If Hillary truly cared about the Social Security System and wants to save it, then why support taxation of it?

Question

Liberal argument link
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070904/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_social_security

quote...
She also said she does not support cutting benefits or increasing the retirement age.

1.) How specifically is supporting the tie breaking vote of Al Gore for taxation of social security NOT reducing benefits. Along with breaking a fifty year old promise to the nations elderly, if you have less money for discretionary spending and are paying more of what's allocated to you, then ...newsflash...THATS A REDUCTION IN BENEFITS.
2.) How is supporting the clinton authored largest tax increase in us history not reducing beneifits and relief to the elderly. taxes dont embolden an economy or stimulate it..THEY STIFLE IT.
quote2.)
"When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything."
3.) How is privatization NOT the answer. What possible benefit could it be to a potential retiree to ceede his retirement money to leaders with this motivation

Answer 1

She will take every dime from anyone who can afford it. If I had invested the money I paid into Social Security over the past 20 years I'd have over $900,000, but instead I have to wait 25 more years to collect a lousy $25,000 per year. It's a joke. The Democrats back in the 70's changed Social Security to include many people who never paid into the system, and they are the ones who try to blame Republicans. It's not a program for retirement. It's a redistribution of wealth, and a political tool for politicians.
They tax you twice, and Liberals love it. Typical. These people either do not pay taxes, collect from the government, or are the Super Rich Limousine Liberals who feel guilty for their wealth and want the middle class to pony up.
Hillary Clinton promises everything. She's my Senator. EVERYTHING!
A client of mine came into my office last week after purchasing a new home through a government program that pays his closing costs. He arrived from Mexico last year and is collecting SSI (disabled). He seems just fine to me. I cannot see why everyone in Mexico shouldn't come here to get all the goodies. They never paid into the system. Does it take a rocket scientist to explain this to Liberals? This is why the system is going broke.

Answer 2

i choose none as this is been at a historic low for the previous 22 years at 2-4% of the GNP. kit is indoors the old type (bombers/tankers avg 40 years +) and actually a million/3 of the needed new combatants have been presented. national physique of strategies calls for the flexibility to attempt against a million.5 wars and we are waiting to extremely shield 0.seventy 5. 2 small contingencies (Iraq and Afghanistan) delivered approximately extensive use of look after and Reserve troops making retention rather confusing. those are emergency troops that are being compelled to be greater beneficial like lively duty troops then something using small length of the protection stress. it ought to nicely be helpful to decrease expenditures via ability of ending pointless basing which incorporates in Korea and Europe. this is severe time the Euros pulled their own weight to boot rather of reckoning on the country to maintain them. Iraq isn't over yet and it ought to nicely be disastrous to drag the troops out until now the government stabilizes this is likewise actual of Afghanistan so no to those 2. What we certainly % is to get a cope with on the social classes that do little yet fee over 10% of the GNP and are turning out to be very speedy (in evaluation to protection stress spending which has been extremely shrinking using fact the 1950s: Ike spent 9% of the GNP, Kennedy 7%, Reagan 6%, GHW Bush 3%, Clinton 2%, GW Bush 4% (3% + a million% for the two contingencies/wars), and Obama 3%).

Answer 3

I don't see any conflict between paying taxes and receiving benefits. The idea that it is a waste of time to tax anyone who is receiving benefits is short-sighted. Exactly as short-sighted as the Republican attitude that these people are not worthy of respect because they are not taxpayers.
If anything is really wrong with social security it is that it is based exclusively on job earnings--yet we know very well industry is moving the jobs overseas as fast as it can. Therefore, it is time to supplement social security with a dedicated capital gains tax. This is no more than justice. Why should the diminishing labor pool lose benefits they are entitled to when profits are at an all-time high?
While the news focus has been on the war, the American people saw in Bush's treatment of the social security issue just exactly who they have to deal with: Montgomery C. Burns. Privatization, de-regulation, you name it: the entire Republican economic philosophy is a poop and the time to lend it even a hearing is over.

Answer 4

Because it was not taxed at the higher rate when the money was originally earned. But I do agree that it shouldn't be taxed, the Government has earned enough interest on the money you've trusted with them over the years, I think thats enough.

Privatization is not the answer to all of the Governments woes. But ****, I do think they should spend money in a much smarter manner. It's ridiculous.

Answer 5

Privatization is not always a good thing. Afew years back workmans comp was privatized,it was a nightmare before and only worsened. Social Security was going to be saved by Reagan,why didn't it work. He took away all federal employees SS that they had paid in for X amount of years.

Answer 6

This reminds me of a thought that I recently had. If these Presidential candidates have all these plans, what is preventing the ones who are currently Senators from introducing the legislation for those plans right now? Why do they have to wait until they're elected President to do anything?
I realize this doesn't answer your question. It's just a thought I wanted to share.

Answer 7

Mrs. Bill Clinton wants to tax everything and everyone, not just Social Security.

She wants to take "excessive" profits from whatever business she thinks is making too much. That could be your business or your neighbors.

She wants bigger government, more taxation and less freedom for all Americans.

Remember, every dollar the government takes from you is less power you have. The government takes away your power when they tax you. Your power to buy, your power to save, your power to provide for your family, your power to fight the government.

Answer 8

Hillary only cares about 2 things
1. Hillary being president
2. Advancing her socialist agenda

"We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices.... Government has to make those choices for people" (p. 20). Hillary to Rep. Dennis Hastert in 1993 discussing her health care plan.

"I am a fan of the social policies that you find in Europe" (p. 76). Hillary in 1996.

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society" (p. 121). Hillary as first lady.


"The other day the oil companies reported the highest profit in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative, smart engergy alternatives and technologies that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence."

! "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Answer 9

Every time Hillary thinks she has a good idea, you know it's gotta be bad for the Nation.