US President Barack B.O. Obama's controversial tax cut deal with the Republicans "is an attack on Social Security," an online columnist says.
"This is a total sell-out by Barack Obama... That's a huge problem. It will lower the pay-roll tax. The tax [that is needed] to fund Social Security. It is an attack on Social Security ...," online columnist Allen Roland told Press TV on Friday.
Roland continued, "It will cut one third of Social Security funding this year alone. That's the only safety net that we have. Can you believe that the United States does not sometime have a retirement plan for its citizens?"
He stressed that the tax giveaways to the rich will hold back the creation of more jobs.
The contentious USD 858 billion bill was passed in the House of Represantavies by a 277-148 margin on Thursday, one day after it was passed by the Senate.
Obama's compromise with the Republicans comes only six weeks after the Democrats were defeated in congressional elections.
The bill extends middle-class tax cuts for two years and jobless benefits for 13 months, AFP reported.
Obama has signaled that he might include Social Security cuts as part of a grand deficit-reduction deal.
The deficit commission has tried to camouflage these cuts by emphasizing that Social Security benefits for the very poor would not be reduced, and might even be increased.
However, The infamous However... in the commission's proposal, the cuts would affect middle-class retirees.
The broad tax reform proposed by President B.O. is said to be aimed at boosting the US economy. Economists, however, believe that will intensify debt deflation and financial depression.
The measure would also pave the way for a tax shift off the wealthy class of society onto the middle class.
The new law would likely dash hopes that Obama intended to enact the reforms that his supporters expected.
One of Obama's campaign promises was to end tax cuts on incomes over USD 250,000 for families or USD 200,000 for individuals.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/18/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
1. Doesn't reduce fund income by a third, but by less than a sixth - only applies to the individuals' contributions, as I understand it.
2. May not affect solvency of the system, unless the payouts the next two years exceed the remaining 5/6+ of the taxes collected - any excess just gets spent elsewhere and an 'IOU' written against the same payer as would be on the hook without the IOU - us.
#2
So BushObama is going to cut Social Security benefits. Same old song fro the same old people.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
12/18/2010 8:34 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The income and corporate taxes were in the 'deal' not FICA withholding. By linking Social Security to these regular taxed the redistributionists are acknowledging the fact that since the 1960s and the Donk creative bookkeeping acts enacted back then have simply treated the Social Security fund as just another pocket to rob, another tax to spend without restraints or obligations.
#4
...the fact that since the 1960s and the Donk creative bookkeeping acts enacted back then have simply treated the Social Security fund as just another pocket to rob, another tax to spend without restraints or obligations.
Posted by: P2kontheroad 2010-12-18 08:42
This is somethinng I have been saying since the 70's.
#5
They still had a great opportunity to downgrade and stabilize SS, if they had not renewed the Bush tax cuts, but instead given tax deductions to SS beneficiaries with other sources of income, in exchange for them not taking money out of the SS system. Their choice.
It would have relieved a lot of pressure on the SS system, with a break even for the government about tax cuts.
Are these the same unnamed "economists" who produce frequent headlines with the word "Unexpected" in them? Like "Unexpected increase in unemployment", and "Unexpected drop in growth"?
This is simply very poorly disguised propagandizing. Name names, cite sources, don't just spew opinion and try to present it as fact. Either back up your facts or clearly mark it as YOUR opinion. "Economists say" = BS.
Not a great of risk for her. Vegetable harvesting and residential roofing on the North Slope is not as manpower intense as it was say.....30,000 years ago.
#3
Murkowski has been acting like a Democrat ever since she won re-election. I'm pretty sure the Dems are the ones that pushed her over the top in her "write-in" campaign, and this is payback. Alaskans should make her switch parties to where her loyalties belong - the left.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
12/18/2010 17:25 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The DREAM Act cloture vote just failed in the Senate, 55 to 41.
