« | »

Obama Wants SS Funding Cut, More Jobless $

From a mixed emotioned Reuters:

Obama pushes payroll tax cut after debt panel fails

By Andy Sullivan and Alister Bull
November 22, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama will challenge the Congress to preserve an expiring payroll tax cut on Tuesday as he travels to New Hampshire to seize the initiative in the wake of a collapsed effort to reduce the nation’s budget deficit.

With the wreckage of a deficit-cutting effort by a bipartisan congressional committee still smoldering, politicians are scrambling to limit the damage.

Investors worry that the next few months could provide more evidence that Republicans and Democrats are too divided to help the sluggish economy and rein in the ballooning national debt.

Why all the purple prose from Reuters? What exactly is different? The same amount of money ($1.2 trillion) is still going to be cut even though the super-committee failed. Are "investors" disappointed that taxes are not being raised?

Obama’s Democrats aim to extend a tax break for workers and other economy-boosting measures due to expire at the end of the year…

But notice how these investors have no problem with Obama pushing to continue the payroll tax cut. Which is the only source for funding for Social Security. And investors have no problem with Obama’s demand that jobless benefits get extended- for the eleventh time.

With the collapse of the panel, Republicans and Democrats will be less inclined to hammer out difficult compromises on taxes and spending as they turn their attention to the November 2012 elections…

Because Obama and the Democrats had been so eager to compromise before.

Analysts warn that economic growth could slow by up to 1.5 percentage points in 2012 if the tax cut and enhanced jobless benefits are allowed to lapse.

In other words, Reuters says analysts claim the GDP will plummet a full 1.5% if we don’t continue to cut Social Security’s funding and continue to pay people not to work.

These are probably the same analysts who are surprised week after week by the unexpectedly high unemployment numbers.

Obama will meet with a local family to highlight the cost of allowing the tax cuts to lapse. The White House estimates that a typical family earning $50,000 would see its taxes rise by $1,000 if Congress fails to act.

A typical family earning $50,000 probably pays next to nothing in income taxes, if they pay anything at all. 87% of American households making $40,000 or less per year pay no income taxes.

Republicans have not ruled out extending the tax cut and jobless benefits, but they are likely to insist on additional spending cuts to offset their $168 billion cost

Those evil Republicans are insisting that Congress abide by their own PAYGO rules? Rules initiated by Obama and the Democrats. The nerve.

Meanwhile, Republicans are scrambling to shield the military from automatic cuts that are due to kick in 2013 after the committee failed to trim U.S. budget deficits by at least trillion over 10 years.

One Republican defense hawk, House of Representatives Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, announced his intention to undo the military cuts even before the deficit committee admitted defeat.

Why are their no terms like "hawk" for the welfare lobbyists?

Obama has vowed to veto such a move, but he faces a concerted lobbying effort by his own defense secretary, Leon Panetta, to preserve the Pentagon’s budget.

Don’t make us laugh. Panetta has been in on the game from the start. His job is to try to force the Republicans into raising taxes.

Credit-rating agencies, already dismayed by Washington’s inability to tackle the country’s fiscal woes, could downgrade U.S. debt if the cuts are rolled back

Boy, they are trotting out all the boogey men, aren’t they? Even though these same Reuters reporters scoffed when our credit rating was lowered by S&P because Congress did not cut government spending enough.

But this time it would be different — because Republicans could be blamed.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, November 22nd, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

6 Responses to “Obama Wants SS Funding Cut, More Jobless $”

  1. untrainable says:

    I don’t understand how democrats can on one hand scream that tax cuts (like those for the “evil rich”) add to the deficit and are bad for the economy, and on the other hand scream that ending tax cuts (social security and unemployment) will “save or create jobs”, and then claim that it’s all about math. Obama may have a birth certificate, but damned if I can figure out what planet he actually came from. I guess these things make sense on his homeworld.

    • JohnMG says:

      It’s all about re-election……….of Obama.

      Remember, in 2010, how many Democrats were sacrificed on the altar of Obama-care just so he could have bragging rights? He doesn’t give a fiddlers **** how many of his butt-boys go down in flames, so long as he gets back in. The real wonder is that so many of those same Dems are too stupid to see it for what it is, or are willing to fall on their own sword for him.


  2. proreason says:

    The main reason I support Newt is that he is the candidate who seems most willing to point out the truth about Obama, and can do so, in my opinion, without being overly strident. He provides enough facts and examples to back up what he says, which makes what he says more than just an angry opinion. Social Security, the topic of the article, is an example. Newt will seamlessly highlight the hypocrisy of Obama’s actions.

    But I am worried that his entire histrory might conspire against him, abetted of course by the mad-dog media. Unfortunately, I don’t think there is any way to really tell how the new Newt will play with the vast conservative middle that is not yet engaged and won’t be until a few weeks before the election.

    That, I think, is the key question now that the primaries have come down to a one-on-one contest. Will Newt be a more effective communicator than Romney with the persuable middle of natural conservatives who are still heavily influenced by the rabid media?

    Another way to look at it is….is the country ready for Winston yet? It’s not a perfect analogy since we don’t know that Newt is or isn’t another Churchill, but from the perspective of understanding whether the country is at the point where it will overlook that things that it formerly found unacceptable in a person in order to acquire the skills necessary to win a critical new battle, I think the analogy works pretty well.

    I think the country is ready and that Newt is ready, but as of Nov 2011, it isn’t slam-dunk certain either.

    • tranquil.night says:

      I do believe that our candidate is going to get the support of a motivated, expansive, and passionate base whose orginizational skills have been continuing to mature at a pace unmatched in modern political history. The Left may think they’ve learned from 2010 and are ready for us now. It’s wishful thinking, and Democrats from Caddell to Matthews can sense it. They aren’t ready for this. Cheers, patriots.

  3. sticks says:

    “[T]his time it would br different because Republicans could be blamed” I believe this is the end game. I hardly believe that the Demmorats give a you know what about tax breaks or deficits or any of the supposed concerns they say are their motivations. Their big motivation is to keep getting reelected and they will do or say anything they can get away with to accomplish that. Anything that will put Republicans in a position where they can give them a public wacking is good no matter what it means for the country.

  4. Reality Bytes says:

    Obama’s schtick reminds me of a Gong Show Act:


    And just when you thought I was kidding, Obama actually was on the Gong Show


    Naw! I don’t believe it. However, I did find this one.


    Oh and this one – Whoa! The President of the United States using the N word?


    These must be fake a sham, a sham of a sham.

    Basically what I’m sayin’ is we got a clown for the Man! Which reminds me.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »