[Peace-discuss] Fw: [sf-core] Re: [CentralILJwJ] Fw: Obama’s ‘Jobs Act’ Proposal: Why Less is More of the Same

Mon Sep 12 07:08:31 CDT 2011

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Johnson" <dlj725 at hughes.net>
To: "sf-core" <sf-core at yahoogroups.com>; <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com>; "JWJ C-U" 
<centralILJwJ at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 7:07 AM
Subject: Re: [sf-core] Re: [CentralILJwJ] Fw: Obama’s ‘Jobs Act’ Proposal: 
Why Less is More of the Same


> O.K. Bob,
>
> Based on the info I had, there was NO mention of making up the Social 
> Security tax reduction via the General fund of the Federal Govt.,
>
> So I appologize for not having all of the facts.
>
> However, I do NOT trust Obama or any of his corporate allies in either the 
> dem or republican parties.when it comes to Social Security, Medicare, or 
> most things for tat matter.
>
> His plan is a gimmick at best.
>
> David J.
>
> P.S. Yes, I am on a " jihad " when it comes to protecting Social SEcurity, 
> EXPANDING Medicare, and advancing the interests of working people.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Robert Naiman" <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com>
> To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
> Cc: "David Johnson" <dlj725 at hughes.net>; "Peace-discuss List" 
> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>; "Socialist Forum" 
> <sf-core at yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 9:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [sf-core] Re: [CentralILJwJ] Fw: Obama’s ‘Jobs Act’ Proposal: 
> Why Less is More of the Same
>
>
> David seems to be on one of his jihads here, so I'm going to bow out
> of this discussion after clearing up one fact that David seems to be
> unwilling to concede, or maybe David has permanently seceded from
> fact-land. It is a fact that under Obama's proposal, as under the
> current payroll tax holiday, the reduced revenues to Social Security
> will be made up from general revenues:
>
> ""Normally, money from the payroll tax goes to fund Social Security.
> Under Obama's plan, money would be transferred from the government's
> general fund to cover the revenue losses to Social Security, but
> Republicans argue that is a dangerous game."
>
> - "Obama's proposed tax cut a quandary for GOP," Lisa Mascaro and
> Peter Nicholas, Los Angeles Times, September 09, 2011,
> http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/09/nation/la-na-obama-jobs-20110910
>
> Hate Obama as much as you want, but as I said and wrote repeatedly
> during the George W. Bush administration in arguing that progressives
> should support the Bush Administration's policies on reforming U.S.
> food aid by relaxing the requirement that it be spent on U.S.
> agricultural goods and on forcing the World Bank to convert from loans
> to grants in the poorest countries: "If George W. Bush says that two
> plus two equals four, it's still four."
>
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 7:19 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu> 
> wrote:
>> "...Listening to Obama talk about jobs and shared prosperity yesterday
>> reminded me that we are back in campaign mode and Barack Obama has 
>> started
>> doing again what he does best – play the part of a progressive. He's good 
>> at
>> it. It sounds like he has a natural affinity for union workers and 
>> ordinary
>> people when he makes these speeches. But his policies are crafted by
>> representatives of corporate/financial America, who happen to entirely 
>> make
>> up his inner circle.
>>
>> "I just don't believe this guy anymore, and it's become almost painful to
>> listen to him."
>>
>> [From <http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/06-6>.]
>>
>>
>> On 9/11/11 7:10 PM, C. G. ESTABROOK wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob's argument would make sense if it weren't for what Obama said in
>>> the course of the deficit talks: that he supports massive cuts in
>>> entitlement programs, including Social Security, and that he supports
>>> the most modest of tax increases on the wealthy in order to provide a
>>> patina of 'fairness' and 'shared sacrifice,' without materially
>>> affecting the super-rich. --CGE
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/11/11 6:49 PM, David Johnson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Bob,* ** *You obviously have NOT looked at the details of Obama's
>>>> plan !* ** *It is SOLELY targeted at Social Security payroll
>>>> taxes, both what employees and employers pay.* ** *It is a
>>>> DEFUNDING of Social Security !* *Pure and simple !* ** *It
>>>> specificly says that ; " Social Security payroll taxes paid by BOTH
>>>> employers and employees will be reduced from 6.2 % to 4.2% and then
>>>> to 3.1%.* *AND, in addition to this, employers will be exempt from
>>>> paying ANY ( NO ) social security tax for ALL new hires and for ALL
>>>> employees they give a raise to ( which the percentage wage increase
>>>> is unspecified, so it could be as little as 1- cent per hour ), up
>>>> to FIFTY MILLION dollars per COMPANY, with no time limit specifics
>>>> !* ** *Face the facts, Obama is a puppet of corporate America and a
>>>> closet republican neo-con.* *He admires Ronald Reagan and has not
>>>> only continued the Bush agenda but has expanded it beyond what ANY
>>>> republican would have dared.* ** *The phoney son of a bitch needs
>>>> to be " taken down " ! * ** *We need SOMEBODY to run against him in
>>>> the Dem primaries ( Dennis Kucinch or whoever ) and if that doesn't
>>>> work, we need a third party candidate !* ** *Obama has betrayed
>>>> EVERY SINGLE campaign promise he has made, and he needs to be
>>>> exposed and opposed.* ** *Protecting Social Security and EXPANDING
>>>> Medicare to every man, women and child in this country should be
>>>> THE ISSUE that we need to advocate ( in addition to an immediate
>>>> withdrawl of ALL U.S. troops and private mercenaries from Iraq and
>>>> Afganistan, that would save the taxpayers $ 2.7 BILLION a week ).*
>>>> ** *For those who agree, we should support !* *For those who do NOT
>>>> support or state wishy washy views, we need to vote out of office.*
>>>> ** *This is THE issue we can win with !* ** *The time of automatic
>>>> and blank check support for democrats is past.* *Until we realize
>>>> this and PRACTICE this, this country and the world is DOOMED !* **
>>>> *David J.* ** **
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- *From:* Robert Naiman
>>>> <mailto:naiman.uiuc at gmail.com> *To:* David Johnson
>>>> <mailto:dlj725 at hughes.net> *Cc:* JWJ C-U
>>>> <mailto:centralILJwJ at yahoogroups.com> *Sent:* Sunday, September
>>>> 11, 2011 2:27 PM *Subject:* Re: [CentralILJwJ] Fw: Obama’s ‘Jobs
>>>> Act’ Proposal: Why Less is More of the Same
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The payroll tax holiday isn't de-funding Social Security - that
>>>> isn't the way the payroll tax holiday has worked so far. The money
>>>> has been made up from general revenues. Which, in fact, has had
>>>> the (temporary) effect of making Social Security more progressive.
>>>> (The payroll tax is regressive, because it is capped; Social
>>>> Security is progressive overall, even though it is funded by a
>>>> regressive tax, because the payout is steeply progressive.)
>>>>
>>>> Some progressives have in the past argued against the payroll tax
>>>> holiday on the grounds - they have argued - that it is dangerous
>>>> to weaken the political link, even temporarily, between the payroll
>>>> tax and the benefit, and that this weakening of the link will later
>>>> be used as an argument to undermine the program.
>>>>
>>>> But, on balance - given that there are very real benefits from the
>>>> payroll tax holiday, in terms of economic relief for working
>>>> people in tough times and in terms of boosting employment - I find
>>>> this argument unconvincing. The link between the payroll tax and
>>>> the benefit hasn't stopped people from arguing for cuts to Social
>>>> Security benefits in the past, and current proposals to cut
>>>> benefits, such as by cutting the cost of living adjustment (a
>>>> proposal, unfortunately, supported by President Obama) haven't
>>>> appeared to be slowed by the link between the payroll tax and the
>>>> benefit.
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore, we already have a payroll tax holiday at present, so
>>>> such a holiday has to be withdrawn at some point, the question is:
>>>> now or later? Later - when we no longer have 9.1% measured
>>>> unemployment - makes more sense.
>>>>
>>>> Given that extension of the holiday - like extension of
>>>> unemployment benefits - is a significant chunk of economic stimulus
>>>> that has a plausible chance of getting through Congress right now,
>>>> I think that on balance the extension of the payroll tax holiday is
>>>> worthy of support. Others may disagree. But I think the claim that
>>>> this is a nefarious plot to undermine Social Security is
>>>> dramatically overblown.
>>>>
>>>> At the end of the day, Social Security is a check from the U.S.
>>>> Treasury. At the end of the day, what defends Social Security is
>>>> defending Social Security: a supermajority of voters defending the
>>>> payout.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Robert Naiman
> Policy Director
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>
> Urge Congress to Support a Timetable for Military Withdrawal from 
> Afghanistan
> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/feingold-mcgovern
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sf-core/
>
> <*> Your email settings:
>    Individual Email | Traditional
>
> <*> To change settings online go to:
>    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sf-core/join
>    (Yahoo! ID required)
>
> <*> To change settings via email:
>    sf-core-digest at yahoogroups.com
>    sf-core-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>    sf-core-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>