Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Alan Grayson - explanation of chained CPI, a lousy proposal under consideration on SS

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

(e-mail to me:)

Let me get right to the point. I'm against the proposed "chained CPI" cut in Social Security because it substantially undermines the protection against inflation that Social Security recipients enjoy under current law. The existing cost of living adjustment ("COLA") already understates actual increases in the "cost of living"; the chained CPI would exacerbate the problem.

I understand that the vast majority of Americans -- including, quite possibly, most people reading this - have no burning desire to learn anything about the chained CPI. It has, however, become a major part of the "fiscal cliff" negotiations, and so it has become one of those things that people have to learn about, for their own protection.

Where we are now in the fiscal cliff negotiations is that Speaker Boehner is talking about reducing the federal deficit in the exact same way that Governor Romney did - Boehner says that he wants to, but he won't tell us how. President Obama, boxed in by the poll-driven sense that he must-must-must propose something "balanced," is "balancing" the reduction of tax breaks for the rich against the reduction of the protection that seniors have against inflation. On the merits, however, reducing that protection is undeserved, unwise and unfair.

Social Security benefits are automatically adjusted each year to reflect increases in the cost of living, as determined by the consumer price index (CPI). The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates the CPI each month.

Here is how the "chained CPI" would change things: Let's say that the cost of gasoline tripled, from $3.33 per gallon to $10 per gallon. Most people would call that a 200% increase in the price of gas. That's how it would be calculated under the CPI today. Under the chained CPI, however, it would be calculated at less than 200%, because some people couldn't afford to pay $10 a gallon. They would drive less. They might have to take the bus to work. They might take a "staycation" instead of a vacation.

Because a tripling in the price of gas basically makes everyone poorer, and thus less able to buy gas, the chained CPI doesn't count that as a 200% increase. It reduces the percentage increase in proportion to the amount of gas that people can no longer afford to buy.

In fact, the bigger the price increase (and the poorer people get), the bigger the gap between the actual price increase and the chained CPI adjustment. This effect starts off small, and barely noticeable, but then as time goes by, it swells like a blister. In fact, it swells from $1.4 billion in the first year to $22 billion in the tenth year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. So the chained CPI is inflation protection that, by design, inflation itself erodes. Ain't that just grand?

To make things worse about the chained CPI, there is no evidence that the existing CPI is somehow overpaying seniors. On the contrary, as John Williams has pointed out at shadowstats.com , if the Government simply calculated the CPI today in the same manner as it did through 1990, then every year, the CPI increase would be approximately 3% higher. If the Government calculated the CPI today in the same manner that it did before 1980, then every year, the CPI increase would be approximately 7% higher. That's the sort of thing that happens when you pretend (as the CPI now does) that a computer with a CPU that is twice as fast is the same as a computer that costs half as much.

And let's be honest: you know plenty of Social Security recipients. Have you seen any of them driving a brand-new Lexus, thanks to a COLA increase?

The political proponents of the chained CPI are hoping that you don't understand it. Because when you do understand it, you won't support it. We should be doing more to protect seniors against inflation, not less.

The chained CPI calls to mind something that W.C. Fields once said: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with . . . " With the chained CPI.

Courage,

Alan Grayson

"And time goes by, so slowly,
And time can do so much.
Are you still mine?"

- The Righteous Brothers, "Unchained Melody" (1965)

Guest


Guest
Why does the cost of living go up?

othershoe1030

othershoe1030
It is amazing to me that wealthy, after 30 years of making money hand over fist still try to grasp on to every dollar while fighting to make the middle and working classes to carry the burden. How does this make any sense at all? That's right, let's have the folks who have been treading water for the last few decades carry the load. What?

Alan Grayson - explanation of chained CPI, a lousy proposal under consideration on SS Change11

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM
None of this talk is going to matter in the coming years. The 2008 crash was just a peek at what is to come. William Strauss and Niel Howe had some stern warnings when they wrote their 1997 book, The Fourth Turning. We should know what is coming our way by 2020 or so. Here are a couple of notable paragraphs from their book:

“…Not far into the Fourth Turning, today's long-term projections for Social Security, Medicare, and other elder benefits programs will lie in history's dust bin. The economy will not keep growing as smoothly as the actuaries now assume—and critical events will force the government to reshuffle all its spending priorities. At that point, no one will be entitled to anything; those in need will merely be authorized something. Public figures should alert today's working Americans to their vulnerability…”

Howe, Neil; Strauss, William (2009-01-16). The Fourth Turning (Kindle Locations 6750-6754). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

“…For Boomers, Social Security will be the object of fatalism and sarcasm. Some will get it, and some won't. The typical Boomer will live on bits and pieces of SEP-IRAs, Keoghs, 401Ks, federal benefits, and assorted corporate pension scraps that will vary enormously from person to person. For many, this will add up to a lot; for many others, nearly nothing. When the market hits bottom, millions of Boomers will find themselves at the brink of old age with far smaller nest eggs than they ever expected. They will immediately have to make do with steeply diminished material consumption…”

Howe, Neil; Strauss, William (2009-01-16). The Fourth Turning (Kindle Locations 6082-6086). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Markle

Markle
Floridatexan wrote:
(e-mail to me:)

Let me get right to the point. I'm against the proposed "chained CPI" cut in Social Security because it substantially undermines the protection against inflation that Social Security recipients enjoy under current law. The existing cost of living adjustment ("COLA") already understates actual increases in the "cost of living"; the chained CPI would exacerbate the problem.

I understand that the vast majority of Americans -- including, quite possibly, most people reading this - have no burning desire to learn anything about the chained CPI. It has, however, become a major part of the "fiscal cliff" negotiations, and so it has become one of those things that people have to learn about, for their own protection.

Where we are now in the fiscal cliff negotiations is that Speaker Boehner is talking about reducing the federal deficit in the exact same way that Governor Romney did - Boehner says that he wants to, but he won't tell us how. President Obama, boxed in by the poll-driven sense that he must-must-must propose something "balanced," is "balancing" the reduction of tax breaks for the rich against the reduction of the protection that seniors have against inflation. On the merits, however, reducing that protection is undeserved, unwise and unfair.

Social Security benefits are automatically adjusted each year to reflect increases in the cost of living, as determined by the consumer price index (CPI). The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates the CPI each month.

Here is how the "chained CPI" would change things: Let's say that the cost of gasoline tripled, from $3.33 per gallon to $10 per gallon. Most people would call that a 200% increase in the price of gas. That's how it would be calculated under the CPI today. Under the chained CPI, however, it would be calculated at less than 200%, because some people couldn't afford to pay $10 a gallon. They would drive less. They might have to take the bus to work. They might take a "staycation" instead of a vacation.

Because a tripling in the price of gas basically makes everyone poorer, and thus less able to buy gas, the chained CPI doesn't count that as a 200% increase. It reduces the percentage increase in proportion to the amount of gas that people can no longer afford to buy.

In fact, the bigger the price increase (and the poorer people get), the bigger the gap between the actual price increase and the chained CPI adjustment. This effect starts off small, and barely noticeable, but then as time goes by, it swells like a blister. In fact, it swells from $1.4 billion in the first year to $22 billion in the tenth year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. So the chained CPI is inflation protection that, by design, inflation itself erodes. Ain't that just grand?

To make things worse about the chained CPI, there is no evidence that the existing CPI is somehow overpaying seniors. On the contrary, as John Williams has pointed out at shadowstats.com , if the Government simply calculated the CPI today in the same manner as it did through 1990, then every year, the CPI increase would be approximately 3% higher. If the Government calculated the CPI today in the same manner that it did before 1980, then every year, the CPI increase would be approximately 7% higher. That's the sort of thing that happens when you pretend (as the CPI now does) that a computer with a CPU that is twice as fast is the same as a computer that costs half as much.

And let's be honest: you know plenty of Social Security recipients. Have you seen any of them driving a brand-new Lexus, thanks to a COLA increase?

The political proponents of the chained CPI are hoping that you don't understand it. Because when you do understand it, you won't support it. We should be doing more to protect seniors against inflation, not less.

The chained CPI calls to mind something that W.C. Fields once said: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with . . . " With the chained CPI.

Courage,

Alan Grayson

"And time goes by, so slowly,
And time can do so much.
Are you still mine?"

- The Righteous Brothers, "Unchained Melody" (1965)

The Chained CPI is something approved and advanced by experts on both sides of the aisle. Please read the recommendations from the BIPARTISAN Fiscal Commission appointed by President Barack Hussein Obama and whose recommendations President Obama ignored totally.

Social Security, in the same document, would increase benefits to very low income workers. Gee...Grayson didn't mention that little detail. I am shocked....

Social Security, is a relatively easy fix. Of course, President Obama DE-FUNDED Social Security two years ago and that has not been replaced or restored.

A much bigger problem is Medicare, Medicare Part "D", Medicaid and now ObamaCare.

Regardless of what you think or desperately WANT to believe, the so called
"rich" workers in America do not have enough money for all the entitlements on the books today plus what President Obama is adding.

Where is all this money supposed to come from?

Current Debt . . . $16.3 TRILLION Plus the $1.2 TRILLION proposed by President Barack Hussein Obama for 2013. (No budget approved)

Unfunded Liabilities (money we have PROMISED, do not have, nor do we have it coming in)

Social Security. . . . $15.9 TRILLION (10,000 Baby Boomers RETIRE EVERY DAY) (How many workers are entering the job market daily?)

Prescription Drugs .$20.4 TRILLION

Medicare. . . . . . . . $83.4 TRILLION

Total Unfunded Liabilities $120.4 TRILLION!

Number of Households in 2010 = 112,611,029

Unfunded Liability Per household $1,053,398.00

http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html

PLUS ObamaCare and Untold TRILLIONS more in TAXES

Since far left radical House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took office in January 1, 2007 our debt has increased by $6+ TRILLION.

SIX+ TRILLION since President Barack Hussein Obama took office. With Obama promise of ANOTHER $1.3 TRILLION DEBT FOR 2013.

Why do Progressives DEMAND a far lower standard of living for our children and their children? What makes you so superior, so selfish that you think you deserve far more of what they will earn?

Saddling our children and their children with this massive debt is immoral, indefensible and, as we have seen, the lefties here don’t even try.

Shameful and immoral!

Margin Call

Margin Call
Markle wrote:
Of course, President Obama DE-FUNDED Social Security two years ago and that has not been replaced or restored.

You're making things up again. No

Markle

Markle
Margin Call wrote:
Markle wrote:
Of course, President Obama DE-FUNDED Social Security two years ago and that has not been replaced or restored.

You're making things up again. No

Reducing the

WASHINGTON – The Internal Revenue Service today released instruction to help employers implement the 2011 cut in payroll taxes, along with the new income-tax withholding tables that employers will use during 2011.

Straight from the IRS – Social Security Tax Reduced to 4.2%

Published December 17, 2010. | By Nancy Smyth.

Millions of workers will see their take-home pay rise during 2011 because the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 provides a two (2) percentage point payroll tax cut for employees, reducing their Social Security (FICA) tax withholding rate from 6.2% to 4.2% of wages paid. This reduced Social Security withholding will have no effect on the employee’s future Social Security benefits.

Read more: http://blog.sunburstsoftwaresolutions.com/2010/12/17/straight-from-the-irs-social-security-tax-reduced-to-4-2/

Margin Call

Margin Call
Markle wrote:
Margin Call wrote:
Markle wrote:
Of course, President Obama DE-FUNDED Social Security two years ago and that has not been replaced or restored.

You're making things up again. No

Reducing the

WASHINGTON – The Internal Revenue Service today released instruction to help employers implement the 2011 cut in payroll taxes, along with the new income-tax withholding tables that employers will use during 2011.

Straight from the IRS – Social Security Tax Reduced to 4.2%

Published December 17, 2010. | By Nancy Smyth.

Millions of workers will see their take-home pay rise during 2011 because the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 provides a two (2) percentage point payroll tax cut for employees, reducing their Social Security (FICA) tax withholding rate from 6.2% to 4.2% of wages paid. This reduced Social Security withholding will have no effect on the employee’s future Social Security benefits.

Read more: http://blog.sunburstsoftwaresolutions.com/2010/12/17/straight-from-the-irs-social-security-tax-reduced-to-4-2/

In your never-ending attempt to sensationalize the issue, you made up your own definition of a word again. SS wasn't defunded; another funding source was used to offset the payroll tax cut. It's all in the legislation. To wit, the gov't didn't stop making SS payments.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan
That was a temporary reduction designed to stimulate the economy, and you know it, Markle. Why do you continue day after day spouting lies? Why is your party in shambles? You're nothing but a flimflam man with a cache of canned rhetoric courtesy of the RNC, a dying entity and a party of thieves.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

http://blog.ourfuture.org/20121112/fiscal-cliff-scare-talk-follows-shock-doctrine-script

Anyone who has read The Shock Doctrine understands exactly what this “Fiscal Cliff” scare is.

If you have already read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein you have probably been rolling your eyes at all this “Fiscal Cliff” scare talk. “Here they go again” you’re thinking… If you haven’t read the book, you should. You really, really should.

The Phony “Fiscal Cliff” Scare

At the end of the year the Bush tax cuts expire. When this happens tax rates will rise modestly to where they were when Clinton was President. Also at the end of the year budget “sequestration” occurs. This means that the various cuts Congress approved to end the debt ceiling “crisis” will begin to phase in. (Remember, the debt-ceiling “crisis” was when Republicans refused to allow the country to honor its debts, holding the economy hostage, unless they got deep budget cuts in the things We the People do for each other.)

That’s it. That’s the “crisis.” All of the people who had been hysterical about the budget deficit “crisis” are now hysterical that taxes will go up and spending will go down. Go figure. Maybe — just maybe — I shouldn’t even say it — these “serious people” weren’t … serious … when they said they were worried about the deficit. You see, the hysteria now is because tax rates at the top will go up (cutting the deficit), and because a big part of those budget cuts (cutting the deficit) is military spending. Unfortunately the sequestration also cuts important things that help a lot of people and our economy. But these cuts do not take place all at once (a “cliff”), they will be phased in over time, and the Congress can act at any time to halt any of these cuts.

The “Fiscal Cliff” is not a cliff and the language itself is intended to scare people. The name itself is designed to create panic, evoking disaster imagery of people and the economy falling off a cliff. It is the latest manufactured “crisis” and we are all supposed to be terrified and demand immediate and extreme solutions.

Again, the very people screaming loudest about deficits are the people who passed tax cut after tax cut, and military spending increase after military spending increase, and started war after war. Then these same “serious people” terrify the public, telling them that budget deficits will lead to the destruction of the country — and soon. After a decade of screaming “9/11,” “9/11,” noun verb “9/11,” they screamed “deficit, deficit, deficit.” Now they scream, “fiscal cliff, fiscal cliff, fiscal cliff.”

Then after the public is suitably stirred up and terrified they offer “solutions” they say are necessary to cut the scary deficit (that they caused, for this purpose).

And the fixing all has to happen right now, in the “lame duck” Congress, before those new legislators We, the People elected can take office.

The “Grand Bargain”

The “serious people” are pushing for a “grand bargain” that they say will “solve” the “deficit problem” “once and for all.”

Of course, nothing in any “grand bargain” can bind the Congress, and any part of this “grand bargain” can and will be undone by Congress at the earliest opportunity.

The outline of this “bargain” involves “tax reform” and “getting a handle on entitlements.” Tax “reform” does not involve raising tax rates on the wealthy, it “reforms” taxes by getting rid of various deductions and lowering tax rates. “Getting a handle on entitlements” means cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps and the rest of the things that We, the People do for each other — the things we are entitled to as citizens in a democracy.

(Note — Social Security by law can not and does not contribute to the deficit — they just threw it in because it is “in crisis.” The Social Security “crisis” is that under certain economic projections its funding might run a bit short many years down the road. Compare this possible future shortfall to the huge, vast, bloated, enormous military budget which, unlike Social Security, has no separate funding mechanism and runs 100% short every year. But that is not a “crisis.”)

So a fix for a budget problem caused by cutting taxes, massively increasing military spending and crashing the economy will be “solved” by … not fixing those things. Once again the income and wealth of the country will be shifted away from We, the People and upward to the same 1% who have been benefiting from everything in our economy since the election of Ronald Reagan and the disaster-capitalism formula: cut taxes, raise military spending, then use the resulting deficits to scare people into accepting extreme “solutions.” Rinse and repeat.

The Shock Doctrine

The Shock Doctrine is a book by Naomi Klein that describes a “disaster capitalism” strategy used by wealthy and powerful people to take advantage of crises — even causing crises — to herd people into accepting “solutions” to those crises that really just enrich the 1% at the expense of the rest of us.

In times of crisis (real or perceived) the public is in a state of shock, distracted and ready to grasp at straws to get out of the panic. This is the perfect time for “serious people” to come in and offer pre-planned “solutions.” These solutions usually involve privatizing public institutions and wealth, cutting public services, cutting taxes on the rich, seizing property, lowering wages and pensions … well, just look at Europe’s “austerity” and you get the picture.

This shock-doctrine disaster capitalism model has become standard practice. We see this happening over and over again: crises occur or are manufactured, the media whips people into a panic, and then the “solution” is introduced. The solution involves a “reform” that transfers wealth or institutions into a few private hands.

The Real Problem And Real Solution

We have a jobs problem, not a deficit problem. The best way to deal with the deficit is to put Americans back to work. The real job creators are working people with money in their wallets. We can’t cut our way to growth. These are not just slogans, these are solutions to real problems.

We need to invest in our economy, restoring and modernizing our infrastructure, retrofitting our homes and buildings to be more energy efficient, upgrading our public schools and universities, and fighting to create the manufacturing ecosystems for the new industries of the future,. All of these investments create jobs while they are underway, and pay off by improving our economy for the long term.

Inoculate yourself by reading The Shock Doctrine. Inoculate your friends by telling them about the book, and how this game works, over and over again.


“Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes.” — Republican Majority Leader Tom Delay, 2003

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM
Note — Social Security by law can not and does not contribute to the deficit

Oh, but it will.... There is no real money in the so-called Social Security Trust Fund--only IOUs, which must be funded by either further taxation or more borrowing. Social Security is in real trouble, and not just for future generations, but for the Baby Boom Generation. In the current political climate, Social Security is not going to be fixed--no political will to do it--so it is going to eventually just go bankrupt. Everybody loses after that point.

Stauss and Howe very pointedly state in their 1997 book that the last generation to receive full Social Security benefits are the Silent Genberation, born 1925-1942 (my parents' generation).

Baby Boomers are in for a real shock witrhin the next 10-12 years or so, because the younger generations are going to demand that the burden of supporting an aging Baby Boom generation not be thrust upon them.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Floridatexan

Floridatexan
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Note — Social Security by law can not and does not contribute to the deficit

Oh, but it will.... There is no real money in the so-called Social Security Trust Fund--only IOUs, which must be funded by either further taxation or more borrowing. Social Security is in real trouble, and not just for future generations, but for the Baby Boom Generation. In the current political climate, Social Security is not going to be fixed--no political will to do it--so it is going to eventually just go bankrupt. Everybody loses after that point.

Stauss and Howe very pointedly state in their 1997 book that the last generation to receive full Social Security benefits are the Silent Genberation, born 1925-1942 (my parents' generation).

Baby Boomers are in for a real shock witrhin the next 10-12 years or so, because the younger generations are going to demand that the burden of supporting an aging Baby Boom generation not be thrust upon them.

Not true, Z. But advancing that myth is important to the people who want to continue stealing from the public.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/10/15/5-huge-myths-about-social-security/

Markle

Markle
Floridatexan wrote:That was a temporary reduction designed to stimulate the economy, and you know it, Markle. Why do you continue day after day spouting lies? Why is your party in shambles? You're nothing but a flimflam man with a cache of canned rhetoric courtesy of the RNC, a dying entity and a party of thieves.

Was or was not the employees contribution to Social Security reduced by more than 30%?

When does this "temporary" reduction expire? As you know, Social Security is now running in the red, paying out more in benefits than it is receiving.

Markle

Markle
Floridatexan wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Note — Social Security by law can not and does not contribute to the deficit

Oh, but it will.... There is no real money in the so-called Social Security Trust Fund--only IOUs, which must be funded by either further taxation or more borrowing. Social Security is in real trouble, and not just for future generations, but for the Baby Boom Generation. In the current political climate, Social Security is not going to be fixed--no political will to do it--so it is going to eventually just go bankrupt. Everybody loses after that point.

Stauss and Howe very pointedly state in their 1997 book that the last generation to receive full Social Security benefits are the Silent Genberation, born 1925-1942 (my parents' generation).

Baby Boomers are in for a real shock witrhin the next 10-12 years or so, because the younger generations are going to demand that the burden of supporting an aging Baby Boom generation not be thrust upon them.

Not true, Z. But advancing that myth is important to the people who want to continue stealing from the public.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/10/15/5-huge-myths-about-social-security/


Sorry, your own source say it is running out of money and will have to cut benefits by 25% in less than 20 years.

In FACT at the rate President Barack Hussein is borrowing money, we will be paying so much in interest in 10 years that we will be in the same condition as Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain and even California.

Guest


Guest
PkrBum wrote:Why does the cost of living go up?

Wouldn't the fact that the cost of living is increasing be a concern? What's up with you govt solution people?

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM
Floridatexan wrote:Not true, Z. But advancing that myth is important to the people who want to continue stealing from the public.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/10/15/5-huge-myths-about-social-security/


Actually, some of the "Myths" in that article are myths themselves. The taxes collected for the Social Security Trust Fund were spent as soon as they were collected, and in their place were given Treasury Bonds. It all looks good on the surface, but in order to pay back those treasury bonds, they must be monetized. The only way that can be done is by further taxation or deficit spending. There will be no political will to do either of those things, so the system is destined to crash. It is going to crash on the heads of the Baby Boom generation first. Likely in the next 10-12 years.

I am not proposing or hoping for such a thing to happen--I am a Baby Boomer myself--I am just being a realist. Trouble is on the near horizon for the Social Security system.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/12/19-6

8 Deficit Reducers That Are More Ethical--and More Effective--Than Chained CPI

-----------

Z, I don't share your cynicism about the future of SS. The only problem would be allowing erosion of the program to the point that it benefits fewer people...or trying to tie benefits to the performance of the stock market.

Markle

Markle
Margin Call wrote:
Markle wrote:
Margin Call wrote:
Markle wrote:
Of course, President Obama DE-FUNDED Social Security two years ago and that has not been replaced or restored.

You're making things up again. No

Reducing the

WASHINGTON – The Internal Revenue Service today released instruction to help employers implement the 2011 cut in payroll taxes, along with the new income-tax withholding tables that employers will use during 2011.

Straight from the IRS – Social Security Tax Reduced to 4.2%

Published December 17, 2010. | By Nancy Smyth.

Millions of workers will see their take-home pay rise during 2011 because the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 provides a two (2) percentage point payroll tax cut for employees, reducing their Social Security (FICA) tax withholding rate from 6.2% to 4.2% of wages paid. This reduced Social Security withholding will have no effect on the employee’s future Social Security benefits.

Read more: http://blog.sunburstsoftwaresolutions.com/2010/12/17/straight-from-the-irs-social-security-tax-reduced-to-4-2/

In your never-ending attempt to sensationalize the issue, you made up your own definition of a word again. SS wasn't defunded; another funding source was used to offset the payroll tax cut. It's all in the legislation. To wit, the gov't didn't stop making SS payments.

Please show us where the 2% reduction to taxpayers is being paid by taxpayers to make up the loss.

If it is being paid by taxpayers, how is that helping the economy?

Markle

Markle
Floridatexan wrote:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/12/19-6

8 Deficit Reducers That Are More Ethical--and More Effective--Than Chained CPI

-----------

Z, I don't share your cynicism about the future of SS. The only problem would be allowing erosion of the program to the point that it benefits fewer people...or trying to tie benefits to the performance of the stock market.

Where then is the money coming from?

Where will this money come from? Please don't say the "RICH", they don't have anywhere NEAR this much money.

Current Debt . . . $16.3 TRILLION Plus the $1.2 TRILLION proposed by President Barack Hussein Obama for 2013. (No budget approved)

Unfunded Liabilities (money we have PROMISED, do not have, nor do we have it coming in)

Social Security. . . . $15.9 TRILLION (10,000 Baby Boomers RETIRE EVERY DAY) (How many workers are entering the job market daily?)

Prescription Drugs .$20.4 TRILLION

Medicare. . . . . . . . $83.4 TRILLION

Total Unfunded Liabilities $120.4 TRILLION!

Number of Households in 2010 = 112,611,029

Unfunded Liability Per household $1,053,398.00

http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html

PLUS ObamaCare and Untold TRILLIONS more in TAXES

Since far left radical House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took office in January 1, 2007 our debt has increased by $6+ TRILLION.

SIX+ TRILLION since President Barack Hussein Obama took office. With Obama promise of ANOTHER $1.3 TRILLION DEBT FOR 2013.

Why do Progressives DEMAND a far lower standard of living for our children and their children? What makes you so superior, so selfish that you think you deserve far more of what they will earn?

Saddling our children and their children with this massive debt is immoral, indefensible and, as we have seen, the lefties here don’t even try.

Shameful and immoral!

Margin Call

Margin Call
Markle wrote:
Margin Call wrote:
Markle wrote:
Margin Call wrote:
Markle wrote:
Of course, President Obama DE-FUNDED Social Security two years ago and that has not been replaced or restored.

You're making things up again. No

Reducing the

WASHINGTON – The Internal Revenue Service today released instruction to help employers implement the 2011 cut in payroll taxes, along with the new income-tax withholding tables that employers will use during 2011.

Straight from the IRS – Social Security Tax Reduced to 4.2%

Published December 17, 2010. | By Nancy Smyth.

Millions of workers will see their take-home pay rise during 2011 because the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 provides a two (2) percentage point payroll tax cut for employees, reducing their Social Security (FICA) tax withholding rate from 6.2% to 4.2% of wages paid. This reduced Social Security withholding will have no effect on the employee’s future Social Security benefits.

Read more: http://blog.sunburstsoftwaresolutions.com/2010/12/17/straight-from-the-irs-social-security-tax-reduced-to-4-2/

In your never-ending attempt to sensationalize the issue, you made up your own definition of a word again. SS wasn't defunded; another funding source was used to offset the payroll tax cut. It's all in the legislation. To wit, the gov't didn't stop making SS payments.

Please show us where the 2% reduction to taxpayers is being paid by taxpayers to make up the loss.

If it is being paid by taxpayers, how is that helping the economy?


Any shortfall is covered by the General Fund of the Treasury. This is basic stuff. Please familiarize yourself with the material before entering your rants on this forum, if you have any decency and respect for grown up conversations.

Higher take home pay certainly has the potential to stimulate aggregate demand. I was almost certain that you supported lower taxes. Do you think we should raise taxes?

Markle

Markle
Margin Call wrote:
Markle wrote:
Margin Call wrote:
Markle wrote:
Margin Call wrote:
Markle wrote:
Of course, President Obama DE-FUNDED Social Security two years ago and that has not been replaced or restored.

You're making things up again. No

Reducing the

WASHINGTON – The Internal Revenue Service today released instruction to help employers implement the 2011 cut in payroll taxes, along with the new income-tax withholding tables that employers will use during 2011.

Straight from the IRS – Social Security Tax Reduced to 4.2%

Published December 17, 2010. | By Nancy Smyth.

Millions of workers will see their take-home pay rise during 2011 because the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 provides a two (2) percentage point payroll tax cut for employees, reducing their Social Security (FICA) tax withholding rate from 6.2% to 4.2% of wages paid. This reduced Social Security withholding will have no effect on the employee’s future Social Security benefits.

Read more: http://blog.sunburstsoftwaresolutions.com/2010/12/17/straight-from-the-irs-social-security-tax-reduced-to-4-2/

In your never-ending attempt to sensationalize the issue, you made up your own definition of a word again. SS wasn't defunded; another funding source was used to offset the payroll tax cut. It's all in the legislation. To wit, the gov't didn't stop making SS payments.

Please show us where the 2% reduction to taxpayers is being paid by taxpayers to make up the loss.

If it is being paid by taxpayers, how is that helping the economy?


Any shortfall is covered by the General Fund of the Treasury. This is basic stuff. Please familiarize yourself with the material before entering your rants on this forum, if you have any decency and respect for grown up conversations.

Higher take home pay certainly has the potential to stimulate aggregate demand. I was almost certain that you supported lower taxes. Do you think we should raise taxes?

THANK YOU for admitting that I was right. You stated: "SS wasn't defunded; another funding source was used to offset the payroll tax cut."

It is NOT funded from another source, it is paid out of the General Fund. So there was no other funding, the money comes from welfare, defense, food stamps you know, increasing out deficit and debt.

I don't approve of defunding Social Security when it is already going broke but not nearly in as bad shape as is Medicare, Medicare Part "D" Medicaid and, the crushing blow, ObamaCare.

Alan Grayson - explanation of chained CPI, a lousy proposal under consideration on SS 751animated-obama-money

Margin Call

Margin Call
Markle wrote:
Margin Call wrote:
Markle wrote:
Margin Call wrote:
Markle wrote:
Margin Call wrote:
Markle wrote:
Of course, President Obama DE-FUNDED Social Security two years ago and that has not been replaced or restored.

You're making things up again. No

Reducing the

WASHINGTON – The Internal Revenue Service today released instruction to help employers implement the 2011 cut in payroll taxes, along with the new income-tax withholding tables that employers will use during 2011.

Straight from the IRS – Social Security Tax Reduced to 4.2%

Published December 17, 2010. | By Nancy Smyth.

Millions of workers will see their take-home pay rise during 2011 because the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 provides a two (2) percentage point payroll tax cut for employees, reducing their Social Security (FICA) tax withholding rate from 6.2% to 4.2% of wages paid. This reduced Social Security withholding will have no effect on the employee’s future Social Security benefits.

Read more: http://blog.sunburstsoftwaresolutions.com/2010/12/17/straight-from-the-irs-social-security-tax-reduced-to-4-2/

In your never-ending attempt to sensationalize the issue, you made up your own definition of a word again. SS wasn't defunded; another funding source was used to offset the payroll tax cut. It's all in the legislation. To wit, the gov't didn't stop making SS payments.

Please show us where the 2% reduction to taxpayers is being paid by taxpayers to make up the loss.

If it is being paid by taxpayers, how is that helping the economy?


Any shortfall is covered by the General Fund of the Treasury. This is basic stuff. Please familiarize yourself with the material before entering your rants on this forum, if you have any decency and respect for grown up conversations.

Higher take home pay certainly has the potential to stimulate aggregate demand. I was almost certain that you supported lower taxes. Do you think we should raise taxes?

THANK YOU for admitting that I was right. You stated: "SS wasn't defunded; another funding source was used to offset the payroll tax cut."

It is NOT funded from another source, it is paid out of the General Fund. So there was no other funding, the money comes from welfare, defense, food stamps you know, increasing out deficit and debt.

I don't approve of defunding Social Security when it is already going broke but not nearly in as bad shape as is Medicare, Medicare Part "D" Medicaid and, the crushing blow, ObamaCare.


No, you're wrong. Dollars are fungible especially considering how the government accounts for non-marketable debt.

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum