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

[C. G. ESTABROOK]

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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20110911/2e986980/attachment.html>