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

[C. G. Estabrook]

"...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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20110911/80f02232/attachment-0001.html>