Meet the whiz kid who is still crunching the elections numbers.
Republican campaign managers sit at David Axelrod's feet.
Reince Priebus comes to New York to hear GOP donors "vent."
President Obama will be sworn in twice again (this time on purpose).
What will Pres. Obama decide about the Keystone XL Pipeline?
What's happening this week on the Hill.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Video: Gruesome attack in London eyed as act of terror
Video: Suspect killed in murder case tied to Boston bombing
Video: Revelations of Americans killed by US drones raise new questions
Video: Drone revelations a sign of 'inflection point' US counterterror policy
Video: Pentagon computer change a move toward VA backlog fix
Video: Congressional groups line up to scrutinize IRS
Video: Will 'weather weapon' theory end GOP indulgence of conspiracy fringe?
Video: A look ahead
Leave a Comment:
Jobs? We don't need no stinking jobs!
http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/U-S-evicting-Point-Reyes-oyster-farmer-4077624.php#page-2
we'll get a billion jobs tommorow, Shooter. First thing, buddy.
From your own link: "Wilderness advocates said Lunny knew when he bought the oyster farm that the lease was going to expire and should have prepared." This was scheduled way in advance. This was not something that "just happened" meaning, they knew way in advance.
No they didn't. they assumed the lease would be renewed as it had been in the past. How foolish of them to think environmentalists and Obama care about other people.
The operative word here is ASSUMED, kinda like shooter.
Most of us assumed that big business and conservative government wouldn't be stupid enough to tank the economy, we were wrong too. Go figure. We really do have to pay for our mistakes.
Sorry PG but conservative govt didn't tank the economy, that would be Robert Rubin's timebomb. Bush just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
If it was so obvious, then why didn't he fix it? Or, should we just sue Rubin & let everyone else off the hook? This seems to be an open generalization that one man can destroy the world. Reality doesn't generally work that way. The administration in power has responsibility over what happens when they are in power. If they don't recognize and correct for the threats, they are just a culpable as the fools that got the ball rolling in the first place. So, sorry S242, that argument doesn't really cut it, at least from my perspective.
Why can't anyone ask the republicans what entitlement programs they would cut? How they would cut the benefits and to whom the benefits would effect? The president and Democrats have their plan on raising the top tiers taxes and entitlement reform, what is so wrong with this plan that the republicans can't come to an agreement. And with the taxes being so low on the top tier, why haven't they created the jobs already? What are the top companies waiting for? An entitlement program where they get paid to hire? Let's get real.
You sound serious so let me try to answer your questions....
Because the instant MSM headline would be something like 'Republicans want to kill SS and Medicare". It's a "no win" move to go first because of Democrat extremism.
Did you see the initial offer? All taxes and spending with no entitlement reform. As for taxes specifically, Republican think it's absurd to raise taxes only on the people already paying most of the bill.
Taxes are not low on the top tier. You've been conditioned to think people like Romney are typical of the top tier. They aren't. Look for yourself http://taxfoundation.org/article_ns/summary-2009-federal-individual-income-tax-data
Business is waiting for an end to the anti-business atmosphere. See my link above as an example. Until then the large companies can go overseas to do business. Here there are still hundreds of regulations yet to be written in Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and other legislation any one of which can wipe out an entire industry. As long as it seems more likely here to lose money than make it, companies will wait. That's what's real.
Shooter242
You are showing your true leanings. First this has been the best business climate in terms of growth, low taxes, off-shoring and the like. The top decision makers are earning more money then they can spend in a lifetime, while worker's wages are depressed. The reality of things are that people (not the rich) need a break from the suffering, the safety nets that made our country strong and a model for the rest of the world must remain intack. Greed isn't good.
what is shooter talking about? anti-business environment? Corp Profits are breaking all time highs every year. Income at the top levels are at all time highs, and relative to middle and low income jobs skyrocketing. The idea that there is anything 'anti-business' the last four years is laughable. If the White House is so anti-business, why is business doing so well? Corp profits are breaking records, and it's all going to the top 0.01%, they're not adding jobs, lowering tax rates, that are already historically low, to even lower rates has no hop of helping the United States economy, it'll help the top income earners pocket book, but it won't help the economy as a whole, at least there is no evidence or example that one can point to where it will.
Yes, the headline would read that republicans want to destroy SS and Medicare (even though they are payroll based, and have nothing to do with actual income tax). Taxes are lower on the top tier than they have been in generations. The republican idea is that give those that have more, and everyone will benefit... That is not the case, look around. 12 years of lower taxes... no job creation. And we could ask that they rate go back to 70-90% That's when the nation pulled itself out of the last depression... But what do facts and figures matter... Companies point to nonexistent regulations, and fund the stonewallers in congress. They spend their money, but they spend it in such a way to impede the government in anything. They invest in 2nd and 3rd world countries where they do not have to care about safety, or environmental concerns, pay or benefits. If you want American Jobs to come back, you will impose draconian import taxes and force them to make it here to sell it here. That is the only way America will compete, that or go back to the 1800's where you were owned by the company, bought from the company, and tossed aside when injured, killed, sickened by the work environment. That's what's really real.
I'm also serious ... so ...
I think a case could be made here that any party that goes first would have to suffer the extremism of the opposing party. It isn't just the Democrats that use media to their advantage. Both manipulate and abuse the medium for gain. To point fingers at the Democrats alone seems a little disingenuous.
Whatever the case, if the Republican side is asking for the cuts, shouldn't they come up with recommendations? Political discourse needs both sides to offer ideas, even if those ideas are just restating what's already been said.
I totally agree that they make an extremely high offer, but that's not exactly surprising considering how long this has been going on and the results of the last election. Doesn't it now fall on the Republicans to start getting specific about what they want. Honestly, how long do the American people need to wait? Isn't this their job? To take up this debate and find a solution?
There will be no perfect solution here. Both sides are likely to take heat for the outcome, whatever it may be. The way I see it, that's what they volunteered for and that's what we pay them for. Is it so much to ask for both sides to get to work?
Am I wrong in thinking that letting the 'Bush Tax Cuts' expire means that tax levels will return to a previous level - aka what they were paying anyway, before those tax cuts were enacted? Or, will they be paying more than that? Have not all Americans basically been getting a tax 'discount' for quite some time now? And, considering the current economic issues most of the globe is having, would not - incrementally - returning those taxes to their original levels be advantageous to the nation and the world economy?
Additionally, a lot of us feel that those in the 'top tier' are more than a little responsible for the current economic problems. While I'm not denying some responsibility at the lower levels, I certainly didn't change the mortgage rules, get millions of dollars in benefits once my company crashed, etc. Maybe we don't have a clear picture of that, but it certainly feels like they are suffering from it far less than those of us who live in the bottom quarter.
Businesses are greedy. Maybe I'm stereotyping, but I pretty much think that's what it is. They want the best deal they can get, and until they do, they are perfectly willing to screw the people and the nation that allowed them to exist in the first place so they can make a few extra bucks on the backs of underpaid, and frequently abused, workers in other nations.
And, while I agree that our current Legislature couldn't draft a decent law if their life depended on it, it's a shallow reason for businesses to, essentially, abandon their country. I don't even think we're talking about losing money in the long run. I think we're talking about reduced profits.
As you can tell, I'm a little opinionated about people or businesses (which aren't the same, in my eyes) shortchanging others for the sake of profits. It's strikes me as dishonorable, lacking in vision, and generally against the ideals of the country they all claim to love so much when they want something from it.
Maybe I'm out of line. But, as of right now, that's how I see it.
PG, nice reply. Onward.
Regarding the cuts, the Republicans are doing a crappy job of PR. What has to come first is an agreement that cuts are needed. The other day Durbin said something to the effect that SS and Medicare weren't contributing to the deficit. If I were one of the people who believed that was true, cutting anything would seem absurd.
Why? Even with higher taxes, the deficits will remain over a trillion dollars. It's like spitting in the ocean. All it's good for, is revenge for being the sin of being successful.
Very true, and I note that you're describing Fannie and Freddie, Wall St., and GM. I'm pretty unhappy about those myself.
Yes. That's their job. People go into business to make money. They are not there serve us because they are altruistic. If business doesn't make money, it fails. People lose money, more people lose jobs, govts. lose tax revenue. Most businesses fail.
Let me repeat that, most businesses fail. And when they do, the losers are jobs and taxes. If you can see that, you can also see that business is the real job creator and revenue source for Govts. In short, without profits, there is no business, no jobs and no tax revenue.
I hope you give that serious consideration. It's a very big deal.
Yes, they are. Both sides kind of suck at it to be honest, but the Republicans are certainly playing catch up at the moment.
I'm fairly certain there's already at least tacit agreement that cuts are needed (isn't that part of the whole fiscal cliff thing?)
I'm not fully conversant with SS & Medicare, but I think if he was actually lying nearly everyone would be calling him out on it. A significant number of people seem to think that what he says is true. So, since I don't hear people calling for his head on a pike or anything, how is he wrong? Or, is he partially wrong? If properly managed, would these funds add to the deficit? Are they currently being so managed? Where does all that money that I pay go, specifically?
I see a lot of brinkmanship over the issues of budgets, taxes and the economy in general. With far too many politicians playing with people's livelihoods and futures. I don't see that method of leadership as a win for anybody.
One. In response to crisis, things need to change. Adjusting tax levels higher is one of several methodologies that will create change - IF all of those actions are managed together in well-vetted plan (I know, very 'iffy' - but that's what we've got).
Two. Lots of people spit in the ocean. And, it isn't revenge, even though it's being scripted as such far too often. Taxes pay for government action (I know, I'm naive), without revenue increases the government will do less & less, potentially leading toward a fundamental breakdown in relied on services. That's unacceptable.
These are not draconian increases in taxes, although maybe they should be. Traditionally, don't we raise taxes in times of war? We do too much on credit and that needs to be managed. It get managed by balancing revenue and making acceptable reductions. As you can likely tell, I'm no Economist, but incrementally moving taxes to levels that will pay our bills, and reducing excessive spending has to happen. How else do those bills get paid.
Yes, as this point reducing the deficit is a VERY long term project. But, that doesn't make it an unworthy one.
Three. You dismissal of the problem as being too big doesn't help. It doesn't help people solve the problem and it doesn't help people understand the problem, and it provides to call to action to move people toward trying to solve the problem. Why even say it?
That certainly was the main reference, but not the only target of my discontent. When the nation comes under fire, economically, militarily, whatever, each of us should do what we can to mitigate the damage and move our nation back into a state of prosperity.
Due to partisan bickering, corporate greed and a host of other issues, we have spent billions of dollars that could have been better put into use fostering prosperity. This too is unacceptable.
If these people don't like the way the US does business ... fine ... leave. Others will fill the needs. That's how it works (REM/naive). But, don't sit there and cry about how feeble your multi-million dollar paycheck is as you siphon resources away from my country and then blame it on me. I do my part. I pay taxes. I vote. I participate in my community.
And, I firmly believe that those who benefit more from a society should be those that contribute more to a society. If it wasn't for that society, they wouldn't have the prosperity they so fervently hoard.
No. It isn't. There is a difference between being greedy and making a profit. It's like the movie where the three thieves are carrying gold out of the desert and keep killing each other until the last thief doesn't have the strength to carry out the gold. Essentially, we need to make profits, but also support the livelihoods of those that share the journey with us. Otherwise, what's the point? If your world is one where King Midas rules, you can keep it.
There are businesses who both make profits and serve altruistic interests. It happens. It's the way it should happen. Businesses exist to fill needs. Filling needs is an altruistic impulse. I recently read an article in the Atlantic where several women opened a book store in a city that no longer had one because they wanted there to be a bookstore there. They wanted it to serve the community. And it does. It's successful. None of them needed to do this, they chose to do it in order to make a better world for themselves and their neighbors. It happens.
There is a difference between making money and hoarding gold. Communities survive because they work together, that's not different now than it was centuries ago - the circumstances change, the reality doesn't.
And when business make that money, but avoid paying taxes, fail to return it to the community, and short change wages and benefits ... aren't they doing the exact same thing? Money needs to move. Economically, its the blood & breath of the nation. Locking it down doesn't help the economy. It doesn't help the nation or the people that form it.
I never said profits. I said greed.
I give almost everything serious consideration. I respect your view point. But, I think there is a very fundamental problem with the way 'we' do business these days. And that lack of a principled foundation might be more damaging than any deficit or regulation.
Wow, my grammar sucks. My apologies for the linguistic inequities. Hopefully, my points came through.
I like what the President's men are saying we are not negotiating against ourselves, if the Republican wants to cut entitlements, let them hang themselves, let them bring to the table who do they want to sacrifice, in order to lower the deficit. Also I think the PResident must tell them that they have to agree to increase the debt limit at least 3 trillion so we do not have to go that route till after the 2014 election.
Interesting STL report that managed to put all the emphasis on the economic reasons for going forward with the Keystone pipeline with only the briefest mention of the reasons not to go forward. You know, little things like the CLIMATE CRISIS! :O
There is no climate crisis.
More precisely, even if there actually is a climate problem the hysteria, lying, and arrogance surrounding climate is so noxious, we don't care to listen. We see the climate clergy acting like it isn't a problem, so we don't worry about it. It's just another way to glom on to other people's money.
There is a climate crisis, and it's man-made. Just because you don't want it to be so doesn't mean it isn't. There's also a consensus about it. You're entitled to your own delusions, shooter, but not your own facts.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
But here ya go. Every denier argument you can think of followed by hard scientific data that will debunk it. You're welcome to refute the science if you'd like with hard data of your own, but you probably think Earth is 6000 years old.
Little words like Ogalala aquifer stand out. How about words like oil sands spill (on US soil)? People need to read the google about some of the leaks in oil sands pipelines iin Canada and how long it takes to fix these leaks.
And why would the companies digging up this oil sand want to extend a pipeline (subject to leaks) all the way across the US instead of across Canada to the coast? Because they would have less pipeline in Canada and more of it in the US. Thus extending the risk to us, instead of them.
Canadians(not including the Harper Government) are fighting hard to shut down the tar sands AND the pipelines.No economic result is worth the enormous damage to the environment. Also, China has already bought up a great deal of the tar sands.....
Yes, there really is. And, every time one of these large energy companies screws up and contaminate the ground or water, or both, there is an environmental crisis. And, hey, GUESS WHAT, I - and many like me - do care to listen. We like to know when profiteering oil companies or gas companies or whatever are trying to damage our world for the sake of a few more bucks. You know, like the way you just blamed the 'climate clergy' of going after other people's money.
Maybe you're okay with your kids and grand-kids having to deal with contaminated water, destroyed land, sick or dead cattle and flaming water from their kitchen sink - many of us aren't.
Our collective ability to clean these messes up, as has been shown on a certain show I think most of us watch, is decades out of date - in spite of the profits being made by those energy companies. So yes, we're in crisis. Yes, these companies need to be regulated. Yes, this pipeline should be vetted at the highest levels before we even think about letting it happen. This is what government is supposed to do. Protect us and our interests, not just on the economic side and defense side, but also on the environmental side.
If you don't realize that, you are either seriously challenged or on somebody's payroll.
The Keystone XL pipeline is to get the crude to refineries in Texas for shipment overseas. There is a Canadian pipeline to the Pacific. Most importantly...why are we hanging onto oil as our prime source of energy?
Stop using the jargon of the republicans! Social Security and Medicare are not entitlements that is a word trap. Look at your pay check stub you will see you are paying for that ... you are not "entitled" to it by some birth right!
I think you're confused. It's the Democrats that believe people, by virtue of breathing, are entitled to benefits.
Shooter242
I'm a Democrat with 2 degrees; working on a third. I've worked hard and earned my life's rewards. I'm lucky because unemployment insurance is the only (barely adequate) entitlement I've received or needed. By the way, I was laid off after increasing company revenue by 30%. I pay into SS at the highest rate, and I expect to receive my benefits! Why don't those who don't believe in a entitlements give theirs up? That'll settle the deficit issue. Again greed isn't good.
I'm an independent. I typically consider those 'benefits' to be life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Usually, I call them Rights. That kind of means that yes, by virtue of breathing, we are entitled to certain inalienable 'benefits.' Benefits that the wealthy, certain conservative governments and the occasional tyrannical madmen try to deprive us of.
'Entitlements' are generally established by law based on real need. When that need no longer exists, those entitlements should probably go away - not because a bunch of politicians and rich guys tanked the economy.
Medicare and Social Security are government mandated retirements and healthcare investments. For the most part, those who can, pay into them during their working lives and should receive an equitable return on those investments. Not one reduced due to government mismanagement and political chicanery.
Seriously Shooter, who do you work for?
It's sleazy that the repubs have made "entitled" into a dirty word. As if people are not "entitled" to get what they pay for.
And yes, Shooter, liberals do believe that it is immoral for a society to let people die just because they are too old, too poor, too sick, too weak to survive without assistance. The alternative is to let our aged grannies and grampas die because they can't afford medicine--or to pay thousands of dollars/month for their medicine ourselves and have nothing left to save for retirement.
Cooperation (medicare, SS etc.) works better for everyone.
The first thing you folks should know, if you don't, is that the Supreme Court has decided Govt doesn't owe you anything. Legally, they can stop SS tomorrow if they want.
Onward. I used the word benefits deliberately to differentiate it from rights. Benefits are bestowed, not intrinsic. Entitlements are benefits bestowed upon us... because rioting will ensue if they are stopped. What amazes conservatives is that even with free food, free education, free medical, housing subsidies transportation subsidies, free phones and free money... it still isn't enough. There will never be enough, and some people are tired of paying for it. That would be mainly the rich. So hopefully you'll excuse us if we get tired of the constant cry of "Gimmee!"
That said, nobody is trying to take away entitlement programs. Currently they don't pay for themselves, and something needs to be done.
Shooter And why do the "rich" believe that they are "entitled" to pay less taxes than those of us who really do work? To be honest, yes, I am sick of paying for corporate welfare and subsidizing their grandiose paychecks that they send off shore!
Nota, what makes you think the rich pay less than you do? Romney is not representative of the rich.
The 1% for instance make 17% of the income, and pay 37% of the income tax load for a real tax rate of 24%.
Meanwhile half the country pays no Fed income tax at all. Don't be gullible
http://taxfoundation.org/article_ns/summary-2009-federal-individual-income-tax-data
Yes they can. But it wouldn't be a particularly good idea and would amount to theft by the government from the people. Does this also mean they don't owe us a safe home, clean water, freedom? Anything is a pretty broad term.
Rights are not intrensic. They exist because 'We the People' say they do and countless men and women have fought for them and died for them, surrendering their rights for the greater good of the nation. We put those rights down on paper to remind us of what they are and of who we are. We also put all those nifty 'benefits' down on paper as well. That's how laws work.
If the people thought that the need to halt them was real and we could trust in those who tell us we can no longer provide there would be a lot less rioting. But, we don't believe, and we can't trust - so why are you so surprised when we riot? In the end, all we see is a lie, and every time we've been faced with lies of this magnitude only force has brought an equitable solution. Either by marching, protesting or, yes, rioting.
What amazes me is that conservatives are surprised when people try to maximize their benefit from a system they are provided with just for that purpose. Sort of like how conservatives and corporations handle their taxes and other business practices. They play the system for maximum benefit. This is just the same thing happening at two different economic levels ... yet, conservatives are surprised. Maybe they need to look in the mirror more often.
Maybe you'll excuse our impatience when the rich keep crying "Gimmee!" The Bush tax cuts were designed to be temporary. That's what those expiration dates are all about. The party's over. Now we have to pay the bill.
That being said, I would not expect the rich to foster the full burden. But, as I've said in other posts, those who reap the greatest gain from society should bear a higher cost. It's not like we're asking them to ... I don't know ... die in combat, or lose their homes while they're deployed, or not see their children being born or growing up. Surrendering a little more cash to pay for mismanaged wars that conservatives started is not so horrible in my eyes. But, maybe I'm wrong. Either way, that's how many people see this, and no one is going out of their way to prove us wrong.
They sure like to talk about it though, don't they. You know, engendering the same fear, uncertainty and loathing the liberals do in 'job creators'. Funny how that works. Both sides seem to love their fear & loathing tactics. It would be nice if they would just do their jobs.
I don't know the first thing about economics but why do we keep thinking we can cover what we're spending with growth? every year we for example tax everyone 2000 but we need 2500 and then growth only covers 2250 and then we have to borrow the rest. borrowing costs money wouldn't it cost less to tax the full amount and then if we get growth issue refunds?
its like we're gambling and like they say the house always wins.
You're right. Part of the problem with counting on economic growth to make up the difference is that with the introduction of Supply-side economics, we have been trying to stimulate growth using policies that do the opposite.
The current operating theory is that by giving more and more money to the 20% of people who already have so much money they can't figure out how to spend it, we will encourage them to invest in production which will create stuff to buy. Then the middle-class (people with disposable income) will buy all that stuff and grow the economy (Gross Domestic Product).
What they miss in their calculations is that that 20% can't spend all that money, so it just accumulates in their offshore bank accounts where they don't even pay taxes on it (or find other loopholes or take advantage of other corporate welfare that causes more money to accumulate etc.)
Since the economy is a finite quantity, this forces the middle-class to work harder and harder for less and less which means they BUY less and less extra stuff which means businesses become less and less profitable, so there is even less incentive for that 20% to invest in business. And since they can't figure out how to spend all their money anyway, they just let it accumulate and wait for (as one person put it) a more "business friendly" environment (as if that means anything other than an environment in which people can afford to buy stuff).
Taxing that 20% at the same rate as the rest of us allows them to invest in things like infrastructure and education and yes even welfare, all of which create jobs (yes, even welfare creates jobs both by increasing administration hiring and by helping more people get their heads above water, find work and start earning enough money to have some disposable income of their own).
And when people can earn enough money to have disposable income, businesses can start selling stuff and hiring more workers who will have more money for buying stuff, all of which increases our gross domestic product (aka the economy aka the amount of money in circulation) and gives that 20% incentives to invest in production.
Sorry. I kinda used your observation as a soapbox. Kind of a "Yes you're right, and here is an explanation of what you are right about." Thank you for your support (ha ha, a soapbox joke. Get it?)
Scott B. Kerrick: Perhaps you should learn something about economics before commenting. Also, perhaps you should read something that explains how different the federal budget is from your household budget.
I'm sorry did I hit a nerve? I was being modest. A budget is a budget the only difference is scale to think otherwise is delusional. this not paying our full bill and hoping growth picks up the tab has been clearly shown not to work and is thus clearly delusional. maybe instead of reading someone else's thoughts you show have a few of your own.
I hope and pray the President holds his ground and not bow down to the Republicans. He won the election fair and square and we are working with his mandate.
Here's a tip for the Republican bosses flocking to hear Obama's team explain what they're doing wrong:
Stop nominating meaner versions of Thurston Howell III and imbeciles who think that rape is "God's will."
Also, stop pissing on our boots and telling us it's raining. We know when you raise our taxes and tell us you're cutting them, and we know when you attack Social Security while you tell us you're saving it.
And WHY is Pres.Obama's team explaining anything to the gop? Let them figure it out. WHY is anyone trying to " help " the gop figure out their idiot campaign? Tell Axelrod, Messina, etc. to just accept the kudos and move to our next big campaign in 2014. Get rid of the rethug congress, t-baggers and rethug Govs. Come start here in S.C. and move on to Texas, Wis,Ohio and Virginia. Clean house.
Michigan Republicans are at it again. With the fast growing EAA (Education Achievement Authority), which is on track to become a 'state-wide school district', controlled from the Governor's office; combined with the new 'school financial program'; threatens to 'privatize' all Michigan public education. It will lead to 're-segregation' of schools, and carves out 'exemptions' from standardized testing.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/29/1165888/-Michigan-Public-School-System-being-destroyed-RIGHT-NOW
This is part of a new 'Emergency Manager (Dictator)' takeover of Education, for 'profit', not the education of every child in Michigan. Those left behind by these new proposed laws, will be staggering, and have far reaching effects. This is what inequality looks like.
If the pipeline is so safe, let the oil companies post a $2 trillion bond. If nothing else it will encourage safer pipes and better inspections and best of all cleanup practices capable of EFFECTiVELY cleaning up the inevitable spill.
No thanks. They don't have the technology needed to clean up a spill that damages the aquifer. And I doubt even $2-trillion would buy prosperity for that region should the worst happen.
How about they come up with a plan that guarantees safety, or pick a route that won't risk an irreplaceable water supply.
OK - I'm from Texas. Will someone tell the story about the fact that the pipeline is ALREADY UNDER CONSTRUCTION? We just had Darryl Hannah arrested a few weeks back for protesting the pipeline. They managed to cover the story without saying WHICH pipeline she was protesting.
the dems need to stop using the term "raise taxes". it just sounds scarey, it would be more accurate to say restore taxes to pre Bush levels. the repubs get a lot of milage from marketing, it works.
Agreed. This is a return to prior taxation levels that we should have started stepping back to quite some time ago. This would be the first step, and when the economy improves enough, let the rest of them return to that level until the deficit is managed or eliminated.
I don't think anyone is stupid enough to buy this, no matter how it is spun.
Notice how the gop / shooter can not counter one point made ? When their points are confronted with facts , they have to run , hide , and start complaining about something else ...As if they have ANY CREDIBILITY AT ALL ?
I've seen shooter ( the gop ) set straight on claiming the environment on business growth is some how TOXIC , and yet he keeps repeating it , his politicians have even stopped repeating this lie , the only thing toxic about economic development right now is GOP austerity and their party tanking the economy on purpose again
Can someone explain to me why SS contributions are capped at $110,000 ? Why not raise that ? Seems like that would solve some of the SS problems. I've not seen this explained or addressed anywhere. And it seems like to me, some of my friends who complain about SS and medicare " entitlements" are never willing to not take " their share".
Linda, you have hit the nail on the head! This simple fix would solve most of any SS shortfalls. Progress calls for raising this cap.
Robert Reich has published some good data regarding the SS taxable earnings cap. He was a Trustee of the Social Security Fund during the Clinton Administration, when they did an overhaul and increased the tax percentage and cap in order to keep the Plan solvent. As he has explained, one thing they did not predict is the increase in the percentage of all wages paid that is now being paid to people at the top, so that a smaller percentage of all wages are subject to SS taxes. He said the cap should go to $180,000 per year to adjust to this change.
I was a Payroll manage for years, sat in on compensation and bonus meetings, and briefly served on our Board of Directors. One effect the taxable earnings cap has that many people don't know is that it makes it less expensive for companies to pay employees who are already over the cap. The employer portion of the tax is 6.2%. If you give a bonus to an employee who makes less than $110,000 per year, the employer will owe a tax on that bonus (the other 6.2% is paid by the employee). If you pay a bonus to someone making more than $110,000 per year, that tax will not be due, saving the employer $62 on a $1000 bonus. It may not seem like a lot but it adds up, and it's enough of a reason for the guys who make the most to award themselves the biggest bonuses. Getting rid of the cap altogether would keep the plan solvent for a very long time, and maybe help encourage companies to pay more to the people at the bottom of the pay scale.
Another thing people don't seem to understand is that Social Security is not a retirement fund - it's an insurance policy. The taxes are withheld under one of two titles: FICA (Federal Insurance Contribution Act) or OASDI (Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance). We pay premiums that are based on a percentage of earnings. The contributions we have made determine the level of benefits we qualify for if we reach a qualifying status - retirement age, disability, or being a widow or child of a deceased insured. Benefits are paid out of reserves and current premiums, and as with any insurance policy, you may get a lot more or a lot less than you have paid in. But we have every right to expect that insurance policy to pay out as promised, just like we do with our health, home or car insurance policies. That's not some kind of "gimmee" from the government.
The Plan still has a surplus in reserve for future projected payments, but Congress has borrowed it all, so it's full of IOUs. By combining the SS Surplus with the General Fund, they made the deficit look smaller than it actually is. Some of them, mainly Republicans, would like to renege on the insurance benefits working Americans have been paying for, so that they can take that reserve and write the debt down with it.
If the Social Security taxable earnings cap were removed, the wealthy would undoubtedly consider it unfair to pay the insurance premiums of everyone else, but if they would just start paying their employees more, and go back to the CEO-to-worker pay ratios of the 80's, the Social Security solvency problem would be solved (along with a myriad of other problems).