OBAMA HAS NO IDEA HOW HIS TAX PLAN WILL WORK
By Imv on June 28, 2008 at 9:30 AM in Barbara Jordan, Social Security
How is Obama going to fix Social Security? The One has NO IDEA. Yet, that’s not stopped him from coming up with more Change We Can’t Believe In.
In Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, Donald L. Luskin reports the following:
Would it help Social Security’s financing problems? Mr. Obama has no idea. One of his senior economic advisers admitted to me that no one on the campaign has run any detailed models or performed any rigorous analysis. When one proposes an enormous tax increase, shouldn’t there at least be a spreadsheet somewhere?
Ya think? Nah, not for The One. He just knows. Trust him.
In a nutshell, Obama says he’ll fix Social Security’s projected deficit by “taxing The Rich”, those rascally, mythical rich (who are looking a lot more like YOU and ME by the minute). In another one of his pretzel proposals, Obama wants to have his payroll cap and eat it, too.
Here’s the deal. If you earn a living, you pay payroll taxes. Your employer matches your taxes dollar for dollar so any increase in payroll taxes is also a business tax. That translates into lost jobs and higher prices. (Yo, Senator Obama, we’re in a recession, so this won’t help.)
The government uses the money to pay for Social Security. Well, that’s the theory. It’s actually a government Ponzi scheme, but that’s beside the point. In general, you pay in during your working life and you draw a check after you retire. That was FDR’s plan.
Now, we Americans are skeptical of The Rich. So, we only pay them Social Security benefits up to a certain amount, no matter how much a person actually earned. Benefits are capped. And, in return, being the fair people we are, we cap Social Security taxes. Whether you make $102,000 or $120 million, you pay the same amount in taxes – because your retirement check will be the same amount.
Here’s an example using this year’s earnings cap of $102,000 in annual wages:
| Earnings | Taxes |
| $10,000 | $620 |
|
$50,000 |
$3100 |
|
$102,000 |
$6324 |
|
$1,000,000 |
$6324 |
|
$10,000,000 |
$6324 |
Keep in mind that The Rich won’t get bigger Social Security checks. That’s why their taxes are capped.
But, this is too simple for Obama. Without doing any research, any financial modeling, any economic impact studies, by fiat he has come up with A Plan to Tax The Rich. He wants to leave the cap, currently at $102,000, not tax earnings between $102,001 and $250,000, and tax earnings over $250,000. Got that? That thunderclap was the collective head slap of payroll managers and CPAs across the country.
Why is Obama taxing wages over $250,000? Well, why not? If you’re going to pull numbers out of your ass, it’s as good as any. The problem is this. He’s not going to pay additional benefits to The Rich. Nope. Uh uh. Nosiree.
Now, I’m not arguing that The Rich can’t afford the extra taxes. They probably can. But, we Americans fought a little war over arbitrary taxes being levied for the sake of it. And, that’s the problem. The Rich won’t get an extra dime. As Luskin explains:
Throughout the history of the Social Security program, there has always been a connection between what you contribute in taxes and what you get back in benefits. If Mr. Obama uncaps the wages subject to tax, but doesn’t uncap benefits, then he has severed the link between them. Social Security would stand revealed not as a work-related contributory retirement system, but simply as a tax-funded welfare and income-redistribution program.
And for all that, Mr. Obama’s proposal won’t help Social Security’s long-run solvency problems.
According to the Social Security Administration actuaries, uncapping all wages subject to the payroll tax (not just those above $250,000) doesn’t make much difference to the system’s long-run solvency. If the increased payroll tax payments earn increased benefits, then only about one third of the system’s 75-year shortfall is addressed. Even if there is no corresponding benefit increase, only about half the shortfall is addressed.
Remember, that inadequate result is what you get when all wages are subject to payroll taxes. Mr. Obama’s plan – even with his household definition of $250,000 income – would collect far less than that. No wonder Mr. Obama’s economic advisers aren’t interested in doing any detailed analysis.
NO DETAILED ANALYSIS? AND, IT WON”T EVEN WORK?
Change You Can Believe In. What’s left of your paycheck. If you still have one.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
On June 21, I published “Why the Polls Are Skewed Towards Obama” here at No Quarter.
(List Price: $27.95 - Your Price: $15.47)
By Sarah Palin (Release date: November 17. 2009)
Obama has no idea how anything works. He just wants power to stroke his ego.
His motto is “What, me worry?”
Right. Just what we need in the White House…Alfred E. Neuman.
Wait sescond, I thought he was alreadt in office for the last eight years. You must be speaking of his bizzaro twin brother, stinky.
Wait sescond, I thought he was already in office for the last eight years. You must be speaking of his bizzaro twin brother, stinky.
OMG you typical whiteys are asking Waffle Man too many hard questions. Bunch of racists!
And if you think that the big businesses bundling millions for him and doing it in support of ANYTHING that will cost them money then you don’t know chit!
hey bo bo butthead….! If it ain’t broke, don;t fix it! Leave the feckin Social Security ALONE! That is OUR money! Keep your boney crackpipe hands off!
Obama’s campaign has reported to the Federal Election Commission that there are actually 358 bundlers who have collected a grand total of $286,381,726.
How this adds up to what they say “The money is coming from hundreds of thousands of donations of $200 or less”
Do you have a source for this because it is what I suspected all along? Please, a source would be very good. Thank you.
Sorry that this was not specific: do you have a source for the FEC statement that BO has 358 bundlers producing $238 million plus? This seems to me to be a critical item of information.
Donations of $200 or less do not have to bave a name and address attached to it. The Rezko-Auchi-Muslim connection have people making 100-200 donations a day, all for $200 or less. Look at it another way, with gas at $4-$5 a gallon and the cost of groceries rising, would you donate $100 to Obama? Not me!
“Here’s the deal. If you earn a living, you pay payroll taxes. Your employer matches your taxes dollar for dollar so any increase in payroll taxes is also a business tax.”
Yes that’s a delight for those of us who are self employed. We’ll get to pay more twice.
Yeah, and I can’t figure out how this will work. Do small business owners simply take no salary to avoid this? Call everything an expense of the business?
I guess that’s one way around it.
That goes only that far - than the IRS comes. They don’t seem to like fudged deductions.
In the early 80’s we “fixed” SS by having people poney up money to pay not only for the people who were currently retired but also to cover some of the cost of their own retirement. Hence the trust fund. The only problem is that the government has been borrowing that money and running up such huge deficits that it will be hard to pay off the amount owed.
So why does Obama think that raising even more money for the system will help? It will only be borrowed like the existin “surplus” unless something is done to deal with our deficit. It is a stupid proposal.
Obama’s entire economic plan is to redistribute wealth. The wrong people have the money so it is only “fair” to take it away. Back in the ABC debate where he originally stumbled on the tax question, he revealed that the basis of his economic plan is not economics at all….it is “fairness.”
Now, why it isn’t “unfair” for Wright to live in a 10 million dollar mansion, I don’t know.
Has anyone seen the polls lately. It is not looking good for us non-obama people.
With all the stuff out there on Obama, I just cant figure out why he is going up and up.
From what I have been seeing I wish there was some way we all could get together and hire a Very Very good investigator.
Maybe I’ve been watching too many TV shows, but isnt there some way to prove some of this junk on him—His BC, his ties with slumlords, Sinclair, whitey tapes and etc.
The only way to bring him down is to actually prove beyond any doubt some of these alegations.
I for one DO NOT trust this guy if he makes it to the Oval office.
You don’t show any polls. I have seen you post here before. I think you are actually a troll who laments Obama’s success to get off a subject … I don’t find you very credible ….
The RCP average is 6.5% in Obama’s favor - the same for a very long time.
The Gallup - which is more reliable - has a one point lead for McCain over Obama. (45 to 44)
What is ‘k’ talking about?
I saw his numbers went up in states that we already knew he’d take.
That won’t help him.
Watch NV, MO, FL, NM for trends, in my opinion.
Gallup showed he and McCain dead even. Yesterday another reputable poll showed him 5 points ahead, with a 4 point error rate. That is nearly dead even.
The only polls I’m seeing that are showing him with a spike have been skewered by analysts for faulty assumptions.
So no, I think he’s doing very badly, actually.
PLUS, McCain has managed to make going Green into HIS platform. LOL* Lordy, while Obama was yammering about race, McCain got out there and took the energy issue from him.
Not too shabby.
IN CA, of course, we hate oil rigs off our coast. The rest of the country loves this idea. 67% like it, as a matter of fact.
That was a shrewed move on McCain’s part.
Then, just to keep the pressure up, McCain called for town hall meetings again.
Obama is now looking as though he’s a big ole chicken.
Here’s the reason why the polls may seem in favor of Obama.
A lot of McCain supporters have gotten together to say we’re voting for Obama but we’re really voting for McCain. We want to make sure that Obama thinks he has nothing to worry about and it helps to get the non-Obama supporters to be more active.
You ‘we’re saying we’re voting for Obama, but really voting for McCain’ people are sooo naughty!!
How many more like that are there? Couple dozen?
