«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»
Obama vs. Clinton on Social Security: An Actual Policy Difference!
In a campaign season in which the Democratic candidates agree with each other on 95 percent of their policy proposals, Social Security stands out as an issue with a small but stark difference.
Here's the nut of the issue. Currently, Americans pays a Social Security tax on the first $97,500 of their income. If you make $60,000 a year, you pay tax on 100 percent of what you make. If you make $1 million a year, you pay tax on 9.75 percent of what you make. Barack Obama proposes lifting that $97,500 cap (which rises to $102,000 next year), while Hillary Clinton suggests it would raise taxes by too much.
Over on the Time blog Swampland, I found this incredibly helpful chart. I've stolen it because it breaks down the numbers exceptionally well. As a thank you, show Swampland some love.

Clinton is right about the rise in taxes: in some instances it is substantial. But only the rich will feel it.
Comments
I'm with Barack on this one. Lifting the max may be just the type of minor adjustment needed to ensure the long term survival of one of this nation's best and most well funded programs. In fact, I wonder if we could lift the cap and lower the rate a tad, thus giving a tax cut to those making under $102K/yr.
As an aside, for the contingent that believes the propaganda that Social Security is bankrupt, please ask yourselves how many other institutions that hold 2 trillion dollars in treasuries you consider to be bankrupt? That's a pretty fair sized asset in a the safest U.S. investment there is. The real risk to it would be default by the Federal Government, which if it is defaulting, is going to leave us much bigger problems than funding social security.
Just so it's clearly pointed out, Clinton didn't say seven years, or at least that's what I take from this entry. By that logic, why not say it's a 100 trillion tax increase? Just don't mention it might take 70 years. What a Republican tactic. Maybe if she had another idea, but all she offers is yet another commission.
Posted by: Eric Ferguson on 11/26/07 at 8:46 AM Respond
Senator Clinton is a pawn of the capitalist bloodsucking class. Senator Obama is for the working people, not the elites like Senator Clinton. A vote for Clinton is a vote for the same puppet masters that have Bush.
Posted by: Mary Lu on 11/26/07 at 9:51 AM Respond
The chart shows the the results if the cap is eliminated. It is my understanding that Obama proposes lifting the cap but not eliminating it. How much of a tax increase it would be is dependent on how high the cap is lifted.
Posted by: Bruce on 11/26/07 at 10:50 AM Respond
Social Security is not facing an imminent crisis. In fact, the solvency "crisis" date (currently 2042), is always being updated with new research from the SSA, and is usually pushed back further into the future as time goes on. The facts of the SSA projections have been widely reported at least in the economic and alternative press - look it up. Sadly, don't expect Clinton or Obama etc to acknowledge this publicly, even if they're aware of it. That's how successful right-wing propaganda has been on this issue, at least in terms of framing the debate.
Of course, it may make sense to adjust the SS cap/benefits down the road, as has been done before without the world ending. But eliminating the cap entirely may be a mistake politically, even if there's some logic to doing that. Shifting a high percentage of costs to the wealthy will go down the slippery slope of turning SS effectively into a welfare program, which could unfortunately hasten its demise. If FDR had originally signed off on a program without caps, we may not have had SS today.
Posted by: Andy on 11/26/07 at 1:33 PM Respond
Andy, On the contrary, I heard Obama state the date of 2040 on two occasions that I heard him talk in person and give that as the approximate date of a "crisis". He explained that social security would not then end but the benefits would be reduced if nothing was done. Again, I do not think he proposes eliminating the cap. He just thinks the wealthy in this country should help the poor. I realize that the rich helping the poor is considered welfare by many.
Posted by: Bruce on 11/27/07 at 6:11 AM Respond
Barack Obama's basic position is explained at www.barakobama.com/pdf/retirementFactSheet.pdf
He does not say there what he would raise the cap to but I believe I remember him agreeing with a questioner that it would be to about $225,000. Personally, I think this is quite reasonable.
Posted by: bruce on 11/28/07 at 10:21 AM Respond
Bruce,
Your link doesn't take me directly to the fact sheet-- does he say "raise" or "lift"? That's important-- in this sort of context, I've never seen "lift" mean "raise;" it generally means "remove."
From Dictionary.com "3. to remove or rescind by an official act, as a ban, curfew, or tax: a court decision to lift the ban on strikes by teachers."
Posted by: Mpearson on 05/06/08 at 6:01 PM Respond
canim sagolbe
Posted by: Redtube on 05/16/08 at 10:46 PM Respond
Mary Lu, I am with you on this one. This makes up for Obama's Pastor Wright in my book in hill country. It is not that so many people love Obama, it is that Senator Clinton is such an establishment whore. Obama does offer hope. You can't trust a whore. I know, because I know some of the sisters. A whore will say anything to get something, like be elected.
Posted by: BillyJo on 05/17/08 at 10:34 AM Respond
Obama's mother's original Social Security Number Application
www.webofdeception.com
Posted by: Robert Lewis on 06/20/08 at 6:11 AM Respond
ARCHIVE
April 20, 2008 - April 26, 2008
April 13, 2008 - April 19, 2008
April 6, 2008 - April 12, 2008
March 30, 2008 - April 5, 2008
March 23, 2008 - March 29, 2008
March 16, 2008 - March 22, 2008
March 9, 2008 - March 15, 2008
February 24, 2008 - March 1, 2008
February 17, 2008 - February 23, 2008
February 10, 2008 - February 16, 2008
February 3, 2008 - February 9, 2008
January 27, 2008 - February 2, 2008
January 20, 2008 - January 26, 2008
January 13, 2008 - January 19, 2008
January 6, 2008 - January 12, 2008
December 30, 2007 - January 5, 2008
December 23, 2007 - December 29, 2007
December 16, 2007 - December 22, 2007
December 9, 2007 - December 15, 2007
December 2, 2007 - December 8, 2007
November 25, 2007 - December 1, 2007
November 18, 2007 - November 24, 2007
November 11, 2007 - November 17, 2007
November 4, 2007 - November 10, 2007
October 28, 2007 - November 3, 2007
October 21, 2007 - October 27, 2007
RECENT COMMENTS
Obama vs. Clinton on Social Security: An Actual Policy Difference! (11)
Robert Lewis wrote:
Obama's mother's original Social Security Number Applicati...
[more]
Obama's New Chief of Staff: A Fan of the Bush Tax Cuts? (45)
rick wrote:
thanks jerry....you know, i think the kinda change we re g...
[more]
Wearing White (To A Confirmation Hearing) (3)
halı yıkama wrote:
thanks...
[more]
Eat Burger, Waive Right to Sue (15)
halı yıkama wrote:
thanks...
[more]
Something Strange Happened When Manila Banned Publicly Funded Contraception (6)
halı yıkama wrote:
thanks...
[more]
Sen. Vitter Fought Gay Marriage In More Than One House (3)
halı yıkama wrote:
thanks
...
[more]
Fred Thompson: Not Conservative Enough? Or Just Lazy? (6)
halı yıkama wrote:
thanks...
[more]
"La Loi, C'est Moi," Part XIV (4)
halı yıkama wrote:
thanks...
[more]
Waxman: White House Politicization "More Widespread Than Previously Known" (12)
halı yıkama wrote:
thanks...
[more]
In Florida Legal Case, Blackwater Demands Taliban Treatment (3)
virginia in AZ. wrote:
Why does Blackwater exist?
Why did Blackwater receive Bil...
[more]
Movable Type 3.33


Posted by: Misanthropic Scott on 11/26/07 at 8:05 AM Respond