<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
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<br>
<br>
<br>
On 9/11/11 6:49 PM, David Johnson wrote:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> <br>
> <br>
> *Bob,* ** *You obviously have NOT looked at the details of
Obama's<br>
> plan !* ** *It is SOLELY targeted at Social Security payroll
taxes,<br>
> both what employees and employers pay.* ** *It is a DEFUNDING
of<br>
> Social Security !* *Pure and simple !* ** *It specificly says
that ;<br>
> " Social Security payroll taxes paid by BOTH employers and
employees<br>
> will be reduced from 6.2 % to 4.2% and then to 3.1%.* *AND,
in<br>
> addition to this, employers will be exempt from paying ANY (
NO )<br>
> social security tax for ALL new hires and for ALL employees
they give<br>
> a raise to ( which the percentage wage increase is
unspecified, so it<br>
> could be as little as 1- cent per hour ), up to FIFTY MILLION<br>
> dollars per COMPANY, with no time limit specifics !* ** *Face
the<br>
> facts, Obama is a puppet of corporate America and a closet
republican<br>
> neo-con.* *He admires Ronald Reagan and has not only
continued the<br>
> Bush agenda but has expanded it beyond what ANY republican
would have<br>
> dared.* ** *The phoney son of a bitch needs to be " taken
down " !<br>
> * ** *We need SOMEBODY to run against him in the Dem
primaries (<br>
> Dennis Kucinch or whoever ) and if that doesn't work, we need
a third<br>
> party candidate !* ** *Obama has betrayed EVERY SINGLE
campaign<br>
> promise he has made, and he needs to be exposed and opposed.*
** <br>
> *Protecting Social Security and EXPANDING Medicare to every
man,<br>
> women and child in this country should be THE ISSUE that we
need to<br>
> advocate ( in addition to an immediate withdrawl of ALL U.S.
troops<br>
> and private mercenaries from Iraq and Afganistan, that would
save the<br>
> taxpayers $ 2.7 BILLION a week ).* ** *For those who agree,
we should<br>
> support !* *For those who do NOT support or state wishy washy
views,<br>
> we need to vote out of office.* ** *This is THE issue we can
win with<br>
> !* ** *The time of automatic and blank check support for
democrats<br>
> is past.* *Until we realize this and PRACTICE this, this
country and<br>
> the world is DOOMED !* ** *David J.* ** **<br>
> <br>
> ----- Original Message ----- *From:* Robert Naiman<br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:naiman.uiuc@gmail.com"><mailto:naiman.uiuc@gmail.com></a> *To:* David Johnson<br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dlj725@hughes.net"><mailto:dlj725@hughes.net></a> *Cc:* JWJ C-U<br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:centralILJwJ@yahoogroups.com"><mailto:centralILJwJ@yahoogroups.com></a> *Sent:* Sunday,
September 11,<br>
> 2011 2:27 PM *Subject:* Re: [CentralILJwJ] Fw: Obama’s ‘Jobs
Act’<br>
> Proposal: Why Less is More of the Same<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> The payroll tax holiday isn't de-funding Social Security -
that isn't<br>
> the way the payroll tax holiday has worked so far. The money
has<br>
> been made up from general revenues. Which, in fact, has had
the<br>
> (temporary) effect of making Social Security more
progressive. (The<br>
> payroll tax is regressive, because it is capped; Social
Security is<br>
> progressive overall, even though it is funded by a regressive
tax,<br>
> because the payout is steeply progressive.)<br>
> <br>
> Some progressives have in the past argued against the payroll
tax<br>
> holiday on the grounds - they have argued - that it is
dangerous to<br>
> weaken the political link, even temporarily, between the
payroll tax<br>
> and the benefit, and that this weakening of the link will
later be<br>
> used as an argument to undermine the program.<br>
> <br>
> But, on balance - given that there are very real benefits
from the<br>
> payroll tax holiday, in terms of economic relief for working
people<br>
> in tough times and in terms of boosting employment - I find
this<br>
> argument unconvincing. The link between the payroll tax and
the<br>
> benefit hasn't stopped people from arguing for cuts to Social<br>
> Security benefits in the past, and current proposals to cut
benefits,<br>
> such as by cutting the cost of living adjustment (a proposal,<br>
> unfortunately, supported by President Obama) haven't appeared
to be<br>
> slowed by the link between the payroll tax and the benefit.<br>
> <br>
> Furthermore, we already have a payroll tax holiday at
present, so<br>
> such a holiday has to be withdrawn at some point, the
question is:<br>
> now or later? Later - when we no longer have 9.1% measured<br>
> unemployment - makes more sense.<br>
> <br>
> Given that extension of the holiday - like extension of
unemployment<br>
> benefits - is a significant chunk of economic stimulus that
has a<br>
> plausible chance of getting through Congress right now, I
think that<br>
> on balance the extension of the payroll tax holiday is worthy
of<br>
> support. Others may disagree. But I think the claim that this
is a<br>
> nefarious plot to undermine Social Security is dramatically<br>
> overblown.<br>
> <br>
> At the end of the day, Social Security is a check from the
U.S.<br>
> Treasury. At the end of the day, what defends Social Security
is<br>
> defending Social Security: a supermajority of voters
defending the<br>
> payout.<br>
</span><br>
</body>
</html>