Associated Press
For millions of American workers, this past Friday was the first pay day of 2013, and I suspect quite a few folks took a look at their check and noticed it seemed a little lighter than usual.
As Neil Irwin explained, it's not your imagination -- your paycheck is a little smaller because the payroll tax break that was in effect in 2011 and 2012 expired on New Year's Eve.
For all the self-congratulatory back-patting from the White House and Congress on the deal that averted the "fiscal cliff" of tax increases -- the deal locked in the George W. Bush-era tax cuts for households making under $450,000 -- they tended not to mention what the deal did, or rather didn't do, on the payroll tax. A 2 percentage point reduction in the Social Security tax, which hits all American workers, had been enacted at the end of 2010. In the fiscal cliff deal, Congress and President Obama neither extended it further nor agreed on any other policies that might have the similar effect of leaving more money in workers' pockets.
The numbers, for anybody who hasn't checked their paycheck yet (or won't get paid in 2013 until later in the month): For someone who makes the U.S. average for private sector workers of $818.69 a week and is paid every other week, that adds up to a reduction of $32.75 in each paycheck. For higher earners, anyone making over $113,700 annually, each bi-weekly paycheck will decline by $87.46.
When middle-class workers saw their pay stub on Friday, I suspect many of them thought, "Hey, I thought the middle class had been shielded from tax increases? I don't make anywhere near $450,000." There are, however, different kinds of tax breaks -- income tax rates on the middle class were locked in place, but the payroll tax break expired.
The timing is hardly ideal -- it decreases consumers' buying power -- and economists project the expiration of the payroll break will undermine economic growth a bit in 2013.
Which leads to a separate question: who's to blame for the policy's demise?
It's true that some Democratic congressional leaders were skeptical of keeping the policy in place. Payroll taxes finance Social Security, and though the money was being replaced by the general fund, Dems were reluctant to make a habit of this practice, so as to preserve the integrity of the Social Security system.
But it was congressional Republicans who really wanted the payroll break to end. GOP lawmakers opposed the policy when it was approved in 2010 -- Obama had to fight tooth and nail to get it passed two years ago -- and when it came time for the recent round of fiscal talks, Republicans made clear from the outset that they had no interest in keeping the payroll policy in place any longer.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) made this abundantly clear throughout the negotiations.
By all accounts, President Obama was on board with extending the break, but wasn't in a position to fight for it -- he could get Republicans to budge on extended unemployment aid, but not another payroll tax cut. (Some on the right are trying to pin the break's demise on the White House, but that's plainly foolish.)
So, if you're wondering what happened to your paycheck, now you know.
Leave a Comment:
I suspect that a vast number of Republicans- all of whom are hurt by the payroll tax increase caused by their Representatives- will blame Obama.
I suspect that most of them will continue to believe that their taxes NEVER went down under Obama.
I blame the Republicans. I see this as just one more example of their war on the poor and working class Americans.
Having said that, why the hell didn't Obama go to the mat for these working people? I am very angry about this. I am very angry that the president let the top percent get away with less revenue, too. That cap should have been $250,000.00 a year and above.
Two wings of the same vulture, IMO. Next we'll see him bend on social security. Then I'll really hit the roof.
I don't believe the payroll tax should have ever went down on the employee, only the employer. The would have helped in the adding employee side but the worker, by paying less, less into SS, recieves less in benifits. I may give more in pocket now, but they will pay for it after retirement with lower benifits. And how many people really noticed that 2%?
Larry 74,
My youngest. He works in a supermarket. He has to work two jobs. He noticed it.
The lower the income, the more noticeable it becomes. He has to work two jobs to stay afloat. Luckily, he's a workaholic.
Day . . . You're probably right. Just one more reason why that payroll tax cut was such an awful idea to begin with.
Combine this with rising prices and possible hikes in state sales tax (at least in Louisiana), and those of us with less than generous incomes will be having a harder time making ends meet. Groceries have gone up, and remember, healthier foods are often more expensive, so less money for groceries can lead to more health issues for the underinsured or uninsured. What a vicious cycle!
Suck it up buttercup. If you want European style Govt. you're going to have to pay European style taxes.
