Folks?
Bernie Sanders & Co. ARE going after EVERBODY else running for the Democratic nomination…
First it was Elizabeth Warren, who has fired back…
Now it’s Joe Biden…
It’s getting to be crunch time, eh?
Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. on Saturday accused Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign of distorting his record on Social Security, claiming without evidence that Mr. Sanders’s team was promoting a “doctored” video, a loaded word in an era of disinformation.
“There is a little doctored video going around,” Mr. Biden said, adding that it was “put out by one of Bernie’s people.”
The remarks, which Mr. Biden made in response to a question about his Social Security stance at a campaign event here Saturday afternoon, marked a departure from his typical oblique swipes at opponents when speaking before voters. The clash, over an issue of great significance to older Iowa voters, seemed to signal an escalation in tensions between the two contenders who are competing for an overlapping slice of blue-collar Iowans here in the leadoff caucus state.
The Sanders campaign has been increasingly critical of Mr. Biden’s broader record on Social Security. At issue on Saturday: The campaign claimed recently that Mr. Biden had praised former House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, Mr. Biden’s 2012 rival for the vice presidency, in support of making cuts to Social Security.
On Jan. 1, a Sanders adviser circulated on Twitter a video clip that captured only a portion of a Biden speech that appeared to promote that argument, without context, though the video did not appear doctored.
On Saturday, Mr. Biden invoked PolitiFact, the fact-checking outlet, which ruled that the Sanders campaign claim was false and lacked context. The PolitiFact ruling did not focus on the video, contrary to Mr. Biden’s suggestion, but it did address the substance of the Biden speech at issue.
“It is simply a lie, that video that’s going around,” Mr. Biden said, adding, “I’m looking for his campaign to come forward and disown it. They haven’t done it yet.”
The remarks in Indianola came as the Sanders campaign was still dealing with a bruising clash with Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts over his campaign tactics and whether he had told her in 2018 that a woman could not be elected president.
The Sanders campaign has been intensifying its attacks on Mr. Biden’s long record on Social Security. Throughout his decades in public life, Mr. Biden has at times supported freezes and backed proposals that have alarmed some who worry about the effect on the program. He has also released a plan that calls for strengthening Social Security, and has embraced proposals like providing a higher benefit to the oldest beneficiaries….
image…NYPost.Com
Sanders has NOT gone after Warren. You
would have a hard time finding a quote where he criticized Warren during this entire campaign. You will go to no lengths to make up shit about Sanders because of your hatred towards him.
While this particular clip by a Sanders supporter was clearly taken out of context – and was very misleading, it is also true that Biden had previously called for cuts in Social Security benefits.
Sanders supporters provided a misleading clip, but who of all people in this country are you to complain about a candidate’s supporters providing misleading information about the opposition?
You ARE correct Z….
Except?
HIS STAFF has been doing the dirty work for him NOW….In the past it was his campaign as it is now and they can only confute with HIS blessings…
As my post points out
Bernie Sanders continues to have issues with women …..
THAT is a fact,…
All I will say on this is
Social Security is in desperate need of fairly radical reform involving increasing the age to receive benefits, increasing the contribution by employers and employees, and increasing the income limit on which contributions are required.
Or we can wait for it to begin going broke a scant fifteen years from now.
I agree Jack completely, all reforms that people like Biden have supported at one point in time over the years.
This is an issue my husband has worked on for years. The payroll tax needs to be lifted, benefits need to be means tested, and the 62 year old retirement option needs to be raised to 65.
Bernie is at it again. His supporters tell lies, doctoring videos and telling voters Warren cannot win (the inference because she’s a woman) and Bernie says he knows nothing about it. But when Warren recounts a conversation she had with him on the topic of a woman being elected, she’s attacked as a liar, even though she told people of the conversation when it first happened.
Bottom line, I will vote for and max out to Bernie if he’s the nominee. But I prefer someone else. I simply don’t think a 78 year old man who just had a heart attack is up to both winning the Presidency and governing.
But, if it’s Bernie I am in, this is a National emergency.
Yea…increase the payroll tax!!!???
Let me see?
The 2017 GOPer tax cut INCREASED MY TAXES
Me and most middle clas voters of BOTH PARTIES are gonna vote for ANOTHER fucking tax increase????
You guys have lost ur minds….
Vote FOR Bernie so that Donald Trump and the GOPer’s can run over the guy with a political truck….
AGAIN?
A VOTE FIR BERNIE IS A VOTE TO RAISE YOUR DAMN TAXES
Please explain to me where i’m wrong on this cause i don’t think so…
And i think more Dem’s are gonna back me on this ….
In simple terms?
Democrat fought the 2017 tax ‘cuts increase
BUT🙄
NOW are pushing FOR a Bernie Sanders TAX INCREASE???????
I’ll tell ya what?
ALL U guys can have ur taxes jacked up for Bernie
All us NOT for the guy can get the 2017 law redone and get OUR TAX deductions back and get a CUT….
WTF should just rich people pay less taxes?
There’s no “explaining” anything to you.
Apparently your idea is to just wait around for social security to go broke.
That’s idiotic.
Wait now that’s a word that applies to you.
That second paragraph sounds suspiciously conservative………
I’m a paying Democrat who is middle class and doesn’t want a tax increase…
I have said this repeatedly here ….
I’m sure i have millions of Democrats who look at things the same way…
A increase in payroll taxes could ONLY come from Sanders….
Warren tried it for healthcare and has beat a hasty retreat …
I am happy to see that jack and Keith, as wealthy, white, older Democrats, have some common-sense views on Social Security reform.
If Sanders becomes the nominee, it will not be a fun campaign for them though.
No it’s commonsensical.
Now cutting taxes for the wealthy?
That’s “conservative.”
The means-testing, gradually raising retirement age, allowing more earnings, etc, have been things that Republicans have talked about for decades and have been absolutely savaged politically by Democrats upon doing so.
No plenty of Democrats have talked about these things too.
Very Tribalist of you to make such a comment though
Even though we all know how yoh gofers about uh “tribalism.”
Can you name them? Have any been nominated for President?
Were you awake for Al Gore’s 2000 campaign?
Any Democrat that would even dare to suggest raising the retirement age is akin to a Republican elected official saying Trump should be impeached.
I stand by my view on this….
And YES…..
NO DEMOCRAT is talking about this out loud ….
The independent Senator from Vermont IS though…
And yes Jack..
AGAIN?
As in Immigration?
Defense?
And other Social safety net issues?
The American Congress in both parties do NOT want to deal with shit that might have them lose their good thing…
Their jobs WE pay for…
Just ain’t happening anytime soon…
The argument that Sanders isn’t dissing Biden does NOT hold water….
Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) campaign responded on Saturday to former Vice President Joe Biden after Biden falsely accused the campaign of doctoring a video of him talking about Social Security cuts.
“Joe Biden should be honest with voters and stop trying to doctor his own public record of consistently and repeatedly trying to cut Social Security,” Sanders’ campaign manager Faiz Shakir said Saturday in a statement.
“The facts are very clear: Biden not only pushed to cut Social Security — he is on tape proudly bragging about it on multiple occasions.”…
…
The video depicts the then-Senator appearing animated about freezing federal spending on programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
“When I argued if we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well. I meant Medicare and Medicaid…I meant every single solitary thing in the government. And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time” he said, at the time….
Politicalwire…
Jack is right of course. If it’s for the social network please tax me more.
But please cancel those Trump tax cuts for his rich friends.
Good Americans pay their fair share.
We have discussion Social Security here for years….
One side of the program is solvent for almost 20 years out…
The other side is suffering….
The program IS a political minefield
Older voters who actually vote do NOT ANY changes…
Younger voters don’t give a shit cause it’s a foreign concept to them
Congress well aware of this isn’t gonna do a damn thing
There has been very little discussion.
Instead we have been harangued by your hyperbolic nonsense that nothing should be done about a program that is desperately in need of reform if it is to survive for future generations.
We have heard quite enough oh your !!!’s andTTTTT’s and other examples of childish pique rather than informed discussion.
When you have something to say rather than your well known idiotic emotional babble?
Let us know.
The need for Social Security is greater now than it was 40 years ago. Back then, lots of people had a pension. Now, unless you are in a Union, almost no one has a pension – and that is especially true for younger employees,
Jack suggests increasing the retirement age – as if people aren’t being rampantly laid off before they reach 65. Most people want to work to 65, but relatively few are successful – either because of bad health, taking care of a loved one or by being laid off. And age discrimination is very real. Older workers don’t find jobs easily.
Increasing the income limit is a possibility that needs to be considered, but increasing the payroll tax or paying for benefits from regular taxes is a requirement that we cannot back off from. And the sooner we address the problem, the better.
Balancing the long-term Social Security program with a balance of increasing the FICA base (both the ceiling and the kinds of income affected), gradually increasing FICA deductions, incrementally increasing the retirement age, and controlling benefits, has been as I recall, the policy of at least two Democrats (one of whom has run for President): Bill Bradley and Erskine Bowles (of Simpson-Bowles), but there are several others I’ve either forgotten or whose SSA policy I don’t know.
“These two entities were roundly rejected by Democrats:
What were Bill Bradley and Simpson-Bowles Alex?”
I think that means testing for social security is a stupid idea because it weakens public support for the program. The amount of social security benefits that goes to the wealthy is a very, very small percentage, And once you start means testing, you will find support for the program decline.
Means testing is also a stupid idea for healthcare. I know someone on Medicaid who gets much better health benefits than I get.
And means testing is a stupid idea for education. Some middle class kids can’t afford to go to college. Yet the very poor can go to college without paying anything.
The wealthy are not paying anything near their fair share. But if we ask them to pay more in taxes, they should also enjoy the benefits. Entitlement programs should not exclude the wealthy, because when they do, you lose public support for the entire program.
Congress is NOT in a hurry on ANYTHING that is gonna raise taxes FOR Social Security…
As a former tax-preparer, I remember that there is a limited kinds of means-testing for Social Security; it just doesn’t affect benefits directly.
Half of one’s Social Security benefits above (when I was computing in the early 2000’s) $25,000 were subject to a progressive income tax (or its equivalent) on Form 1040. Of course if you raised that too much, you’d deter taxpayer/beneficiaries from earning their own money (if it’s all taxed away, why work or manage?) But there might be some non-punitive room for adjustment.
And the earlier point about universal entitlement has been a staple of liberal and social-democratic proposals since 1945 (or perhaps 1933). For example, everyone in Britain pays part of his or her income for National Insurance (covering old-age pensions as well as the National Health Service) but everyone is equally able to use the N.H.S. the poor and prosperous alike.
Some employers pay a non-government alternative provider, the British United Provident Association (BUPA) as a perk to attract or satisfy their staff, and some individuals pay BUPA for their own coverage, but all that is in addition to the NHS (e.g. if you wanted a private room rather than sharing a ward).
FICA or Social Security taxes are a combined rate of just higher than 7% of ur income…
After reaching that rate?
The payroll tax stops…
Rich people probably top out in month or two …
Other middle class people look forward to the added take home pay….
Any reform that impacts actual benefits will most likely not affect current recipients. That is political suicide. They will be targeted for future recipients.
The easiest way to “save” the system for those under 50 will be the elimination of the payroll tax cap. That will add years to the life of the program. The last estimate I heard was around 20 years if I recall correctly.
I am totally in favor of means testing, but once again for future recipients. As long as folks have time to adjust to the changes and as long as they receive benefits that they paid for means testing makes sense.
It’s crazy that my household receives the benefits we do given our other income.
Something has to be done and it isn’t Bush’s old privatization scheme. Remember that one, or remember when Paul Ryan said his greatest disappointment as Speaker was that he didn’t have the opportunity to cut Social Security? There is only one party that wants to strengthen Social Security and it ain’t the Trump party.
Congressional lawmakers don’t have the balls Keith….
We ALL know this…
As long as one part of the program has money for decade’s?
They will be under NO pressure…
having social security means tested for future recipients, but not current recipients is unfair to future recipients. You may not know this, but many people in their 40s already believe that social security will not be there for them. And they therefore resent that they are paying for social security now. The US can afford to fulfill its promise to pay social security for everyone. Social Security is an extremely popular program precisely because it is NOT means tested. It is a valuable program that we must ensure remains popular and survives. Chipping away at the benefits will ultimately kill it- even if the people doing the chipping are doing it to save it.
I believe that Keith wants to protect Social Security long term, but perhaps he can at least admit that he is using the GOP argument that we must cut benefits to save it, and if we do cut benefits, who can doubt that we will cut benefits again – and again?
The point is making sure that someone in their forties, especially those who support Republican policies, have social security in their old age because their present income levels will not afford them savings or additional investments to sustain a reasonable retirement.
Means testing is far from a Republican talking point, but privatization is one that they still support.
My husband and I make very generous social security incomes. Our income level could surely be sustained with less money from social security.
Clearly I am not talking about cutting benefits for those in need, I am looking for ways to sustain the system. And that’s not a Republican talking point.
Social Security taxes that are received are not dedicated to paying social security benefits. So once the program “runs out of money”, it will just mean that the government will have to borrow to pay its responsibilities. Unfortunately, this is not a foreign concept.
My most insightful learning (of which can’t be adequately explained in s blog post) of the study of economics is that there are often multiple ways to accomplish the same economic goals, but some are more effective than others. You and I both believe that the wealthy should pay more in taxes. I’m pretty sure I support that concept st least as much as you do. So trust me when I say that I fully agree with you that you don’t need generous social security payouts. That is not my point.
The only reason that free high school education is not a controversial issue is because it is not means tested. If we made it means tested, do you honestly think that there wouldn’t be a major effort by the wealthy to reduce funding for public schools? preserving and increasing their wealth is the most important issue to Republicans. Make Social Security means tested and you will have the same result.
I guess that things just get confused in on-line posts, but I fully agreed with you about universality of benefits in an earlier, giving the creaky but still-generally-admired and heavily used British National Health Service as an example. [The NHS, for all its many failings is so widely-valued that no Tory politician in decades has dared to touch this Third Rail of British politics, because it is still used by all classes of people.]
Otherwise, a new program is seen by the bulk of taxpayers as some kind of welfare handout to Them that is denied to those who pay the freight.
Although I haven’t understood the finer economic details, I do also understand that several strategies can accomplish the same goal, but with widely-different collateral effects. Whether or how to bail out big banks and brokerages under TARP was a good recent example.
In fact, that choice is a staple of left-wing and social-democratic advocacy — contrasting a Capitalist or Conservative approach to solving a problem with a fairer and more-effective Socialist or Liberal one.
Obamacare, for example, was very likely the only alternative that had a prayer of passing Congress, even after the 2006 Democratic landslide, but it’s still based on the Heritage Foundation’s search for a conservative alternative (“RomneyCare”) to what is now called Medicare-for-All, and leaves private carriers in place, even benefitting from subsidies that give them more customers.
¶ But, as to the specific question of Social Security’s viability, we’re getting confused over three distinct but related questions.
(1) Should FICA taxes be raised? Should they apply to more kinds or degrees of income? Where should the cap (if any) be set?
(2) Should Social Security benefits be means-tested ?, addressed in two different ways: (A) by limiting them according to wealth or income, or (B) by limiting, as 1040 does now, the amount of total income (including SS benefits) that is exempt from normal income tax?
¶ My own tentative answers don’t always diverge that much from yours:
* If the Bushes’ TARP (bailout) was the only program that could have gone into effect, then that was the answer (despite some very unfair outcomes: e.g. AIG vs mortgage-payers’ relief); on the other hand, it‘s quite possible that a less-corporate solution would have worked just as effectively or more effectively. There’s still as hangover from that in battles over the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, reserve requirements and stress-tests for banks.
* It’s usually far better to present benefits as universal, rather than directed towards a single class. That’s why I’m generally disinclined to deny student aid and tuition according to family income.
* There is room for some broadening of the FICA tax base.
* Net Social Security Benefits are already effectively limited by a recipient’s income; it’s just not through a means test, but by an adjustment to the income subject to regular income tax. Again, an approach I generally support, although including more than 85% under the regular income-tax rates would seem counterproductive and in contradiction to a universal right to benefits.
DSD….
Thank you for including the comment about ACTUALLY getting something THRU CONGRESS IS A a factor what people should be aware of in discussions of American policy…
That’s absurd.
A policy discussion is just that.Individuals considering various aspects of policies with their views as to what policies are best.
A policy discussion is entirely different from a political discussion as to what form legislation may take as regards a particular policy.
Using your dumb formulation,there should be no discussion of any controversial subject .
Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough, but there’s already a virtual means test and virtual progressive benefits offset— only for those individuals receiving more than $25,000 or couples receiving more than $32,000 in a tax year. They pay the applicable income tax on 50-85% of Social Security benefits, as well as on all their other taxable income.
To see the rather complex system better explained, see:
https://smartasset.com/retirement/is-social-security-income-taxable
Dave,
I am aware that (all else being equal) the people who contribute the most to social security benefits will receive far less in benefits than what they contribute and that the people who contribute the least to social security will earn more than what they put in. I agree with that concept. The discussion we were having is about whether the wealthy should receive any social security benefit.