FYI, about your sig-line, zulchzulu was TSd back on DU2. I thought you might like to know. I'm not sure if zulch is back on under that or another name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Mon May 18, 2015, 01:08 PM

7. Here's another enlightening and more recent link from Media Matters:

NRA Debuts 2016 Conspiracy: Hillary Clinton Is Coming For Your Guns

Right on cue, the National Rifle Association has unveiled its 2016 presidential election conspiracy theory with the baseless claim that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is harboring a secret plan to confiscate Americans' firearms. But Clinton has never endorsed such a plan and in fact has defended private citizens' right to own guns.

In a May 11 article published in the NRA's magazine and on its lobbying website, the gun group wrote, "Whether or not she understands the Second Amendment, Hillary Clinton disdains and distrusts that freedom," and claimed Clinton "wants control over every aspect of your right to keep and bear arms -- so she can deny it at will."

Clinton's own recent statements about "the right of people to own guns" meant the NRA was forced to juxtapose a series of old Clinton quotes -- some dating back to the late 1990s -- and hope that its readers would make implausible leaps of logic to buy into the conspiracy theory that a President Hillary Clinton would confiscate firearms. The NRA ran a similar fearmongering campaign about President Obama during the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections that also had zero basis in fact.

<snip>

The NRA is grossly distorting what Clinton has supported banning by using the term "semi-automatic firearms" interchangeably with "assault weapons." Firearms classified as assault weapons make up only a small subset of all semi-automatic firearms. For example, pistols are typically semi-automatic firearms, but bans on assault weapons only cover a small subset of pistols that have military-style characteristics.


<snip to more at link>


Of course, Media Matters has plenty more about the r/w distorting facts toward their own ends and the times the "mainstream media" jumps aboard with them without bothering to do its own investigation; for example, ACORN.

Thanks for the reminder, skp.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #7)

Mon May 18, 2015, 03:57 PM

26. Media Matters is an arm of the Clinton campaign. .

 

They were set up by CAP- often referred to as HRC's "shadow government".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #26)

Mon May 18, 2015, 03:58 PM

28. Oh, I see. Got it. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #26)

Tue May 19, 2015, 07:20 AM

42. often referred to as HRC's "shadow government".

 

Do you have a link to who "often referred to it as HRC's "shadow government"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #42)

Tue May 19, 2015, 07:28 AM

43. I found that reference at breibert, newsmax, townhall, and many

other rabid r/w sites.

From "the left," it tends to be the hill, politico, and good ol' huffpo.

I wouldn't worry much. There are quite a few people who think sources don't matter; unless it's "mainstream media" in which case they're lying except when they say bad things about <Democrat "I" do like> or good things about <Democrats "I" don't like> ("I" meaning whomever is doing the writing at whichever site).

And, please do ignore decades of r/w talking points being catapulted onto the national stage as "fair and balanced." But, sources from foreign to the US are "completely reliable."


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #43)

Tue May 19, 2015, 07:36 AM

44. I just didn't get the comment.

 

Move on had a huge role in setting up media matters. It has a pretty good record of bringing out the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the right. I had never heard of the Clinton angle. If Clinton and Move On teamed up to call out the hypocrisy of the right I won't be too upset.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #44)

Tue May 19, 2015, 07:39 AM

45. I consider it a balance against the constant r/w crap that gets

classified and "news" and which would be better relegated to the gossip columns.

They've done some good work on outing the "mainstream media's" propensity to parrot the latest manufactured outrage and/or scandal from the r/wers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Mon May 18, 2015, 01:11 PM

8. HRC on Labor Unions

 

We're going to stand up for the right to organize again, because it's no coincidence that as union membership has declined to just 8% of private sector workers, wages have been stagnant -- and income inequality has increased.


http://vote-ny.org/PoliticianIssue.aspx?State=NY&Id=NYCLINTONHILLARYRODHAM&Issue=BUSWages

on social security

I do not want to balance Social Security on the backs of our seniors & middle-class families. We have to move back toward a more fair and progressive tax system, and begin to move toward a balanced budget with a surplus.

http://vote-ny.org/PoliticianIssue.aspx?State=NY&Id=NYCLINTONHILLARYRODHAM&Issue=BUSSocialSecurity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KMOD (Reply #8)

Mon May 18, 2015, 02:01 PM

16. thread party pooper lol nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #16)

Mon May 18, 2015, 03:20 PM

18. .

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KMOD (Reply #8)

Mon May 18, 2015, 03:30 PM

19. Wow. Sounds kinda nice. Doesn't mean anything.

And that balanced budget stuff is, of course, not pandering to Progressives.

