MyDD :: Clinton flip-flops on Social Security Tax Cap?

Clinton flip-flops on Social Security Tax Cap?

by minvis, Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 04:05:57 PM EST

During a town hall meeting this past Sunday, Senator Clinton got a question from Tod Bowman, a high school teacher, inquiring what the harm was in either raising or eliminating the Social Security tax cap. He asked this because he said was confused by her answer at the AARP debate in September. At that debate, former Senator Edwards reiterated his support for raising the cap to $200,000 from $97,500 as it stands now. Judy Woodruff, the moderator, then asked the other candidates whether they agreed with Edwards. Senator Clinton responded and both Edwards and Woodruff interjected "so thats a No". She smiled and nodded in agreement.

http://www.iptv.org/video/detail.cfm/634
(Go to minute 44 & 45 for the exchange)

Just to get a little background on what the Social Security Tax cap is, all you have to do is look at your paycheck. The FICA tax is for Social Security and the tax is 12.4%, half of which comes out of your paycheck and half paid by the employer. So if you make $50,000 a year, about $2,600 a year comes out of your paycheck. Likewise, if you make $75,000 a year about $4,700 a year comes out of your paycheck. At this point, it is a progressive tax, where the more you earn, the more money comes out. Now, if you make $100,000 a year, you are only taxed on the amount up to $97,500 (about $6,000 a year taken out). What the cap does is saves money for all those who make over $97,500 a year. So if you make $200,000 a year, again only $6,000 a year is taken out of your paycheck. Likewise, if you make $500,000, 1,000,000, 5,000,000, it's still only $6,000 a year you pay into Social Security.

Edwards, rightfully so in my opinion, thinks this is wrong. His proposal was to make those people making more than $200,000 pay the tax as well. What, you say, is wrong with that? That is what Mr. Bowman was wondering as well when he asked Senator Clinton on Sunday.

Below are two links to this campaign event.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_o n_el_pr/clinton_social_security

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story ?id=3720221&page=1

Here is Mr. Bowman's reaction to her answer.

One Iowa voter, Maquoketa Community High School government teacher Tod Bowman, pressed her for more specifics when she took audience questions during a public meeting in his hometown Sunday night. With a packed gymnasium of voters and the media watching, she didn't say more but used her response to criticize President Bush's handling of the issue and the deficits he's run up. She said her first step to improving Social Security would be to get back to fiscal responsibility.

Afterward Bowman approached Clinton so he could pose for a photo with her, introduce her to his children and discuss the issue further.

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.

An Associated Press reporter overheard the conversation and discussed it with Bowman. He said he didn't agree with Clinton and felt that as someone who makes under $97,500 he pays an unfair share.

"I understand that in her world $97,000 is the middle class, but here in Iowa $97,000 doesn't qualify as the middle class," Bowman said.

The problem for me is twofold. One is the obvious one that she says she's possibly in favor of the Social Security tax being levied on those making over $200,000 to an individual voter, but saying the opposite in public speeches or debates. The other problem, however, is more incidious. It's the lack of conviction to stand up for your beliefs and proposals and it goes beyond this one issue. It goes, I believe, to how she may well govern if given the chance. How can we trust that she believes what she says? Furthermore, how will she fight for her proposals during legislative negiotiations? What are her core beliefs that will not be negiotiated? I only wish we knew and this episode doesn't help any.

Tags: Social Security, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Taxes (all tags)

Permalink :: 53 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Clinton flip-flops on Social Security Tax Cap? (2.00 / 1)

The problem for me is twofold

The problem for you is one-fold, desperation...
I just can't help but laugh glancing over these headlines...

Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?

by areyouready on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 04:09:02 PM EST

Re: Clinton flip-flops on Social Security Tax Cap? (2.00 / 2)

So glad that I could make you laugh and by the way I'm so relieved that you think my only problem is desperation. My wife will love that one when I tell her.

A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt

by minvis on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 04:16:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton flip-flops on Social Security Tax Cap? (2.00 / 2)

But you evade the issue here - and the fundamentally flawed outlook on politics.

For Hillary, the middle class exists as a political concept that wins votes. For other people, it's something we'd like to be part of and would like to see good policy, especially tax and budget policy, make it more realistic for everyone.

Social security is one of the bedrocks that still exists to some degree in the shadow of the former social safety net and social contract. Hillary apparently thinks of it as just another entitlement program or whatever, and doesn't want to address a) the problems inherent in not strengthening it and b) that our political leaders must be the strongest advocates for reforming the social contract for the 21st century as a partnership between citizens and government (I should say, as a member of 'the business community' that my people have largely forsaken their role in this).

Why not raise the cap or eliminate it alltogether? I don't know. I really don't. It's a good idea. It's simple. It's easy to implement policy-wise, and it's an easy political sell to anyone with a little will. It's all about fairness and it demonstrates a commitment to fair, non-means-tested fiscal policy.

More GOP-lite tax policy from another corporate Democrat.

Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up

by Peter from WI on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 12:14:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton flip-flops on Social Security Tax Cap? (none / 0)

consider a "gap,"

Nothing is on the table yet, doesnt mean you cannot consider it.

She has said countless times what she wants to do. She hasnt ruled anything out except privatization.

vote blue in 2008

by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 04:09:36 PM EST

Re: Clinton flip-flops on Social Security Tax Cap? (2.00 / 1)

The A+ answer would be for Clinton to say that Social Security is fine, that there's nothing wrong with it, and that the conventional wisdom which says we have to do something is the byproduct of Republican demagoguery combined with media laziness.

But since that would require taking on the combined might of the media talking heads who insist on cluck-clucking about how we need to be responsible and "fix" Social Security, I understand why she doesn't want to take the task on right now. Instead, she basically tries to skip past it and assure people that it will get worked out later - because truthfully, there's not actually anything that needs to be done.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 04:14:55 PM EST

Re: Clinton flip-flops on Social Security Tax Cap? (none / 0)

Maybe you should listen to this answer she gave Dan Balz of the Washington Post early this week:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/video/2007/10/09/VI2007100901065.ht ml

It makes her position on Social Security very clear.

by hwc on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 04:58:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton flip-flops on Social Security Tax Cap? (none / 0)

Yes, she's very clear. She says "I'm not advocating anything" in that clip. She says leave it all up to a bi-partisan commission to decide what to do.

A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt

by minvis on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 05:07:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton flip-flops on Social Security Tax Cap? (2.00 / 1)

That's a good answer. She needs to distill it into a sound-bite or two so she can throw it back at know-it-alls like Tim Russert.

She is 100% right that there is no reason to be expending any political capital whatsoever on "fixing" Social Security. The crisis just isn't there.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 05:26:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton flip-flops on Social Security Tax Cap? (2.00 / 1)

That's what she told Tim Russert. Her priority is to move towards a balanced budget so that we stop raiding the Social Security trust fund. Until we take that step, nothing else matters because we'll be borrowing (i.e. spending) money from the trust fund faster than we can put it in.

Russert didn't want to hear it.

If we could have a few years of budget surpluses to repay some of the borrowed SS trust fund, Social Security would be in good shape. After all, Bill Clinton had it projected to be stable out to 2055, which is about when all the baby boomers will be dead. After that, the retirement populaton likely declines for a sustained period of time.

She addressed this issue in even more detail in her NPR interview in New Hampshire yesterday. She said the real problem is the Medicare trust fund, which is projected to be upside down starting in 2017. Hence the reason for making health care reform the top domestic priority. Medicare can't be addressed in isolation; it must be part of an overall reform of health care. The most direct part of Clinton's health care recommendations is allowing the government to negotiate prescription drug prices.

It doesn't help that Democrats are distorting her position for political gain. They seem oblivious to the politics of a general election race. Any Democrat grabbing the "third rail" will likely get electrocuted. She's maneuvering the Republicans into a position of having to grab the third rail in order to pay for their tax cuts for the wealthy.

The most impressive thing about her impressive campaign is her ability to simultaneously position herself to win the nomination and build a centrist platform for a Democratic victory in November 2008.

by hwc on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 05:59:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton flip-flops on Social Security Tax Cap? (none / 0)

I didn't feel she was clear enough with Russert on the "there is no crisis" point. One of the reasons she got grief for that answer is that it came across like "I agree we have to do something, I just won't tell you what."

One thing I've never understood. If we stop "raiding" the trust fund, doesn't that effectively mean we leave it sitting in cash instead of investing it and realizing a rate of return? How is that a good thing? It's like, if the bank promised not to "raid" the money you deposited, it would be hard for them to pay you any interest.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 07:16:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton flip-flops on Social Security Tax Cap? (none / 0)

The difference is that the government is not selling bonds with a repayment schedule to the SS trust fund. They are just taking the money and leaving a slip of paper with an I owe you scribbled on it.

by hwc on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 09:04:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton flip-flops on Social Security Tax Cap? (none / 0)

Huh? Even today, the Trust Fund consists of U.S. Treasury Bonds, not "slips of paper." Who are you getting your info from, George W. Bush?

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 10:30:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton flip-flops on Social Security Tax Cap? (2.00 / 1)

"The most impressive thing about her impressive campaign is her ability to simultaneously position herself to win the nomination and build a centrist platform for a Democratic victory in November 2008."

And if you are a centrist (read center-right) then that's a good thing. But some of us feel that the problems this country faces will require a little bit more than what the policy wonks at the Brookings institute can offer at this time. And 2008 is going to be one of the few presidential years where we can elect nationally a truly transformative candidate on the order of FDR or RFK.

by adamterando on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 08:01:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Very clear? (none / 0)

She basically takes no position and then tries to make that appear Presidential. Like her position of refusing to answer hypotheticals, she thinks she does not need to tell the voters what her position and ideas are on the questions which concern them.

by Piuma on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 05:45:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She's said the Republican are trying (none / 0)

to scare people, and that social security is successful. I'll take that any day over the typical "we need to solve the "crisis"" bs that some Democrats are actually willing to engage in.

by bookgrl on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 05:46:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton flip-flops on Social Security Tax Cap? (2.00 / 2)

Not even close. There is nothing wrong with adding additional retirement savings options on top of Social Security as it now stands.

You might as well say IRA accounts are close to privatizing Social Security. Do you know why they aren't? Because Social Security is still there!

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 04:46:25 PM EST

Here's what's wrong with that: (none / 0)

The pay-out is capped. If the pay-out continues to be capped why shouldn't the pay-in be capped? To have people making more than $97,000 help subsidize others' retirements with no benefits for themselves is an unfair tax against those who work hard and do well. People like to throw around these prejudices against the so-called rich as if they're all clipping coupons. There are an awful lot of people who make more than $97,000 because they work harder and longer than many of the clock-punchers of this world.

by Piuma on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 05:05:43 PM EST

Re: Here's what's wrong with that: (none / 0)

It's obvious Mr. Bowman doesn't think there are many people in Iowa who make more than $97,000.

A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt

by minvis on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 05:15:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's what's wrong with that: (none / 0)

Does it really matter how many people there are? I have a real problem with these voters in the early states who are given extraordinary access to the candidates and an unjust influence on the system and then have no concern for anything outside their own sphere. And his answer, as well as the idea of the "gap", is supporting the idea that it is okay to be unfair to a segment of the population as long as it isn't my segment. Instead of using fairness as the measure, it is where can we set the bar and begin our prejudice. Hillary's middle class gap is just as unfair as no gap. Pure political pandering.

by Piuma on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 05:52:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's what's wrong with that: (none / 0)

"and then have no concern for anything outside their own sphere. "

Well, the thing is, he's actually speaking for the majority of Americans that currently are not spoken for by the national media. For most Americans, $97,000 a year would be a fortune, whether you live in a rural area of Iowa or in a large city.

by adamterando on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 08:05:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's what's wrong with that: (none / 0)

Ok, now you're being closed-minded on solutions.

Look the benefits are already progressively distributed, i.e. the less you earn the more you get in benefits relative to what you paid in, so why not just continue that at an accelerated pace as incomes rise? You don't need to cap the benefits, just make them grow at an increasingly stingy rate (logarithmic?). The payroll tax can remain the same because that's already a flat tax.

by adamterando on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 08:04:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

With no freaking benefits to themselves??! (none / 0)

How many people receiving over $200,000 a year receive no benefit from the stability of retirement income provided by the Social Security system?

That would be someone working for a corporation earning all their money overseas in a country that does not have substantial exports to the United States, maybe?

For the large majority of people, the more you make, the more total benefits you are receiving from public infrastructure and public programs stabilizing the national economy.

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 06:56:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton flip-flops on Social Security Tax Cap? (none / 0)

minvis,

The Bill Clinton administration managed to extend social security solvency until 2055 by one method -- fiscal responsibility.

Please read the following speech by the then Treasury Secretary, Larry Summers.

Remarks by Treasury Deputy Secretary Lawrence H. Summers
before the Senate Budget Committee Task Force on Social Security

We can expect a Hillary Clinton administration to do what has worked before -- returning to fiscal responsibility -- without a need in raising the retirement age or payroll taxes. It has been done before and it can be done again.

by Hurdy Gurdy on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 05:50:25 PM EST

Re: Clinton flip-flops on Social Security Tax Cap? (none / 0)

Bill Clinton benefited from a tremendous boom in a growth industry that did not really exist before his tenure and he benefited from major productivity gains. Don't act like he was some fiscal genius. Yes, he did a good job adminstering some discipline - but he also failed to capitalize upon an opportunity to make much-needed public investments for shared prosperity economic growth that could have lasted well beyond his tenure - which would have helped a lot of people over the past few years get within smelling distance of HIllary's beloved middle class.

Fiscal responsibility does not mean fiscal conservativism - it's far more robust than that.

Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up

by Peter from WI on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 12:17:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton flip-flops on Social Security Tax Cap? (none / 0)

The Clinton economic boom was a result of the reduction in budget deficit and public debt. The huge interest payments was choking off economic growth prior to the Bill Clinton administration. We can achieve similar economic boom when we return to the fiscal responsibility.

Let's stay on topic -- let's confine to the subject of how to extend social security solvency. Clintonomics is a huge subject, beyond the scope of the current thread. Thank you.

by Hurdy Gurdy on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 07:59:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton flip-flops on Social Security Tax Cap? (none / 0)

Huh? You're the one that extended the conversation to Clintonomics.

Join us at Show Me Progress!

by clarkent on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 01:35:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, it was economic growth ... (none / 0)

... if the Clinton had not insisted on a balanced budget in the final years of his administration, there would have been more rapid economic growth, and social security "solvency" would have been pushed even further into the future.

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 07:04:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, it was economic growth ... (none / 0)

So, you are against a balanced budget?

by Hurdy Gurdy on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 08:00:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

In a growing economy, obviously ... (none / 0)

... the government should be investing in infrastructure and education for the future, and arbitrarily limiting that investment in order to arrive at a crude balanced budget over the business cycle necessarily means under-investing in the future.

And, of course, pursuing a year by year balanced budget creates economic instability, accelerating growth in the middle of a boom, when speeding up growth does the most harm and least good, and braking growth in the middle of a slow-down, when slowing down growth does the most harm and least good.

So a crude balanced budget ... that is, a US headline balanced budget, where investment spending and government consumption are simply lumped together into a single government spending number ... is by no means a reasonable first priority, neither annually nor over the course of the business cycle. Not unless the target is a zero-growth economy.

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:17:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In a growing economy, obviously ... (none / 0)

Bruce you know better than to go beyond talking points when it comes to a balanced budget.

Now just go back to saying that if families have to live within their means, then so should the government!

by adamterando on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 11:11:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But if all families lived with balanced budgets .. (none / 0)

... every year, we would be a nation of eighty percent or more renters.

Because the way we count the government budget, a mortgage would be a massive budget deficit in the year that the mortgage is signed.

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 02:49:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But if all families lived with balanced budget (2.00 / 1)

Arggh!!! Stop using logic and reason! David Broder is giving you a very stern look like now.

by adamterando on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 06:43:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am sure that in David Broder's eyes ... (none / 0)

... its not possible to bring me into focus ... an obscure development economist is surely of no account to David Broder, unless he does something that gets reported in the "real" press.

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 12:34:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In a growing economy, obviously ... (none / 0)

I do agree with you on those points. My understanding is that-- so did Clintonomic. I believe the Clinton administration made huge investments in all areas that you mentioned. A good example was the investment in scientific research -- for example, it provided the funding for a paradigm shift in recombinant DNA research. Human genes were cloned and sequenced. Diabetics can now use recombinant human insulin therapy instead of porcine insulin, which is bad because it generates immune rejection in the body of patients. The entire human genome was sequeanced! This now provides an invaluable data base for genomic research. It created a whole new industry -- biotech -- which created a whole new area of job opprtunities.

It's time for another paradigmshift in science -- for example, stem cell research. Hillary Clinton proposed investment in stem cell research. Diabetics may now hope for stem cell therapy in the near future, stem cells that can produce human insulin in the patients' body. Diabetics will soon dispense with daily painful injections of insulin. Stem cell research hold promise for many many human diseases. It will create a whole new industry and job opportunities.

Hillary Clinton has also proposed big spending in infrastructure, education and energy research.

As you can see, her economic plans are very much in agreement with your view, i.e., we can do both -- be fiscally responsible and be investing in infrastructure, scientific advancement, energy research, education, health care, extending social security solvency, all in parallel.

by Hurdy Gurdy on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 11:31:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In a growing economy, obviously ... (none / 0)

I should also mention that the internet infrastructure was built during the Clinton administration -- a collaboration between government and the private sector. A whole new industry was born, the internet industry, which continues to grow and generate new job opportunities beyond the Clinton years.

by Hurdy Gurdy on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 12:11:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

However, they pulled back from a fiscally ... (none / 0)

... responsible budget in order to be able to claim a surplus, since clearly a fiscally responsible budget for a growing economy requires a deficit position, just as a fiscally responsible firm will finance the growth by a well balanced combination of equity and debt finance.

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 02:51:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: However, they pulled back from a fiscally ... (none / 0)

In the strictest sense, there wasn't any surplus because the Treasury had been spending the social security surplus prior to the Clinton administration. The Treasury owed a huge amount of debt to the social security trust fund. The 'surplus' was meant to pay down some of the debt owed the social security trust fund. That point was described in the Larry Summers speech that I linked in first post of this thread.

I also disagree with the premise that a fiscally responsible budget for a growing economy requires a deficit position. It depends on the optimal level of federal debt. Please take a look at the federal debt graph shown in the Bondad article I link below.

Link

The Clinton administration managed to level off the steep growth in federal debt. However, the level of federal debt remained higher than optimal. In addition to the debt owed the social security trust fund, the surplus was also needed to reduce the higher than optimal federal debt level.

A firm that holds too high a level of debt should try to reduce that debt and not to increase it by additional budget deficits.

Similarly, a household that has too high a level of debt, should try to pay down some of the debt and not generate more debt by deficit spending.

by Hurdy Gurdy on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 03:34:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: However, they pulled back from a fiscally ... (none / 0)

Besides, the economy during the last few years of the Clinton administration was growing gangbuster. It was overheated, so much so that Alan Greenspan had to increase the Fed rate steadily to prevent inflation. Under such a circumstance, more economic stimulation from deficit spending would be improper and detrimetal.

by Hurdy Gurdy on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 04:03:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: However, they pulled back from a fiscally ... (none / 0)

typo... should spell detrimental

by Hurdy Gurdy on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 04:05:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: However, they pulled back from a fiscally ... (none / 0)

It was a slow rate of job creation that deep into the business cycle compared to most recoveries since the 60's.

However, it is true that Greenspan's Fed had a tendency to over-rate the damage caused by relatively low rates of inflation and under-rate the damage caused by under-performing job growth ... confirming rather than leaning against the tendency of Fed Bank Presidents, selected by FRB boards elected by the banks themselves to favor the interests of the finance sector over the interests of the wider economy ...

... and who picked Alan Greenspan, then?

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 11:05:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What the snipers don't understand (2.00 / 1)

What the snipers from the Democratic party (netroots and supporters of other candidates looking for an edge) don't understand is the long history of Presidential politics.

Reaching out and grabbing that third rail is a guaranteed way to lose a Presidential election. There have been plenty of candidates who have tried to "stand on principle" and offer harsh medicine on Social Security as a campaign promise. They all get fried.

Politicians who have been around a while know that there is only ONE way to make changes to Social Security. In fact, veterans from both the Democratic Party (Biden and Clinton) and the Republican Party (McCain) have made specific reference to it in the last week: a bipartisan committee where everyone steps into the canoe at the same time so it doesn't tip over.

My advice: read some campaign books and Presidential biographies. Understand that running for President is a political process. In fact, it is the most political process in the world.

by hwc on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 06:05:26 PM EST

Re: What the snipers don't understand (none / 0)

I think raising the cap on the wealthiest Americans would be pretty easy medicine politically. After all, ALL the democratic candidates (save Richardson?) are proposing to raise income taxes on the wealthiest Americans, no?

The third rail comes in when you plan to cut benefits, or raise taxes on the majority of the middle class.

by adamterando on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 08:07:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What the snipers don't understand (none / 0)

The proposals about raising taxes are just about going back to old levels before the cuts, and taxes go into the general fund for the good of all. We all share in the benefits of paid by our taxes. Social Security is something entirely different. I don't believe the plan is to raise benefits commensurate with the raise of the cap which would be blatantly unfair and most likely would never pass. Nor should it.

by Piuma on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 08:47:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What the snipers don't understand (none / 0)

This is correct.

Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up

by Peter from WI on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 12:17:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton flip-flops on Social Security Tax Cap? (none / 0)

GALLUP: Despite Nobel Prize, No 'Groundswell' for Gore for President

NEW YORK The Gallup Poll organization released a report today revealing that despite Al Gore's latest honor -- the Nobel Peace Prize for his global warming battle -- its polls have detected no "groundswell" for a Gore race for the White House in 2008.

It said that its surveys, in fact, have found only a "slightly more positive than negative" rating for the former vice president.

"There has not been a large groundswell of support for him to run for president to this point, and if he were to enter the Democratic primaries, he would place no better than third nationally in the polls," the report declared. In fact, the most recent 2008 Democratic presidential nomination trial heat showed Gore at just 10%, his worst showing this year.

The latest survey of all adults found 50% with a favorable view and 42% unfavorable. Democrats have a more positive view "but his pre-Nobel favorable rating was no better than that of Sen. Barack Obama or former Sen. John Edwards, and lower than Democrats' ratings of Sen. Hillary Clinton."

by Hurdy Gurdy on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 06:07:12 PM EST

Re: Clinton flip-flops on Social Security Tax Cap? (none / 0)

Oops, posting on the wrong thread. My apology.

by Hurdy Gurdy on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 06:08:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton flip-flops on Social Security Tax Cap? (none / 0)

Edwards is right and Clinton is wrong. Game. set. match.

If it's good enough for Joey it's good enough for Hillary! Like two peas in a pod.

by Hillary Lieberman on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 06:16:56 PM EST

Re: Clinton flip-flops on Social Security Tax Cap? (none / 0)

Why is Edwards right? If the pay-outs are capped, why shouldn't the pay-ins be capped? Why should someone who makes $200,000 pay twice as much for the same retirement benefits as the person making $100,000?

by Piuma on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 07:21:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton flip-flops on Social Security Tax Cap? (none / 0)

Pay-outs don't need to be capped, just logarithmic in growth.

by adamterando on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 08:08:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton flip-flops on Social Security Tax Cap? (none / 0)

Is that what Edwards is proposing?

by Piuma on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 08:27:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton flip-flops on Social Security Tax Cap? (none / 0)

I don't know, that question probably hasn't been asked. But I haven't heard him rule out benefit increases.

But if we're going to get creative here, then I doubt people who are proposing tax increases would rule that out as a solution.

by adamterando on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 08:53:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Under what proposal would someone who makes ... (none / 0)

... $200,000 pay anything more than the person making $100,000?

In reality, you can't "save" current income for the future unless you stockpile canned and freeze dried goods and pile up supplies of cloth, heating oil. etc. Private savings is an agreement from someone to hand you a share of a future income in return for you handing over a share of a present income.

Public "savings" like Social Security is an agreement to fund current retirement obligations in return for having your retirement obligations funded in return.

So why should those making over $200,000 pay to fund retirement obligations without receiving a promise of a still higher payment in the future? Because they are not only the ones who have benefited the most from the provision of a monetary system and regulation of the financial sector, but are also the ones who receive the most indirect benefits from the greater economic stability provided by the Social Security system.

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 11:13:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton flip-flops on Social Security Tax Cap? (none / 0)

ugh your comments make less and less sense every day -

what does one have to do with the other? they are completely different

vote blue in 2008

by sepulvedaj3 on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 12:37:29 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.