It's late in the day and not a popular subject, but I have to say one more

[sad sally]

time, why is there such a push by the President to extend his "payroll FICA holiday?"

FICA is not a tax. It's a payroll deduction (kind of like a 401k plan) that an employee and employer contribute into what's supposed to be a savings plan for your future retirement, and to help pay for your future medical needs once you retire or become disabled, or are widowed or orphaned.

FICA is not a tax in the sense of paying for national defense, national parks or the EPA. Those things are paid for through income and other taxes.

Yeah, I know all the Social Security and Medicare money you’ve contributed through FICA has long since been borrowed and spent by big government for other programs. These two programs - that if you paid into you're entitled to - survive only on the current yearly payments made by employed workers. Those yearly payments have been reduced by 2% from every workers FICA contribution in 2011 and now the big jobs plan will include another year of a 2% reduction and a proposed additional 2% reduction from employers contribution.

I don't see the logic of reducing contributions while at the same time telling people their retirement funds will be there. It just doesn't add up. It simply further destabilizes the fiscal solvency of Social Security, our national retirement system, by reducing its collections.

Then there's the issue of debt. This year, with the 2011 payroll tax holiday, voters will be happier but Social Security revenues will plunge by an additional $120 billion.

Where will the additional $120 billion come from to pay Social Security checks this year?

Answer, the government will simply tack it onto the national debt.

And how do you suppose the 2012 election year payroll tax holiday extension will be paid for? duh...

Having more money in our pockets makes us happy voters who have a tendency to vote for the politicians who made us happy. Guess the President and Democrats and Republicans running for re-election just want to make us happy - to hell with tomorrow's retirees.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[sad sally]

2. Was orphaned as a little kid, worked my whole life and am now old.

It pains me that there's no good debate on why it's such a good idea to destroy Social Security and Medicare.

[tblue]

16. And that's exactly why you won't hear it discussed with full disclosure

It will be addresses as a "tax holiday" tomorrow, according to NYT. I'm getting my cringe face ready.

I'll adopt you, Sally! :hi:

[smokey nj]

26. I agree.

[sweetapogee]

46. this is a

very. good. question.

[russspeakeasy]

49. It is not a good idea. That's why no debate.

:evilfrown: Welcome to the dark ages.

[kentuck]

50. When they borrow from the Social Security fund...

...they don't have to borrow from the Chinese. The money is already there. When they borrow it, we owe it to ourselves, not to the Chinese.

Since we owe it to ourselves, we can simply write it off if we want to and simply print checks to SS recipients, so long as FICA taxes are coming in to cover the SS checks. They can spend any excess FICA taxes on whatever they want. It is not the same as owing the Chinese.

[Maraya1969]

86. Good point. People are going to continue to get their SS checks.

[EFerrari]

3. You're right, imo. n/t

[madfloridian]

4. I agree. It will probably have an effect on present retirees also.

The right wing pushed for this for years. Now they have it.

[Maraya1969]

87. Do you really think they are going to lower the present retirees

SS checks? That is just not going to happen. No way. No how.

[William769]

5. K&R.

[Lasher]

6. I agree, the payroll tax cuts are a bad idea.

[sad sally]

8. Gentle reminder - fica - federal insurance contribution act - it's not a tax.

[tortoise1956]

20. Actually, it is a tax...

according to ssa.gov:

http://www.ssa.gov/mystatement/fica.htm

[Poll_Blind]

7. K&R- it doesn't add up, sally, and don't ever be hesitant to point that out.

PB

[DirkGently]

9. Adds up if you want to start rolling Social Security into the grave. Along with its beneficiaries.

[sad sally]

11. That's what I've thought when the President pushed it last December

If the thought was that everybody needed an extra thousand dollars, why not send them a check? It's nice to mention the $1,000, but conveniently not mention the $2,312 those making over $106,800 get.

Phase I of eliminating SS...

[SammyWinstonJack]

33. Why does Obama hate Social Security and it's beneficiaries?

Because by his actions, he clearly does. And he wants our votes? :eyes:

[Enthusiast]

61. It was three fold.

1. Create the deficit commission to set the stage and promote social safety net cuts.

2. Extend the Bush tax cuts so deficit hawks would have a good strong argument during the contrived debt crisis.

3. Cut FICA taxes essentially sawing the legs off social security.

Remember, all three were actions done by Obama, while he had a majority in the house and senate, completely of his own accord.

[DirkGently]

101. Good points. Infuriating.

[Enthusiast]

60. You have it!

[Myrina]

62. Ding ding ding ...

Sadly, you are correct. Sigh.

[sabrina 1]

10. Excellent post. There is no logical reason for this

if someone is sincere about protecting SS. Democrats need to get out and start talking about this and explaining to those who are under the impression it IS a tax.

I do not understand this at all. No one who understands how the program works, understands it. I would like to hear the President explain it. If he eliminated the cap on SS, I could it. How come HE doesn't use things like this to bargain with?

Why did they not say 'we will support a 'tax holiday IF the cap on SS is eliminated'??

Why?

[sad sally]

12. I keep waiting to hear about this chained cpi that the President's

economists want to roll out, and why not eliminate the cap? Do you think we'll ever hear the straight story?

[Enthusiast]

63. Yeah. Why?...........nt

[FrenchieCat]

13. It's because it reduces taxes on people that don't pay income tax......

therefore putting money straight into their pocket.....
and in a time of recession, that's what people need.

Many folks don't pay income tax, and unless Barack Obama sends each one a check,
this is the work around.

As for what to do about Social Security to make up this deficit later on;
just raise the fucking cap! That will solve everything! :)

[hfojvt]

18. so what?

There are several other options which do the same thing, without being tilted towards the top.

As I am sure you know, 46% of the payroll tax cut goes to the richest 20% and less than 4% of it goes to the poorest 20%.

The making work pay credit, which Obama campaigned on, was curiously allowed to expire and was replaced by this much more unequal tax cut. It was also reduced by Republicans from $500 to $400. A payroll tax holiday on the first $10,000 of income would give $520 to most workers, instead of giving $200 to the poorest workers and $2,000 to the richest workers. Why couldn't the President propose that?

Because the Republican house would never pass it, because it doesn't favor the wealthy.

So, instead the President proposes something that will favor the wealthy so it will pass.

If you believe that inequality is a serious problem in our society, then that is the worst thing he could do, to propose policies to make things more unequal.

It also sends a bad political message, not that the media will carry it, but I sure can see it. That the Democratic Party favors the wealthy too, and as such, under Obama, isn't all that much better than the Republicans.

[FrenchieCat]

21. So what were the several other options?

It had already been made clear that the GOP weren't renewing the Make work credit,
which is something that Obama originally came up with, and which we did have for two years.

Guess when your choice is the message you are sending, and how can folks get something
instead of nothing, one may decide for the folks.

As for Obama not being all that much better than the Republican,
that's just a shit statement. period.

[Bluenorthwest]

27. So, those who pay no income tax do not make much earnings

and the 'money in their pockets' will be what, 2% of their low incomes? I'm sure you can tell us how much that comes to for the average zero tax payer. Seems to me that full time, $8 an hour people would get about $25 dollars a month 'extra in their pockets' isn't that about correct? The 'something' is $25. Life changing boon to the People!

[FrenchieCat]

41. Glad to know that $25 to a minimum wage earner, although takes over

3 hours to earn, is nothing.

Perhaps you aren't accustomed to $25 dollars being something....
but for some, per month, it's a dinner or two, a movie night,
or a water bill, or additional money for a prescription or a kid's
outfit for the first day of school.

For the year, it's $300.00 in additional money. It adds up to a month's
worth of groceries, or needed repairs on a car, etc...

But I'm sure for you, its the luxury of sitting typing on the Internet,
and saying its nothing, and that it shouldn't be done.

What it also show is how you truly give a shit about the plight of others,
lesser than thee.....something I guess we should believe about you,
based on your level of passion.

Good on you.

[laundry_queen]

44. Masterful twisting!

Bravo. And how much does someone making $100,000 a year get? If it's more than $25 than it's a regressive policy, period and THAT is why the poster is criticizing it, not because he doesn't want poor people to not get an extra $300/year. Jesus.

[bengalherder]

83. As one of the low income people

I would rather have it go to my SS so I can be guaranteed that lousy $350.00 a month they've been promising me all these years.

Twenty five dollars is nothing when a store trip for a few items is $40 easy.

I've allowed my capitalist bosses to become quite prosperous and have little to show for it. I see SS as a savings plan so I can have a few beers and some cat food while I'm starving in my cardboard box after I can no longer work. The FICA, SS payroll cuts are smoke and mirrors that hurt the poor further.

[rhett o rick]

91. Yeah Frenchie, let them eat cake. nm

[Enthusiast]

65. They could buy a couple of six packs.

That is real stimulus! Don't you be poo pooing this! :rofl:

[Enthusiast]

64. With all due respect,

I think you would believe anything if it was supportive of President Obama.

[alarimer]

73. Why not do both?

Lower the payroll deduction and raise the cap at the same time. Win-win.

[sad sally]

94. You must be glad to have heard the President say he's going to put even

more in the pockets of everybody; of course those making over the unchanged cap of $106,800 will see an even more generous amount. Next step is just to eliminate fica contributions altogether - private retirement for all.


The centerpiece of the plan is cuts in payroll taxes, which cover the first $106,800 in earnings and are evenly split between employers and employees. Obama would reduce the portion paid by workers next year to 3.1 percent from 4.2 percent now. The rate was cut 2 percentage points under the terms of a tax deal reached last year. That cut is set to expire Dec. 31, which would push it back to 6.2 percent.

The White House also would use temporary payroll tax cuts next year to offer incentives for new hiring and assist small businesses.

Businesses would get the same 3.1-point reduction on taxes they pay on the first $5 million of their payroll, a limit that skews the benefit toward smaller firms. The full 6.2 percent employer contribution would be waived on the first $50 million net increase in a company’s payroll.

[caseymoz]

104. Frenchie, if a Repub president were doing this, what would you be saying?

And it's something that George W. Bush would have proposed, if he could have gotten it short of privatizing Social Security.

Social Security and Medicare need all all the funds they're set for with the boomers retiring. Any cut in the payroll will bring it's default forward from 2039 to, like, tomorrow very quickly. Medicare even more so. Then their immediate insolvency will be used to abolish the programs under the excuse that we can't afford them.

And it's simply reckless to act like those programs don't need those funds.

Finally, this doesn't put money directly into anybody's pocket, to take the Orwellism out of your statement. The government putting money directly into anyone's pocket would be receiving a government check. No, this is indirectly allowing employers the opportunity to pay their employees 2 percent more. Since so many people are unemployed, what makes you think they just won't be hiring them for +2% less? Or actually cutting wages for those already employed, which employers can do with impunity in this economy. Government doesn't have any direct control over that, does it?

[tblue]

14. It's a bug up my butt too. Kick!

It does appear to be lost on most people.

[bhikkhu]

15. True...what if we spent the 120 billion on infrastructure?

That would really make a difference...as it is, I hate to say it, but it looks more like the same half-measures.

I don't actually think that there is a solution to the bulk of the employment problem, and suspect that economic growth is stalled globally for very fundamental reasons related to physical resource (energy) availability, but a jobs program that has a noticeable effect is still conceivable.

[MilesColtrane]

17. It's an attempt to get people to spend that money, so that the economy doesn't get worse.

Consumer spending accounts for 70% of all economic growth.

[democrat2thecore]

19. Looks good. Sounds good. THEATRICS. 2008 all over again. -nt

[Enthusiast]

66. No.

2010 all over again. After the Democratic Party brand is destroyed.

[Angry Dragon]

22. It was a STUPID idea in December, it is a STUPID idea now

I do not know if Obama thought of this himself or not
but who ever did should be spanked hard and told to leave
SS alone unless they want to raise the cap

This administration is making so many dumb moves
it boggles the mind
That is why we are fighting each other
we have no idea which way this president is going to go next
The democrats are frustrated and are taking it out on each other
because we are the only ones listening to each other
The president is not listening, congress is not listening

[FrenchieCat]

23. We've been fighting each other since before the primaries.....

and it only stopped for a hot minute.

[sad sally]

38. No intent on my part to turn this into a fight with each other, If

the President believes strongly in this plan (which it appears he does since he'll be rolling it out for another year) an explanation by him or one of his experts explaining how reducing funding a program will keep it solvent while at the same time saying it won't add to the evil national debt would be appreciated by many of us. Just doesn't add up. It's like starting a college fund for a kid and telling them I'm not going to fund it but don't worry, it'll be there when you need it.

[stillwaiting]

25. I have a pretty good idea which way the President and his cabinet officials are going to go next.

To the right.

Then, again to the right.

And again.

And again.

**Lather, rinse, repeat.

And in so doing he also discredits leftists/liberals to a large percentage of brainwashed Americans who overwhelmingly not only do not see their lot in life improving, but see their economic security further and further under attack. As it has been for 30+ years now.

The elite have done a very, very good job capturing the Democratic Party.

[Sirveri]

24. It ties OASDI to the general fund, so now they can claim it adds to the deficit.

That is the ONLY reason to do what he did, since most sane people know that tax cuts don't actually work.

[kctim]

28. Why?

Because a pay cut would guarantee a loss of votes in 2012. I know it would make me think twice about who to vote for.

Best bet is to let it expire after 2012.

[Fumesucker]

34. "I know it would make me think twice about who to vote for."

Oh really, for president?

Interesting point of view.

[kctim]

35. Interesting? No.

It's about economics and a lot of people would be happy with somebody who makes their current situation harder.

Luckily, President Obama knows this.

[Fumesucker]

43. So your support of Obama is dependent upon a couple of dollars a week in your paycheck?

Not very deep support, IMO.

[kctim]

45. My support

for President Obama is dependent on him making sound decisions that do not hurt those of us who need those "couple of dollars" a week. And, IMO, you are sadly mistaken if you believe this coming election will not be about the wallet for the majority of people.

[Fumesucker]

47. Oh, it'll be about the wallet all right..

I agree with you completely there.

I don't think a couple of dollars a week is gonna cut it though..

[amborin]

76. Expire? LOLOL! Like the Bush tax cuts? Not a chance! This imperils Soc Sec

[edhopper]

29. It's just another

example of Obama embracing GOP policy. Choosing tax cuts over government programs, like building infrastructure, to help the economy.

[jtown1123]

30. K&R. this idea is god awful and must go away. Ironically, the GOP may stop this.

[CrispyQ]

31. bvar22 has an excellent post on how the payroll tax holiday is a way to

link SS to the general fund. Then they can say that it contributes to the deficit & justify going after it.

I thought I bookmarked it, but guess not.


on edit:
Found it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1538388

[DirkGently]

37. Yep.

[Romulox]

32. Overfunding SS doesn't help its solvency. Not even a little. The money is "lent" to the Federal

Government, and then SPENT.

[sad sally]

36. That's true today and has been for many years, but why should that be?

Social Security money was never designed to be a tool to fund the government. Both parties have raided our money and it's time to stop taking the money from Social Security so that it will be what it was designed to be.

Just because some practice is wrong doesn't mean it has to continue.

[Romulox]

39. I'm not arguing "should", I'm pointing out how it is. A FICA "holiday" doesn't cause more borrowing

Since every penny beyond what is paid out in Social Security is "lent" to the government and spent. So the Government will borrow the money regardless of how much SS collects. The only difference being, the General Fund borrows its money from the Chinese. The FICA pass through "loans" are "borrowed" from workers.

So really, with the way it works today, you're arguing that workers should pay higher taxes so that the Federal Government can seek to borrow less from the Chinese. (Social Security will have to be "repaid" by future workers in either case. That's because it's a "Pay As You Go" system, as you mention.)

[sad sally]

42. Okay, but some people who are deserving (imo) recipients aren't

paying into it - like orphans, the disabled and some widows. (As a kid the $8 I got, plus the $38 my two sisters got from our Dad's meager contribution - he was killed at 34 - kept us eating.)

I guess we could throw all these types off SS and hope somehow they'd survive...

[Enthusiast]

67. If they was to survive they'd have to be

"hard workin' and workin' hard" (Dubya), you know, like we do in Texas.

[sad sally]

70. I was especially mad (and sad as usual) when I started this thread

last night, but a couple of posts - like yours - have made me smile.

While yours is talking about work, it reminded me of what we used to say: We were so poor, that when a crumb of bread hit the floor, the cockroaches scrambled out to feed, singing: Clap your hands, stomp your feet. Praise the Lord, we got somethin to eat!

[Enthusiast]

74. LOL.

I'm happy to make you smile.

[Romulox]

105. Your response has virtually nothing to do with my post, just above it. nt

[reformist2]

80. But SS has bonds that are every bit as good as the ones the Chinese buy.

If the government decided not to honor the bonds held by the SS trust fund, the Chinese (and all investors) would see it as a default on all their bonds.

[treestar]

40. Not sure they have reasons they think it is a good idea

The self employed pay it out of pocket and feel it more. I'm OK with having more money now to pay the business bills - it could allow the business to stay afloat. If it continues in existence, it might hire people someday.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. Because "smart politics" trumps basic arthimatic.

And, it's easy to promise to "fix" social security...someday...maybe...when the jobs come back...when the pie in the sky is done baking.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

51. This "holiday" will only come back to hurt us.

Remove the cap and fully fund SS far into the future.

[bvar22]

52. Connecting funding for Social Security directly to the National Debt was either...

...not very smart,
OR
Diabolically clever.

NOW, when Republicans say that Social Security is part of the national debt,
they ARE telling the truth.

Payroll Tax Holiday Directly Connects Social Security to The Deficit


I've seen this movie before,
and it doesn't end well for the Working Class, the Retired, and the Poor.

Cherish your memories, SUCKERS!
because we're TAKING everything else!
Hahahahahahaha!



Solidarity!



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

[Enthusiast]

68. It's diabolically clever.

They are laughing at us right now for believing this crap.

[WCGreen]

53. That is not a good thing at all and I fully agree...

I have posted many times that it isn't the best thing to do.

I do understand that it gets money into the hands of people who will spend it. From that POV, I can see why. But I am not at all comfort in doing anything that will lessen the money in the fund so that someone down the line can use underfunding as an excuse to cut the program...

[DeSwiss]

54. sad sally, you're right of course.....

...no one has the cajones to address this question out in the open. And I think you, me and most of us here at DU, already know the answer to the question of why they don't. Or won't.

I think http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYB0VW5x8fI">Terrence McKenna put it best when he said: ''....we are led by the least among us - the least intelligent, the least noble, the least visionary. We are led by the least among us and we do not fight back against the dehumanizing values that are handed down as control icons.''


- Anyway, maybe this pic from the Border's Going Out Of Business Sale will cheer you up a little today......

As Jimmy McMillan would say: "Still Too Damn High!!!"

[sad sally]

57. Thanks for the smile (too bad about a book store shutting down though)

Maybe there's a better future somewhere out there in the way beyond. Once the earth turns tens of thousands of times, all of this - all of today - just gets wiped away. Like cleaning a blackboard.

[alsame]

55. k&r

[hulka38]

56. He wants to conflate SS with the national debt.

[Marnie]

58. The Republicans propose ending SS Medicare etc.

Obama actually does it.

These are points the spineless Dims will not make because they don't want to look like they are attacking "their" President.
This is oe of the best reasons the Democrats need some challengers and debates.
Obama is killing us and his party gives him a free ticket to do so.

But they should, and the lame stream needs to pick up on these hugely important points.

[Enthusiast]

59. The purpose for this "payroll holiday"

is to bolster the meme that social security is responsible for the deficit.

This is one of the reasons Obama was promoted by the PTB as a presidential candidate.

The other reasons?

Protect the Bush Administration from serious investigations into events leading up to 9/11, spying on Americans, the Iraq War and torture.

Protect the banks from investigations into massive fraudulent activity.

Continue the wars.

I'm sure there are many more.

[harmonicon]

69. Of course it makes no sense.

If you try to describe national fiscal policy in terms of how individuals and families generate and spend money, it quickly becomes clearly that the government is 100 percent completely fucking backwards.

[truedelphi]

71. The best explanation I have heard for all of the various strategies that will

Impede keeping SOcial Security, et al, is that the Inner Circle already knows that the money is gon4e.

Yep on the books we have a 2.1 or more Social Security fund surplus.

But that money got "loaned" to whomever - the MIC, for theirnon-ending wars or else the Financial elite. You can take your pick of who got it of who got it - but it is gone.

[dogmoma56]

72. this is just a Rethug scheme to disfund SSI.....

[demigoddess]

75. AMEN! but nobody listens.

eom

[Creideiki]

77. More supply side shit from more supply siders

Reducing the employer share won't increase demand, and only demand will spur the economy. This supply side shit really needs to be put to rest. 30 years should be enough time to realize that it doesn't work.

[Paka]

78. I too am old, sad sally, and I live on my ss.

That meant leaving the country, because my check is small. Sadly, from outside the country there is an even clearer vision of how far down the rabbit hole things have gone. :hippie:

[TexasProgresive]

79. balance the cuts with raising the cap

And for that matter a 2 or 3% FICA on capital gains is in order.

[a2liberal]

81. I hesitate to say this here but

to me this is obviously part of the plan to kill Social Security. That tax is never coming back up because it will be labeled as a tax hike, eventually the makeup contributions will stop and then "oh look social security is insolvent we have to do something about this" equals progressively decreasing benefits until it becomes a token amount and then just eventually fades away

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[valerief]

82. They want to reduce SS benefits by defunding it. nt

[defendandprotect]

85. In some part, I would suggest it's to carry the idea of the young vs the old ....

that is, the young get some much needed tax relief -- which should have been done by

increasing the cap on Social Security, along with moving the burden from the shoulders

of the poor and middle class and onto the shoulders of the wealthy -- while they are

perhaps left to think that it has been seniors who were bankrupting them rather than

elites!

FICA payment increases on poor and middle class -- and the alleged increases for baby

boomers - were not only contrived move the burden of Social Security onto the shoulders

of the poor and middle class -- but to create a large slush fund in the Social Security

Surplus for the benefit of elites!

[Samantha]

88. I have been sitting here wonder how much the lower FICA contributions

will impact my benefits when the final computation is made as to how much I will be receiving monthly. Would not less contributions lower the benefit paid out? Is this a stealth manner of cutting benefits? Sounds like a sarcastic questions, but I mean that sincerely. Isn't one's benefit calculated directly by the contributions over the years? And the plan proposed tonight doesn't just impact the beneficiary's contributions, but the employers as well ... double whammy?

Sam

[bertman]

89. Thanks, Sally. REC. If the President is doing this simply because he cannot get a real

provision past the Republicans, then why does he not just say that? Why doesn't he explain it in plain English, the way he did when he was running for President? Why doesn't he say "Look, I don't want to do this quote payroll tax holiday unquote that is really just robbing EVERY American's social security fund, but I cannot get the Republicans to help me pass a policy that REALLY WORKS."

That would be too PARTISAN for a Compromiser-In-Chief to say to the big tough Right wingers.

This whole idea is just beyond disgusting.

Oh and don't you love the proposal for the Unemployed to work for SLAVE WAGES for corporations in exchange for a 'maybe' job? The Koch brothers and their cronies are creaming in their jeans right now at the thought of the GUMMINT paying workers shit wages to work for corporations.

Never in my life did I ever imagine I'd see the day when a Democrat, much less a Democratic PRESIDENT, would associate himself with such an odious, fascist idea.

[sad sally]

90. I'll be damned if I didn't hear the President say tonight that he wants

not just a 2% reduction in fica contributions, he's upped it to more! Deepen the cut - let it bleed.

Bernie Sanders was on Olberman's show tonight and he said this will be a bad deal for SS.

"The newest and boldest element of Obama's plan would slash the Social Security payroll tax both for tens of millions of workers and for employers, too. For individuals, that tax has been shaved from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent for this year but is to go back up again without action by Congress. Obama wants to deepen the cut to 3.1 percent for workers."

[bertman]

93. Corporations RULE!!! Anyone who hasn't figured that out and figured out that Obama is

their mouthpiece is delusional.

Thanks for the disgusting info about the additional cuts, Sally. I'm not sure if Americans can take much more of this Democratic President's "Jobs Program" efforts.

Be in D.C. on October 6th.

October2011.org

[dotymed]

92. They want to

"drown it in the tub."

We need to physically act.

[caseymoz]

95. This has to be the worst idea this president has ever touted.

Ugh, no wait. Afghanistan is still worse, but this is pretty bad.

[airplaneman]

96. Its really quite simple

If you want to strengthen social security - you increase the revenues like lifting the cap so the rich pay the same percent as the rest of us or increase the payroll and employee contribution by even as little like 0.5%. If you want to weaken or destroy social security you cut either income or benefits. I thought Obama's make work pay tax credit was a great idea but it only was 1 (or 2? dont remember years). First it was just 2% for employees for one year only, now it 4% (2% employer 2% employee) and the one year only has been abandoned. One more step towards destrucion as far as I can see.
-Airplane

[sad sally]

97. breaking news - the new jobs plan calls for more.

"President Obama would reduce the portion paid by workers next year to 3.1 percent from 4.2 percent now. The rate was cut 2 percentage points under the terms of a tax deal reached last year. That cut is set to expire Dec. 31, which would push it back to 6.2 percent.

The White House also would use temporary payroll tax cuts next year to offer incentives for new hiring and assist small businesses.

Businesses would get the same 3.1-point reduction on taxes they pay on the first $5 million of their payroll, a limit that skews the benefit toward smaller firms. The full 6.2 percent employer contribution would be waived on the first $50 million net increase in a company’s payroll."

In theory, I guess you could say by giving employers the full 6.2% elimination of the employer's contribution on the first $50 million net increase in a company's payroll might mean they could bring on ten new CEO's who could each be paid $10,000,000, thus eliminating the need to pay any fica - sweet.

[quiller4]

98. The Social Security fund is not reduced by the tax holiday. There

is a fund transfer from the general fund to the Social Security fund for the amount of the reduction. Thus, it is the general fund not the Social Security fund that is taking the hit for the current "tax holiday" and would continue to do so in the proposed extension.

[demgrrrll]

99. I think the guest on Lawrence O Donnell was it Greenstein?

said exactly the same thing.

[bvar22]

102. ...and THAT is exactly the problem.

The "Temporary" Payroll Tax "Holiday" has directly connected funding for Social security to The Deficit.
So NOW when the Republicans say that Social Security is causing our country to Go Broke,
they are telling the TRUTH,
and THAT will open the door for more attacks.

One of the best rebuttals to their claim used to be that Social Security was entirely separate from the General Fund,
was running a Surplus,
and was IN NO WAY connected to the National Debt.
NOW, thanks to the "Temporary" Holiday, that claim can no longer be made.

Fiendishly Clever, eh?

The reason "temporary" is in quotes is because neither Obama nor the next Republican Administration is going to end the "Holiday" (i.e., "Raise Taxes on the Working Class").
THIS de-funding of Social Security is PERMANENT, and is another serious Nail in the Coffin.

Even the terminology, "Temporary Holiday" has been designed to marginalize Social Security,
like funding Social Security is something that is annoying, and a Fun Holiday can be called on it,
like a celebratory "Snow Day" vacation from school.


A REAL "DEMOCRAT" wouldn't be calling for "Holidays" on funding Social Security.
A REAL Democrat would be demanding a Tax Increase on the Wealthy by Raising the Cap to solidify Social Security funding for the next century. Over 80% of the American People support this approach,
so WHY has it been ignored?

The writing is On the Wall for those who care to read it.
This will NOT end well for the Working Class,
The Poor,
and The Retired.

"They" are coming for that money,
and "they" are going to get it.

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

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

[sad sally]

103. Add the $117 billion from 2011 plus another $120 billion in 2012

to the national debt - good news for all those programs that will be slashed to come up with the $4 trillion the Super Committee and the President cut from the general fund to pay for it.

An old Indian relative used to say if you cut the bottom off a blanket and sew it on the top it doesn't make the blanket any longer.

[Romulox]

107. They were going to borrow the money regardless. It's just a matter of *from whom*.

Our gov't runs at a massive deficit which requires borrowing in order to fund this year's operations. That money will be borrowed from the Chinese if it isn't "borrowed" from workers through Social Security overfunding.

Social Security is a 100% Pay As You Go system. The tax holiday doesn't change that.

I don't think you're understanding that piece of the puzzle.

[Romulox]

106. The "shortfall" will ultimately be borrowed from the Chinese. That's how our gov't funds itself. nt

[woo me with science]

100. K&R. This is the Chamber of Commerce plan. This is a Republican plan,

and it is the next step in the bipartisan assault on Medicare and Social Security.

[Romulox]

108. Any "overfunding" of SS is immediately SPENT; Social Security is 100% Pay As You Go.

There is no "lockbox"; any overfunding of Social Security is immediately "lent" to the Federal Government and spent. Payments for future SS benefits will come out of worker's taxes at the time they are paid out. These taxes will not be lower if SS is overfunded today. That's because Social Security is 100% Pay As You Go.

[sad sally]

109. I do understand how the SS system works, even though I'm old and do have some hearing loss.

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

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

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

[muriel_volestrangler]

110. So you're calling for austerity measures, then?

You want no tax cuts for low or middle income people. I understand you want extra taxes on higher income people too, to help reduce the deficit; but do you really think that what the American economy needs now is debt reduction, rather than some money for the low and middle income people to spend? Because that's the effect of what you say you want. Do you fear the current government level of debt that much?

[MaeScott]

111. ......tell your congress critter not to include it. Nnt

[blindpig]

112. It is stealth de-funding of Social Security...

in a way that will not raise too much protest.

Despicable.