Adding to my post, the fixation on debt is astonishing, like it washed up on the beach and no one knows what to do so they stand around scratching their heads and making up stories.

Debt comes from one source, military spending. Anyone who denies this is a liar, particularly Republicans who claim debt equals "spending" equals "entitlements". The only entitlement that causes debt is tax cuts for the rich. This is not a challenge. Either double taxes on the rich to pay for the military or cut the military by a trillion a year. Everything else is a lie.

Right on Nomoremagicalthinking! Cutting back congressional benefits is LONG OVERDUE!! Talk about Fat Cat benefits!

Wasnt Obama against rasing the debt ceilng before he was for it? The flipflopper in chief. I guess he has just evolved since he was a Senator agaisnt it. Of course he was against the Bush tax cuts to untill he made them permanate for 99% of the taxpayers.

If the US government runs out of accounting tricks before Congress raises the debt limit, it falls upon the President to choose which bills get paid and which bills do not get paid.

Pay and benefits for Congress and their staffs would be top on my list of bills to ignore. A very close second would be payments to defense and construction contractors in congressional districts with Republican representation. Send them notices of payment delays with their Congressman's phone numbers and email addresses at the bottom.

Wasnt Obama against rasing the debt ceilng before he was for it? The flipflopper in chief. I guess he has just evolved since he was a Senator agaisnt it.

No you are attempting to imply the debt ceiling is a singular measure when it has been raised dozens of times thus one can not be for "it" or "against". Morever it's illogical to be willing to have one and only one eternal position on the matter. If our fiscal house was in order and we were done with our bills and raising the ceiling came up one would logically vote against it. That doesn't tar your record for voting to raise it in the past.

Frankly the whole thing is a continuing waste of time that is also unconstitutional there's no logic behind the debt ceiling in the first place. If we've already spent the money we've already incurred the debt so the it's really a useless excersize. The concept all together should be done away with.

Obama voted against raising it once under Bush, he was wrong. If it's bad Obama did it why would it be a problem to not be on that side now? Call me crazy but if one was wrong before and have changed from their incorrect position isn't that how things should work? Ultimately it does not matter what anyone did then because the crisis is now. If the ceiling is not raised we will have a second edition of the dark times of 2008-2009 and so the consequences are too dire to play politcal games considering the GOP lost the election because of their guy who was a real flipper bombed badly. If anyone in congress stalls the process unnecessarily or rallies to vote against it like Blunder Woman Michelle Bachmann they will hurt our nation. Every congress person who voted against it last time should vote to raise it now and that does not make them flip floppers. What it makes them are people capable of learning from past mistakes.

Nice try ditto head, epic fail. Better luck next time.

But but but

The majority of the public are disgusted about all the wall st corruption that is not being prosecuted also , whats obamas excuse for not going after that then?

I also meant to tie that to obamas comments on changing gun laws , we can only do it if we have public support , well he has had public support for going after the scam artist on wall st for 4 years , so whats up with that obama?

The majority of the public are disgusted about all the wall st corruption that is not being prosecuted also , whats obamas excuse for not going after that then?

Citizens United.

Welcome to the era of wholly owned corporate big money politics.

The public support is not there because most people have no idea what actually happened. Honestly let's get real American has the political attention span just shy of that of a five year old. Crime on wallstreet isn't sexy enough to be headline news.

Public support means nothing now, it's worthless, the politicians don't need it. What they want is financial support, campaign money, and international corporations, billionaires, and shady wallstreet execs just have more. Far more than the people together could do. The voice of the people in DC is softest because money is now speech that gives billionaires the equivalent of a stack of amps and speakers at a rock concert.

The left doesn't have the motivation to go after them and the right wants to serve and defend them

Then why did Obama extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class if they were aginst the middle class. You people do relise this dont you Obama has just made the evil repuks tax cuts permanant. So saying thet the repuks were against the middle class would be a complete lie unless your saying that Obama is against the middle class by extended the evil repuks tax cuts for the middle class.

Nothing is "permanent" when it comes to tax laws, especially rates. These rates will be in effect for a couple of years. However, as economic conditions improve and raising rates is less likely to cause the economy to fall back into recession, that can change.

Obama was being prudent, taking a "middle of the road" approach. He probably believes that all of the Bush tax cuts should have been reversed, but knows that the economy is too fragile at this time to do that.

Then why did Obama extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class if they were aginst the middle class.

