Some of Hillary Clinton's statements on Social Security.

the same Wall Street deep pockets behind her that Chris Christie did. I would have to verify this myself but it's something to think about.

And, like Obama, the right leaning citizens of our nation will be frothing at the mouth calling her a "socialist". Hell, Obama and Clinton could hardly be described as "liberal".

I like what the guy debating her had to say. Wonder whatever happened to him????

100% of his wage income of $100K. Raising the payroll tax wouldn't affect the rest of his income, because it isn't wage income.

Only workers pay payroll taxes.

It was actually a misleading statement, & since OBama knows better, it was intended to mislead.

""Why? And that's not what Obama's proposing, you know."

...exactly what he was "proposing."


http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Social%20Security%20Statment%20-%208-24-11.pdf


As for the raising the payroll tax for high income earners and taxing income that isn't "wage income," that was done as part of the health care law.

Payroll taxes are only paid on wage income.

Warren Buffett's wage income is $100K.

Right now we have the same typical exploitative efforts to circumvent the primary.

I'm fighting back starting today.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024385340

K/R

Hillary of 2016 will have evolved sufficiently that you won't have to worry about Social Security.

K & R

to every faction within a party, economic/social group, or religious

The burden on the Soc Sec has increased, not just because of the baby boomer's retiring but because many states, like the red states shift their state welfare tax burden to fed dollars, by approving disability claims. Not to say that they are not legit either. Living in SC the disease rates, disabilities are higher, because of dietary lifestyle. Also at play? The big corps are seduced by the state with the right to work laws, along with the state siding with the corps on unemployment, OSHA and labor law violations.

I've seen the manufacturing corps and the blatent, bold way they put workers at risk, dodge the repetitive injury claims by firing people before they can file, preventing them from filing, and the state ruling for the corps even when they do.

pro-corporate policies are not improving the lives of working people. They will tire of being taken advantage of.

And you are right, a big issue is work-related disabilities. You need strong unions and politicians who represent working people to get companies to take responsibility for the injuries their workers incur.

In fact, work-related injuries might be a good campaign issue for South Carolina Democrats.

I have to add that many people do not realize how little Social Security recipients receive. The average benefit

The average benefit in 2013 was $1,293.83 or $15,525.96 per year.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/

If a workers works 40 hours a week, he or she works 2,200 hours per year.

Thus, the average Social Security recipient gets the equivalent of $7.05 per hour.

That's less than minimum wage and after a life of working most likely at an average wage and contributing to Social Security.

Aware that the baby boomers' retirement would require greater benefit outlays than for previous generations, during the Reagan era, between 1983 and 1985, the government adjusted the amounts that working people paid into the Social Security Trust Fund to build a reserve. That reserve is there and has been loaned to our government.

Many Social Security recipients receive only maybe $500 - $700 per month. They rely on food stamps and other programs to survive.

Social Security cannot be cut because many, many seniors rely on it to survive. Further, nursing homes and other refuges for the very elderly and helpless rely on the Social Security payments of their patients to stay in business.

By the way, the federal poverty level of income is $11,490 for one person. So the average Social Security recipient receives less than $1000 per year over the poverty level.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm

Don't fall for the Republican propaganda on this.

When I present these fact, generally people stop dissing Social Security. The alternative to Social Security is to require the children of seniors to support their parents and to require the local and state governments to support those who cannot be helped by their children. Generally, young people do not like that solution. It is tough to have to pay the way for your parents in those years when you are raising your own family. But that is part of life.

Another interesting chart.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/central.html

Wages for working people have declined since the LBJ era. That's the problem in our country.

minimum (federal) wage.

But nearly the same. Seniors are not receiving much money. And if all seniors who could try to work were in the job market, the pressure on wages to become even lower would be great.

No Social Security slashers on the Democratic ticket, thanks.

SS is the bedrock of the party, our raison d'etre. We cease to have meaning if we compromise on the New Deal.

I have seen Chained CPI defended here.
As if the only answer to strengthening Social Security is to slash at it.
Third Wayers.

