Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Facts about Pres. Obama, Social Security, Medicare, and Tax Free Savings Accounts

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 03:12 AM
Original message
The Facts about Pres. Obama, Social Security, Medicare, and Tax Free Savings Accounts
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 03:14 AM by FrenchieCat
He will not propose privatizing social security.
He will not propose cutting Medicare or Social Security benefits.
He will not divert Social Security to Tax Free Savings Accounts.

President Obama has been very clear throughout his candidacy and before then as to what he believes needs to be done in reference to saving our entitlement programs and ensuring their viability.

People who believe that President Obama doesn't have the best in mind for us have not been paying attention to all that he has said on the subject, and haven't really read about Barack Obama's Politics.

So here are your answers:

President Obama will propose raising the cap on the wages taxed by FICA, aka, Social Security.
Currently, only the first $103,000 of your annual income is taxed at a rate of 7.25%. He will revisit Bush's folly aka, Medicare Part D, and encourage savings by offering an opportunity for working families to save, in particular those who are not offered 401Ks by their jobs.

Here's more information on Medicare Part D and the multi trillion dollar deficit problem it poses in our immediate future: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8206100

Below is what he has said in the past about all of this. Once you have thoroughly read what I am providing, I will be happy to answer any questions.


Raise the cap on the payroll tax on wealthy individuals
What we need to do is to raise the cap on the payroll tax so that wealthy individuals are paying a little bit more into the system, if we are going to deal with this problem specifically. Right now, somebody like Warren Buffet pays a fraction of 1 percent of his income in payroll tax, whereas the majority of the audience here pays payroll tax on 100 percent of their income. I’ve said that was not fair.
Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate Jan 6, 2006

No privatization; but consider earning cap over $97,500
Q: We all know that Social Security is running out of money, but people who earn over $97,500 stop paying into Social Security. The Congressional Research Service says that if all earnings were subject to payroll tax, the Social Security trust fund would remain solvent for the next 75 years.
A: I think that it is an important option on the table, but the key, in addition to making sure that we don’t privatize, because Social Security is that floor beneath none of us can sink. And we’ve got to make sure that we preserve Social Security is to do the same thing that Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill were able to do back in 1983, which is come up with a bipartisan solution that puts Social Security on a firm footing for a long time.
Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007

Privatization puts retirement at whim of stock market
Q: Would you raise the cap for Social Security tax above the current level of the first $97,500 worth of income?
A: I think that lifting the cap is probably going to be the best option. Now we’ve got to have a process back in 1983. We need another one. And I think I’ve said before everything should be on the table. My personal view is that lifting the cap is much preferable to the other options that are available. But what’s critical is to recognize that there is a potential problem: young people who don’t think Social Security is going to be there for them. We should be willing to do anything that will strengthen the system, to make sure that that we are being true to those who are already retired, as well as young people in the future. And we should reject things that will weaken the system, including privatization, which essentially is going to put people’s retirement at the whim of the stock market.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College Sep 6, 2007

Stop any efforts to privatize Social Security
Obama believes we need to preserve Social Security by stopping any efforts to privatize it and will work across party lines to maintain Social Security’s solvency for generations. Obama wants to make private saving easier, cheaper, & more automatic for middle-class workers. He supported the Save More for Retirement Act, which encourages automatic 401K enrollment. Obama also voted for new rules to force companies to properly fund their pension plans so taxpayers don’t foot the bill.
Source: Campaign website, BarackObama.com, “Resource Flyers” Aug 26, 2007

Raise cap on payroll tax for 3% of earners over $102,000
Q: The Republicans are keeping a running total of all your plans. They say it’s $662 billion over four years.
A: Right.

Q: They say for all your promises not to raise taxes on the middle class, that, in fact, you want to raise the cap on the Social Security payroll tax, and you also want to increase capital gains.

A: In terms of raising the cap on the payroll tax, right now everybody who’s making $102,000 or less pays 100% of payroll tax on 100% of their income. There are about 3% to 4% of Americans who are above $102,000 in income every year. So if you want to talk about who’s middle class, me giving cuts to folks making $60,000 or $70,000, and potentially asking more from friends of mine like Warren Buffett. That’s a debate I’m happy to have with John McCain, because it’s the people making $75,000, $50,000, $60,000 who are hurting.
Source: 2008 Fox News interview: presidential series Apr 27, 2008

Must capture new revenue; no new Social Security Comission
OBAMA: We’re going to have to capture some revenue in order to stabilize the Social Security system. You can’t get something for nothing. And if we care about Social Security, which I do, and if we are firm in our commitment to make sure that it’s going to be there for the next generation, and not just for our generation, then we have an obligation to figure out how to stabilize the system. I think we should be honest in presenting our ideas in terms of how we’re going to do that and not just say that we’re going to form a commission and try to solve the problem some other way.
CLINTON: With all due respect, the last time we had a crisis in Social Security was 1983. President Reagan and Speaker Tip O’Neill came up with a commission. That was the best and smartest way, because you’ve got to get Republicans and Democrats together. That’s what I will do.

