? for Hillary Supporters ONLY - If it were up to you, how would you fix

[NorthCarolina]

Social Security?

What changes to Social Security would be acceptable to you, and what changes would not be acceptable to you?

Thanks in advance for your honest answers.

[charlyvi]

1. Raise or remove the cap.

[NorthCarolina]

2. Thanks.

Is that the only acceptable approach from your perspective?

For instance, President Obama chose to include adding Chained CPI as a means to reduce costs in the program. Did you support his efforts in that regard? If so, would you consider such an approach to still be a viable and acceptable option?

[Mz Pip]

25. This ^^^^

That should be a huge help. No need to cut benefits if the cap is removed.

[workinclasszero]

51. First thing to do right there, thanks

Make the rich pay SS on ALL of their income.

[Squinch]

3. Raise the cap. Lower the age for those in physically demanding jobs.

Though from your follow up question, I suspect you were hoping for something else.

[NorthCarolina]

9. To be honest,

the only thing I was hoping for is actual discussion. People are going to believe what they believe, I am just trying to open an actual discussion of an actual issue. Seems it might be so much more productive than just using this site to fling poo back and forth.

[leftofcool]

4. Raise the cap and tax unearned income.

I would not have a problem with social security being minimally cut for those of us with higher incomes that also draw social security. May making over 100K a year are also drawing SS. If they cut mine by say 5.00 a month or even 10, it would not hurt and would go to those who need theirs raised.

[NorthCarolina]

5. Thanks for your response as well.

Let me pose the same question back to you regarding other options that have been seen as acceptable options by some Democrats such as Chained CPI, raising the retirement age, and means testing. Would you be adverse to any of those proposals? Did you support President Obama in his decisions to include chained CPI in his budget proposal?

I appreciate a chance at discussion on actual policy, perhaps a new avenue for DU.

[leftofcool]

10. I was against "chained" CPI because it assumes things that were not true.

I like the old CPI plan which raised SS as prices went up. I am not totally averse to means testing as long as the money not going to those with high incomes actually goes to those with low incomes, ie Mary Smith makes 200K per year so her SS is only half of what it might be if her income was low, therefore Jane Adams gets her SS plus extra coming from Mary because that is all the income she has. I am not for reducing SS for widows or widows with children. I am not opposed to raising the the full benefit retirement age to 68 as long as people can still draw partial benefits at 62 and widows can still draw it at 60 if they lose their husbands. Raising the retirement age however should only be for those 30 and under.

[NorthCarolina]

15. Means testing

is probably the most potential for permanent damage, and eventual demise of the Social Security program. Once you remove the universality from the program it becomes easy prey for further cuts and court challenges.

[leftofcool]

22. It wouldn't be damaging if done correctly.

But then, Republicans have never done anything that wasn't damaging to the country. And it would be Republicans in the House who would be finalizing a bill like that. Hillary would veto it of course.

[NorthCarolina]

26. I don't think "how" it's done

is the difference. The fact that removing the universality feature would make it subject to immediate and numerous court challenges by the right, regardless of how it is done. I wish I was as confident as you that Hillary would veto such a proposal, but being totally honest with you, I personally tend to believe she would consider such legislation as palatable since it was a position solidly backed by the DLC.

[Qutzupalotl]

39. I fully concur.

The wealthy will say, "Why should I pay into a program I can never use?" — and they'd have a point.

Better to let the rich draw benefits than risk losing everyone's safety net in court.

[NorthCarolina]

40. That is pretty much what

fuels the talk of "means testing". They will tout "keeping the rich from getting unnecessary benefits" to the general public, but if those against the program can end the universality, they can then mount credible court challenges to the program and likely win. It's what they don't tell you that comes back to bite you in the ass every time.

[Qutzupalotl]

43. Indeed, which is also why

aping Republican policies, as the DLC/Third Way have done, is a fool's errand.

[procon]

16. Since Chained CPI is your real issue, why not be up front about it and rephrase your question?

Seriously, if you're just going to poo-poo everyone who takes the time to respond because they didn't mention your pet peeve, what's the point of all this... Besides adding the little uncalled for petty taunts, I mean?

[NorthCarolina]

20. To be honest,

I work with the elderly and ALL of those options are real issues to me. But despite your lack of confidence, I am actually trying to start an honest discussion on an important issue. If you don't choose to participate that's fine. Don't. There are some on this board apparently not afraid of honest discussion as you can see from the responses below.

[leftofcool]

23. I am elderly as is my husband and it is real to us as well.

[NorthCarolina]

29. It's very real to far too many in this country.

And I will be honest with you, it is exactly things such as Social Security that make me very uneasy with the prospect of another Clinton administration.

[JoePhilly]

6. So you want Social Security to be "on the table?"

This is an important question ... we've listened to some scream about Obama "putting SS on the table" ... and yet, to have the discussion you want to have ... you MUST put SS, as it stands now "on the table".

Any changes we make have the potential to help, and hurt people. Which means any thing you do has to phase in over time. You have to give everyone some time to manage the change or you lose support.

Having said that, we should ...

1) Raise the cap. Ultimate goal, remove it.

2) I'd also "raise the floor". In other words, your personal SS contributions don't START right away. But once you hit some point, it starts.

3) I'd also want to consider how survivor benefits are handled. When my father died, my sister and I added about $10 a month to what my mom received, until we turned 18, at which point we dropped off completely. I'd like to see the children be factored in more.

4) I'm not a fan of means testing.

[NorthCarolina]

7. I agree with you

that of the various options that have been bantered about, means testing is the most damaging because it removes the universality from the program, leaving it easy prey for future cuts and court challenges. Unfortunately, it is probably the most sought after change for that reason.

[JoePhilly]

11. No argument on that point.

This is also why I never worried about Obama putting SS "on the table."

You can't have a discussion about "fixing or improving SS" if its not "on the table."

My view is that Dems (and yes Hillary) MUST allow SS to be "on the table" simply because you can't discuss it otherwise.

Then having said that ... you also expect Dems to protect it.

Obama and the GOP discussed a "grand bargain". And some on the left vilified him for doing so. The reality is that he was testing the water. Let the GOP attack SS publicly while being open to "improvements" that we in the left for like to see.

Its a balancing act. We on the left can't argue that we must change SS to improve it, and then also argue that its "off the table".

Our government isn't built that way for a reason.

[NorthCarolina]

14. Don't you find it odd though

that prominent Democrats never uttered the words "raise the cap" with respect to Social Security before Bernie entered the race and interjected it into the public conscious?

[JoePhilly]

17. Dems have been saying that for 8 years or more ...

... so I find it odd you don't know that.

In fact, the cap has been raising, every year, since at least the late 90s.

Is it moving fast enough, probably not? Does that yearly rise address income that is outside Salary, not nearly enough.

See ... as working people, we tend to think that salary = wealth, which is wrong. The wealthy can hide and defer salary. So how does that play in all of this?

I wish the answer was simple ... "raise the cap!!" ... but its harder ... but having said that ... "raise / eliminate the cap" have been very common elements of the Democratic party in this area.

[NorthCarolina]

18. Well,

to be honest I really do not recall any prominent Democrats ever endorsing "raising the cap", or submitting legislation for it . I have heard Ed Rendell poke fun at the idea a few times on the teeVee, but never heard him, or Obama for that matter, ever mention it as something they support of would fight for.

[ContinentalOp]

19. Does Obama count as a prominent Democrat?

“Well, when I—I am going to be listening to any ideas that are presented, but I think that the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and the people who are in need are protected.”
Meet the Press - November 11, 2007

"One possible option, for example, is to raise the cap on the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax. If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,500, we could virtually eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall.”
September 21, 2007

“The best way forward is to first look to adjust the cap on the payroll tax. …"
October 16, 2008

etc
https://ourfuture.org/fact_sheet/barack-obama-s-statements-social-security

[NorthCarolina]

21. Thanks for the link,

and the quote. Of course Obama counts as a prominent Democrat. Actually right now he is likely THE prominent Democrat. I was unaware that he had mentioned it in 2008 as candidate Obama. As President though, he never mentioned it or fought for it even though he did include Chained CPI in his budget proposal. Why do you think that is? Did he have a change of heart? Part of campaign left, govern right?

It is words like that though spoken by Obama during the campaign in 08 (particularly his clarion call for a Public Option) that led me to believe he would be a much more progressive President that he ultimately turned out to be. How does one go from talking raising the cap to suggesting Chained CPI in it's stead? Seems like a bit of a disconnect somewhere to me.

PS - Thanks for having this discussion.

[Andy823]

37. Well actually

He suggested the Chained CPI because he knew that republicans would NOT go or it since it was his idea. He proved his point. When he took office they started in obstructing everything he wanted to do. SS was not going anywhere with the republicans, and he knew it since NOTHING he came up with was ever even thought about being implemented by them.

He accomplished a hell of a lot of things even with the odds against him. I wish he could have done more, but I am grateful for what he did accomplish, the ACA for one. Both me and my wife had medical bills that racked up well over $60,000.00. Thanks to the ACA my out of pocket expense was only $1,000.00 for medical bills. My daughter has a pre-existing condition and was able to get health insurance for the first time last year.

I agree, raise the cap on SS and find a way to help those who need it more get it, and those who are well off and don't need so much to take a cut of some kind. Others here have come up with some good ideas on that part. The main thing we need to do is make sure to do all we can to get people into congress that are willing to do the right thing on this, and other issues that affect the people in this country. I am sure that if congress could pass bills to fix SS that a president Clinton would sign them. I am also pretty sure that a president Trump would not be so helpful. Bottom line is getting the right people elected, and making sure Trump is never allowed to be in charge of this country. Wouldn't you agree?

[leftofcool]

24. Democrats have been saying this for years!

[eastwestdem]

45. Yup! nt

[upaloopa]

28. Bernie is not leading here

You ask Hillary supporters then you say people are following Bernie.

Your agenda is showing

[NorthCarolina]

31. Sorry, not sure I follow what you are trying to say. -nt-

[FSogol]

30. That's not true. O'Malley had a plan to expand SS very early on in his campaign.

From August 21, 2015:

Expanding Social Security So Americans Can Retire With Dignity

Our parents and grandparents should be able to retire in dignity—not poverty. Yet today in America, too many retirees are struggling to make ends meet. At the same time, the economic pressures on millions of families—from stagnant wages and high housing costs, to a lack of affordable childcare and skyrocketing college tuition—have resulted in meager, if any, retirement savings for tomorrow’s retirees.

Our government must do more to improve the economic and retirement security of all Americans. That is why Governor O’Malley has set a national goal of increasing the number of Americans with adequate retirement savings by 50 percent within two terms in office.

As the first and most important step toward meeting that goal, Governor O’Malley will expand Social Security benefits—not reduce them or undermine Social Security in any other way. Second, O’Malley will also make it easier for private-sector workers to invest in their retirement. He will put commonsense protections in place to prevent older Americans from losing the savings they already have. And to ensure that all families can afford to save for retirement in the first place, O’Malley will continue to put forward detailed policies to raise the wages of all workers.

EXPAND AND PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE RETIREES

Social Security is one of our country’s greatest collective achievements. Since it was first implemented in 1935, Social Security has kept millions of elderly Americans out of poverty. Today—following the Great Recession, which decimated the retirement savings of millions of Americans—Social Security remains an especially critical lifeline for our parents and grandparents: without it, more than four in 10 Americans over 65 would be living in poverty.

We cannot ask seniors with modest savings to live on even less. Instead, we should expand Social Security so they can retire with the dignity they have earned over the course of their working lives.

As president, Governor O’Malley will:

Increase Social Security benefits for all retirees—both today’s and tomorrow’s. Governor O’Malley supports immediately boosting monthly benefits in a progressive manner for all Social Security was intended as a supplement to individual savings and pensions, but today, one in five married couples, and nearly half of unmarried individuals, rely almost exclusively on Social Security checks to survive. More than two-thirds of Americans near retirement will not have enough savings to maintain their current standard of living.

Strengthen Social Security’s long-term fiscal outlook. The solvency of Social Security is not in crisis: Social Security has adequate funds to pay full benefits through 2034. But to pay for expanded benefits, Governor O’Malley supports lifting the cap on the payroll tax for workers earning more than $250,000.In addition, Congress should implement policies to lift the wages of all workers, which will make meaningful contributions to Social Security’s long-term balance sheet. This includes raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour and enacting comprehensive immigration reform.

Ensure Social Security benefits are sufficient to keep retirees out of poverty. The immediate future is dire for many Americans nearing retirement: one in five Americans has no retirement savings at all. To keep seniors out of poverty, Governor O’Malley supports increasing the special minimum social security benefit to 125 percent of the poverty line for Americans who have worked at least 30 years.

Increase Social Security benefits for minimum wage- and lower-income workers. As wealth inequality continues to widen and traditional middle class jobs prove harder to come by, Governor O’Malley supports adjusting “bend points” in the formula to give minimum-wage and lower- and middle-income workers more financial security.

Prevent benefits from eroding over time. Governor O’Malley supports using the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly (CPI-E) instead of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners (CPI-W) to determine Social Security’s cost-of-living adjustments. The CPI-E provides a more accurate reflection of the higher cost of living for retirees than the current measure, which focuses on younger workers. Using the CPI-E will ensure that benefits do not erode for future generations of retirees.

Reform Social Security to support, rather than penalize, caregiving. Governor O’Malley supports providing up to five years of “caregiver credits” that would increase the 35-year wage base for those who spend an extended period of time providing full-time care for children, elderly parents, or other dependents. In practice, current methods of calculating benefits penalize workers, most often women, who take extended time off to care for their families.

Reject efforts to raise the Social Security retirement age. Governor O’Malley believes that raising the retirement age is a back-door way to cut benefits for lower-income workers. It harms these workers in two ways: by forcing them to delay retirement in jobs that are often physically difficult, and by reducing lifetime payouts compared to wealthier retirees, who live five years longer on average than their lower-income counterparts.

CREATE SIMPLE, STREAMLINED RETIREMENT SAVINGS OPPORTUNITIES

With the days of defined benefit plans long past, millions of hardworking Americans lack adequate savings to support their standards of living when they retire. Nearly one in three Americans has no retirement savings, rising to one in two for Americans under the age of 30. Current investment vehicles such as defined contribution plans and IRAs have been grossly inadequate and underutilized for preparing most working Americans for comfortable retirements.

As president, Governor O’Malley will:

Dramatically expand access to employer-based retirement plans. Half of all workers do not have access to a retirement plan. Among part-time and low-income workers, roughly seven in 10 lack an employer-based retirement option. Governor O’Malley would require employers with more than 10 employees to process an automatic employee contribution to an IRA for all employees, at a level determined by the employee (who would have the option to opt out).

Raise wages so all workers can afford to save. Since millions of hardworking Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck and struggle to save for retirement, raising the minimum wage and other wage policies are also critical to ensuring that today’s workers can retire with dignity and security in the future.

PROTECT SENIORS FROM RISKS TO THEIR FINANCIAL SECURITY

Older Americans face increased financial risks that threaten their ability to retire with dignity. Every day, unscrupulous lenders and scam artists attempt to separate seniors from their lifelong earnings. Republicans in Congress bent on slashing budgets attempt to undermine Social Security and other vital programs. And a growing number of aging Americans who need quality long-term care cannot afford it.

Implementing measures to better protect seniors from these threats to their financial security will help provide a stronger retirement firewall for millions of Americans.

As president, Governor O’Malley will:

Reject efforts to privatize Social Security. Governor O’Malley views proposals to privatize Social Security for what they are—a massive benefits cut that will gut Social Security, add to the federal debt, and leave future generations without the critical protections Social Security has provided for decades.

Increase penalties for those who defraud our seniors. Older Americans are often targets for financial scams and exploitation, at an estimated cost of nearly $3 billion a year. The vast majority of frauds go unreported. Governor O’Malley will advocate for policies to protect our seniors from financial fraud, including laws to increase penalties for the financial exploitation of older Americans, laws to allow financial advisors to refuse or delay transactions where clients are being defrauded or exploited, programs to better identify and report financial exploitation among older Americans, and increased investment in prosecutors and advocates to go after elderly abuse.

Fully implement the fiduciary rule. Under existing retirement advice rules, some brokers and financial advisers are allowed to sell Americans products even if they know they are poor investments. This conflict of interest, where advisers put their own bottom lines before helping their clients, costs workers saving for retirement $17 billion every year. President Obama has proposed a critical and commonsense rule to require those who give financial advice to put their clients’ interests first. Governor O’Malley will fully enforce this important fiduciary standard, protecting the retirement savings of millions of Americans and creating a level playing field for the many investment advisers who already act in their customers’ best interests.

Make affordable, high-quality long-term care a national priority. Americans’ longer lifespans are outpacing our ability to provide quality and affordable long-term care. Although seven out of 10 Americans will need home care at some point in their lives, many Americans and their families struggle to afford it. Nine out of 10 people who provide long-term care are women, while home care workers are underpaid, overworked, and lack important benefits and protections.As baby boomers age, now is the time to move forward, working with the private sector, to develop an efficient, affordable, and high-quality system to provide a diverse range of long-term care services for our seniors. Governor O’Malley will lay out a comprehensive plan for reforming long-term care and supporting caregivers in the coming weeks and months.

Link: https://martinomalley.com/the-latest/expanding-social-security/

[NorthCarolina]

32. Yes

"In his campaign". Did he go public with a call for it, or fight for it before that? Bernie HAS been talking about this exact issue for years, as in before "his campaign".

[FSogol]

33. What Governor has the opportunity to raise SS?

Sanders entire problem can be summed up as: nothing but talk

[NorthCarolina]

34. Doesn't stop him from

talking about it now does it. You were just telling me how I was WRONG that no prominent Democrats mentioned it before the election other than Bernie. You proved my point that I was making. So, he was a Governor...did he ever mention it? No. My comment stands.

[FSogol]

35. You said you wanted to discuss policy which I posted, O'Malley, unlike Sanders has SPECIFIC plans

on expanding ss and your rejoinder is: Well, Sanders has been around longer....



Enjoy your bubble.

[NorthCarolina]

36. Well,

Ed Rendell was a Governor and I heard him talk about "fixing" Social Security plenty of times. Was he overstepping his bounds as a Governor each time?

[FSogol]

38. Ed Rendell, the pundit, not as governor. n/t

[NorthCarolina]

42. You cut some mighty fine hairs my friend. -nt-

[Fresh_Start]

8. remove the cap and

increase the employer and employee contribution rate on higher incomes

[MyNameGoesHere]

12. I don't feel like playing, too busy watching my countdown timer

for the happy dance hour.

[still_one]

13. raise the cap

[Gomez163]

27. I would increase social security and raise the cap.

[rock]

41. I'm fairly satisfied with Social Security as it stands

I would not want to do anything radical. Raising or removing the cap sounds plausible.

[Buzz cook]

44. Removing the cap

on contributions or raising it and tying the rate to inflation.

Raising the minimum wage.

Ending austerity during a recession, and spending lots of money repairing Americas infrastructure.

Social Security may not need any help beyond a strong economy and full employment. But certainly it doesn't need massive changes.

What we should be talking about is expanding Social Security not simply saving it. That could be as easy as increasing the interest rate that SSI bonds are paid by the government. Or it could call for a general tax increase.

[bhikkhu]

46. No changes needed

But if the cap were raised, that would be fine.

[beachbum bob]

48. rasie income limit of FICA taxes to $5 million for starters

2. institute mandatory yearly in person reviews of all those on SSI...a huge program with just as big fraud problems
3. better record keeping so benefits are better control for those collecting and pass way


SS system fraud cost us billions

I would apply same with medicare and medicaid

[Lil Missy]

49. Eliminate the cap.

I don't support any cuts at all.

[Demsrule86]

50. Remove the cap.

Extend it to those above 50 who are facing age discrimination and offer medicare too.

[tonyt53]

52. Raise the payout cap to at least $250K. Have a means test to qualify (like $250K yearly income)

Tax unearned income just like earned income, but only on income not from standard savings accounts.

[NorthCarolina]

53. The Sanders campaign

is proposing a donut hole from the present 110k to 250k, and then removing the cap above 250k/yr. How do you feel about that proposal?

How do you feel about the other suggestions favored by more conservative Democrats such as raising the retirement age, chained CPI, or means testing?