Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Fact Check: Obama and Social Security

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: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 08:03 PM
Original message
Fact Check: Obama and Social Security
Fact Check: Sen. Obama on Social Security
2/5/2008 2:25:10 PM

Today, Sen. Obama's campaign claims that Sen. Obama has on the Social Security payroll tax.

This is false. In a September 2007 Quad-City Times , Sen. Obama argued that by lifting the cap for Social Security completely, 'we could virtually eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall:'

I believe there are a number of ways we can make Social Security solvent that do not involve placing these added burdens on our seniors. One possible option, for example, is to raise the cap on the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax. If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,500, we could virtually eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall.

In a two months later, Sen. Obama defended the idea of lifting the cap entirely.

But what we can do is adjust the cap on the payroll tax. Right now anybody who's making $97,000 or less, you pay payroll tax on 100 percent of your income. Warren Buffet, who made $46 million last year, pays on a fraction of 1 percent of his income. And if we make that small adjustment, we can potentially close that gap and we can make sure Social Security is there...

Understand that only 6 percent of Americans make more than $97,000 -- so 6 percent is not the middle class..

The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center that lifting the payroll tax completely would increase taxes more than $1 trillion over ten years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. False: the word completely does not appear in this sentence
to which you provided a link:

"One possible option, for example, is to raise the cap on the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax. If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,500, we could virtually eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall."

Where does it say that he would completely eliminate it - raising it is not elimination.

Are you taking over P2bM's job?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. "all earnings not just the first 97,500" - Surely you jest my friend. nt
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 Wed May 01st 2024, 04:10 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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