Cutting the payroll tax by 50% DISMANTLES the 75 year struggle that STRENGTHENED Social Security &..

[Faryn Balyncd]

...built Social Security into the most fiscally sound federal program of all history....indeed, the ONLY federal program that has been not only totally self-funding but which has built a $2.3 trillion surplus sufficient make Social Security solvent until 2037 with no reduction in benefits.





To extend Social Security solvency to 75 years and beyond, relatively minor changes are required. This could be as simple as lifting the cap on FICA taxes (currently at $106,000).

But the financial security for Americans in their senior years did NOT happen spontaneously, nor did funding guarantee this security when the Social Security bill was passed in 1935..... To the contrary, this solvency through 2037 was the result of 75 years of struggle which included sound reforms by prior Congresses which gradually RAISED payroll taxes to levels which have made Social Security the most fiscally sound (perhaps the ONLY totally self funding) federal program of our history.

While to guarantee Social Security solvency to 75 years and beyond without slashing benefits requires relatively MINOR revenue enhancement, it DOES require that any changes are those that ENHANCE Social Security revenues.





Cutting the payroll and self-employment FICA tax rate, which right wing Republicans have advocated for years (and which progressives have overwhelmingly opposed for years), by ANY amount, not to mention by FIFTY PER CENT, will be more than just a minor move in the wrong direction in guaranteeing Social Security solvency for 75 years and beyond...... It will (as long term right wing proponents of payroll tax "holidays" and cuts have long known) be a MORTAL BLOW to the entire public & self funded, fiscally sound Social Security system:

Such a move would guarantee the transition of Social Security from the most popular & successful federal program (a self funded UNIVERSAL RETIREMENT PROGRAM supported overwhelmingly by all income classes of Americans other than the uberlords) into little more than a welfare system providing minimal benefits doled out arbitrarily according to the whims of future Congresses.





The right wingers whose strategy to dismantle the broad-based, near universal support for Social Security by first destroying its fiscal stability through payroll tax "holidays" and cuts, know that it will be politically extremely difficult for such revenue sources to ever be re-strengthened. That is why the clamor for cutting the payroll/self-employment tax has come from the most extreme of the right wing for years.

They also know that the key to destroying the near universal public support of Social Security is to transform it from a universal public retirement program (that can be counted on by all classes of Americans to supplement their retirement (and fully funded by their contributions) into no more than a welfare program doled out by the whims of future politicians.







Yes, Mr. President, a massive federal program to re-build our long neglected infrastructure is long overdue.



But "The American Jobs Act" is insufficient to restore our long-neglected physical infrastructure and economy (upon which Ed Rendell has elaborated).



Moreover, of equal or greater importance, planting the seeds that will guarantee the transformation of Social Security into no more than a minimal welfare program is COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE to the admirable objectives of restoring our infrastructure, addressing un-employment, and continuing to secure the fiscal stability, and public support, of our most vital public programs.









:kick:

[plumbob]

1. Amen. Well said. I couldn't do better.

Will our leaders be able to hear with all the corporate cash stuffed in their ears?

[sulphurdunn]

28. You mean down their throats

and up their asses don't you? :eyes:

[plumbob]

58. Believe you are right.

Thanks.

[msongs]

2. so the democrats are implementing the republican agenda? shows how low they have sunk ntlol nt

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[sufrommich]

96. " Vote against Obama!"

Well, at least you're honest.

[creeksneakers2]

157. It isn't the Republican or right wing agenda

They are opposed to the cuts. They never were for SS tax cuts. I don't know why the OP thinks they were. That's because SS tax cuts benefit those at the bottom of the ladder and that takes away money that the right wants to steer exclusively to the rich. That's why Ronald Reagan got higher rates on SS taxes and lower rates on income taxes. Now the right says tax cuts that don't go to the rich aren't job creators.

Before the SS tax cut Obama had a $400 per person refundable tax credit, but the Republicans refused to extend it. They said that since the credit could create a refund for persons that paid no tax it was welfare. The SS tax cut was the only thing for the bottom of the ladder they would agree to, and even that only in exchange for other goodies they wanted.

The SS tax cut benefits the economy because it puts more money in the hands of consumers. We have a recession because of lack of demand and anything that improves demand is the best way to keep from losing more jobs. The other half of the cut goes to employers. If we have to give tax cuts for the better off as the price for getting them for the less well off, a break for employers is the best way to do it. That way it goes to people who actually employ Americans and not to somebody who wants to ship the money overseas.

If the stimulus was composed entirely of public works jobs then all those people would be unemployed again as soon as the stimulus runs out.

The cuts are not harming the Social Security system. The cuts are being paid for out of the general fund. Those who are spreading false alarm are aiding the right wing agenda.

[kentuck]

159. "The cuts are being paid for out of the general fund."

How so?

Where are they borrowing the money? There is no extra money in the "general fund"?

Can you explain how they are borrowing from the general fund??

[creeksneakers2]

162. They are borrowing the money where they borrow all the other

money. There is no extra money in the general fund. Its in deficit. That's why Obama can't do more than he is.

They aren't borrowing from the general fund. The money is being transferred from the general fund to SS permanently.

[dkf]

173. I wonder how many people get this.

[Donnachaidh]

185. It's called COMMINGLING of Funds - and it is deliberate in it's intent

SS saving grace was the fact that it had NO effect on the deficit, as it was self-funding. However, when you deliberately CUT that self-funding, and use another source that IS part of the deficit problem, you can then chip away at the safety net that was set up for the fund.

this is a deliberate backdoor attack on Social Security by a politician who vowed EARLY ON to *change* Social Security.

Commingling of funds used to get people thrown into jail. Now it's a politician's tool to steal from the elderly.

Yeah -- that's the *change* we voted for. :sarcasm:

[wakemewhenitsover]

192. I never thought Al Gore's lockbox was ridiculous...

...and it looks smarter and smarter every day.

[Mimosa]

3. K&R!!! for TRUTH! n/t

[bhikkhu]

112. Except that its not quite true

Social Security is still funded, and far from dismantled.

My understanding is that it will make it a little more urgent (by the end of the decade should do) that the "cap" is moved higher to restore long-term strength, but that's about it. Its an easy fix, as long as we don't keep electing fools to congress.

[Divernan]

119. It is NOT an easy fix as long as Citizens United is law of the land.

No one will be elected to congress who is not bought and paid for by Big Interests. Our elected officials, from the President on down, are not fools. They know exactly how they have to vote to keep the corporate donations rolling in, and without the corporate money, they will never be elected or re-elected.

[jannyk]

4. K&R!

[xchrom]

5. Recommend

[kentuck]

6. There is no better or slick way to destroy Social Security.

If the workers are no longer putting money into the system, it will fail to exist. Because we cannot depend on the good graces of the Republican Party to appropriate funds from the general fund for Social Security beneficiaries. Open your eyes people.

[bhikkhu]

114. The best way to destroy SS is elect republicans

...whereas we could easily restore long-term strength to the program by raising the wage cap.

We can elect democrats for that, and we still have a few years before anything is very urgent.

[kentuck]

124. I wonder why the President didn't propose that??

It makes so much sense.

[bhikkhu]

127. Probably because he has no intention of destroying SS

...and I was expecting to have to point that out!

[Bluebear]

147. No just defunding it. Much better.

[ooglymoogly]

154. Well "0" is doing a pretty good a job all by himself.

"0" has been hacking away at the foundations of SS since he took office.

[rhett o rick]

165. The current New/Koch-Democrats arent very enthusiastic about saving SS. nm

[Donnachaidh]

206. and this administration is far more republican in it's actions than it's words

At this point in time, and with the track record -- this is a better republican president than Clinton was.

[bhikkhu]

218. ...ack - two years in, and nobody remembers what a republican president was like

Among the several things that make me despair over the capacity of the US to ever elect a functional responsible government again, the first would be that 25% or so of the population who stuck with bush through thick and thin, and still think he was a good president; the second is those who can't tell the difference between republican and democratic policies, or who think there is no real difference.

ed - sp.

[woo me with science]

160. "Slick" is a very good word.

Remember during the Shock Doctrine faux debt ceiling emergency, one of the most devious tools they had was the fact that the proceedings went on behind closed doors.

That way, the President's paid lackeys could attack and belittle any Americans who dared to question what was going on as alarmists leaping prematurely to conclusions. There was no proof of nefariousness, since we had no real information, and anyone who spoke out was being unreasonable and needlessly suspicious.

And of course it was not until the very last minute, right at deadline, that we were forcibly delivered their shitpile gift to us: massive spending cuts without revenue and the monstrosity of the Super Theft Congress.

And now this payroll tax scam, which will starve Social Security and tie it to the general fund. And, predictably, those who raise the alarm about tying Social Security to the general fund are mocked as alarmists, because, after all, there is no PROOF that the President actually plans to cut Social Security.

No proof yet, anyway. That's the beauty of the thing.

Make no mistake about it. We are being set up for another emergency. They will continue to deny the true goal right up until the inevitable Shock Doctrine moment, when we are informed with clucking tongues that the deal is done, and we just couldn't afford that budget-soaking entitlement program any longer.

America, it is time to wake up and put an end to this shit. This Shock Doctrine song, this stinking lie, this repeating insult to the intelligence of the American people, is getting old.

[dkf]

174. If you believe that then you might as well get ready to cut benefits 25% after the trust fund runs

Out.

[kentuck]

184. or make some changes...

Do you only see one option or solution?

[Yo_Mama]

7. Recommended for rationality

And there is no way that if a Republican president proposed this, every Democratic senator and representative wouldn't vocally voice the same criticisms.

[chill_wind]

11. You know it!

And not just our Senators and Reps. This place and all liberal sites like it under Bush would be in an well-informed uproar.

[Starry Messenger]

8. k&r

Thank you, I've been looking for a compilation just like this. GREAT work. :thumbsup:

[kelly1mm]

9. We already lost the ' SS does not add one penny to the deficit' argument

with the President's first payroll tax holiday. The funds 'lost' by the holiday are being substituted by general revenue funds, 40% of which are borrowed. Thus, about 40% of the substituted funds are being borrowed and are adding to the deficit / national debt.

[Octafish]

123. Which'll give them the ammo to say: 'See. SS causes red ink.'

Therefore,no more Social Security for you.

It's a win-win game for Wall Street and its owners.

[kelly1mm]

212. Right! That is why I did not support the first payroll tax holiday. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

10. "Make no mistake: time for old folks to eat their peas and catfood.

Hey Jamie! Do me a solid and pass the foie gras! "

[Cleita]

24. Old people won't be able to afford those luxuries without

Social Security. They will be lucky to find some weeds to eat.

[chill_wind]

12. Excellent description

of yet another bad policy proposal.

K & R.

[Zen Democrat]

13. Cutting the payroll tax 50% is cutting the federal withholding tax -- NOT SS and Medicare.

Where do you get the idea that it's a cut to SS -- which is a completely separate deduction on my paycheck.Medicare is another separate deduction.

[kentuck]

14. No, it's a cut in FICA taxes.

different from federal taxes.

[Luminous Animal]

17. The payroll tax is FICA (SS & Medicare), the income tax is your federal withholding.

I always felt that payroll tax is a misnomer. FICA means Federal Insurance Contribution Act.

The payroll tax should rightly be called, federal insurance contribution.

So, they are cutting your insurance contribution and covering the shortfall through income tax.

This is a horrible rightwing scheme.

[Enthusiast]

79. "This is a horrible right wing scheme."

It is no different than the crooked voting machines, the attacks on union workers, voter suppression efforts, the attack on the environment and all the other right wing initiatives. Same fucking thing.

Stop supporting Obama!

[MJJP21]

181. SO

If we don't support Obama who do we support?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

15. Thank you! K&R!

[adhd_what_huh]

16. It's 100% cut for the long term jobless....good god what a stupid argument you make

Sometimes you have to spend money to make money. How can SS survive if we continue with the jobless rate...

[Creideiki]

27. NWA, TVA, and others

We could fix it. Our infrastructure needs to be repaired and improved for the future (broadband for all, not just those in affluent suburbs and sections of urban areas).

The problem is that the DC area still doesn't realize there's a problem everywhere else. (And those of us in Colorado can't just take a day's car ride to protest in front of Congress.)

[sabrina 1]

55. How can it survive? Eliminate the cap.

End the wars and spend that money on JOBS in the US.

Eliminate the Bush Tax Cuts.

There is NO problem with the survival of SS. Even with the past two years of high unemployment, it still had a surplus, due to its other sources of revenue.

The problem is with the Fed. Govt's debt, SS has NO debt, it has a huge surplus. That surplus has to be repaid or DEFAULTED on. Even Repubs would not allow a Default.

Focus on the Fed Govt. And leave SS out of this discussion as it has nothing to do with the debt/deficit.

The Economic collapse was caused by several factors, none of which had anything to do with SS.

The Wars

The Wall St. corruption that caused the meltdown

The Bush Tax Cuts


Please show us why SS is even mentioned in this discussion. Other than as creditor of the Fed Govt like all its other creditors.

It is ludicrous to point fingers at Creditors, when it is the Debtors who created the problems.

I think frankly that the People should now sue the Fed. Govt to get back the money stolen/borrowed. The Fed. Govt has assets, they will have to pull up their bootstraps and start paying their debts. That means they have to give up their war games and bailouts for their buddies and tax breaks for their Corporate funders. It's simple. And anyone who introduces SS to this conversation cannot be trusted.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[LooseWilly]

131. Plus Another One...

Blind obedience to the "party line" just allows the "line drawers" to lead everyone toward bad policy.

If the politicians won't vote for good policy, there's no need to vote for them...

[customerserviceguy]

89. Your ideas are all good ones

Doesn't it disturb you, at least a little bit, that the President is recommending not only deepening the FICA tax cut, but letting small businesses off the hook for it as well?

As I'm 55, it freaks me out something serious.

[sabrina 1]

109. Yes, it disturbs me a lot. And it disturbs me even more that he's

getting a pass on it from Democrats. They should be screaming over this. On the one hand he is saying he wants to 'strengthen SS'. How can you strengthen it AND weaken it at the same time? This kind of diconnect is what I would expect from Bush.

I hope there will be a huge outcry over this. But one thing I do know, the Republicans are going to love it.

[creeksneakers2]

161. The Republicans don't love it

They are split on it. They'd probably all be against were it not for fear of voter reaction to their taxes going up. The GOP wants all tax break money to go to the rich only.

many conservative Republicans are promising to resist. They say the $175-billion cost of the tax cut would unnecessarily expand the federal debt, and they are skeptical of administration claims — backed by many private economists — that the move would increase jobs.

Many Republicans, particularly conservatives, would prefer to lower taxes on corporations, cut capital gains taxes or reduce income tax rates further for individuals. Cutting tax rates in those ways, they argue, would spur more economic growth.

On the other hand, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, is among those who said he could not justify deficit spending for a payroll tax break.

Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas, who heads the House Republican campaign committee, called Obama's plan "a horrible idea." He said GOP candidates would have no difficulty explaining to voters why they want to let the tax break expire.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-jobs-20110910,0,2942289.story

[sabrina 1]

166. The Republicans came up with the idea, back in 2001.

And both Cantor and Boehner have said they could support it. The others are doing what they're supposed to do, oppose anything that comes from a Democrat. If Bush were proposing it, which he did not dare to do, they would be for it. I am willing to bet they will accept it. The rhetoric is just for political purposes.

Funny how people flip sides on issues depending on who is in power. Which is why it is best to focus on issues rather than political parties or politicians. I was against it when Republicans proposed it, I'm still against, for the exact same reasons.

Did you support it when Trent Lott proposed it back then? Was it a good idea then too? Airc, Dems were against it fearing it was a sneaky way to start defunding SS. So, I am very puzzled that any Democrat would support it now.

[Enthusiast]

81. Compromising social security funding is the very last

place we want to remove funding.

Social security and medicare solvency is nearly the number one issue with voters right behind jobs.

We are currently out spending the entire world on a military completely unnecessary in size and scope.

Don't tell me there is no where else to get the money. That is a right wing talking point, better known as a LIE!

[whathappened]

155. bingo

we need to tax the chit out of all inports to the states , make these fookers pay for there messing with america and her jobs , once the jobs are back and the payroll taxes get back to what they once were , the money will be there for our children , none of these d.c. clowns seem to get this

[Name removed]

170. Deleted message

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

[blindpig]

18. Stealth defunding, by a Democratic president...

Only Nixon could go to China

k&r!

[kentuck]

19. Truth.

and most Democrats, including the Congress, are in denial.

[SammyWinstonJack]

30. DINO president.

Has he no shame? x(

[Enthusiast]

85. That is it, exactly.

If we all joined together and made it clear to Obama that we do not support this he would be forced to adopt a different strategy.

Okay, you have all had the warning.

[LooseWilly]

133. It's a mighty big "If" you're talking about there...

It looks like voters have de facto PTSD in the wake of W, so they're now falling for the "but the other guys are really really bad" version of the "choose the lesser evil" sales pitch for votes.

Unfortunately, rather than using the Rahm strategy of "never waste a crisis" to try to get actual progressive policies in place... Obama's administration is using it to drag the party rightward &, at the same time, to try to con the members into believing that there's no rightward drag occurring... that it's just delirious noise being made by the "professional left".

[glinda]

20. K & R n/t

[Cleita]

21. This is a very bad decision on Obama's part and I hope

saner minds prevail in the Senate because it is something he will live to regret.

[SammyWinstonJack]

33. His 'regret' is life threatening to millions. I could NOT care less about his 'regret' which I

sincerely doubt he will have, btw.

He knows what he is doing and what the end results will be and still he pursues this destruction of SS/Medicare/Medicaid, just to appease his corporate campaign donors. Disgusting! :puke:

[Enthusiast]

86. American lives -Afghani lives,

what does it matter to the filthy rich war mongers and neo-con chicken hawks.

[Better Believe It]

22. K & R

[glinda]

23. Can you post an online petition? Stating exactly what this does. Then we can post elsewhere.

[kentuck]

25. The reason Obama is doing it...

...is because he is desperate. If the unemployment rate does not go down, he knows the odds are stacked against him winning re-election. He is trying to do everything conceivable to create jobs. Unfortunately, the Repubs will not cooperate. So, if he offers to cut SS for them, how can they resist? But, it might actually stimulate the economy enough to create some jobs and bring down the unemployment rate just enough to look like some progress is being made and convince folks to re-elect him. It is an act of desperation and Democrats should not go along with him, no matter if he is the Democratic leader of our Party.

[ctwayne]

68. Obama Only Cares About Obama

Obama has already said that every penny of the payroll tax cut will be paid for with future benefits cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The idea is to goose the economy enough so Obama wins reelection. Then the benefit cuts will be taken out of the hides of ordinary American workers for generations to come.
Only a Democrat could pull off this scam. If a Republican president tried it, all the Democrats would block it. Only Nixon could go to China. Only Obama could gut Medicare and Social Security.

[Bluebear]

219. You said it

[Enthusiast]

91. The day he extended the Bush tax cuts

he was finished. That single act insured that the deficit could do nothing but increase exponentially for the foreseeable future.

He compounded the damage with the payroll tax holiday. The vast majority of consumers didn't even notice the extra in their checks and it certainly didn't stimulate spending. Of course, that wasn't the purpose anyway.

[paparush]

148. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.

Enthusiast, you just spoke the god's honest truth. You hit the nail squarely on the head. When our apparently DINO president extended the most irrational tax cuts in history, he sealed his (our) fate.

[Fruittree]

134. Only problem with that line of reasoning is I really don't think

he's that desperate to get re-elected..

[sad sally]

153. Kind of looks like if he can't be the moving force to get jobs created

then by golly, buying votes (thru bogus so-called tax cuts) might just be a way to get votes. Would have never thought my President, one who inspired so many to believe in "yes we can," has turned to tax cuts as the way to stay in favor...

[dotymed]

26. The DNC just sent me a (carefully worded) questionnaire.

IF they read it, they will not be sending me another one.

They pose questions in such a way as to make it seem that you totally support THEM if you support a very broad, traditionally Democratic goal. I used up all of the "comments" sections. Hopefully, my views are obvious to the treasonous bastards.

I may have mentioned that I am praying that Bernie Sanders will primary Obama..

Last week they had the audacity (sound familiar?) to ask me to help organize again for President Obama. No thanks. IMO, the RNC and DNC should combine their operations...,same goals.

[senseandsensibility]

29. keep this kicked

K and R!!!!!

[bertman]

31. Thank you, FarynBalyncd. HUGE REC. You'd think the smartest Democratic President EVER

would have been able to figure this out already. Especially with all those REALLY smart guys advising him. Right?

Oh wait. Those guys are all MILLIONAIRES. They DON'T NEED SOCIAL SECURITY.

Now I get it.

[Bozita]

32. Terrific post. Recommended bigtime!

[sulphurdunn]

34. At some point even the densest

progressives must realize they have been betrayed. Maybe not. Hope springs eternal for those who close their eyes, cover their ears and repeat, "I'm not listening to you!" :tinfoilhat:

[OHdem10]

35. I believe the President said, the Treasury takes the AMOUNT Of MONEY

from the GENERAL Tax FUND and replace it to SS. This is done so that
SS does not get behind.

[kentuck]

37. All monies spent must be appropriated by the Congress.

not the President. I'm sure the Republicans are just dying to put money into the SS system. :sarcasm:

[creeksneakers2]

164. The Republicans love putting money in the SS system

They can tax it out of workers and borrow it to finance tax cuts for the rich.

[dkf]

176. If they don't do it then there is no payroll tax cut.

[ProSense]

36. It

does no such thing, just ask Dean Baker and Robert Greenstein.

[kentuck]

38. Nonsense.

If workers stop paying into the FICA fund and there is eventually a shortfall, only a fool would expect Republicans to appropriate funds to cover it.

[ProSense]

39. BS

"If workers stop paying into the FICA fund and there is eventually a shortfall, only a fool would expect Republicans to appropriate funds to cover it."

The money goes in for the year that it's cut. Period.

All the other hypotheticals and handwringing is BS.

[sad sally]

70. So you're of the belief that enough will be paid into the system to take care

of everyone who has either paid into or receives SS?

When the 1987 Greenspan Commission raised the FICA to accumulate a surplus, it was in anticipation of the retirement of baby boomers. And while the trillions in surplus are invested in the intra-governmental bonds so the money can be legally transferred from the Federal Insurance Trust Fund into general funds to be used by other agencies of the government, the pay-as-you-goers are fewer and fewer, and most who pay into it are making less and less.

Our population is aging, there are too few workers paying for retiring boomers and unless there's a giant increase in the number of workers paid more than poverty wages (i.e. union wages), how will future recipients be paid if contributions from employees and employers keep getting reduced? It goes without saying that unemployed Americans don’t pay payroll insurance contributions. Full employment is essential to future retirees, widows, and orphans.

Reducing contributions and/or cutting benefits is putting 53,000,000 Americans at risk: 36,500,000 retirees and spouses, 8,200,000 disabled individuals and spouses, 4,500,000 surviving spouses of deceased workers, and 4,300,000 dependent children.

As for paying the trust fund back from general funds, that takes congressional approval. They're the ones who control the purse. That's $117 billion less collected in 2011, $120 billion less for 2012 (from employees) that's proposed in the Jobs Bill, plus the unknown billions the reduction the 3.1% reduction on taxes businesses would pay on the first $5 million of their payroll, and/or the full 6.2 percent employer contribution would be waived on the first $50 million net increase in a company’s payroll.

What will the super committee have to cut in order to accomplish this?

[ProSense]

78. Hmmm?

"As for paying the trust fund back from general funds, that takes congressional approval."

Congress approved this in December. They will have to approve the current package.

[dkf]

177. Ugh how is it people never figured out how the last one worked?

[NorthCarolina]

202. Isn't there some inherent danger in tying Social Security to the General Fund? nt

[sad sally]

210. If enough of it can be made a part of the general budget, it will become a welfare system.

Those who've already paid into it will be told, just like millions of people who's companies stole their retirement funds, "sorry, it's all gone - we used it for other stuff." And the poor, disabled and needy will be deionized even further.

Seems to be a plan already drawn up and being implemented...

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[Luminous Animal]

97. Dean Baker's comment merely supports one of the points of the OP. Why you keep

trotting that out as some sort of evidence is beyond me. Either you are counting on people ignoring your link and merely trusting your word or you have no idea of what the OP is saying.

[woo me with science]

183. Prosense, I am noticing a repeated problem in your posts of omitting the most important information

from sources you cite.

You already received feedback about it in this thread, when you failed to mention that the memo you posted talked SPECIFICALLY about raising the Medicare age....a stunning omission, since that was the focus of the entire discussion: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1910405&mesg_id=1910553


Now you have done it again here. Somehow you omitted Dean Baker's opposition to this plan and the fact that his argument actually speaks directly to and bolsters the OP's case.

[sasha031]

40. k/r rec.

this is a bad idea.
the other night you had Backmann saying it would threaten seniors and now Romney is claiming to want to strengthen SS.

[Faygo Kid]

41. Precisely. This is a move to ultimately de-fund Social Security.

This proposal from the same president that appointed Alan Simpson to co-chair the Catfood Commission. That's when I knew Social Security was in deep trouble.

[dkf]

178. How so? Do you think that when they decide to increase the payroll tax back to old levels

Everyone will decide to end SS period? I don't get what you think will happen.

[druidity33]

188. we all worry

that this will become a semi-permanent "stimulus" type program. If so, it's a terrible trade-off. If it's so temporary, why not take it out of the General Fund?

:shrug:

[dkf]

209. The social security fund is only a book keeping measure anyway.

It marks the funds that do not have to go through the congressional budgeting process. When the trust fund "runs out" there is nothing stopping it from coming out of general funds. Congress just needs to appropriate it like it is doing now.

In the end the question is if the tax base will be support SS and all our other obligations, if we can keep borrowing it by selling bonds, or if we can print money without causing hyperinflation.

When none of those options work, that is the end of our way of life anyway.

[kentuck]

214. When will the trust fund "run out"?

When will it run out if we cut it in half?

[sad sally]

216. From Obama's own Peter Orszag:

"Restoring long-term balance to Social Security is necessary, but it is not necessary
to destroy the program in order to save it. Social Security’s projected financial
difficulties are real and addressing those difficulties sooner rather than later would make
sensible reforms easier and more likely. The prospects are not so dire, however, as to
require undercutting the basic structure of the system. In other words, our purpose is to
save Social Security both from its financial problems and from some of its “reformers.”

The Office of the Chief Actuary has established a set of criteria that must be met in order for the system
to be deemed in actuarial balance. If the system’s short-run finances (current revenue plus the trust fund
balance) are insufficient to pay scheduled benefits, the system is clearly not in balance. Over longer
periods, however, the reliability of the projections declines."


To answer your question, what Orszag seems to be saying is the projections of the current situation aren't necessarily correct, so it appears unlikely those who've come up with the "holiday killing fica plan" probably don't know what the affects of 50% employee reduction is. Add in a 50% employer reduction, and zero contribution on the full 6.2% employer contribution waived on the first $50 million net increase in a company’s payroll and the system might be in free fall.

[dkf]

224. If you budget it from general funds it is the same as if the entire amount were being paid.

The trust fund will be at the same level as if there were no payroll tax cut.

It is just a book keeping entry. And it isn't a loan from the general fund, it's a payment to it

[on point]

42. The way to 'Pay' for this is to raise the income ceiling on SSI

Or include say the first 200K of income regardless of source (work, dividend, capital gains).

That way it doesn't deplete the fund and also works to strengthen it over time.

Otherwise this is a very bad idea brought about by unwillingness to eliminate Bush tax cut disaster which favors the rich!

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[bvar22]

44. That is the problem I have with Centrists.

They agree with Republicans.

No "DEMOCRAT" would EVER entertain the idea of a Payroll Tax Holiday.
What would FDR, HST, or LBJ say to someone who suggested a Payroll Tax Holiday?
Here is a hint:



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone

photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed

You will know them by their Free Trade & Tax Cuts.

Solidarity!


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ProSense]

45. Meet

"No "DEMOCRAT" would EVER entertain the idea of a Payroll Tax Holiday."

....Robert Kuttner, "centrist"?

<...>

Six. Propose a six month tax holiday for payroll taxes. Ask for the Republicans' support. This would provide direct tax relief to working people and lower the cost of creating jobs. It would provide more of a tonic to the economy and more practical help to American families than any of the Republicans' proposed tax cuts. Make up the loss to the Social Security trust funds with a temporary surtax on people making over $10 million a year.

<...>

The difference is that the trust fund would be replenished with a temporary surtax on the rich and not the general fund.

...Nouriel Roubini

<...>

A much better option is for the administration to reduce the payroll tax for two years. The reduced labor costs would lead employers to hire more; for employees, the increased take-home pay would boost much-needed economic consumption and advance the still-crucial process of deleveraging households (paying down credit card debt and other legacies of the easy-credit years).

Most policy approaches, including the Obama proposals, have tended to subsidize the demand for capital rather than the demand for labor. That has the problem backward. In the second quarter, capital spending reached an annual growth rate of 25 percent. The argument that increased demand for capital leads to greater demand for labor (i.e., if you buy more machines you need workers to run them) has not held up. Firms are investing in capital goods, equipment and offshore offices that allow them to produce the same amount of goods with less -- and lower labor costs. To avoid a chronic increase in the unemployment rate, we need to subsidize the demand for labor -- achieving job creation -- rather than making it cheaper to buy capital, as investment and other tax credits would do.

President Obama could fully fund the reduction in payroll tax by allowing the Bush tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 a year to expire. Meanwhile, the Bush-era cuts affecting middle- and low-income earners -- the vast majority of Americans -- would remain in place for the time being.

<...>

[kentuck]

46. I must have missed that surtax on millionaires...

Is that in Obama's plan?

[ProSense]

48. Wait

does it make a difference where the money comes from?

Surtax on millionaires or, as Obama proposed, ending oil subsidies, corporate loopholes and the Bush tax cuts for the rich (millionaires), which will have a long-term effect on revenues raised as opposed to a temporary surtax.

[kentuck]

52. The fact is ..

that Obama does not pass tax cuts. It is the Congress. If the FICA tax cuts are passed and the Republicans keep the House, do you honestly think they will do away with the FICA tax cuts? What would be their incentive? I think you are making a lot of assumptions.

[ProSense]

60. So

"If the FICA tax cuts are passed and the Republicans keep the House, do you honestly think they will do away with the FICA tax cuts?"

...this is based on an assumption of what Republicans would do if they kept the House?

They're going to propose a new bill extending the the payroll tax holiday?

Really?

[kentuck]

65. You ask?

"They're going to propose a new bill extending the the payroll tax holiday?"

Once they see that it is robbing the SS fund of its needed funds to survive, why shouldn't they? They can always say they are against any tax increases.

Under no circumstances will they vote to fund the SS fund out of general revenue if that is necessary for it to survive? I'm surprised that you would think so.

We cannot assume that the Repubs will not control every branch of government after the next election. This is walking on some treacherous ground.

[ProSense]

66. Hmmm?

"Once they see that it is robbing the SS fund of its needed funds to survive, why shouldn't they? They can always say they are against any tax increases.

Under no circumstances will they vote to fund the SS fund out of general revenue if that is necessary for it to survive? I'm surprised that you would think so.

We cannot assume that the Repubs will not control every branch of government after the next election. This is walking on some treacherous ground."

Once they see?

Republicans have been gunning for Social Security for decades. They don't need a excuse to attack it.

Republicans aren't interested in a payroll tax holiday, they're interested in dismantling and privatizing Medicare and Social Security.

To claim that a payroll tax holiday give them impetus for this is nonsense.

[kentuck]

67. The sad truth is that Repubs and Democrats in Congress...

are not that different from the average American. Just as the Democrats do not see the danger in this, the Repubs do not yet see the opportunity.

Tell me, what better way to dismantle Social Security and Medicare than to take away the way it is funded? It will die the moment it is expected to be paid for out of general funds. Do not be naive. Once the fund is destroyed, and this is the first step in that direction, the program will die. Republicans will not find the money unless the money is already there. As it is, with the FICA funds paid by the working people of this country and their employers.

[ProSense]

74. Wait

"Tell me, what better way to dismantle Social Security and Medicare than to take away the way it is funded?"

...who is taking away how it's funded?

Frankly, the fear mongering is a bigger danger to Social Security, which is why Dean Baker called out the NYT.

[kentuck]

83. If it could have been funded with the general fund...

there would have been no need for the Social Security Act in the 1930's. There is a reason. Can you possibly figure out why?

[ProSense]

87. What?

"If it could have been funded with the general fund... there would have been no need for the Social Security Act in the 1930's."

That makes no sense.

[kentuck]

92. Why do we even need a SS fund if we can fund it out of the general fund.

Just pass a law and pay the recipients out of the general tax receipts. Why do you think they created the Social Security Act in the first place. I think it makes a lot of sense.

[ProSense]

102. Well

"Why do we even need a SS fund if we can fund it out of the general fund."

...ask a Republicans that. It's not the kind of thing that crosses my mind. Also, I have never heard the President make the claim that the Social Security fund is not needed.

