Hilary Clinton, part of the Social Security Scam !!
Hey Folks -
Nov. 12, the Columbus Dispatch printed an Associated Press report on a clash between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over the “income ceiling” for the payroll deductions supporting Social Security.
As it stands now, workers pay on every penny they earn, up to $97,000 a year. The wealthy stop paying at $97,000 no matter how many millions they may pull in.
Obama, who is believed to be behind Clinton in the primary race appeared to be addressing the Democratic base by promising to eliminate the cap, requiring the wealthy to pay on every penny just as do working people.
Clinton seemed to take a less base-oriented position:
“ ‘I know it may sound good [Obama’s position] at first blush,’ Clinton said. ‘If you look at all the complexities of this, I think it’s much smarter to say: Look, we’re going to deal with the challenges by fiscal responsibility and we’re going to use a bipartisan commission.
And we’re not going to do it by further burdening middle-class families.’ “
Well, in that last statement, there is a serious problem.
Nov. 1, Bankrate.com published Federal Reserve statistics reporting on household income rankings, and Clinton is either bulldozing gullible Americans or has an extremely strange definition of “Middle-class.”
According to the Federal Reserve, middle-class Americans can’t be affected by raising the Social Security cap. Individual middle-class Americans don’t earn more than $97,000. Even middle-class HOUSEHOLDS don’t earn more than $97,000.
The median household (not individual) income is $40,000. Households (as opposed to individuals) don’t cross the individual cap threshold until near the top 15% of households. Since, in many cases, a household income is provided by two or more people, it seems safe to say that the income level actually to be affected by eliminating the cap is closer to the top ten percent of individual earners.
That's not the Middle-class!!! So, what is Clinton talking about, and are we stupid enough to believe it?
As I said in “Entitlements” posted below:
“It’s a scam. Propped up by lying propaganda,” a “’problem’ invented and created by the rich and powerful to serve their own ends” and “now that the payments are soon due – to escape their responsibility.” Those “who spent the working peoples’ excess donations to the payroll tax don’t want to pay up as the bill comes due.”
Again, the only “problem” is that those who are responsible for “barrowing” the surplus and who aren’t paying payroll taxes on their whole paycheck don’t want to meet their responsibility. The only honorable “solution” is for these whiny pigs to step up and meet their responsibility.
Clinton apparently doesn’t see it that way. Her answer:
“I think primary voters do know where I am . . . I am for solving the long-term challenges of the Social Security trust fund . . . I think there are a lot of solutions with many variations.”
Well, the solution the “voters” never heard (until Obama got desperate) is having the top ten percent (what Clinton calls “middle-class”) pay their share. That’s the solution Clinton has problems with.
The other solutions, which one hears about on a regular basis, are: cut benefits, raise the retirement age to 70, increase the percentage paid by working people (up to the cap), and replacing Social Security with some stock scheme.
Yes, Hilary, there are a lot of solutions with many variations, and we DO know where you stand and with whom.
- Uke Man
Nov. 12, the Columbus Dispatch printed an Associated Press report on a clash between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over the “income ceiling” for the payroll deductions supporting Social Security.
As it stands now, workers pay on every penny they earn, up to $97,000 a year. The wealthy stop paying at $97,000 no matter how many millions they may pull in.
Obama, who is believed to be behind Clinton in the primary race appeared to be addressing the Democratic base by promising to eliminate the cap, requiring the wealthy to pay on every penny just as do working people.
Clinton seemed to take a less base-oriented position:
“ ‘I know it may sound good [Obama’s position] at first blush,’ Clinton said. ‘If you look at all the complexities of this, I think it’s much smarter to say: Look, we’re going to deal with the challenges by fiscal responsibility and we’re going to use a bipartisan commission.
And we’re not going to do it by further burdening middle-class families.’ “
Well, in that last statement, there is a serious problem.
Nov. 1, Bankrate.com published Federal Reserve statistics reporting on household income rankings, and Clinton is either bulldozing gullible Americans or has an extremely strange definition of “Middle-class.”
According to the Federal Reserve, middle-class Americans can’t be affected by raising the Social Security cap. Individual middle-class Americans don’t earn more than $97,000. Even middle-class HOUSEHOLDS don’t earn more than $97,000.
The median household (not individual) income is $40,000. Households (as opposed to individuals) don’t cross the individual cap threshold until near the top 15% of households. Since, in many cases, a household income is provided by two or more people, it seems safe to say that the income level actually to be affected by eliminating the cap is closer to the top ten percent of individual earners.
That's not the Middle-class!!! So, what is Clinton talking about, and are we stupid enough to believe it?
As I said in “Entitlements” posted below:
“It’s a scam. Propped up by lying propaganda,” a “’problem’ invented and created by the rich and powerful to serve their own ends” and “now that the payments are soon due – to escape their responsibility.” Those “who spent the working peoples’ excess donations to the payroll tax don’t want to pay up as the bill comes due.”
Again, the only “problem” is that those who are responsible for “barrowing” the surplus and who aren’t paying payroll taxes on their whole paycheck don’t want to meet their responsibility. The only honorable “solution” is for these whiny pigs to step up and meet their responsibility.
Clinton apparently doesn’t see it that way. Her answer:
“I think primary voters do know where I am . . . I am for solving the long-term challenges of the Social Security trust fund . . . I think there are a lot of solutions with many variations.”
Well, the solution the “voters” never heard (until Obama got desperate) is having the top ten percent (what Clinton calls “middle-class”) pay their share. That’s the solution Clinton has problems with.
The other solutions, which one hears about on a regular basis, are: cut benefits, raise the retirement age to 70, increase the percentage paid by working people (up to the cap), and replacing Social Security with some stock scheme.
Yes, Hilary, there are a lot of solutions with many variations, and we DO know where you stand and with whom.
- Uke Man
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home