Just curious. Unless that person is a political newbie with no record, it's going to be pretty easy to pull out old quotes from him/her as well.

I recall how invincible Dean supporters, then Obama's earliest supporters, were in the leadups to 2004 and 2008. They got defensive pretty quick when the oppo research hit full stride.

I am a Clinton supporter but will have no issue supporting whoever eventually wins. I also plan to take the usual primary sniping on DU off - the election won't be won or lost here.

The most recent discussion about cutting benefits has focused on something called the Chained-CPI. Supporters of the chained CPI say that it’s a more accurate way of measuring cost of living increases for seniors. That statement is simply not true. Chained CPI falls short of the actual increases in costs that seniors face, pure and simple. Chained CPI? It’s just a fancy way of saying cut benefits.

. . . .

“The absolute last thing we should do in 2013 – at the very moment that Social Security has become the principal lifeline for millions of our seniors — is allow the program to begin to be dismantled inch by inch.

“Over the past generation, working families have been hacked at, chipped, and hammered. If we want a real middle class — a middle class that continues to serve as the backbone of our country — then we must take the retirement crisis seriously. Seniors have worked their entire lives and have paid into the system, but right now, more people than ever are on the edge of financial disaster once they retire — and the numbers continue to get worse.

“That is why we should be talking about expanding Social Security benefits — not cutting them. Senator Harkin from Iowa, Senator Begich from Alaska, Senator Sanders from Vermont, and others have been pushing hard in that direction. Social Security is incredibly effective, it is incredibly popular, and the calls for strengthening it are growing louder every day.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/11/18/elizabeth-warren-dont-cut-social-security-expand-it/

Bernie Sanders has also talked about running, and I would support him gladly.

Here is is a summary of the bill he proposed to strengthen Social Security: S. 1558:

Guarantee Social Security can pay 100% of promised benefits for the next 75 years. Currently, with no action, Social Security will have sufficient income and assets to pay all monthly benefits in full and on time until 2036. S. 1558 extends that through 2085, as estimated by the Social Security Administration.
Preserve currently scheduled benefits. Many proposals claiming to “strengthen” Social Security either undermine the program’s universal values, or the adequacy of its benefits. S. 1558 closes Social Security’s funding gap without doing either.
Ensure everyone pays their fair share to Social Security. While nearly all Americans must make Social Security tax contributions on all of their wages, the wealthiest only do so on the first $106,800 of their annual earnings. S. 1558 rights this wrong. Social Security payroll tax contributions are only paid on wages up to $106,800 in 2011. S. 1558 gradually lifts the cap on taxable wages so that all workers contribute on all of their wages. It applies the Social Security payroll tax to covered earnings of $250,000 or more right away, but maintains the current-law benefit base. Importantly, it leaves the current cap temporarily in place, creating a donut hole so that a person’s earnings between $106,800 and $250,000 are not subject to a precipitous one-year increase in their payroll tax contributions. The donut hole would close over time, since the $106,800 cap rises with average wage increases. Once the cap reaches $250,000, in approximately 25 years, all wages would be subject to the Social Security payroll tax contribution. Benefits would continue to be calculated on the basis of capped wages, as they are under current law.
Affect a small number of Americans. Few Americans would be affected by this change to the Social Security payroll tax cap. Just 1.2% of workers had earnings over $250,000 in 2009, including 0.4% of women, 0.3% of African American workers and 0.3% of Latino workers.

http://www.strengthensocialsecurity.org/media/blog/2011/sanders%E2%80%99-bill-s-1558-guarantees-social-security-for-75-years

I also strongly oppose Hillary's support for the TPP and for HB-1 visas. I would have a very hard time backing Hillary. She is a nice person, but I cannot vote for someone who supports many of the policies that she backs. And she is too close to Wall Street for me. She gets too much money from Wall Street. It is shameful the way that she and Bill have made money on speeches, etc. to anti-labor Wall Street and other corporate organizations. It's disgusting really.