Social Security, Where they stand.

[asdjrocky]

By The Associated Press
For the whole story:

http://www.topix.net/content/ap/2007/11/candidates-stances-on-social-security


The Associated Press

November 24, 2007

Where the major presidential candidates stand on Social Security:

DEMOCRATS

_ Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton: Advocates a bipartisan commission to propose changes. Told an Iowa voter she would consider higher payroll taxes on higher wage-earners. 'I don't think I should be negotiating about what I would do as president. You know, I want to see what other people come to the table with.'

_ Sen. Barack Obama: Supports bipartisan commission. Says higher payroll taxes on upper wage-earners are probably the best option. Opposes benefit cuts or raising the retirement age. 'Everything should be on the table.'

_ Former Sen. John Edwards: Opposes changes in benefits or raising the retirement age. Supports higher payroll taxes on upper wage-earners. 'These millionaires on Wall Street ought to be paying their Social Security taxes.'

[99th_Monkey]

1. So what are Biden's and Kucinich's postitions? Do you know?

if so, why not post them too?

[asdjrocky]

3. Check the link.

They weren't there.

[99th_Monkey]

4. So the race has been decided by the AP already? How odd. n/t

[gateley]

6. The race was decided quite a while ago. Nice, huh. America. nt

[99th_Monkey]

24. Why have Primaries anymore? What a waste of money. n/t

[asdjrocky]

20. Buddy,

I ain't makin' the news here, I'm just reporting it.

[99th_Monkey]

23. Buddy? WTF.

There has not been even ONE primary election in this country yet, and already MSM has told us
"who's ahead".

I take it you support one of the "big three" ..

You didn't need to take what I said about the AP so personally; it was directed at the AP
not at you, the compliant messenger.

chill already.

[Basileus Basileon]

2. Those three all seem pretty much the same, and all are acceptable. It's noteworthy

that Clinton does not seem to have ruled out benefit cuts.

[silverojo]

5. Of course not.

Bill Clinton cut needy people off welfare, so now it's wifey's turn to cut funds for the elderly.

God, I love the Clintons! :sarcasm:

[onelittleindian]

42. CLINTON WELFARE

Clinton only cut off welfare after GOP took control, before that, he vetoed welfare reform twice so he was in a bad position. The dems could have filibustered but chose not to.

[AzDar]

7. Only JE's response is acceptable to me.

:patriot:

[Stop Cornyn]

8. Good to know

[1corona4u]

9. Here's Biden's plan...

1. Safeguarding Social Security
Protect Social Security, Not Privatize It. Social Security is the foundation of retirement security for millions of Americans. For a typical worker retiring at age 65, Social Security replaces 40 percent of pre-retirement income. Joe Biden opposes privatization of Social Security. Social Security does not face an immediate crisis. With no changes, Social Security can pay full benefits through 2041. After that it can pay 74 percent of benefits. Joe Biden would bring Democrats and Republicans together to agree on options for keeping Social Security solvent including raising the cap on income subject to the Social Security tax so that the most wealthy shoulder their fair share ($97,500 is the maximum for 2007). This approach worked in1983 when a bipartisan group of senior leaders from both parties put politics aside to fix Social Security.

2. Expanding Personal Saving
Make It Easier to Save:
Require Employers That Don't Provide Retirement Plans To Allow Employees To Contribute To Individual Retirement Accounts. In 2006, 40 percent of workers did not have any form of pension coverage – that's around 75 million workers who have no access to an employ-provided retirement plan. Joe Biden would require employers who do not adopt a 401(k) or other retirement plan to offer employees the ability contribute to an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) by payroll deposit making it easier to save small amounts on a predictable, regular basis.

Expand Automatic Enrollment in 401(k)s. Defined contribution retirement plans do not cover workers unless they sign up. Only about 1 in 4 eligible employees participate in such plans – missing out on tax advantages of saving and employer matching contributions. Automatic enrollment requires employees to opt-out of such plans – instead of requiring them to opt-in. Automatic enrollment has been shown to raise participation rates. Joe Biden would expand automatic enrollment in 401(k)s by increasing automatic enrollment by small and mid-sized employers, by expanding automatic enrollment to existing employees, and by increasing automatic contribution amounts.

Make It Easier For Workers to Take Retirement Plans With Them:
The average worker can expect to change jobs several times which can result in navigating and managing several different retirement plans and investments. Joe Biden would make rollover of 401(k)s automatic so that accounts follow individuals.
Help Low and Moderate Income Families Save:
Match Contributions To Retirement Savings By Expanding Saver's Credit. Most retirement contributions are excluded from taxable income until they are distributed. Higher income taxpayers disproportionately benefit from tax deductions that promote savings because the value of tax incentives depends on what bracket the taxpayer is in – the higher the tax rate, the more the subsidies are worth. Those in lower tax brackets who most need to save have less benefit. Joe Biden would extend the Savers' Credit to make it a 50 percent refundable credit of up to $2,000 and index it to inflation to provide incentives to low-income households. Families with incomes below $50,000 that deposited $4,000 into a retirement account would receive a $2,000 match through the refund.

End Rules That Penalize Retirement Saving:
Many low-income families receive assistance through food stamp programs, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income. To be eligible they must meet an asset test as well as an income test. Asset tests count savings in 401(k)s or IRAs. Joe Biden would exclude retirement savings accounts from asset tests so that families with incomes low enough to qualify for assistance programs are not disqualified because of retirement savings.

3. Starting Savings At Birth With $500 Kids Accounts
Invest $500 In A Kids Account For Every Child Born After December 31, 2008. Joe Biden would create individual Kids Accounts for every child endowed with an initial contribution of $500 from the government. Kids Accounts would be redeemable for education expenses, home ownership or retirement beginning at age 18. Unused funds can be automatically rolled over into Individual Retirement Accounts at age 18.

Parents and Grandparents Could Contribute $1,000 A Year. Joe Biden would permit parents and grandparents to make a $1,000 after-tax contribution into Kids Accounts. Earnings in the account would be tax free.

Match Contributions For Low-Income Children. To encourage saving and investment Joe Biden would provide a dollar-for-dollar match on the first $500 contributed to the account for children in households earning below the national median income.

Kids Account Holders Would Repay Initial Deposit At Age 30. Joe Biden would require children who receive Kids Accounts to repay the government's deposit when they reach 30.

4. Protecting Pensions
Strengthen Workers Claims On Retirement Benefits. Executives should not have better pension protections during bankruptcy than workers. Joe Biden would tighten restrictions on "Key Employee Retention Plans" which are used to give executives bonuses while companies walk away from employee pensions. He would make any increases in executive pay and benefits up to two years before bankruptcy subject to special scrutiny by the court. Joe Biden would require that a company's foreign and domestic assets must be considered by the court when it considers voiding employees' contracts. Management should not be able to move assets overseas when they get into financial trouble and renege on their obligations to workers.
5. Preserving Retirement Investments
Protect Shareholders Rights. Joe Biden believes that shareholders have a critical role to play in corporate accountability. He would allow shareholders to have a vote in setting executive compensation and he would protect laws requiring executives to attest to the accuracy of a company's financial statements and to the soundness of internal controls. He was proud to fight for those safeguards in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. A company that cannot or will not institute and maintain the internal controls necessary to meet the high standards of financial integrity and corporate accountability should not go public in the United States.

Increase Transparency and Help Workers Understand All Investment Options. Joe Biden would require retirement plan administrators to disclose fees and clearly identify the name, risk and investment objective of investment options. He would direct the Department of Labor to review compliance with these disclosure requirements and refer violations to the SEC and other enforcement agencies.

[Tejanocrat]

10. Biden plans to come up with a plan after the election? "Biden would bring Democrats and Republicans

together to agree on options"?

I'm underwhelmed.

[1corona4u]

13. Well, maybe you need to face the facts then...

no one has a "plan" that will pass as it exist right now. There has to be input/votes from all sides. Most just pay lipservice right now. Promises that will fail, as I like to call them...

[KittyWampus]

27. You respond to a post that says what Biden would do and then ignore what it says

except to obsess on "Biden would bring Democrats and Republicans".

What is wrong with you?

The sentence you quote GOES ON TO SAY- "including raising the cap on income subject to the Social Security tax so that the most wealthy shoulder their fair share ($97,500 is the maximum for 2007). This approach worked in1983..."

Really, what the heck is wrong with you?

-First he says he says he opposes privatizing which means no personal accounts. He later cites various ways to help Americans save in OTHER private accounts not associated in any way with SS.

-He then says he'll raise the cap to deal with issue even though he notes THE BENEFITS ARE GOOD THRU 2041.


1. Safeguarding Social Security
Protect Social Security, Not Privatize It. Social Security is the foundation of retirement security for millions of Americans. For a typical worker retiring at age 65, Social Security replaces 40 percent of pre-retirement income. Joe Biden opposes privatization of Social Security. Social Security does not face an immediate crisis. With no changes, Social Security can pay full benefits through 2041. After that it can pay 74 percent of benefits. Joe Biden would bring Democrats and Republicans together to agree on options for keeping Social Security solvent including raising the cap on income subject to the Social Security tax so that the most wealthy shoulder their fair share ($97,500 is the maximum for 2007). This approach worked in1983 when a bipartisan group of senior leaders from both parties put politics aside to fix Social Security.

[Tejanocrat]

31. That's NOT what Biden said. He said he "would bring Democrats and Republicans together to agree on

options for keeping Social Security solvent including raising the cap on income subject to the Social Security tax so that the most wealthy shoulder their fair share ($97,500 is the maximum for 2007)."

Biden's statement doesn't say that he would raise the cap on income subject to the Social Security tax, as you incorrectly imply.

He merely said that he would form a bi-partisan committee and try to get them to agree on a solution and one option he would ask the bi-partisan committee to agree upon would include raising the cap. What in God's name makes you think a bi-partisan committee would agree to that? Did you read where Biden explained what he would do if his bi-partisan committee didn't agree to that proposal (which they wouldn't)? If you found where Biden addressed what he'd do if his bi-partisan committee didn't agree to raise the cap, please show me where because I sure didn't see it anywhere.

If Biden was so worried about the "wealthy shouldering their fair share," why did he vote for deducting Social Security payments on income taxes? If Biden was concerned about protecting Social Security, why did he vote against Gore's Social Security Lockbox?

The ARA rates the candidates on the candidates' positions on protecting Social Security. Kucinich, Edwards, Hillary, and Dodd have better ratings than Biden (I couldn't find Obama's ratings or Richardson's so please don't infer that Biden has a better record than Obama

[1corona4u]

33. Oh, Good lord....

Support Obama, who gives a shit. But when HIS plan is shot the hell down, don't come crying to the rest of us. And it will be.

[suston96]

11. Economic house in order......

Hillary mentioned ending deficits and placing our economic house in order as a first step in considering the resolution of the "Social Security" problem.

A problem which exists in the minds of those who want those payroll contributions by workers and employers to find their way to Wall Street investment firms.

What a load of crap! Does it occur to anyone that expanding the economy and jobs creation to cover new workers will also swell the contributions made by workers and employers?

That the big scare of 70 million boomers retiring and overwhelming the Social Security system also means that most of those vacated jobs will be filled by other workers who will continue to contribute to the system?

Huh?

[rasputin1952]

12. The candidate that tells the truth, that SS has been looted for

years will be the one who has the right approach. There never was a "surplus" for the tax cutters to use. The money that was being taken in over the years would have been far more than needed to keep SS solvent for decades beyond the current situation.

The money was used to cover a host of projects, including massive tax cuts, war, the military, earmarks and all kinds of stuff that congress was just too cowardly to either address before the American people, or hold back their urges to spend the country into financial disaster. This goes for both parties, there is no line to draw between them.

[suston96]

14. Looted what?

Don't want to really get into this too deeply but.....

Those particular trust funds cannot be "looted." You may deposit millions in your bank and the bank uses those funds for everything a bank does with deposits, but "your millions" are still owed to you.

The Social Security trust fund is an accounting record that reflects inputs and pay outs - mostly from and too active and retired enrolled workers.

No matter how much the irresponsible spending by different Congresses, those trust funds cannot be "depleted" by them.

The only way they can be affected is by a downturn in the economy that affects contributions to that fund that are below what is paid out. (It happened in the 1980s).

[rasputin1952]

15. So, you are saying that the dollars that have been placed into

the system are being paid out as they come in?

If that were the case, each recipient of a SS check would be getting something to the effect of $100,000 a month.

While Boomers worked and paid into the system, the coffers overflowed. Much of that money was "borrowed" by congresses past and present, there is no way that cash can be recovered, we are talking trillions of dollars here.

FICA and Medicare taxes should be used for SS and Medicare, not used at the discretion of congress. When a bank loans out money, they receive it back w/interest, (hopefully). We are using a good portion of what should be in the SS fund to PAY interest on a debt we should not have.

There is a constant outflow of cash from this country with little to no return. No economy can survive like that for long. It was not that long ago when we were a lender, not a debtor nation. SS is just one aspect of a very sick and possibly dying economy. i have not seen anyone that has any form of dedication to the Long run, it is all about, short sighted people using smoke and mirrors to obfuscate the reality of the situation.

[suston96]

17. Paid in, paid out...

"So, you are saying that the dollars that have been placed into the system are being paid out as they come in?"

Not exactly. The trust fund reflects payments IN from the workers and employers, AND payments OUT to those who are retired. Right now, the payments IN are more than the payments OUT.

There are those who claim that the sky will fall in about 10 to 15 years when the payments IN will no longer cover the payments OUT to the swelling retired rolls. Maybe so. But I say that if the economy and jobs grow as they must to sustain the growth in population AND in the retired rolls, then the sky will not fall and all will be well with the Trust Fund for the succeeding generations.

That is what I believe Hillary means by "setting our economic house in order."

[rasputin1952]

28. My point is though...

"Right now, the payments IN are more than the payments OUT."

The amount IN, has far outweighed the payouts. There was an excess of funds going in, that weren't being paid to recipients...it was being spent on other government projects.

If the monies received were actually held within the system, said system would be sufficient to last for quite some time.

As for the population/employment situation. There is a serious decline in the pay-in population on the horizon. If recipients continue to work beyond till the age of say 70, more will go in than is paid out.

The future for GenX and others is kind of bright, there are no as many of them, so housing costs will diminish, and rates of pay should rise.

Of course, all of this goes straight to hell if the $9 trillion we are in debt for rises to the surface. Under bush and the previous R congress', and this one as well...the country has been gushing cash at an astounding rate. Energy, is the leading PITA and the main artery for cash leaving the country...and w/the dollar kind of squeaking along...if OPEC decides to base it's sales in Euro's...we are history.

When one adds that our industrial level is pathetic compared to other countries, (after all, we turning into a purely service economy which cannot support itself), we 're in some pretty dire straights.

I also that a complete revamp of corporate tax structure is necessary, as well as closing many loopholes that some use to great advantage. Tossing out subsidies to energy corps is pretty lame as well when the make record profits. If the oil subsidies alone were removed from the budget, people would immediately know what $100 a barrel for oil was all about. We would invest far more into renewables and alternatives in an instant....$7.50 a gallon would do much to get us off our short sighted stools.

[suston96]

36. Trust Fund

Rasputin:

You say:

"The amount IN, has far outweighed the payouts. There was an excess of funds going in, that weren't being paid to recipients...it was being spent on other government projects.

If the monies received were actually held within the system, said system would be sufficient to last for quite some time."

There is an element in the discussion you are missing: The Trust Funds cannot be spent by anyone or for anything other than for what they are "in Trust".

There is no warehouse or bank with "Social Security Trust Funds" stored therein. It is an accounting system that keeps track of INS and OUTS.

The Social Security demons know that fully well so they are concentrating on future demographics. Those of us who claim that the Congress is raiding the trust fund are on the wrong path because......

Congress CANNOT raid a Trust Fund that exists only in an accounting ledger.

[rasputin1952]

37. So what you are saying is that the dollars collected are merely #'s

and said Trust Fund is merely paper with nothing to back it up?

I do not believe there is a vault someplace with said cash in it, but what I get from your posting is that all of the monies collected are merely a wisp of smoke and the stroke of a pen. There has to be something to back it up.

If I deposit $10 in an savings account, I can remove said $10 with a mere slip of paper, the bank does not have all of its assets in the bank, but they have to be backed up somewhere. They need to be able to draw on account to cover their obligations, and have some on hand to cover operations. Once they reach zero on their ledgers they cannot continue to pass cash onto their customers.

Same for SS, once they reach zero, they need to borrow to meet obligations. The funds that have been coming in from the Boomers more than meets obligations..."excess" funds are shifted to other items. It may be merely an accounting procedure, but it is still looting one fund to cover other obligations.

It takes a brave individual to tell people that we need to raise income to cover obligations, in this country, that means raising taxes. Suddenly there is a great uproar from some in the masses, the squealing can be heard across the nation, but these same people demand services from the same government they would love to starve to death. So tax cuts emerge as the solution to a host of ills...then funds must be found for things like Police and Fire Dept's, funded to a good extent by Federal tax dollars. These dollars dry up, SS has a larger account than what they need to pay out...the accountants go to work, shifting cash from one fund to another...much as if I were to go into someones savings account and move some of their account into mine...that's stealing. It is what congress has been doing for years.

[suston96]

39. What I am saying.....

"So what you are saying is that the dollars collected are merely #'s and said Trust Fund is merely paper with nothing to back it up?

Nope. It is neither "merely" numbers nor "merely" paper.

Just as at your bank YOUR $10.00 is not sitting in a bank vault with your name on it, on demand, you will be paid your $10.00.

When you apply for your benefits you and everyone else will be paid based on what your specific "paper" account calculates you have coming, just as your banker checks your "paper" bank account to check your balance before giving you your $10.00. Everything is "paper" these days.

What is there to back it up? Take out a 10 dollar bill. OK, a five dollar bill. What is on it besides the denomination? "The United States of America".

That "piece of paper" is backed up in the same way as that other "piece of paper" with your Social Security account data on it.

And that back-up is the full faith and credit of the United States. No Social Security check has ever bounced, nor has any $10.00 bill.

Nor have any retirees been denied their retirements based on lack of funds.

[Tejanocrat]

32. That's not Biden who voted AGAINST Gore's lockbox and voted to allow a tax deduction of SS payments

[OzarkDem]

16. What about privatization?

We really need to make our candidates address this issue specifically.

I also think a bipartisan commission on SS is a very dangerous idea.

[suston96]

18. Bipartisan dangerous?

Why do you say that?

Back in the 1980s under Reagan there was real trouble with that Trust Fund and bipartisanship (Reagan/Tip O'Neill) fixed that. I believe they raised SS taxes.....

.....oh, I see what you mean.

[OzarkDem]

19. GOP wants to privatize SS

I would be very concerned that Vichy Dems would allow privatization in order to "feel good" about working in bipartisan fashion.

Dems have to accept that, if they win the WH in '08, there will be little, if any real bipartisan cooperation in Congress. Trying to govern with bipartisan cooperation will not only be foolhardy, but also dangerous.

Dems need to get their talking points ready to say "bipartisanship" may not be part of the near future. The GOP is not capable of participating in bipartisan governing.

[cuke]

21. You must not have noticed

that nearly every Dem is against privatization. * tried it twice and both times the Dems beat him back on the issue. SS is known as the third rail of politics for good reason. If you think dems will vote for privitzation, you haven't been paying attention

[OzarkDem]

22. Then why aren't they saying so, loud and clear?

I think some of the Dem candidates are against privatization and probably haven't realized this is becoming a stealth issue.

My guess is that any candidate who understands its a stealth issue is repeating the "bipartisan" line and is prepared to support some level of privatization. Otherwise they would have stated in no uncertain terms that they oppose any form of privatization.

I hope I'm wrong and would encourage all our Dem candidates to speak out on this issue.

It also appears the majority of voters also don't approve of privatization, leaving any Dem who supports it with no good excuse for doing so.

[cuke]

25. Again, you must not be paying enough attention

They have ALL said so, LOUD and CLEAR. Where were you?

There was an AARP debate. ALL the candidates said they are against privitzation LOUD AND CLEAR

[OzarkDem]

26. I missed the AARP debate

If they are all adamantly opposed to privatization, what is the point in working in bipartisan fashion to "fix" it if elected?

Perhaps I'm wrong about the Dem candidate's message and what we're really seeing is media spin on the issue, as evidence in the linked article. If so, all the more reason for Dem candidates to keep talking about it.

[cuke]

30. There;s no convincing some people

You haven't paid attention and the media doesn't repeat their positions, and so you think the problem has something to do with the candidates and what they're not doing

Try to take responsibility for your own ignorance. If you don't know something that is public knowledge, whose fault is that?

The candidates HAVE been talking about this. ALL OF THEM have been asked about what to do with SS and ALL OF THEM have said they are opposed to privitizstion. What would you have them do? Tattoo their positions on their foreheads? Should they end every answer they give, regardless of the subject, with a "and I don't support privitization of SS"?

When will you stop trying to somehow pin the blame on the candidates and place the blame where it truly belongs - on the media which distorts, and the voters too lazy to cure their ignorance of the candidates positions?

[OzarkDem]

34. WTF?

Sorry, but I've been focusing on other issues. Most of the dialogue so far has focused on attacking each other, so its easy to tune out. Yes, Dems should be trying to get that message out to the news media. SS reform is a perfect wedge issue to use against the GOP.

Stating your position once or twice isn't enough. You have to repeat it again and again and again, instead of talking about what the GOP/news media wants you to talk about.

And yes, talking about bipartisanship on this issue won't score a candidate any points with voters, who hate Bush/GOP positions on SS.

Remind me which candidate you support and I'll make sure to not vote for them.

[rasputin1952]

38. Several years ago there was a push in England for privatization...

I looked good on paper, and from what I understand one could opt in as they pleased, but they lost the government pension plan.

Not long afterward, many of those that had opted into privatization lost their shirts and begged back into the government program.

What would happen here, is essentially the same. Risk taking is big business, and there is a LOT of money to be made charging fees alone. Some people would "win", most would lose. The fees had already been paid by the time the "losers" start to squeal, so the real winners are the brokers. Here's the real rub though...Just as with the S&L fiasco, we bailed people out on taxpayer dollars and those that ran with the cash got away. Those who never used an S&L got stuck with the bill because thieves were abundant and there was no real risk of prosecution. Just like de-regulation, there will be those that are more than willing to watch your savings, pension, SS, and anything else you have of value go up in smoke...simply because they "could" get away with taking your assets w/o you having recourse to get anything back.

Being the nation of decent people we are, we would bail out those that lost their butts...and most of whom are souls that condemn anyone for taking a dime from the government to eternal damnation. Personally, I would not mind seeing those holier than thou types in a soup kitchen for once...:evilgrin:

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dmosh42]

29. Edwards is right on this issue! Check with Buffet!

There shouldn't be any second thoughts on this. The billionaires have been getting away with all kinds of schemes to make billions more, and pay less in tax percentage than any of us on here. WTF!

[onelittleindian]

44. WTF?

Buffet pays less because he does not take income which would be taxed at 33%. He maked money from capital gains which is 15%. If Buffet does not like the system he COULD get an income or just pay the difference between income and cap gains. You post that billionaires get away with schemes then tell us to listen to a billionaire. Buffet can lead by example and overpay his taxes Just like Elvis!

[dmosh42]

45. If you watch the news you would understand...

Buffet made the point himself, that his secretary is required to pay a higher amount of taxes than he is. He is trying to make the case that there has been a class war going on, with the millionaires and billionaires not paying their 'fair share' of anything.

[flvegan]

35. KUCINICH on Social Security

* Raise the cap to protect Social Security. (Sep 2007)
* Strengthen protections for private pensions. (Sep 2007)
* Privatization is off the table-I'll block it. (Sep 2003)
* Return retirement age to 65-we're solid thru 2041. (Sep 2003)
* Restore retirement age to 65. (Aug 2003)
* Safe retirement is part of American Dream. (Aug 2003)
* Double standard between employers & employees must end. (Aug 2003)
* Stop privatization and return retirement age to 65. (May 2003)
* Voted NO on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable. (May 2001)
* Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000)
* Voted YES on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)
* Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)

Raise the cap to protect Social Security
EDWARDS: I think we have to be very careful to protect the middle class, so, specifically, what I would do as president is create a protective zone between $97,000 up to around $200,000 because there are a lot of firefighter couples, for example, that make $100,000 to $115,000 a year. We don't want to raise taxes on them. But I do believe that people who make $50 million or $100 million a year ought to be paying Social Security taxes on that income.

KUCINICH: Of course we ought to be raising the cap in order to protect Social Security. And in addition, we should be thinking about lowering the retirement age to 65. People's bodies break down.

DODD: You could do this by basically readjusting that tax so it doesn't have to affect everyone in society.

Q: But you'd raise the cap to $500,000?

DODD: You've got to raise it up, clearly, to do this.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth Sep 6, 2007

Strengthen protections for private pensions
A champion of working families, Dennis Kucinich will lead America into expanding opportunities, universal health care, restore our schools and strengthen Social Security and protections for private pensions.
Source: Campaign website, www.dennis4president.com, "Issues" Sep 1, 2007

Privatization is off the table-I'll block it
First of all, the Social Security money belongs to Main Street, not to Wall Street. It needs to be said very clearly here that privatization is off the table. There will be no privatization when I'm elected president. I'll block any effort. Social Security, as a matter of fact, is a better investment now than the stock market. There's a higher return. There's guaranteed cost-of-living increases. Privatization you have to worry about the value of your account.
Source: Debate at Pace University in Lower Manhattan Sep 25, 2003

Return retirement age to 65-we're solid thru 2041
People are retiring earlier. They're retiring at age 62. And so we ought to take the retirement age back to 65, take the retirement age back to 65. The money is there. Right now, the Bush administration is using the surplus to finance tax cuts for the wealthy. I'm saying that Social Security right now, the retirement age ought to go back to age 65. Look at the record, look at the trust fund, it's solid through the year 2041, get that money back to workers who are retiring earlier.
Source: Debate at Pace University in Lower Manhattan Sep 25, 2003

Restore retirement age to 65
I see a new horizon for Social Security in America, through restoring the age of retirement to 65 years, instead of the current 67 years. We need to reclaim the benefits of quality life extension for our seniors by reclaiming Social Security benefits at age 65. America can afford it. Social Security's finances are more secure than ever. The fund is solid through the year 2042, without any changes whatsoever.
Source: Campaign website, www.Kucinich.us, "On The Issues" Aug 1, 2003

Safe retirement is part of American Dream
The American dream is to work hard, get ahead, give your life to a company, save with a secure, decent retirement pension. That dream is being destroyed by corporate executives who are cheating people out of their hard-earned retirement benefits.
Source: Campaign website, www.Kucinich.us, "On The Issues" Aug 1, 2003

Double standard between employers & employees must end
One major theme - there are two sets of rules; executives get one set of rules and their employees have to play under a different set of rules. Employees have barriers to information, fewer options, more restrictions on investment, and no guaranteed returns. The most egregious disparity is that during a bankruptcy, executive pension plans are totally protected from creditors.
Source: Campaign website, www.Kucinich.us, "On The Issues" Aug 1, 2003

Stop privatization and return retirement age to 65
I'll lead the way to protecting Social Security and stop the privatization of Social Security and bring the retirement age back to 65. People are working their whole lives. They should be able to retire at 65 years old, not keep moving that retirement age back. I'll stop the privatization of Medicare. It is time for a fully funded universal health care system. Medicare for all. Take the profit out of health care. Get the insurance companies out of health care. Return health care to the people.
Source: AFSCME union debate in Iowa May 17, 2003

Voted NO on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable.
Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act of 2001: Vote to pass a bill that would raise the amount individuals may contribute to traditional and Roth Individual Retirement Accounts and to 401 plans and make pensions plans more portable
Reference: Bill sponsored by Portman, R-OH; Bill HR 10 ; vote number 2001-96 on May 2, 2001

Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits.
Vote to pass a bill that would reduce the percentage of Social Security benefits that is taxable from 85 to 50 percent for single taxpayers with incomes over $25,000 and married couples with incomes over $32,000. The revenues that would be lost for the Medicare trust fund would be replaced by money from the general fund.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Archer, R-TX; Bill HR 4865 ; vote number 2000-450 on Jul 27, 2000

Voted YES on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox.
Amending the Social Security Lockbox bill to require that any budget surplus cannot be spent until the solvency of Social Security and Medicare is guaranteed.
Reference: Motion to Recommit introduced by Rangel, D-NY; Bill HR 1259 ; vote number 1999-163 on May 26, 1999

Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record.
Kucinich scores 100% by the ARA on senior issues

The mission of the Alliance for Retired Americans is to ensure social and economic justice and full civil rights for all citizens so that they may enjoy lives of dignity, personal and family fulfillment and security. The Alliance believes that all older and retired persons have a responsibility to strive to create a society that incorporates these goals and rights and that retirement provides them with opportunities to pursue new and expanded activities with their unions, civic organizations and their communities.

The following ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.
Source: ARA website 03n-ARA on Dec 31, 2003

http://www.ontheissues.org/Dennis_Kucinich.htm

[AlertLurker]

40. Dennis Kucinich on Social Security:

From 2006 (I hope he hasn't changed his mind!):

http://www.kucinichforcongress.com/issues/socialsecurity.php

Stopping the Destruction of Social Security

Our Greatest Insurance Plan

As AARP and many other informed groups have written, Social Security may need some small changes but it must not be demolished as the current proposals would certainly do. It is the most important insurance and retirement plan most Americans earn. Note the emphasis on "earn." Social Security is an earned benefit. It is not charity. It is for people who work hard and play by the rules and bad things happen to them or, they simply grow old and need to retire. At a time when pensions, savings, wages and health care are disappearing, shrinking or stagnating, it is breathtaking that our government would seek to make the lives of its citizens even riskier.

Privatization as a Con Game for Wall Street

However, as you study the privatization plan more carefully and the possible repudiation of the Trust Fund, the elements of an elaborate con game have become apparent to Missouri University economist Michael Hudson. A con game that will benefit – as did the borrowing for tax returns – those who earn, on average, about $1.25 million a year. Hudson explains that it has all the elements of a "pump and dump" scheme to prop up stock prices for the most privileged and then to leave ordinary Americans holding the bag.

Social Security Is Not Facing a Crisis!

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that Social Security will pay out 100% of all currently promised benefits until 2052 – some 46 years away. That is hardly a crisis and certainly not when compared to the financial problems of the National Debt, Health Care, Medicare, Wages, Trade Deficits ... As with Iraq, the Republicans have manufactured a crisis. In fact, in 2052 Social Security will able to pay out 80% of promised benefits if their pessimistic projections are true. But 80% of those projected benefits is actually a far larger basket of goods than today's retirees receive. Each successive year, retirees with the same income receive a larger basket of goods to reflect the growing prosperity of the country.

Fixing the Potential Problem Is Easy

While it is entirely unclear if there is a shortfall within Social Security, "fixes" are relatively easy. For example, if we accept the CBO numbers it is likely that the full 75 year shortfall could be eliminated by simply having the top 1% of American taxpayers (those averaging $1.25 million a year in income) return to the tax rates of the 1990s when the economy was booming and the Clinton administration created 22 million jobs. Leaving Iraq would also likely save more than enough to meet the CBO projected shortfall, as would keeping the estate tax for individuals leaving more than $3 million. In fact, the tax cuts for those averaging $1.25 million a year in income is nearly twice the projected shortfall for Social Security projected to infinity according to conservative sources. Making the rich richer and leaving the middle class and others to fend for themselves is a familiar mantra for this administration.

Our Social Safety Net

Social Security is both a social safety net and an economic covenant between generations and financial groups. To allow the current administration to pit one group or one age group against another is cynical and destructive to the ties that bind us together as a compassionate society. Those who call for "strengthening" Social Security with private accounts are clearly not uniters, they are dividers. They know full well when Social Security is split into different age groups and benefits are no longer directly related to earnings - as they are now - the system will lose favor with many. It will only be a matter of time before the system that we universally back today will die because so many will no longer feel connected to it.

Why Change (Kill) Our Greatest Poverty Program?

Why would this administration attempt to kill the most successful anti-poverty program in our history? An earned benefit based on your full work history? Frankly, from a number of White House memos and materials written by conservatives over the years, it is clear that conservatives hate Social Security as the last major vestige of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. These are the Grover Norquist people running this government (and the "K" Street Project) who talk about drowning government in a bathtub, people who can't manage disasters like Hurricane Katrina because they don't want government to work. They simply want it to wither away and for everyone to fend for themselves. The true goal of their "ownership society" -- according to some pointed but telling humor -- is "to have everyone on their own." Atomizing, dividing and pitting one group against another is their method. While they may not express a belief in evolution, they like to at least see Social Darwinism in action.

[suston96]

41. From the bretheren at Daily Kos........

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/26/103428/73

This is well done and does a lot of work on the misconstructions regarding the mythical troubles with Social Security.