White House Proposal to Exempt Employers from Paying For Social Security Would Hurt Workers/Families

[Better Believe It]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 10, 2011
1:58 PM
CONTACT: Strengthen Social Security Campaign

Don Owens, [phone] [e-mail]
Josh Rosenblum, [phone] [e-mail]

White House Proposal to Exempt Employers from Paying For Social Security Would Hurt Workers and their Families

WASHINGTON - June 10 - White House advisors are reportedly considering relieving employers from their obligation to contribute to Social Security. This proposal, if enacted, would eliminate billions of dollars of revenue dedicated to Social Security at a time when some members of Congress argue that Social Security’s benefits should be cut because the program may have insufficient revenue after 2036.

Nancy Altman, Co-Director of Social Security Works issued the following statement on the Administration’s idea:

“That the White House would even consider cutting Social Security’s funding is enormously alarming. It indicates that the White House does not take seriously the dedicated nature of worker and employer contributions to Social Security. Those contributions belong to American workers and their families. Social Security should not be treated as a piggybank or raided by politicians in Washington.

“The supposed reason for the proposal is to further stimulate the economy, but there are a number of more efficient and effective ways to do so. Those other measures would boost the economy more without giving ammunition to those who want to cut or even privatize Social Security.

“Even if the lost income were made up from general revenue, great harm would be done. If the proposal became law, those arguing to cut Social Security’s benefits would then point out that Social Security has a huge shortfall and is contributing to the deficit, and so must be cut.

Social Security provides vital economic security to millions of seniors, women, people with disabilities, children, families of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and others. The government should do all it can to spur job growth, but not at the expense of Social Security.”

###

The Strengthen Social Security Campaign is comprised of more than 300 national and state organizations representing more than 50 million Americans from many of the nation’s leading aging, labor, disability, women’s, children, consumer, civil rights and equality organizations.

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/06/10-6
..

[lonestarnot]

1. How many times can the same being be offered for sacrifice before it croaks?

[roguevalley]

11. Obama won't have to worry about feeding his family for the next

two generations. He can hurt us because he doesn't bear the pain himself. what a coward.

[dogmoma56]

77. nor will he have to worry about being re-elected ..BECAUSE HE WONT.!!!

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[dflprincess]

119. He probably doesn't care

Four years or 8 years, it makes no difference. He's served our corporate overlords well and will be rewarded for it...Just look how well Clinton has done since he left office.

[newspeak]

209. yeah, well don't forget about the Bushies

they've made plenty of money off of the corporate tit (or what Little Boot's called his base). I wonder how much they've made off the wars they created?

[neoralme]

90. I would bet Obama will have much more to worry about if he does

this. He will have the boomers mount a revolution, and they won't be nice about it.

[999998th word]

106. This is a joke-right? what's the punchline,I need a laugh

and if it isn't, we are so fucked.:wtf: :mad: :puke:

[Amonester]

2. Maybe the urgently needed 'massive hunger strike' will come...

sooner than later now...

Remember Gandhi, and how he defeated the BE.

[neoralme]

93. In this country that would not accomplish anything except for having

a bunch of people die of starvation.

[newspeak]

208. yeah, a sociopath wouldn't mind a bunch of people

dying of starvation. What did Scrooge say about decreasing the surplus population?

[neoralme]

212. Exactly

[Leontius]

3. Tell me again who this President stands with.

I'm beginning to think "Change my ass" would have been a better campaign slogan.

[inna]

18. are there any doubts?

only for those uninformed, misinformed, or in denial, perhaps.

[lovuian]

89. He won't be elected and everyone trying to gut social security

will too

there will be such ANGER and DISGUST
Bailout Banksters Bail out AIG Bail out Wallstreet but screw you Americans

[Poll_Blind]

4. 2012 is a long way away. Clean up your act or eat shit.

That goes out to every politician in America.

PB

[EFerrari]

5. Our government is completely out of control.

We're in five wars and these people are defunding Social Security.

[Enthusiast]

143. That about sums it up.

Hey, the investment banks need that social security money to build a new and improved "bubble".

[Better Believe It]

204. "Our" government?

[MannyGoldstein]

6. So?

Workers and their families don't have cash for Obama and his crew. They can fuck a duck.

[Better Believe It]

7. Sounding the Alarms on Another Social Security Tax Cut

Sounding the Alarms on Another Social Security Tax Cut
By: Daniel Marans
June 9, 2011

The White House is considering adopting a temporary Social Security tax cut on employers to stimulate the economy as part of the debt ceiling negotiations with the Republicans, according to a Bloomberg News article.

If the Administration so much as puts another Social Security tax cut on the table, they will be throwing Social Security under the bus for uncertain—indeed, unlikely—economic gain.

It seems like déjà vu. Wasn’t it just last year that progressives had to talk themselves blue in the face explaining the harm that a temporary payroll tax cut would do?

At the time, the payroll tax cut was criticized by progressives for endangering Social Security’s finances and undermining the program’s political underpinnings. A critique made by Nancy J. Altman, a nationally renowned Social Security expert and co-chair of the Strengthen Social Security Campaign, still offers the best explanation for why a payroll tax cut is disastrous. Her arguments remain just as true of a payroll tax cut for employers.

http://my.firedoglake.com/dmarans/2011/06/09/sounding-the-alarms-on-another-social-security-tax-cut/

[Overseas]

8. K&R. Democrats should please leave Social Security alone.

Just the fact that the Republicans, whose main goal is to crush the Democratic party, are pushing it so hard, should be enough to get Democrats to support it and extend it.

SSI is an excellent example of good government that Democrats should be proud of.

We are desperate for the creepy compromising to stop already.

Democrats should be focused on cutting all the increases to our deficits promoted by the Bush Gang-- war profiteering, homeland security profiteering and such. There are billions there to start with.

Democrats should be insisting that we have a revenue problem-- AFTER rescinding the Bush tax cuts, and addressing war and national security profiteering (doing more services in house instead of letting private companies skim profit off of those missions) and seeing how those corrections work for the next four years, then Republicans can run to restore their cruel privatization schemes.

[inna]

21. it's not "compromising" or "caving in" or "being duped"

- it is an absolutely deliberate agenda.

[whathehell]

34. Agreed...It's sad when we have to

keep one eye on the repukes and the other on "our own".:eyes:

[ShockediSay]

49. Grow a pair and learn what you get for compromise

W/ FASCISTS !

[markpkessinger]

234. See #21 above -- it is NOT compromise, it is deliberate! n/t

[CoffeeCat]

138. There aren't sides anymore...

The Republicans in power and the Democrats in power are completely alligned with the
corporations and what they want. They play kabuki theater, to give us the appearance
of a functioning democracy--with the lily-livered wimps played by the Democrats and
the heartless bastards played by the Republicans.

No way in hell they could have accomplished the coup that they have in the past
decade--without the participation of both parties.

As far as Soc Sec goes. They're going in through a side door now. Bush tried to
privatize it and there was so much backlash, he gave up. The Republicans took
so much guff for trying to touch Medicare, they figure if they go after Soc Sec--it
will only cause the Idol-watching masses to wake up. Can't have that. They must
steal every last crumb from us, in stealth mode--so we don't make too much noise
and protest.

The side door is to cut the corporate Soc Sec tax. That puts a big, destructive
dent in the side of Soc Sec. It's a bit confusing and not as obvious as privatizing
or decreasing benefits or raising the retirement age. This is such a blow.

I, for one, cannot believe that I'm reading that this proposal game from a Democrat!!! A
Democrat who promised us "change" and most of us understood that to mean--that we were sick
of the corruption, lies and unfairness in our government--and we wanted our democracy
restored.

Such a crock of shit.

[kath]

141. You forgot to put "Democrat" in quotation marks in your last paragraph.

'cuz the SOB in office sure the hell ISN'T one.

[Enthusiast]

144. Tell you what. Obama is on the side

that wants to cut social security.

[newspeak]

210. right on!!!!

You got it down-that's the MO!

[whathehell]

222. Many are saying the same thing, and I'm beginning to think

that both parties ARE aligned.

What can we do?...I'm near retirement age

and I absolutely REFUSE to let them steal

my Social Security and/or medicare.

[RufusTFirefly]

61. + gazillion!!

How long will these memes persist? The Obama Administration knows exactly what it's doing.

It's time the believers faced the inconvenient truth.

[neoralme]

111. You've been saying that for a long time, and I have agreed with you

every time you said it. As I have said many times, if he does this, there will be blood on the streets.

[PSPS]

9. Sadly, Obama's goal is to dismantle social security.

Social security has a huge surplus that can pay full benefits for at least another 40 years. And very minor adjustments would allow it to pay full benefits in perpetuity. But Obama wants to funnel those trillions into the pockets of his corporate/wall street cronies, just like his GOP "opponents."

By making social security part of the general fund, something that it was never intended to be and has never been before, this will instantly move it "on the table" as an "entitlement" that "must be eliminated" to "cut the deficit."

Obummer.

[jefferson_dem]

184. Please don't make shit up and report it as fact.

"Obummer"? Goodness.

[markpkessinger]

235. Then how about you come up with an alternative explanation of the President's behavior on this issue

[dkf]

10. Obama's list of things he can do to grow jobs is very limited with the House and Senate.

This may be the only thing passable.

[Obamanaut]

12. Didn't his party have control of both until not too very long ago? Nothing

much seemed to be happening then either.

[dkf]

14. They passed the stimulus and they did fund some green job initiatives.

But they didn't do much which left people skeptical of building it out.

Obama said himself there are no shovel ready projects

[xxqqqzme]

201. All the 'shovel ready'

were under or not funded at all from 20021 forward. Eight years is a long time to wait to cut a ribbon. The ribbons are in tatters and the shovels, now made in China, are being turned into bombs and guns.

[juajen]

66. What's this "his party"? I believe his party is my party, even though

I don't agree with everything he proposes or does. Messing with SS is abhorrent, and I do not believe that is his intention. I pray that I am right and someone is gilding the lily, so to speak.

[Obamanaut]

103. "his party" = the party of which he is a member, the same party

that controlled the Senate, House, and WH after the 2008 election, the party of which he is sorta the senior (by position) member. That "his party."

Sometimes when I introduce one of my two children to a person, I will say "My daughter", even though the daughter, the person she is being introduced to, and I all know that she is also the daughter of Miz O.

That was a real button pusher for you, wasn't it.

[Enthusiast]

146. That IS his intention.

He also created the catfood commission. I don't want to believe Obama is on the same page with Newt Gingrich either, but there it is, right in your face. Obama wants to "starve the beast".

[sulphurdunn]

23. Why does he need to pass

anything that undermines the social security system? Get real. This is just another scheme to reduce business taxes without requiring business to increase employment.

[TBF]

25. Guess what, if a bill sucks you DON'T pass it -

and then you let everyone know the reason you didn't pass it. You don't settle for something horrible just because it's
"passable"

[Avant Guardian]

33. Get rid of the Bush tax cuts

Revenue problem solved.

[Divernan]

40. Hah! That's the best defense you(he) can come up with?!?!?

[Bluebear]

62. Yes.

:silly:

[Better Believe It]

52. When the Democrats "ran" Congress he let 3 Republican Senators write a water downed stimulus bill.

[Enthusiast]

148. Exactly

That was when we were supposed to believe he was the greatest president ever.

[neoralme]

101. If passed Obama won't have to worry about being President again. He

will lose by the largest margin in history.

[Enthusiast]

145. You again!

With your bullshit!

[bowens43]

175. stop trying to justify this guys attacks on the American people.

Obama cares only about corperations. Make no mistake he is bought and paid for.

[obxhead]

195. So ANOTHER tax break for the elite is the magical job pony?

Taxes are ALREADY lower for the elite and corporations than they have ever been before.

This will not create any jobs. It will empower the elites who want to completely kill SS to do so though.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[JDPriestly]

15. This is a typical Obama double-cross. A lot of people will not see through this.

Obama's talk is all about saving Social Security, but this idea will destroy it. And Obama and his corrupt buddies in the White House know it. We've been had by the Obama crowd. They are worse liars than all the sex fiends in the Congress, much worse. They lie about things that mean survival for ordinary Americans. What a horrible crew.

[ProSense]

16. It's only a "double-cross"

when Obama proposes it. When it's Robert Reich or , it's brilliant. Reich:

<...>

How to get jobs back, then? By reigniting demand. Put more money in consumers’ pockets and help them renegotiate their mortgage loans.

For example: Enlarge the payroll tax break for workers — not just for employers. Exempt the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes for a year. Create a WPA for the long-term unemployed. Allow distressed homeowners to declare bankruptcy on their primary residence, thereby giving them more clout with lenders to reorganize their mortgage loans. Lend federal money to (rather than bail out) states and cities that are now firing platoons of teachers, fire fighters, and other workers because state and local coffers are empty.

<...>

[JDPriestly]

28. Even worse if Robert Reich suggests it.

I spoke to my congressman about this this morning and he agrees with me that Obama is very, very wrong on this.

My congressman has the support of his constituents. Huge numbers of us attend his meetings with us, and he is very well received. That's the difference between a really good congressman and these mealy-mouthed Democrats in other districts. My congressman can meet with his constituents and we all enjoy it -- most of all my congressman.

[ClarkUSA]

30. It's easy to criticize Obama. What's your congressman's plan for creating jobs?

Better yet, how does he plan to pass any plan through a Teabagger House?

[theaocp]

45. In all honesty, do you think this will create jobs?

What if the Teabagger House goes along with it? Does that mean it's a good compromise? Or just a disaster that can be called bipartisan? From my perspective, it. is. a. bad. idea. I don't give a flying fuck WHO presents it as a "solution".

[ClarkUSA]

70. Yes. It's also the only jobs plan that has a chance of passing thru Congress.

If you have a better one that has a fair chance of passing, please tell me.

[theaocp]

75. I fear that we're focusing all about the coulda

and not so much about the shoulda. I think that's dangerous.

[ClarkUSA]

76. I hear you but for me, what's "dangerous" is making the perfect the enemy of the good, so to speak.

The economy will tank if nothing is done at all.

BTW, ending the near-total Republican obstructionism is the reason I and others want to help Pelosi and the WH win back the House and keep our thin majority in the Senate. If Republicans keep the House and get a majority in the Senate, it's game over. Pres. Obama will have zero power except to appoint Supreme Court Justices, if the GOP governors of FL and OH don't steal the election for Mitt Romney in 2012.

[nonperson]

98. That excuse is trotted out every time some new insult is rolled out as a compromise

It's always the only bill that has a chance to pass Congress because the Obama administration and the Democrats in Washington cave into Republican demands and call the resulting Republican edict compromise.

It isn't compromise if the other guy gets everything he wants and you get nothing. That's called being a sucker. I'm getting damn tired of being told this is the best we can do because it's the only bill that has a chance. At some point you have to stand for something.

[ClarkUSA]

121. Then tell me your jobs plan idea and tell me how it will pass through Congress.

Talk is cheap for Obama's critics.

[Enthusiast]

149. He wants to adopt a starve the beast

Republican strategy. Critics? I hate his fucking guts.

[nonperson]

185. I'm not the president or an elected representative so my jobs plan isn't the question

I voted for DEMOCRATS because they supposedly support and advance the agenda of working people. The jobs plan should be quite simple to figure out. Put people to work. Tax the rich. Tax corporations. Their lies about tax breaks creating jobs have been exposed for YEARS now and Democrats still do nothing about it. Polls show massive support for keeping Social Security, Medicare and other programs that support the agenda of working people as they are without cuts. Lift the ridiculous cap on FICA taxes and the entire situation is solved.

I read an article in the Sunday paper this morning that said health care insurance company overhead is 31% while Medicare overhead is a mere 3%. Institute REAL health care reform and get the predatory insurance thieves out of the loop entirely.

I read my representatives votes this morning. None of them passed even though the Democrats had a majority of votes on both of the bills votes were listed for last week. They need 60 votes because apparently a majority doesn't rule anymore because the Democrats caved in to the threat of a filibuster.

HERE'S MY PLAN. PASS EVERY BILL BY SIMPLE MAJORITY AND MAKE THE REPUBLICANS FILIBUSTER EVERY BILL. MAKE THE REPUBLICANS HIGHLIGHT EVERY BILL THEY OPPOSE WITH A FILIBUSTER IN CLEAR VIEW OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. LET THE REPUBLICANS FORCE GOVERNMENT TO A HALT AND HIGHLIGHT THAT TOO. CLEARLY EXPOSE THE REPUBLICANS FOR WHAT THEY ARE INSTEAD OF CAVING IN AND TELLING YOUR EVER INCREASINGLY DISSATISFIED CONSTITUENTS THAT THESE RIDICULOUS, INSANE COMPROMISES ARE THE BEST YOU CAN DO.

[progressoid]

120. So you think that something that will get the approval of the "Teabagger House" is a good idea?

Wow. :wow:

[ClarkUSA]

122. Yes. It's called compromise. Those who don't live in the Land of the Pure do it all the time.

Those in DC have to do it now because there is no choice.

If you can think of a better way to get a jobs plan passed through Congress, please tell me.

[progressoid]

127. No. It's called caving.

I'm represented by one of those Teabagging Republicans. And there is NOTHING that he approves of that is worth compromising on. NOTHING

If the best we can do is stoop to their level, I'd rather we did nothing at all.

[ClarkUSA]

136. It's easy to demonize when one is not responsible for getting a jobs plan passed thru Congress.

Do you have a better jobs plan that will pass through Congress?

[progressoid]

165. If it walks like a demon and quacks like a demon...

You keep talking about a jobs plan. What jobs plan? You don't actually think this will create jobs do you?


Oh, wait.

Never mind.

[nonperson]

186. +1

It's either caving or complicity or both.

[fascisthunter]

194. it's complicity

we voted for a chicago new dem who has embraced the right leaning policies many in the dem leadership have been pushing. This man is not representing the voters.

[Enthusiast]

150. Obama's compromising is the very

reason there is a Teabagger house. He caused it!

[newspeak]

211. and if "compromise" does more harm than good?

I stated a while ago that democrats should have offered a very progressive agenda and gone on air 24/7 to the people, even if the corporate media wouldn't allow it, they should have bought time. Push there agenda for jobs and stimulus, and then when the repugs voted it down, then tell the proles who is keeping it from happening. They could have done that before 2010--show the people they could fight, maybe the 2010 outcome would have been different.

It is the "damaging" compromises that people don't want. After all, Chaffee exposed that when Little Boots was selected for office, the first thing was that the repugs were gathered and told there would be no compromising with democrats, all repugs were to support the pro-corporate, greedy administrative agenda. Look at the damage they've done to us.

No compromise is used when it is corporate interest--they use the word "compromise" when they need to screw the majority of Americans, then it's compromise to get a damaging deal.

[TransitJohn]

214. It can't conceivably be called a jobs plan with a straight face

When businesses are raking in record profits, and sitting on record hordes of cash already. This will just increase payouts to shareholders...it's a craven mugging.

[WinkyDink]

48. Where does that buck stop again?

[ClarkUSA]

71. Yawn.

Sorry, but meaningless rhetoric makes me sleepy. :boring:

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

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

[WinkyDink]

178. Like your attached meaningless Obama slogan?

[nonperson]

190. Really! If this is "I got this" I'd hate like hell to see what "My bad" is!

"I got this" is beginning to worry me more than "My bad".

[nonperson]

187. The meaningless rhetoric is yours

And I can see why it would make you sleepy. It's the same story we've heard for the past ten years only this time told by a Democrat.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

73. See Reply 71.

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1276577&mesg_id=1279984

[nonperson]

189. See reply #178

Find it yourself. It will be good exercise in actually accomplishing something on your own.

[bowens43]

176. this isn't a plan for creating jobs.

you would have to be an idiot or a conservative to think that this would create jobs.

Face it Obama works for the corporations. Period.

[demwing]

36. So you think it's brilliant?

Don't play games, just say what you think

[ProSense]

72. "Don't play games, just say what you think"

Why, are you having a problem understanding the comment?

[neoralme]

107. I didn't understand it either. Sounded to me like you were pro

the idea. If passed or even promulgated by him, it will end his Presidency and bring forth a depression the severity yet unseen.

[Marr]

63. Those... aren't the same things.

One was talking about a temporary cut for workers, while the other is a cut for business, perhaps even a permanent one.

They're completely different ideas coming from opposite directions. One is based around the idea that we need to get more money into the hands of consumers, while the other is just more supply-side bs, and undermines Social Security without actually doing anything positive for the economy.

[ProSense]

74. "One was talking about a temporary cut for workers"

Is that different from the one-year payroll tax holiday that the President signed into law, the one that led to him being accused of trying to destroy Social Security?

As for Reich's statement:

"For example: Enlarge the payroll tax break for workers — not just for employers."

[Marr]

82. Again, you're claiming a payroll tax cut for businesses as a means

of creating economic stimulus is the same thing as a short-term payroll tax cut for workers to create economic stimulus. They are not the same thing, and they are actually descriptions of opposing economic models.

[ProSense]

85. Hmmm?

"Again, you're claiming a payroll tax cut for businesses as a means of creating economic stimulus is the same thing as a short-term payroll tax cut for workers to create economic stimulus."

I made no such ridiculous claim.

[Marr]

92. "It's only a 'double-cross' when Obama proposes it."

Your claim has been that Obama is called names for suggesting the same thing Robert Reich suggested. They were not talking about the same things.

[ProSense]

94. Question:

How is Reich's temporary payroll tax holiday different from the one-year (temporary) payroll tax holiday that the President signed into law, the one that led to him being accused of trying to destroy Social Security?

Here is what I said, including the two links:

It's only a "double-cross" when Obama proposes it. When it's or anyone else, it's brilliant.

Here is what Reich said:

<...>

How to get jobs back, then? By reigniting demand. Put more money in consumers’ pockets and help them renegotiate their mortgage loans.

For example: Enlarge the payroll tax break for workers — not just for employers. Exempt the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes for a year. Create a WPA for the long-term unemployed. Allow distressed homeowners to declare bankruptcy on their primary residence, thereby giving them more clout with lenders to reorganize their mortgage loans. Lend federal money to (rather than bail out) states and cities that are now firing platoons of teachers, fire fighters, and other workers because state and local coffers are empty.

<...>

[Marr]

97. Don't bother with the misdirection.

This thread is about a payroll tax cut for business, which the White House apparently supports as a means of economic stimulus.

You claimed that Obama is being called names for suggesting the same thing Reich suggested. That was a bogus claim. Can you admit that?

[ProSense]

105. Evidently

"You claimed that Obama is being called names for suggesting the same thing Reich suggested. "

...you're having trouble comprehending the entire point. Again (and be sure to note that "Robert Reich or anyone else").

Here is what I said, including the two links:

It's only a "double-cross" when Obama proposes it. When it's Robert Reich or anyone else, it's brilliant.

Here is what Reich said:

<...>

How to get jobs back, then? By reigniting demand. Put more money in consumers’ pockets and help them renegotiate their mortgage loans.

For example: Enlarge the payroll tax break for workers — not just for employers. Exempt the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes for a year. Create a WPA for the long-term unemployed. Allow distressed homeowners to declare bankruptcy on their primary residence, thereby giving them more clout with lenders to reorganize their mortgage loans. Lend federal money to (rather than bail out) states and cities that are now firing platoons of teachers, fire fighters, and other workers because state and local coffers are empty.

<...>

See the bolded point? Why do you think Reich phrased it as "not just for employers" as opposed to "not employers."

I fully understood the point of his article, but again:

How is Reich's temporary payroll tax holiday different from the one-year (temporary) payroll tax holiday that the President signed into law, the one that led to him being accused of trying to destroy Social Security?

Do you think that it's OK for Reich to call for a temporaty payroll tax holiday and Obama be criticized for signing one into law?

[Marr]

110. I'll tell you why it's phrased that way.

That remark came from a piece Reich wrote called "Why the President Must Come Up With Demand-Side Solutions, And Not Go Over to the Supply Side", and began with a description of the WH's apparent desire to push a supply-side band-aid in the form of a payroll tax cut for businesses.

He goes on to say that the problem is not on the supply side, it's on the demand side. His statement was not an endorsement of the supply-side band-aid, it was an urge to take a demand-side approach, if only in a "this, too, at least", sort of way.

[ProSense]

112. You continue to

avoid this question:

How is Reich's temporary payroll tax holiday different from the one-year (temporary) payroll tax holiday that the President signed into law, the one that led to him being accused of trying to destroy Social Security?

Do you think that it's OK for Reich to call for a temporaty payroll tax holiday and Obama be criticized for signing one into law?

[Marr]

115. No, you continue to try to *change* the question, instead of admitting

that your initial claim was bogus.

This thread is about a potential payroll tax cut to business.

[ProSense]

116. Can't answer can you? Go ahead

Give it a try.

How is Reich's temporary payroll tax holiday different from the one-year (temporary) payroll tax holiday that the President signed into law, the one that led to him being accused of trying to destroy Social Security?

Do you think that it's OK for Reich to call for a temporaty payroll tax holiday and Obama be criticized for signing one into law?

[Marr]

118. Can't admit you made a bogus claim?

I do not want to discuss your new topic, sorry. Either defend your claim or admit it was false.

[ProSense]

123. Stop projecting.

There was no bogus claim. Maybe you can address the questions:

How is Reich's temporary payroll tax holiday different from the one-year (temporary) payroll tax holiday that the President signed into law, the one that led to him being accused of trying to destroy Social Security?

Do you think that it's OK for Reich to call for a temporaty payroll tax holiday and Obama be criticized for signing one into law?

...as they relate to my original comment.

[Marr]

134. Start your own thread if you don't want to discuss this topic.

This thread is about the business payroll tax cut that Obama supports.

[U4ikLefty]

164. Oh Hell, that was nice!!!

good job

[Enthusiast]

152. Bogus claim, bogus claim, bogus claim! nt

[Vattel]

179. That's right. Keep ignoring your opponent's point.

Change the subject. Throw up dust. Wave your arms. Do whatever is necessary to defend the great leader.

[Enthusiast]

151. It won't stimulate shit. Reich was wrong and Obama's wrong.

Stop with your nonsense obfuscation.

[demwing]

140. Hell with Reich, he's not the president. Cut the bullshit

Do you support the Whitehouse in this or not?

[Matt Shapiro]

218. Reich was wrong but it doesn't compare to what Obama is proposing

Reich's proposal to eliminate payroll taxes for the first $20,000 was a bad idea because it de-funds social security and makes it subject to attack as a poverty program. Its one redeeming quality is that it would be stimulative, since it would put more money into the hands of lower income families who will spend it and create demand. Even so, it's not worth it, and Reich should be ashamed of himself. Nothing is worth endangering social security.

Obama's proposal, completely underfunds social security on a much greater scale, subjecting it to massive attack as an entitlement that will no longer be economically viable. Further, there is no positive side to the Obama proposal, since it only eliminates the employer portion of the payroll tax, putting no money in the hands of lower income people, creating no demand, and providing no stimulus whatsoever. It does, however, give big business a nice source of funding for their executive salary and benefits program.

Obama's program has no redeeming value. It can reasonably be called a "double-cross," as he promised to protect social security, not insure its demise.

[neoralme]

86. I said this would happen long. If he does this he would have trouble

getting elected national dogcatcher.

[whathehell]

224. Agreed as far as intent.

Doesn't he need to get this through congress, though?

[LiberalFighter]

17. Who in the damn WH is supporting this?

[Better Believe It]

20. I think it may just be a trial balloon but we'll soon find out.

In any case, I don't like this leak to the media.

It'll be hard enough to end the 2% cut in the Social Security employee payroll tax cut this fall.

[awoke_in_2003]

54. trial balloons don't get floated...

unless the person floating them backs the plan.

[LiberalFighter]

56. It needs to be put out that the employer portion of the SS tax

belongs to the employee not the employer.

[Enthusiast]

153. The buck stops with OBAMA. nt

[inna]

19. Fucking A. "Enormously alarming" is an understatement.

This administration is in a full-blown assault mode, apparently - and oh boy, do they deliver.


:nuke:

[theaocp]

22. and when this does jackshit to spur the economy,

to whom will the blame game point to next? Raise. the. cap.

[ClarkUSA]

24. DU darling Robert Reich proposed the same thing awhile back and there was no outrage then. Why now?

Proof: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1276577&mesg_id=1277204

Oh, I get it.

When President Obama actually listens to economists like Robert Reich, that's when the idea is a TERRIBLE OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!! :eyes:

[Fuddnik]

26. I don't give a shit who proposes it. It's fucking wrong.

And, it wouldn't be the first time Reich was wrong either.

If I wanted to implement Republican policies, I'd vote for Republicans.

[ClarkUSA]

29. Why? Spare me the empty rhetoric. I want specifics by credible sources who are economists.

I'm not interested in outraged blogger babble.

[Fuddnik]

31. So stop babbling

[ClarkUSA]

32. lol! So you have nothing to back up your assertions? I didn't think so.

[Fuddnik]

53. Sure I do.

But you seem to demand a traffic engineer, before you cross the street, anytime someone disagrees with you. And then argue and get hostile.

I'm not biting. If you want an education,...nah, I'm wasting time.

Have a nice day.

[ClarkUSA]

64. Talk is cheap. Prove your claims.

[Enthusiast]

154. THAT appears to be an impossibility.........nt

[WinkyDink]

47. You ignore Reich's whole proposal, and the CONTEXT of Obama's "done deal".

[ClarkUSA]

67. Why don't you explain it to me, then? Provide full quotes in context from credible sources.

[AgainsttheCrown]

177. I'll do it.

The Obama Budget: And Why the Coming Debate Over Spending Cuts Has Nothing to Do With Reviving the Economy

And exempt the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes.

Make up the revenues by increasing taxes on incomes between $250,000 to $500,000 to 40 percent; between $500,000 and $5 million, to 50 percent; between $5 million and $15 million, to 60 percent; and anything over $15 million, to 70 percent.

And raise the ceiling on the portion of income subject to payroll taxes to $500,000.

And last year he proposed it with a lower increase:

Also: Put more money in consumer’s wallets by eliminating payroll taxes on the first $20K of income (and make it up by applying payroll taxes to incomes over $250K.)

Reich's proposal would provide relief to workers and make up the difference on the backs of the rich.

He is saying that they should do that in addition to the employer relief that they proposed.

And yes it is different from the Obama payroll tax holiday because it raises the cap on the tax, which the administration tax holiday did not- making it regressive (in the long term).

[LongTomH]

215. Thanks for posting this! It puts the 'Reich suggested cutting payroll taxes' in perspective.

Prof. Reich has - several times - proposed cutting or exempting low-income workers from taxes and raising taxes on the rich!

[awoke_in_2003]

55. I missed it when Reich said it...

or you would have heard from me. I don't care if JFK raises from the dead and comes back to support this BS- it is still BS. Corporations are already sitting on stockpiles of money and not hiring people, why give them more to sit on? Wall Street wants Social Security broke, and will try to use people from both parties to break it.

[ClarkUSA]

69. A temporary payroll tax hike on employers will act like a stimulus to jumpstart hiring.

That's the idea. This type of idea is the only thing that has a chance of passing through Congress now that will inject money into the economy and jumpstart job hiring. Nothing else is going to pass through the Teabagger House.

If you have a better idea, tell me now. Keep in mind Pres. Obama is not a dictator and the Congress makes the laws.

[Enthusiast]

155. Thank you! nt

[Marr]

60. Why are you two pretending they're the same things?

Reich was talking about extending a temporary payroll tax cut to workers, and the suggestion was coupled to a series of other items this WH wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.

This article describes another tax cut for business; one that will directly undermine Social Security without offering anything positive to the economy in return.

These are completely different ideas coming from completely different directions. One is based around the idea that we need to get more money into the hands of consumers, while the other is just another expression of "trickle down" economics.

[ClarkUSA]

68. Wrong. Reich wanted a temporary payroll tax cut to employers as well.

Proof: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1276577&mesg_id=1280007

[Marr]

88. No, not wrong. Some context would help.

That remark came from a piece Reich wrote called "Why the President Must Come Up With Demand-Side Solutions, And Not Go Over to the Supply Side", and began with a description of the WH's apparent desire to push a supply-side band-aid in the form of a payroll tax cut for businesses.

He goes on to say that the problem is not on the supply side, it's on the demand side. His statement was not an endorsement of the supply-side band-aid, it was an urge to take a demand-side approach, if only in a "this, too, at least", sort of way.

This quote is being used very disingenuously here, IMHO.

[ProSense]

96. Yes, wrong

Where did I say that a payroll tax cut for employers and employees are the same thing?

[Marr]

114. Are you trying to win an argument through sheer stamina here or what?

Again, you began by saying that Obama is pilloried for suggesting the same thing Robert Reich suggested.

Obama's idea is to give a payroll tax cut to business. Reich's suggestion was that, if Obama was going to give a payroll tax cut to business, he should also give a cut to workers, since the problem is on the demand side, not the supply side.

You said they suggested the same thing, when one suggested a cut for business and the other a cut for workers. I mean, check my math if you like, but I'm pretty sure that means you equated the business tax cut and the worker tax cut.

[ProSense]

125. Are you making a point

based on what was said or what you imagine was said?

[U4ikLefty]

"Are you trying to win an argument through sheer stamina here or what?"...yes

[U4ikLefty]

"Are you trying to win an argument through sheer stamina here or what?"...yes

[U4ikLefty]

166. "Are you trying to win an argument through sheer stamina here or what?"...yes

[Autumn]

236. Is your link supposed to be proof that DU was not

outraged? Because the only thing your link goes to is prosenses post in this thread. Just wondering what that proves?

[hfojvt]

27. KNR

It cannot be said too much - that proposal sucks.

[Enthusiast]

156. Same thing happened before

he went along with the FICA holiday the first time. I guess Obama is ideologically opposed to social security. Otherwise why would he have appointed the catfood commission?

[inna]

167. don't forget that he *created* the darn commission by his Executive Order, against the will of Congr

ess

- it doesn't get more fucked up than that


(or... does it? - clearly, a rhetorical question.)

[Enthusiast]

206. That sort of puts things in perspective,

doesn't it. It is almost as if he was elected to perform exactly this mission, kind of an objective of his. Maybe I'm just paranoid. But why wouldn't we be paranoid?

[TransitJohn]

217. You're not paranoid if they really are out to get you. eom

n/t

[whathehell]

35. Get ready to storm the bastille if this happens.

[demwing]

38. Amen to that

We can't keep giving way territory.

[whathehell]

41. Damn right....

These two programs are my "line in the sand"...They cut these, steal our investments?

I'm outta here.

[neoralme]

95. I'm with you. They'll be millions of boomers ready to destroy government.

[whathehell]

100. I see people actually laying down in crowded streets, blocking traffic

with their bodies in non-violent protest...It would be

similar to the Sixties, I think -- protesters a little older!

What bothers me is that we have a "democratic"

president who's even THINKING along those lines.

Obama worries me.:scared:

[neoralme]

117. Beginning with FISA, I questioned him being a Democrat. He will

bring about the most severe Depression ever known to the country or the world by his actions. I believe he is doing it knowingly and wantonly.

[whathehell]

182. Really?

It sounds like you think he is the anti-christ, or something.

[neoralme]

202. No, the AC will be less purposeful but more flashy. When you're

eating Cocoa Puffs for dinner next year, tell me it makes a difference.

[whathehell]

220. WTF?

My response was really NOT meant as snark,

so you might want to re-think the hostility.:eyes:

[neoralme]

225. Okay. Sorry then for my snark.

[whathehell]

226. Thanks, I appreciate that

I guess what I really wanted to ask you is why you thought

that Obama would deliberately try to destroy the country.

I voted for him in both the primary and the general

but at this point, I don't trust him either.

I don't believe in the AC, but there is, IMO, something strange

about the guy, as I said to a friend

"Something about him doesn't add up",

and God knows, it's not the "birther" nonsense

or the muslim thing..Those seem relatively

benign...It's something

else. Someone claimed that he became a

CIA asset while in college,

and I don't know if that's true, but I sense

things are being withheld from us, so I was

interested in what your thoughts are.

[neoralme]

229. I don't believe in the Birther stuff either. That would have been

checked six ways from Sunday. I think he's a hired gun from the corporatists who are maneuvering ever so precisely to make everything look plausible. I have thought that for a long time. I do not think he will be re-elected. Libya was a bad mistake. If he takes down Social Security, he will be forced to leave the country, imo.

[demwing]

37. If this is true, what is there left to do?

They keep pushing us back, and we keep saying "Don't you dare cross this line!"

They cross the line, we step back, and say "Don't you dare cross THIS line!"

They cross the line, and we start all over again.

There's a cliff behind us friends. We can't keep drawing new lines forever.

WE MUST STOP RETREATING.

[Better Believe It]

39. Obama Advisers Said to Discuss Seeking Employer Payroll Tax Cut

Obama Advisers Said to Discuss Seeking Employer Payroll Tax Cut
By Mike Dorning and Hans Nichols
June 8, 2011

President Barack Obama’s advisers have discussed seeking a temporary cut in the payroll taxes businesses pay on wages as they debate ways to spur hiring amid signs that the recovery is slowing, according to people familiar with the matter.

The talks reflect the political constraints the White House is operating under with the Republican majority in the U.S. House pushing to cut federal spending. A hiring stimulus based on a tax break for employers may appeal to Republican lawmakers, many of whom have called for measures to help businesses.

The idea of cutting the employer contribution to payroll taxes also has recently been under discussion among Republican members of Congress, said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was chief economic adviser to the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona.

Targeting the employer side of the payroll tax could both attract Republican support and spur job growth, said Christina Romer, who was Obama’s first chairman of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Read the full article at:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-08/payroll-tax-break-said-to-be-discussed-by-obama-aides-amid-slowing-economy.html

[DallasNE]

84. How Would This Spur Job Growth

That statement makes no sense. The 2% employer cut that took effect at the start of the year should show job growth right about now if that were the case. Just the opposite happened. Decreasing revenue causes larger budget deficits and Republicans will demand spending cuts to offset this lost revenue. This is a lose-lose situation if I ever saw one. The fact that Douglas Holtz-Eakin supports it assures us that that is the case.

[Abq_Sarah]

130. 2% Employer cut?

There was a 2% cut in Employee rates from 6.2% to 4.2% of wages. Employers pay the full 6.2% rate. This was done as a way to put more money in Employee paychecks but it has zero savings for employers. We're still paying the same amount.

[DallasNE]

139. I Stand Corrected

Some sources do not specifically say that the employer rate was unchanged so an analysis I read at the time the bill was signed concluded that both were reduced. That analysis was wrong and I was wrong not to verify what I had read some months ago. http://taxes.about.com/od/payroll/a/Reduced-Social-Security-Withholding-For-2011.htm

That does not change what I said about impacts on aggregate demand, however.

[Enthusiast]

158. It will not create consumer demand.

Giving business more money will not spur new hiring because it will do nothing to improve consumer demand.

[Leontius]

42. How about they cut the rate to 5% for both employee and employer

and raise the cap on income to 1 billion dollars from its current level.

[indepat]

43. Yeah, the problem is large corporations don't make enough money and pay too much

taxes. Yeah, I think I finally got it and now realize what the problem with our economy is. :patriot:

[lifesbeautifulmagic]

44. corps are making record profits and paying

the least amount of taxes in modern history. But, yet, they will not hire. I guess we now know why.

At least, we can answer all those right wing media types that blow and spew about how corps won't hire because "they just don't know what is going to happen"*, they are waiting for the Obama administration to bend America even further over. To completely privatize SS - to completely eliminate any corp taxes, or perhaps for a repub to be elected.

I wonder how America feels to be held hostage. I wonder if they even know they are being held hostage.

*you lurking rightwing media types can kiss my lily white middle aged ass. The corps know EXACTLY what they are doing, and you all are aiding them, and apparently happy to do so.

[WinkyDink]

46. Remember the "temporary" camel's nose on this issue? A Republican would NEVER have gotten away with

this talk; NEVER.

[whathehell]

223. No...It took Nixon to go to China, and Obama to even MENTION cuts to SS...This sucks big time. n/t

[airplaneman]

51. Social Security - Save or Destroy

A 2% increas in employee and employer witholdings with no cap on income would make SS solvent Indefiantely. Social security is close to solvent and with a little strengthening it will be fine. A 2% reduction for employees this last year followed by a 6% (or complete elimination of contributing) for employers next year is a scary step and makes the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of Social Security half way completed or more if the 2% goes on another year. I cannot in good fait do anythign but fight like hell to stop this. It is getting to the point where we need to wake up and do the right thing or we are probably headed for another civil war.

[Marnie]

57. Obama already cut SS withholdings 2% now it wants

to castrate SS just like he was a Republican.

Why am I not surprised.

[DallasNE]

80. How Many Jobs Did This Create?

The jobs that were created in the 1st quarter this year were already in the pipeline when this proposal kicked in. While it did put some money in the pockets of workers it was too small to make any real difference. This proposal doesn't put one dime in the pockets of workers. I actually supported this proposal because it would increase aggregate demand. Because of the smallness of the increase this aggregate demand has been completely offset by governments at all levels slashing 30,000 jobs a month. Something has to be done about this carnage and now.

[Abq_Sarah]

131. The intent wasn't to create jobs

Because the employer receives no benefit at all. This was about increasing employee take home pay, not creating jobs.

[DallasNE]

137. Say What?

Both the employer and employee got this 2% reduction in taxes. Jobs are created when aggregate demand increases. The purpose of the employee portion of this was to increase aggregate demand. It was rightly billed as a jobs creation bill. The problem was that public sector jobs were slashed while this was going on so the net effect was no increase (perhaps even a decrease) in aggregate demand. The purpose of the employer portion was to get Mitch O'Connell to sign off on the proposal so it could pass Congress.

[Abq_Sarah]

233. The employers received no reduction

This was a strict 2% reduction in taxes paid by the employee.

[inna]

168. "This was about increasing employee take home pay" - thanks for the comic relief,

it was much needed

[Synicus Maximus]

58. The piggybank has been radied by politicians for years

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

65. Go get Congress to vote for it. Pres. Obama is not a dictator.

Save your damnation for those who vote down every tax hike initiative this President and party has ever wanted.

[juajen]

79. He had a perfect opportunity to stop the Bush tax breaks and

did not do so, even with all of us protesting and telling him to stick it out. Once we bent over for the pug we lost. they know it works and they will stop at nothing now. I know they were holding us hostage for unemployment benefits, but I believe better then, than now. The unemployed are suffering now greatly and the homeless have little or no help. The timing would have been better and we would have had more people outraged at holding the homeless and unemployed hostage while the rich, who didn't even need the tax cut, wallowed in their victory. Bad chess playing, IMO.

[ClarkUSA]

124. Oh, you mean he could've given up on extending UI for those in the greatest need of them?

I'm sick of Democrats who seem to be more concerned with screwing the wealthy than providing financial support for the unemployed and the middle-class via a payroll tax holiday aka. second stimulus plan -- which, by the way, will be enough to pay one month's mortgage for me this year. The worst hypocrites are PUMAs.

I understand why President Obama had to compromise, because he felt that helping those in desperate need was more important than screwing the wealthy out of some pocket change (for them). Anyone who thinks that doing so was wrong can go to hell.

[dflprincess]

128. In the long run the payroll tax "holiday" is more apt to hurt the working and middle classes

This "holiday" is just a scam that, for the first time ever, makes Social Security dependent on the general revenue to make up the hole the "holiday" has created. This gives more fuel to those politicians (including Obama and some other alleged Democrats) who are pretending that SS is contributing to the deficit and needs to be cut back, perhaps even destroyed.

[ClarkUSA]

129. Paul Krugman disagrees with you. After it was passed, he wrote a column lauding Obama's chess move.

I'll trust a Pulitzer-Prize winning economist over your rhetoric any day.

BTW, after they voted for it, Republicans moaned about being tricked into approving a second stimulus plan far greater than the first. Go check GDP archives during that time and read all about it.

[inna]

157. absolute bullshit. prove with link to Krugman or retract.

[Enthusiast]

161. I believe Krugman was critical

of Obama's 'chess move'.

[Enthusiast]

160. PLUS ONE...............nt

[Enthusiast]

159. He absolutely should have allowed the tax cuts to expire.

Republicans just would have had to shoulder the blame for allowing UI to expire. Obama was wrong, totally wrong. He squandered another opportunity. Now he proposes to, once again, do exactly what the Republicans want.

You have no credibility on Obama. You have NEVER criticized Obama for anything. The rest of us are objective. You have a sort of impossible image of Obama -that he can do no wrong.

[rpannier]

171. I thought the greatest in need were those over 99 weeks

They got nothing

[sad sally]

81. Do you believe this would open the door to hiring the millions of unemployed in the US?

Or would it just be another bonus for CEO's and shareholders? Maybe it would bring the high price of labor in America low enough to compete with those cheap labor countries? Yeah, right.

“A cut in the employer side of the payroll tax could absolutely help accelerate job creation,” Romer, an economist at the University of California at Berkeley, said in an interview. “In addition to the usual beneficial effect on demand, this tax cut would make hiring less expensive.”

[ClarkUSA]

126. As long as Republicans control the House, you can forget about getting anything liberal passed.

That's reality. Any bellyaching over what President Obama SHOULD DO is ignorant of that fact.

[DallasNE]

78. This Trial Balloon Needs To Be Shot Down Right Now

Not only does it disregard what Social Security is all about, it won't even have the announced consequence of being a stimulus. Companies aren't hiring because they have money issues. Companies are not hiring because of lack of demand. This is a trickle down proposal that has no chance of working while setting up the destruction of Social Security. And it makes the deficit far worse at the same time. Who is the brain dead person floating this dumbass idea?

[Enthusiast]

162. PLUS ONE...............nt

[annabanana]

174. Yes.. In as loud a way as possible. . . n/t

[Horse with no Name]

83. Except they don't care about the employees or their families

it's about the corporations making MORE AND MORE money.

We don't matter.

[The Gunslinger]

87. Is there a Democrat who has the guts to

fight to raise the income cap which SS is taxed. A small increase would solve the problem.

[neoralme]

99. Obama has never cared about workers and families.

[russspeakeasy]

102. Yeah, so ? As long as wall street is o.k.

The asshats that come up with these shitheaded ideas have no idea what it is really like out here.

[Politicub]

104. Sad. I'm disappointed.

I've always thought it would take a democrat to destroy social security.

It's terrifying to think about the poverty that could come from this.

[neverforget]

109. 10 years of tax cuts didn't work but just 1 more will.

Something about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result....insanity.

[Jim_Shorts]

113. Even more tax cuts for the rich?

I'm not quite sure why Obama ran as a democrat.

Elizabeth Warren would make a fine primary challenger - I do believe she will be available.

[ClarkUSA]

132. Bullshit. Prove that all employers in the US are "rich".

President Obama is not a dictator nor does he have a magic wand. Any bill must be approved by Congress. The House is controlled by teabaggers. The Senate is full of Koch Party obstructionists who want the economy to fail so plutocratic wet dream of a candidate Romney can win the presidency in 2012.

If you have a better jobs plan that can act as a stimulus for companies to start hiring (remember, 95% of small businesses make less than $250K/year which is not "rich") that could pass through Congress, please tell me.

[rpannier]

172. Where did he say all employers were rich? nt

[Jim_Shorts]

183. Here is the latest business plan

If a business receives a windfall (tax cut that in turn hurts SS), it is divided up among the ceo, the owners, and shareholders (as dividends if it's a public co.)

DEMAND SPURS ECONOMIC GROWTH - NOT MORE $ TO THE TOP

So many studies have been done, and they all say the same thing, the further down the ladder you give the capital too, the bigger the return. You want to get a good return - RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE - that will have a ripple effect and raise all wages.

[Abq_Sarah]

133. There is no proposal to exempt employers

What is being proposed is a temporary cut in the rate employers pay, much like the temporary cut employees received for 2011.

This might make a difference in a large corporation with a lot of employees but for most small biz, it's not going to be of any real help.

[DeadEyeDyck]

135. I am not believing this. I think we are reading the facts wrong.

Look, I once posted that I was sick of the entire social security mess. I thought it was a failure. I must admit, I have not paid into it very much since I haven't worked much.

The only way it would be legit would be to have some kind of account that is truly yours. An account that you could look into and see what you have and possibly have some control in what happens to it.

For most of us, if our social security was treated as an annuity with compound interest at the present rate that banks offer, those that were are over 60 would have over 1.8 million dollars. Tell me they have not mis-managed your money.

To be honest, they probably only have a few thousand of my dollars but for people who have worked hard for 50 years, they have been robbed.

[Enthusiast]

163. Just what proponents of privatization want you to believe.

Keep spreading the corporate bullshit, maybe someone will buy into it.

[Enthusiast]

142. Is Obama on our side?

Is he on our side on any significant issue?

Maybe, in his supreme court appointments, maybe. Aside from that I'm not so sure. With Obama as president we can no longer blame the Republicans for destroying the nation by following a right wing agenda. Now we follow a right wing agenda and the Democrats get blamed. This is not how I would plan things.

[Sherman A1]

147. Precisely

That is a good question to ask.

[Daphne08]

169. What?

:wtf:

[Kumbricia]

170. Obama should make it official and run as a Republican in 2012

and let someone to the left of Ronald Reagan run as a Democrat

[Name removed]

173. Deleted message

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

[WinkyDink]

180. Why don't supporters provide THEIR "evidence and quotes from economists" for why this is a GOOD idea

in context, such as "well, if you are INTENT on doing this, then you really ought, in fairness, to do this also."

PROVE how this action constitutes a "job plan."

[quaker bill]

181. The businesses that have money aren't spending it.

There are alot of conspiracy theories about why.

All of the theories I have read are based on the assumption that it is natural for businesses to spend money to grow whenever they have spare cash. This is a necessary component of supply side theory. "If you give them more money they will spend it to create jobs and grow the economy", or so goes the theory. There is no essential truth to it. The latest excuse for this failure of logic is "lack of confidence", somehow if we assure them of future profits or make them feel "more confident" they will then cut loose the cash. This is also false.

There is no reason believe that a business which is plump with cash and making consistent good profits will necessarily do anything to change the status quo. They can and apparently are deciding that the results indicate the business is just fine as it is.

Businesses change and grow in response to a threat to profitability from competition or declining quarterly results.

[kentuck]

188. If the money is not paid into the fund..

It is more likely it will not be paid from the general fund. If the money has been paid into the fund (FICA taxes), it is difficult to say that it cannot be paid to the recipients of Social Security. A cut in FICA taxes is a possible, and likely, cut in Social Security benefits in the future. It is not a positive decision.

[Faygo Kid]

191. Alan Simpson and the Cat Food Commission. Who didn't see this coming?

If he actually proposes this, I'm finished. Period. Last straw.

[Hubert Flottz]

192. Talking about unplugging granny.

Starving her to death too.

[BlueJac]

193. Obama is a sellout......

[blackspade]

196. WTF?!

This is from a Democratic administation?
How is this even a serious proposal.
Shameful.

[Maineman]

197. You do not stimulate the economy by giving more money to businesses. You stimulate

the economy by giving more money to potential customers. This is so obvious that any politician who denies it has to be corrupt - or brain dead.

[Sky Masterson]

198. They should only do this to the self employed small business

people(Like me) My company consist of two people.
I brought home only $30,000 last year and when I payed my taxes this year it robbed me of money that I really could have used to buy more supplies and grow my business even further. I payed double social security BTW.
This is truly hurting the small businesses in ways people don't realize.

[somone]

199. WTF

So this is how Obama is Winning The Future for the average working American? W T F.

[pmorlan1]

200. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

I am so over this administration.

[drm604]

203. Read the article people.

White House advisors are reportedly considering relieving employers from their obligation to contribute to Social Security.

Advisors are reportedly considering this.

*ADVISORS*

*REPORTEDLY*

Which advisors? Reported by who? What does the President think about this advice (if it is in fact, real advice)?

Can we please not flip out over rumors?

If it turns out that the President is actually considering this, then we can get upset.

[Better Believe It]

205. So we should keep quiet until it becomes law?

"If it turns out that the President is actually considering this, then we can get upset."

And if this leak is ONLY a political "trial balloon" to test public response, do you think the best reaction is silence until the Administration formally proposes it?

That in my opinion is not very effective politics.

Terrible trial balloons need to be shot down with public outrage immediately!

[drm604]

207. And if it's a baseless rumor?

How do you know that this is even a trial balloon?

We have no idea where this came from. If we flip out and start criticizing Obama because of every baseless rumor (which is all it appears to be at the moment) then we're doing half of the Republicans' work for them.

It's a bad idea, and we should say that, but is it the President's idea? I've seen nothing credible to confirm that. Is it even really something his advisors are considering? All we have is an article claiming an anonymous source.

Some people in this thread are condemning the President for this when there's no evidence that he's even considering it. We gain nothing by doing that.

[Name removed]

213. Deleted message

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

[drm604]

216. So you're saying that they have quickly and loudly refuted every single baseless rumor in the past?

I find that a little hard to believe.

And no, I am not posting on behalf of the administration. Perhaps you might want to stick to discussing the issue at hand instead of making even more baseless accusations.

Stop and think about what you are saying. If I was posting on behalf of the administration, and they are actually considering the idea, I would be defending the idea, not denying it.

The fact is that the article does not provide anything credible to indicate that Obama is actually considering this. That's simply a fact. Is he considering it? I have no idea, but that article has nothing to prove that he is. It speaks for itself, regardless of what you may incorrectly believe my motives are.

[Better Believe It]

227. What are you responding to?

[drm604]

230. A post that's been deleted.

[Zax2me]

219. Can I call bullshit?!

Advisors....thinking about it....
There's no reported evidence here that Obama is considering this at all.
I'm guessing he won't, either.
Won't happen.
He will shoot it down if it gets legs.
Much ado

[drm604]

221. I'm glad I'm not the only one who realizes that.

[Better Believe It]

228. That's right. One other person agrees with you.

[drm604]

231. One other POSTER agrees with me.

We don't know how many others felt this thread wasn't worth bothering with.

[MikeMc]

232. I'm very surprised that the repugs are going after S.S.

after they crushed Weiner on defending Medicare

[dogmoma56]

237. the GOP lives and breathes to repeal ALL of the New Deal Legislation >Link>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

richest 1% holds 42% of Americas Financial Wealth, top 5% holds 72%, bottom 80% holds only 7%
but the GOP believes that wealth/power is proof of gods favor of a man so it is a sin to tax them, and the poor are being punished by god so it is a sin to help them or not torment them. this crap is a product of Doug Coes "the Family, AKA: the Christian Mafia, they call themselves that. their organization was started by a Nazi, Abraham Vereide in 1934.

TOO Rich to Regulate.! wealth is proof of gods favor of a man, thus it's a sin to tax/regulate them.
and the poor are being punished by god so it is a sin to help them or not to torment them...the government is infested with Dominionists.. the GOP is Theocratic Cargo Cult of OCD psychotic narcissistic wealth/power hoarders.. they are mentally ill and out of control

http://doggo.tripod.com/doggchrisdomin.htm

this is very good
http://blog.buzzflash.com/hartmann/10016

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

read Jeff Sharlets books, cheap on amazon

[MikeMc]

238. +1 dm, Thanks, and NT