this is how it works, if everyone gets SS, than everyone has a vested interest in it, if only the poor get it, then well, it becomes another entitlement to be cut.
Not to mention, the means test becomes lower and lower and then there is an excess of SS so that surely can go into the general fund that will allow taxes to be cut for the "job creators" or as I like to call it, the "jobs exporters"

liberalisation.

This has come up several times recently in the recent negotiations over GATS Mode Four.

You do know about that, don't you?

Services is everything you cant drop on your foot so potentially it could effect a LOT of jobs.

keep snipping at it until it is gone. The usual bullshit is that "paying out less will preserve it" - never a thought towards raising the cap. Plus, you know, they corporations hate the matching funds, and Wall Street wants to gamble with the funds and take nice juicy admin fees.

If not for Monica Lewinski, Clinton and Gingrich would have privatized Social Security. But the optics were bad or something.

Yeah, I'm gonna line up behind this sort of bullshit. No, I am not.

Quite Predictable even if I never heard about it!

in general and Social Security and Medicare in particular.

then they will be free to make other changes to the program at will.

This is what she is referring to when she brags about "getting things done."

K & R

support eliminating the tax on SS benefits? If not he is in favor of "Means Testing". The same goes for Medicare it is
also "Means Tested" once you reach a certain income Medicare premiums increase.

to suit the Sanders platform. As I said SS has been "Means Tested" since 1983 when Ronald Reagan started taxing up to 50%
SS benefits then Clinton expanded that to 85%. Medicare is also "Means Tested" when people with higher incomes pay more
for the same benefits. So if Bernie Sanders is opposed to "Means Testing" he should propose eliminating that tax first
for us retirees before making promises to expand it. I saved every cent I could in a 401K so I would have more income in retirement
but being I am single have a moderate pension I had to pay just shy of $4000 tax on the $12000 I withdrew from my IRA for home improvements last year. To help minimize those taxes I transferred some of my traditional IRA into a Roth a few years ago
then the next year I had to pay double for Medicare because I fell into what they consider high income. The basis for those taxes were
set back in 1983 and have never been adjusted for inflation, eventually anyone that gets any income in addition to SS will taxed at 33% or more depending on the state they live in. So if Bernie is honest about being against means testing fix that first otherwise it is bullshit.

implement means testing in its commonly understood sense. Bernie wants to prevent that, and also expand Social Security.

Sounds as if you would be negatively affected by HRC's plans, too, so you might want to be cautious about supporting her.

but why don't you want HRC to do this, too?

Rush Limbaugh. That tax wasn't 1st levied by Bill Clinton it was Reagan. When Clinton raised that tax from 50% to 85%
Limbaugh harped about it for 8 years. This country was much more conservative back in those days, that was all what was
called the Reagan Revolution. Besides that Bernie has no chance getting any results. Hillary Clinton can work with Republicans and actually get something done.

plus, you seem to be saying that, even though you say Reagan first levied a tax on Soc Sec, it's OK that WJC increased the tax from 50% to 85%. Is that what you are saying? So you are saying that Clinton acted just like Reagan. And, yes, I agree, he did. But that is OK with you?

Bernie absolutely DOES have a GREAT chance of implementing his programs and plans. He was very successful as a senator.

You say you are dependent upon Soc Sec, yet you are willing to risk it with a vote for HRC?

or raise the income threshold for that tax? Has he ever tried to eliminate the increase of Medicare premiums for higher incomes or raise the income level? If not he doesn't oppose Means Testing. Something has to be done with SS and Medicare and as long as nothing is done the more people will get hurt. We have had a Democrat in the Whitehouse for the last 7 years and nothing has been done.
Has Bernie ever attempted to eliminate the income ceiling on SS, I mean as a Senator not campaign rhetoric? Maybe he has I really don't know.

and I don't trust H. Clinton to protect it!

Medicare in post #9. But nobody agrees so I assume they are not really against "Means Testing" except
as a talking point to use against Hillary Clinton. If Bernie would address that issue I would be inclined to
vote for him.

She intends another, additional form of means testing. What issue is it you want Bernie to address? You want him to roll back the taxes that Bill Clinton snuck in?

I have been paying into SS for 36 years and hope to retire in another 2, possibly 3 years. That -------- who used gov't positions to enrich herself and others like her who are on the gov't teat with high six figure salaries and perks like excellent tax-payer funded healthcare and a revolving door to make more money as lobbyists are clueless about the lives of everyday people.

Now, more than ever, I am for a revolution against DINOs like HRC and repukes. My Bern enthusiasm just became that much greater!

Not a comment on disputing this
Or a comment why they support


This and other fiscal policy and war hawking they never have anything to say, ever

But hundreds on comments on pope gate.

Hillary Clinton refuses to rule out any and all benefit cuts to Social Security, angering leading progressive groups that have not endorsed a candidate in the Democratic primary — and prompting a new challenge from Bernie Sanders.

The issue has arisen as Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), her remaining rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, debate who has stronger progressive bona fides and progressive groups call for a red-line pledge not to cut benefits.

A Clinton aide instead referred The Huffington Post to the statement on Social Security on the campaign’s website, which says the former Secretary of State will “oppose closing the long-term shortfall on the backs of the middle class, whether through benefit cuts or tax increases.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-sanders-social-security_us_56b3f533e4b01d80b245c04e?x33anhfr

answer that direct question; further, she detailed her plans, and those plans are tantamount to means testing. They are the definition of means testing, in the term's commonly understood usage.

any different?

In a way it's admirable the way she uses language often by saying what she won't do.

She won't privatize. Well, name me a democrat who would?

We won't raise age as a solution, nor will we cut benefits as a solution. As you say, she could simply say neither is a solution, but in combination they are the solution.

She says she is looking into raising the cap. silence since.

She only talks about expansion for widows and single women who are impoverished. First the issue with widows. They are entitled to the higher wage earners social security at time of their spouse's death, so a widow essentially gets her husbands social secuirty amount. But beside that HRC is using gender as a test of scoring points focusing on "impoverished women." Why not all "impoverished" persons? Social security is supposed to be a safety net for all people. Should gender be like a means test? What about men incarcerated their whole lives, or disabled veterans, or those with life threatening diseases, or American Indians? It's a slippery slope to begin this dividing of benefits based on means or genders tests. The only one I think is fair, is that anyone earning social security BELOW the poverty level should receive a benefit to make up the difference, so the impoverished are at least truly provided a safety net.

She makes no real mention of revising the COLA to benefit seniors, or of expanding benefits for all.

She parses her words with something like this, "Seniors have paid into these programs for a lifetime, and they’ve earned those benefits when they retire." This is a Republican phrasing. Essentially, it says "if" you have paid in ALL your life and you are a Senior you qualify. However, if you are not a Senior or have not paid into the program for a lifetime, than you may not be eligible. Republicans have been saying they are fine with "current Seniors" getting their benefits. Clinton has pledged the same, but not for future generations. Her sentence SHOULD read - All people who pay into these programs should and will earn benefits when they retire." Simple enough and shorter. Instead, the phrasing is very careful.

Again, appreciate the post. Not sure a lot of Americans notice the subtle parsing of language.