Well the Bush tax cuts for the middle class don't hurt the middle class and Obama was never against them, not in '08 and not in '12. If you took your blinders off you'd know he campaigned on that from day one. No promise was broken, he endeavored to do it in '08 but it simply could not get through and he succeeded part of the way this time. The POTUS has been quite consistent.

The fact your trying to misrepresent is the opposition to cutting taxs for the wealthy by cutting useful and important programs that really benefit people who aren't rich from the middle class down.

You people do relise this dont you Obama has just made the evil repuks tax cuts permanant.

I doubt you have a grasp on what permanent means in this context. Making the tax cuts permanent does not mean they are set in stone and can not be changed later, what it really means is that they do not expire. The rates become the default starting point until congress changes them.

Obama did what he said he was going to try to do.

So saying thet the repuks were against the middle class would be a complete lie unless your saying that Obama is against the middle class by extended the evil repuks tax cuts for the middle class.

Another half assed attempt to mislead. The POTUS and the democrats were never against tax cuts for the wealthy just the super rich. The reason why the GOP gets rightfully branded now as against the middle class is becuse of your desire to cut programs like medicare or medicaid to shift those costs solely on to consumers, gutting education, slashes free lunch money for less fortunate school children and SNAP, mental health services(yeah if you want to say it's mental disorders that are the gun violence problem you should tell GOP politicians to stop cutting money to it lol), earned retirement benefits......but will not consider asking one single uber-rich elite to pay a single dollar more in fact they get all the loopholes and more. They pay less, we pay more. You're willing to put all these programs on the table that have a positive impact on our country but you'll never ask a single percentage more in marginal tax rates for people who don't need any assistance.

The GOP is willing to touch those things that are for the middle and lower classes but defense spending, big oil subsidies, and top marginal tax rate cuts for people who will still be in the lap of luxury without them. We can touch the middle class and the poor but not the rich....and you wonder why people think the GOP is only for the small mega wealth greedy folks who don't seem to think they have the slightest ethical, personal or civic duty to support the system that made them so fortunate like most poor, middle class, and most wealthy people do.

Better luck next time. You might try bringing some real facts to the fight for the next round.

Cyn

Do you really believe for a minute that the current admin will not raise taxes on the rest of us working "folks"? Dems ultimate goal redistribution of wealth. Taxes will go up for everyone making over 30,000.00 soon , sooner than you think. Raising the debt limit is just another step closer. Why do I have to pay off my visa bill every month and the government doesn't?

All I know is all we heard was how evil the Bush tax cuts were and now Obama has extended them. Of course I know that Obama is rasing taxes on the middle class just look at Obamacare. In fact every poor and working middle class person actualy got a 2% increase in their payroll tax. I just find it funny that people actualty thought their taxes wernt going up and only the rich would have to pay. I have already heard people saying they were mad because that thought only the rich would be affected. Oh well thats the way the cookie crumbles.

Do you really believe for a minute that the current admin will not raise taxes on the rest of us working "folks"?

Nope. You wanna know why? Math. As in it is not possible to pay off the debt without raising taxes on everyone. It going to happen and it's going to have to happen. People are going to have to become acquainted with that reality. There is no other way.

Dems ultimate goal redistribution of wealth

Keep saying that and maybe it'll become true

Taxes will go up for everyone making over 30,000.00 soon , sooner than you think.

I'd be more concerned with the ludicrous notion that reducing revenues will get us out of debt

Raising the debt limit is just another step closer. Why do I have to pay off my visa bill every month and the government doesn't?

Because you don't have the fed's power to borrow and when you don't pay your bill the world economy doesn't crash. But lets look at that when you don't pay your bill your credit goes down. Clearly America should do the same, you guys don't learn well do you? Nice to see you were paying attentiion to the consequences of last time. Raising the debt ceiling doesn't approve any future spending. But keep saying that and it may become true one day. Keep trying.

All I know is all we heard was how evil the Bush tax cuts were and now Obama has extended them.

You don't know very much about anything apparently

Of course I know that Obama is rasing taxes on the middle class just look at Obamacare.

Obamacare which extends the life of medicare and doesn't affect people who already have insurance that if repealed not only removes those savings but costs 100 billion to the deficit according to the CBO. But forget those facts.....

In fact every poor and working middle class person actualy got a 2% increase in their payroll tax.

It applies to all people who work for a wage but since it pays for SS and was only to be temporary....oh no we couldn't keep not paying for SS forever...what a terrible surprise

I just find it funny that people actualty thought their taxes wernt going up and only the rich would have to pay. I have already heard people saying they were mad because that thought only the rich would be affected. Oh well thats the way the cookie crumbles.

It's even funnier that there people out there who think you can pay off debt by cutting the money coming in and just cutting future spending without incurring massive unnecessary interest

Cyn

Obamacare which extends the life of medicare and doesn't affect people who already have insurance that if repealed not only removes those savings but costs 100 billion to the deficit according to the CBO. But forget those facts.....

I don't care what the CBO says, they are not the ones paying the rising premiums. They are also not running the insurance companies. The costs associated with Obamacare for the insurance companies are being transferred to the subscriber. I.E. Me. It all comes down to an unfunded mandate by the feds that only hurts the working middle class. Sure the retired and the people that have no drive to better themselves make out like bandits. Oh yeah It also had the benefit of making Capitol Hill liberals "feel" better about themselves.

"It's even funnier that there people out there who think you can pay off debt by cutting the money coming in and just cutting future spending without incurring massive unnecessary interest"

Nobody in congress wanted to "cut" the money coming in.The tax cuts were already in place for years. BTW the revenue from expiring tax cuts on the filthy rich will only fund the massive federal government for 8 days per year. If you have only a certain amount of money coming in You pay off the debt you already incurred before you go out and spend more. The current whitehouse and Senate don't understand that basic principle. A principle that has worked for me for well over 30 years.

Contrary to the belief held by the left, GW didn't cause the fiscal mess we are currently in. Clinton actually started the ball rolling when he told Fannie Mae and the banks to start lending money to folks that they knew didn't have a snowballs chance in hell of even making the payments on just because He and the rest of the liberals thought that everyone should own a home. Free trade agreements came along and sent manufacturing to Asia and then the fanatical Muslims decided to do some demolition in New York and the Pentagon which in turn made us go spend more money than we had to go over to the middle east and kick their asses. Obama came along and decided that class warfare was a good thing and the filthy rich were the problem and needed to be taxed into oblivion. Well that will never work because the filthy rich are the job creators. Money that they would have used to hire people and get them off the welfare tit is now paying for the bigscreen TVs in the projects.

I don't care what the CBO says, they are not the ones paying the rising premiums. They are also not running the insurance companies.

Except that the CBO is full of people, who happen to be American and thus accountable to American laws. You realize they're not cylons or something. The ACA includes a series of targetted fees to front load the necessary supports when it fully kicks in bringing more people into the market lowering costs for consumers while at the same time netting insurance companies a ton of money. The company will have reduced costs overall to it's wears however the additional business greatly surpasses any losses they incur which are intended to be temporary. But atleast you have admitted the fact Obamacare is not a government takeover of the economy or do you plan on putting that lie in your next post......

The costs associated with Obamacare for the insurance companies are being transferred to the subscriber. I.E. Me.

No. The affordable care act is funded and when fully implemented is designed to increase the number of people on the market increasing insurance profits and reducing costs for consumers. When they can sell to ten people they can still make money if that number goes to a hundred while still reducing price.

It all comes down to an unfunded mandate by the feds that only hurts the working middle class.

As explained the mandates are not unfunded and are specifically designed to pay for themselves that's why it didn't kick in fully when it was passed. It was never supposed to. The AFA is paid for with targetted temporary fees. This is not like your medicare part D.

Sure the retired and the people that have no drive to better themselves make out like bandits. Oh yeah It also had the benefit of making Capitol Hill liberals "feel" better about themselves.

It has nothing to do with retired individuals it is for everyone. No one gets any free insurance under the ACA. That is what we have now. You go to the hospital with no insurance and have a procedure that you can't pay for meaning the tax payers cover 100% of the bill. That is why it's so expensive to go the hospital. If someone has to pay by having insurance that means that the people won't have to pay the entire bill. It's better to have people contribute something even it's small as opposed to noting. In being against this by repealing the ACA you are doing nothing but hurting medicare, increasing the deficit 100 billion, and advocating for freeloading. That is why Romney, the Heritage Foundation and others came up with the idea in the first place. Why do people who can afford insurance deserve my money? Helping the less fortunate is a responsibility but no one has to right to make me pay for something they can afford. You're enabling further freeloading, congratulations.

The AFA:

• strengthens medicare
• bans coverage cut offs so the company can't decide they will no longer give you insurance because you've cost too much
• allows young people to continue to have their parent's insurance since they have no career experience or security due to their natural lack of skill....you can't get a good job to pay for insurance when you're that age(61% support)
• bans denying coverage on the grounds of pre-existing condition(82% support)
• requires companies with 50 or more employees to help pay employee health insurance costs(72% favorability)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/24/us-usa-campaign-healthcare-idUSBRE85N01M20120624

Nobody in congress wanted to "cut" the money coming in.The tax cuts were already in place for years.

The Romney/Ryan plan that the GOP signed and ran on in 2012 reduces taxes. Romney's plan was a 20% cut off the top in addition to the Bush tax cuts.

Epic fail for you. The GOP ran on lowering taxes and you know that if not you're a waste of time as far as I'm concerned.

BTW the revenue from expiring tax cuts on the filthy rich will only fund the massive federal government for 8 days per year

It's not supposed to fund the whole federal government it is to allow us to not slash at infrastructure, education and the social safety net to the bone. We need to invest in all of those things to survive as a nation and hope to keep up with China, Europe, India, etc. long term.

If you have only a certain amount of money coming in You pay off the debt you already incurred before you go out and spend more.

When you need to pay off debt you take the oppurtunity to increase your revenues if the chance presents itself and you prioritize spending with your immediate needs. The fed has to operate and do things, it's not possible to pay the debt down in a short period of time or anytime soon for that matter. Like it or not but if government does not spend it does not exist and so we must borrow for the time being unless we slaughter the entire safety net, military, education, law enforcement ALL to the bone. No one wants that. If you're going to devote the entire revenue stream to paying off the debt and you will incur more debt because of the liabilities government has already created. You may pay down the debt but you also owe your people money on programs they need or too so all those responsibilities don't go away. It must be paid somehow without adequate revenue increases you can't dig your way out of anything. Luckily interest rates are low and thus we should increase our smart investments as layed out in Simpson-Boyles without out being driven by paying down the debt. The debt has amassed over decades, it will take decades to get us out. There is no other way, not opinion, fact. It's that simple. There will be no getting our financial house in order if the economy does not grow. We need consumers to spend, spend, spend...alot....and the sooner the better

If the GOP had done their jobs on the fiscal cliff there would have been more immediate savings for in addition to the saving in the budget control act of one trillion. Democrats have been very clear about the need to cut spending however unlike you on the right they are not willing to cut programs that are vital to our future like education, things that have not contributed to the deficit like SS, and aid to struggling families in these times while not asking corporations and the mega rich to pay a single dollar more although they've gotten most of the breaks over the past few years. Most rich people know this and are not against paying higher taxes at all because they know they'll still come out filthy rich while the less fortunate would not survive slashing programs to help them in a very literal way. Where the hell are the poor kids supposed to go? Where? What bootstraps can they pull themselves up with? The parents try but can't always feed them, charity tries its hardest but the need is almost always too great despite their best efforts so what about them? Who is there to feed them?

The measure of prosperity is not how much those with the most have. Prosperity is measured by how much is in the hands of those who have least. You can always tell a society based on how it treats it's most vulnerable. Cutting that aid which the GOP does want to do, you're not fooling anyone if you choose to deny this, so that some greedy bastard out there can have 30 luxury vacations a year instead of 25. Oh no now you can only have a 500 ft. yacht....so heart breaking clearly that's more important than the children.

Obama came along and decided that class warfare was a good thing and the filthy rich were the problem and needed to be taxed into oblivion.

I didn't know raising the top marginal rate and since I doubt you know what that is in between on your bs arguments and myths I'll explain. The marginal rate means that an increase on income tax rates only occurs after a certain threshold is reached. The original Obama plan was to have that ceiling be 250k meaning that only income after that would be taxed 4% higher to where they were under Clinton where the economy was just fine. You would pay the regular rate for the 250k and if you made more than that had income of 251k only the 1k would be taxed at the higher rate.

Didn't realize 4% was oblivion I'm curious as to what you'd call the rate under Nixon or Eisenhower.....

But what am I saying obviously you're right clearly Obama who is quite rich and all his main financial supporters, also filthy rich, supported letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the top income earners. A group they are in. Clearly they hated themselves I suppose. Warren Buffet hates rich people even though he is one? Quick question: how stupid are you to believe that?

Well that will never work because the filthy rich are the job creators.

I guess you get some points for having the nerve to float a total bull@!$%# lie thinking no one would catch that. The rich don't not create jobs consumers fuel economy growth. If that's the case why pretend to be a champion of the middle class if it's the rich are the most important? Interesting that you people claim to have a monopoly on business yet you know nothing about the fundamentals.

How did the rich people become rich? Was it from someone else giving them all the money or did they have a business? If I have a business who am I trying to get the attention of? Is it myself or consumers? What is the point of business? Does hiring more employees increase or decrease the costs of production? If I do not need more employees why hire more when I'd make less profit? Just how well does a business with nothing happening on the demand side fair? If no customers shop with me how long is that business probably going to last?

Do you have any clue on business at all? Apparently not. Customers create rich people. Zero customers, zero business. Zero rich guys, no real effect. They simply can never be enough rich people to outweigh the spending of the middle and lower classes. You can not buy 100k shirts and 133 cars, and yachts. You're only one person there's a limit to how much you are going to logically consume.

Money that they would have used to hire people and get them off the welfare tit is now paying for the bigscreen TVs in the projects.

You're obviously not familiar with Wallmart. The Waltons are one of the richest families in the word yet a significant number of their US employees are on welfare. Shouldn't they not be doing that since apparently business owners are out to spread good and not make money for themselves? Why would I cut people and hours of my employees if I'm still making so much? Fun Fact:corporate profits are the highest than nearly any if not every other time in American history. If rich people and rich corporations becoming more jobs we should be drowning in jobs.

Your supply side economics is total bull@!$%#.

I need to point out a fact to cynical citizen the dems did cut ss by 2% in the payroll tax cut that Obama signed into law. Just a fact that you mighy need to know before you keep liying and saying the dems dont want to cut because they did and that is a fact. Maybe you should do some fact checking before you keep liying. It has expired now but Obama signed that into law.

High

You do know that the payroll tax holiday was a holiday? Not meant to last forever. It was to provide some stimulus. And it did for the time is lasted. It was the Republicans in Congress that were the most against it in the first place. Yes they were the ones against a tax cut. I regret that 2% is not in my paycheck anymore but I blame Republicans for that not the President. That was part of the fiscal cliff negotiation.

Honestly you not a very clever person are you.

???? It was a cut in ss do you not see that? It was not really a tax cut it was ss being touched by Obama and the dems but they made it look like an actualy tax cut when it was nothing more than the dems cutting ss by 2%. Geese people all you have to do is do some fact checking and you would know these things. Yep thats right actions speak londer than words. Obama and the dems actualy and factualy did cut ss by 2%. Sorry to be the one to point that actualy fact out but it is what it is. In my opnion the one that is not clever would be the one who doesnt actualy check the facts.

Again High

I know is was from SS. It was never designed to be permanent. It was a holiday. Back in 2009 when the crisis the institution I work at took a very hard hit. People were laid off (including my roommate). Those of us who remained had to take a cut in pay or the institutions contribution to our 401ks or donate a certain portion of salary to the institution in exchange for a membership if you knew where I worked that could be a very good option). I took a choose to allow the institution to cut it's contribution to my 401k. I knew it was temporary. That it was for only one year. It was temporary like the payroll holiday tax.

The next year the institution was doing better and their contribution to my 401k commenced again. IMO the payroll holiday tax was not very different than what my institution did. Now where I work is consider a 4-star rated non-profit institution.

Doesnt matter it was money taken from our ss and was a called a tax holiday by Obama and the dems. He could have gave us a true tax cut and took the 2% out of federal income tax but he didnt he took it from ss so the fact is the dems have actualy and factualy took from out ss .This is just a fact now you can blow smoke up alo tof peoples butts but it is what it is. If you go to the offical ss website it plainly tells you that ss paid out more than it brought in the past 2 years. It goes on to tell you that it is unstainable. I suggest you do some actualy fact checking to see what is actualy going on instead of beliving everything you here. I also suggest you take a look at the cliff bill that was just passed. It might suprise you that alot of the rich were actualy and factualy gave huge tax breaks. Oh yes NASCAR Hollywood etc etc. I just laugh at tthe people who actualy do not know what the actualy facts are and I consider those to be the ones who are not very clever. Just try actualy researching the actualy facts and you will be amazed at the bs that is being threw at us.

I need to point out a fact to cynical citizen the dems did cut ss by 2% in the payroll tax cut that Obama signed into law.

No not really no, you're either by your own ignorance or intent, playing a word game to muddy the waters on the issue. Social security was not cut by 2%. Changes to taxes do not amount to cuts in programs. If taxes were decreased by 10% does that mean government is reduced by 10%? No, obviously not(for those with brains, sadly you don't seem to be among them). The size of the program is its impact aka the money it spends. Pay outs to recipients did not decrease nor would they have had to due to the changes in the payroll tax.

You do know that the payroll tax holiday was a holiday?

Nope, apparently that's too difficult to grasp....for what reason I do not know....

It was the Republicans in Congress that were the most against it in the first place. Yes they were the ones against a tax cut

Yes and no mostly they have actually been for it however the root desire they have to do so is not to help SS survive or be more efficient. They have a three pronged strategy that you will always see employed if you look carefully. The plan is to reduce tax payments in giving people more money sitting in their check but that's not to help the workers, it's for wallstreet. So the second part is to limit the money you may save to retire thus leaving you with more money however since if they get there way you won't get to in a good amount of money to retire while reducing payments leaving the final part as being getting the money to wallstreet. You won't have good SS benefits because the revenue system is sabotaged, you won't be able to effectively save money on your own because they're limiting 401k saving meaning your own option is to invest in, you guessed it, WALLSTREET!

That's why they want to destroy it, they know there is a ton of money to be played with in that program. Alot of the people behind it are corporate financiers who will not need SS and thus they don't care about anyone else's situation, it won't be any skin off their back. If they sabotage these retirement savings programs that will allow the employers to get their employees to gamble more with them. They are addicted to gambling.

Doesnt matter it was money taken from our ss and was a called a tax holiday by Obama and the dems. He could have gave us a true tax cut and took the 2% out of federal income tax but he didnt he took it from ss so the fact is the dems have actualy and factualy took from out ss

You don't know anything about payroll taxes or social security. The payroll tax funds social security and can't not be used for any other purpose. The general fund however can and is used as a further back up to the SS trust funds. Newsflash dip@!$%# all taxes pay for a program or another! Honestly can't even seem to comprehend the idea of tax cuts either. If there is a tax at a certain rate and the rate of that tax is decreased that makes it a tax cut.

By your own bull@!$%# logic a 2% fed income tax cut would be a 2% cut to the military, federal law enforcement, education and all the other things the fed pays for because fed income taxes are the things that fund all those programs/departments.

Romney's plan was at one or two points in the campaign advocating a 20% tax cut across the board so by bull@!$%# logic I suppose that means Romney was calling for a 20% cut to the military in doing so.

Only paying out 2% less benefits is a 2% cut to social security.

If you go to the offical ss website it plainly tells you that ss paid out more than it brought in the past 2 years

Yes it will also say that social security has 4 trillion in surpluss funds meaning that the program can pay all current and future ss benefits for decades to come without a reduction in those benefits. But I suppose you neglected to look up that part. Social security is only in danger from the republicans who want to slaughter it and the idiots like you who will believe their schemes.

It goes on to tell you that it is unstainable

Indeed you can't not have the payroll tax forever and still have SS, a fact I clearly noted in the first place which you apparently disputed. The tax holiday was not ever intended to be permanate despite your attempts to mislead to the contrary. As I said above SS actually has a lot of money and so the payroll tax holiday could have actually been extended even longer without threatening the program. But of course it clearly was not.

This is no threat to the program here.

Epic fail.

In your attempt to conflate the changes in the payroll tax as being cuts to the programs benefits despite the fact that payments to beneficiaries were not reduced and that SS has a surplass capable of easily making up the difference even if this were the case....you are a bull@!$%# liar.

Ok my source is the offical ss website go check it out it plainy tells you that Obama cut the amount we put into ss by 2% in 2010. it also plainy tells you that ss paid out more than it brought in. Hello this is the offical website telling you that ss paid out more than it brought in. That means that the 2% less that was paid in hurt tremendoulsy. You really need to check the offical ss website really it plainy tells you this. It planing tells you that by 2032 the payments will be cut. Sir you are a lier and I have caught so you go blow that smoke up somones elses ass becaue you are liying. The offical website plainly tells you and anybody else that by 2032 payments will be cut because it unsubstanble. I just pointed out what the offical ss website says so you are basicaly calling the offical ss website a lier not me because I am just stated what the offical ss websiter has plainly stated.

Ok here some facts straight from the source. Employers and employess each pay 6.2%. If your self employeed you pay 12.4%. In 2011 564 billion came from payroll taxes the rest from interest. The ss board of trustees has declared that ss is not substainable for the long run. This is from 2003 10 years ago they weer saying this.They were projecting us to make it until 2018 before tax revunes fell below payouts. We now know that 2011 was that year so they were actualy off by 7 years. Thye were projecting us to make it till 2042 then but now its down to 2032. Dude this is straight from factual figures this is not some politicaL BS talking point that you seem to want to make. So I sure hope sombody has a good plan besides not touching it at all because according to these facts ( note not talking points) its not substainable if we dont touch it in in some way. So knowing that they had all these projections in 2003 it makes it pretty damn dumb for Obama and the dems to cut 2% of the money that is funding this program. Im sorry but these are just facts not some bs talking point.

Ok my source is the offical ss website go check it out it plainy tells you that Obama cut the amount we put into ss by 2% in 2010.

In other words there was a payroll tax holiday which funds social security. Show where I disputed that. You're argument is that a 2% reduction in payroll taxes is equal to a 2% reduction in pay outs to current beneficiaries which is not the case as a programs size is determined by it's spending. If that were not the case cutting 10% in federal income taxes would be a 10% cut to the military which obviously is a ludicrous argument. You're attempt to play word games failed.

it also plainy tells you that ss paid out more than it brought in. Hello this is the offical website telling you that ss paid out more than it brought in.

It "plainy" says that the program has enough money right now to pay all the current benefits despite this fact which was also not disputed by me. Only a 2% cut in payments is a 2% cut in a program. No one current retiree is recieving less because of the now expired payroll tax holiday. The sky is most certainly not falling because of that tax holiday.

Unless you can prove that the tax holiday means those currently on it are receiving 2% less in payments you can not say that there was any cut. A cut to social security would be a change in benefits.

Does cutting taxes cut the size of goverment? No. No it certainly does not.

You're attempting to spin the facts to imply the program is paying out less when it is not. All the stats in the world can not correct the false logic of such a notion.

But you just can't seem to get that.

social security in spite of the expired payroll tax holiday is solvent for decades(now til 2030's=equals decades)

So I sure hope sombody has a good plan besides not touching it at all because according to these facts ( note not talking points) its not substainable if we dont touch it in in some way.

That has nothing to do with what I said. What I said dip@!$%# was that the money raised for social security can not simply be spent on other things. It does not go into the general fund.

Social security is in more danger right now from GOP attempts to sabotage or "privatize" it than it is from any expired payroll tax holiday

If a 2% reduction in payroll taxes did not mean that beneficiaries received 2% less in payments for the duration of that tax holiday than social security was not cut.

OK sir I will try to break this down to a thrid grade level where you may be able to understand it. Ok the ss retirment program which I might add if it was a private program it would be considered a ponzi scheme and illegal. Ok the way it work is 6% comes out of your check for retiment but its not in your name it is to pay the people who are receiving checks now so yes their is enough money to pay the projection is till 2032. However heres where the plain ole common sense part comes in. Since the 2% is for ss it means that 2% less was going into the retirement fund( technicaly a tax). Ok ss paid out more than it brought in that means that we spent more money than we had to spend. Pretty much think of like this you own your own business and you pay out 10k a month but you only bring in 7k a month now you have 100k stashed up. Do the math and see how long you can stay in business untill you run out of money. So basicaly your thinking is that the well is never going to run dry and that the money will be there. Unfortunalty as long as we spend more than we bring in then it will go dry. Now there are a number of things that we could do to save it one would be to raise the cap another would be to raise the age limit but to not touch it at all would be a death warrant for sure. You dont seem to understand that this is real and has nothing to do with repuks are dems its all of us. Dont bash an idea just because a repuk thinks it up if its a good idea maybe we should try it. That seems to be your problem is you think its a football game or something dude this is real life and serious stuff. If its a bad idea just admitt and move on. Bottom line it was a terrible idea to put in 2% less into a fund that is going broke that fund needed all the money it could get.

Lets be clear you say social security was "cut" by 2%? Yes or no.

Do we, the general public, use the word "cut" when describing th size of a proram because of its taxes or its spending? Y or N.

The size of programs or government is, like it or not, a function of its spending. Less revenue doesn't=smaller government or do we say that about spending? Y or N.

Cutting taxes does not cut spending, Y or N?

If income taxes are decreased by 10% does that mean the size of government drops 10%? Would you say this "cut" is a 10% cut to military since taxes fund the military? Y or N.

Bush cut taxes so under your logic he cut military spending then? Military spending was cut? You think that's the most accurate statement? It's misleading. This is your false claim, no stats in the world or distortion of my comments will save you. The schuckin, ducking, and lyin can't help you.

Back up your claim I challenged that cutting the payroll tax means current retirees get their benefits cut through the duration of the tax holiday. The only way you could justify that claim is to show 2% less was paid not brought in. This is the same bull@!$%# you people tried to say about 700 billion being cut from medicare by saying the spending and benefits were taken out when in reality it was 700 billion in savings. Yes less money is estimated to be spent there but you people tried to present it with a half truth since we all know when people talk about cutting we don't equate that with savings.

You can't prove there was less paid to retirees since social security has a surplus. No one has received less. Benefits=impact, size of program=spending

cut=less spending

spending not cut=program not cut regardless of tax revenue

Only a cut in checks to people on social security can be described as a cut to it. That has not happend the only avenue to prove that is an empty argument devoid of the facts. Social security currently has plenty of money that could not have happened. Moreover you can't accurately say a now expired change in the payroll tax will mean less social security for the future regardless of its likelyhood. You can't predict the future. The tax holiday was to stimulate the economy, if an economy is stimulated that means more SS potential revenue so no nothing is actually set in stone. Still irrelavent but that's also true. You prove that either because you can't prove what has yet to happen, it's not that simple. Easy as that.

The GOP has no intent on saving SS or medicare the Ryan budget is designed to end those altogether in the future no strengthen them. The right needs to serve its wallstreet masters who want access to more retirement funds to buy the government and gamble with. GOP action limitting 401k contributions, slicing at the safety is to force people to put their money in the stock market.

Social security was not cut, it currently has plenty of money, it will have trouble in the future but the sky is most certainly not following yet. Changes will have to be made however the only changes the corporate right wing establishment is only interested in doing it in a way that shifts more burden on the individual and less on corporations. You get less, they get more. Keep thinking the bankers and wallstreet financiers have your best interests at heart after the years proceeding 2007 and what caused if you wish. But if you're stupid enough to believe that the banks are intent on being responsible you're a @!$%#ing idiot. They are a business that means it's about money not people, it is simply how it works. That is their personal, legal, and necessary motivation. It is the rightful nature of society that serves a purpose but when left unchecked can be dangerous.

You can bring up any statistics you want none of which are in dispute by my comments but isn't what you said. If you can't defend your comment than give up you will go nowhere. All the schuckin and duckin must be exhausting.

If social security isn't paying current retirees less it hasn't been cut nothing changes that. End of @!$%#ing story.

Cyn

After reading your ehaustive blathering about things that make no difference whatsoever to anyones point. I truly believe that you don't care one bit that the dems are spending us into bankrupcy. You whine about the poor children instead of facing the real problems. If third generation welfare recipients weren't given raises every time they drop an Obama voting tricycle motor, we would be in a hell of a lot better shape fiscally. There is no reason in the world that a person on ss disability and welfare should be "given" 3500.00 dollars a month to sit in their section 8 home and do absolutely nothing but get obese watching cable on their big screen. Welfare was supposed to be temporary help to get back on your feet,not a way of life. The dems have indeed created the problem for no other reason than to keep power. This is America for god's sake If you want or need something ,You should have to get off your dead ass and go work for it.

2Manchu,

Yeah, it is a shame all those right-wing-nuts combined still are no match for Colin Powell, but there is only so much room in the TV studio.

I witnessed the same thing , unfortunately unions undermined themselves the last 20 years , by never standing up and fighting when it was time to fight , and allowing corporate management to influence workers who were voting , if you never get a descent raise , why even bother joining ?

Yeah because it is so easy to ignore that Reagan undermined the unions bargaining power with the firing of air traffic controllers. Really about all you do is whine about what everyone else did in the past and ignore that unions were not the problem the GOP was is and will always be the problem. I bet your are one of those knot heads that believe unions had a say in what products and designs corporations made to sell to the public.

Honda of America and Toyota do real well without the UAW. If I remember correctly they weren't included in the auto bailout. I have a friend that works in the tool room at Honda that made over $100,000.00 last year plus full benefits. Unions screwed themselves.