It is good to see you, AdamT, going on the record as an opponent of tax hikes and claiming that the economy will fail if the working middle class pays $20 to $60 more a month for their social security benefits.
So, lets extend this thought....
1. Unemployment benefits are generally given to the middle and lower classes....
Now, given the fact the spending money is good for the economy, and I agree, care to analyze how those persons in the top 1% spend their money in relation to what they have earned? Also, it should be noted that the ability to save money is also good for the economy, but only in so much as those savings allow you to have the ability to spend when you are no longer able to earn, for whatever reason. In short, money hoarded (saved without eventually being spent) inhibits economic progress.
Thank you for liking mike2810's comment Tess, that shows courage.
Last edited by upsideguy; 12-21-11 at 01:43 AM.
The problem with your logic is you don’t take into account the impossible task such a stupid law requires of the private sector, the social security admin and all the pencil pushers who must plan, calculate, adjust and adapt to changes in the tax law.
The democrats and republicans (this includes Obama) are more interested in the political game of painting the opposition into a corner than they are in doing what is best for the American people or the country.
Try to spin your 2 month tax bill as anything but that AdamT.
Get real! A two month tax bill? Seriously???
So why can't they modify the Senate bill so that it has a one year term instead of 2-month term, wouldn't everyone be happy then? Or would it still not pass the House and Senate?
I don't know what all the whining is about. The Senate and Congress are comprised mostly of people 45+ in age. They deserve a break just like anyone else - they aren't slaves.