.

.

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

.An Uninformed Population Is Obama's Ticket For Re-Election

When your FICA tax is taken out of your paycheck, it does not get squirreled away in some lockbox in West Virginia where it's kept until you and your contemporaries retire. Most goes out immediately to pay current retirees, and the rest (say, $100) goes to the U.S. Treasury is spent. On roads, bridges, national defense, public television, whatever .

In return for that $100, the Treasury sends the Social Security Administration a piece of paper that says: IOU $100. There are countless such pieces of paper in the lockbox. They are called "special issue" bonds.

They are worthless....

So when democrats say that there are trillions in this lockbox that keep the system solvent until 2037, they are perpetrating a fiction What happens when you retire? Your Social Security will come out of the taxes and borrowing of that fiscal year.

Why is this a problem? Because as of 2010, the pay-as-you-go Social Security system is in the red. For decades it had been in the black, taking in more in FICA taxes than it sent out in Social Security benefits. The surplus, scooped up by the Treasury, reduced the federal debt by tens of billions. But demography is destiny. The ratio of workers to retirees is shrinking year by year. Instead of Social Security producing annual surpluses that reduce the federal deficit, it is now producing shortfalls that increase the federal deficit -- $37 billion in 2010. It will only get worse as the baby boomers retire.

That's what makes the lefts' claim that Social Security is solvent so cynical. The Republicans have said that their April budget will contain real entitlement reform. President Obama is preparing the ground to demagogue Social Security right through the 2012 elections.
Those heartless Republicans don't just want to throw granny in the snow, they want to throw granny in the snow to solve a problem that doesn't even exist! Vote Obama.

46 comments:

  1. Really, Lisa! If you are going to copy someone else writing, you should at least reference it.

    And in all fairness, maybe you should read a rebuttal.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Obviously Jerry you already know who wrote it. But the CBO says it is only solvent for 26 years also so I guess it depends where your allegiance lies.
    The fact remains that benefits need to be cut and taxes need to be raised when that happens.
    But let's continue to kick the can down the road and not deal with it now and pass it down to the next generation,that seems to be the way of the government. Or better yet Obama has a better solution. Scare Tactics like pushing Granny off a cliff.
    And here I thought his solution was to give old people a pill and say deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And Lisa, what president offered to deal on social security? what party is he from? And why did the GOP not take him up on it?

    You'll be hard pressed to find someone other than Mr Krauthammer to support that. Even reliable conservative commenters are asking why the GOP turned Obama down.

    It is something, a Dem Pres offering to cut Social Security, that most liberals never thought they'd see, but your side let this opportunity to really get some reform, cut the deficit, and cut spending go by the way side.

    Amazing...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lisa, consider who you are talking too, before you try to answer sensibly.
    How quickly they forget remember when that Bush tried to fix Social Security but the Democrats stopped him. These bleeding hearts are hell bent in destroying everyone else just to get Obamacare. And look at that Obamacare bill, it's has more pork in it than a Ham sandwich.
    For example right there in that HealthCare bill lies a little bill that says IF YOU SELL YOU HOME AT A PROFIT, YOU MUST PAY 31/2 PERCENT TAX ON THE PROFIT.
    Most of the old folks bought their home a long time ago and they would be selling it at a profit. Although in today's economy that profit is meaningless. What and where would they go with this "Profit"?

    Tell that Critter IDIOT to Keep his powder dry and GET LOST.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "tha malcontent's" default position on anyone who disagrees with him is "GET LOST!"

    It is also interesting that his fellow blogger also plagiarizes other people's work and thinks there's nothing wrong with that sort of dishonesty.

    On another note, "tha malcontent" is wrong about the tax on the profit of home sales. FactCheck explains the details:

    "According to FactCheck.org, we learn the following:

    “Only a tiny percentage of home sellers will pay the tax. First of all, only those with incomes over $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married couples filing jointly) will be subject to it. And even for those who have such high incomes, the tax still won’t apply to the first $250,000 on profits from the sale of a personal residence — or to the first $500,000 in the case of a married couple selling their home.