A stimulus package is not designed to replace Social Security. A one time holiday isn't the Social Security system.

Still, if you believe there is any rational to this line of logic, ask a Republican.

[kentuck]

111. The law of umintended consequences is at play...

What happens if the Repubs vote to make the taxcut for businesses - paying only 50% of their share of FICA - permanent? After all, it would be a "tax increase" if they were to let it expire.

You say, "It's not the kind of thing that crosses my mind." Well, perhaps it should cross your mind. Unless you trust the Republicans? Unless you trust Barack Obama?

You actually believe they are going to make up the shortfall through "general revenues"? You wanna buy a bridge??

[creeksneakers2]

196. They aren't going to do that

Republicans only want tax cuts that benefit the super wealthy. Their next objectives are zero corporate tax, capital gains tax, and zero taxes on interest and dividends.

[newblewtoo]

126. And so did FDR.

Which is why it was set up to tie it to the payee's contributions. To do otherwise makes it easily characterized as welfare. Undermining the tenants upon which Social Security was founded will cause it to "Wither on the Vine" ( now where have we heard that before?).

[Luminous Animal]

95. Obama is taking away how it is funded. Obama propsed that it be

partially funded by income tax.

And you keep trotting out Dean Baker's quote as evidence of something. Yes, Baker called out the NY Times but his correction actually supports the OP.

The payroll tax cut CURRENTLY will not reduce benefits because CURRENTLY the shortfall will be covered by income tax contributions. But, tying the health of the Social Security trust fund to Congress's annual budget grandstanding leaves the budget for Social Security as open to general fund budget cuts as any other budget item.

[Enthusiast]

99. Dean Baker is wrong or he is lying.

[Luminous Animal]

117. Actually, Prosense is misusing a factual statement by Dean Baker.

The NY Times claimed that less money would be going into the SS trust fund.. This is incorrect because currently the difference is coming from the general fund.

[ProSense]

128. Oh cut the

"Actually, Prosense is misusing a factual statement by Dean Baker."

....disingenuous bullshit!

Dean Baker: The Payroll Tax Cut Did Not Cost Security Revenue

The NYT wrongly told readers that the payroll tax cut cost Social Security, "resulted in $67.2 billion of lost revenue for Social Security in 2011." This is not true. The tax cut was fully offset by money from general revenue so that the trust fund was unaffected by the tax cut.

[Luminous Animal]

143. Which has nothing to do with the main point of the OP no matter how often you like

to pretend it does.

[chill_wind]

144. He opposes it, all said and done.

The Payroll Tax Cut: A Stimulus That Progressives Should Oppose

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/the-payroll-tax-cut-a-stimulus-that-progressives-should-oppose

[sabrina 1]

129. Are you serious?? This was THEIR idea to begin with!

In case you didn't get it. YESSS! They will propose a new bill extending the payroll tax holiday! I can't believe you even asked that question!

And in that bill, they will increase the amount. And I'm willing to bet on that.

[ProSense]

130. Hmmm?

"Are you serious??"

"In case you didn't get it. YESSS! They will propose a new bill extending the payroll tax holiday! I can't believe you even asked that question!

And in that bill, they will increase the amount. And I'm willing to bet on that."

Are you?

GOP Reps. Dismiss Tax Cut For Working Americans In Favor Of Giveaways To Corporations

The overly dramatic presentation is interesting though!

[sabrina 1]

132. Your blindness to Republican strategy is interesting.

Of course they pretend to be dismissive. That is what they always do, just to show that it is NOT ENOUGH. Which is why it should never have been offered. Watch what they do next, and I will remember your complete faith in the word of Republicans when it comes bargaining with democrats.

[ProSense]

135. Well

"Of course they pretend to be dismissive."

...that's actually hilarious.

Republicans have been gunning for Social Security for decades. They don't need a excuse to attack it. Bush's privatization scheme and Ryan's plan came before the tax holiday.

Republicans aren't interested in a payroll tax holiday, they're interested in dismantling and privatizing Medicare and Social Security.

To claim that a payroll tax holiday give them impetus for this is nonsense.

[sabrina 1]

149. Boehner and Cantor are supporting it.

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), by contrast, have begun to open the door to compromise with Obama on the issue.

The teabaggers haven't figured out yet that it was a Republican idea to begin with. It is the leadership that counts.

This is being used as a political football. What is interesting is that some more moderate REpublicans are worried about SS and it may be that this 'game' could backfire. If a Republican presidential candidate is smart and takes the lead from the more moderate Republicans who are saying that Obama is attacking SS, that would be a huge campaign issue just handed to a Republican and would attract voters across political party lines.

But like I said, this is a Republican idea, although even they only proposed it for one month in 2001. They did propose it again in later years.

Senate Republicans propose payroll tax holiday

Senate Republicans are proposing a month-long Social Security payroll tax holiday as part of a $100 billion economic stimulus package compromise.

The measure, authored by Sen. Pete Domenici, R-New Mexico, would eliminate the 12.4 percent Social Security payroll tax for one month. According to Domenici, the tax holiday would help both business and individuals because employers and employees each pay half, or 6.2 percent, of the tax.

"This is one way to have an effect on the economy next month that would help during the Christmas season and that would help the employees, lower income, middle income, upper income and employers," said Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi.

Was it a good idea then?

[creeksneakers2]

198. Where did it go then? One month?

The Republicans held both houses and the executive branch and cut lots of taxes, but not SS. They want to tax people at the bottom.

[TheKentuckian]

57. Because if you do not have any additional revenue, taking it from the general fund

means the same money dollar for dollar must be cut from elsewhere or must add to the debt for which there are no revenue streams so that eventually and even larger amount must be cut from elsewhere to account for the service on the debt.

You are creating a situation where we will have to pay for our Social Security twice to get it and worse are politically setting up another battle to increase taxes when we have yet to form the resolve to end Bush's insanely stupid cuts that we've been running on for years on end.

I don't agree with any payroll tax holidays no matter who else of prominence might, it is a bad idea turn horrible in this environment.
If you want more money in the people's hands that will spend it then give them money from the general fund and give it to them directly instead of setting up conditions that still benefit mostly higher earners up to the cap. Those that need it most, get the least back and those least likely to spend get the most.

You could as easily "borrow" from out year military expenditures but it starts to matter where money comes from then.
This is just going to make it ever more difficult to restore the funding and sets a precedent that means this is an appropriate tool in the future except some future fuck will forget the paying back portion.

This is our motherfucking retirement, I'm not interested in cute little games and crossing my fingers.

[ProSense]

61. This

"You are creating a situation where we will have to pay for our Social Security twice to get it and worse are politically setting up another battle to increase taxes when we have yet to form the resolve to end Bush's insanely stupid cuts that we've been running on for years on end."

...makes no sense!

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[Enthusiast]

101. I like this!

"This is our motherfucking retirement, I'm not interested in cute little games and crossing my fingers."

[Faryn Balyncd]

53. Your own links show Kuttner advocated a TEMPORARY 6 MONTH holiday (We have ALREADY had 12 months) &

...your second link showed Roubini advocated a TEMPORARY 2 year reduction.


But the White House's own "Fact Sheet" does NOT portray the 50% cut temporary at all. It says:

"Cutting the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses: The President’s plan will cut in half the taxes paid by businesses on their first $5 million in payroll, targeting the benefit to the 98 percent of firms that have payroll below this threshold."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/08/fact-sheet-american-jobs-act

So it would appear that the President is proposing a PERMANENT payroll tax cut of 50% for 98% of businesses. With NO EXPIRATION DATE at all.

The only thing the White House "Fact Sheet" portrays as "temporary" is the 100% "holiday" for new workers:

"A complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages: The President’s plan will completely eliminate payroll taxes for firms that increase their payroll by adding new workers or increasing the wages of their current worker (the benefit is capped at the first $50 million in payroll increases)."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/08/fact-sheet-american-jobs-act

And if the White House "Fact Sheet" incorrectly portrayed the 50% cut as permanent (that is, if the bill actually does call for the cut to expire at some unspecified date, contrary to the portrayal in the "Fact Sheet") does anyone think it will be allowed to expire by either the Republican Congress or Obama?



The bottom line is that NEITHER of your two sources (Kuttner or Roubini) advocated what is currently being proposed by the president. One advocated a 6 month "holiday", which we have already exceeded. The other advocated a temporary 2 year cut, while the president appears to be proposing a PERMANENT cut, or at the least a de facto permanent cut.



Do you have information which contradicts this?

Do you have information that the "American Jobs Act" does NOT propose PERMANENT payroll tax cuts?

Do you have information that either Kuttner or Roubini advocate a PERMANENT payroll tax cut?

Do you have an argument that Republicans would not use the fiscal destruction of Social Security as a reason to slash benefits?

Do you have facts to offer that say that the transformation of Social Security into a minmal benefit welfare system would not destroy the broad-based public support for Social Security that has sustained the program?

[sabrina 1]

56. 1000% n/t

[ProSense]

59. Hmmm?

"Your own links show Kuttner advocated a TEMPORARY 6 MONTH holiday (We have ALREADY had 12 months)"

So you approve of weakening it for six months?



"...your second link showed Roubini advocated a TEMPORARY 2 year reduction."

...and two years?


"So it would appear that the President is proposing a PERMANENT payroll tax cut of 50% for 98% of businesses. With NO EXPIRATION DATE at all."

....while being disingenous?


From the WH Fact Sheet: "Cutting employee payroll taxes in half in 2012"

It's a one-year extension.

[Faryn Balyncd]

80. Do you have any information in which the bill itself, OR the White House says the cut is limited to

....one year?

That is not at all clear from either of the "Fact Sheets", which are ambiguous at best. As per the "Fact Sheet" noted in post #53, the cut is NOT referred to as either temporary or limited to one year. It simply states "Cutting the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses: The President’s plan will cut in half the taxes paid by businesses on their first $5 million in payroll, targeting the benefit to the 98 percent of firms that have payroll below this threshold." (listing this as the first thing the act will do, and then goes on to list a "holiday" (presumably temporary) for 100% payroll tax on new workers.

Nor is that claim made in the "Fact Sheet" you linked to in post #59. This has a listing of various numbers at the bottom, but does NOT title the list. Whatever it is, it is definitely NOT a listing of the costs of the plan, as the listed items total $.447 bn, but is followed by a statement "Proposal has a gross cost of $10bn, but a net deficit reducing impact of $18bn because of spectrum auction proceeds."

In addition, the list includes only the cost of employee payroll taxes for 2012 ($.175 bn, listed under "More Money in the Pockets of Every American Worker and Family"), but nowhere does it include the corresponding $.175 bn cost of the employer payroll tax cut for 2012.

The figures listed in the press release as a "Fact Sheet" are quite problematic to reconcile with known statistics: In the first place, it lists the costs of the employee portion of the 50% reduction in payroll taxes as $.175 billion, which is $175 million. This figure is clearly incorrect. A figure of $175 billion is at least in the ballpark (The 2010 Report of the Trustees of the SS Trust Fund showed 2010 total payroll tax receipts of $819.3 billion). However, the "total" of $.447 billion (which must is apparently a typographical error when $447 billion was intended) in no way reconciles to the statement of the press release that "Proposal has a gross cost of $10bn, but a net deficit reducing impact of $18bn because of spectrum auction proceeds."

These "Fact Sheet" press releases appear to have been put together by someone with little regard, or comprehension of, the figures used, and attempts to decipher, or make sense of them, is speculative at best.

But the worst part of the "Fact Sheets" is that NOWHERE do they clearly state whether the 50% "cut" (which is NOT referred to as a "holiday" is limited to 2012, or whether it is permanent. (Both a temporary or a permanent cut would result is "money in the pocket" in 2012.)

Were these press release intentionally ambiguous? or simply the result of incompetence? Who knows?




In any event, why have you made no attempt to answer the very relevant question in post #53:

"And if the White House "Fact Sheet" incorrectly portrayed the 50% cut as permanent (that is, if the bill actually does call for the cut to expire at some unspecified date, contrary to the portrayal in the "Fact Sheet") does anyone think it will be allowed to expire by either the Republican Congress or Obama?"

And why have you similarly ignored the other 5 questions:

"The bottom line is that NEITHER of your two sources (Kuttner or Roubini) advocated what is currently being proposed by the president. One advocated a 6 month "holiday", which we have already exceeded. The other advocated a temporary 2 year cut, while the president appears to be proposing a PERMANENT cut, or at the least a de facto permanent cut.



Do you have information which contradicts this?

Do you have information that the "American Jobs Act" does NOT propose PERMANENT payroll tax cuts?

Do you have information that either Kuttner or Roubini advocate a PERMANENT payroll tax cut?

Do you have an argument that Republicans would not use the fiscal destruction of Social Security as a reason to slash benefits?

Do you have facts to offer that say that the transformation of Social Security into a minimal benefit welfare system would not destroy the broad-based public support for Social Security that has sustained the program?"

:hi:





(The answer to your question of if I "support a weakening (of SS) for 6 months", or if I "support a weakening (of SS) for 2 years" is, of course, "No" and "No". Kuttner and Roubini were brought in to the discussion by you, and in a way that implied that they would support the present proposal, which implication is not supported by the links you gave. Perhaps they support a permanent defunding of Social Security (I have no idea of their current position), but why have you not addressed the questions? And why have you responded as if they are my sources, rather than yours?)

[ProSense]

84. It's

"Do you have any information in which the bill itself, OR the White House says the cut is limited to...one year?"

...one year. Are you saying your entire premise is based on a permanent tax holiday?

[Faryn Balyncd]

108. Of course not...

If the proposal to cut the taxes that are the source of Social Security is, in fact, "temporary", it is still a horrible idea:
- - - First, it will further cement a atrocious precedent, and it will be difficult to reverse
- - - If the goal is to put money in the hands of employees, virtually any alternative way to do so (such as a refundable tax credit, or a rebate, timed in any way felt desirable, would be superior to cutting the tax that has created Social Security's fiscal stability.
- - - Similarly, if the goal is to stimulate business by cutting taxes, virtually any alternative method (an example would again be a tax creditor rebate, also timed in any way felt most desirable) would be superior to setting the stage for the defunding of Social Security. Moreover, a refundable income tax credit or rebate would be more flexible, and could thus be structured to have a more stimulatory effect as compared to a less flexible payroll tax cut.



I don't believe I even mentioned the fact that the White House "Fact Sheets" portray the 50% cut as simply a "cut" (without ever specifically stating that it is temporary, or would expire at any specific time) in the original post.

It is quite obvious that the premise is in no way "based on a permanent tax holiday"

It is similarly quite clear that any "temporary" cut would be difficult to reverse, and that a permanent cut would be that much worse.




Why or earth do you insist on both trying to misrepresent what I have stated (a la "Are you saying your entire premise is based on a permanent tax holiday?"), and ignoring the relevant questions?





:hi:

[kentuck]

115. Well said.

I am amazed that people simply refuse to see the cause and effect of this idea.

[creeksneakers2]

199. The Republicans absolutely refuse to go along with rebates

They claim they are welfare. Any tax cuts Obama proposes would have to pass the house, so rebates are out of the question.

[Enthusiast]

103. It is a direct assault on social security.

Wake up people!

[Jakes Progress]

106. Cute selected quotes.

But how do you feel about the payroll tax holiday? Do you think it is good? Do you think it will have no affect on SS?

And the expiring tax cuts should have expired by now. The rich didn't deserve them under bush, and they don't under Obama. The elimination of those cuts seem to be used as an sort of magic switch so that we can go ahead with the looting of the SS coffers. The two should not be linked. That wasn't mentioned last year when the administration said they should be lifted. Now they seem to be trotted out as a magic source of income. That money was already draining the federal income levels and the payroll cut will do the same. If you use those moneys to replace the payroll tax cuts, what will you do for the money to fill in the holes the original bush tax cuts left. You know, those holes that make it necessary for us allow a secret board to cut more and more.

This is a scam.

[lordsummerisle]

47. k&r n/t

[Bluebear]

49. Keep this kicked

[leftstreet]

50. K&R

[madrchsod]

51. "it`s all right, ma ( i`m only bleeding)"

[woo me with science]

54. Thank you for exposing this bipartisan scam. Wake up, America.

We need to stop this.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[BzaDem]

63. This is absolute nonsense. The popularity of Social Security comes from the fact that it is a

universal program. That has not changed with the payroll tax cut. The popularity does not depend on the fact that 83% of the payroll tax is currently being collected rather than 100%. I highly doubt more than a few percent of the country is even aware of the mechanics of the funding mechanims, which is probably why Social Security remains extremely popular despite last year's payroll tax cut.

[kentuck]

69. If that is the case?

Then why did they create the FICA taxes in the first place? Why did they not simply fund it out of the general fund? Can you answer that?

[BzaDem]

175. It was done that way to get it passed 75 years ago. That doesn't mean a slight temporary change that

would help the economy wouldn't be a good idea right now.

If you still don't believe this, just look at Medicare. The benefits the average person gets from Medicare VASTLY exceed the amount they paid into Medicare (often multiple times as much). Yet Medicare is still just as popular as Social Security if not more so.

What does this show? It shows that the popularity of a program is derived from the fact that it is universal -- NOT from funding nuances that very few people understand or have any reason to understand.

[kentuck]

186. Sorry...Republicans do not love Social Security.

They have wanted to destroy it since it was created. So what do you mean by universal? How old are you? I think you are delusional.

[BzaDem]

221. What do I mean by universal? Is it that hard to understand?

Everyone gets Social Security benefits when they reach the required age.

Where did I say that Republicans love Social Security? I have said over and over again that they want to destroy the program.

[bvar22]

72. That statement is beyond bizarre.

You admit that Social Security is taking in LESS money,
but them claim that this loss in funding make no difference? :shrug:

That is Tortured Logic,
and I oppose torture no matter WHO does it.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone

photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed
You will KNOW them by their Free Trade & Payroll Tax Cuts.




Solidarity!



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Enthusiast]

105. "You will KNOW them by their Free Trade & Payroll Tax Cuts."

Right on!

[BzaDem]

171. There is NO LOSS IN FUNDING. The trust fund has every single dime it would have if there were no

payroll tax cut. Every penny is reimbursed. This should not be that difficult to understand.

[Ken Burch]

110. Then again, as your posts have shown, if Obama came out for ABOLISHING Social Security and Medicare

you would back him on it.

[BzaDem]

172. Have you considered the possibility that people back Obama because they are farmiliar with how our

government works and judge most of his actions to be reasonable (if not the most reasonable) given the circumstances?

[sabrina 1]

116. The President said he wants to 'strengthen SS'.

How on earth is cutting what funds it, 'strengthening it'?? I know the Republicans will love this, but Democrats?

Why did he not add a counter to this, even if it was necessary to get Republican votes, by eliminating the Cap?

There really is no way to rationalize cutting what funds a program IF at the same time you are claiming you want to 'strengthen it'. Explain that to me. Maybe I am just stupid, as they appear to think we are.

[Bluebear]

179. Crickets

[BzaDem]

180. He is NOT cutting ONE PENNY that funds it. He is simply temporarily changing the SOURCE

of the funding.

[sabrina 1]

211. It didn't need changing. And why are these programs even part

of the debt/deficit discussion in the first place? They did not create it, cause it, contribute to it, and this should be made clear by a Democratic President to the public.

We the people own that fund. The corruption on Wall St. has helped create the debt, and we the people are among the creditors. Why are we being treated as if we were the cause of the Fed. Govt's problems??

Did the president speak about the actual causes of the economic crisis we are experiencing? Did he talk about investigations, as recommended after the completion of the two year study done by Sen. Levin's bi-partisan Committee to find out who is responsible for what they called, criminal activity and corruption, or to find out where our money went??

Why is he tying SS to these crimes in any way? Why is he not insisting that the debt to SS must be paid, and must be paid by those who borrowed it, NOT by those who paid into it? Just like the debts to the Fed. Govt's other creditors?

I am sick of hearing SS/Medicare and medicaid being mentioned every time the Economic crisis is brought up. And I have no doubt anymore, that this is what Naomi Klein meant by shock and awe. A crisis being used to do things the public would never accept under normal circumstances. And it is shameful that Democrats would even think of participating in it rather than refuse to even mention SS other than as a creditor of the Fed. Govt. No amount of excuses can change these facts.

[kentuck]

217. Why change the source??

Why not just give the tax break from general revenue? Then you only have to pay back the general revenue fund. Now, you have to pay back the Social Security fund and the general revenue fund. Unless, of course, you have no intention of paying back the SS fund, which would then be a cut in Social Security? Explain it to me if it is otherwise.

[BzaDem]

222. It essentially IS a tax break from general revenue.

The bill says we will lower the amount coming into the trust fund from payroll taxes by X, and transfer X (immediately, in the law right now, has been going on for months) from general revenue directly to the trust fund. In the end, the trust fund balance is equal (penny for penny) to what it would be without the tax cut.

That is identical to a tax cut from general revenue.

Think about it this way. If I give you 5 dollars, and then you give it to Ann, and then Ann gives it to Charlie, that is mathematically equivalent to me giving it directly to Charlie.

The only reason it is called a "payroll tax cut" rather than a "general revenue check written out to exactly the same people that pay payroll taxes" is because everyone pays payroll taxes. Therefore, by changing the payroll tax rate temporarily, we can give a tax cut to everyone.

If there was a "general revenue tax" everyone paid that we could easily cut, then I'm sure we would do so. But there is no such tax. There is the income tax, but a large portion of the non-rich do not make enough income after deductions to pay any income tax. So there is nothing to cut for them. By cutting the payroll tax, even people who don't make enough to pay any income tax can still get money.

Now, in theory, we could just write checks to people who don't pay income taxes but pay payroll taxes. This was actually what Obama did in the original stimulus ("Making Work Pay" tax credit). But the Republicans wouldn't accept an extension of that. They would only agree to the somewhat-more-regressive payroll tax cut. But the payroll tax cut is still FAR better for the economy (and the non-rich) than nothing.

[democracy1st]

71. K & R

[DesertFlower]

73. K&R. nt

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[kenny blankenship]

77. How many different ways does he have to tell us?

[customerserviceguy]

88. Very well stated

I seemed to notice a lack of understanding of this situation on the night that the President spoke. It is absolutely essential that the so-called "payroll tax holiday" come to it's end at the end of 2011.

I can tell you this, if this cockamamie scheme passes, I'm going to stick 100% of my tax savings into my 401K, because I'm sure as hell going to need it when I hit 67.

[OwnedByFerrets]

90. Fuckin A

[amborin]

94. K&R Yes, and for 1st time, as others have said, ties Soc Sec to the "deficit" whereas previously

it was not in ANY way tied to it

[MissDeeds]

98. K&R #90

Thanks for this, Faryn Balyncd.

:kick:

[ibegurpard]

100. #91

[hulka38]

107. Thanks.

I always like reading the truth.

[Rosco T.]

113. You REALLY don't know what you're talking about... SOCIAL SECURITY WILL NOT BE TOUCHED.

.. it's stated clearly in the bill that the shortfall in SocSec collections will be made up from the treasury... SOCIAL SECURITY WILL NOT BE TOUCHED.

[sabrina 1]

120. Why should SS be funded by the Treasury when it has its own

separate fund? Explain why this is a good thing, because I can't see it. I am serious, I really don't get the reasoning and it is very possible I just don't understand it, and would appreciate someone explaining it to me. I would like to think this is a positive thing. But how is cutting what funds SS a positive thing?

[bvar22]

121. And THAT is the Fiendishly Clever Plan for destroying Social Security.

Due to the Payroll Tax Holiday, funding for Social Security is NOW directly tied to The Deficit.

Congratulations!
That is another Nail in the Coffin.

Why go to all that trouble?
Why cut the Payroll Tax and then cover the loss of funding from the General Fund.
Why not avoid all that complexity and accounting, and simply send everybody a check from the General Fund?
Bush-the-Lesser did that, so there IS a precedent.

There was NO precedent for connecting Social Security to the Deficit BEFORE the Payroll Tax Holiday.
Social Security was completely independent, and running a surplus.
IMO, connecting Social Security TO the Deficit was the ultimate goal.
NOW, when Republicans scream "We can't afford it",
they are telling the TRUTH.
Clever, Eh?


Do you see a viable avenue for ending the "temporary" Payroll Tax Holiday?
Do you really believe that the "Centrist" Dems or their friends, The Republicans, are going to "Raise Taxes" when the Holiday expires?
That ain't gonna happen.
This de-funding of Social security is PERMANENT.

What will it take to WAKE THE FUCK UP???
This IS a Direct Attack on Social Security.
If you are in the Lower 98% who work for a living,
This WILL Hurt YOU and YOUR CHILDREN.

Thank You, President Obama and the "Centrist" Democrats!


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Laelth]

118. Hear, hear! k&r n/t

-Laelth

[Octafish]

122. Outstanding analysis, Faryn Balyncd.

The, ah, team is playing it by the budget battle book. As night follows day, once the cuts result in red ink, they will say: "See. We told ya it was insolvent. So, no more Social Security for you."

[Major Hogwash]

125. Complete garbage analysis.

There is only so much the President can do, but saying he is destroying Social Security is fearmongering that is totally over the top!!

[TBF]

136. Excellent OP. nt

[hay rick]

137. K&R

[defendandprotect]

138. We have to discuss what to do about Obama and the Dems ... the destruction is obvious to all ..!!

[Karmadillo]

139. Why is Obama proposing payroll tax cuts that further a right wing objective?

nt

[a2liberal]

140. K&R (n/t)

[Autumn]

141. K/R

This has to be stopped.

[Turbineguy]

142. I think the way the math works

is that with an improved economy the interest rates would go up. That would mean an increase in income on $2.6 trillion that would more than offset the cost. The cost would be offset by a mere 0.67% increase in the interest rate. Also, to let things go deeper will cost more in reduced contributions as more people become unemployed.

This is a way of putting money in people pockets that can pass congress because it can be called "lower taxes" and that's the way most people will see it. It also injects money slowly instead of a quick bump.

[Norrin Radd]

145. kr

[mmonk]

146. Recommended.

[lucca18]

150. I never thought I would have to worry about this.

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are not the problem.
We give tax breaks for the rich that adds to our deficit, which doesn't make sense.

[elleng]

151. It does NOT dismantle,

and it is this type of meme which seriously undermines our future.

:thumbsdown:

[inna]

193. perhaps it doesn't outright dismantle, but it is a poison pill -

which does seriously undermine our future, no kidding about that.


:thumbsdown: yourself.

[Kermitt Gribble]

152. Thanks for the great post, Faryn Balyncd! K&R n/t

[ooglymoogly]

156. Kr because our predatory government is, as usual, lying through its teeth...no text

[McCamy Taylor]

158. Where do you guys get this stuff?

Please tell me when Obama starts eating babies, ok?

[demgrrrll]

163. I know isn't this amazing! Buncha haters

[Bluebear]

167. "haters".... What are you, 15?

[inna]

203. I realize how busy you are, but it's all in the public domain; there is really no excuse

for denial/willful ignorance/blanket accusations. "Eating babies" - :wtf: You really are better than this.

[ProSense]

168. Memo To Gretchen Carlson: Economists Say Cutting Payroll Tax Would Boost Employment, Economy

Memo To Gretchen Carlson: Economists Say Cutting Payroll Tax Would Boost Employment, Economy

Good read!


More good reads:

American Jobs Act: A Significant Boost to GDP and Employment

Obama’s Plan: Robust and Ambitious

How Would the President’s Jobs Proposal Affect the Economy?

[kentuck]

187. So, if it boosts unemployment and the economy, then it is OK?

Even if it begins to dismantle SS? What happens if the Repubs are in charge of everything and they refuse to renew the FICA taxes on employers or employees because it is "helping" the economy? What happens then? In their spirit of cutting the budget, they will cut the defense budget and put it in the Social Security fund? Something doesn't make sense with your rationalizations.

[ProSense]

191. "Even if it begins to dismantle SS? "

That's a lie, remember?

[kentuck]

194. I think your link has been discredited several times...

Why do you keep posting it??

[ProSense]

195. "Discredited"?

Dean Baker didn't actually write that?

[kentuck]

197. Here

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/the-payroll-tax-cut-a-stimulus-that-progressives-should-oppose

[ProSense]

201. Here:

The point is whether or not he believes the deal dismantles Social Security, and he does not. From the link:

<...>

In principle, this would be a reasonable form of stimulus. The distribution of the tax cut is relatively progressive, albeit not as progressive as the Making Work Pay tax credit that it replaced. It gives workers a tax break equal to 2 percent of their wages up to the payroll cap of roughly $108,000. This means that the tax break going to Wall Street types will be no larger than what a senior firefighter might get.

Since most of the money will go to middle-income and low-income people, it is likely that a large portion will be spent. This makes it much better stimulus on a per-dollar basis than the extension of the Bush tax cuts.

However, there is a serious political problem with tying the tax cut to Social Security. While the deal is that the trust fund will be unaffected by the tax cut, the question is what happens when the extension ends. Several Republicans in Congress have already publicly said that they would oppose restoring the payroll tax to its former level, since that would be a tax increase. And increasing taxes is the most deadly sin for many Republicans.

This raises the possibility that Republicans will try to keep the lower Social Security tax rate in place indefinitely. If there was a commitment to permanently replace the program’s shortfall with general revenue, the loss of the payroll tax revenue would not matter. However, there is no such commitment.

<...>

Baker acknowledges that "the trust fund will be unaffected by the tax cut."

He sees a "serious political problem," a hypothetical about what the Republicans might try to do. After Bush's attempts to privatize Social Security, Ryan's plan and "Cut, Cap and Balance," it's evident Republicans will try to dismantle Social Security. They are going to try to do it any way.

While Baker is concerned about a political consequence, he admits the payroll tax cut is "stimulus," its distribution "relatively progressive," and that its benefits mostly middle-income and low-income Americans.

He continues to emphasize:

"The NYT wrongly told readers that the payroll tax cut cost Social Security, "resulted in $67.2 billion of lost revenue for Social Security in 2011." This is not true. The tax cut was fully offset by money from general revenue so that the trust fund was unaffected by the tax cut."

[kentuck]

204. I don't think you would want to use that to prove your point?

Granted, the tax cut is rather progressive and stimulative but what are the concerns?

What happens when the taxcuts end? You say "it's evident Republicans will try to dismantle Social Security. They are going to try to do it any way." Those are your words, correct? Those are not Baker's words?

Also, Baker says, "This raises the possibility that Republicans will try to keep the lower Social Security tax rate in place indefinitely. If there was a commitment to permanently replace the program’s shortfall with general revenue, the loss of the payroll tax revenue would not matter. However, there is no such commitment."

Does that not concern you at all??

[ProSense]

207. Well,

"Granted, the tax cut is rather progressive and stimulative but what are the concerns? "

...being concerned about what Republicans might do is not a good reason to reject stimulus.

As I said: After Bush's attempts to privatize Social Security, Ryan's plan and "Cut, Cap and Balance," it's evident Republicans will try to dismantle Social Security. They are going to try to do it any way.

[DallasNE]

169. Tough Call

There are pluses and minuses to this part of the proposal. It does quickly put more money in the hands of workers and small businesses, but at what cost. The manager making $99,000 will get 3 times the tax break of his staff earning $33,000. Plus the stimulus bang is muted because the increased consumer spending will be on imported goods, helping China a lot more than it helps America. It will help transportation and retail business but not much else. It also changes the fix for Social Security from something minor to something more pressing.

The solution is public financing of federal elections. Not having that in place has led to bad trade agreemennts written by lobbyists looking for ever cheaper labor, which means imports. Citizens United has compounded the problem greatly as well. The hole is deep but it can be filled in and that process needs to start now.

[mdmc]

182. r

[kentuck]

189. My question is: Why would he even go there??

It doesn't make sense. Was that the only option left? Why take money out of the Social Security fund to give to workers and employers and then borrow the money from the general fund? Why not just borrow the money from the general fund and give it to the employers and the employees in the form of a tax break or cash payment? Why is the SS fund involved at all? It's like they are borrowing it twice?? From the SS fund and from the general fund. It doesn't add up for me?

[creeksneakers2]

200. The Republicans won't go along with that

That's what Obama initially had with his $400 credit. The GOP refused to renew it. Since a cut in income tax rates won't benefit those at the bottom, because they pay no income taxes now, the only way to get money to them is to cut SS, which people at the bottom pay.

[kentuck]

205. So, you admit it is a cut in Social Security?

Obama is cutting Social Security?

[creeksneakers2]

213. I meant SS taxes

[kentuck]

215. So a cut in SS taxes is not a cut in SS ??

Don't kid yourself.

[creeksneakers2]

220. They are separate issues

[William769]

190. K&R.

[LWolf]

208. k&r

[Bluebear]

223. Kick

[lonestarnot]

225. Never to late to recommend!

:kick:

[Art_from_Ark]

226. Too late to recommend this officially

So I will recommend it unofficially :)

[yurbud]

227. there is one way to turn this steaming turd to gold:

use the rate cut as an excuse to lift or even do away with the cap.

Hell, the rate could be cut even further if it was applied to investment income too, and you know some of the people who live off that shit are going to lose their shorts.