OBAMA: That commission raised the retirement age, and also raised the payroll tax. So Sen. Clinton can’t have it both ways.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

Raise the cap on the payroll tax on wealthy individuals
What we need to do is to raise the cap on the payroll tax so that wealthy individuals are paying a little bit more into the system, if we are going to deal with this problem specifically. Right now, somebody like Warren Buffet pays a fraction of 1 percent of his income in payroll tax, whereas the majority of the audience here pays payroll tax on 100 percent of their income. I’ve said that was not fair.
Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate Jan 6, 2006

$2000 tax credit for Working Families Savings Accounts
Obama today proposed Working Families Savings Accounts to increase retirement security and give families a greater incentive to save. “The best way for our government to help ensure that every American can retire with dignity is to provide incentives for middle-class families to save for the future,” said Obama. “My Working Families Savings Accounts plan gives working men and women earning up to $50,000 per year the opportunity to put money in a retirement plan, whether it’s an IRA or an employer based 401(k), and have that money matched with a 50 percent tax credit for contributions up to $2,000.“
Today, only about half of workers participate in an employer-based pension plan. Participation rates in other savings plans are substantially lower. Only about five percent of people contribute the maximum amount allowed each year to an IRA or 401(k).
Source: Press Release, “Increase Retirement Security” Jul 7, 2004

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barack_obama_social_security.htm









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Common Sense Party Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 03:19 AM
Response to Original message
1. I don't know why it's so hard for DUers to understand.
President Obama did NOT in any way say he was going to privatize Social Security, in ANY way, shape or form.

Does anyone remember Bush floating the privatization idea a few years back? Remember how it blew up in his face? Remember how devastating that was to any perceived political capital he had? Remember how strongly people were opposed to it?

Does ANYONE here think Pres. Obama is as dumb as Bush? REALLY?

Honestly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 03:25 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. No, of course not!
Some heard 'private savings accounts,' and somehow took that to mean the 'worst.' Utterly baseless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 03:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. They don't bother reading anything.....
but enjoy jumping at the sound of the third rail of politics.

They are Bushshocked....still. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eaglewings Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 03:21 AM
Response to Original message
2. Politicians Tax Problem
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 03:25 AM by eaglewings
I guess Obama Politics is misleading the reality. Our Economy is getting even worse. Just Recently, the Government is buying private sector including the bail out under Bush administration which happened not to approved. The Federal Government is doing this to centralize the planning and all over to control the economic system. Also the Government proposes to convert its preferred stock into common equity, which poses a problem: it'll be very hard for the government to retain less than 40% ownership stakes when the conversions are complete; the conversion price would have to be around $20 dollars per common share, which is a almost ten times as much as a common share is now worth.

Well, the economy is on it's lowest Troughs. I think one factor that makes it even worse is the Government Tax Problem. The National Republican Congressional Committee is taking aim at newly picked Democratic candidate Scott Murphy in the 20th Congressional race, saying he owes $21,550 in back taxes and penalties in 1997 and 1998 for a company he owned, Small World Software, Inc.

Scott is like any other liberal. obsessed of too much spending the public money. I just hope that the Stimulus Bill won't be a great danger for those individuals who are hurting most of the economy.

Scott Murphy for Congress Tax Liens
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Common Sense Party Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 03:34 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. Where is that bunny with a pancake photo when I need it?
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, nor how it's at all related to the original post.

:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 03:48 AM
Response to Reply #2
10. We are talking about entitlement reform,
and it looks like you have lost your way..... :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 03:23 AM
Response to Original message
3. THANKS, Frenchie!
This SHOULD quiet some of the upset around here!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeffR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 03:25 AM
Response to Original message
5. Please stop trying to prevent totally uninformed people here from freaking out.
It's really a buzz kill for the half-cocked, knee-jerk set.

The President is obviously a DINO, a traitor to all things progressive, a corporatist and a buttmunch.

It'z true. I reds it on teh internetz.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EraOfResponsibility Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 03:27 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. LMAO!!!............n/m
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 03:27 AM
Response to Original message
7. He will most likely follow the Dem platform.
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 03:46 AM by Why Syzygy
What does it say?

ETA:
http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html

Eight instances of Social Security. All say "safeguard", "not in crisis". It appears the Universal Savings are to replace failing private pensions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bottomtheweaver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 03:52 AM
Response to Original message
11. A "universal savings account" is a specific product
invented by the financial services industry to destroy Social Security. Your excerpts do not mention it, nor does the 2008 Democratic Party Platform. If Obama has mentioned them before last night, I'm not aware of it.

This is an extremely disturbing turn of events, but go ahead and get all offended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 03:54 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Why don't you provide some sourced information about this
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 03:56 AM by FrenchieCat
"Universal savings account", then we can talk...since you are so disturbed about the term.


Here's my info....
$2000 tax credit for Working Families Savings Accounts
Obama today proposed Working Families Savings Accounts to increase retirement security and give families a greater incentive to save. “The best way for our government to help ensure that every American can retire with dignity is to provide incentives for middle-class families to save for the future,” said Obama. “My Working Families Savings Accounts plan gives working men and women earning up to $50,000 per year the opportunity to put money in a retirement plan, whether it’s an IRA or an employer based 401(k), and have that money matched with a 50 percent tax credit for contributions up to $2,000.“
Today, only about half of workers participate in an employer-based pension plan. Participation rates in other savings plans are substantially lower. Only about five percent of people contribute the maximum amount allowed each year to an IRA or 401(k).
Source: Press Release, “Increase Retirement Security” Jul 7, 2004


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bottomtheweaver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 03:55 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Link:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 04:00 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. I don't see the problem with the proposal, which is not exactly the same.
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 04:06 AM by FrenchieCat
The whole point is to get Americans to save,
because that is how we got into this financial mess,
living on credit, and NOT bothering to save any money.

It is voluntary.

How do you propose folks are encouraged to save,
and where else could folks put their saving except for
into a savings account? It would be guaranteed by the Government,
I am certain.


The whole point is to do what countries are supposed to do;
encourage their citizens to have money saved, which makes us
stronger as a nation!

Where is the problem as far as you see it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bottomtheweaver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 04:03 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. No, the whole point is to divert S.S. contributions into private hands.
If you really need more help understanding this, I'll be happy to discuss it at length tomorrow, but I better sign off now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 04:05 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Well, you are leaving us high and dry......
It is terrible to start a debate that you cannot finish.

Read this post.....
ConsAreLiars (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-26-09 01:00 AM
Response to Original message
19. Not privatization of SS, but the opposite.
Giving people the option to put their additional retirement savings into a gov't guaranteed plan, rather than one that can be used by the Corps for their own financial interests and then made to vanish completely or almost completely with a few legal maneuvers, as has often happened with many corporate pension plans. Enron, GM, and many others.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Common Sense Party Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 04:27 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. Ah. Thanks for the link to a TEN-YEAR-OLD Clinton Admin. idea
that went nowhere, that does nothing to privatize Social Security.

So, is your beef that Americans put ANY retirement dollars ANYWHERE but in Social Security? We should get rid of IRAs and Roth IRAs and 401(k)'s and 403(b)'s? Or that any tax benefits are going to these savings, and we should get rid of tax deferral on qualified plans and get rid of the Saver's Credit on 401(k) plans? And funnel all that money into Social Security?

Ain't gonna happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
exboyfil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 04:03 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. How about forced expansion of options inside 401(k)s to include
direct purchase of Treasuries? You can get CPI+2.2% on a TIPS right now. Better yet might be a set of Indexed Bond funds with laddered five year maturity dates. Perhaps they could hold 80% US indexed and 20% foreign indexed (ie EU, Canada, and Japan).

The current bond fund offerings inside 401(k)s, even ones run by good companies like Vanguard and Fidelity leave a lot to be desired.

Obama is right on track with S.S. if his only change is to no cap income so long as that additional income gets to participate at the 15% rate like incomes between approx $50-100K currently do. It is not fair for that income group to bear the brunt of the subsidization.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 06:39 AM
Response to Original message
19. The thing I agree most on is raising the cap.
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 06:40 AM by mmonk
I've gotten so tired of hearing from the people that want to attack social security in order to privatize it saying it is going bust because its a ponzi scheme that can't be maintained and is big government. Spending for social security can be taken care of so easily. Where I don't want to see tax free savings accounts is in the area of healthcare as a means of keeping the insurance companies in charge. But I'm very happy someone is finally doing the right thing in raising the cap and putting all the political lies surrounding social security and how we can't afford it to bed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
20. Thank you for clarifying Obama's policies!
I can understand people getting the jitters at the mere mention of private retirement savings plans. These were a rightwing talking point for so long, in the agenda to kill Social Security.

I don't think Obama has any intention to harm Social Security with private savings plans.

