PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Republicans bow to Obama on Payroll tax and Unemployment Benefits


dirk digler
02-17-2012, 10:46 AM
As they should :D



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73029.html#ixzz1mf7BE63O


Congress easily passed a sweeping package (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73017.html) that would extend the payroll tax holiday for 160 million Americans until the end of the year, sending President Barack Obama a middle class tax cut that had become one of his top domestic priorities.

The vote in the lower chamber was 293-132. On party lines, 91 Republicans and 41 Democrats opposed the package. The Senate quickly cleared the bill on an 60-36 vote less than an hour after the House voted.

Aside from allowing workers to keep a little more of their paychecks, the bipartisan deal also extends jobless benefits and pushes off a scheduled 27 percent pay cut to doctors who provide Medicare (http://www.politico.com/tag/medicare). The agreement, led by the two top tax writers in Congress (http://www.politico.com/tag/congress), came on the cusp of a weeklong congressional recess but well before those programs expired at the end of this month – marking a rarity for a legislative body that constantly ran up against the brink of deadlines.

Obama has promised to sign the bill “right away.”

The turning point in the arduous negotiations came Monday when the top three House Republican leaders – Speaker John Boehner (http://www.politico.com/tag/johnboehner) (R-Ohio), House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) – announced they were willing to extend the payroll tax cut without offsetting its $100 billion price tag. The cost of the full package approved by the House, including the jobless benefits and “doc fix,” is roughly $143 billion.

mlyonsd
02-17-2012, 12:18 PM
Irresponsible. They should all be drug out and beaten with clubs.

Iowanian
02-17-2012, 12:24 PM
I'm sure it makes it much more appealing to compromise with the left when they dance like their first Touchdown every time.


It's stupid.

HonestChieffan
02-17-2012, 03:32 PM
Great news isn't it? Social Security on a crash course with bankruptcy and this is good news.

mikey23545
02-17-2012, 03:40 PM
Don't worry, Obama is only lowering taxes until the end of the year...If he wins in November...

BANG!!

Down comes the hammer.

I can't believe the Republicans went along with this.

Otter
02-17-2012, 03:51 PM
I collected unemployment for 2 weeks of my life and have been paying in since I was 18 working as a keg stacker at the local brewery. This stuff baffles me, where do I sign up?

If I got laid off I'd go catch some big ass trout with Bwana out in Montana, west to San Fran to see some old girlfriends, the south to Durango for more fly fishing. How does one go about getting laid off?

As long as Bum Fuck Barry is in office, I want in...seriously.

Otter
02-17-2012, 04:13 PM
Monday rolls around I'm showing up with my underwear on the outside talking like I had a stroke.

FD
02-17-2012, 04:29 PM
Great news isn't it? Social Security on a crash course with bankruptcy and this is good news.

What does this have to do with the solvency of Social Security?

dirk digler
02-17-2012, 04:46 PM
Don't worry, Obama is only lowering taxes until the end of the year...If he wins in November...

BANG!!

Down comes the hammer.

I can't believe the Republicans went along with this.

They did it because they are afraid to lose the House

HonestChieffan
02-17-2012, 04:50 PM
What does this have to do with the solvency of Social Security?

Well, Social Security pays money out to retirees every month. The "payroll tax" is FICA, the money that is supposed to pay for the money going out in those monthly checks. And since Obama has created the illusion of a "tax break" by suspending money being collected for SS, the funds for SS payments are 0 coming in and a lot going out.

So, if you have Zero coming in and Lots going out, insolvency is the end game.

FD
02-17-2012, 04:54 PM
Well, Social Security pays money out to retirees every month. The "payroll tax" is FICA, the money that is supposed to pay for the money going out in those monthly checks. And since Obama has created the illusion of a "tax break" by suspending money being collected for SS, the funds for SS payments are 0 coming in and a lot going out.

So, if you have Zero coming in and Lots going out, insolvency is the end game.

The payroll tax cut is funded out of the General Fund, and I've pointed this out to you about 100 times. You either can't read or you're being willfully ignorant.

HonestChieffan
02-17-2012, 04:58 PM
The payroll tax cut is funded out of the General Fund, and I've pointed this out to you about 100 times. You either can't read or you're being willfully ignorant.

If nothing comes in and a lot goes out what is the result?

FD
02-17-2012, 05:05 PM
If nothing comes in and a lot goes out what is the result?

So I guess the answer is "willfully ignorant."

The amount going in to the Social Security Fund is unaffected. The difference between the normal payroll tax rate and the new, lower rate, is made up out of the General Fund. This tax cut has no effect on the solvency of SS.

HonestChieffan
02-17-2012, 05:14 PM
So I guess the answer is "willfully ignorant."

The amount going in to the Social Security Fund is unaffected. The difference between the normal payroll tax rate and the new, lower rate, is made up out of the General Fund. This tax cut has no effect on the solvency of SS.

So, if we take money(we don't have) and move it from account A to account B we can say account B is solvent!

You sir exemplify the true ignorance of the vast unwashed masses of people in this country today.

Actually you cannot be saved from yourself.

FD
02-17-2012, 05:21 PM
So, if we take money(we don't have) and move it from account A to account B we can say account B is solvent!

You sir exemplify the true ignorance of the vast unwashed masses of people in this country today.

Actually you cannot be saved from yourself.

It seems like you are almost getting there. Your response acknowledges that account B is unaffected by the policy. The solvency of account B is what you were complaining about in the first place. The fact that there is some general borrowing going on, unrelated to account B in any way, seems to have distracted you, however. I know there is some nuance here, but maybe if you sit and think real hard you will begin to understand why you are wrong.

HonestChieffan
02-17-2012, 06:25 PM
It seems like you are almost getting there. Your response acknowledges that account B is unaffected by the policy. The solvency of account B is what you were complaining about in the first place. The fact that there is some general borrowing going on, unrelated to account B in any way, seems to have distracted you, however. I know there is some nuance here, but maybe if you sit and think real hard you will begin to understand why you are wrong.

Im working on it. If we are in the hole and we discontinue taking money in and expand the money going out but we move the "money" around, we can claim wins where no win exists and make the foolish and stupid not see the real impact.

If I keep at it I can dumb down to your level of acceptance.

mlyonsd
02-17-2012, 06:41 PM
It's not often I agree with democrats but just to prove my bipartisanship I have to say I agree with these guys.......
"I cannot and I will not support legislation that extends the payroll tax holiday without paying for it," said Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga. "This will add $100 billion to the deficit and it will create an even greater shortfall within the Social Security trust fund that already has over $100 billion shortfall just in the last two years."

Longtime Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa also issued a scathing indictment of the president, for permitting a bill that does not offset the cost of the payroll tax cut.

"I'm dismayed that Democrats, including a Democratic president and a Democratic vice president, have proposed this and are willing to sign off on a deal that could begin the unraveling of Social Security," Harkin said on the Senate floor Thursday.

In the sharpest of terms, Harkin criticized the plan out of concern that not paying for the payroll tax cut will transform Social Security from a program that's always been self-funded with its own stream of revenue to something that has to compete for scarce tax dollars.

"I choose my words carefully. ... Make no mistake about it. This is the beginning of the end of the sanctity of Social Security," Harkin said.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/17/house-approves-payroll-tax-cut-extension/?test=latestnews

FD
02-17-2012, 06:54 PM
Im working on it. If we are in the hole and we discontinue taking money in and expand the money going out but we move the "money" around, we can claim wins where no win exists and make the foolish and stupid not see the real impact.

If I keep at it I can dumb down to your level of acceptance.

Alright, please enlighten me on the "real impact" on the Social Security Fund. Please be specific and use dollar terms.

HonestChieffan
02-17-2012, 08:37 PM
Alright, please enlighten me on the "real impact" on the Social Security Fund. Please be specific and use dollar terms.

OK....

When we run it into the same deficit we have run the rest of the country we won't have any money to pay SS. Unless you advocate printing more money regardless of the impact on the country and the economy.

Your logic would support doing away with all taxes and just running debt. Is that accurate?

mikey23545
02-17-2012, 10:45 PM
Alright, please enlighten me on the "real impact" on the Social Security Fund. Please be specific and use dollar terms.

"I cannot and I will not support legislation that extends the payroll tax holiday without paying for it," said Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga. "This will add $100 billion to the deficit and it will create an even greater shortfall within the Social Security trust fund that already has over $100 billion shortfall just in the last two years."

Longtime Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa also issued a scathing indictment of the president, for permitting a bill that does not offset the cost of the payroll tax cut.

"I'm dismayed that Democrats, including a Democratic president and a Democratic vice president, have proposed this and are willing to sign off on a deal that could begin the unraveling of Social Security," Harkin said on the Senate floor Thursday.

In the sharpest of terms, Harkin criticized the plan out of concern that not paying for the payroll tax cut will transform Social Security from a program that's always been self-funded with its own stream of revenue to something that has to compete for scarce tax dollars.

"I choose my words carefully. ... Make no mistake about it. This is the beginning of the end of the sanctity of Social Security," Harkin said.



Hey Dante, maybe you could ask dem congressman Harkin the question instead of badgering HonestChieffan...

FD
02-18-2012, 12:13 PM
OK....

When we run it into the same deficit we have run the rest of the country we won't have any money to pay SS. Unless you advocate printing more money regardless of the impact on the country and the economy.

Your logic would support doing away with all taxes and just running debt. Is that accurate?

I was serious. Please tell me the effect on the Social Security Fund, in dollars.

Here's a thought experiment for you. The Congress passes a law lowering the amount collected from payroll taxes for 10 months. Nothing changes about how much money is going into or out of the Social Security Fund. Now, you tell me what the effect on the solvency of Social Security is if the reduction in revenues from the temporarily lower taxes:
A) Are made up for with higher taxes on the wealthy
B) Are offset by cuts to welfare payments
C) Are temporarily financed by borrowing that is paid back by lower welfare payments in the future
D) Are temporarily financed by borrowing that is paid back by higher taxes in the future

How do each of these options differ in the solvency of the Social Security Fund?

mlyonsd
02-18-2012, 04:49 PM
I was serious. Please tell me the effect on the Social Security Fund, in dollars.

Here's a thought experiment for you. The Congress passes a law lowering the amount collected from payroll taxes for 10 months. Nothing changes about how much money is going into or out of the Social Security Fund. Now, you tell me what the effect on the solvency of Social Security is if the reduction in revenues from the temporarily lower taxes:
A) Are made up for with higher taxes on the wealthy
B) Are offset by cuts to welfare payments
C) Are temporarily financed by borrowing that is paid back by lower welfare payments in the future
D) Are temporarily financed by borrowing that is paid back by higher taxes in the future

How do each of these options differ in the solvency of the Social Security Fund?We might as well just abolish the entire payroll tax then since it isn't really used for anything.

FD
02-18-2012, 05:49 PM
We might as well just abolish the entire payroll tax then since it isn't really used for anything.

If you can replace it in the long run with another tax that brings in enough revenue or if you can cut spending by enough, I agree. Its silly to tax employment and raise the cost of hiring for employers.

mlyonsd
02-18-2012, 08:57 PM
If you can replace it in the long run with another tax that brings in enough revenue or if you can cut spending by enough, I agree. Its silly to tax employment and raise the cost of hiring for employers.What is enough revenue? Enough revenue for what?

Psyko Tek
02-18-2012, 09:50 PM
Well, Social Security pays money out to retirees every month. The "payroll tax" is FICA, the money that is supposed to pay for the money going out in those monthly checks. And since Obama has created the illusion of a "tax break" by suspending money being collected for SS, the funds for SS payments are 0 coming in and a lot going out.

So, if you have Zero coming in and Lots going out, insolvency is the end game.

this tax cut is smoke and mirrors if you make 50 grand it's $80 per month
not really gonna stimulate me much
and I wish I still made 50 gran a year

HonestChieffan
02-19-2012, 08:10 PM
Amazing how stupid the electorate is

notorious
02-20-2012, 06:09 AM
I heard something absolutely insane on Sirius Left yesterday.


A caller asked about the payroll tax holiday, and the host told him that by cutting 2% of workers' taxes that it will stimulate the economy.


I just about fainted. Why, oh why, won't that work in other areas?!