Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
7. Try reading more?
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:35 PM
Mar 2016
Privatization off the table; but maybe payroll cap increase
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/celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Social_Security.htm
The facts don't line up with this theory... Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #1
explain PowerToThePeople Mar 2016 #2
Post removed Post removed Mar 2016 #3
everything I read PowerToThePeople Mar 2016 #6
Try reading more? Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #7
We will see PowerToThePeople Mar 2016 #8
I know, facts are hard to accept Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #11
The answers are too cute and obscure the fact there is no need to go this direction. Or this... highprincipleswork Mar 2016 #9
That's not Hillary Clinton. Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #10
You folks are hopelessly enraptured with a corrupt candidate. All we may have in response is ... highprincipleswork Mar 2016 #12
It is fairly clear how she stands from what you posted. Well not that clear. rhett o rick Mar 2016 #17
Nobody has suggested Clinton would privatize Social Security brooklynite Mar 2016 #4
... questionseverything Mar 2016 #15
I wasn't aware that Bill Clinton was running for President brooklynite Mar 2016 #20
Do you support the privatization of SS? nm rhett o rick Mar 2016 #18
No...neither does Hillary Clinton brooklynite Mar 2016 #22
I trust you but I don't trust her. nm rhett o rick Mar 2016 #24
Social Security has been reviled as "socialism" from day one. Righties & 3rd Wayers target it. senz Mar 2016 #5
DLC/ Third Way candidates are not to be trusted on Social Security. senz Mar 2016 #13
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service Capt. Obvious Mar 2016 #14
What's the significance of posting those results? nm rhett o rick Mar 2016 #25
Calling out rudeness? n/t Ghost Dog Mar 2016 #27
Oh I get it. Not pertaining to the OP but another post. Duh! I get it. nm rhett o rick Mar 2016 #29
I really think you're onto something farleftlib Mar 2016 #16
Imo this is why they stay locked away. PowerToThePeople Mar 2016 #19
Seriously??? Beacool Mar 2016 #21
I am serious. PowerToThePeople Mar 2016 #23
The Republicons will do the dirty work and she will have to sign the bill rhett o rick Mar 2016 #26
This is almost exactly the scenario I envision. PowerToThePeople Mar 2016 #31
It is logically impossible to lie about hypothetical questions. Ghost Dog Mar 2016 #30
Just like Obama slashed Social Security benefits! geek tragedy Mar 2016 #28
Tried to, through C.P.I. highprincipleswork Mar 2016 #32
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»What the 2016 Presidentia...»Reply #7