Over 1 million to lose unemployment aid, will Bush tax cuts be extended? Cost $250 B!

[1776Forever]

Over 1 million to lose unemployment aid, will Bush tax cuts be extended?
By bobreo Chicago : IL : USA | Jun 27, 2010

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6177303-over-1-million-to-lose-unemployment-aid-will-bush-tax-cuts-be-passed

With the ongoing stalemate in the Senate on an extension package, about 1.3 million unemployed Americans will lose their jobless benefits, as discussion about whether to extend the Bush tax cuts heats up this summer.

Last week, the Senate voted three times to reject the so-called extenders, which would have extended aid for the long-term unemployed, popular business tax credits, and financial assistance to states. Republicans successfully blocked each measure, citing the escalating federal deficit, which is projected to reach an all-time high of $1.5 trillion this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Democrats have accused the GOP of being obstructionists and may introduce an extension of the Bush tax cuts to determine if the Republicans are truly serious about adding to the deficit.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Bush tax cuts, which include across-the-board tax breaks for the wealthy and middle class, including permanent income tax cuts, reduction of the alternative minimum tax, and suspension of the estate tax, will cost an estimated $250 billion, while adding hundreds of billions to the deficit.

(more at link)

.....................

How about it - Make the rich pay their fair share or cut Social Security & Medicare? It's a no brainer!

:applause:

[OHdem10]

1. The Economic System here was changed under Reagan. Remember

the buzz words --"We,re and INVESTOR SOCIETY". At that
time the rules changed. Businesses and Corporations became
accountable ONLY to Investors. How many C-Span watchers
have heard prominent Business and Corporate Presidents and
CEOs give speeches and explain they only have one duty:
To EARN PROFITS for Shareholders and Investors.

This means they really have no responsibility to workers
or for that matter the country. Transnationals you know,
have allegiance to no country.

Oversimplified this is the System: The Investors(Elites)
crack the whip---telling the Companies make us more money.
Under these rules, the company can and must cut salaries
(labor costs are the most expensive part of company"s cost.
See how the middle class salaries have come down down down
over the last 30 plus years. If the company could find
places in other parts of the world where labor was cheaper,
so be it. The company was only responsible to the Elites
Shareholders. I could go on and illustrate how this plays
into Wall Street etc. If you think about it you can figure
this out.

This should tell us pretty much how the Rich and Taxcuts
will play out. It will take much courage and backbone
to change the system--I question whether that is possible
at this time. Center Right Country is Pro-Business above
all else.

[Uben]

2. I paid into SSI for 40 yrs....

...but I do not need it. I never counted on it being there even if I did need it. For those who make enough money that they reach the contribution cut-off level, they really don't need SSI either. So, we could implement an eligibility income level that allowed one to receive benfits. YEah, the rich will bitch because you're taking money outta their pockets, even though they take money out of our pockets every day with the Bush tax cuts! Anyone with a retirement income level over $200K should be disallowed to receive the benefits until such time they fall below that level. Something like this will eventually have to be done, so why not now? You know the republicans aren't going to do it.

[fasttense]

4. NO way!!

That is a real bad idea. Social Security was designed as a retirement plan for everyone. The minute you start limiting the pool of beneficiaries, you limit the pool of payees. Why should the uber rich pay into Social Security if they don't use it? That would be the next argument.

Once you have made it simply a program for the poor, then the wealthy and middle class really don't have a stake in it. This is why our Democratic President, Bill Clinton, gutted Welfare. It was easy because only a third of the population was really concerned about it. The middle class really didn't think they would ever use the Welfare system and of course the wealthy rarely did. So, destroying it was quite easy because only a minority of voters were eligible for it.

The same thing would happen with Social Security. It would become a welfare benefit easily cut when we are in recessions or when RepubliCONS have spent us into huge deficits.

Why do you say "something like this will eventually have to be done?"

It is not inevitable. Merely lifting the cap on the wealthy, making them pay something back to the society they pillage so readily, would take care of any perceived funding shortages in Social Security.

Social Security has never failed in the last 80 years. Aside from fixing what Ronnie Raygun did to it, it needs no improvement.

[OhioChick]

5. Well stated and agreed. n/t

[OnionPatch]

6. Yep, raise the cap.

It's very simple. From what I understand, it doesn't even have to be raised all that much to set it straight. But then the wealthy just can't bear to give even a tiny drop to the people whose shoulders they stood on to get where they are.

[Uben]

7. Needs no improvement?

Hmmmm? Skipped a lot of math classes, did we? It is impossible to sustain SSI at it's current pay-outs with the current system.

Back in 1950, as the baby boom was just getting started, each retiree's benefit was divided among 16 workers. Taxes could be kept low. Today, that number has dropped to 3.3 workers per retiree, and by 2025, it will reach--and remain at--about two workers per retiree. Each married couple will have to pay, in addition to their own family's expenses, Social Security retirement benefits for one retiree. In order to pay promised benefits, either taxes of some kind must rise or other government services must be cut.

If you have somehow devised a way to sustain it without monumental reform, you need to get your numbers to the OMB immediately!

[lonestarnot]

3. It better fucking not be and that's all I'm gona say.