Hillary is absolutely correct on Obama's bullshit social security crisis

[Herman Munster]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2007/11/clinton_says_economy_needs_hel.php

"We don't need more Republican scare tactics about a 'Social Security crisis,'" Clinton said. "And we don't need a trillion-dollar tax increase that will hit families already facing higher energy, health care and college costs. What we need is to focus on the real crises of health care and Medicare, and on expanding opportunities for poor, working and middle class families who are struggling now."

[Windy]

1. Well if Hillary actually believes that one, she has her head in the sand

Its simple common sense, but it can be fixed!

There is not a damn thing wrong with raising the cap for those that make over 97,000 per year.
My husband and I make over that amount and it wouldn't hurt us one bit. We just went over the cap recently. If raising the cap would ensure that I had social security when I retire, then I'm all for it.

[bbinacan]

2. She's got her head somewhere

other than in the sand. :evilgrin:

[papau]

15. I want no cap - but it is not needed for "solvency - use the extra money to cut tax rate 1.5%

[MethuenProgressive]

23. *if* she believes "we don't need a trillion-dollar tax increase that will hit families"?

Her head is "in the sand" if she doesn't want a "trillion-dollar tax increase that will hit families"?

[dsc]

30. You are the one with your head in the sand

First, you will have social security when you retire. No matter what, you will have it. Even under the worst case senario, every single solitary social security recipient will get exactly what he or she has been promised until about 2040. After that benefits would have to be reduced to about 75% of the levels they are at then, which is far and away more than they are now. That is the worst case senario. The one most economists believe to be most likely projects about a 90% benefit if nothing is done.

[David Dunham]

3. Hillary is right. Obama is helping the privatization proponents.

[zulchzulu]

5. How? Let's see proof...got any?

Didn't think so...

[jefferson_dem]

20. Hillary defends the regressive payroll tax structure.

Typical Clintonian Triangulation. Ack...

[ClarkUSA]

29. More Hillaryworld BS propaganda.

See here for an actual analysis as opposed to knee jerk mouth frothing:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3739913&mesg_id=3749691

[zulchzulu]

4. Since it's hard to tell where Hillary stands on an issue weekly, is she against...

...tax cuts for those making over $200K.

Last I checked, she...um...might be against them. But based on how she talks out of both sides of her mouth on just about every issue, what the hell is she talking about? Again, she might have done a 180 since last week. Ya never know...

:shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

6. What, no talk of the top 6% "middle-class" that will have to pay more???

She's the one who's using Republican talking points. Her opposition to a payroll tax adjustment is the same
negative "taxes will be raised" frame that the Club For Growth uses.

[madrchsod]

8. i was basically called a dumb fuck the other day

by saying this "taxes will be raised" is a rethug talking point...course this was done by a wolf pack of hillary supporters.

[ClarkUSA]

9. Hillaryworld apologists who said that to you were/are always the dumb fucks.

I look forward to your comments on threads, myself.

And regarding that wolf pack of dumb fucks here at DU, remember...

"If the purpose of this shameless item was to daunt or discourage me or supporters of our campaign from challenging
and changing the politics of Washington, it will fail. In fact, it will only serve to steel our resolve." ~ Barack Obama


Keep up the good work. :thumbsup:

[Windy]

11. Guard your throat...try to enter into an intelligent debate on policy

and mention that you disagree with something Hillary says then they immediately go for the jugular.

It is getting very old, very quickly.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[emilyg]

16. No need for nasty name calling.

[ClarkUSA]

19. Oh, you mean like this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3740068&mesg_id=3740273

[ClarkUSA]

26. Thanks, but there's no need to worry. I'm a warrior from the 2003-2004 primary battles.

Hillaryworlders had better guard THEIR throats.

[K Gardner]

7. Herman, you seem like a very angry Clinton supporter

Just saying.. from the tone of this and other headliner posts you've got up right now.
No need to be so angry, truly. Nobody needs tazin' here..We're all on the same side, remember ? :-)

[OHdem10]

10. They are both right---

Hilary is correct in that it is not the crisis Obama made it sound.

Obama is right. You cannot solve SS unless you cut benefits or raise
taxes. Raising the Cap on those who earn over 97 Thousand Dollars
annually is one way of raising taxes and the most fair way.
I am sure Hilary is creative enough that a waiver could be given
for those just at the change. Or they could raise taxes on all
of us. Since Some have more debt to upper income earners--things
like this show with whom they stand. Obama is into the fairness
lane on this one. Faced with the issue --He would probably figure
out a waiver or something for those at just above 97,000. 97,000
to 150,000 should be upper end of Middle Class.


I hate to tell Hilary to have one of her staff to watch Fox News
every day.
Her words mimic Newt Gingrich who was railing in the same way and
using almost the same words last week.

All I am really saying is be careful of accusing others of doing the
same thing you are doing. Gingrich founded GOP Talking Points.,

At least Obama said he would not Privatize SS. Hilary leaves us
to wonder.

[ellisonz]

12. If the current system holds, I will never see a single Social Security check.

[DURHAM D]

18. Why not? Did you forget to pay in? n/t

[ellisonz]

21. I'm a college student.

"A balanced set of reforms needs to be enacted to ensure that Americans can continue to count on this vital program. Social Security’s trust fund is expected to be exhausted in 2041 according to the Social Security actuaries, or in 2052 according to the Congressional Budget Office — and to be able to pay about 75 percent of currently scheduled benefits after that.<1> This matter needs to be addressed. Modest modifications in Social Security also could make the program even more effective than it already is at reducing poverty in old age."

http://www.cbpp.org/8-11-05socsec.htm

Besides, I figure that since my parents aren't going to pay for the war in Iraq, the national debt, or their own healthcare, at the very least I deserve a social security check. Well played, present ruling generation!

:evilfrown:

[Evergreen Emerald]

13. the social security "crisis" was made up by the republicans in their

attempt to privatize social security. Bush and his gang of thieving cohorts are attempting to dismantle the government. One of the goals is to destroy the social programs, including social security. They needed the meme "crisis" to achieve their goal. It fizzled, thank goodness. But Obama is still using that meme.

[DURHAM D]

17. Exactly.

A lot of people with opinions and no facts or actual information post a lot of stupid stuff about this issue.

Sadly, like Republicans, they have reduced a very complex matter down to a bumper sticker.

[oasis]

22. Fifth recommend.(eom)

Kick too:kick:

[Imagevision]

24. If Hillary is absolutely correct on Obama's bullshit? why is she behind Obama in Iowa?!?

duhhh!

[itsrobert]

25. More "bickering" from the Clinton Campaign I see

Keep it up.

[Armstead]

27. She's using "republican scare tactics" in that statement

In true Hillary style, she's attacking Obama using the exact same tactics she is criticizing.

I suppose, Hillary, if you get into the White House, you will totally ignore Social Security?

And, Hillary, trying to scare Americans with talk of a "trillion dollar tax increase" when Obama proposes that those with a lot of money pay a little bit more to help solidify Social Security.

[ClarkUSA]

28. Actually, she's wrong. Liberal economists aren't disturbed by Obama's ideas. Republicans are.

Obama's actual proposal to raise the cap on social security taxes isn't controversial at all among liberal economists. Why not?
Currently social security taxes are capped at the first $97,500 of payroll income a year --- a minority, about 6%, of Americans
earn in that income bracket. One of the prime advantages of raising the cap on taxable income for social security benefits is
that it would make social security taxes less regressive -- i.e., regressive meaning that the tax rate declines as the income level
goes up.

People who make $200,000/year pay the same tax as those who make $100,000/year so their effective tax rate is half as much
(just 3.1%). For those making $10 million, the effective tax rate is 100 times lower (just 0.065% = $6,045/$10 million). Why should
Americans in a much higher tax bracket pay a far lower tax for a program dedicated to ensuring that seniors do not slip into poverty?

Clinton's claims that a tax increase would hurt the middle class and retirees as playing into an established tradition of Republicans
pretending that any tax increase will be aimed at the middle class ––– as they have done with the estate tax. It is this very framing
that has prevented America from implementing more progressive legislation, which makes it that much more unforgiveable that
Clinton would be espousing these lines.

This same argument will, one way or another, be at the center of our campaign against Republicans in 2008. Obama's line -- that
"the wealthiest 6% of Americans are NOT the middle-class" -- is a line that the Democratic party can unite behind, and win behind.