    We can understand how this misconception got started. The law itself is couched in highly technical language that only a qualified tax expert can fully grasp. (This provision begins on page 33 of the reconciliation bill that was passed and signed into law.) And it does say the tax falls on “net gain … attributable to the disposition of property.” That would include the sale of a home. But the bill also says the tax falls only on that portion of any gain that is “taken into account in computing taxable income” under the existing tax code. And the fact is, the first $250,000 in profit on the sale of a primary residence (or $500,000 in the case of a married couple) is excluded from taxable income already. (That exclusion doesn’t apply to vacation homes or rental properties.)

    The Joint Committee on Taxation, the group of nonpartisan tax experts that Congress relies on to analyze tax proposals, underscores this in a footnote on page 135 of its report on the bill. The note states: “Gross income does not include … excluded gain from the sale of a principal residence.”

    And just to be sure, we checked with William Ahern, director of policy and communications for the nonprofit, pro-business Tax Foundation. “Some home sales would see a tax increase under this bill,” Ahern told us, “but it would have to be a second home or a principal residence generating [a gain of] more than $250,000 ($500,000 for a couple).”
    "


    SOURCE

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ya know, some people are really, really very dumb, deaf and stupid. And some are just Foolish brain-deal Progressive nut-jobs. But I won’t make fun of the handicapped. I will just say my few words of wisdom and leave it at that. But as dumb as most people can be , they can still spread around their vile vermin. And as stuck on stupidity as they may be they still play the one old dumb song about plagiarizing. I guess that they think people still give a crap about what SHE says or thinks. But I also guess that at that snake pit where she hangs out at, they do. So be it. Who gives a crap? I certainly don’t.
    Oh and by the way, I found this little bit of information regarding my post above that may interest anyone who cares.

    But of course the Queen on BULL-SHIT is going to have something to say about it being a Rightwing Lie!
    But if anyone that DOES have a brain cares to read it, it proved the point I made above that was SO eloquently disputed, by the Wicked Witch of Progressiveness.



    The health care law imposes a 3.8 percent tax on the investment income of couples who make more than $250,000 or individuals who make more than $200,000. That investment income could include income from real estate transactions. But it would only apply to those high earners, who make up less than 5 percent of all taxpayers. We're not sure why the e-mail extrapolates this tax to all real estate transactions, but that's the only 3.8 percent tax we could find in the new law. We ran this by two tax policy experts who confirmed our analysis of the new law.

    The Tax Facts

    There is a new 3.8% tax in the bill.
    It is not a "sales tax" on all real estate transactions.
    It is a Medicare tax.
    Many people will not have to pay this tax.
    It is going to affect so-called "high earners."
    It is not going affect many people.
    The tax comes into effect in 2013.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And oh yes, I did say "GET LOST!" to Critter Shit!

    ReplyDelete
  9. tha malcontent's" default is always to sling poo and call people names. Curious, since this is what is posted in his comment section:

    "Please note: Because of the onslaught of vulgar, attacking comments often with the F-word, or worse against Sarah Palin and/or her children, this policy had to be enacted. . Don't waste your time trying. There are plenty of liberal blogs and Obama loving blogs out there. So post your hateful criticisms on one of those sites, you know where they are. . This is My blog, and my rules.
    Comment moderation is currently enabled, so when you post your comment and and don’t see it, you will understand why. All comments are subject to being rejected, or deleted at any time, at the bloggers discretion. No attacks or profanities will be allowed. You can differ in opinion without being vulgar.. Play nicely, or play somewhere else. And remember, if you use a knife, then I will use a gun."


    "You can differ in opinion without being vulgar..." claims "tha malcontent," then he proceeds to vulgarity and name-calling.

    In his tiny cramped universe, it's vulgar when other people disagree with him, but when he slings his poo around, well, that's his way of "expressing" himself.

    BTW, his original comment on the real estate tax does not explain whom the tax will affect. Only when I posted FactCheck's explanation did "tha malcontent" come roaring back to duplicate what I wrote.

    Good work. I'm glad to be able to help you out.

    Also calling me a "wicked witch" and all of your other schoolyard names reflects on YOUR intellect, dearie, not mine.

    You've exposed yourself, and it's ugly.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mal thank you for your common sense against the state run bloggers.

    Shaw only likes Fact-Check when it suits her agenda:
    Here Shaw an excerpt from your Bible.

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

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Aww, Golly Gee Shaw, I feel soooooooo bad!

    My apologies to the "wicked witches"

    ReplyDelete
  13. LOL! Typical! Can't attack the facts, so you attack the source.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. No, I didn't attack the source. But I did attack YOU, you piece of CRAP!

    You're not on that other a-holes blog now where you get away with calling ALL republican those filthy names and the author pats you on your back for doing so.

    LOL? Laugh at that!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Oh come on now mal. Is that the best you've got?

    ReplyDelete
  17. In Jerry's defense he is one of the nicer lefties

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Sorry Lisa, but I don't think there is such a thing.
    Personally, I'm sick of them all. I'm sick of Communism,Socialism,Liberalism,Marxism, Progressive-ism, Obama and Obamacare, and Obama Ass-kissers, Welfare, handouts,the terrorist hugging leftwing bunch of Obama kissing and all that liberal bull shit! So I don't believe in "the nicer lefties" And as for the "Critter" I've read the things he says about me on the Witch's blog, so I'm far from eager to call him "the nicer lefties"

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ok I didn't see that I take it back then. i knew it was a rarity. Hey I love my Obama loving Brother but maybe because I have to,lol!!!

    ReplyDelete
  21. The Witch's Blog,lol. Notice we know who that is without mentioning names?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dear Lisa,

    It's true that everyone has the right to be ignorant, but must you abuse the privilege?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Shaw don't you have some Obama boots to lick?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Maybe we should cut Obama some slack, after all what did we expect from this Spineless, Drama Queen, Spoiled Brat. He has a lot on his plate these days, with his wife spending so much money on her designer sneakers, and OH YES, the "humanitarian" conflict in Libya

    ReplyDelete
  25. Well...quite a thread!
    Mal, Bush not only wanted to address Soc Sec, he also tried about five times to get people to pay attention to freddie and fannie..to no avail, and now look what we have. His TARP didn't help, either, of course.
    But, it's like the Pres of Sudan praising Bush the other day, and Christians, for the freedom they have now there in their corner of that country...the news didn't cover it......but Obama took credit for it. Astonishing.

    I don't trust Factcheck any more than we can Snopes anymore. WHen the left is irrefutably guilty, Snopes says "True AND FALSE" and then gives Obama an out. For the "57 states" horrid gaffe (how many president's don't know how many states our country has?!!), he was 'tired'....I lost all respect for all fact check companies after that!! Hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hi Lisa,

    Nice to see you allow other views on your blog. I used to comment at Z's, until she banned all dissent.

    There are countless such pieces of paper in the lockbox...

    They are worthless....


    By law, surplus Social Security revenue must be held in Treasury bonds. If you remember, the "lockbox" was proposed by Al Gore when he ran against W. We were running a budget surplus and his idea was to end the practice of artificially reducing deficit figures by taking S.S. off budget. There never has been a "lockbox".

    Treasury bonds are not "worthless". They are considered the safest investment in the world. It's why foreign govt.'s buy them. It's why millions of Americans hold them. It's why large portions of the portfolios of individuals with vast fortunes are in Treasury bonds. They are backed by the 'full faith and credit of the United States'.

    Now, Republicans are putting that full faith in jeopardy by holding the debt ceiling hostage. It was raised 7 times under Bush and those whining now didn't bat an eye voting for them while also adding $5T to the debt. It's not the fault of the S.S. program that the surplus was squandered by borrow and spend Republicans.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The ratio of workers to retirees is shrinking year by year. Instead of Social Security producing annual surpluses that reduce the federal deficit, it is now producing shortfalls that increase the federal deficit...

    Not to mention what all this unemployment and underemployment is doing to tax revenues in general.

    It's a vicious cycle.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Craig we also used to be an economic superpower too.
    Like AOW stated(thanks for stopping by AOW)The ratio of workers to retirees is shrinking year by year.
    So if we default are you saying the president is lying about not being able to mail out those checks?

    ReplyDelete
  30. I agree with you Z, I have always wondered about Snopes also. They seem to be slanted towards a left bias themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  31. KKKayinsane screams she got some 5th rate tabloid to announce that Palin faked the Trig pregnancy!

    the blog I did recently about Sarah Palin and her shoulder pads opened the National Examiner’s eyes up.

    Bristol Palin is the one who gave birth to Trig at Auntie & Uncle’s house in Wasilla. She had a home birth there (and spent almost all of that school year out of school with “mono”)

    Sarah got a call from Bristol’s mid-wife in Wasilla telling her that she had better get back to Wasilla because Bristol’s water broke and she’s in labor!

    she was able to suck that baby in for the first 7 months of the pregnancy, because no one in the governor’s office or the Alaskan media knew she was pregnant until she announced! Once she announced…all of a sudden she has a belly and very wide shoulder pads!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hey Chaw, don't you have a reverse Michael Jackson, government paid procedure to undergo? The one that transforms your lilly white dingbat self into the black transgender you've always known you are. That way you can finally get some negroe street cred with that prodigy "kid"

    ReplyDelete
  33. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The above is a sockpuppet. I've been on Blogger since 2004, as my profile indicates. The above incarnation of pShaw pShit for brains joined in June.

    Stupid Libtards.

    Why can't they argue the merits of their beliefs, instead of resorting to such dishonest grade-school foolishness as sockpuppetting comments in someone else's name? Frankly, I'm surprised Miss Thing has the guts to step out from under friendly comment moderation.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Mal, Snopes is owned by a couple from the San Fernando Valley here in LA...extremely, avowedly liberal. It's become a joke but SNOPES has become synonymous with FACTS, like KLEENEX is for TISSUE, sadly. imagine giving excuses for Obama when they must admit it's TRUTH!? that always cracks me up. "True, BUT........."! WHAT???!!

    ReplyDelete
  36. I have always been suspicious as to the validity of Snopes . They seem to be very bias twards the left. Same with FactCheck.org. When the lefties start quoting their "Facts" then you get suspicious.
    Why am I suspicious? Maybe because Snopes receives funding from an undisclosed source.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Poor, simple, stupid pest Chaw. Devastated that she's far too contrived and annoying to ever get a black guy, and much to hideous to ever dream of a white guy, must compensate with banal trolling while consuming her default daddy's latest Cleveland Steamer (he always gives her a big one for Kwaanza) out of old Ben & Jerry's containers.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Shaw Kenawe said...
    "tha malcontent's" default position on anyone who disagrees with him is "GET LOST!"
    "You've exposed yourself, and it's ugly."


    Wow, I really enjoyed that one. It was one of your best (if there is such a thing) My God, I wish I could rant and rant that well. That was truly amazing. It made me laugh so much that I almost cried. I had pictured a vision of you in my mind that sacred me half to death. You should have seen the look on your commie face.. ... Great job, I could not have said it better. When it come to Low-life Commie Liberals, you are indeed, the the absolute best. Or should I say the worst.

    Can't wait till 2012, when we finally be …Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we will be Free at Last!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Lisa, Sorry it took so long to respond. I wasn't avoiding your question, just busy.

    So if we default are you saying the president is lying about not being able to mail out those checks?

    He said he couldn't guarantee it. Technically true but, sure, political posturing. S.S. is drawing on Trust Fund (intergovernmental bonds) for a number of reasons. Less money coming in due to unemployment, 2% payroll tax reduction as part of the Bush tax cut extension deal and the fact that over 80% of the economic growth since the recession was "officially" over has gone to the top 2%. The cap on payroll tax is on your first $106K income, so there is no corresponding increase in S.S. revenue.

    Instead of Social Security producing annual surpluses that reduce the federal deficit, it is now producing shortfalls that increase the federal deficit -- $37 billion in 2010. It will only get worse as the baby boomers retire.

    S.S. does not increase the federal deficit. In fact surpluses in S.S. increase the debt. Since by law, surpluses are held in T bonds, that principal is actually counted as money owed, just like publicly held bonds. When the govt. borrows to pay the Trust fund back, it is merely shifting the debt from one place to another. When that money is paid back to S.S., it is no longer debt. It adds nothing to the overall debt. BTW, S.S. is prohibited, by law, from borrowing. The largest contributors to the debt are wars and reduced revenue from tax cuts and economic downturn. Tax cuts have done nothing to spur job growth, increase wages or demand.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The point Craig also remains is that SS is still funded by payroll taxes.
    And we have more people coming up for retirement so the ratio of workers to retirees is vital, trust fund or not. It is still an accounting trick of money that isn't really isn't there.
    Increasing taxes on the so-called wealthy alone is not going fix our shortfalls. We need economic growth. If we don't have that tax increases can make our economic situation worse because that is less people getting hired and less money that goes back into the economy.
    I ma not a economic expert but it makes sense that the more you take from people the less they have to spend on things like new hires and supporting businesses that employee people.

    Either way I think Obama is a very anti-business president. Code word for Anti American IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  41. What about the sources Snopes uses?

    Other critics question the process of how the Mikkelsons (The Owners of Snops) choose sources they consider definitive in determining truth.

    Mikkelson told WND Snopes considers several factors in determining if a source is trustworthy, including the source's history of reliability, corroboration of other sources, tangible evidence and independent verification of the source's information.

    The Mikkelsons admit, however, that Snopes is only as reliable as the sources it cites, and they invite readers to look for the truth themselves.

    "We don't expect anyone to accept us as the ultimate authority on any topic, which is why our site's name indicates that it contains reference pages," states the Snopes FAQ page. "The research materials we've used in the preparation of any particular page are listed … so that readers who wish to verify the validity of our information may check those sources for themselves."

    ReplyDelete
  42. And we have more people coming up for retirement so the ratio of workers to retirees is vital,

    Which is why Reagan pushed for and signed a bill that nearly doubled the payroll tax in 1983. It was recommended by a commission lead by Alan Greenspan.

    It is still an accounting trick of money that isn't really isn't there.

    It's not a trick. S.S. invested the surplus in the safest instrument in the world. Unless you hide your savings in a mattress, you invest in a 401K, mutual fund, gold, whatever. There's no guarantee you'll get a return. Your money doesn't sit in a safe somewhere, it's put to work. If it's mismanaged, you lose your money but it doesn't mean you never had the money. T bonds guarantee a modest return. Once that money goes into the general fund it's not S.S.'s fault Republicans ran up huge debt by cutting taxes and starting unfunded wars.

    Now, some Repubs are threatening to reneg on the promise to pay their debt. Besides being insane, it's unconstitutional. 14th Amendment, Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

    Either way I think Obama is a very anti-business president.

    The Dow has gone from around 6400 to over 12000. Record Corporate profits and a 23% increase in CEO pay for 2010. That's anti-business?

    Code word for Anti American IMO.

    You guys like the Founding Fathers and the principles the country was founded on, right? These are some of the laws that governed corporations for the first 100 years of our country;
    * Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time (usually 40 years) and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

    * Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

    * Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

    * Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

    * Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

    * Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Increasing taxes on the so-called wealthy alone is not going fix our shortfalls. We need economic growth.

    I absolutely agree.

    I ma not a economic expert but it makes sense that the more you take from people the less they have to spend on things like new hires and supporting businesses that employee people.

    Businesses don't hire because they have more money, they hire because more people want to buy their stuff. There are many factors that effect economic growth. While I can't say higher taxes cause higher growth, I can say, for sure, higher taxes don't stifle growth. That may not make sense to you but empirical data says otherwise.

    Effective tax rates are the lowest they've been in 60 years. Look at tax rates from the 50's, 60's, and 70's. "The Good Old Days." The economy grew steadily, union membership in the private sector was around 35%, it's 6% now. CEO pay was 40-50 times that of the average employee, it's 300-400 times now. If a company chased cheap labor off shore, they paid a healthy tariff to re-import their product. All that would be considered anti-business by today's Oligarchs.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Craig that was also before we had Global competition too. We can't have our corp tax rates the highest in the world when the world is our competition.
    Although I am sure Obama would be happy to see us low man on totem pole.

    ReplyDelete