Payroll Tax Cuts Seen by Some Obama Allies as Undermining Social Security

[NeoConsSuck]

Source: Bloomberg.com

Some Democratic lawmakers say that while President Barack Obama’s plan to cut payroll taxes may strengthen the U.S. economy, it may have some unintended fallout: weakening Social Security.

The lawmakers and advocacy groups say they’re concerned the tax cuts may undermine political support for the retirement program, which provides benefits to almost 55 million Americans and is funded by the payroll levies.

“I don’t object to putting more money in people’s pockets, and there are lots of ways to do that, but not with Social Security,” said Representative Rush Holt of New Jersey, who said he’ll have a hard time supporting the White House plan.

Should Congress fail to extend the break, set to expire in four weeks, millions of Americans will see their paychecks start shrinking in January. That would be a setback for the economy and could subtract 0.7 percentage point from economic growth, according to Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics.



Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-05/payroll-tax-cuts-seen-by-some-obama-allies-as-undermining-social-security.html

---

We're decimating our postal service, weakening our nation's retirement plan, but our military budget remains untouched. Glad to see we have our priorities in order.

[Fumesucker]

1. Hmm.. Rush Holt is no dummy, he has a physics PhD..

And he's saying what some of us here on DU have been saying for some time now.

[DCBob]

2. One could argue..

If the economy is setback substantially due to the tax cuts expiring then that could cause further loss of jobs which would have a bigger negative impact on social security.

[Hoyt]

16. That's what I believe. Until the economy improves, everything is at risk.

And yes, people here have been warning of SS cuts for months and months. Hasn't happened yet, but they keep saying it. If the economy does not improve, lots of programs are at risk -- even if we increase taxes substantially for those who have done well in recent years (and I'm for raising their taxes).

[Bandit]

30. IOW like the Republicans keep saying..tax cuts create jobs..

I call Bullshit....The greatest Economic Expansion in our country's history came during the Clinton Administration where taxes were considerably higher.. As soon as taxes were cut the economy began to collapse..

[DallasNE]

34. There Are Taxes And There Are Taxes

The supply side tax cuts of Bush did not create jobs, only deficits. Why, because we currently suffer from excess capacity and insufficient demand. The payroll tax cut puts money in the pockets of all workers so that creates demand, which ironically also puts a dent in the excess capacity. Yes, care must be taken because when demand exceeds capacity it sets off inflation but we are a long ways away from that being a problem.

[bvar22]

42. There are other ways to do that WITHOUT....

...weakening the funding mechanism of Social Security.

The shortfall of funds from The First Payroll Tax "Holiday"
was made up by transferring funds to Social Security from the General Fund.
Why connect these two?
It would have been much easier to simply send everyone a check from the General Fund,
and would have had exactly the same cost,
and exactly the same effect.
There is also a precedent set by Bush-the-Lesser, so the mechanism is already in place.

WHY go to all the extra trouble to connect the funding of Social security DIRECTLY to the General Fund?

Payroll Tax Holiday Directly Connects Social Security to The Deficit


WHY connect the two?
...because TPTB WANT Social Security directly connected to The deficit.
That makes it MUCH easier to kill.

Wake UP, People.
You are being SCAMMED.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[No Elephants]

51. Makes a lot of sense to me.

[TBF]

47. "If the economy is setback substantially due to the tax cuts expiring"

WTF? Seriously? Only the right wing drones on faux news argue that. The tax cuts are going to hit the 1% the hardest, and those fuckers have all the money. Tax cuts have nothing to do with when a business hires - that has to do with sales. If they need help they'll hire them. And they'll hire as few as possible no matter what, because that's how they roll.


:banghead:

[No Elephants]

52. You're kidding, right?

[TBF]

66. I've worked with many 1%ers -

they hire only when they need help - and only after they've squeezed every hour possible out of the folks they already have. It has nothing to do with taxes.

[No Elephants]

49. Sure, one can rationalize almost anything it seems. Point is, which is the truth, not what

explanations, rationalizations and excuses we can possibly come up with to, um, comfort ourselves back to sleep.

I don't want pacifiers or window dressing or excuses. (No idea why anyone would, but it seems they do.)

However, I have a hard time figuring out what is real anymore. So much bs being spread around from all directions.

