Originally posted by tovenar
After promising that he was only going to raise taxes "on the richest Americans," the President raised the social security tax by 2%. Thanks, Pharaoh Obama.
I make about 50K per year. Starting January 1, there's another $30 PER WEEK missing from my check.
We used to take the kids out to dinner once a week, because I have to work late one evening a week. We've already cut all other eating out and grocery expenses. So, we'll have to pack sack lunches for school for the kids, PLUS a sack-supper one night a week, since there's no money to get fast food...
Am I the only one who noticed this????
Originally posted by 2XOHsurf
Yeah, get used to being deceived and lied to by POTUS. Lot's of people saw through him years ago, many are just now 'getting' it. He's a liar to the core and couldn't lead his way out of a wet sack. Have to admit, it was 'transparent' to many and in that he told the truth.
My wife was just laid off. She worked 23 years for one of the top AE firms in the US, mostly doing facility design for state and fed. There NEVER WERE any shovel ready jobs and she is one of the last remaining senior people. Laid off after 23 years. Doesn't bode well for the poor as the 'trickle down' is being shut off.
Get used to it.
Trickle-Down Hasn't Actually Trickled Down:
If trickle-down economics worked, then lower tax rates during the Reagan Revolution should have increased the lowest income levels. In fact, the exact opposite has occurred. Income inequality has worsened. Between 1979 and 2005, after-tax household income rose 6% for the bottom fifth of income earners. That sounds great, until you see what happened for the top fifth -- an 80% increase in income. The top 1% saw their income triple. Instead trickling down, it appears that prosperity trickled up! (Source: Steven Greenhouse, The Big Squeeze, pp.6-9)
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said she, too, wants to let the tax cut expire.
Obama, however, didn't include the tax cut in his 2013 budget proposal, and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told Congress this year that he saw no reason to extend it again.
Under the law, Congress is reimbursing Social Security for the lost revenue, estimated at $103 billion in 2011 and $112 billion in 2012. But Congress didn't cut spending or raise other taxes to offset the lost revenue, so the payroll tax cut is being financed with borrowed money, adding to the national debt.
They are backed by powerful advocates for seniors, including AARP, who adamantly oppose any extension.
There was discussion about amending the Senate bill by adding spending cuts, but in the end, House lawmakers voted on the bill as written -- a so-called up or down vote.
Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Infi8nity
Is that sarcastic or do you think 50,000 is a lot of money?
The majority of expiring tax cuts are combined every year into a multibillion dollar "extenders" package that creates a lobbying frenzy among businesses and industries that rely on the tax breaks. The package can include major provisions, such as a first-year depreciation bonus on plants and equipment, to obscure ones that affect only NASCAR or bow-and-arrow manufacturers.
Originally posted by schuyler
The fact is that the social security tax is supposed to pay for social security (I know it's a shell game) and the social security system will eventually go broke. So what do they do? LOWER the social secirity tax as a "stimulus" and make it go broke sooner???? I say that's completely stupid. I paid 7.5% of my wages into social security my entire working life with no breaks and no "stimulus reductions." You get the break, pay less for a few months, and when it goes back up you bitch? I have no sympathy for you. Zero.
So what do they do? LOWER the social secirity tax as a "stimulus"
How to Get Out of a Liquidity Trap
Contrary to the claims of at least some Japanese central bankers,
monetary policy is far from impotent today in Japan. In this section I
will discuss some options that the monetary authorities have to
stimulate the economy.4 Overall, my claim has two parts: First, that—-
despite the apparent liquidity trap—-monetary policymakers retain the
power to increase nominal aggregate demand and the price level.
Second, that increased nominal spending and rising prices will lead to
increases in real economic activity.
Money, unlike other forms of government debt, pays zero
interest and has infinite maturity. The monetary authorities can issue
as much money as they like. Hence, if the price level were truly
independent of money issuance, then the monetary authorities could use
the money they create to acquire indefinite quantities of goods and