Obama supporters shocked, angry at new tax increases

proof that liberals only like to help with OTHER poeple's money.

Asked to pay a few hundred extra and the libtard cries like a baby
 
bravo said:
Incoherent ?...Not at all in that is was a response to you post....


It was Obama that cut the payroll tax, no ? It is reasonable to blame Obama...for both the reduction and then reenstatement of FICA tax.


And to continue...yes it was grossly unfair.....I like Presidents that consider all taxpayers when he wants to cut the taxes....not just the ones hes trying to
buy off for votes....

Like all pinheads, you'll notice I DIDN'T say a thing about welfare recipients.....YOU DID....in order to mis-represent what I said......
as a matter of fact, I specifically mentioned the seniors and pensioners as
the poor I was referring to....not those on welfare.
Click to expand...

You mentioned those on social security.

Your argument is really stupid. You support a tax that is only paid by those on a payroll but don't support cutting it because that would only benefit those on a payroll. Why not argue that we should never cut income because it only benefits those with an income?

Again, you support letting the cut to payroll taxes expire, right? So apparently you think this voter grind mentions should blame Obama for ever giving him a tax cut?

You are just a simple minded crank that always tries to figure out some way to blame Obama. Thanks for proving my point.
 
bravo said:
Incoherent ?...Not at all in that is was a response to you post....


It was Obama that cut the payroll tax, no ? It is reasonable to blame Obama...for both the reduction and then reenstatement of FICA tax.


And to continue...yes it was grossly unfair.....I like Presidents that consider all taxpayers when he wants to cut the taxes....not just the ones hes trying to
buy off for votes....

Like all pinheads, you'll notice I DIDN'T say a thing about welfare recipients.....YOU DID....in order to mis-represent what I said......
as a matter of fact, I specifically mentioned the seniors and pensioners as
the poor I was referring to....not those on welfare.
Click to expand...

Affirmative action dictates that Obama can never be blamed for anything ever. Even things he actually does are Bush's fault
 
SuperstringTheory said:
You mentioned those on social security.

You are just a simple minded crank that always tries to figure out some way to blame Obama. Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...


Obama cuts the payroll tax and drives Soc. Sec. in the red for 2012 by billions......but we can't blame Obama

Obama reinstates the payroll tax to its former rate......but we can't blame Obama



I can't figure out a way NOT to blame Obama, but I'll bet you can. So tell us, who is to blame to the above.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Big whoop...

Everyone understood the payroll tax deduction was NEVER going to remain in place for the rest of eternity.

It helped out the poor and middle class during the recession.

As usual however, hateful partisan Righties are trying to pretend the comments of a dozen "Liberals" on the Washington TIMES website means every single Liberal everywhere is just as angry...LOL!

Silly, self-absorbed Righties.
Click to expand...

Sorry Zap, but Obama, his party, and Republicans lied to the American people. They said they prevented a tax increase on the middle class. That is a lie. Now, bear in mind that I was 100% for allowing the payroll tax holiday to expire, and for allowing Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire. But I also believe in being honest with people...something that the President doesn't have the best track record of doing.
 
Dungheap said:
For the eleventeenth time, the payroll tax holiday had no impact on Social Security's finances.
Click to expand...

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/02/democrats-deny-social-securitys-red-ink/

Excerpt from paragraph under chart....

Matters are even worse than this chart shows. In December, Congress passed a Social Security tax reduction. Workers are temporarily paying 2 percentage points less, from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent, in Social Security payroll taxes this calendar year. Since the government is making up the shortfall out of general revenues, CBO’s deficit projections for the trust funds do not include that. But CBO’s figures predict that the “payroll tax holiday” will cost the government’s general fund $85 billion in this fiscal year and $29 billion in fiscal year 2012 (which starts Oct.1, 2011.) Since every dollar of that will have to be borrowed, the combined effect of the ” tax holiday” and the annual deficits will amount to a $130 billion addition to the federal deficit in the current fiscal year, and $59 billion in fiscal 2012.


Now some of that $85 billion that the SS shortfall is costing the general fund, WOULD have been collected as taxes if there was no reduction in the payroll tax....right.

Is factcheck lying to us ?
 
I hate having to pay into an imaginary retirement program. It's like giving to a shitty charity and not being able to write it off...
 
The revenue that otherwise would have been collected if there was no tax holiday was transferred from the general fund to the Social Security trust fund.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Big whoop...

Everyone understood the payroll tax deduction was NEVER going to remain in place for the rest of eternity.

It helped out the poor and middle class during the recession.

As usual however, hateful partisan Righties are trying to pretend the comments of a dozen "Liberals" on the Washington TIMES website means every single Liberal everywhere is just as angry...LOL!

Silly, self-absorbed Righties.
Click to expand...

Correct. Since when do liberals read The Washington Times for "news"? I only read it to provide humor and hypocrisy.

Here's the deal. The President told us years ago sacrifices would need to be made by all. The payroll tax credit was, in fact, part of the stimulus and now that the economies getting better, it's not needed. The middle class can live without that twenty dollars a month to make the sacrifice to bring down the debt as will the business who's payroll tax rate also returned to the old level; just as I expect the rich will live with increased taxes.
 
Howey said:
Correct. Since when do liberals read The Washington Times for "news"? I only read it to provide humor and hypocrisy.

Here's the deal. The President told us years ago sacrifices would need to be made by all. The payroll tax credit was, in fact, part of the stimulus and now that the economies getting better, it's not needed. The middle class can live without that twenty dollars a month to make the sacrifice to bring down the debt as will the business who's payroll tax rate also returned to the old level; just as I expect the rich will live with increased taxes.
Click to expand...


The economy is still pretty shitty though. 7.8% unemployment is way too high. In a sane world, all of the tax cuts would have been extended and we'd worry about the deficit once unemployment was at least below 6%.
 
Dungheap said:
For the eleventeenth time, the payroll tax holiday had no impact on Social Security's finances.
Click to expand...

Dungheap said:
The revenue that otherwise would have been collected if there was no tax holiday was transferred from the general fund to the Social Security trust fund.
Click to expand...

A little contradictory there, huh?

Although you're right in that the revenue was transferred to Social Security, the end of the payroll tax credit would have little effect on the long term Social Security Trust Fund.

As background, the payroll tax cut emerged in 2011 as a compromise when Congress refused to extend the Making Work Pay Tax Credit. The cut reduced the employee contribution to Social Security from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. The cut was supposed to expire at the end of 2011. It never seemed realistic, however, to think that politicians of any stripe would let the tax cut expire in an election year. And indeed, Republicans and Democrats, who cannot agree on the day of the week, voted to extend the cut through December 2012. My fear was — and maybe still is — that they would not let it expire as planned.

The Social Security program, which is financed primarily by the earmarked payroll tax, has not lost any money over the past two years. While payroll tax revenues were down about $110 billion per year, the trust funds have been reimbursed from the general fund of the Treasury. So if the cut does indeed turn out to be temporary, it hasn’t done any harm.

But if the cut does not expire, the reduction in payroll tax revenues could be used to make Social Security’s long-term financing shortfall look much worse than it is. Absent the payroll tax cut, the Social Security financing story is one where the average cost rate for the next 75 years is 16.7 percent and the scheduled income rate is 14.0 percent, producing a deficit of 2.7 percent. That figure means that if the payroll tax were raised immediately by 2.7 percentage points — 1.35 percent each for the employer and employee — the government would be able to pay the current package of benefits for everyone who reaches retirement age through 2086.

A 2-percentage point cut in the employee payroll tax changes the story. The deficit becomes 4.7 percent of payrolls. Yes, general revenues are being credited to the trust funds to make up for foregone revenues in the short run, but restoring balance to Social Security, which in 2010 looked trivial, now appears daunting. The expiration of the payroll tax cut makes eliminating the shortfall a manageable exercise.
Click to expand...

Incredibly, that came from the persistently conservative WSJ.
 
Last edited:
Dungheap said:
The economy is still pretty shitty though. 7.8% unemployment is way too high. In a sane world, all of the tax cuts would have been extended and we'd worry about the deficit once unemployment was at least below 6%.
Click to expand...

You should have waited to post that, Dung. See my next post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top