| Submit your comments on this article |
| Economy |
| 'Obama attacking Social Security' |
| 2010-12-18 |
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 |
| #9 US President Barack B.O. Obama's controversial tax cut deal with the Republicans "is an attack on Social Security," an online columnist says. It would be far more accurate to say that Democrats' stark refusal to shrink government that is the real attack on social security. |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-12-18 23:06 |
| #8 Party of Lies http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSFR76CPjrE&feature=player_embedded |
| Posted by: Play4Keeps 2010-12-18 14:35 |
| #7 May as well be using the famous "Some Say" BS prefix. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2010-12-18 11:30 |
| #6 Economists, however, believe 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. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2010-12-18 11:09 |
| #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. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-12-18 09:41 |
| #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. |
| Posted by: WolfDog 2010-12-18 09:34 |
| #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. |
| Posted by: P2kontheroad 2010-12-18 08:42 |
| #2 So |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2010-12-18 08:34 |
| #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. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2010-12-18 08:24 |