In this instance, I am going with, I don't think Democratic federal Senators and Representatives who aren't total pieces of doo break from a Democratic President without damned good reason in their minds.

Among other things, I don't see that they have a lot to gain by so doing and I do think they have a lot to lose.

[rpannier]

3. I'm in Manchin's corner on this issue. I am surprised

“We shouldn’t let the federal government undermine Social Security by convincing Americans that they don’t really have to pay for it,” said Senator Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat. “If we extend the cuts this year, what about the next year and the year after? When does it stop?”

I agree with the Senator

[No Elephants]

53. +1

[xchrom]

4. Recommend

[Doctor_J]

5. UNINTENDED fallout?

:rofl:

this has been the intention all along. It will be one of Obama's legacies

[Fumesucker]

7. I agree, it would be an insult to Obama to think that he has missed such an obvious side effect..

[Lionessa]

10. He's insulted many of us that voted for him by not being the president

that Candidate Obama said he'd be. I do believe he is smart enough to have seen this, and like his overlords, intended it.

[lbrtbell]

8. +1,000,000 - n/t

[bvar22]

45. I agree... Unintended?

No.
This WAS the coldly calculated primary objective:
Directly Connect Social Security to The Deficit


Payroll Tax Holiday Directly Connects Social Security to The Deficit



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[durablend]

6. More "Change we can believe in!"

WHOOHOO!

[FreeBillClinton]

9. I agree. Obama is sneaky.

[No Elephants]

55. Well, if he tried o be sneaky with this, I guess he failed.

I don't know if he even has to try to be sneaky anymore. He just does what he does and leaves it to everyone else to say why what he did was really wonderful, even though it may not seem that way on the surface.

Nah. Sneaky is the Fed giving 11 trillion dollars to the banks on top of the TARP without us finding out about it until now.

And what do we sheeple do about it?

Oh, look over there--Cain had an affair and Newt's rising in the kabuki polls.

(Phew. It worked. No one's talking about OWS or the 11 Trillion Dollar Secret Heist. Americans are so adorable.)

[NCarolinawoman]

60. Probably thinks we are all stupid.

When Bush-The-Lesser tried to privatize Social Security, Democrats went to downtown Raleigh and held up a great big sign: HE THINKS YOU'RE STUPID.

Republicans had to read this when they filed in to hear Bush speak.:evilgrin:

[No Elephants]

65. Stupid, or passive? Never mind. Dinnae matter. It works for them either way.

[customerserviceguy]

11. Another thing that needs to be brought up

Even if this undermining of Social Security is allowed to go forward, why doesn't it have a reasonable limit? I keep reading in the media about the family making $50K that will see their paychecks shrink by $1K if this "temporary" break is not extended. Well, hell's bells, why not limit it to that amount!

If you have a married couple where both spouses make at the cap or above, and you drop the FICA tax rate 3.5 percent, they'll save $7,707.00! Why do people making so much deserve so much of a tax break? Almost everything else in the tax code is limited by income, why not the FICA tax holiday?

[No Elephants]

57. If the idea is to keep turning people against OASDI, why would anyone put a limit on that?

It's the third rail of U.S. politics, for pity sakes. It ain't gonna be easy making Americans yearn for the day it finally goes away forever.

Bush's attempt to pay Wall Street to take our money off our hands failed.

Meanwhile, we all turned against Wall Street in a big way, which only made the kabuki theater we call our government have to work harder at turning us against OASDI.

Why would anyone limit one way to help us along to their, er, I mean, OUR goal?

Smile. It's for our own good, after all. Our money has always been much safer with Wall Street. Just ask Hoover and Bush.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Buried 16 paragraphs down: no cut in SS revenue.

"While transferring other revenue into the program would ensure benefits aren’t cut because of the tax reduction, Social Security advocates may have a harder time arguing that seniors’ benefits were bought and paid for by their payroll taxes."

Fuck the disinformation. There is no cut in SS revenue, there is an offsetting transfer from general revenue back into the SS program.

[MannyGoldstein]

14. Given that Obama's Social Security Trustees are currently misleading

Americans by continuously and loudly alleging that Social Security benefits are currently higher than revenues (the finks conveniently forget about interest revenues), I believe that we can expect dissimilar information in the near future: "Time for old folks to eat their peas, their benefits are coming from the General Fund".

[Fumesucker]

15. That SS is now being funded in part from general revenues is the point of the article..

No longer is it possible to say that SS does not contribute to the federal deficit and debt since funds are being taken from general revenues.

The argument that SS is welfare now has a leg to stand on.

[Enthusiast]

18. "The argument that SS is welfare now has a leg to stand on."

That was the goal all along. Years ago Limbaugh did about an hour ranting on and on about how social security is a welfare program. The seeds of disinformation were sown then and this meme has been emphasized since.

[exboyfil]

19. Social Security is welfare in part

Because of the formula used to calculate benefits. I can give you a much saner approach to this situation -

1. Eliminate the cap on wage income (ideally I would make it all income but at least start here).
2. For those making over the current maximun allocation reduce their S.S. withholdings for that amount of income by 2%/2%. Continue with the current benefits formula that does not recognize income above this level.
3. Reduce the withholding level for everyone currently so that we have a pay as you go system for now (in other words do not spend the interest which is currently happening). This should have the same net effect on the economy as what is being proposed except the burden is absorbed by the higher earners.
4. When the economy gets better, draw down the Social Security Trust Fund by not increasing withholdings.
5. Pass an iron clad law that withholdings will never be more than 7.5%/7.5%.
6. Bring all exempt high earners into the Social Security system (such as California teachers etc). For simplicity just make it new workers.
7. Going forward if revenues do not sustain a pay as you go at 7.5%/7.5%, reduce the benefits after a certain fixed amount is paid out (for example $10K).

Currently high earners get to skate upon their obligation to support lower earners. Those folks in about the $50-$105K range subsidize the program for those who make less than that. It is not fair. Obama should be going out with the math to show folks how it is not fair.

[Enthusiast]

31. Nice Republican way to characterize social security.

Social security isn't welfare in any part. Funny how we have a 2.6 trillion dollar surplus in social security and are running out of money, yet the military, that has no dedicated funding mechanism, never runs out of money.

[exboyfil]

38. You have a wealth transfer from the middle to upper middle

income to the middle and low income. How can it be characterized as anything but a welfare program? If the benefit formula was the same throughout the income classes (no distribution) then yes, it could be characterized as purely social insurance. Since it is not, then it has an element of subsidization in it. You have transfer both from current workers to past workers (who withheld less from their income in many cases) and from higher earning workers (but not the highest) to the lower earning workers.

This is not say it is a bad program. You just need to understand the mechanics of it and move forward. Understanding the mechanics will also prompt you to ask the question why should their be a cap on withholdings for earnings? You could also ask that question about other income, but at least let us start here.

How many people understand how Social Security works? A very few otherwise middle class earners would not make the stupid statement of letting them out of the system. The system must get that income to pay both benefits for the prior generation (which up until the late 1980s had a lower withholding rate) as well as the future benefits for those earning less than $30K.

I expect every dollar in Treasuries held by Social Security to be paid back. The S.S. Trust Fund is no different than any other holder of U.S. obligations.

I have said many times on this board that we should cut our defense budget by at least a third to match what is being spent by our allies (or least get closer). I has infuriated about President Obama going to Asia and saying we will increase our presence their without pointing out how little the Aussies pay in defense compared to their GDP.

[No Elephants]

63. Thanks. We understand how OASDI was supposed to work. God only knows how

D.C. has been torturing it, though.

"I expect every dollar in Treasuries held by Social Security to be paid back."

And I expect Santa to fill my stocking soon.

[No Elephants]

61. With all due respect FUCK that lie and fuck twice. Thanks ever so.

[exboyfil]

82. So you would characterize Social Security as Social Insurance

which it is in part, but what insurance pay out rate per dollar goes down the more you contribute to it. It usually goes the other direction (a higher dollar term policy costs less dollars per dollar coverage for example). So insurance is not the proper term for it.

If you want those income earners between about $50K-$106K on board for lifting the cap, then explain to them how they are carrying the burden of the system on their backs while those making over $106K get to skate from any additional obligation. It is not fair. I also think the ability for higher earners to opt out of the system is also not fair (in the case of the California teachers - it is really the state that benefits because its pension contribution is much lower than it would be under S.S.).

I am not attacking the system. I want more folks in the system preferably high income earners. I also think the system should be extended to all income - I don't understand why wage slaves alone have to carry the burden. Thos juicy dividends and capital gains which are taxed at 15% sure look like tempting additional targets for the S.S. system. The additional revenue will allow us to maintain a Pay as You Go system with reduced withholdings for all. Surely a campaign winner.

[CrispyQ]

20. "there is an offsetting transfer from general revenue back into the SS program."

Exactly! Read this post by bvar22 & their agenda will become clear:

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

[No Elephants]

64. Yes. Always helps to read threads.

Sad to say, I've come to trust posts from my fellow liberals more than I trust "news" stories and other information from my government--and I don't even have to send posters my tax dollars! Whadda deal!

[Greybnk48]

26. I thought that's what I had heard on Rachel or Keith. That

there was no draw from SS. This obsfuscation of the truth when it comes to the President is annoying.

[No Elephants]

59. Yes, we know. Money from the general fund in a deep recession going into a program that

usually supports itself. And, even though it supports itself, all we've been hearing about is what a huge drain on the economy it is and how it increases the *clutches pearls* deficit.


And your point is?

[Greybnk48]

78. I don't watch Fox News so I'm not clutching my pearls nor

do I believe the utter bullshit about SS being a drain on the economy or increasing the deficit. The 21% down at the trailer park maybe buy into it but not me and not many others. So your strawman argument fails here.

[bvar22]

83. The POINT is that NOW, thanks to the Payroll Tax "Holiday",

...Social security IS "a drain on the economy" and IS contributing to The Deficit.

By design, the shortfall in Social Security Revenue (FICA contributions) caused by the Payroll Tax "Holiday"
are made up from the General Fund.

Payroll Tax Holiday Directly Connects Social Security to The Deficit

The General Fund is currently in the red,
and transferring funds from the General Fund to Social Security NOW adds to The Deficit.

Prior to the Payroll Tax "Holiday",
Social Security was completely separate from the General Fund and running a BIG surplus.
It was designed by Democrats to be separate from the General Fund for that very reason.
Connecting them is NOT a smart idea,
and it is NOT a "Democratic Party" idea.

A "Democratic Party" method of addressing this issue
would be To RAISE the Cap on Payroll Deductions,
but for some reason,
you won't hear THAT from anyone in the leadership of the New Democrat Centrist Party.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[MannyGoldstein]

13. "Make No Mistake: My Deficit Commission came close to getting the job done, and if

Simpson hadn't shot off his yap about the the milk cow with 300 million tits and called attention to our motives, we might have got it done. We got even closer when http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/22/remarks-president">I served up deep cuts to Boehner, but that idiot wouldn't say "yes" even to that - what's this world coming to when Republicans won't slash Social Security?! This time, though, I really think I've got it in the bag - we'll starve the beast, then drown it in the bathtub. Pete Peterson, I'm about to make your dreams come true: now do I get huge bucks from you?"*

*Note to the parody-impaired: that's not a real quote.

[No Elephants]

69. $300 million is a freakin joke. The Fed silently handed the banks Eleven Trillion

in addition to TARP, and we've over here praying old and sick people don't freeze or starve to death this winter? And leering over at a measly $300 million?

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with us, amyway?

[pam4water]

17. Lets face it Obama is clueless about what to do for the economy.

[No Elephants]

70. Very much disagree. I think he knows exactly what he wants to do with the economy

and has been doing it since before his inauguration.

His actions have been very consistent, very systematic.

[Evasporque]

21. Payroll tax cut seen to harm babies and puppies...

Permanent Bush tax cuts are better...

[No Elephants]

71. Bush tax cuts were not permanent. They expired a year ago. We are now under the Obama tax cuts.

And this measure does NOTHING to affect those tax cuts, anyway, so your post about which is better doesn't make a lot of sense.

[ProSense]

22. When

"it may have some unintended fallout: weakening Social Security."

...are people going to stop pushing this lie?

Dean Baker, September: The Payroll Tax Cut Did Not Cost Security Revenue

The NYT wrongly told readers that the payroll tax cut cost Social Security, "resulted in $67.2 billion of lost revenue for Social Security in 2011." This is not true. The tax cut was fully offset by money from general revenue so that the trust fund was unaffected by the tax cut.

Baker previously stated that the serious problems with the payroll tax were political based on a hypothetical about what the Republicans might try to do. After Bush's attempts to privatize Social Security, Ryan's plan and "Cut, Cap and Balance," it's evident Republicans will try to dismantle Social Security. Republicans are always going to try to destroy Social Security.

Still, what's the point of hyping speculation about what Republicans might do in the future by misrepresenting an initiative that preserves Social Security?

[exboyfil]

23. The fact remains that now people have got a taste

of 2% less withholding from their paychecks. This is serious money when most folks are not even getting 2% raises.

What does it mean that the General Fund kicked in the difference? It means that either the Chinese or our own Fed bought additional paper which was then accounted for in the Trust Fund. This served to increase an already staggering debt.

It was a horrible idea to screw around with the withholding rate without also considering Social Securiy as a whole.

[ProSense]

25. Can't

The fact remains that now people have got a taste
of 2% less withholding from their paychecks. This is serious money when most folks are not even getting 2% raises.

...buy that. The Bush tax cuts were far more, and people have no problem calling for those to end. Initiatives like these start and end all the time.

[Leontius]

24. What programs were cut to equal the $67 billion from

general fund diverted to Social Security or did that just add to the deficit? Why not give a credit of $67 billion to individual taxpayers instead of linking Social Security to the Federal budget and it's ongoing deficit?

[ProSense]

28. There

"What programs were cut to equal the $67 billion from general fund diverted to Social Security or did that just add to the deficit? Why not give a credit of $67 billion to individual taxpayers instead of linking Social Security to the Federal budget and it's ongoing deficit? "

...is no link to the the budget created that doesn't already exist. The funds are replaced, one time end of subject.

After years of claiming that the government is raiding the trust fund, why is this initiative suddenly being portrayed as damaging? Unlike simply raiding the trust fund, this is a much-needed relief program that does not impact Social Security funds.

[Leontius]

35. You didn't answer the question, so not the end of subject,

if you don't know then say you don't know.

[ProSense]

39. So

"You didn't answer the question, so not the end of subject, if you don't know then say you don't know."

...you support the Republican line that something has to be cut to pay for the payroll tax?

The President's entire package was paid for. That was the reason for the debate. Did you miss the debate?

His jobs proposal was paid for too. It's just that Republicans don't agree with where the his sources of funding, which is to tax the rich.

[Leontius]

44. If you don't know say you don't know it's that simple.

The money came from somewhere either another part of the budget, a cut from something, or it is borrowed, adds to the deficit. The third choice was to raise additional revenue, taxes, fees, surcharges, etc which I don't believe had any Republican support in Congress. Do you know or don't you know?

[ProSense]

48. What

"The money came from somewhere either another part of the budget, a cut from something, or it is borrowed, adds to the deficit."

...gave you that idea?

[Leontius]

54. Third times the charm. So the truth is you don't know but you too

afraid to say so for some reason. Don't worry I wouldn't think less of you for being honest and admitting your ignorance than I already do.

[ProSense]

58. Speaking

Third times the charm. So the truth is you don't know but you too
afraid to say so for some reason. Don't worry I wouldn't think less of you for being honest and admitting your ignorance than I already do.

...of "ignorance," you're the one who doesn't know and believe that somehow I care where the specific dollar amount comes from. It came from the general fund. Would it make you feel better if it came from a freeze or some other cut in spending? The federal budget is huge. The only thing I care about is that the funds were replaced.

If you want to get out your calculator to balance the cuts by line item, do a search. You're smart enough to be able to find the exact document on the Internets.

[No Elephants]

68. Totally misses the point.

[No Elephants]

67. Try reading this thread. That point has been addressed on this thread over and over and

over.

[Fumesucker]

27. The Republicans can now say completely truthfully that SS contributes to the deficit..

Quite a gift they got by voting against it 100%..

[ProSense]

29. And

"The Republicans can now say completely truthfully that SS contributes to the deficit.."

...people with common sense can say bullshit!

[Fumesucker]

32. So where is the revenue coming from that's going to make up for the payroll tax cut?

:shrug:

[ProSense]

40. Oh my

"So where is the revenue coming from that's going to make up for the payroll tax cut?"

...we're all Republicans now?

[Fumesucker]

41. That was not responsive..

Where is the revenue to make up the loss of payroll taxes coming from?

[ProSense]

43. Well,

"Where is the revenue to make up the loss of payroll taxes coming from?"

...if you're seriously interested, try a search on Google. There is also the WH site.

You may even find the information on Boehner's site.

Good luck!

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[bvar22]

50. Try Google?

Evasive much?


THIS is where it comes from:

Payroll Tax Holiday Directly Connects Social Security to The Deficit




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[No Elephants]

75. I guess, when there's really nothing to be said, one has options:

1/ Imply your questioner is Republican.

2/ Mock your questioner.

3/ Throw out shiny objects

4/ Change the subject and so on.

And, if all else fail,

*Crickets*

[No Elephants]

74. Also nonresponsive.

[neverforget]

86. .

[No Elephants]

73. LOLOL!

[Doctor_J]

56. Money was moved from the general fund to cover it, and

thus tied SS to the deficit. This really doesn't seem that hard to grasp.

[ProSense]

62. Wait

"Money was moved from the general fund to cover it, and thus tied SS to the deficit. This really doesn't seem that hard to grasp."

...is this hard to grasp:

The NYT wrongly told readers that the payroll tax cut cost Social Security, "resulted in $67.2 billion of lost revenue for Social Security in 2011." This is not true. The tax cut was fully offset by money from general revenue so that the trust fund was unaffected by the tax cut.

When Republicans ask you if Social Security is tied to the deficit, feel free to tell them that it is.

It's nonsense, but evidently you strongly believe it.

The fund is "unaffected." The nature of Social Security does not change.

[No Elephants]

77. Never move forward off that same diime.

Most of us got all that as soon as we opened the thread. The point is, was doing that good for OASDI or bad.

[No Elephants]

76. No, it isn't and everyone on the thread has grasped it and discussed the possible

reasons why it was done this way.

[No Elephants]

72. Seriously, read this thread.

[DallasNE]

33. Not So Fast

The Social Security trust fund is not affected so this particular concern is unfounded. Why is contained right there in the linked article.

"The Social Security funding that’s lost would be made up through general revenue".

Therein lies the reason this is called a tax holiday. It does show, however, the power of misinformation and scare tactics. It is also not the first time this partcular tax holiday has been used.

An argument could be made that this actually helps shore up Social Security. How, you ask? Because it creates jobs and more people are then paying payroll taxes. They also are paying income taxes so the drain on general revenue to replenish lost Social Security monies is less than it would be by doing nothing/not extending the tax holiday. No, this tax holiday does not fully pay for itself but it does come a lot, lot closer than cutting the tax rate for millionaires ever did -- like 30% versus 2%.

[No Elephants]

79. No misinformation. We all get that the revenue is being moved from the General Fund and many of us

think that is a bad idea for the long term good of Social Security.

bvar's posts have laid that out very well.

[SoapBox]

36. (on the side...I agree that it is NOT good for SS.)

I know...I know...but...I don't agree with the cut and never have.

And, FYI, the cut only applied to the employee and NOT the employer. For those of you that
don't know/understand, your employer MUST match what is on your paycheck that goes into
SS and Medicare...but it's not required to be shown on your pay stub.

When the reduction in the withholding rate for SS for workers was put into effect, it did NOT
apply to the employer. Your boss, is now paying double what you are.

[DallasNE]

37. Math 101

The employer currently pays 6.2% and the employee pays 4.2%. Double 4.2 would be 8.4, not 6.2. Math 101 taught me that.

[No Elephants]

80. And if you're contribution is zero, because of a "holiday," what does that mean for the employer?

[No Elephants]

81. If you have not already seen Reply 42, please read it. That is all.

[indepat]

84. Well the US can't exert global hegemony on a shoe-string military budget:

funny how those who govern are willing to spend trillions of dollars purportedly to keep us safe from terra, but in the next moment, approve cynically-depraved budget cuts that will doom countless tens of thousands of the old, frail, and poor to needless pre-mature deaths, all in the collegiate spirit of a euphemistically-termed "shared sacrifice," but actually malevolent hypocrisy. :patriot:

[BeFree]

85. The Future of SS revenues

It will have to be the general fund that pays for SS benefits.

That is the only way to cover everyone, so if the payroll tax cut goes away, it will be for the best.

That way we when tax millionaires fairly they will pay fairly for SS which they don't now do.