E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP
Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin listens during a news conference about a compromise deal on the payroll tax cut, Thursday, Feb., 16, 2012, on Capitol Hill in Washington.
Updated at 2:58 pm ET - By a vote of 60 to 36, the Senate passed a bill Friday to keep the Social Security payroll tax at its lower 4.2 percent rate and to extend unemployment benefits.
Republican leaders were split on the measure, with GOP Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky voting for it, but GOP Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona voting against it.
Forty-six Democrats and 14 Republicans voted for the bill, while five Democrats and 31 Republicans voted against it.
The Congressional Budget Office said the bill would increase federal deficits by $89.3 billion over the next ten years.
Among the five Senate Democrats voting "no" was Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa who objected to a $5 billion cut in a preventive care program which was part of the 2010 health care overhaul. House Republicans referred to the Harkin program as “an ObamaCare slush fund.” The cut was one of the provisions in the bill that helped to partially offset its cost.
The Senate vote came with no debate and only about 45 minutes after the House passed the bill by a vote of 293 to 132.
The support in the House was bipartisan, with 147 Democrats and 146 Republicans voting for the bill, while 41 Democrats and 91 Republicans opposed it.
Speaking at the Boeing plant in Everett, Wash., President Barack Obama celebrated the bill's passage, saying, "I'm going to sign this bill right away when I get back home," adding, "I want to thank members of Congress for listening to the voices of the American people."
Passage of the bill came after weeks of negotiations among congressional leaders over how, or if, the extensions would be paid for.
The payroll tax cut alone will cost $94.5 billion, according to the CBO.
A worker making $50,000 a year would pay $2,100 in Social Security taxes this year, instead of $3,100 if the tax were at its normal 6.2 percent level. The lost revenue for Social Security benefits will be replaced by drawing money out of general tax revenue, adding to the budget deficit.
The legislation will also continue payments to the unemployed for another ten months, but will limit them.
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan discusses the payroll tax cut extension and explains why he thinks it "won't do a lot."
By the end of the year, in states in which the unemployment rate is at or close to the national average of 8.3 percent, the bill reduces the maximum number of weeks of jobless benefits from 93 to 63. In states that had unemployment rates of 9 percent or higher, it reduces the maximum number of weeks of benefits from 93 to 73.
The unemployment benefits extension will cost $309 billion.
The bill also prevents a scheduled 27 percent cut in payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients, a provision which will cost $18 billion.
The bill achieves some of its savings to partially offset its costs by requiring new federal employees to pay more for their pension benefits. This part of the bill will raise $15 billion in revenues over ten years.
Most federal civilian employees make a contribution toward a defined benefit pension equal to 0.8 percent of their basic pay. The bill increases by 2.3 percent the employee pension contribution for federal employees entering service after this year.
On the House floor, Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, whose Maryland district is home to many federal workers, angrily denounced the decision to pay for some of the cost of the bill by requiring federal workers to pay for more their pensions.
America, he said, needed “an energized, high-morale educated federal work force.” And he said “you will not have that, ladies and gentlemen, if we keep along this path of every time we come to bill that’s a little bit of trouble, the pay-for is to reach in the federal employees’ pockets.”
A CBO analysis released last month found that the federal government paid its workers 16 percent more in total compensation than it would have if compensation had been comparable with that in private sector firms.
The biggest difference is in benefits: “The cost of hourly benefits was 48 percent higher for federal civilian employees than for private-sector employees with certain similar observable characteristics,” the CBO said.
Leave a Comment:
Talking about the House always gives me a Boehner.
Every American should remember that this would never have happened if the Democrats didn't still control the Senate.
VOTE in November. And remember who was on your side.
Sure, let's cut off a big chunk of the only funding source for an endangered social security program. Absolutely brilliant.
What will these politicians NOT do for political votes ?
They're rerouting funding for it.
I guess it adds to the deficit. They couldn't cut foreign aid to Pakistan to help us here at home I guess.
I know the GOP thinks there's no political downside to going after federal employees. But there's only a 16% disparity between public and private sector workers' total compensation package.
And considering that many private sector workers don't even have health coverage, I wouldn't say that federal workers are overpaid. A lot of private corporations are just too damn stingy to give their workers basic benefits, despite recording record profits.
Health and pension coverage for recent college graduates, 1979-2009
So should federal employees be forced to match this "race to the bottom" fueled by pure corporate greed? I think we should all tell the GOP that we know who they're really working for.
So, when the republican led house passes something, it's because there are more democrats in the senate? Unbelievable. You do realize that one has nothing at all do with the other, right? It passed the house because more members voted for it than against it.
If legislators truly wanted to set a good example, they'd cut their own lavish benefits (health-care) and salary before going after other federal workers.
Go USA - do you really believe that the GOP would have put forward this bill?
Do you really live in lala land?
No. I don't live in LaLa Land. The facts are that this would not have passed without republicans voting for it. By the way, prominent democrats in the Senate are publicly stating that they will vote no because the bill isn't paid for. Mark Warner has stated this.
This is what causes me to gaffe every time.
We give millions (billions?) in taxpayer money to countries that hate us.
The money is there to pay for it ffs. Just go get it.
This only helps people who are still working...I paid into SS (allot)...give my money back...(Oh, too clarify) I'm 44...I'll never get that money back
I know. All I was stating was what they said.
There must be a better way to do this. Why do we short the fund that we are going to retire with?
No worry "RealAmericansFirst" we will remember who brought us here. When and how. cough... cough...
How stupid to cut or keep reduced the Social Security tax portion!!! It will hurt badly in the long run and there will be no benefit for the working population.
Remember, you cut your benefits for the future today. Nice @!$%# Obama.
It's good to see bipartisan compromise in Congress. However, now that we have passed this bill, how are we going to pay for it? I recommend that we first start with a "CUT" to Oil Companies that are already making record profits. Do we really need to continue giving them 4 billion dollars when they are making record profits? Can we also cut farm subsidies as well? They are making record profits.
Wow. A lot of stupid people here! This does not effect the amount of money in your Social Security account - read the damn story!
We're talking about the money that goes to fund the collective pot.
Rick:
I think the negotiations required by the Republicans - as always - were to reduce the loss of taxation revenues by creating matching reductions in other expenses. In the case of this legislation, there are reductions in other expenses to match (sort of) the reduction in revenue to the SSA. This does not help the SSA, but does help in the overall lessening of the debt "increase"
Remember - overall, we spend $1.40 for every dollar taken in (at the National Level). This has to be kept in the front of every conversation.
Every American should remember that this would never have happened if the Bush hadn't destroyed the economy.
VOTE in November. And remember Republicans hate America.
Bush who?
The experience was so traumatic my mind blocked it out.
"Most federal civilian employees make a contribution toward a defined benefit pension equal to 0.8 percent of their basic pay. The bill increases by 2.3 percent the employee pension contribution for federal employees entering service after this year...On the House floor, Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, whose Maryland district is home to many federal workers, angrily denounced the decision to pay for some of the cost of the bill by requiring federal workers to pay for more their pensions."
Let's see now;
Federal pensions benefits are 48% higher than in the private sector.
Private sector employees pay 6.2% in Social Security payments (not counting a matching 6.2% from employers).
Existing Federal workers only pay 0.8% towards their fat pensions.
What's wrong with this picture? Why do Federal employees get pensions that are three times as much, get to retire at age 55, and pay only a tiny fraction of the cost?
And the Democratic leader in the House is "ANGRY" about this? I think it's the taxpayers that should be ANGRY.
The reason the Democrats oppose having Federal workers 'pay their fair share' is obvious - They vote for Democrats by a 70% to 30% margin, and the Democrats keep giving them more benefits - at taxpayer expense.
Anyone who actually believes that there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans is either misinformed or heavily conditioned.
Both parties are anti-American, and against the citizens of this country. Check out your favorite politicians voting history, or the corporate money they have taken if you don't believe me.
Hey ruken...we shouldn't give tax payed dollars to anyone...If people want to give...they can create or give to a charity (or anyone they want)
Money is free speech....unless it's taken from you
Roy Wilson - Excellent post at 12:29 pm. You have nicely stated exactly what I was thinking. Benefits to federal employees are insanely out of control and are bankrupting our nation. Contributing only .08% to their pension !!! Give me a break.
Another stupid A** thing to do. REALLY let's cut Social Security FUNDING? this isn't a freaking TAX, this is to fund Social Security which is a FUND.
The only reason the DEMs called it a tax was to catch the GOP later when they wanted to put the holiday back, they (the dems) could say "see the GOP is raising taxes!!" AND the reason they chose the social security fund is that over 48% of WORKERS TODAY DO NOT PAY FEDERAL TAXES.... so they already aren't paying to fund the government. This way was another way to short change the american public is all plain and simple. Cutting this does NOTHING to help reduce spending, stimulate the economy or help social security and the Congress thinks we're all too stupid to figure that out. FIRE THEM ALL.
jac: Federal employees, including members of Congress and the military pay the same percentage as the rest of us. Please do the research. The additional rate is toward a federal pension - not social security.
As much as I can agree to cutting "subsidies" to oil companies (they're not subsidies, they're deductions allowed to pretty much every business sector in some capacity, but far be it for me to interrupt a good liberal whinge fest), $4 billion is about 3% of the cost of this bill.
Foreign aid, which I also agree should be cut down to 0 or less (YES, we should be billing some of those countries for our services), is collectively about $25 billion.
So, cut that and the oil "subsidies" and what have you got?
Less than a third of the cost of this bill.
Then what?
I know, libs, tax the rich right?
Okay, raise rates on $250k back to Clinton rates. I have no problem with that, and it gives you another $40 billion a year.
We're not even to HALF the cost of this ONE piece of legislation, and all your little pet bitch fests are taken.
NOW WHAT?!?!
Please, please, please, get some perspective, FFS.
I have an idea that would make both sides balk. Okay it's very simple, so simple that politicians would laugh it off because something so simple could never work. But before I say what it is let me ask you this. You average middle middle class and lower income makers. When the budge is getting tight, what do you do? Do you keep spending at the same rate hoping that something good will happen? No! Say you have rent, insurance, and a car payment coming up. Your living on $300 a week so you budget is tight. You know your payments are coming up so you make sure that you rent and car payment will be covered on your income; however, you can't cover insurance plus regular living expenses. What do you do? You tighten the belt buckle and live meagerly. That's still not enough, so you get another source of income. Now in order to make ends meet you cut your spending and your raised your income. Now I used this story to support my thought.
Government should cut all spending by 25%. Now that is a clean 25% cut on every program (military, education, EPA, NASA etc all of them not a single one gets left out). Yes some programs probably won't be able to make ends meet and so default or won't have such an overreaching itenerary. {That makes Democrats with their love of an open wallet mad. Now to anger the Republican side} Raise all taxes. Just by 5%. No more loop holes. If you owe money then you have to pay it. Plain and simple. Now all of this extra money should be funneled into paying off the national debt. It would go to nothing else. Yes it would be tough, but it would be tough for everyone. It would everybody working on alleviating the burden. It also would be paid down much faster than the plans that have been proposed would.
The unemployment system is so broken... If only our agencies spoke to each other, e.g., a notification needs to be sent to the Unemployment agency when an unemployed person is incarcerated to assure he no longer receives his unemployment check... if recipients still had to report in person vs., over the phone, this wouldn't be happening and our Country would save alot $$$$. And just think if Mrs. O got rid of her 14 aides and had just ONE like all of our previous first ladies... have you checked out their salaries?!?
Also, unemployment benefits would be taken down to what a minimum wage worker working 30 hours a week would make. That means $225 a week. Not making what they made before losing their job. That certainly would give these people incentive to get out there and find a real job instead of sponging off the government. Some would argue that it's not possible to live off of that. Believe me it is. It is really fricking hard but it is possible.
Prag you're right that raising the top rate won't do much towards this or any debt. People are almost religious about upping the taxes and think it will fix everything. Assuming it doesn't effect output, the taxes would take the debt from 1.3 Trillion to 1.25 Trillion. Everything will be all better then right?
Michelle O has 14 aides? Really?
Kath63: Those 43% "workers," as you call them, are NOT workers. They are people who are retired, people who are disabled and can't work, people working low-income jobs, or the rich 1% who hide their money in overseas bank accounts so they don't have to pay any taxes. There's even big corporations (GE) who don't pay taxes because they have high-paid attorneys and accountants that figure out all the loopholes they can find to get them out of paying any taxes. Even these so-called 43% pay taxes when they purchase anything (sales taxes), live in their homes (property taxes -- even if they rent, a portion of their rent monies go to property taxes), purchase gas for their cars (both state & Federal taxes), etc. NO ONE GETS AWAY WITHOUT PAYING SOME TYPE OF TAXES!! I just wish people would quit saying that 43% of Americans don't pay taxes....that's the most ludicrous statement made and people keep making it!!
PragmaticToAFault
Liberals have used up "It's Bush's Fault", so now 'It's the rich people's fault'.
Isn't it interesting that 'strong leaders find a way to get things done', and 'weak leaders fine someone to blame for their failures'.
wait till the derivatives come due...hold on tight (buffet even said...derivatives are the hell we have been waiting for)...OK he said these were the next big bubble. I know more than most...so just put on your boots and grab the nearest weapon...I'm just kidding...maybe not 8^)
Good, some compromise. We need to continue to help the middle class if we want to pull through with this.
However, we need to raise revenues and stop the starve the beast stuff that we know doesn't work.
It's the "buzz word" train Roy. A new one every 6 to 9 months. The original "Bush tax cuts" caused everything from ingrown toenails to sun burn. Then "extreme". Then "radical", which didn't last long as Schumer was busted on an open call telling the Dem caucus to call all Rep ideas radical. Then "millionaires and Billionaires". Now its "pay your fair share". Any bets on what the next one will be?
Here a reality check, How many more would have lost their jobs, homes, typically their life's, Oh but that's no big deal right. We need to get these puppets out, if they are not for the people We don't need them ...
It's time to get serious about the debt and neither side is willing to cave. Defense related spending eats half of all discretionary spending---take a big bite out and eliminate all tax loopholes + a surcharge on those making over $250K/year. Screw Grover Norquist and those traitors that signed his pledge.
Obama has the GOP eating out of his hand.
Let's see, the article said:
And in 1.23 Roy Wilson said:
Roy also said:
His outrage is a little misplaced, and quite a bit incorrect. Even if federal pensions were 48% higher, that's not three times as much, as he stated.
The truth about the federal employee retirement system is that yes, if you were born before 1952 you can retire at age 55. If you were born after 1970, the earliest retirement age increases to 57. However, the normal retirement age is 62, and retirees lose five percent per year they retire earlier than 62. So someone retiring at age 55 gives up 35% of their retirement pay.
Roy also said:
Let's take a look at an example of those "fat pensions." If I understand the FERS system correctly, a GS-12 step 10 (which is a midrange salary one step below managerial positions with the highest longevity step rate) who retires at age 62 with 20 years of federal service wil probably recieve around $1490 per month, before tax. If that same worker was born before 1952 and elected to retire at age 55, their retirement would be cut to $969 per month, before tax.
As a comparison, a military member who retires as an E-7 (senior sergeant rank, the enlisted scale goes up to E-9) with 20 years of service, will recieve around $2104 per month, before tax.
While it may be a resonable argument to say federal employee retirement benefits are too generous, I'd hardly call it accurate to claim they recieve three times as much and retire at 55 with a "fat pension." By the way, this is a defined pension plan. It's not the 401K type plan. So essentially federal employees aren't "contributing" more, they're simply taking a pay cut to offset their future retirement benefit.
Oops, just realized I put my own foot in my mouth. Someone born in 1952 would be 60 this year. So my example about someone retiring at age 55 is slightly flawed, but the example is still mostly accurate based on the FERS rules and the current pay chart. I think someone born in 1957 can early retire at age 56, so it's still close, with what I believe would be a montly pension of around $1043 before tax. What that also means, if I read the FERS tables correctly, is that no one can retire now earlier than age 56. Thanks Roy, I hadn't noticed that before.
the law specifies that Social Security receive every dollar it would have gotten even without the payroll tax cut. This happens by automatically transferring resources from the government’s general coffers to the Social Security Trust Fund. And indeed, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration has confirmed that the payroll tax cut would have no impact on the Trust Fund.
The President believes that Social Security is a sacred compact, that in return for a lifetime of hard work, America’s seniors will have a chance to retire with dignity. We have an obligation to keep that promise and safeguard and strengthen Social Security for seniors, people with disabilities and all Americans, both now and in the future.
In reality it's a way to give the working man and employers a tax break without the wealthy capital gains freeloaders getting any. :-)
@ my2scents
That is false.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/m/michelle-obama-staff.htm
@ Roy Wilson
So you finally admit that Obama is a strong leader.
@ BigATC
How about "class warfare". Oh wait... that's the Republican's line. Never mind.
TO: spider-737231 who wrote:
Well spider, you know we have to keep Republicans complaining as much as we can, which means good things are happening for the American People (Republicans simply can't STAND it when the Democrats spend American Taxpayer dollars ON the American People!).
Republicans only like it when they're shipping American Taxpayer money AND American Jobs overseas.
If it were up to Republicans, they would have just STOLEN all our retirement money and shut down Social Security all together, and then sent us a letter saying "Too bad, your screwed".
Thanks to the Democrats, we still have our Social Security retirement money we've been paying into all our working lives.
Obama / Biden 2012
What I see is that people get the same money in their pay check. But since Mr. Obama is ok with $5 a gallon or more gas prices we will have less money in the end. We are looking at $5 by spring here in Detroit. Which means I will have to stick my 12ga near the door. People will be stealing gas again pretty soon.
TO: subliminal who wrote:
What do mean "Obama"? It's not his fault you didn't read the whole article, or, if you did, you didn't understand it.
Obama / Biden 2012
To further debunk Michell Obama as having a larger staff than any other first lady here's Snopes.com.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/firstlady.asp
Jolly, I suggest you Google "OPEC." The President Of The United States, and all of Washington's "finest", has no more control over the price of oil than you or I do. See what I just did? I dropped some knowledge on you. BAM! You probably believe Michelle Bachman when she said she'd get gas prices down to $2 a gallon. Yeah, take another big gulp of whatever it is they're putting in your sippy cup.
Both the Federal government and the Federal Reserve have no money. Their money is from taxpayers. They either tax or steal the money from the productive workers. One uses it tax power while the other uses the printing press.
Both are taking money from productive workers and giving it to WallSt FatCats or to the unproductive/non productive workers.
Bam my Azz I didnt say he had control..... bam boi! I said he had not problem with it being 5.....6......7 dollars a gallon. Its my opinion that ( and I am entitled to it) the left enviro people want to allow not control, gas to get so expensive that the jump to 40 mile electric cars look good. Please understand I live in Detroit and see first hand the federal mandates towards the auto motives. Al though now that the UAW owns a large portion of GM they are finding it hard to balance this against the Unions requests. Remember you have no control over my opinions.....I know your teachers may have told you you did! p.s. Who has bought the majority of Chevy Volts?
I'm looking for Ellis Island" I heard there was free land to homestead with no tax evasion,
I'm coming from the most complicated tax system in the world.
Larry:
You are good with your information. I guess you realize that there is no bank account with funds at the SSA. The fact that there is a "transfer" to the fund to cover what is reduced in payment from the employee - is just a political statement. The result is still a killer for the worker. Regardless of where the fund stands, the amount of funds continue to diminish. It is nice we are lowering the taxes, but we must lower the expenditures - not just "transfer" a cover amount on the books.
from inside the beltway....
jolly,
how do you know the president "has no problem" with high gas prices??
jo -an, prez said last year before the election in a speech in san francisco that ...... his cap and trade policy he put together would make gas prices "necessarily skyrocket". You can take that how you want but i think him and others wouldn't mind it going up to try to force people into green alternatives. I will cheer the day we can get off gas but that technology to do it cost effectively hasn't had the break through yet we need.
Dave, for most FERS is basically 1% of your high 3 x number of years worked.
And there are a few exceptions that can retire at 50 with 20 years ... police, fire fighters and air traffic controllers.
RealAmericansFirst said:
Yeah, I'm going to remember! I'm going to remember that this administration and the Democrats are further bankrupting an already bankrupt program. The Democrats are helping to make sure that Social Security is not there for future recipients. They seem to think the dole can last forever. Unfortunately, the people paying the dole will get sick of working hard and supporting people on the dole, so they'll go on the dole too. Then there won't be enough dole to go around.
This disaster, pathetic excuse of a President and his fellow Democrats want you sucking off the government t i t! Why the pathetically weak of our country figure out that if we go down the path of Western Europe, and worse, Greece - we will end up just like them.
They (Democrats and Progressive Liberals) are not on your side! They just keep telling you that you are pathetic, that you can't do anything for yourself and they can do it better for you. Just take a look at the disgusting inner-cities. Oh yeah, they love the Democrats - and gee, they live so well don't they?!?!
Roy Wilson After just being forced out of Federal employment hopefully with a disability. I will be getting around 1600 per month. Now at the age of 57 with 26 years this is hardly a fat pension. Normally I would get 980.00 before taxes with the wife getting 380.00 in annuities. I still cannot touch my TSP account before I am 591/2 without paying a 10%early withdrawal. I will get SS at the age of 65 and get it early at 62 with a penalty.
I have paid into my part of my pension around 10,000 and I still pay into Social Security. FERS takes into account Social Security, TSP account, and a SMALL amount of the Postal Service. And this does not mean all three at one time. At 65 my pension gets cut when I take Social Security. I think I would I have done better at a private sector job. That 0.8% is what we receive after that is what we have paid in.
whats a pension ?
Sorry bout thath!! I do have a problem with Dyslixia, ADHA, and don't know how to spel. My spel checker ain't worken. Sorry gan!!!
What better way to show the world that liberalism and central planning do not work.
Galt 2012
Elliot - so I guess you'll be remitting your payroll tax cut back? Since you seem to think it's such a bad idea.
Don't just talk the right-wing talk, walk the walk! (For pointers, try watching Monty Python's "Ministry of Silly Walks" skit)
Can someone enlighten me who or what Galt is?
lol... and what better example than your post that GOTea extremists are completely detached from the reality today's middle class face.
Oh, and Rand was an oligarchic elitist hack who died dependent on the state for everything.
Sure, Real American, just like you and your liberal cronies will be sending in some extra income tax payments this year because you think it's such a great idea to raise more revenue for Obama's harebrained programs......right?
Ruken: John Galt is a character in Ayn Rand's novel, Atlas Shrugged.
Damn, I was hoping a new challenger has emerged :(
No, Elliot - I will be putting that payroll tax cut back into the American economy.
Not spending it to buy foreign stocks or parking it in a Cayman Islands bank account.
Because that's how the 99% HELPS America - we keep our money flowing here.
Real american first is a taker trying to get anything for nothing, a "greed" lived out by too many...... his talk about "putting it back into the economy" is BS
Republicans are moving to the center for the elections, although they are going to try an privatize social security a la Paul Ryan, which will cost us elderly folks about $8000 a year more in health costs.
This is just the first step for the Obama administration to defund Social Security. There is more to come.
TO: Dasvet who wrote:
You didn't read the entire article, did you?
Sorry to see so many people have read that piece of crap, Atlas Shrugged.
I know the GOP thinks there's no political downside to going after federal employees. But there's only a 16% disparity between public and private sector workers' total compensation package.
And considering that many private sector workers don't even have health coverage, I wouldn't say that federal workers are overpaid. A lot of private corporations are just too damn stingy to give their workers basic benefits, despite recording record profits.
Health and pension coverage for recent college graduates, 1979-2009
So should federal employees be forced to match this "race to the bottom" fueled by pure corporate greed? I think we should all tell the GOP that we know who they're really working for.
Yes I read the stupid article American Girl. Social Security has a problem with stolen funds by transfers the General budget. Therefore, why does it make sense in the first place to cut the SS funding?
Fedup - Yes, it never ceases to amaze me - the right's fascination with drug-addled welfare sops. At least, those that are hypocritical enough to make a living loudly denouncing other drug-addled welfare sops.
A la Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Ayn Rand.
So when all the people on here who insult liberals because of their conscience and their ability to share and because they don't mind paying their taxes get it their way. Expect a knock on your door from a private sector company telling you you owe them 5000 dollars for the bridge in your neighborhood that we have pictures of you crossing every day in your car that we took the liberty of fixing and you can pay it all now or you can finance it at oh 19% and after the shock sets in and you sit down to watch your tv that knock comes again and this time its the people who took the liberty of paving the road to the bridge. Then the school comes, and the police and fire dept come next and if you don't pay them they will garnish your pay or foreclose on your home or worse let it burn down then the military shows up with the big bill. etc... etc... Yea the GOP is the party of ideas alright. Really bad ones.
Galt is a character in a mediocre novel, that is the inspiration for 90% of Ron Paul followers.
Why not eliminate all SS taxes? Democrats eliminated the trust fund under Johnson and benefits are paid out of general revenues which are just borrowed dollars anyway.
If we are going to live off Master Card and Visa just keep increasing the limit and eliminate taxation.
You didn't read his post. If he's a middle class worker, which this tax cut applies to, then he will likely use the extra money to buy stuff, in other words contribute to the economy.
"Most federal civilian employees make a contribution toward a defined benefit pension equal to 0.8 percent of their basic pay. The bill increases by 2.3 percent the employee pension contribution for federal employees entering service after this year...On the House floor, Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, whose Maryland district is home to many federal workers, angrily denounced the decision to pay for some of the cost of the bill by requiring federal workers to pay for more their pensions."
Let's see now;
Federal pensions benefits are 48% higher than in the private sector.
Private sector employees pay 6.2% in Social Security payments (not counting a matching 6.2% from employers).
Existing Federal workers only pay 0.8% towards their fat pensions.
What's wrong with this picture? Why do Federal employees get pensions that are almost three times as much, get to retire as early as age 55, and pay only a tiny fraction of the cost?
And the Democratic leader in the House is "ANGRY" about this? I think it's the taxpayers that should be ANGRY.
The reason the Democrats oppose having Federal workers 'pay their fair share' is obvious - They vote for Democrats by a 70% to 30% margin, and the Democrats keep giving them more benefits - at taxpayer expense.
RealAmericansFirst "Elliot - so I guess you'll be remitting your payroll tax cut back?"
Let's get real. It's not a 'payroll tax cut', it's reducing the amount that you are contributing to your 'Social Security Trust Fund' balance, shortening the time when your trust fund runs out of money - in other words, it's 'borrowing from your future benefits'.
Your Social Security payments will be based on your contributions - you are reducing your contributions, which may reduce your Social Security payments after you retire.
It's amazing that people are so short sighted in their thinking.
Wrong.Wrong and Wrong.
Your SS checks are based on how much you earned, NOT on how much you paid in.
It is a tax cut because you are keeping more of what you earn.
The article says " The lost revenue for Social Security benefits will be replaced by drawing money out of general tax revenue, adding to the budget deficit."
So Harbinger, let me get this straight. The tax cut is being funded by not paying into the SS fund. The SS fund will be funded from the general tax revenue. This is nothing than a huge lie the government is telling us (something Obama is good at). It's just a program that robs Peter to pay Paul and gets the government further into debt. Just when will the Obama administration learn that we can't go on building the debt?!
I am a Dem who voted for Obama and I feel he is now throwing seniors under the bus in order to get votes in November. It would have been one thing if the Payroll tax cut had only been for a few months, but a year is a long time, and represents the loss of a lot of money. Using money from the general fund makes SS just another govt program and the first in line to be demolished as soon as the next budget ceiling crisis arrives.
If you think Obama is throwing seniors under the bus, what do you think about the Republicans?
Republicans already voted to kill Medicare and Social Security!
Your fear is justified, just misdirected.
Kill medicare and social security?
Hmmmm
the republicans want to save medicare and SS. just watch this pitch by a republican.
i wish liberals would stop trying to tell people what republicans plans are. you liberals are pathological liars.
Saving medicare http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJIC7kEq6kw
Saving social security http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3VFuWqLBa8
Dont let facts get in the way of your BS.
Harbinger SS and Medicare must be changed in a major way or we will no longer be able to cover the cost of the benefits in a few years! Of course we could wait until the s@@@ hits the fan as they did in Greece and England (soon to be Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland). If you think these programs can continue without change long term (69-70T unfunded liabilities), you cannot be saved!
Now that the conservative camp have a tax reduction funded by the revenue for the Social Security, there big objective of dismantling S.S., is on course. They have preached lower income taxes, which are at a historic low level as revenue to the government since Bush's tax cut's, and less % of our G.N.P. for 30 years......Everybody should know that we have not been close to a balanced yearly Federal Budget since Clinton. Now that we have additional MedicareD benefits that are unfunded, again a Bush' plan, increasing our governments cost of safety-net programs. Their philosophy is to defund those programs (S.S. & Medicare) by increasing the Federal Budget deficits, and decreasing Federal revenue.
Paul Ryan's budget plan called for a privatization of Medicare. Virtually all Republican candidates agree with this.
Ron Paul intends to outright eliminate both Social Security and Medicare.
Eliot if you want to believe the horse@!$%# you hear from people when they are campaigning you go ahead and take a big bite of that red meat propaganda it's a free country and you are free to do as you please but I am really sick of idiots trying to lecture liberals because they disagree with you and try to frame it as a right or wrong issue. My opinion is different from you that doesn't make me a liar. You call me a liar for having another point of view and that absolutely makes you a liar and an idiot. You have zero room to talk about facts with a mouthful of red meat. ZERO! Dig deeper than like minded articles slanted to your ideology. If you want facts look at both points of view objectively and you will at least have some clue of what you are talking about. If you think a rainbow is black and white and refuse to see color? Well there is the right and wrong issue you were seeking. Educate yourself before you attempt to educate liberals. You are out of your league.
yippeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Ga Doooooooooooo
There are democrats in the Senate who have already said that they are going to vote No. One of our senators, Mark Warner, is one.
Hairy's Reed has already set the theshhold of 51 votes to pass it in the Senate.
....and there are Republicans that are going to vote yes.....GASP!
McConnell no less was one.
TO: The Breeze who wrote:
It passed, with 60.
Obama / Biden 2012
And there were democrats that voted no!!! Wow.
They had to pass this or Obama would have raked them over the coals. Just the GOP trying to save their asses.
I wonder why Obama and the democrats seem to be dead set on defunding Social Security and then turn around and say that it's the republicans who want to take away Social Security. Do they really think that people are that stupid?
The same Obama who only supported a 2 month extension in December?
Its ALL about getting elected and keeping your brand in power. Both parties do it. Nothing new.
This is why the two-party system is garbage. You end up voting for who sucks less, not who would do the most good.
I really wish we had a multi-party system.
If you dont like whats going on, dont vote. Then you got nothing to bitch about.
I have to vote. I don't want the party I feel would suck more to run the country.
Wasnt talking to you. The USA guy.
Who's talking about defunding Social Security? Have any of you ACTUALLY read the article??? Reading comprehension on this vine is at kindergarten level!!
@Didi, the don't read the article just the talking points from Karl Rove every morning.........
Ruken,
We don't need any party system...WE THE PEOPLE...NEED...People who will represent the American people...that's IT...not special interests or the 1% or 2% or 3% or 4%
WE THE PEOPLE of America..the majority and the "now down trodden"
TO: Go USA-851295 who wrote:
You didn't read the entire article. They are NOT short changing Social Security, to make up for what they're not taking from our paychecks they're taking the difference from the General Fund and putting money in the Social Security Trust Account so that no money will be missing from Social Security at all.
Obama / Biden 2012
Obama The Great. I knew given time he would surpass those nasty men in congress that wanted him out and make them eat crow.
So you are trying to tell is that the general fund has a surplus because I am sure you know that is not true?
American isn't doing her math today. All of the SS funds are in the General fund, in the form of IOU's. LBJ's Great Society" saw to that.
They are cutting unemployment benefits in the hardest hit states by 20 weeks? Hope they all have to live for 20 weeks with absolutely no money, no place to live, no food and no hope.
People have been collecting unemployment for far too long as it is.
People have been collecting entitlements in general for far too long.
The problem in our society is the "welfare trap". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_trap)
To combat this, we can:
1) Lower welfare entitlements and make it more worthwhile to work. This would be hard on those that truly need the temporary "safety net".
2) Increase the minimum wage. This would be hard on companies struggling already with the recession.
3) Reform many welfare entitlements to decrease in value the longer they are received.
I vote option 3.
It was amazing how many people suddenly found jobs after "welfare reform" in the '90s.
Well to be fair the 90s were the best economic boom in our history. But it doesn't change the fact people these days tend not to even try.
Unemployment needs to also be reformed where you get to go work for a community service type organization for like 20+ hours a week. Then you can get an unemployment check. We shouldn't pay people for sitting around.
Wasn't a Democrat in the white house in the 90's?
The country cannot support all these people any longer. Half the country is paying for the other half to have middle class lifestyles, and I, for one am SICK of it! Do NOT have children or buy crap you do not need until YOU can afford to!
Spoken like a true Rethuglican. You bitch about helpig the poor and complain about our precious grand children,when you would sell your own kids to make a buck.What a bunch of lying,coniving little turds.You people are truly abortions of humanity.
Let's see some job growth before cutting unemployment. I paid into the system for over 30 years. Capitalism drives greed and millions of jobs were lost including mine. Now the benefits I collect and feed my family with are being cut? At the same time millions of dollars are being paid to foreign governments and weapons systems are still being built at extraordinary cost to the tax payers. We need a government that will govern "for the people". The GOP needs to stop putting profits before people as they allege to be the "Party of God". Ask your GOP Senator or Congressperson "what would Jesus do with the poor and unemployed"? Cut benefits? Make it harder for companies to export jobs before you make it harder for people to live and feed their families.
Let's reform it.
That way you can be out working part time to improve your community, and earn your check.
Most people on unemployment are actually spending their days out actively looking for a job....when do they have time to do community service? Granted, it's a valid idea, but I'd rather people be spending their time at interviews, on the computer, sending our resumes, etc. than picking up other people's trash from the streets (which shouldn't be there in the first place). Just my opinion.....having been on unemployment myself many times in the past. I know MY days were busy, spending more than 6-8 hours on the computer, scheduling interviews, sending resumes, sending follow-up letters and making follow-up phone calls. Not ALL of us sit around and collect our unemployment checks for nothing!
Ruken,
What if you are over-qualified
My resume says I was an engineer and manager for Siemens...They can hire a monkey to do what I did in the past...required an engineer (NO component level fix needed...just replace the board)..and Walmart thinks I am over Qualified (I don't need a job...but I would like one)..tell me again..get a job...I tried...(some people need to get a clue)
Speaking as someone who just got a career last year (fresh outta college) I only needed my mornings to send in resumes on job posts on indeed, careerbuilder, etc. I had the rest of the day to do other things. Granted interviews will pop up, but overall I had time where I'd just be waiting for new job postings.
I don't understand what you mean.
Some people can't find jobs. They can collect unemployment. However, they should be working at least some hours in their community to earn said unemployment.
I really don't know how what you're saying ties into my idea. Could you help me out?
I don't get un-employment...I am retired
I made sure I have what I need...you, as a young person (I'm not that old) but I don't NEED anything from anyone...you will be so lucky...I hope you are half as smart as me
What is your idea?
Yikes, Rich-298746, don't do the mass insult thing. You are suspended for a day for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
I don't always check my posts...have I ever been suspended...sorry if I say Dumb-ass
Ruken,
2. Increase minimum wage.
Companies are making record profits. They can afford it. Unlike tax breaks for wealthy hoarders, putting more money in the pockets of people who don't already own everything would boost consumer spending. This would force more hiring to restock the shelves. Increasing minimum wage would create more jobs.
I am not an economist Molly, so I don't know the fine-grain details on the consequences of increasing the minimum wage.
I still think welfare entitlement values should decrease the longer you receive them, however.
Technically it isn't my idea. That was a bad choice of words. I mean the idea of getting those receiving unemployment to have to put some hours of community service in to qualify for benefits.
Ruken,
There really is a problem with older people being over qualified for jobs, and being overlooked for younger people, that are willing to work for less money. It used to be people went to work in one place until they retired (with a pension), now people get laid off, and when they look for a job with comparable pay, and benefits, they are "over qualified" for the position.
My husband has his own business, doing consulting on large contraction projects, 2-5 years at a time. Now he is finding it is harder to get the pay he used to because someone younger, with less experience is willing to do it for less money. Just business for the companies, but hard on someone looking for work....
One time several years ago, when our children were younger, my husband tried to find a job locally so he could be at home, no one would hire him, because of his experience and previous level of pay, they figured he would leave if he was offered something better, so why hire him...it's a problem.
anybody ever heard of a ponzi scheme... at the end someone is left holding the hot potato. Whether it's tomorrow or 30 years from now, it's going to have to happen. And we wag our finger at the individuals who have tried to do what our government is doing. the sad part is that we have no choice but to participate and hope that we are the ones that can get out before it all goes down. YAY! I call that Russian Roulette.
It's the most successful social program to ever exist, Vic - it's raised the living standard of seniors all over the country and saved them from poverty. With very minor tweaking, it's completely solvent until 2060. It's not a ponzi scheme or russian roulette, it's humane and progressive and necessary.
"The bill faces stiff opposition in the Senate from many Republicans"
This is proof that the GOP only likes tax cuts for the wealthy.
Last I checked, Senator Mark Warner was a democrat. You do realize that the House has a republican majority, right?
Even though Repubs finally voted for the payroll tax cut, remember they first voted against it. Don't forget that when you vote in November.
Watch the Republican flip-floping begin in earnest now, it's an election year. They'll do or say anything to get more votes.
So, you, as a liberal, are all for cutting funding to Social Security? That's what this is. For my part, they should make participation optional. That way, people who think that the government is a better steward of their hard earned money could participate and the rest of us didn't have to.
Right On USA... If I could get back what I have paid in for the last 35 years, I could turn it into a gold mine.
No kidding Breeze. Both my spouse and I have been working since age 16. If we could only get back what we paid in as well as what our employers have matched, I wouldn't need to be concerned about saving so much for retirement. Of course, if this country continues on it's ever more destructive path of socialism, it won't matter how much I save for retirement, because the Government will punish me for being responsible and take it away because they "need" to redistribute to all the poor bums who won't or as they will say, "can't" save.
bdj
If you will remember correctly the 2 month SS Tax Cut was from the Democrat Controlled Senate. The Republicans backed Obama's 1 year extension. They only differed on how to pay for a 1 year extension. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.
The 2 month payroll tax cut was a real deal for the middle-class. I remember the Democrats and Mr Obama celebrating a victory on that. Too bad people are now finding out how they really got screwed on that one. The average employee got $160, but for the next decade it will cost anyone taking out or refinancing a mortgage thousands in increased mortgage fees and premiums.
cnettv.cnet.com/hidden-mortgage-fee-paying-payroll-tax-cut/9742-1_53-50119506.html
Merry Christmas and BOHICA
They are not defunding SS!!! READ THE ARTICLE, PEOPLE: "The lost revenue for Social Security benefits will be replaced by drawing money out of general tax revenue, adding to the budget deficit."
rjj
And that ADDS to the Deficit/Debt now doesn't it??
rjj... It is all borrowed money.
How many congressmen does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
How many does it take to screw us?
About 435.
Maybe 4:20
sell gm stock thats a few billion,than pay back rest of loan , and pay taxes ,warren buffet pay some tax,thats a start
Whatever happened to that GOP mantra of "tax cuts increase government revenues"?
It's the mantra of cut taxes makes people happy, so when the deficit is huge they can cut programs they wanted to cut all along, but now have an excuse to do.
Often times they fail at their own agenda.
The SS tax is for funding SS - that's it. All this does is reduce the amount of funding for the program.
Go USA, you are completely wrong about the Social Security funding, and you know it, so how about stop repeating that bs?
How is he wrong?
SS tax going to pay for SS sounds right to me. Of course they also dump money from other sources in there in addition. But SS tax isn't paying for anything else.
rujen
Every president since Reagan has borrowed from social security to pay for something other than retirements.
christopher-pascale.suite101.com › ... › American Affairs
Which shouldn't happen imo.
SS deductions go into the general treasury. The SS Trust Fund is nothing but a bag full of IOUs from the US Treasury.
star
You need to do some better research. The Social Security Lock Box was OPENED BY LBJ in 1967 or so. That is the source of Social Security's problems. Seems to me Reagan did some changes to SS in 1983 to save it from insolvency.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html
It didn't stop him from borrowing from it.
politicsandgovernment.blog.my/.../why-did-reagan-start-borrowing-f...
I don't know if tax cuts really increases government revenues but if MORE people are working they pay more in taxes which in turn increases revenue. Employment has lost 2,000,000 jobs that will not be replaced since 2009. Lets turn the employment numbers around.
star
A BLOG that has 11 comments but NO ARTICLE?? No author listed?? That is your source?? Pretty lame there. Now you do realize that ALL Presidents and Every Congress used the SS Funds to cut back on their deficits. Do you remember that Reagan had to work with a Democrat Controlled Congress for 8 years?
www.buzzflash.com/hartmann/05/07/har05007.html
star
A BOOK REVIEW??? That is your source?? That is LAMER then you first source. Come on get something from ABC,MSNBC,CNN,NY TIMES or LA TIMES. Hell I'll even settle for HUFFINGTON POST!!!
jerks
I GUESS, the book review was interesting.
"Because the rest of the federal government is, in effect, borrowing from Social Security to finance part of its deficit, some accuse the rest of government of "stealing" from Social Security. In fact, Social Security trust funds invest their surplus in Treasury securities bearing the full faith and credit of the United States. The interest rate on these securities is determined by a formula that reflects market interest rates. The rest of government is no more stealing from Social Security than it is from an individual who invests some of his or her pension fund in U.S. Treasury securities."http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/taxes-budget/off-budget.cfm a better understanding of the S.S. fund. and this one on the Budget,.........http://wfhummel.net/officialdebt.html
slodon, you are using generic conservative rhetoric when you say,"The Social Security Lock Box was OPENED BY LBJ in 1967 or so." as Newt has said recently. Your link has this concise quote "Finally, just note once again that the financing procedures involving the Social Security program have not changed in any fundamental way since they were established in the original Social Security Act of 1935 and amended in 1939. These changes in federal budgeting rules govern how the Social Security program is accounted for in the federal budget, not how it is financed."
As the money is needed for benefits, those bonds must be redeemed and more money must be borrowed (or more money printed) to cover them.
Yes, it is a economic cycle, not a political one. Never, and I mean never, have we sustained economic growth without a recession or accumulated debt. Debts are retired, and the Feds buy back money to control inflation, less money in the system = less growth and inflation. That is the job of the Feds, to regulate the flow of our economy, with the amount of money, and debt that is available.
To assume this is a political system with your remarks, is contrary to how the economy works.
slodon's remark "lock box"is pure political, and not justified by his link. I am calling him out, as a insult to how the funds are borrowed., today and in the past. He is promoting "fear mongering".
My last statement in the comment above, deals with those who are apt at denying the security OUR government, and society has in OUR ability as humans. Trust in the basis of our economy, to demigod it with trivial pursuit, is wrong.
Nothing in there about the senate or congress taking a cut or paying for their bennys. Don't see anything in there so the extremely wealthy pay their fair share. Oh well, I'll pay most of my years earnings to the State and IRS again next year so these folks can continue living the good life. Getting tired of being played, YOU?
Apparently our PUBLIC SERVANTS have been engaged in INSIDER TRADING and selling POLITICAL INFORMATION and making MILLIONS. If you or I or Martha Stewart (and many, many others) did this we would be arrested and sent to prison BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL-I think every single person in D.C. (from the bottom to the top) who has committed this ILLEGAL activity should be arrested, stripped of ALL benefits, fined, and sent to prison- How are they getting away with this stuff??? Washington is ROTTEN TO THE CORE and they get away with it......
Its pandering season. Didnt see that mouse Cantor out there fighting against this bill adding to the defecit.
It's mating season.
How'd them chinese panders get into this here vine? :)
I'm actually really excited about the 2% tax cut extension. It means more money I can invest and therefore money that will actually come back to me in the future! The other 4.2%...I don't plan on ever seeing that money again.
...and the Republicans add more to the deficit instead of finding a responsible way to pay for the bill.
I know, it's backwards.
I suppose cutting subsidies to oil companies or foreign aid to certain Arabic countries is too hard.
The deficit is 17 trillion....why not cut every single program by 10% today! Social Security , welfare recipients, workers, defense contractors, foreign countries, etc.....will just have to make due. Sure beats this great country defaulting as a result of overspending and entitlements to people who never contributed or will contribute to the well being of this nation!
ok Lest see if gas prices go up to $4.00 - $5.00 a gallon That equates to about a 1 cent to 10 cent increase to the average joe Oh thank you thank you can I have some more please
other than killing Binlodin I can't thinking of anything really good this president has done not 1 thing and people are going to vote for a president from the most corupt city in the United states smarrrrt
so you're that one child they left behind huh !!!
the only reason oil prices are going up is because of oil industry greed ! PERIOD AND NOTHING ELSE !! So fact the facts these corporation are not friends of America !
schooldog how come when Bush was in office it was his fault..?? oh I know oblamer doesn't have to be accountable for his shortcomings he is a libtard
Hey,they accomplished something.....As a Lib I would be remiss not to recognize the gop for working with the Dems to get something done. Too bad the Tparty don't see things that way....
This is something that could have been done a few months back where it not for the obstruction of the republican party extremist and tea-party Taliban ! this is a clear message to the country that we need to vote these people out of office and give Obama a total Democratic house and senate in 2013 ! and a new start ! Obama 2012 !
I'm so friggen sick of that bs lie from liberals.
The Republicans in the House passed a ONE YEAR extension of the payroll tax cut, WITH payfors.
The Democrats didn't want to pay for it AND didn't want to push the precious lying sack of crap Obama in the position to have to choose between his liberal union supporters or his liberal environmental wack jobs, so they refused and went for the two-month BS instead.
And Obama and the Democrats spin and lie, and you people believe it.
Read this, become slightly less clueless.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/us/politics/house-passes-extension-of-payroll-tax-cut.html
Just wait till gas is over $5 a gallon. Then remember this article, and open your friggen eyes.
as far as Prag's "but deductions for the costs of doing business allowed to every other sector." What sector? why go off subject with a total disregard for http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/about_those_oil_subsidies.html,
oil,farming and others in general have been subsidised by the government for a long time, as a means to control the flow and cost. Not all business's get subsidy from government. It is a political "hot potato" as no one wants to touch that block of voters.
Here, I posted this a bit closer to you, so you may want to get a bucket to throw up in.............LOL
Dump the tax subsidies for oil companies.
i agree no more corporate welfare !
That's about $4 billion a year, and they're not "subsidies" but deductions for the costs of doing business allowed to every other sector.
But fine, cut them.
Where do you get the other $80 billion?
The military.
No more corporate welfare. Sounds good to me. Make GM and Chrysler pay us back the 54 Billion in BAILOUT Funds. Lets get the 535 Million back from Solyndra. Lets get the 500+Million back from Fisker. Lets get the Tax Credits back from GE for their Wind Turbines. Lets get the Ethanol Subsides back. Lets get the 118 Million back from the Ener1 Battery Company. That should account for 60 Billion in Corporate Welfare.
Chrysler has already payed all of the money back, and GM has paid most of it. We also need to take back the tax subsidies for the oil companies.
Thermen
WRONG Chrysler still owes us 1.3 Billion.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- U.S. taxpayers likely lost $1.3 billion in the government bailout of Chrysler, the Treasury Department announced Thursday.
The government recently sold its remaining 6% stake in the company to Italian automaker Fiat. It wrapped up the 2009 bailout that was part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program six years early.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/21/autos/chrysler_government_exit/index.htm
If GM paid most of it back WHY DO WE OWN 26% of GM????
Because American taxpayers still own a 26 percent stake in G.M., the company is finding it tough to change its image as “Government Motors.” Analysts say that investors are still skittish about G.M. because its decades-long decline is still fresh in their minds.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/general_motors_corporation/index.html
Now we paid $33 per share for GM to get the debt off their books. Now the price of a share is $27. We need to get to 50-53 to break even. Do you think that will happen???
I'm for taking back the Oil Tax Credits,they are not Tax Subsides. Ethanol got Tax Subsides, cash payments
Slodon, you fail to take into account the revenue the government is getting from those who NOW have a job, and not layed-off, plus the growth in economy because of the Loan. Why are your statements so one sided, and never include the whole story? I bet your a conservative/Republican/Libertarian in philosophy.
You must agree that the government is entitled to some direction of the economy, so what is it?
as far as Prag's "but deductions for the costs of doing business allowed to every other sector." What sector? why go off subject with a total disregard for http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/about_those_oil_subsidies.html,
oil,farming and others in general have been subsidised by the government for a long time, as a means to control the flow and cost. It is a political "hot potato" as no one wants to touch that block of voters.
You see their is a unrealised gain in people working, employee's, and their income is not accounted in your unreliable comment. It really is not nice to "brow beat" your opponent.
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/, and http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0309/Budget-hawks-Does-US-need-to-give-gas-and-oil-companies-41-billion-a-year, ya see the oil and other energy producers do get subsidy's that other sectors are not. Being a substantial part of our security and economy they are treated to more or less money from the government.
Here are the numbers to compare tax breaks,subsidy's, and direct spending by the government on energy.....................http://grist.org/politics/2011-02-07-what-obama-should-know-about-ending-oil-subsidies/
If you want to take a political look on recent energy law check this out..................http://www.citizen.org/cmep/article_redirect.cfm?ID=13980
I really wont see that $$ in my pocket. My health insurance went up $72.00 a month. But will feel that pinch when my Social Security check is smaller because of less money going towards it......thanks government for screwing me in my golden years. Why should I be forced to pay into something that won't exist when I retire and is only going into the current fund because the government keeps borrowing from it?
Thank the Republicans for adding to the deficit and vote Obama on Nov. 6.
Yet another illiterate is heard from! If you read the story, you'd know that your Social Security contribution is being made up from the general fund - it has no negative effect on your Social Security account.
But it is adding to the deficit.....
oblamer is adding to the deficit
I believe it was Obama who called for this vote. And it will be Obama who signs this into law. So, why should the republicans be blamed? Typical liberal.
First, this could easily be paid for by raising the cap on SS contributions. Second, I've been told all my life that I can't count on SS being there when I retire (If I ever get to retire). Why should I pay into a system for the rest of my life that won't be there for me when I need it? SS shouldn't be cut. It should be abolished all together. Add SS to income taxes and we'll have more than enough money to pay for the elderly.
With 1 million people having 1 thousand dollars to spend, that's 1 billion dollars into the economy that otherwise would not be there.
With 1 million people having 1 thousand dollars to spend, that's 1 billion dollars into the economy that otherwise would not be there.
It's actually about $94.5 billion lost to the pockets of the rich that could have been used to pay down the deficit or otherwise help the economy. Of course the republicans voted for it, they hate America.
How will the money that remains in my check be pocketed by the rich? They will only get what I choose to spend if, and only if, I choose to spend it with their companies. Please try thinking for yourself for a change.
Can anyone explain how 7/10ths of ONE PERCENT of the GDP will stimulate our 15 Trillion Dollar Economy??
That is like spiting in the Ocean and waiting for the Sea Level to rise.
Slodon,
They took all the money....they won't give it back (sell high or short the market makes them rich at the expense of your 401k)
I lost $900,000...good thing I pulled out...but that's not so bad...It will get worse thanks to greedy people
slodon perhaps this link will show you corporate taxes are less revenue as a % of total of government revenue...............http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/08/tax-base-as-of-gdp/ and http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2011/01/ten-years/
I think this is what many are saying about Corporate greed. Their profit is not showing up on the tables of Americans.
As long as the rich get SS and medicare they do not need, there IS no damned debt crisis as far as I am concerned at least not one worth worrying about
After all SS and Medicare had NOTHING to do with the collapse of Bear Stearns, Lehman Bros, the housing bubble and pop, Revenge wars, outsourcing, or the failure of trickle down economics