Also let's not forget that the Obama administration has declared there is NO inflation. They can legally disappear you these days.
Without European-style health benefits to go with those taxes. Oh, you forgot that part.
Hoops- It takes the remarkable courage born of ignorance to post what you wrote.
Thank you for your contribution
I actually think, wlstarn, has a very valid point, Shooter, especially related to the state level. If you live in Louisiana and work making a low or modest salary, you probably pay very little state income tax. If the state eliminates the state income tax but raises the very low sales tax of 4%, you very well could wind up paying MORE taxes with the sales tax than with the income tax.
While I am always for lower taxes, I do want to make sure it doesn't unjustly burden low or middle class earners. This situation may do that, although nothing has been confirmed and the details so far are few. I'm with you on this, wlstarn.
RobDon, I can appreciate your desire to protect poor people, but i find it absurd that having just escaped a higher income tax, they are complaining about a temporary stimulus plan being halted. They are exactly where they have been for the last decade which is more than actual taxpayers can say.
That said, "wistam" has no idea what European taxation entails. Sales tax there (VAT) can be 25% and he/she is complaining about 4%? I'm thinking this is low information whinging.
Yes, it would increase the tax burden on lower-income folks, not to mention retirees who do not pay state income tax (b/c they no longer have income), but would have to pay sales tax. See Friday's blog post on Jindal for more information & several links. While the state sales tax may be 4%, individual Parishes (counties) and municipalities may add to that. Total sales tax where I live is 9%, and it is higher in some areas such as New Orleans.
Sales tax increase also hurts the retail, restaurant & tourism sectors & affects jobs in those sectors.
You're actually going to appeal on the behalf of business? That's bold.
The Europeans you want to emulate are paying huge amounts of tax. I believe a pizza in Norway costs $40.00 from taxation. Gas is double or triple our price due to tax. Even in Europe lunch isn't free, it'll cost you a day's pay. (Slight exaggeration)
wlstarn, correct me if I am wrong but I didn't see your post as a complaint about the payroll tax being restored and more a sad observation of the bigger picture. Shooter, that is why I see validity in the comment. Especially the closing:
We cut taxes here, raise them there. We give a short break with uncertainty of when it will go away. Comprehensive tax reform with lots of simplicity and common sense is what is needed, imho.
Wlstarn, you were not saying the payroll tax was the problem but that in conjunction with everything else continues to make progress difficult, is that corret?
Shooter
I just moved back from the Netherlands about three years ago. Yes Europeans pay higher taxes but they get healthcare (including vision and dental I might add) roads and public transportation that actually get you where you are going , basic housing, unemployment benefits that are livable...the list goes on
It's a business transaction between the Government and the society that makes it up they have decided what they are willing to pay for and they by and large get it. Would I be willing to pay higher taxes for that level of service? In a New York minute!
Now when you talk about places like Greece Italy and Spain it's a different story. Do you know what those three countries have in common? Tax evasion on an EPIC scale. The wealthy there pay all but nothing and consequently the social contract breaks down and you have governments that don't function.
Taxes keep the money moving.
I wish we had European style socialism rather than unbridled Capitalism for the wealthy.
What we have now is taxation without representation.................unless you are the upper 2%. Then they all bend over double to represent you.
That's not why they are bent over....
Actually you mean to say "taxes keep the Govt moving" (takers). Taxes do little for the private side which makes economic wealth (makers).
LOL Dragoon.
Shooter
I didn't think I was going to have to do this but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you need a civics lesson along with the economic ones but if needs must:
You Are the Government and You benefit FROM it! The debate at hand is a matter of return on investment. Which you usually like to pretend you understand.
Being angry is fine but please stop hitting yourself before we have to have you taken in on a three day hold
I love revisionist history...from the above blog article:
It was not the Republicans who opposed it, it was the Democrats.
The Republicans were working with Obama on the payroll tax cuts. Obama settled for it because he was unable to get what he wanted, a stimulus spending bill (from same source):
This post makes it sound like Obama was for the payroll tax cut and had to overcome Republican opposition. No, he settled for the payroll tax cut and had opposition from his home part as the NPR article presents.
The original payroll tax cut was a part of the stimulus bill and the deal cut with the Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years also extended the payroll tax cut.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_states_economy/economic_stimulus/index.html
Haddie, which "the stimulus bill?" The payroll tax cut came in 2011. This from the article you posted:
It states the tax bill was offered instead of a stimulus bill. If I'm miss reading or misinterpreting, let me know.
Rob, I think the tax cut extension was modified for the debt ceiling deal. Mainly I'm going on what happened with my pay checks. I retired in late 2009, and the stimulus certainly had the effect of increasing my paycheck when it came into play. After I retired, my tax rate and income structure changed, so there was no change in my checks from before the payroll tax cut extension and after.
I had thought that the initial payroll tax cut only applied to individuals and that the employer was still paying the same percentage. The extension applied to both employer and employee.
I could easily be wrong. Guess I'd better spend some time with Google.
This article seems to indicate my memory was correct, and I have not slipped over into dementia as yet. (You have no idea how good that makes me feel! LOL)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/us/politics/07obama.html?_r=0
Haddie, we may just be reading things different. Here's my understanding of the time-line and some supportive sources.
The "payroll tax holiday" was first passed in December of 2010 to go in effect for 2011. It was a 2% point reduction of the employee's contribution, not the employer.
This "holiday" was then extended for two months in December of 2011 because a full extension was part of continuous failed discussions. It was later extended for all of 2012, the exact same 2% point reduction.
It was allowed to expire the end of 2012. It was not part of the stimulus of 2009. It only became effective in 2011 through 2012. It never included employer contribution.
This quote also backs up my earlier claim that it was not something the President and/or Democrats were initially all gung-ho about. Later they were on board for extension but it was not their first choice originally:
A couple of other sources.
Let me know if you differ with my time-line.
OK, Rob, I think I've finally got it. The stimulus tax cut amounted to about $400 ($800 for couples) less in withholding taxes annually, which is not the same as a payroll tax cut even though it was intended to work as such. It was called "Making Work Pay", and this expired at the end of 2011, as you say.
A new round of tax cuts, the payroll tax cut which reduced SS withholding by 2%, was part of the deal reached in Dec 2010, and it expired at the end of 2012.
There-in lies my confusion! Thank you for the help with that! I was beginning to fear I had lost my grip! :}
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/06/bill-clinton/clinton-says-obama-cut-taxes-95-percent-people-thr/
I think we both found the same page. Tax cut or payroll tax holiday, it all puts a little more in the paycheck and that's always nice.
I'm just waiting on the day I can retire, have more control over my time, and can blame memory lapse on something other than my own stupidity. Congrats! You are no where near losing it yet!
I'm curious about the payroll tax. Seems to be a strong consensus that Social Security remain securely in place. If so, why should we complain about paying for it? Objecting to the payroll tax appears to me a rather short sighted vision with long term consequences. Perhaps I'm missing something here.
dbtexas, you are right on target. What you are missing is that Washington, politicians in general, mostly take a short term perspective geared only towards the next election. Sad, but true.
Unlike the misinformation from the trolls posting here, the 'payroll tax holiday' was a creation of The Obomination which should have never taken place at all. It only worked to provide additional ammunition for the repukes lying about social security being broke.
The strong consensus would be wrong, as it often is. SS now requires general revenue (income taxes) to pay it's benefits. As in, it is running a permanent deficit.
Consider this upbeat report about how SS is fully funded for another twenty years. What they don't tell you is that anything coming from the "trust fund" is really coming from general revenue (income taxes). Payroll taxes no longer cover SS benefits.
http://www.ncpssm.org/PublicPolicy/SocialSecurity/Documents/ArticleID/980/Analysis-of-the-2012-Social-Security-Trustees-Report#.UPQo0Xf4bns
Since everything attributed to the "trust fund" is really general revenue (income tax)... by definition it adds to the deficit. $69 billion by their count.
OK Pooper...
There are $2.5 Trillion plus worth of bonds in the SS Trust Fund. There is over $.5 Trillion worth of bonds in the Medicare Trust Fund. There are about $1.5 Trillion in bonds in various federal retirement trust funds. More than 25% of the $16 Trillion in federal debt is bonds paid by working people. If you believe that the U.S. should default on its bonds, are you proposing that the only bonds defaulted on are those accumulated on the backs of working people? About $1.5 Trillion worth of bonds for the general debt of the U.S. are held by the Chinese and the Japanese. Do you consider those bonds real and the trust funds bonds not?
Of course shooter don't want to admit those bonds are worth anything that blows his belief that SS is going broke out of the water just as the increase in SS payments means more into the SS pot. shooter doesn't like anything that disproves his doom and gloom beliefs. Not that shooter really cares about SS or anything else it just gives shooter less to whine about and he has to make up new whines.
Annie Oakley is simply against SS, like he/she has been trained to be. Once normal people figure out this no-brainer, the tent shrinks...
whomitmay and Lebowsky and SadOldVeteran,
Any bonds held by anyone - American or otherwise has to be paid with interest most likely sometime. The US must pay those with more money than they received when they were issued. Whether a bond is in SS, Medicare or are held by a US citizen or foreign nation, they must be paid by US funds. And odds are that we will be running deficits in any given year....so paying out a bond would add to that year's deficit. No way around that. So why do you think that just because say, Social Security having Trillions is Treasury bonds - that will supposedly be paid on maturity is not adding to the general funds deficits/debt? Where is the money to honor those redemptions supposed to come from?
This isn't true. I have explained this to you multiple times before: bonds do not necessarily have to be paid with cash.
No it would not. The interest payments that are accounted for in the yearly budget are the bonds that will come due that fiscal year. Bonds do not suddenly come due and suddenly need to be paid back: they are on fixed timers.
...because the value of the bond matures with it....
By making this argument you are stating that a business always runs a deficit because it has shareholders or that you're running a deficit because you have a 401k. This is just silly
When you sell a stock at a higher price than the stock was worth when you purchased it, where did the money come from the difference? Obviously it comes from the maturity of the stock (IE the higher price of that stock) and thus you pay for what you put in by the higher price value when it comes due.
I mean you are understanding that the value of the dollar increases every year that GDP increases in the US, yeah? You are aware that the value of the dollar increases every year on the international trade market, yeah? You're acting as though the value of the dollar never changes and thus the money you put in, invariably is always more than what you get out. This isn't true unless something drastic has happened to the value of your dollar. Again think of it like stocks: when you invest 10,000$ into an account and then 20 years later you are taking out 100,000$ that's a net profit from the initial investment that you made (even when adjusted). This is what you advise people to do as an accountant, yet you can't make that connection with a treasury bond?
bonds do not necessarily have to be paid with cash.
Geez, I tire of this comment. Sure I guess you could pay it somehow with services or other payments in kind, but you always seem to infer that that would be cheaper that $$. Anything that is used as payment has some value. If you supply a service that involves government employees say, then the cost of those employees pay and benefits would still require $$ somewhere down the line. In regards to paying of the bonds there is no free lunch.
As for your other arguments...I do understand inflation and the time value of money. But still we are receiving cash to use now to be paid later at a premium and yes...IF inflation comes into play in any meaningful amount, one side may make out a little better than expected. So what? We still must pay sometime in the future and currently our government is constantly borrowing to keep up. Or, as I asked before, are all the politicians on both sides that are fighting over the debt ceiling and deficits just not as smart as you to realize that all this debt stuff is no big deal?
Skip you are being given criticisms for statements that you are saying that are factually inaccurate and arguments that you are giving that are logically flawed. Do not flip this around as some personal attack against me because I have the audacity to point out bad arguments on your part. Did I ever argue that the debt doesn't matter? Nope. In fact you've made this same accusation before at least twice and BOTH of the other times I've made a similar rebuttal and then what do you do? You immediately walk it back realizing that you were out of line. You don't pay attention to the words that you say and you don't pay attention to the arguments that you make and thus you continuously make the exact same fallacy again and again and again and again. And then you apparently get snippy and butt hurt when someone else points out to you that you're making the same screw up again and again. Don't take your personal problems out on me- I don't care about them and it has nothing to do with the circumstance.
Do nations have to payout in cash? No. Was this your argument? Yes. Now you've played the No True Scotsman argument (which you ALWAYS do when you make the first fallacy) and now you're asserting that the premise is true even though it was just debunked and you admit that it's been debunked. What will happen on the next page when you pretend to want to have a cogent conversation about this issue? Will you just repeat the same debunked material again? And again? And again? If you don't want to hear the same rebuttal over and over then STOP MAKING THE SAME FLAWED ARGUMENTS. You are the person who is driving this dialogue and you are getting the results that you are putting out there.
The only thing smaller than my pay stub is "Li'l Stubby, my not-so-wonderful trouser trout that is shrinking in this chilly Midwestern cold front. Now employers have to pay an additional percentage of tax on their quarterly payroll obligations, and over a fiscal year this may cut into the coffee and donuts fund at the office. Do you really need to drink water during an 8-hour shift? You might want to adjust your attitude on cellular hydration, because you are about to be replaced with a "guest" worker, who is basically starving and whom your company only has to pay a small stipend of stale Kiwanis Peanuts from the back of the "junk drawer" in the company kitchen. What did we say about Facebook? We talked about it...on numerous occasions...yes, we did.
Idiot. The 'payroll tax holiday' NEVER applied to the amount paid by employers; only employees. We also suspect your 'little trouser trout' was of the category of "another inch would make you a king; an inch less would make you a queen".
I do payroll for many companies and will confirm that the 2% reduction in Social Security tax applied ONLY to employees. Employers still paid 6.2% on employee wages (up to the cap).
Why? Because you've got 8 years of Bush tax cuts and two overseas occupations to pay for finally! I'm possibly drowning in tears here and I'm certain the Iraqi's and Afghan's hearts go out to us all..
And now, thanks to Obama, those "Bush Tax Cuts" have now become permanent, and we can officially call them the "Obama Tax Cuts". What ever happened to that lovely graph you guys have showing the causes of the increase in the debt, with the "Bush/Obama" tax cuts being the major factor in the increase? Ever going to show that one again? Or were those contributory to the debt when they were called the "Bush Tax Cuts"?
Those cuts are not permanent however I do agree that President Cavey Spelunker McCaverson III and the Dummycrats screwed that one up, as is ever typical.. As far as I know, impermanence is still very much an immutable law of the universe!
That tax cut should have not been implemented in the first place.
However, comma, I'm fine paying that tax back, instead of what it could have been.
Yeah, and now Republicans will go around saying they wanted to save earned benefits while Democrats wanted to "bankrupt" it.
Seriously. Democrats -- DEMOCRATS!! -- made the Bush tax cuts PERMANENT. Democrats can't get dumber than this. They just can't get dumber than this.
Democrats can't get dumber than this.
I would not make a large wager on this statement being true. Wait until they start working with the repukes to start destroying the social safety net. That will be even truer.
Sadoldveteran,
You have just outlined my worst fears. Democrats have not yet learned how to react to bullies.
They'd better learn fast as the bullying is about to begin again.
Go to your local schoolyard and observe. For myself, I was always kind of a petite girl, and one time I got picked on. I slapped that bully so hard across the face that she fell down. No more bullying.
Go to your local schoolyard, Mr. President. See how it's done.
We a very happy that the tax cut is over we have been paying for all of the so-called benefits for the poor. Now the benefits can be paid for by all workers instead of the social security loosing more of its supply so three cheers for the rich and keep the money coming home.
well the 2% to me is not a big thing as its going toward my future retirement. which is a good thing for anybody.
but i am sure this one side will try to make this as if your income tax has gone up.
They already are making that claim PS. What they are really whining about is now SS won't be going broke in 10 years and that is what really bugs them.
Part of some of the resistance to the payroll tax break before it was passed was that when it was restored, opponents and others would label it a tax increase. As a side note, Pilot, sure hope you are doing other preparations for retirement other than social security.
yep, whomitmay you are correct.
"their check seemed a little lighter than usual"
Is that terminology for the people that think more money causes more weight (the trillion dollar coin group)
My check feels lighter. It must be because there's less (or lower) numbers on it.
The good news for my middle-class self is that I was able to completely counteract the payroll tax increase I would have gotten by electing a dependent care savings account to pay for my daughter's daycare expenses, and by taking advantage of my company's 401(k) program. These two changes allowed me to decrease my overall tax liability without taking any money out of my pocket. Granted, the 4% of my salary that I contribute to my retirement account isn't immediately available to me for spending, but since my employer matches that 4%, it's a worthy sacrifice. I know that not everyone is able to do these things (whether because they simply can't afford to, or because the options are not available to them), but I think it's good to know that it is possible to make small changes that can have a noticable impact. Rich people shouldn't have a monopoly on tax avoidance strategies.
I am retired and do not get a paycheck. I do however get a SS cost of living raise this month. It is only $22.00 a month after my Part B Medicare increase, but multiply that by all the people on SS, and you get a lot of money going into the economy. I know that a FICA increase on low income earners is a hardship, but I also know that even that $22.00 a month will help me and millions like me and it will stimulate the economy.
We do need comprehensive tax reform that closes loop holes that benefit only the rich corporations and millionaires that are the real takers in our society.
And, Shooter, without those you call takers, the makers would not be able to sell what they make. Yes, taxes move the money around. If money does not circulate, the economy collapses. Money is a medium exchange. It is like electricity; if it does not flow, it may be potential, but it is not power. That is why we call money currency.
Which leads to a separate question: who's to blame for the policy's demise?
It's true that some Democratic congressional leaders were skeptical of keeping the policy in place. Payroll taxes finance Social Security, and though the money was being replaced by the general fund,
Policy? It was supposed to be a temporary stimulus - and is was. The 2% jump in the payroll tax was just putting it back to it's normal rate of 6.2%. As you mention Steve, payroll taxes finance Social Security - which for a lot of people is their only retirement income (unfortunately). And the "fact" that the 2% holiday was financed by the general fund is laughable. The general fund is running Trillion dollar deficits, so basically the payroll tax holiday just added to the deficit. Really....replaced by the general fund? Either the government really thinks the average American is that stupid or they themselves are clueless.
I do not understand how some people here are trying to place blame on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break to stimulate the economy. No one on either side really tried to preserve it....since it was supposed to be temporary. Oh, and I also thought the "Bush" tax rates were also supposed to be temporary. Doesn't anyone here find it interesting that most on the left lambasted these "Bush" era tax rates a few years ago - since they contributed massively to the debt and deficits -, but now fought to make them permanent. NOW can we at least stop calling them "Bush" era tax rates. They are permenent and everyone seems to be happy with it. DC is the new Keystone cops. You cannot make this stuff up.
This is so funny to me, as well. Those who were saying the Bush tax cuts were the main problem with the deficit are now trying to say, "oh, we didn't mean ALL of the Bush tax cuts was the problem, just 2% of them were the problem. We really liked the other 98%. Didn't we say that?"
I love how you say "most of the left" as though you've completely ignored every other blog post that has been here on Maddow despite how frequently you visit this blog. How many people on here have complained about the continuation of these taxes? Remember when the tax deal was negotiated just- what? a week ago?- everyone here was saying that it was a colossal failure because we didn't raise taxes on those above 250k/year. You even challenged it then and it was then explained to you that people do want to see the tax cuts repealed entirely, but the remainder of the taxes they wanted to wait until we had returned to 6% or less unemployment. Now suddenly and magically you're forgetting all those conversations and are, apparently, making up an invisible left to rail against.
NO ONE STATED THIS. What the two of you are doing is called a strawman. You are both intentionally misrepresenting your opponents despite the fact that you've both been corrected numerous times on this point. The left never advocated that these rates stay permanent. President Obama has advocated for their permanence and several other conservatives have joined him. But for the most part liberals have been universal in saying that all the Bush tax cuts have to be repealed, but that we don't want to repeal them until after we've gotten unemployment to a stable rate. The reason why we wanted to raise taxes on income earned above the 250k threshold was to start paying down the deficit as best as we could while we try to reign in costs. This, of course, was argued against by a great many Republicans- BOTH OF YOU INCLUDED- in which you made the red herring argument of "well since it won't pay off everything we shouldn't do it at all!" And now you're trying to pull a bull@!$%# 360 and pretend like you have been in favor of their repeal all along.
This is why I can't stand talking to Republicans. Does your vitriol for pissing on Democrats ever cease? This is about as blatantly hypocritical and degenerate as you can get and yet you're both flaunting your own ignorance and misrepresentation as if it's a badge of honor. New low guys. Real new low.
The left never advocated that these rates stay permanent. President Obama has advocated for their permanence and several other conservatives have joined him. But for the most part liberals have been universal in saying that all the Bush tax cuts have to be repealed, but that we don't want to repeal them until after we've gotten unemployment to a stable rate.
Cartoon,
Then who let them become permanent? You are saying it was President Obama and several conservatives only? Not sure how that was done.
And stop with the strawman comments. I do not believe we are misrepresenting the "opponents" or are you saying that some (I won't use the term most for your benefit) on the left did not bring up the unfunded Bush tax cuts was the main driver of the deficits for more than a couple of years?
And you know what, I too have a problem talking with most on the left side for pretty much the same reasons you state. It is just the other side of the same coin. Both sides are very focused on their ideas and slam the other side's ideas. No real differenct. I rarely see any positive comments about Republicans - and some comments are downright gross - and I assure you if you go to a right wing site you will find plenty of lefties pissing too. Don't even start with that holier than thou crap.
By the way I was never against raising taxes on the wealthy. Yes I stated that it would not generate enough - which is why I am/was for increases on all tax levels...not just 250k or 400k...but across the board. And talk about 360 turns. You have constanly stated that the deficits and debt are no big thing, but now in you comment above:
The reason why we wanted to raise taxes on income earned above the 250k threshold was to start paying down the deficit
Hey...why do we have to pay in down with cash? :) Please...
So you rebuke my stating that you're misrepresenting your opposition....by then misrepresenting my statement? So you followed your initial strawman....with a second one. Bra-@!$%#ing-vo
Yes because it was the Democrat who started throwing around names in this exchange, yeah? You can't even see the hypocrisy within this very statement.
No I have not. I have never stated this. YOU continually strawman the argument (3rd time's a charm apparently!) and then YOU act shocked when YOU find out that your representation of the argument is wrong. All of your complaining, along with Robby's, was on the basis of YOUR misunderstanding. And rather than take personal responsibility, take a walk away from your computer, chill for a second, and then come back and try to honestly address the discussion you apparently decide to get angry and snap out comments for my having the audacity to point out flaws in your logic. And you're starting on me about being "holier than thou?" You can't see the blatant hypocrisy here now can you? And you want to rant about how "both sides" are stuck in their ideological lines? No- you are stuck in your ideological line and when someone tries to engage you cogently and point out flaws in your argument before they get to actually providing a counter-position what do you do? You get angry and upset. That makes you the problem here skip.
Hahahahahahahaha. No- in fact I can safely say that if any of the debt or deficit is paid down in cash it will be of such a small percentage as to make it statistically irrelevant. But then again this assumes that you actually know what the term cash means in economics, business, and accounting.
Obvious troll is suuuuuuuper obvious.
Oh and PS way to misrepresent my statement about Obama. Boy you really did get sore over this one didn't ya? I think it's safe to say I touched a nerve with you.
Why is it that we get taxed while all government employees AND Congress gets a pay raise???
Republicans & Democrats for 150 years has done nothing good for this country, instead of fixing the problem, they compounded it for the next (my) generation to inherit the burdens of the past. The political paradigm has now shifted, Statism vs Libertarianism.
While I agree that Congress hasn't done a damn thing to earn a raise I can't imagine pissing on a US soldier's pay. He only makes like 18k/year, but yeah let's whine that his getting a pay increase is a bad thing. Not like he's done anything to deserve it. And not like we can't use the money circulating in the economy either.
I don't think it's ever a good time to weaken Social Security but now is a particularly bad time. Social Security is not just under attack by Republican pols and corporate right talking heads (i.e. Fluffy Gregory et al). The president seems to be eager to weaken it as well. Instead of lowering the payroll tax they should have raised the $107,000 cap so all those lucky "middle class" Americans earning between $108,000 -$450,000 per year paid more into Social Security.