However, I just want to discuss context for a moment--that is, what Republican corpo/fascists might do, if they regain power--which we should never for a moment forget is not just possible, it is probable, with all the voting machines run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations.

Never forget that.

What did Enron do, when California's Democratic governor had built up a $10 billion surplus? They moved in and stole the entire surplus.

What did the Bushwhacks do, when Bill Clinton created a big surplus in the federal government? They moved in and immediately rammed their first tax cut for the rich through Congress, and then started two wars--so the rich and the war profiteers could steal the entire surplus--and have furthermore--what with Diebold and all (fast-tracked during the 2002-2004 period)--kept on going, to run up a trillion dollar deficit (and counting).

Progressives create prosperity and wealth, high employment and a good tax base. Corpo/fascists steal it all.

Memory, memory, memory! Let's keep our memories, our history, before us. Back in the 1960s-1970s, people trusted Savings and Loan institutions, which were heavily regulated to insure that poor and middle-class savers, and other savers, were protected from speculators. The interest was modest. The safety was rock solid. What did the Reagan de-regulators do? They permitted all those careful savings over the decades to be looted.

So, why should people trust Obama's private retirement savings plan, if Bushwhacks can get Diebolded back into power, and just rip it all off? Deja vu all over again.

Somewhere in your OP, Obama says, "We can't get something for nothing," in connection with the Social Security program. I thought this a rather odd statement. SS is not nothing. It's MY hard-earned dollars paid in over a lifetime of work, and everybody else's. That money existed at one time. I made that money. You made that money. We trusted the government to use it wisely, at compound interest.

What Obama doesn't mention, and what no one is talking about, is that the Bushwhacks have borrowed against the SS fund for their goddamned wars and tax cuts for the rich. They have also borrowed against the government employees pension funds. If this massive thievery had not been committed, there would be NO problem now. The problem is not the funds we have paid into all these years. The problem is Bushwhack war and looting.

So-o-o-o, what will be the guarantees NOW, that anything we do--to save money, to prepare for the future, and even to work and generate wealth, and tax revenues, and new infrastructure and common good projects--will not be massively, catastrophically looted again?

This is where Obama and I part company. What should be happening is a major, thorough, "New Deal"-like restructuring of the fundamentals of this economy, including how corporate business is organized and regulated. NUMBER ONE: All corporations above a certain size, and especially the monopolies, conglomerates and heavy overseas operators, need to be busted up, some of them dismantled--with their corporate charters pulled and their assets seized for the common good. NUMBER TWO: Raising the cap on SS is all well and good, and should have been done a long time ago, but--more fundamentally--SS needs to be protected against any future out-of-control president taking out a lien against it--to enrich his rich friends or conduct corporate resource wars. NUMBER THREE: As with our voting machines, health care needs to be shorn of private corporate profiteers--particularly the insurance companies, but also Big Pharma.

Obama is trying to have it both ways--to please the people AND to please the corporate rulers and the super-rich. This may be because his hands are tied in various ways. It may not be his fault, exactly. He may be the artifact of whatever deal he had to make to achieve any power at all. It nevertheless needs to be pointed out as a mistake, and possibly a fatal mistake.

As FDR said, "Organized money hates me--and I welcome their hatred." This steely, pro-people stance created over 40 years of stability, with a strong, large middle class, and upward mobility for the poor. It takes steel, not compromise, to counter the power of the super-rich, especially as it organizes its wealth and power into impenetrable corporate fortresses. Create all the great government programs you wish, and unless you fortify them against looting by the rich, they will be looted. All the fortifications we had--including our democracy itself and honest elections--have been breached. We need to re-fortify ourselves against similar future attacks.

So this is what I would say to Obama: We need to look back AND forward at the same time. We ignore what has actually happened at great peril--looting of all that we had, all that we, the working class and small business, have built up over the years. Our pensions, our savings, our schools, our emergency services, our national guards, our military, our faithful payment of our taxes, our productive work habits and loyalty to businesses, everything--looted! Even that sacrosanct program, Social Security, which doesn't pay out much, but pays out something, to keep our elderly off the streets. The "baby boomers" paid into it. Don't tell me there is a "baby boomer" problem. Where are those funds?! I'll tell you where. They are in missile systems we don't need; in wars we didn't want; and in the pockets of the super-rich, here and in...Saudi Arabia and around the world, wherever the Bushwhacks have stashed their billions.

We have to address the fundamental structure of our economy, or it will all happen again. And key to that crying need, in my opinion, is getting rid of the "TRADE SECRET" voting machines. As long as these corporate fuckwads can reinstall Bushwhack regimes, any time they wish, whatever we gain, whatever we save, whatever we create, will be taken from us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC