Obama Hits Social Security In Fiscal Cliff Offer Friendlier To The Wealthy

Oh, I dunno - maybe the census projection of a doubling of the population age 65 and over by 2060. Maybe that population increase.

Learn what exponential means.

Next learn that those projections have varied widely just in the last several years as the birth rates have slowed in the US.

Our population will expand via immigration, it is not currently pacing to even maintain current levels based on birth rate.

Saying it will have exponential growth is false. A doubling in 50 years is about 1.4% growth per year.
 
This is more or less a cherrypick. The CBO has SS going up as a % of our GDP by almost 3% in the next 30 years.

Bullshit. The CBO has SS going up by less than 2% of GDP over the next 75 years.


They also write the following:

"Another commonly used measure of the program’s sustainability
is the trust funds’ exhaustion date, which CBO
projects will be 2039 under the extended-baseline scenario
and 2037 under the alternative fiscal scenario.8
Once the trust funds are depleted, the Social Security
Administration would no longer have legal authority to
pay benefits. In the years following the exhaustion of the
trust funds, annual outlays would therefore be limited to
annual revenues. As a result, the benefits that can be paid
under current law are substantially lower than the benefits
that are scheduled to be paid"

And in reality not much is required to fix that.
 
The payroll tax cut is offset by transfers from the general fund.
I didn't open your link, but I'll take your word for it. If what you say is true, then allowing the tax cut to expire is not only important, it's necessary.

If a person making $25k/yr. can't afford to pay $500 toward his SS/Medicare, then he's in a lot more trouble than anything $10/wk will fix. It adds 4% back into the SS coffers, and takes SS off the general fund.

It was a temporary stimulus, which did nothing to create jobs. $10/wk wasn't meant to stimulate the economy....the employer side savings was supposed to miraculously make employers want to hire.

Nonsense, if you ask me. Obama can negotiate a 2% reduction in marginal rates for the low income demographic.
 
I didn't open your link, but I'll take your word for it. If what you say is true, then allowing the tax cut to expire is not only important, it's necessary.

If a person making $25k/yr. can't afford to pay $500 toward his SS/Medicare, then he's in a lot more trouble than anything $10/wk will fix. It adds 4% back into the SS coffers, and takes SS off the general fund.

It was a temporary stimulus, which did nothing to create jobs. $10/wk wasn't meant to stimulate the economy....the employer side savings was supposed to miraculously make employers want to hire.

Nonsense, if you ask me. Obama can negotiate a 2% reduction in marginal rates for the low income demographic.


It's not a matter of what people can or can't afford. It's a matter of money remaining in the economy (and being spent to stimulate demand) as opposed to being collected as taxes.

And, again, I don't think you're being candid about how the payroll tax cut was intended to stimulate the economy.
 
It's not a matter of what people can or can't afford. It's a matter of money remaining in the economy (and being spent to stimulate demand) as opposed to being collected as taxes.

And, again, I don't think you're being candid about how the payroll tax cut was intended to stimulate the economy.
It's about the deficit. SS was never an issue w/respect to the deficit. Now it is. You don't remember the sales pitch for this cut? It was nonsense then, and it's nonsense now.

SS ought to stay separate from other budget issues.


In his speech on Thursday night, Mr. Obama asked Congress to cut the amount that workers must contribute toward Social Security benefits, extending an existing measure, and to reduce, for the first time, the matching payments that employers are required to make. The cuts, which would deprive the government of about $240 billion in revenues next year, are the largest items in the president’s $447 billion job-creation plan, which includes payments to unemployed workers, incentives for companies that hire workers and increased federal spending on infrastructure. All of the measures will require the support of Congressional Republicans

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/us/politics/09tax.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 
The next generation is who is paying for you SS and Medicare right now, you greedy liberal asshole.
You don't mind spending their money though...

Everyone who has payroll deductions is paying into their SS and Medicare and have been. I worked from the time I was 13, till I was 52 and paid Into my plan.

So, who is paying for your SS and Medicare?
 
It's about the deficit. SS was never an issue w/respect to the deficit. Now it is. You don't remember the sales pitch for this cut? It was nonsense then, and it's nonsense now.

SS ought to stay separate from other budget issues.

This is the very next paragraph in the article that you quote:

Cutting taxes is a time-honored strategy for stimulating growth. The formula is simple: Workers will spend more money when their paychecks grow, and companies will respond to that increased demand by hiring more workers, creating a cycle that increases the pace of growth.


And I agree that SS ought to stay separate from other budget issues, but I don't see what in the world that has to do with the payroll tax cut.
 
The payroll taxcut was only 2%, and it was the FICA withholding. That should end, as SS needs that money. SS has nothing to do with the deficit.

Most workers can afford to pay $20. into FICA for every $1000 they earn. That was a stupid taxcut anyway. It did nothing but take more money from SS.

Oh now you bitch about it, but during the campaign when Obuttfuck was running around with his $2000 tax increase bullshit, you were as quiet as a church mouse.

What is funny is that all of the douchebags who voted for Ofuckfacebama thinking thier taxes wouldn't go up while only the rich would are in for a rude awakening com January. And I say fuck em. They deserve it
 
Oh now you bitch about it, but during the campaign when Obuttfuck was running around with his $2000 tax increase bullshit, you were as quiet as a church mouse.

What is funny is that all of the douchebags who voted for Ofuckfacebama thinking thier taxes wouldn't go up while only the rich would are in for a rude awakening com January. And I say fuck em. They deserve it
The increase you reference has nothing to do with the FICA tax cut. It has to do with marginal rates going up.
 
This is the very next paragraph in the article that you quote:
A 2% tax cut doesn't stimulate the economy. The employer end was billed as an incentive for hiring. It was nonsense.







And I agree that SS ought to stay separate from other budget issues, but I don't see what in the world that has to do with the payroll tax cut.
You offered a link that shows that the 4% shortfall in FICA taxes would be covered by the general fund. How can you not see how it's related to the FICA cut?
 
Last edited:
I've done the math, and so has the CBO. It isn't pretty. People are in denial about SS.


God damn....I never realized our public school system produced such pinheaded idiots....but her she is....flappin' her ass cheeks....
 
This is the very next paragraph in the article that you quote:




And I agree that SS ought to stay separate from other budget issues, but I don't see what in the world that has to do with the payroll tax cut.


The payroll tax cut removes the SS income that is NEEDED to pay for the benefits fool....

If you want to cut taxes. to stimulate the economy, then cut taxes, INCOME TAXES, ....just like almost all Republican Presidents have been preaching about for decades....

The SS system....its income stream, should not be screwed with unless its to increase that income.....
 
......

. the 4% shortfall in FICA taxes would be covered by the general fund..

If that was the Obama/Democrat plan, its even more stupid than I first thought.....

the "tax cut" only affected the employed.....at a time that unemployment was at record highs....

retirees got shit
the unemployed got shit
the senors on a fixed SS income got shit

Then to take money from the 'general fund' to make up for the SS shortfall only added to the deficit and the debt....with borrowed money.......
Why this round about route.....why not take the money directly from the general fund and leave SS out the picture all together.

a stupid election gimmick that pinheads would fall for....
 
If that was the Obama/Democrat plan, its even more stupid than I first thought.....

the "tax cut" only affected the employed.....at a time that unemployment was at record highs....

retirees got shit
the unemployed got shit
the senors on a fixed SS income got shit

Then to take money from the 'general fund' to make up for the SS shortfall only added to the deficit and the debt....with borrowed money.......
Why this round about route.....why not take the money directly from the general fund and leave SS out the picture all together.

a stupid election gimmick that pinheads would fall for....
I'm not sure how they thought it would work. Although, the unemployed got an extension in the same deal.

Unless they thought the 2% employers saved would magically cause a hiring frenzy? If it had worked, the bump in the economy would bring tax revenue that could go back into the general fund?

The average worker got enough savings to buy 1 more pack of cigarettes/week. That's a drop in the bucket.
 
I'm not sure how they thought it would work. Although, the unemployed got an extension in the same deal.

Unless they thought the 2% employers saved would magically cause a hiring frenzy? If it had worked, the bump in the economy would bring tax revenue that could go back into the general fund?

The average worker got enough savings to buy 1 more pack of cigarettes/week. That's a drop in the bucket.

I hold out hope that maybe you are realizing these pinheads don't either don't know what they are doing or have other nefarious ideas.

Of course you opted to vote for Obuttface, so I am dubious

The real question to ask is this. Is it moral for an individual to have over 50% of their income take by state, local and federal governments?

But you claim there isn't a spending problem or debt problem and we can just print and borrow money.

You also claim that the gobblement finances can't be compared to that of a family's because the gobblement can print money. Well. Why is it illegal for me to print money? Why does the gobblement outlaw it?
 
I hold out hope that maybe you are realizing these pinheads don't either don't know what they are doing or have other nefarious ideas.

Of course you opted to vote for Obuttface, so I am dubious

The real question to ask is this. Is it moral for an individual to have over 50% of their income take by state, local and federal governments?

But you claim there isn't a spending problem or debt problem and we can just print and borrow money.

You also claim that the gobblement finances can't be compared to that of a family's because the gobblement can print money. Well. Why is it illegal for me to print money? Why does the gobblement outlaw it?
I'm probably the only member here without multiple accounts, so clearly you attribute claims to me that someone else made.
 
Why Democrats Must Break With Obama on Social Security Cuts

There are a lot of complicated ways in which to describe the schemes being floated by President Obama and congressional Republicans to abandon the traditional Consumer Price Index in favor of the so-called “chained-CPI” scheme. But there is nothing complicated about the reality that changing the calculations on which cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients are based has the potential to dramatically reduce the buying power of Americans who rely on this successful and stable federal program.

So the word for what is being proposed is “cut”—as in: President Obama and congressional Republicans are proposing to cut Social Security.

“This is a cut affecting every single beneficiary—widows, orphans, people with disabilities and many others. It is a cut which hurts the most those who are most vulnerable: the oldest of the old, those disabled at the youngest ages, and the poorest of the poor. Perhaps fittingly, this will be done during the holiday season, when the American people are distracted,” says Nancy Altman, the founding co-director of the advocacy group Social Security Works. “They will cut Social Security not openly but by stealth—through a cruel cut known colloquially as the chained CPI.”

This is what Democrats—and most Republicans—said during the recently finished campaign that they would never do.

If Obama cuts the deal, he will in the words of CREDO political director Becky Bond being engaging in a “massive betrayal” of his own campaign commitments, and of the voters who reelected him barely a month ago.

The question is whether the president’s backers will back the betrayal.

The only responsible response is to say “No!”

The American Association of Retired People has does just that, rejecting the “chained-CPI” scheme as a “dramatic benefit cut would push thousands more into poverty and result in increased economic hardship for those trying desperately to keep up with rising prices.”

In this case, AARP speaks not just for seniors but for the vast majority of voters. Sixty percent of voters say it is unacceptable to change the way Social Security benefits are calculated so that benefits increase with inflation at a slower rate than they do now, according to a new Washington Post/ABC News poll.

Needless to say, those numbers put congressional Democrats and progressive interest groups in a bind. They can look the other way as President Obama cuts a deal that cuts Social Security or they can do what the American people expect them to do: raise their voices in loud objection—so loud that the president has no choice except to keep his campaign promises. For congressional Democrats, the stakes are much higher than they are for Obama. The president is done with elections. But the Democratic Party must compete in elections to come, and the fight that is now playing out will define whether they do so as defenders of Social Security and a party that always on the watch for ways in which to compromise with House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan and other Republicans who salivate at the prospect of weakening and eventually privatizing Social Security.

more
http://www.thenation.com/blog/171840/why-democrats-must-break-obama-social-security-cuts#
 
God damn....I never realized our public school system produced such pinheaded idiots....but her she is....flappin' her ass cheeks....
Well hell all you'd have to do is look in a mirror to know that....oh shit...I forgot....you're a GED.....never mind.
 
Back
Top