At least Obama promised card-check. . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KMOD (Reply #8)

Mon May 18, 2015, 03:42 PM

20. So, what SPECIFICALLY does she propose to do about the S.S. funding gap?

I do not want to balance Social Security on the backs of our seniors & middle-class families. We have to move back toward a more fair and progressive tax system, and begin to move toward a balanced budget with a surplus.
-- 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University (10/30/2007)

http://vote-ny.org/PoliticianIssue.aspx?State=NY&Id=NYCLINTONHILLARYRODHAM&Issue=BUSSocialSecurity


Hillary Clinton supports retaining the Social Security tax cap. The tax cap makes income in excess of $102,000 untaxable. The result is that the top 6% of income earners don't pay the social security tax on income above $117,000. Hillary Clinton called repealing the Social Security tax cap a "tax increase on the middle class."
-- Nov. 15, 2007 Democratic debate transcript

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Social_Security_tax_cap


O.K. so she won't raise the Social Security tax cap, because she considers it a tax on the middle class (and it will catch some in the upper middle class, true). But it is about the only progressive way there is to close the Social Security funding gap and stave off trust fund exhaustion in around 2033, at which time, benefits will be reduced by 25% unless the law is changed. (And the projected trust fund exhaustion date has been advancing in recent years, for example, in 2002 it was projected to occur in 2041).

Other than means-testing S.S. retirement benefits which has the problem of making the S.S. retirement system more akin to a welfare program.

So what is she proposing?

[font color = red]On Edit[/font]And on making the tax system more progressive, specifically what is she proposing? Raising the capital gains tax? Raising the ordinary tax rate on the top bracket or two? Keeping in mind these changes have to be enough to meet her (2007) goal of balancing the budget.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #20)

Mon May 18, 2015, 03:49 PM

21. Privatization, maybe? She seems to be avoiding that third-rail. Not particularly courageous.

 

Reagan era tax-rates would help, and raising the cap is a no-brainer!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #21)

Mon May 18, 2015, 03:52 PM

22. nope

 

So my message to Senator McCain is this - Social Security privatization is a bad idea whose time has come and gone, and the American people rejected the Bush privatization plan in 2005 and the American people will reject the Bush-McCain privatization plan in 2008.


It's in the same link above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KMOD (Reply #22)

Mon May 18, 2015, 03:55 PM

25. So what SPECIFICALLY is she proposing to do to close the funding gap? (please see #20) nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #21)

Mon May 18, 2015, 03:53 PM

23. Reagan era tax rates? You mean BEFORE he cut the top bracket to 28% (I hope) nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #23)

Mon May 18, 2015, 03:58 PM

29. Reagan top tax rates AND effective tax rates, highest ever:

 

At least in our lifetimes:



Should be higher than even under Reagan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #20)

Mon May 18, 2015, 04:03 PM

31. sorry, was getting info for you.

 

One account from the Associated Press featured a conversation between a campaigning Clinton and an Iowa voter in which the candidate said she might consider committing more of workers' income to Social Security. "She told him she didn't want to put an additional tax burden on the middle class but would consider a 'gap,' with no Social Security taxes on income from $97,500 to around $200,000. Anything above that could be taxed," according to the article.

edit to add link:

http://www.ontheissues.org/social_security.htm

Also keep in mind that social security doing well under President Bill Clinton. It was George Bush that screwed it up for his war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KMOD (Reply #31)

Mon May 18, 2015, 04:09 PM

32. Good. So that's raising the cap, with a gap. Good. (Note the rhyme)

[font color = red]On Edit[/font] I see your quote is from Sept 2007 per your link, at which time the max cap was $97,500
from your link http://www.ontheissues.org/social_security.htm

The max cap by year (for those who may be confused by all the different max cap numbers -- they change yearly with inflation. In 2015 its $118,500. Just in the way of background )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Wage_Base#Historical_data

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #32)

Mon May 18, 2015, 04:15 PM

33. I do like the rhyme.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KMOD (Reply #31)

Mon May 18, 2015, 04:41 PM

35. Eh...

I don't really like the emphasis on the 100K+ version of the middle class. We need to spend more time talking about the working class. Frankly I think demolishing the cap is the best we could do for all Americans. Slipping in the gap just seems kind of overly concerned with not offending anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenfrequed (Reply #35)

Mon May 18, 2015, 10:43 PM

37. I agree. But this seems to be about as progressive as it gets, even Bernie Sanders is for the gap

Senator Bernie Sanders plans to introduce legislation to keep the current cap at $106,800, but to also apply the Social Security payroll tax to earnings over $250,000. It is similar to previous bills and echoes a proposal by then-Senator Obama on the campaign trail in 2008. While this would leave those making between the current cap of $106,800 and the proposed cap of $250,000 paying the lowest rates, it would help secure the solvency of the program and avoid an increase in taxes on the middle class.

- Source: Who's Above the Social Security Payroll Tax Cap?
September 2011, Nicole Woo, Janelle Jones and John Schmitt
http://www.cepr.net/publications/reports/whos-above-the-social-security-payroll-tax-cap


The above is the first "hit" that looked promising to a Google search: "bernie sanders on the social security wage cap"

So might not be his latest, but I've heard him on Thom Hartmann (Lunch with Bernie on Fridays) and I think that's where he still is. You probably won't be surprised that Obama is apparently for the upper middle class gap too.

Using the 2015 figure for the max cap -- $118,500 -- rather than the $106,800 for 2012 in the excerpted text above --

On the other hand, although people making between $118,500 in 2015 and $250,000 won't pay any additional SS tax, they won't get any additional SS benefits either when they retire -- they'll get the same benefits as one making $118,500, so it's not quite as awful as it looks at first glance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #37)

Tue May 19, 2015, 07:07 AM

41. Well I disagree with him on this one.

Bernie still has my support as he is the only one talking about eliminating the cap (even if it has the gap I don't like.) Last time she ran (then) Senator Clinton supported following the advice of a bipartisan commission that favored raising the retirement age.

So, yes Bernie seems to support this gap but I don't have to agree with absolutely everything he says to support him. His is the closest to my positions on this and other matters so I back him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenfrequed (Reply #41)

Tue May 19, 2015, 09:09 AM

48. We'll soon (perhaps) get more clarity on Hillary's position on the retirement age and the cap

Bernie still has my support as he is the only one talking about eliminating the cap (even if it has the gap I don't like.) Last time she ran (then) Senator Clinton supported following the advice of a bipartisan commission that favored raising the retirement age.


I asked KMOD about this -- please see my #47 and any replies that might follow that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenfrequed (Reply #35)

Mon May 18, 2015, 10:57 PM

39. Bernie Sanders is for the gap in this one from March 2015

Sanders Files Bill to Strengthen, Expand Social Security
Thursday, March 12, 2015

“The most effective way to strengthen Social Security for the future is to eliminate the cap on the payroll tax on all income above $250,000 so millionaires and billionaires pay the same share as everyone else.”

... Sanders’ measure would make the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share. Under current law, the amount of income subject to the payroll tax is capped at $118,500. That means someone making millions of dollars a year pays the same amount in payroll taxes as some making $118,500 a year. The legislation would subject all income over $250,000 to the payroll tax. Doing so would impact only the top 1.5 percent of wage earners, the Center for Economic Policy Research has estimated.

The bill also would subject unearned household income above $250,000 to the same 6.2 percent tax as applies to most earned income. The top 0.1 percent of Americans gets about half of all capital gains income.

Asking the wealthiest Americans to contribute more into Social Security, would not only extend the solvency of Social Security through 2060, it also would allow Social Security benefits to be expanded for millions of Americans.

...The bill would:

Increase Social Security benefits by about $65 a month for most recipients.

Increase cost-of-living Adjustments for Social Security recipients.

Provide a minimum Social Security benefit to significantly reduce the senior poverty rate.


Social Security today has a $2.8 trillion surplus and will be able to pay all promised benefits until 2033, after which it will be able to pay around 75 percent of all promised benefits. The Social Security Expansion Act would increase revenue and extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 45 years.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-calls-on-congress-to-strengthen-and-expand-social-security

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KMOD (Reply #31)

Tue May 19, 2015, 09:06 AM

47. Oops - looks like she walked away from raising the cap?

During her 2008 presidential bid, Clinton was relatively non-committal about reforms to the Social Security program. She said in 2007 that certain reforms such as cutting benefits, privatizing the program or raising the retirement age were "off the table." There were some articles at the time that gave mixed signals on whether she would be willing to increase payroll taxes.

One account from the Associated Press featured a conversation between a campaigning Clinton and an Iowa voter in which the candidate said she might consider committing more of workers' income to Social Security. "She told him she didn't want to put an additional tax burden on the middle class but would consider a 'gap,' with no Social Security taxes on income from $97,500 to around $200,000. Anything above that could be taxed," according to the article.

Ultimately, Clinton officially shied away from the increase in taxes, and stuck with official comments that revolved around improving the economy overall.

Source: Megan R. Wilson in TheHill.com weblog, "Clinton vs. Warren" , Aug 24, 2014
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Social_Security.htm


Also, is there anything to this comment in #41?

Last time she ran (then) Senator Clinton supported following the advice of a bipartisan commission that favored raising the retirement age.


I see remarks on the Hillary_Clinton_Social_Security.htm page by her supporting appointing a bipartisan commission, but there's nothing about her approving and enacting everything they might come up with (I searched the page for "commission". It would be a new commission (I'm rusty on my history of bipartisan commissions on Social Security and what they came up with. But I don't see anything about approving everything or anything any past commission has come up with).

All-in-all, it looks pretty wishy-washy, and I don't see any solutions to closing the funding gap except appointing a bipartisan commission, but with everything off the table, except maybe / maybe not raising the cap as in the first excerpt above.

Thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #47)

Tue May 19, 2015, 09:40 AM

50. Oh Crap! Hillary Clinton favored raising the retirement age???

 

But Clinton so far hasn't taken a position on the emerging Democratic consensus in Congress for expanding Social Security, backed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), among others. Clinton should embrace the idea. We've argued for this approach, including here and here.

It's detested by conservatives, such as rightist pundit Megan McArdle, because it restores at least a measure of fairness to America's pattern of income distribution -- and that means requiring the wealthy to pay more of their fair share.

If Clinton is serious about standing up for America's middle class, this is the right policy. It doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with whether she's collecting a monthly check or not. It only has to do with what's best for America's working- and middle-class.


I personally think that she'll advocate slowly replacing SS with IRA-type plans, a gift to the banksters that run them and that have no safety associated with them whatsover.

I had money in AIG funds and we know what happened to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #50)

Tue May 19, 2015, 09:46 AM

51. Do you mean "raising the maximum wage cap" in your title?

It seems to me that your excerpt is talking about raising the wage cap rather than the retirement age

I have yet to see anywhere anything about her saying she would raise the retirement age, or follow the recommendations of a bipartisan commission that so recommended. From #47, raising the retirement age is off the table, and she would appoint a bipartisan commission...

As much as I don't like Hillary, I don't think she would be for any form of privatization of SS.

(shoot, lots of edits, sorry)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #51)

Tue May 19, 2015, 10:07 AM

54. "Clinton supported following the advice of a bipartisan commission that favored raising..."

 

Senator Clinton supported following the advice of a bipartisan commission that favored raising the retirement age.

This can be inferred from her exchange during a debate:

OBAMA: Well, no … because the alternatives, like raising the retirement age, or cutting benefits, or raising the payroll tax on everybody, including people who make less than $97,000 a year — … those are not good policy options.

Senator Clinton responded with more wishy-washy defense of her position. Sounding like an old-time Republican, she gave the old mantra of America’s fiscal class war:

“When it comes to Social Security, fiscal responsibility is the first and more important step. . . . And with all due respect, the last time we had a crisis in Social Security was 1983. President 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.”

She promised not to “impose additional burdens on middle-class families – that is, implicitly defining the middle class as those who earn from $97,000 to $3,000,000,000 per year. This remarkable definition of “middle class” has yet to make it into the sociological textbooks, but I’m sure the University of Chicago will soon make the requisite adjustment.

Senator Obama was quick to respond: “That commission raised the retirement age, Charlie, and also raised the payroll tax.” He said that she was proposing a “magic solution.” (This was the equivalent of “voodoo economics” of which Pres. Bush I accused Ronald Reagan of practicing.)


In the same exchange, she said:

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year – $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.

… I want businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don’t have it and that we’re able to invest it in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.

In response, Sen. Clinton say said:

CLINTON: … I don’t want to take one more penny of tax money from anybody.”

MODERATOR: Would you say, ‘No, I’m not going to raise capital gains taxes’?

CLINTON: I wouldn’t raise it above the 20 percent if I raised it at all. I would not raise it above what it was during the Clinton administration.


I don't want to call her a Republican, but it sure reads as if a Republican had taken over her brain and made those comments, doesn't it?



http://michael-hudson.com/2008/04/resurrecting-greenspan-hillary-joins-the-vast-rightwing-financial-conspiracy/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #54)

Tue May 19, 2015, 10:30 AM

57. I will have to look more into it, but my quick reaction is I don't disagree with your last sentence

or perhaps it's an utter inability to articulate any position where there will be losers (as well as winners)

I'll be away from the Internet starting in about 15 minutes until mid- late- tomorrow, so won't be seeing or responding to anybody or anything until then...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #54)

Tue May 19, 2015, 10:42 AM

60. Well, except I don't agree with your "inference" about raising the retirement age

Last edited Wed May 20, 2015, 09:54 PM - Edit history (1)

"Clinton supported following the advice of a bipartisan commission that favored raising..."

Senator Clinton supported following the advice of a bipartisan commission that favored raising the retirement age.

This can be inferred from her exchange during a debate:


your excerpt doesn't support that. Rather it's more of a statement kicking the can down the road.

[font color = red]On Edit 5/20 949p CT:[/font] Two assumptions have to be made in order to state that Hillary would raise or try to raise the retirement age: (a) that the commission would recommend raising the retirement age, and (b) that she would follow that recommendation.

Plus there is this excerpt (more of it shown in #47)

She said in 2007 that certain reforms such as cutting benefits, privatizing the program or raising the retirement age were "off the table."
Source: Megan R. Wilson in TheHill.com weblog, "Clinton vs. Warren" , Aug 24, 2014
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Social_Security.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #47)

Tue May 19, 2015, 10:35 AM

58. This should be posted as an OP. If you don't want to, I'll do it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #58)

Tue May 19, 2015, 10:38 AM

59. If you do be sure to include her "no new taxes" statement.

 

.

Small wonder that Obama kicked her ass.

And now it's Sanders, oh HELL!

http://michael-hudson.com/2008/04/resurrecting-greenspan-hillary-joins-the-vast-rightwing-financial-conspiracy/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #58)

Tue May 19, 2015, 10:43 AM

61. Go right ahead. I'm already overdue for getting ready for a trip

that will take me from the Internet until mid- late- tomorrow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #47)

Tue May 19, 2015, 12:59 PM

62. more recent comments

 

And Clinton also took a moment to discuss the need to preserve Social Security. She chastised Republicans – though not by name – as “just wrong” for wanting to change the retirement program. “What do we do to make sure it is there? We don’t mess with it, and we do not pretend that it is a luxury – because it is not a luxury. It is a necessity for the majority of people who draw from Social Security,” she said.

“I think there will be some big political arguments about Social Security,” she continued. “And my only question to everybody who thinks we can privatize Social Security or undermine it in some way – and what is going to happen to all these people, like you, who worked 27 years at this other company? What’s going to happen? It’s just wrong.”

Many liberals, who have been urging Clinton to embrace an expansion of Social Security, will likely be pleased by the remarks.


http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-dont-mess-social-security

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KMOD (Reply #8)

Mon May 18, 2015, 05:32 PM

36. Lotta wiggle room in there...

 

Not wanting to do something is not the same as not doing it. Nobody wants to eat their peas, but sometimes they just gotta.

As for labor unions, maybe she has a pair of comfortable shoes.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Sorry to be grumpy. I just feel I've heard this story before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Mon May 18, 2015, 10:48 PM

38. It would be nice if people could make their case for their candidate

without tearing other people's candidate down. Too much to ask, I suppose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 6000eliot (Reply #38)

Tue May 19, 2015, 07:43 AM

46. OP doesn't realize that unless he convinces people that Bernie would ...

... absolutely beat any GOP candidate, Bernie will not beat Hillary in the primary.

He thinks attacking Hillary will get people who would happily vote for her, to take the risk of a GOP president, by switching to the candidate he's not talking about nearly as much.

Not a brilliant political strategy if he wants Bernie to win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Tue May 19, 2015, 01:01 AM

40. I would like to call attention to Hillary's stated views on Welfare

KMOD pointed me to this page, apparently thinking that it communicated that Hillary was shifting social justice:

http://vote-ny.org/politicianissue.aspx?state=ny&id=nyclintonhillaryrodham&issue=buswelfare

Tricky, tricky, tricky.

If you read her positions on "welfare" carefully, you will see they are very carefully crafted to emphasize "work", and they are reverberations of Bill Clinton's "welfare reform as we know it". There is nothing in Hillary's positions to suggest that she would repair term limits, subsidy coverage/amounts, or shift the focus to housing stability first (making the issue more broadly about livelihood than making people with significant barriers to employment spontaneously pull a job out of their ass or accept the following punishments, starting with homelessness...).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Reply #40)

Tue May 19, 2015, 10:12 AM

55. Good Catch. Thanks for that. She does in many ways seem to be running for Bill's third term:

 

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year – $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.

… I want businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don’t have it and that we’re able to invest it in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.

In response, Sen. Clinton say said:

CLINTON: … I don’t want to take one more penny of tax money from anybody.”

MODERATOR: Would you say, ‘No, I’m not going to raise capital gains taxes’?

CLINTON: I wouldn’t raise it above the 20 percent if I raised it at all. I would not raise it above what it was during the Clinton administration.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread