underpants
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 07:29 PM
Original message |
Your opinion on the proposed 2% cut in Social Security tax? |
|
Edited on Tue Dec-07-10 07:35 PM by underpants
I was wondering.
On the one hand, like the withholding reduction last year, it will put more money in the economy but it stinks of a way to underfund Social Security.
|
rox63
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 07:31 PM
Response to Original message |
1. They should have raised the SS cap in exchange |
|
Let those who make over $106 K help pay for this.
|
underpants
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
bluethruandthru
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
Why is it that Obama's advisors didn't think of that? Or did they...but they really want to see SS underfunded and dead?
|
zigzagzed
(61 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
I agree, but at least this will benefit those most in need of help.
|
avaistheone1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
16. Obama campaigned on raising the cap. |
|
What ever happened to that?
|
saigon68
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
|
he's done I for one am done with this poseur Like LBJ he's done
|
rocktivity
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
33. Eliminate the cap altogether |
|
Edited on Tue Dec-07-10 08:21 PM by rocktivity
and EVERYONE can pay a LOWER rate.
:headbang: rocktivity
|
PA Democrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 07:32 PM
Response to Original message |
2. It would be great if they significantly raised or completely removed the cap. |
|
Edited on Tue Dec-07-10 07:41 PM by PA Democrat
|
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 07:32 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
PBS Poll-435
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 07:32 PM
Response to Original message |
4. It is an idea. Doesn't really bother me except that it makes FICA/MI calculations "interesting" |
|
But if we can make it work in the same tax year I am all for it.
|
wryter2000
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 07:36 PM
Response to Original message |
6. It worries me, to tell you the truth |
|
The "conservatives" are always screaming that Social Security is bankrupt. Taking money out of the fund could reinforce that, imho. Once it's decreased, it's going to be hard to return to current levels.
|
doc03
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 07:36 PM
Response to Original message |
7. It sucks, retirees get no COLA for 3 years, at least last year |
|
they got a onetime payment of $400. So now a person making $40,000 walks off with a $800 windfall with the money that is supposed to fund SS and a person making $106,000 gets $2120. What do retirees get, well you can bet we will face even deeper cuts because of this $120 billion handout.
|
saigon68
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
Individualist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
25. What do retirees get? The shaft. |
madrchsod
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #25 |
32. i wonder what that was....ya my 600 a month is breaking the bank! |
sad sally
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
51. it was $250 in 2009; no raise in 2009, 2010 nor in 2011... |
shimmergal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-08-10 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
We got a one-time payment of $200. Maybe it was $400 for a couple?
I too worry about the 2% cut giving fuel to nay-sayers' charge that the Social Security Trust Fund is depleted.
Has it occurred to anyone that there's a conspiracy to prevent most future senior citizens from being able to live decently at all? We've already seen proof that the two best ways ordinary people could save for retirement--and hopefully build a hedge against inflation-- can no longer be counted on. Stock market craziness and the real estate bubble have really done a number on us. Then destroy Social Security and most people will have nothing left.
W,at's the ultimate plan? Widespread death panels? Or just a pool of desperate old people willing to work for under-minimum wage, because they have no other source of income?
It's Scary!
|
Individualist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 07:36 PM
Response to Original message |
8. It reeks of a way to destroy Social Security. |
librechik
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-08-10 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
jtown1123
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-08-10 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #65 |
bemildred
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 07:38 PM
Response to Original message |
10. A ploy to avoid removing the cap. nt |
OZark Dem
(110 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 07:40 PM
Response to Original message |
11. Reduce the income to the fund by 2% a year ? |
|
Gee, I wonder? Old mother Hubbard, went to the cubbard, to get her poor doggie a bone. And when she got there, the cubbard was bare ?????????? How does that go anyway ?
|
kath
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
43. Actually, it reduces the funding by almost a THIRD: |
|
4.2%/6.2% = .677 So, SS will be getting only 68% of what it used to. :grr: :grr:
|
kelly1mm
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #43 |
53. actually it is about a 16% cut - you forgot the employer match. Also, |
|
there is no coresponding reduction for the self employed who pay both sides of FICA or 15.3% of net profit before paying income taxes on the rest.
|
Statistical
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #53 |
58. Actually it is a 0% cut. |
|
The difference is paid by general fund. No change in SS funding.
Still it does suck the SE get slammed. Maybe they can ammend that.
|
OZark Dem
(110 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-08-10 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #58 |
59. SS funding is funding the general revenue fund now |
kath
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-08-10 02:47 AM
Response to Reply #53 |
61. I thought the employer's portion was being cut as well - as a way to throw a bone to employers. No? |
|
And actually, currently the self-employed don't pay a full 15.3% - they never have. The actual tax is a bit less than that (maximum of 14.13%), and varies depending on your marginal tax rate. (it still does take a BIG bite out of self-employment earnings.)
The tax is calculated as 15.3% **of only 92.35% of profit** (up to the cap), THEN half of that amount is deducted from income on the 1040, so some money is saved on the INCOME TAX. So, on each $100 (up to the cap), the total FICA is $14.13 (or 14.13%). But half of that (7.065%) is deducted from income -- so for someone whose marginal tax rate is 25%, for each additional $100 of profit, they would pay INCOME tax of 25% of ($100 - 7.065), which is 25% of $92.94 (there may be some slight rounding errors here), or $23.23, plus the $14.13 of FICA tax - for a total tax of $37.36 or 37.36%. Since their regular *income* tax would be 25% or $25.00, they are actually paying $12.36 EXTRA for their FICA, or 12.36% at this marginal rate.
For someone in the zero bracket, ie. who makes too little to be subject to income tax, the effective FICA rate would be the full 14.13% that we came up with in the first calution. For someone in the 10% marginal tax bracket , the effective marginal FICA rate is 13.42%. "----------------" 15% "--------------------------------------------------------" 13.07% "----------------" 25% "--------------------------------------------------------" 12.36%
End of math lesson - WHEW! :-)
|
OZark Dem
(110 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-08-10 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #61 |
64. Thank you for that I think. I love it when you make my head spin. |
jtown1123
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-08-10 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #61 |
70. Nope, just employee side. |
ThomWV
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 07:41 PM
Response to Original message |
13. A fucking idiotic mistake that will be the precedent that Republicans use to gut the system |
|
A year from now the Republicans will also be saying that it was the Democratic Congress that instated the Bush Tax cuts, not them - and they hold it over the Democrats as long as I live
|
AndrewP
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-08-10 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
phleshdef
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 07:41 PM
Response to Original message |
14. Its a direct form of middle class stimulus, which strengthens the demand side... |
|
...and thus leads to job creation which leads to more people paying into social security. Its a liberal concept in action.
|
Laelth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 07:43 PM
Response to Original message |
15. Bad idea. It will become permanent, and it will make SS insolvent. |
|
All the more reason, then, to destroy SS. Not a good idea.
-Laelth
|
underpants
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
|
LOVE the graphic
on a plate
|
lumberjack_jeff
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 07:45 PM
Response to Original message |
17. Stimulate the economy by defunding Social Security. |
|
From Obama's perspective, it's a win-win. He can destroy social security and look good doing it.
|
doc03
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
27. My Union went along with the company and helped them |
|
get a waiver on pension funding to help the company. What was the result? Our pension was declared underfunded and taken over by the PBGC. Guess what? The PBGC is underfunded now and eventually the government will have to bail it out or millions will lose those pension payments.
|
phleshdef
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
30. Stimulating the economy will inject more funding into Social Security. |
|
You do realize that job = paycheck and paycheck = payments into Social Security, right?
|
lumberjack_jeff
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #30 |
31. Kind of a trickle-down, huh? n/t |
Liberalynn
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #31 |
40. Yeah and we all know how well that worked. |
|
Edited on Tue Dec-07-10 08:50 PM by Liberalynn
Its like thinking saliva will put a forrest fire out.
|
stray cat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 07:45 PM
Response to Original message |
18. How does it underfund ss? The budget ie china will make up the difference |
jtown1123
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-08-10 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
73. It underfunds and gives the Repubs a huge opening to finally take it down. Here's why: |
|
Here is what Bruce Bartlett, a former top advisor for Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush recently wrote, "What are the odds that Republicans will ever allow this one-year tax holiday to expire? They wrote the Bush tax cuts with explicit expiration dates and then when it came time for the law they wrote to take effect exactly as they wrote it, they said any failure to extend them permanently would constitute the biggest tax increase in history … If allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is the biggest tax increase in history, one that Republicans claim would decimate a still-fragile economy, then surely expiration of a payroll tax holiday would also constitute a massive tax increase on the working people of America … Republicans would prefer to destroy Social Security's finances or permanently fund it with general revenues than allow a once-suspended payroll tax to be reimposed. Arch Social Security hater Peter Ferrara once told me that funding it with general revenues was part of his plan to destroy it by converting Social Security into a welfare program, rather than an earned benefit. He was right."
This is serious. We cannot have Social Security dipping into the general fund. The whole point of SS is that it is self sustaining and cannot borrow to add to the deficit. Deficit hawks will not allow SS to redeem these funds and will instead cut the program to make up the difference. Do not be fooled.
|
ixion
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 07:46 PM
Response to Original message |
20. It helps the working middle class, which really needs the help |
customerserviceguy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
36. The Making Work Pay credit was much better for that |
|
It started phasing out at $75,000, and really was quite beneficial to the lowest paid workers, who got a full $400.
If a person is working full time for the Federal minimum wage, they would only get about $300 in tax cuts from the 'holiday'. Their rich-ass boss will get over $2,000 from it.
Doesn't sound very progressive to me.
|
JamesA1102
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 07:48 PM
Response to Original message |
21. The payroll tax cut of 2% will not cut one penny from the Social Security trust fund |
customerserviceguy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #21 |
39. I found what you're talking about: |
|
"Progressive economists have worried that a payroll tax break along the lines of the one announced tonight could come back to bite Democrats if it undermined the solvency of Social Security. But officials tonight insisted that its cost to the Social Security trust fund will be reimbursed with a credit from general revenue."
Voila! Social Security can now be firmly tied to the deficit.
|
JamesA1102
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #39 |
customerserviceguy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #45 |
47. It's a way to weaken Social Security |
|
Even if we had enough money to fund this, it still gives the whole "Social Security won't be there for you" meme some fresh life.
|
JamesA1102
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #47 |
Blue_In_AK
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 07:52 PM
Response to Original message |
24. I'm uncomfortable about it. |
|
It seems like it will add to the "underfunded" argument.
|
madrchsod
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 07:57 PM
Response to Original message |
26. well it really won`t hurt me ..... |
|
but with tens of millions not paying into the system my kids are screwed.
2% cut is another nail in their coffin.
|
stranger81
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 08:00 PM
Response to Original message |
28. First step down the slippery slope. |
|
If Social Security still exists when I retire in 30 years or so, I'll eat my hat. And it will be my own party that took the first whack at the pinata.
|
bbinacan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 08:01 PM
Response to Original message |
29. I will increase contributions |
|
to my 401k plan by the same amount of the cut. I like it.
|
customerserviceguy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 08:36 PM
Response to Original message |
|
come along at the end of 2011 with the idea of partial privatization for that 2%, how will the President or any Democratic office holders who vote for this say that it's the wrong thing to do?
If we pass this 'compromise' we surrender so very many of what we supposedly regard as 'principles'.
|
Historic NY
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 08:40 PM
Response to Original message |
35. Stupid, stupid, stupid, raise the cap, fund the system......WTF is wrong with these people. |
|
Edited on Tue Dec-07-10 08:41 PM by Historic NY
I'm beginning to think if there willing to cut it then there isn't anything wrong...I want my money.
|
Turbineguy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 08:43 PM
Response to Original message |
|
so what? Wall Street will steal it anyway.
|
Liberalynn
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 08:45 PM
Response to Original message |
38. Totally and completely against it. |
|
Edited on Tue Dec-07-10 08:51 PM by Liberalynn
and IMHO is an indicator that Obama plans to continue to concede/compromise with the Pukes until SS is gutted or ended all together.
|
AlinPA
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 08:49 PM
Original message |
Bad deal long term. When the cut expires, republicans will howl like dogs |
|
"raising taxes on 'Murcans" and a deal will be made to cut SS. It is a slippery slope to start this.
|
Hubert Flottz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 08:49 PM
Response to Original message |
41. Would have been nice if they'd stop taxing people's... |
|
Social Security. That would have helped a lot of older Americans who haven't gotten a raise in two years.
|
Change Happens
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 08:56 PM
Response to Original message |
Gold Metal Flake
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 09:15 PM
Response to Original message |
44. Like a cat playing with a lizard. |
|
When the cat gets bored playing with the lizard the cat kills it.
|
Gin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #44 |
46. bad idea....then when it goes back up people will scream.....back |
|
door to gut the program (IMO)
|
Gold Metal Flake
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #46 |
49. Yup. The time is right. |
|
The people have been marinating in the daily soaking of right wing propaganda on this.
"Entitlements" "I can invest it better" "People getting more out than they put it" "Bankrupt" "Just a bunch of paper"
This plum is ripe. All you have to do is have enough political and financial power to pluck it.
|
lildreamer316
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 11:19 PM
Response to Original message |
50. I believe this *is* what we will call the death of SS |
|
I believe when we look back, we will say that this is when it started.
|
Luciferous
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 11:32 PM
Response to Original message |
52. It's a terrible idea. |
Statistical
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 11:44 PM
Response to Original message |
54. It won't underfund SS by a single penny. |
|
The legislation calls for general fund (i.e. the budget) to "replace" the funds not contributed by workers. Thus 2% less paid by worker = $120B. $120B from general fund transfered to SS.
Net-net SS funding at end of the year is exactly the same.
|
underpants
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-08-10 03:56 AM
Response to Reply #54 |
Hell Hath No Fury
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-08-10 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #62 |
72. But is is still money we do not have - |
|
Edited on Wed Dec-08-10 02:02 PM by Hell Hath No Fury
that will need to be borrowed tha will have a minimal impact on the overall economy.
|
jtown1123
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-08-10 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #54 |
68. This is simply not true. Please Read: |
|
Here is what Bruce Bartlett, a former top advisor for Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush recently wrote, "What are the odds that Republicans will ever allow this one-year tax holiday to expire? They wrote the Bush tax cuts with explicit expiration dates and then when it came time for the law they wrote to take effect exactly as they wrote it, they said any failure to extend them permanently would constitute the biggest tax increase in history … If allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is the biggest tax increase in history, one that Republicans claim would decimate a still-fragile economy, then surely expiration of a payroll tax holiday would also constitute a massive tax increase on the working people of America … Republicans would prefer to destroy Social Security's finances or permanently fund it with general revenues than allow a once-suspended payroll tax to be reimposed. Arch Social Security hater Peter Ferrara once told me that funding it with general revenues was part of his plan to destroy it by converting Social Security into a welfare program, rather than an earned benefit. He was right."
This is serious. We cannot have Social Security dipping into the general fund. The whole point of SS is that it is self sustaining and cannot borrow to add to the deficit. Deficit hawks will not allow SS to redeem these funds and will instead cut the program to make up the difference. Do not be fooled.
|
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 11:44 PM
Response to Original message |
55. They could fix it by raising the limit, but I don't think |
|
it can be done until we get both houses back with a majority. I'm not holding my breath. It would make it more equitable though by tapping into the rich to make up the difference, who are not paying their fair share percentage wise anyway.
|
MadHound
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 11:48 PM
Response to Original message |
56. Stupidity, dangerous stupidity at that. |
|
But wait, it's one of those great gifts to the 'Pugs, so all is good.
|
Write Left
(45 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-07-10 11:48 PM
Response to Original message |
57. Call it the Catfood Concession. |
sabrina 1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-08-10 01:52 AM
Response to Original message |
60. It is disgraceful. SS has nothing to do with the deficit. |
|
The claims that it is necessary to cut SS in any way whatsoever, is a lie. SS has a surplus, if anything benefits should be raised.
But one thing is for certain, SS should not, in any way, ever be a part of any discussion that has to do with the Deficit. The Deficit was caused by the Financial Collapse, by the Bush tax cuts, by the wars we are spending billions on each and every year.
SS is a separate fund and does not have anything to do with the Government Budget. The SS fund belongs to the American people. Anyone who claims otherwise is a liar.
SS benefits should be raised. That would help the economy and the money is there. Yes, I know, they have borrowed from the fund and they do not want to pay it back. They want the fund to keep increasing so that they can continue to pay for their forever wars.
Our media, our disgraceful media, allows the lie to go unchallenged, that SS ever had or could have anything to do with the Deficit.
If Democrats cut SS in any way, raise the retirement age eg, imho, they are finished.
|
eridani
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-08-10 05:25 AM
Response to Original message |
63. First step in a long-term plan to get rid of Social Security n/t |
Vinca
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-08-10 01:30 PM
Response to Original message |
66. Someone on Thom Hartmann just said it will become known as |
|
the Obama Social Security Tax Cut (thanks to Republican spin) and the Republicans will take to the floor when it expires to extend it and/or expand it.
|
Hell Hath No Fury
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-08-10 01:59 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Another reason to sink the stinker of a deal.
|
jtown1123
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-08-10 02:22 PM
Response to Original message |
74. If you think this is a TERRIBLE idea. Please write to Congress using this Leg. Action Center Letter: |
myrna minx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-08-10 02:35 PM
Response to Original message |
76. It's a cynical ploy to destroy Social Security. n/t |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 11:48 PM
Response to Original message |