Obama has specifically said he would shore up Social Security by instituting withholding on wages & earnings that exceed $97,000.

Some see this as a (gasp) tax increase. Moreover, it would obviously fall on households earning over $100,000, which is a demographic that supports Obama over Clinton.

Give him some credit here for saying what needs to be said.

There is no truth to this claim.

Shame on you.

You may be young, but if you're old enough to post, you're old enough to do the research:

<link>

Now go see if you can buy back your soul.

Bravo, Soldier's Mom!

I might add that the article seems to say that Obama is better than the rest, just not better enough.

Sadly, I'm a very old man who sold his soul during the McGovern campaign. There are two problems with your post: (1) your lazy shorthand for withholding TAXES on wages and earnings. Remove the word *taxes* and it sounds like Obama is running for Czar. (2) Obama is proposing to raise the cap on the payroll tax, not eliminate it completely. He has said he will seek to peg it at $200K. Hillary has said she would do the same.

So, if you don't want to pay your fair share of social security and cheat your children and their children....by all means, vote for Romney!

ah. socialist security. liberal trickle down.

let the government bribe you with your own money.

since they cap the bennies, isn't it only right that they cap the amount they take from your checks?

if some loser wants my money, let him ask me for it. i give at church and he can talk to me on sundays about charity.

Wow! real courage there!

Those with personal earnings >97K/annum represents what - 12% of the electorate (?). And about 75% of that 8% is staunchly Republican despite what they say to pollsters. If my back of the envelope math is off, then fine. I still have to ask how much has BO really risked?????

I guess that can be defined as "courageous" in an era of politicians that promise everything to everyone.

Obama's pitch is toward the slobs that vote the welfare state every election. He risks next to nothing by pandering to his bread and butter at the expense of a demographic he wasn't counting on to get elected.

(And, he can probably still count on them because the MSM's vetting process has been short-circuited by its schoolgirl crush on him.)

Count me unimpressed. I'd rather the wolf campaign dressed as a wolf.

This nation will never get the Leader it needs when people are so fooled so easily.

Dear Soldier's Mom-- I'm with you 100%. Don't let the nasties replying to your email get you down. You'd think that if they don't agree with you, they'd just write their owns posts instead of acting like 7th graders ganging up on you.

It's kind of like the Clinton campaign in general, and it's why after 25 years of voting the democratic ticket, there's just no way I'm voting for Clinton if she's the nominee. McCain has more experience, right? And that's all that matters.

Hillary has not committed to any action on social security. she said that she would form a commission to figure out what to do.

The government has taken our money under the premise that we would get it back when we retire. That is hardly socialist. It was a means to insure that we didn't have another disasterous downturn, as in 1929, that became a spiral because so many consumers, particularly retirees, had no money to spend and therefore made the recession into a depression. The problem is then that the funding for this plan became a surplus that politicians could borrow for other stuff and both sides did it. Reagan was the largest borrower in that he tripled the national debt. "W" has doubled it again.

I agree with you about getting the leader we need. That certainly didn't happen in 2000 or 2004.

"The government has taken our money under the premise that we would get it back when we retire."

You can't actually be so disconnected from reality as to imagine that is how Social Security has actually worked in decades, can you? You think the reason SS is insolvent is because it had a "surplus that politicians could borrow for other stuff?"

Prove it.

Prove me wrong.

You made the assertion-- it's up to you to prove your claim.

Can you?

middleview:

Prove me wrong.

Simple -- The life expectancy in the U.S., according to the CDC, was 66 when the trust fund was founded.

Think about it.....