2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie Sanders Challenges Hillary Clinton on SOCIAL SECURITY
PRESS RELEASE
Sanders Challenges Clinton on Social Security
APRIL 9TH, 2016
NEW YORK – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Saturday called for raising Social Security benefits to help seniors make ends meet. He also urged Hillary Clinton to back a plan endorsed by leading Democrats and seniors’ advocates to strengthen the retirement program.
Sanders’ stops at Bronx Community College and at the United Palace in Manhattan’s Washington Heights neighborhood were part of a presidential campaign tour of New York City boroughs.
More than 1,000 backers turned out to hear Sanders in Washington Heights and more than 800 supporters in the Bronx packed an auditorium in the Gould Memorial Library and an overflow room at the college.
Sanders said seniors in New York and across the United States don’t have enough income to heat their homes or feed themselves and many are forced to cut their pills in half to save money on prescription drugs. “These are the people who built this country – our parents, our grandparents. We should not be treating them that way.”
Clinton, Sanders’ rival for the Democratic Party nomination, has refused to back Sanders’ plan to strengthen Social Security. In fact, Clinton has left open the possibility that she would support raising the retirement age at which seniors become eligible for Social Security. “I would consider it,” she told a town meeting in New Hampshire last Oct. 28.
In New York, more than 3.5 million seniors, orphans, widows, widowers and disabled people received Social Security benefits last year. The average annual benefit totaled only $15,000.
Without Social Security, more than 43 percent of the elderly in New York, including more than 48 percent of senior women, would be living in poverty. With Social Security, the elderly poverty rate in New York is 11.6 percent.
Sanders has introduced legislation to make the wealthiest Americans who make more than $250,000 a year pay the same share of their income into the retirement system as everyone else. Current law now caps the amount of income subject to payroll taxes at $118,500.
Under Sanders’ plan, a senior making less than $16,000 a year would see income go up by more than $1,300 a year.
The measure also would increase cost-of-living adjustments. This year, for only the third time in four decades, seniors on Social Security did not receive a cost-of-living increase. Sanders’ legislation would increase COLAs by more accurately measuring the spending patterns of seniors. Under current law, the consumer price index used to calculate annual benefit adjustments does not accurately reflect how inflation in health care costs and prescription drug prices impact seniors.
The proposal to lift the cap would raise taxes only on the wealthiest 1.5 percent of Americans. Sanders’ plan is patterned after a proposal to scrap the cap first brought forward by President Barack Obama in 2008.
According to new estimates from the Social Security Administration, Sanders’ plan would extend the solvency of Social Security until the year 2074.
The senator from Vermont who was born and raised in Brooklyn was headed later Saturday to a third rally in Queens before capping the day with a nighttime event at the Apollo Theater in Harlem.
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-challenges-clinton-social-security/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Segami
(14,923 posts)Of course she would......
Avalon Sparks
(2,751 posts)She is un fracking believable.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)and LOWER the age. That would create more jobs for more younger folks, AND help pay for the benefits for older folks!
-none
(1,884 posts)paying into Social Security in the first place. That is the root problem.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)People in heavy physical labor jobs need to retire so that they can enjoy some time in retirement. The current system, which calls for raising the age is stupid. It just keeps people in the system at an older and older age. If we eliminate the cap altogether, there will be more money flowing into Social Security, and we will be able to afford to lower that age, and older folks can be able to enjoy some time in their older age, while they can still appreciate it, and not be hurting all the time.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)But I know she cares deeply about their votes.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)
cui bono
(19,926 posts)With Dems like that who needs Repubs?
.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)hit her in the Chained CPI.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)It's what OUR side has. .. as opposed to the empty smears the Clinton campaign keeps doing.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)revbones
(3,660 posts)I don't have the votes right now during my predecessors term so I'm not going to try at all.
She hides behind Obama. Did he have the votes before the ACA?
eridani
(51,907 posts)
appalachiablue
(44,022 posts)
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)She and Paul Ryan will probably also cut Medicare or give it to their insurance pals as well. A proclamation like the social security cuts, or the other one about being agreeable to restricting reproductive rights, should disqualify a democratic candidate, period. If a male candidate said either of those things his candidacy would be over.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Increasing the retirement age doesn't affect the "creative class" much, but hurts the working class a lot.
QC
(26,371 posts)Hardly anyone, certainly not the corporate centrists.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)
Cobalt Violet
(9,976 posts)Working poor are a dime a dozen. They want us to die before we see a dime of our social security. that's so obvious and in your face every damn day. I hate the Third Way.
QC
(26,371 posts)Basically, as he argues it, Democrats are now the party of the professional class. All that stuff about workers is passé. The party now looks after the so-called "meritocracy" now.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)A meritocracy is one that awards social status by competitive performance. Since the US educational system leaves about half of the people out of legitimate competition in higher education due to their economic status, it can in no sense be considered a meritocracy.
A much better way of putting it is that we have an aristocracy serving an oligarchic royalty.
QC
(26,371 posts)That's a key point. They went to good schools and so on and made it, so obviously they're very special people and the system works--as they see it.
Think of Obama's remarks to the effect that banksters get paid a lot b/c they are very talented, like athletes who get paid a lot.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)If he didn't then you probably should have phrased your comment differently.
QC
(26,371 posts)Hence my use of "so-called."
Consider reading the book--it's excellent.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)It currently stands somewhere in the $118,000 of income range. SS isn't nearly the problem that Medicare is.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I think the social safety net should be one of those.
Medicare is another problem.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)After all, they want to limit Social Security, or even eliminate it to give more handouts to the financial corporations.
lostnfound
(17,520 posts)Youth unemployment creates a host of problems
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)There are just buckets of jobs for people over 65! Oh wait, no really there aren't.
Raise the cap and lower the age to 65. How about we change course. Instead of looking for ways to cut benefits, lets start looking for ways to improve them.
rurallib
(64,688 posts)not make excuses why they will punt?
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)And that she is lying when she tells us that she is the one that can get things done?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Good grief.
.
Segami
(14,923 posts)Paul Ryan And Bill Clinton Chat Backstage About Medicare, NY-26
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is not backing down from his Medicare privatization proposals, in the wake of the GOP's stunning defeat in the NY-26 special election. And as ABC News reports, he's getting some friendly advice from an unlikely source: Democratic former President Bill Clinton.
The two were seen talking backstage at Wednesday's Fiscal Summit held by the Pete Peterson Foundation, where they were both speaking. And apparently without their knowledge, a camera picked up some of the conversation.
"I'm glad we won this race in New York," Clinton can be seen saying in the video. "But I hope Democrats don't use it as an excuse to do nothing."
Ryan responded: "My guess is it's gonna sink into paralysis, is what's gonna happen. And you know the math. I mean, It's just --Â we knew we were putting ourselves out there. But you gotta start this. You gotta get out there. You gotta get this thing moving."
Clinton told Ryan to call him if he ever wanted to talk about the issue, Ryan said he would, and the two parted.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/paul-ryan-and-bill-clinton-chat-backstage-about-medicare-ny-26-video
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)Cobalt Violet
(9,976 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)It's hard to believe I'm reading du and not Fox nation these days
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)People are living longer. I think FDR himself would support some modifications.
Viva_La_Revolution
(28,791 posts)Just speaking economically, it's stupid. Keep older people working longer so those jobs don't open for younger workers.
Most of us work physical jobs, and our bodies wear out long before 60. I bet you don't.
lostnfound
(17,520 posts)Adding to that problem is beyond foolish. Why do productivity gains that companies report year after year not lead to a society where human beings work shorter hours or fewer years, instead of longer hours and more years?
rurallib
(64,688 posts)
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)americans will have no choice - other than billary1 or billary2
amborin
(16,631 posts)ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)I'm going to do another OP on it's own. Now that this has come up.
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)Specifically, I propose that we commit 60 percent of the budget surplus for the next 15 years to Social Security, investing a small portion in the private sector, just as any private or state government pension would do. This will earn a higher return and keep Social Security sound for 55 years.
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19990119-2656.html
What's wrong with Social Security owning assets in the private sector, just like CalPERS
Which would have been better.
B) Commit 100 percent of the budget surplus for Bush tax cuts for the rich
kristopher
(29,798 posts)If the timing works (and no 2008 comes along) everyone will think the tech bubble will last forever and they can turn the entire SS system over to those great saviors on Wall Street.
Fail.
Henhouse
(646 posts)Sander's and his supporters act like the Bush era never happened. Everything wrong in the world is Bill Clinton or Obama's fault.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)So....we can't raise the age, and we have a YUGE problem with the number of jobs, for those who ARE ALREADY WAITING ANOTHER YEAR, HILLARY!
Henhouse
(646 posts)When I retire at 67, the estimate is that it will take 3 young worker's FICA payments combined to pay just my social security and medicare benefit.
That is a horrible deal for people under 30.
2banon
(7,321 posts)
boston bean
(36,931 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)on HRC and Soc Sec. I'm hoping someone will make an OP from some of it:
PCCC & Social Security Works Launch Online Ad Buy in NH
PCCC: “It is an absolute must for a Democratic nominee who claims to be progressive to take Social Security cuts off the table.”
WASHINGTON - Today, after Sec. Hillary Clinton’s campaign made clear for the first time that she will not commit to never cut Social Security, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Social Security Works have launched an online ad buy in New Hampshire to increase pressure on Clinton to make that explicit promise before Tuesday’s primary.
Minutes ago, the Clinton campaign told the Huffington Post, “She has no plans to cut benefits.” The Huffington Post accurately reported, “Hillary Clinton refuses to rule out any and all benefit cuts to Social Security.”
The PCCC and Social Security Works in response announced an online ad buy statewide across New Hampshire today. The Facebook and Google ads will target likely Democratic voters, including Clinton’s supporters.
Stephanie Taylor, Co-founder of the PCCC issued the following statement:
“Hillary Clinton says she has ‘no plans’ to cut Social Security -- but George W. Bush had ‘no plans’ to invade Iraq. That is not a promise, and our grandparents and veterans need a promise.
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2016/02/05/huff-post-hillary-clinton-refuses-rule-out-any-and-all-benefit-cuts-social
Issues with Clinton’s Views on Social Security
To begin, remember the words I asked you to mentally mark down? (To review: “especially for women,” “our most vulnerable”, “the poorest recipients,” “they need more help” and “those people who need it the most.”) Think about it:
They all imply that Clinton wishes to introduce Social Securiyt benefits that are defined using eligibility requirements (“especially,” “most vulnerable,” “poorest”, “need”).
That is, Clinton proposes to convert Social Security from a universal program of social insurance to a welfare program. This is a poisoned chalice that will destroy Social Security as we know it. Social Security should not be means-tested:
Medicare and Social Security are not handouts to the needy. They are not even intended to be a safety net. In their design, they promote the fundamental notion that dignity and good health in old age are not special privileges that can be bestowed or taken away. They are fundamental rights that every working American who has contributed productively to the economy can expect to enjoy. As James K. Galbraith told me in an email, “It’s insurance, not charity.”
Make no mistake: If means-testing on the wealthy is allowed, conservatives will keep pushing until that same means-testing is applied to the middle class, who increasingly must rely on Social Security and Medicare in times of economic uncertainty and job insecurity.
Even the Democratic think tank Campaign for America’s Future calls Social Security means-testing a Trojan Horse:
What alarmed Social Security activists is that underneath Clinton’s positive language [in the Democratic debate] – “fully support,” “enhance” – appears to lie support for policies, including from leading conservatives like Pete Peterson – that would actually undermine Social Security.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the House Ways and Means Committee chairman who is being wooed to take over as House speaker, was broadly attacked for proposing a plan that singled out Social Security’s “poorest recipients” for protection. Ryan proposed “progressive price indexing” that would reduce benefits for the top 70 percent of wage earners while maintaining benefits for the bottom 30 percent.
When Ryan first proposed this in 2010, coupling this with a plan to divert Social Security funds into stock market accounts, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities concluded that ‘the result would be a system in which Social Security is very unattractive to affluent people … These changes would risk undermining the broad-based support that Social Security now enjoys'”
Like your insurance policy, when you file a claim the size of the check you receive is not based on your income or net worth; it’s based on the amount of coverage you purchased. Car insurance companies that paid less in claims to Mercedes owners, presumably because they are wealthier than owners of a working-class Chevy Cruze, would lose high-end customers – and eventually would collapse.
Now let’s look at something Clinton isn’t mentioning today, but has mentioned in the past: A commission, that favorite device in official Washington for diverting hard choices to an unaccountable body. Here’s Clinton in a campaign 2008 debate, at Drexel University in Philadelphia, PA (October 30, 2007):
A: I have said consistently that my plan for Social Security is fiscal responsibility first, then to deal with any long-term challenges. We would have a bipartisan commission. All of these would be considered. I do not want to balance Social Security on the backs of our seniors & middle-class families.
Snip
(Ah, memories: the 2008 campaign, when Obama, campaigning in Iowa, put Social Security on the table to differentiate himself from Clinton, after progressives, amazingly enough, had gotten Pelosi to take it off the table under the Bush administration.) And here’s Clinton in a primary debate with Obama at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, PA (April 16, 2008):
OBAMA: (to Clinton): I think we should be honest in presenting our ideas in terms of how we’re going to stabilize the Social Security system and not just say that we’re going to form a commission and try to solve the problem some other way.
CLINTON: I am totally committed to making sure Social Security is solvent. You’ve got to begin to rein in the budget, pay as you go[8], 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.
Snip
In summary:
• Clinton will not commit to Social Security expansion
• Clinton would like to turn Social Security into a welfare program, destroying it
• Clinton would like a Social Security Commission, and past such commissions have produced unconscionable results.
snip
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/hillary-clinton-on-social-security-expansion-words-are-wind-a-cold-wind.html
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)all of us seniors out onto the streets. i will be homeless.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)Say anything... Do anything.
lostnfound
(17,520 posts)Makes no sense that there's "less" that can be "afforded" now. Meanwhile there's no shortage of unemployed young people. How is raising retirement age going to solve anything??
Vinca
(53,994 posts)I'm certain she'll reach across the aisle and figure out some way to screw over SS recipients.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)But she lacked specifity.
Does she mean taxing IRA accounts? Or unemployment compensation? Or Social security benefits themselves? Inheritance? CD interest?
Saying she's consider taxing unearned income can be deceptive if not clarified?
As to raising the cap, there's no such pretend hiding behind a non-plan. You're either for raising it or not and it directly affects larger wage earners and brings more into the coffers helping to secure the system.
She's also spoke of entertaining a "means" system if it could be to her liking which she says she's not found yet. As to a retirement age increase she has not pledged to keep from raising it during her tenure in office, nor entertained lowering the age.
She's also spoke of not "cutting" social security, but she doesn't talk about expanding it for ALL, instead saying she is for some additional benefits for widows and some other women whose benefits may not be high due to various factors. Again, it is nebulous. She also doesn't address a new indexing for COLA's based on senior costs.
It would be much more beneficial to look at all social security residents ad their gross income rather than look at gender specific approaches. For example, you may be widowed and on social security, but if your deceased husband had a very lucrative social security payment, a widow gets that higher amount when her husband dies. This same scenario crops up for any stay at home parent situation.
A better approach is to look at social security income and whether the person's gross family income is below the povertry level on whether to expand benefits for situations. This way a person with a family income of two say 15K a year is deemed well below the poverty level for two by say 5K a year. Instead of raising the social security, this family is granted a 5K benefit for the year and a payment is sent to them. In this way, no retired family would ever be below the poverty level. The cost of rent or property taxes could be factored into that as well with a ceiling on that amount.
This way social security remains a program for all people dedicated to what was its intention providing a safety net in retirement for ALL.
Simply put, her program on social security is nebulous, with a few gender specific nuggets thrown out for certain situations which are even a bit nebulous.