Last edited Wed Aug 12, 2015, 07:10 PM - Edit history (1)

I do recall her calling it a tax increase and mentioning middle class families but I sure don't recall a trillion.

she didn't say she would cut benefits, in point of fact the link provided shows the opposite.

I'll check it out later.

in slightly different versions. Here's what she said in the November 15, 2007 Democratic Debate in Las Vegas
( From: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/15/se.02.html )

They could raise the cap and/or they could tax at a different rates etc. It might be that raising the cap 10K would be enough. I guess she didn't want to discuss it at the time.

which I also said in 2004 and 2008 when this came up. The problem with SS, to the extent it has a problem, isn't that the rate or even the amount of money subject to the tax is too low. the problem is that money was 'borrowed' from it to keep the over all budget in better shape than it actually was. The correct prescription is to raise the taxes that were cut in the 1980's and 2000's (income and capital gains) and use that money to pay SS back. But if that can't be done, then this is a better idea than nothing or cutting benefits would be.

I think the cap should be eliminated and also applied to stock option amounts and the other tax dodges the wealthy employ. But it's progress. I'm glad she's going more left on economic issues than her husband did.

we have her permission to tell about it. Not that she would help us make it happen.

But just wait for the 4.1 upgrade after her inevitable nomination... you Proles will see what happens when you @#$& with your betters...

Seems like just common sense to me.

this is a tax that only affects earned income and would be being applied to people who are way less rich than other solutions to this would be applied to. I think raising the income tax and increasing the rate on capital gains would be way more progressive.

this is the headline
Clinton is open to raising Social Security taxes on six-figure earners

what she said
"I can understand why you'd think that was unfair," the former U.S. senator and secretary of state said, before suggesting an increase in the limit. If the cap were raised, anyone pulling down six figures this year would have to pay taxes not only on their first $118,500, but also on any money they made above that amount, up to the new limit.

she did NOT suggest anything. she just said "if the cap were raised." that is not an endorsement ..it's an explanation of how the process works. And wapo just ran with it

this is the kind of word manipulation that the Clintons have become masters at. We can't let people fall for it. she did not suggest raising the cap. She was just thinking out loud about what it would be like if it were raised.

BIG DIFFERENCE

from elsewhere in the article

During the 2008 campaign, Clinton had flatly rejected such an increase. Her comments this week could suggest that she has warmed to the idea, or that she is responding to a broader shift to the left among Democrats.

COULD SUGGEST that she has warmed to the idea??

once again, there is no substance, no actual stance, but m$m decides to give her the benefit of the doubt.

more of the same

disgraceful, wapo

on them later.

but for a major paper to be so blantantly misleading, even to the point where in their own article they can't substantiate it, well they should really be embarrassed but sadly they're probably not.

He gives Hillary room to move left while seeming "reasonable." He brings important issues into the discussion that otherwise would be kept locked out.

Anyone who wants a coronation is just a groupie and really needs to be giggling at pictures on a Justin Bieber fansite.