• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House Republicans Cave on Payroll Tax Cuts Extension

Because perception is more important than reality in politics.

The SS witholding became a tax back when Lyndon Johnson put the funds in the general fund. Since then, the money has been spent on everything from welfare to war, just like any other tax.

So then the attacks on Bush were all BS like I thought. So, if it is a tax, let's do away with it all together, and let me invest for my own retirement. I am sure I would do better than 1% return.


j-mac
 
Because perception is more important than reality in politics.

The SS witholding became a tax back when Lyndon Johnson put the funds in the general fund. Since then, the money has been spent on everything from welfare to war, just like any other tax.

So then the attacks on Bush were all BS like I thought. So, if it is a tax, let's do away with it all together, and let me invest for my own retirement. I am sure I would do better than 1% return.


j-mac
 
So then the attacks on Bush were all BS like I thought. So, if it is a tax, let's do away with it all together, and let me invest for my own retirement. I am sure I would do better than 1% return.


j-mac

I think you should have the option of dropping out of SS after 10 years of working. The cost of dropping out is forfeiting your benefits entirely, but in exchange, you can the deposit up to the first 12.4% of your income, tax free, into an approved retirement account.
 
Republicans in the house caved...yay...we have a 2 month extension which means those assclowns will now have to revisit this again in February, just like the did in November, and September.

Oh...and the president is now going to request an additioanl 1.2 trillion dollar increase to the salary cap, because the latest cap extension didnt manage to resolve the problem. Meanwhile neither party in congress has done anything more thyan propose minor cuts to the DEFICIT spending which guarantees every year we will continue to add trillions to the debt.

And some people call this...'winning'

Go kick your grandkids, folks. Kick em right in the junk. Laugh at em. Help them up and then push them down again. Might as well toughen em up now. As long you keep picking sides with either of these groups you get credit for screwing over the next few generations. Swell with pride, baby.
 
So what! That arguably has been the problem.

No it hasn't. Are you going to join Gill in making this preposterous, unsupported claim and then failing to back it up too?
 
Oh...and the president is now going to request an additioanl 1.2 trillion dollar increase to the salary cap, because the latest cap extension didnt manage to resolve the problem.

Huh? What are you referring to?
 
So then the attacks on Bush were all BS like I thought. So, if it is a tax, let's do away with it all together, and let me invest for my own retirement. I am sure I would do better than 1% return.

No, you're not sure. Nobody can be sure. That's why SS exists. It's not a pension or savings account, and was never meant to be.
 
So then the attacks on Bush were all BS like I thought. So, if it is a tax, let's do away with it all together, and let me invest for my own retirement. I am sure I would do better than 1% return.


j-mac

Well, partly.

When Bush proposed cutting payroll taxes and mandating that the amount cut be set aside in individual retirement accounts, the Democrats howled foul because Bush is a Republican.
Now that the Democrats want to cut payroll taxes and allow people to do with the money as they will, but only for a limited time, the Republicans decided not to oppose it, but to use it to force the Democratic president to make a decision he doesn't want to make until after the election.

The bottom line is that neither party has any clue how to make up for the lost revenue, they just know that tax cuts are popular.
 
Huh? What are you referring to?
Precisely what I said was going to happen when they did this the last time...and part of the problem with governing month to month instead of doing their job, passing annual budgets, and sticking to their budgets.

(Reuters) - The White House plans to ask Congress by the end of the week for an increase in the government's debt ceiling to allow the United States to pay its bills on time, according to a senior Treasury Department official on Tuesday.

The approval is expected to go through without a challenge, given that Congress is in recess until later in January and the request is in line with an agreement to keep the U.S. government funded into 2013.

The debt is projected to fall within $100 billion of the current cap by December 30, when the United States has $82 billion in interest on its debt and payments such as Social Security coming due. President Barack Obama is expected to ask for authority to increase the borrowing limit by $1.2 trillion, part of the spending authority that was negotiated between Congress and the White House this summer


Obama to ask for debt limit hike: Treasury official | Reuters
 
Last edited:
Well, partly.

When Bush proposed cutting payroll taxes and mandating that the amount cut be set aside in individual retirement accounts, the Democrats howled foul because Bush is a Republican.
Now that the Democrats want to cut payroll taxes and allow people to do with the money as they will, but only for a limited time, the Republicans decided not to oppose it, but to use it to force the Democratic president to make a decision he doesn't want to make until after the election.

The bottom line is that neither party has any clue how to make up for the lost revenue, they just know that tax cuts are popular.

You seem to be missing the critical fact that they aren't reducing revenue. Other taxes and fees are being raised to pay for the payroll tax cuts.
 
You seem to be missing the critical fact that they aren't reducing revenue. Other taxes and fees are being raised to pay for the payroll tax cuts.

I do seem to be missing that critical fact.

What other taxes and fees are being raised to pay for this tax cut?
 
I do seem to be missing that critical fact.

What other taxes and fees are being raised to pay for this tax cut?

In the case of the two month extension, increased fees for Fannie and Freddie loan originations are paying for the cut. Stupid, but it's paid for. For the longer term cut Democrats were looking to pay for it via a surtax on income over one million dollars.
 
In the case of the two month extension, increased fees for Fannie and Freddie loan originations are paying for the cut. Stupid, but it's paid for. For the longer term cut Democrats were looking to pay for it via a surtax on income over one million dollars.

Neither of which came even close for paying for the actual cost of the cuts, on a yearly basis. Both falling short by over 75%.
 
In the case of the two month extension, increased fees for Fannie and Freddie loan originations are paying for the cut. Stupid, but it's paid for. For the longer term cut Democrats were looking to pay for it via a surtax on income over one million dollars.

Fannie and Freddy.. yes, that's silly, and probably isn't going to make up for the tax cut. Surtax? Sure, and unicorns will frolic...
 
Actually, he is going to get the money. The debt deal passed such that all Obama has do do is ask for it from the Treasury through 2012. He can only be denied if Congress passes a new bill which revokes that privilege. Obama can then veto it, the new bill, and unless they override the veto, he gets the money.

If he simply gets it he wouldn't need to ask for it.
 
Neither of which came even close for paying for the actual cost of the cuts, on a yearly basis. Both falling short by over 75%.

Incorrect. The F&F fee hike is permanent, while the extension is just for two months.
 
Huh? What are you referring to?
HAH!!! I just recognized why that was so confusing. That was a crossing of terms faux pas of EPIC failure proportions...DEBT CEILING...not salary cap. Crossed a verbal discussion on sports with a typed discussion on budget. My bad.

Obama is seeking an increase of the DEBT CEILING...AGAIN. Crossing completely unrelated terms aside...the post is still relevant. I dont see how anyone can trumpet what congress has done this last week as a success. Another temporary budget measure means they will do this retarded dance again in a month or it will expire in 2 months. Again.

Am I the only one that is disgusted by these congressional budget battles that occur every two months because neither side is willing to actually do their job?
 
Am I the only one that is disgusted by these congressional budget battles that occur every two months because neither side is willing to actually do their job?

I think everyone is disgusted by it. The only thing worse would be actually letting a law that everyone agrees is beneficial expire rather than passing a temporary extension so they can work out their differences.
 
Incorrect. The F&F fee hike is permanent, while the extension is just for two months.

Which is why I noted "on a yearly basis". DUH !

Its called kicking the can. As with all things, its giving money out now, to be paid for by the future. So the deficit will rise because of it.
 
Which is why I noted "on a yearly basis". DUH !

Its called kicking the can. As with all things, its giving money out now, to be paid for by the future. So the deficit will rise because of it.

Yes, that's pretty much the point of passing stimulus measures. You pump money into the economy to combat a demand-side slowdown, then pay it back when the economy has regained strength. Otherwise it's like trying to fill up a hole, where you have one guy shoveling dirt in and another guy shoveling dirt out.
 
Yes, that's pretty much the point of passing stimulus measures. You pump money into the economy to combat a demand-side slowdown, then pay it back when the economy has regained strength. Otherwise it's like trying to fill up a hole, where you have one guy shoveling dirt in and another guy shoveling dirt out.

The amount of money we are sucking out of the economy to pay for artificially tweaking the economy for the last 30 years is why we are where we are.

The government needs to stop intervening cold-turkey.
 
Yes, that's pretty much the point of passing stimulus measures. You pump money into the economy to combat a demand-side slowdown, then pay it back when the economy has regained strength. Otherwise it's like trying to fill up a hole, where you have one guy shoveling dirt in and another guy shoveling dirt out.

$ 16 Trillion in debt says we need a new plan :roll:
 
The amount of money we are sucking out of the economy to pay for artificially tweaking the economy for the last 30 years is why we are where we are.

The government needs to stop intervening cold-turkey.

I disagree. The reason the debt is so high is that we cut taxes too much and spent too much on foreign wars and defense spending in general. If we had simply left the top effective tax rate where it was in 1986, the current debt would be quite manageable. If Bush had not cut taxes and invaded Iraq, the debt would be quite manageable. Basically what it comes down to is this: we have to realize that we can't have low taxes and a strong safety net and be the world's police man. We can do one of those, or possibly two, but not all three.
 
I disagree. The reason the debt is so high is that we cut taxes too much and spent too much on foreign wars and defense spending in general. If we had simply left the top effective tax rate where it was in 1986, the current debt would be quite manageable. If Bush had not cut taxes and invaded Iraq, the debt would be quite manageable. Basically what it comes down to is this: we have to realize that we can't have low taxes and a strong safety net and be the world's police man. We can do one of those, or possibly two, but not all three.

A most excellent summary of the current problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom