GOP May Block Payroll Tax Cut Extension That Obama Claims Could Save Up To 1 Million Jobs

TBI ^ | 8-22-2011 | Zeke Miller

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

Thank goodness you found it. I was looking for a strawman argument but couldn’t find one.

Just click on the link from the post you replied to. Look what happened to revenue. It never reached the CBO estimate let alone went above it.

I am all for tax cuts. Those tax cuts should be matched with spending cuts until revenues come back up.

[allmendream]

I am not talking about “projections” I am talking reality.

The reality is that after Bush cut taxes government revenue went UP. It did not go down.

This “projections” bullexcrement is how a reduction in the rate of growth - but a net increase - is characterized as a “cut”.

Disgusting and delusional.

[CharlesWayneCT]

It is a useless tax break for the economy, because it gives people a couple of bucks a week that they don’t really see. If your paycheck gets a couple of dollars bigger each week, you simply deposit it like you always do; then you might notice that your checking acount has a few more dollars in it than normal, but in the end, the extra $1000 you have isn’t enough to make you want to go spend money out of your checking account.

If you want people to spend money, you have to mail them a big check. People receive a $1000 “rebate check”, they think “Free money” and they spend it.

Same problem with Obama’s previous pretend stimulus, the $800 tax credit that he gave out by lowering the withholding, again giving people a couple of bucks a week that they never noticed.

[Ron H.]

I agree. This will only be viewed as a tax increase on the middle class and a windfall for Obama. The GOP would be insane to champion a return to normal payroll tax levels at the moment.

I happen to agree on this issue as well for the same reason.

[Eagle of Liberty]

Did you get some bubblegum with that class warfare card? The limit is in place because the benefits will NEVER repay what was contributed. If you're one of those making less than $106K a year and angling for removing the limit, then you are in the same camp as the "tax the rich" leftists.

"Tax the Rich" leftist, huh? At the current time under the current legislation, the benefits will never repay what IS being contributed by many younger Americans putting into the system!! The entire SS system is a ponzi scheme that is going to go belly up sooner rather than later at the current pace of SS reform legislation.

Let me turn the argument around. In leiu of REAL reform, what is wrong with a flat tax base system on SS with a lower percentage on everyone but all dollars subject to it? I mean if this program is truly a program set up to give those in our society, who worked hard up to a set retirement age, with a living wage, why close that program off to a huge segment of dollars? And, in fact, Medicare is set up in this exact fashion; a low rate with no limit. If any cap should be in place, it should be in place for the employER and the cap should be on both SS and Medicare.

[Eagle of Liberty]

It never reached the CBO estimate

The CBO is a joke and should never be used as a legitimate way of budgeting ever again.

[Eagle of Liberty]

If Obama is trying to damage SS and crash the system, then this makes sense.

Yep. Didn't understand the rate lowering from 6.2 to 4.2 in the first place. Not at a time when the Administration cannot fund what it is supposed to fund and, as you said, with a lower workforce pool. Nothing this Administration does economically makes sense unless it is for the specific purpose of doing this country the great harm that they are doing.

[Marine_Uncle]

As far as I am concerned, the repubs are just as bad as the demorats. They both have put this nation into the screwed up scenario it now finds itself in.

[sickoflibs]

RE :"As far as I am concerned, the repubs are just as bad as the demorats. They both have put this nation into the screwed up scenario it now finds itself in."

In 1993 and 1994 I saw potential heroes in House Republicans, but I see none(few) now.

They voted for the Ryan 'plan', then when they got yelled at for it they said it was not even a 'budget', it was just a proposal for starting discussion. Then they voted for the Obama debt limit deal. Then some of them claimed we wouldnt have a downgrade if the Ryan plan was signed into law. That's called 'trying to have it both ways', "it was only an proposal but give us credit for passing it".

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

Get this reality. Revenues never reached GWB predictions. They never reached CBO predictions.

The only sane way to budget is to not spend money we don’t have. If we cut taxes to stimulate the economy, we have to cut spending too.

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

I’d be very happy if we went to a cash flow system of budgeting.

[allmendream]

Get this reality - projections are not reality they are estimations based upon political calculations and any number of other bullshit.

Get this reality - after Bush cut taxes government revenue increased - after Reagan cut taxes government revenue increased - after Kennedy cut taxes government revenue increased.

The only sane way to budget is to not have the government spend money it doesn’t have. Yes we need to cut spending - that wasn’t even the topic of discussion. Cutting taxes would also be a good thing. But that isn’t the argument you and the Democrats made - it was that we needed to INCREASE taxes (during a recession) AND cut spending.

This was their “balanced approach” - cut spending, supposedly, and increase revenue by INCREASING tax rates (which as I originally pointed out - may or may not actually increase revenue).

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

And a majority of Republicans voted down Jim Jordan’s RSC budget, the only conservative budget voted on in the House.

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

"after Bush cut taxes government revenue increased"

The facts don't agree with your opinion. the whole point of a tax cut is that government revenues DECREASE. That is the stimulus. They may come back up sometime in the future IF the economy improves. If it doesn't then they won't and we are in worse shape than before the tax cut.

Let's look at where we are today.

Revenue in 2011 is expected to be $2,425,725 million.

2011 costs in millions,

Department of Defense-Military $723,703
Department of Health and Human Services $926,236
Interest on Treasury Debt Securities (Gross) $464,706
Social Security Administration $789,034

Comes to $2,903,679 million. With those three programs alone plus minimum interest payments we have a $477,954 millon deficit. Note this does not even count necessary programs like Federal Prisons and the like.

If you want to cut those three programs, I am right there with you. If you don't then my point that I stand on is that we should pay for them and stop borrowing money.

[allmendream]

It took a few years -and a big event did take a bite out of things in 2001.

The entire point of a reduction in tax rates is NOT to decrease government revenue. Decreased government revenue is not the goal. Decreased share of government as a % of GDP perhaps - but not decreased revenue.

Tax rate reduction is based upon the principle that the government should take as little as a % as possible from people that is both necessary and sufficient to fulfill the duties it is entrusted to by the Constitution and legislation.

If a flat fair 20% tax rate on all income could fund the government fully - and with an expanding economy even increase revenue higher - it is a good unto itself that less people are paying 30% or more.

Do you think it is a good unto itself and a desired goal for government revenue to decrease? Is that the argument you think people here are making in favor of tax rate reductions?

“pay for them” means a tax rate increase in your language.

Tax rate increases are notorious for not actually leading to increased revenue and almost everyone agrees that raising tax rates in a down economy is a real bad move - even 0bama was saying it before “balancing” spending cuts with tax rate increases and “paying for it” via tax rate increases became the words on liberal lips.

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

“The entire point of a reduction in tax rates is NOT to decrease government revenue.”

You and I just aren’t going to agree. I simply can’t understand how someone could think that reducing government revenue isn’t the point of a tax cut.

[Marine_Uncle]

Like I said a few days back it really is all just bull crap. Those few recent HR conservatives (at least in some areas) will soon be put in line. They won’t last if they really are serious about somehow changing the way the goons in DC operate.

[Myrddin]

I pay maximum every year. I have for the last 30 years. I don’t expect to get much of it back. It was never supposed to be a “living wage”. It was supposed to be a supplement for widows to survive another 5 years after loss of a spouse. Better nutrition and medicine skewed the stats. Laying SSDI users who never paid into the program is tanking it. It is a ponzi scheme. They always fail. I’m simply objecting to being fleeced for MORE money than I’m already paying for no expected benefit.

[Eagle of Liberty]

Not that I want to get in the middle of your debate, but here is a graph that I created using this website:

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=2001_2008&view=1&expand=&units=b&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=10-fed&bar=1&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

That’ correct. I used the years I did because the argument at hand was “Do tax cuts decrease revenue?” and the answer is, “Of course they do at first but the economy expands the revenues recover”.

My point was that spending HAS to be cut until the revenues recover otherwise we run a deficit.