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

[blackascoal]

"Obama won't touch Social Security"

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

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama, with his latest fiscal cliff offer, proposes extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone earning less than $400,000 a year, and paying for it by increasing taxes on the middle class and cutting Social Security and Medicare.

Obama's offer would allow the payroll tax holiday to expire, meaning middle class workers will see smaller paychecks in 2013. Economists have warned that the recovery is too fragile to risk a broad tax hike on workers. It would also gradually reduce Social Security, pension and Medicare benefits seniors are due to receive, taking a small bite up front, but building up to much larger cuts over time.

Obama's concession to Republicans is opposed by a majority of Americans, according to a HuffPost/YouGov poll. Fifty-two percent of survey respondents said the payroll tax cut should be extended to avoid raising taxes on the middle class, while 22 percent said that it should be allowed to expire to help pay down the debt. Extending the payroll tax cut received bipartisan support: 64 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of Republicans in the survey said they supported the extension.

MoveOn.org, the largest online progressive organization in Washington, reacted angrily Monday night to reports that Obama was softening. The group's quick reaction to a possible deal that has yet to be announced publicly shows there will be fierce opposition to cuts that hit Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid beneficiaries.

more
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/obama-social-security-fiscal-cliff_n_2319850.html

ONLY the braindead didn't know this was going to happen.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Cuts to SS are inevitable, and will only get worse. Even the most ardent supporters of SS anticipate a 25% cut in payouts by 2037.

It's time to address SS in a meaningful way, that ensures security for seniors - and by that, I mean privatization.

 

[gui1tars]

No deal has been settled and this so-called proposal by the President has not been verified by anyone. There will certainly be pain for the middle classes but none of us know the extent of it. This unverified report sounds like bullshit to me. We'll see.

 

[blackascoal]

No deal has been settled and this so-called proposal by the President has not been verified by anyone. There will certainly be pain for the middle classes but none of us know the extent of it. This unverified report sounds like bullshit to me. We'll see.

Personally, I don't care. My SS has already been fought for and secured. Whatever happens to the next generation is whatever happens.

If it ends for them, they didn't deserve it anyway.

Anyone who thinks Obama is not going to cut SS and Medicare don't deserve either.

SEE: Catfood Commission.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

In order for Obuttface to get what he wants, the economy has to tank

 

[Bonestorm]

The only good thing about Obama's offer is that it will not be accepted. Even people that advocate cutting benefits as a means of "fixing" Social Security generally don't advocate cutting benefits as the only method of doing so. Offering to do so without proposing to increase the cap on income subject to the tax is asininity of the highest order.

Call you Senators and Reps.

 

[Bonestorm]

Maybe the whole plan is to get the left wing of the Democratic party to reject it outright to let Boehner know he ain't getting a deal on his terms, but I doubt it.

 

[NOVA]

No deal has been settled and this so-called proposal by the President has not been verified by anyone. There will certainly be pain for the middle classes but none of us know the extent of it. This unverified report sounds like bullshit to me. We'll see.

This proposal isn't pain on th middle class...its pain on the elderly, retired, and poor.....homo.

 

[Althea]

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.

 

[Bonestorm]

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.

The payroll tax cut doesn't take any money away from SS. It was a smart tax cut intended to stimulate consumer spending in a soft economy and which benefited lots of people that don't earn a whole lot of money. Ending it is stupid in this economy, particularly where you agree to enact tax cuts for people earning between $200,000 and $400,000. Those people don't need any tax cuts.

 

[cawacko]

The payroll tax cut doesn't take any money away from SS. It was a smart tax cut intended to stimulate consumer spending in a soft economy and which benefited lots of people that don't earn a whole lot of money. Ending it is stupid in this economy, particularly where you agree to enact tax cuts for people earning between $200,000 and $400,000. Those people don't need any tax cuts.

Do you believe those earning between $200 & $400k aren't spending their money? Or do you believe those who earn far less spend their money in a more product way than do those who earn between the 2 and 400k ?

 

[Althea]

The payroll tax cut doesn't take any money away from SS. It was a smart tax cut intended to stimulate consumer spending in a soft economy and which benefited lots of people that don't earn a whole lot of money. Ending it is stupid in this economy, particularly where you agree to enact tax cuts for people earning between $200,000 and $400,000. Those people don't need any tax cuts.

It was a 4% cut in FICA payroll tax. 2% from the employee, and 2% from the matching funds the employer matches. It was fraudulently billed as a job stimulator because the employers would rush to hire new workers solely to save the 2% FICA tax.

How can it not take money from SS?

 

[Althea]

If they want to raise SS revenue, they should couple the removal of the payroll tax cut with an increase in the income threshold of the deduction.

 

[Bonestorm]

Do you believe those earning between $200 & $400k aren't spending their money? Or do you believe those who earn far less spend their money in a more product way than do those who earn between the 2 and 400k ?

First, let me correct a misstatement. Ending the payroll tax cut is stupid in this economy, particularly where you agree to enact tax cuts on wage income between $200,000 and $400,000.

Second, your question appears to assumes the only issue is the stimulative effect on the economy as opposed to addressing deficit concerns as well. As a matter of stimulus, yes, people earning less money are more likely to spend money that they would not otherwise receive (because it is taken through taxes) on goods and services than people earning higher incomes. People earning higher incomes are substantially more likely than lower income folks to pay down debt, save or invest additional income than lower income folks.

Third, from a deficit cutting perspective I think it's borderline criminal (hyperbole, folks) to cut Social Security benefits in the way that Obama proposed while giving tax breaks to people that don't need it.

 

[Bonestorm]

It was a 4% cut in FICA payroll tax. 2% from the employee, and 2% from the matching funds the employer matches. It was fraudulently billed as a job stimulator because the employers would rush to hire new workers solely to save the 2% FICA tax.

I don't think that was the selling point. The selling point was that people with more money to spend will spend more money, this stimulating demand.

How can it not take money from SS?

Because the foregone revenues are made up for through transfers from the general fund to SS.

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/protecting-the-trust-fund-a-key-component-of-the-payroll-tax-cut/

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Cuts to SS are inevitable, and will only get worse. Even the most ardent supporters of SS anticipate a 25% cut in payouts by 2037.

It's time to address SS in a meaningful way, that ensures security for seniors - and by that, I mean privatization.

They are not inevitable. While I certainly support privatization, they can also create the donut hole in taxation.

That said, the payroll tax cut was a fucking stupid thing to do as we now see the drawback... you have to eventually put it back in place to maintain solvency of SS long term.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

They are not inevitable. While I certainly support privatization, they can also create the donut hole in taxation.

That said, the payroll tax cut was a fucking stupid thing to do as we now see the drawback... you have to eventually put it back in place to maintain solvency of SS long term.

Some sort of cut is inevitable. Lifespans in the next 50 years will expand beyond what we now consider "normal", in a big way. Combined with exponential population increase, as well as cost of living increases, and SS is a wholly unsustainable program.

 

[Bonestorm]

Some sort of cut is inevitable. Lifespans in the next 50 years will expand beyond what we now consider "normal", in a big way. Combined with exponential population increase, as well as cost of living increases, and SS is a wholly unsustainable program.

This is just plain not true. Here are charts of projected long-term spending. Social Security isn't unsustainable at all (it's the part on the bottom that barely rises):

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

First, let me correct a misstatement. Ending the payroll tax cut is stupid in this economy, particularly where you agree to enact tax cuts on wage income between $200,000 and $400,000.

Second, your question appears to assumes the only issue is the stimulative effect on the economy as opposed to addressing deficit concerns as well. As a matter of stimulus, yes, people earning less money are more likely to spend money that they would not otherwise receive (because it is taken through taxes) on goods and services than people earning higher incomes. People earning higher incomes are substantially more likely than lower income folks to pay down debt, save or invest additional income than lower income folks.

Third, from a deficit cutting perspective I think it's borderline criminal (hyperbole, folks) to cut Social Security benefits in the way that Obama proposed while giving tax breaks to people that don't need it.

DH considering that Reid said SS was off the table (did Obama say that too? I thought so?) WTF is this coming from? I can't believe what I am reading today about this crap. No one in this election ran on SS cuts, that I am aware of.

 

[Bonestorm]

DH considering that Reid said SS was off the table (did Obama say that too? I thought so?) WTF is this coming from? I can't believe what I am reading today about this crap. No one in this election ran on SS cuts, that I am aware of.

Biden said it. Obama didn't. That is at least my memory.

It's crap.