Well, you might be as surprised as the LGBT community in Colorado was in 1992. When Amendment 2 (designed to prohibit protected status for gays and lesbians) was placed on the ballot, most polls showed that it would be defeated by nearly 20 percentage points (ranging between 56 and 62% against the amendment) which encouraged the community to believe that a strong majority of Coloradans actually stood FOR gay and lesbian rights in the state.
When the results of the election came out, the polls were shown to be well off the mark. The amendment PASSED with 53.4% of the vote. So, what happened? Did the pollsters interview the wrong people? Did the respondents lie about how they voted or planned to vote?
McCain has been taking all of the issues from Obama. The only thing Obama has left is “Hi, I’m Barack Obama and I’m going to tax your ass off because you’ve become successful”. As much as I hate to admit it, I liked getting a tax cut and I don’t look forward to having it taken away from me. Call me greedy, but FYI it went to a good cause, I put it into the grandkids college fund.
I agree that his payroll tax cap made no sense and will present a programming problem if nothing else.
But I’m not too worried about uncapping the payroll tax. That’s OK by me.
I’m a lot more interested in his innae capital gains tax and, if I’m remembering correct, the idiot is suggesting we bring back the inheritance tax law.
Oh lordy, that was one positive gift from Republicans getting rid of that mess.
Hope to see some more articles on this topic. You did a great job explaining it.
Please ’splain how getting rid of the inheritance tax was good?
That is a tax that does not apply to property going through probate from spouse to spouse. And if property goes from one generation to the next, there was an enormous exemption (several hundred thousand), and even when there is exposure, there are trust devices to limit liability.
In other words, it was tax only on very large sums of property. From people who can afford it. And we could use it now, especially since we have an expensive occupation going on, and our bridges, schools, and economy are crumbling here at home.
So, again, how was it good?
It was a flipping nightmare! Why bother to save a penny with rates like that?
Total discouragement to saving for Americans.
Those who did have money had to set up trusts to skip generations to avoid it.
Finally, we got a reasonable rate that made it possible for the middle-class to save.
Before? It was pointless. Why save to give it to the government, anyway?
And all that money had been taxed once already, remember.
Again, huge exemptions applied. Most American (97% by most accounts) pay no inheritance taxes, because they weren’t inheriting enough to pay it.
In other words approximately the top 3% was the only group subject to any inheritance tax.
And if you are in the top 3%, you can probably afford it, especially considering that is more or less the demographic that thinks that paying for expensive invasions and endless occupations is a dandy idea.
http://www.answers.com/topic/inheritance-tax-laws
Concise discussion here of the issues. Remember, this affects small business owners, farmers….we’re not just talking about cash.
I’ve met many people who lost their family farms due to the inheritance taxes.
Anyone ‘losing’ a business or family farm to the inheritance tax either (a) didn’t plan ahead for it through ownership transfer ahead of death, or (b) is cash-poor and doesn’t have the operating capital to continue the concern in question, or (c) has no interest in the continuing the family business or farm.
There is no reason anyone who truly wants their heirs to keep their business, assuming the heirs are willing and able, to make it so.
Yes, cash poor. Farmers are nearly all cash poor.
Republicans had the right idea on this. I certainly hope that the Democrats don’t throw us under that bus.
But Obama most likely will.
Too bad.
And that’s not even nearly as bad as his capital gains tax proposal.
Lordy. The man will be a disaster on the tax front.
I laugh when Obamabots tell me I should vote my interests.
Okie dokie. That’s a surefire Republican vote.
I don’t tell anyone how to vote. If you’re a republican, no problem. That must mean you’re not real big on the fiscal discipline, balanced budget thing, you think invading Iraq was a grand idea, illegal eavesdropping and DOJ hiring methods are OK, torture is no problem, unless it’s our boys going through it, busting up all our alliances and goodwill throughout the world is fine, and we don’t ever talk to ‘evil’ nations, unless of course we do (N Korea).
Yeah, there’s more, but that is just the start of the fun of being a republican voter.
You’re full of beans.
But not soybeans. *heh
You seem to be quite dense. There are industries - among them is agriculture - where the investment in land, machinery, buildings, etc. are huge, but they produce only a modest living. These people don’t starve, but probably never had so much excess that would allow them to save for the incredible inheritance tax. It is not funny to have to sell part of the farm to pay that tax. It can be complete killer for smaller farms.
Besides that the income was already taxed.
You actually sound like the one that has no idea what you are talking about. But I will say it again for the benefit of the impaired: there are ways to transfer ownership PRIOR to death to avoid ‘losing the farm. Yes it will involve a transaction, or several transactions and you will have to hire an attorney and CPA, but it can be done.
OK…now we’re down to it. Let’s make the estate lawyers wealthy!
LOL*
That’s a great idea.
Sorry, Roundhouse, but when my mother died just 6 years ago and prior to the changes in inheritance tax, the deduction to pass to next generation was $600,000. I’ll bet you know people that have homes that are worth that much before you even start looking at what else they may own.
Additionally, everything over that $600,000 is taxed at full value as of date of death and I think the tax started at something like 38% and went up quickly after that. In other words, you do not get to charge off the initial cost (which would have been paid by money you already paid income tax on years before). If the original cost of the $600,000 house was $300,000, you still pay on the entire $600,000.
Bye Bye family home or farm . . .
How is that fair or equitable?
My parents started out with nothing. They sacrificed (the back of their sofa for several years was a stovepipe wrapped in a blanket) so my father could go to school. They invested small amounts to begin with but put something aside for investment every week. They lived a comfortable existence and enjoyed themselves but they always shopped for the deals and bought pre-owned cars.
All that time, they always invested — so they would be able to pay in cash, never owe anyone for anything.
Then when Mom died, the government took a third of that.
How did the government or anyone else earn the right to what my parents worked so hard to save?
Now, my father had a saying that “income taxes are a pleasant kind of pain” because you were happy you had enough to pay income tax on.
BUT, double taxation is crazy.
And wait until OBambi decides to tax all your dividends made on 401Ks and other investments at double the income tax rate. Woo Hoo! What a country!
I don’t think that the inheritance tax should be abolished, but there isn’t any reason why the exemptions couldn’t be raised to account for situations like yours. Like the AMT, the stated amounts in the tax code were from many years ago. But I will say it again…there are ways to avoid the full blow. Gifting, trusts.
But your point on 401k taxation is way off. First, Obama has said nothing of the kind, and second the whole idea of a 401k is that dividend and other income within the plan is not taxed. Just like an IRA. This sounds like scare-mongering.
No, I’m not scaremongering with respect to 401Ks. I have heard several financial advisors on television discuss this.
Obama has said a lot of things and they change depending on to what group he is talking.
I know for sure that stock dividends are currently taxed at the same rate as income. There is no logic in why they should be taxed at double the income tax rate or more (I have seen different speeches where he has said anything from 30% to 39% on dividend taxation).
How would people on fixed incomes supplemented by dividends from a few investments made continue to live if their dividends are suddenly taxed at double the income tax rate (or possibly more).
Finally, you talk about different tax shelters but I don’t agree that there should be a need for those methods. There is no reason for the tax system to be so complicated that people need to find loopholes or pay lawyers thousands of dollars to set up trusts. So sorry if that puts some laywers or CPAs out of work. LOL.
Thank you! He shocked me in that debate. What in the world? That’s going to kill my generation. We were switched over to 401k funds in the middle. Our fixed retirement programs stopped being so rich.
Now, he’ll tax us on capital gains which supplement an unliveable SS amount?
We’ll end up living in shelters if this keeps happening.
Talk about changing the rules in mid-stream.
My generation already got whammied with the last stock plunge. Here it comes again.
How many retirees do I know who took a cheerful view and just kept working?
Will they be so cheerful the second round? How about the people in their 70s who, frankly, shouldn’t be working?
I’m totally opposed to Obama’s tax plan, as you can see.
It’s serious. It’s not just a matter of having money for a cruise.
ANd I think people really SHOULD vote their interests on this.
Otherwise, the middle class is going to end up begging their children for food.
Supposedly, Ann, he says that senior citizens making under $50,000 total income per year will pay NO taxes.
But I don’t see it happening.
The Dem Congress hasn’t done a damm thing about the AMT for my son & daughter-in-law, and I don’t think the sr.citizen under 50 grand will pass Congress, either.
He can SAY all he wants to, but the Dem Congress he’ll be dealing with is a Blue Dog PAYGO Congress. They’ll not pass most of his expensive agenda. (Including UHC…it was the Dems who torpedoed Hillary’s efforts in the 1990’s).
The 401k and IRA are not taxed while IN the account. Remember, you never paid taxes on this money. Once you start drawing it out, it’s taxed at the going rate. So, if Obama raises the income tax, than when you start using your money, more will go for income taxes and less of your money will go into your pocket.
Oh, it gets worse. If your estate is in the stock market, you’d get double whammied on already taxed money.
Capital gains if you sell off to raise the cash to pay the inheritance tax.
And the IRS has a way of wanting it…now. It’s hard to convince them to wait until the stock drops.
Yes Ann - been there, done that.
The problem with BO it seems to me is what he considers rich. He seems to be including part of the middle class in his definition of “rich”.
Yes, Ann.
Not to mention the huge cap gains on any home sold as part of an estate.
Obama has a plan. He is going to appoint Todd Bently as Secretary of Health and Human Services. This will not only give Obama the Evangical vote but save money on National Health Care to be used for S.S.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU6YOVnJkJ4
Oh, and by the way, I was reading something to the effect that the entire notion that SS has a problem has been highly debated.
I take it that he’s turning this into some kind of political issue when it’s not.
Last I heard the biggest problem with Social Security is that bush keeps taking money out of the trust fund and throwing it down a rat hole called Iraq.
There is a small problem way down the road for SS and removing the cap could solve it but the big problem is really Medicare which will have a serious problem in as little as ten years. No
one even talks about that.
That’s what I gathered. Thanks, Karen.
It’s the health care costs.
Obama’s plan was to encourage us to eat more wisely so we don’t need medical attention so often.
Beehop if I were you and I had read what I wrote I would have been smart enough to have done my own research before calling anyone a troll.
I only wish this was my message was from a troll and was unverifiable.
I have been spreading everything that Larry has posted though out any blogs I post on. So here is the link to RealClear Politics.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
I don’t get it. Yesterday’s poll shows tie. One showed 4.
What’s your concern?
gallup has them dead even for the third day in a row…
This is the only true poll.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108433/Gallup-Daily-Obama-McCain-Still-Tied-44.aspx
Comment by beebop | 2008-06-28 09:51:29
You don’t show any polls. I have seen you post here before. I think you are actually a troll who laments Obama’s success to get off a subject … I don’t find you very credible ….
============================================
Furthermore it is posters like you who blast posters without research that give sites a bad reputation.
I respect this site far more than to use name calling, especially using name calling when I have not researched the subject matter.
What was HRC plan? i.e how does this compare to hers? I can’t remmeber but it’d be useful to contrast differences !!
Anyone?
Gallup Poll is only one showing a tie. I truly hope that they did the best polling.
Others are showing Obama gaining in numbers. Maybe its only a couple of points. But over the last two or three weeks Obama has been moving up a couple of points every week.
All I was asking if there was something else all of us could do to get the message out there.
If asking about some plan to undermine Obama is being a troll then so be it.
Check your own link again. Do you, btw,understand error rates?
When a poll shows only 4 pts differences with a 3% error rate, that means it could well be 1 pt apart.
A national poll is nearly meaningless. Look at the individual states, that will give you a clearer indication of where the race is, right now, 4 1/2 months before people will actually vote. Right now McCain has the advantage mostly where you would expect, and Barack has the advantage mostly where you would expect, plus a few place where McCain should.
Right now it looks good for Barack, and for the country. But it is still a long time until anyone actually votes, and enough time for mischief-making NQ’ers to try to ratf#k the opportunity to avoid extending disastrous Republican rule.
You mean like NV? Where is this Latino support there? Why is McCain ahead? Ditto for NM, where McCain inched forward this week. THat doesn’t line up with the spin that Obama is knocking down the Latino voters already.
I agree with you about watching the state votes. The head-to-head polls, though, are indicative of trends.
He’s not budging.
NM, NV=”red” states. No surprise there. Again, 4 1/2 months till election day.
*blink*
OK, so to you the SW isn’t the swing areas?
That’s interesting. Then Obama essentially doesn’t need Latinos.
He’s not going to carry Texas, for sure. He’s already got CA.
So why bother to court them at all?
Again, 4 1/2 months until the election. SW is indeed swing territory, but overall conservative. Wouldn’t be easy for any Dem there. But look at CO right now, encouraging news there. And I live in the middle of Latino-central, and Obama will certainly carry the day here. Rest of the state, not so sure (TX).
Give him some time, he just got through a bruising battle where the everything including the ‘kitchen sink’ was thrown at him, remember? Although I am not counting on most NQ’ers supporting him, there does seem to be a high level of bitterness here.
No, we’re on different sides. He threw it at her, first of all. I paid attention and watched every one of his ads. He lied about her proposals, he lied about her positions, and he was on the attack on her character non-stop since he lost Texas. So no. She was hardly allowed to campaign against him, frankly. He got the white glove treatment from her and from the media.
Which is ending…*heh
CO is interesting. We’ll see how that goes.
Oregon he’s already losing.
Better hope Georgia comes through.
I’m just going by what Hillary’s campaign said back in the spring, when Obama had the big momentum after Supe Tuesday before OH & TX. “Kitchen sink.” Their words, not mine.
And if you really think he’ll lose OR…..pass some of that stuff my way!!
He’s lost 5 points there this week.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/or/oregon_mccain_vs_obama-548.html
Probably because their republican senator aired a commercial saying how he & Obama are BFF. A republican backing Obama…that’s got to hurt a little bit in OR.
Again, 4+ months till vote day.
But, au revoir, Ann. Gotta go. Even though you ain’t having any of Barack, you don’t seem half as whacky as most of the rest of NQ. I mean that as a compliment.
We should cherish the back-handed compliments we have come to know so well from the Obama campaign.
LOL. I don’t know about you, but my “kitchen sink” isn’t fur lined and made of styrofoam.
Silly Obama supporter…
Don’t count on CO. The polls are taken in Denver and Boulder, elsewhere in the state it’s solid GOP. I’ve only seen 1 Obama sticker in my area.
As a New Mexican, I’ve been talking to people and listening to local pundits. I’m not sure Obama will carry NM. Hillary took NM in the deomocratic primary, but I believe after Gov Richardson ‘flipped’ on Hillary we may see McCain take the state. Just an opinion.
Thought I’d throw this in, too: I have family in North Carolina. NC is NOT happening for Obama. It’ll go McCain, too.
You also need to look at the questions the polls are asking otherwise they are just numbers and you assume what you want to assume.
Also some of the polls are 1 to 2 weeks old.
Right now, the analyst say the lead Obama may have is an insignificant bump from Hillary suspending her campaign. The analyst expected a double digit bump which Obama didn’t get.
The Washington Post Poll analysis states that Obama has the same numbers as Kerry did, this early in the race.
Pollsters are also oversampling Dems IMO. Gives a nice pychological boost to the Hussein Obama is inevitable meme, but a lot can change in 4 1/2 months, and it doesn’t take long.
Just look at how quickly Hussein Obama’s negatives went up during the Wright flap. It’s stabalized but, say, unleashing the Michelle Whitey tape 2-3 weeks before the election would be Obama’s kiss of death. Precious media oxygen consumed on the tape and they would have to play defense.
Ras and Surveyusa as well as ARG show Obama ahead within the margin or error.
Newsweek showed Obama ahead because they had a biased poll sample. Newsweek(which works with MSNBC) is in the bag for Obama.
Stop worrying about the polls — we have a hell of a long way before the convention — and then the General Election.
At this point in time — Obama should have been WAY ahead — if he were truly the choice of real democrats then everyone would have pulled together and we’d have seen OVER 10 points lead. However, to see a tie or a statistical tie at this point — DOES NOT LOOK GOOD for BOBO — even with the media whores shilling for him.
PUMAs are having an impact — estimated at 24% and holding steady. But ANY of the polls are shaky and not worth being concerned about at this point.
BOBO still has a lot more people that he hasn’t even tried to piss off. We can probably repeat the list of folks he’s tossed under the bus.
Over polling is not a good idea — and repeated polling will have a negative effect. There are a lot of people who are still making up their minds and if they are pushed — their response will be unreliable.
If you are addicted to polls — then look at the ones from the swing states. Ignore the rest.
Obama is going to lose — National Security — losing issue. Economics — losing issue. Likability - losing issue. Experience, competence, — losing issues.
He is just icky.
BOBO’s trolls are worst than icky.
PUMA
Larry, this is off topic, however, it would be great to see a link to the Beachwood Report on your site:
As Phil Ponce put it, Barack Obama made a “rare” appearance before Chicago reporters on Wednesday, and he made a challenge to the locals that they failed.
“You will recall that for my entire political career here, basically, I was not the the endorsed candidate of any political organization here. That I didn’t go around wielding a bunch of clout. That my reputation in Springfield was as an independent. And my reputation here was also as somebody who would to try to work with everybody. There is no doubt I had friends and continue to have friends who come out of the more traditional school of Chicago politics but that’s not what launched my political career and that’s not what I’ve ever depended on in order to get elected and I would challenge any Chicago reporter to dispute that basic fact.”
Ooh, ooh! Me! Me!
“But you once told Emil Jones that he could make you a United States Senator. And you exchanged endorsements with Richard M. Daley - whom your wife once worked for - and your political career here was funded by Tony Rezko. You also endorsed the organization candidate over the reformer every single time and never spoke out against ‘the more traditional school of Chicago politics’, by which you mean ‘corrupt,’ or led an independent or reform movement. In fact, while traveling around America as the candidate of change, you recently told the Tribune editorial board that you would leave criticism of Chicago corruption up to others, like John Kass.”
Not a single reporter said anything even close to that. In fact, in the video of this exchange I saw on Chicago Tonight, no reporter responded to Obama’s challenge.
But the Sun-Times has an entire page today about what’s on Obama’s iPod, another half-page about good luck charms he and others carry in their pockets, and Obama’s response to Ralph Nader’s ridiculous proposition that Obama is “talking white” to appeal to voters
http://www.beachwoodreporter.com/column/the_friday_papers_117.php
The “Monkey Business Challenge” issued by BO.
Anna Ana Mus…this is twightlight zone material to you too? I thought I was alone.
Implementing the Greenspan Commission’s recommendations to “prefund” the deficit created a surplus which was used to fund various tax cuts for the rich. I have no problem with getting it back from them using the payroll tax. That said, I do fear that Obama’s buy-in to the “Social Security is in trouble” fraud opens him to considering other possibilities, such as privatization.
Why do I keep thinking that those new tax $$ are for Richard Daley?
This is OT, but is anyone watching coverage of McCain’s speech on CNN? Too bad that major media outlet can’t afford decent sound. McCain sounds like a 100 year old broadcasting from Mars. Oddly, he’s coming in pretty good on CSPAN. Sounds like a real person with a full voice.
Thanks for observing and noting that!!!
Like the Dean Scream, eh?
I’m an economist. I’ve been trying to figure out Obama’s economic plan for a few months now. As far as I can tell, he has none. I’ve looked at his tax plan and going back to the old Clinton tax rates is about it.
Considering our problems with the economy right now, you think the democratic nominee would be right out front with something.
His economic plan is appears to be just more blurry generalities and feel good comments.
I don’t mind the payroll tax thing. I do mind the capital gains tax increase. Right now? The market is tanking! It’s a nightmare to consider that.
I agree with you, though, I don’t see much of an economic stimulas plan that makes sense to me, anyway.
The payroll tax is even worse than the capital gains increase. It would be a massive multi billion dollar tax hike on all businesses, large and small.
But once it again, as DakinKat said, it’s a feel good comment. Why, who doesn’t want to see people making 3x as much as you getting hit with more taxes? Sounds good, “yeah, let’s get them!”, but it’s nothing more than a cute Obama scheme to fleece government, businesses and the tax payers.
And in two faced style Hussein Obama feeds the rabble with “tax the rich” rhetoric, and to the business community he feeds them with the obvious conclusion, support me in my election and I will throw open the treasury doors to you.
I’m starting to get it now. For me? It would be the capital gains tax. *yikes*
Yes. The small businesses have to match the additional amount they’ll pay for employees above the Obama “new taxes” number. They’ll just turn around and NOT make new hires.
And I don’t believe for a second that Obama’s $250,000 begin amount won’t creep down even lower, just like the AMT did.
I agree, he really has no ideas. He can point out the problems, but he has no realistic solutions.
His advisors are pretty dated and the only economic plan Obama has is Tax , Tax, Tax.
Tax the rich, give to the poor. You want something, we’ll tax the rich again. Eliminate the middle class with taxes and then it’ll be easier to understand the economy. The poor have nothing and the rich have everything - easy.
That’s exactly what I see. He’s just an old-fashioned tax and spend Democrat.
*blech*
We spent years undoing that perception of Dems. He’s going to undo all the work.
Back to the old argument from the Republicans.
Dakinikat,
Do you think there are any precursors you can look at during BO’s time in Illinois?
His “community improvement” support was all about selling of public infrastructure.
Any parallels?
Comment by AnninCa | 2008-06-28 10:13:03
Check your own link again. Do you, btw,understand error rates?
When a poll shows only 4 pts differences with a 3% error rate, that means it could well be 1 pt apart.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There could be an error rating but remember the error rating can go both ways.
That was not the point actually of my whole post.
I was asking if there is something more all of us could do to get the word out there and get people to believe it.
For it seems like everything no matter how criminal, racist, or ??? it is on Obama; it seems to have no impact upon Obama’s campaign and followers.
Wouldn’t you expect better numbers than these with HRC’s supporters with “no where else to go?” climbing on the Unity Pony?
Do you know where Dukakis was at this point in his cycle?
Do you imagine that John Kerry had to worry about so many websites jumping up just to try to keep him out of the WH?
I didn’t use any “smear” words … I still don’t find you credible. I am entitled to an opinion and if I am wrong, happy to say “oops, sorry.” But I don’t think in this case I am.
Please read these two very informative articles on how polls are conducted and how the slighest bias leads to different results.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108430/Gallup-Editors-Election-Poll-Analysis.aspx
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/why_polls_sometimes_show_different_results
—————
Some excerpts
…The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll asks a “right direction/wrong direction” question before the ballot. Our Gallup Poll Daily tracking asks a registered voter screen before the ballot. The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll includes the phrase “or would you vote for a candidate from some other party?” Our Gallup poll does not include this phrase…..
….However, the challenge lies in finding the “right” mix of Republicans, Democrats, and unaffiliated voters. Some pollsters, including many academic and media pollsters, argue that partisan identification is fluid and changes frequently. This approach suggests that whatever partisan mix falls out from the results of a random sample is the “right” answer. In the case of the recent L.A. Times poll, this mix was 39% Democrats and 22% Republicans.
Polls that use this approach tend to produce a more volatile set of results (during Election 2004, one national firm reported results days apart that showed more than a ten-point swing in voter preference).
Others, including most political polling firms and Rasmussen Reports, argue that people rarely change their partisan affiliation (how many people do you know who consider themselves a Republican one day and a Democrat the next?). This approach produces more stable results. During Election 2004, Rasmussen Reports polling data never showed either candidate ahead by more than 3 points in our weekly data. Week-to-week changes were never bigger than a point-and-a-half…….
————–
IMHO even both Gallup and Rasmussen are currently showing some bias towards nobama, although from different motives.
Gallup is somewhat left leaning, yet grudgingly fair. Look at almost all the other articles on Gallup site. they are nobama leaning. They even have removed a poll from yesterday that was very relevant to the topic of this thread. In that poll they found that the majority of Americans against “redistribution” and against the “government doing too much” to the economy.
Rasmussen is actually republican leaning. But they have consistenetly shown a bias to nobama. Not too much but a little. Especially in their statewide characterization. See their Ohio assessment. Their poll is Mccain 44 Nobie 43, their average is Mc 45 nb 42, however, they have placed OH in Dem leaning category.
Why would a Repub pollster do this. They obviously want to downplay the Mccain lead. Sometimes it helps to underplay one’s strengths and let the adversary lull into overconfidence. Rasmussen probably believes that the smalll negative value of publishing a nobama leaning result is outweighed by the bigger positive value of keeping the dems in a sense of false security.
You have to look beyond the obvious. If you are a dem pollster, the priority is shoring up one’s base and discouraging the dems4mccain and making them “get over it”. That is why Newsweek is publishing such atrocious polls, even at the risk loss of their credibility. Gallup OTOH is a respectable organization and theri credibility is their bread and butter.
OTOH the repub pollsters will probably skew the polls a little in favor of nobie until the convention. Remember, they don’t want to give the SDs any funny ideas, by painting nobama unelectible.
The games these people play are probably even more complex and subtle. They have probably accomplished psychologists on their payroll giving opinions on how to manipulate mass behavior.
So let us be a little cynical. We don’t need MSNBC and CNN and even Fox to manipulate us into thinking what they want. And let us not assume that all these pollsters are somehow the unbiased, honorable referees. They are human and the primary motive that drives humans is greed.
Silly guy. He missed the “memo”. He is only supposed to HOPE it helps, until the next guy comes along to actually fix something-if we’re not bust by then.
BHO, or Obamarxist, will try anything to get money from public hands into those of his cronies, eg, Rezko, Davis, Jarrett, Pritzker, Ayers, Khalidi, Wright, and oh, yes, there is a new one, Cecil Butler. And there are many others; check BHO’s slight of hand as IL State Senator — crooked, crooked, crooked. Keep your piggy hands off my Social Security, BHO.
This primary election might just be the solution to retiring BHO from public life everywhere. Maybe he will spend some time in the slammer (hope, hope, hope). All those poor African Americans in his district ought to go after him with hammer-and-tongs or at least tar-and-feathers.
Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. It works if one (the government) saves and invests (although who does the investing becomes more and more tricky - who is left to trust?) the FISA taxes. Instead our at-least-as-greedy Congresspeople keep using this money for general government expenses. That might be the way FDR and Congress set up Social Security in the first place; it was a very small amount. Remember, Congress has the power of the purse. We must fix this enormous loop hole allowing the federal government to spend our retirement.
WSJ on Obama Tax Plan.
A Video tutorial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5zy5Y4Jl8A
Folks we need your help to keep the Senate close.
Please donate to http://www.nrsc.org/
We have several tough Senate seats to defend - thanks!
Well to be honest, even though I don’t like him. His economy is similar to HRC
no, your wrong, he does have an economic plan, he plans to support$850 billon donation to africa, via Kerry, that will cost every woman and child and man in this country $2000, he plans to continue letting the dems in congress continue with their out of control earmarks, and taxing our companies out of business
well remember michelle said baraak was
going to take a piece of our pie and give it to someone that doesnt have any pie
i worked hard to earn my pie
i like my pie i want to keep my pie
let em eat cake
Quote from article: NO DETAILED ANALYSIS? AND, IT WON”T EVEN WORK? Change You Can Believe In. What’s left of your paycheck. If you still have one.
——————————————–
The above mentioned reminds me of the Visa commercial where at the end they ask “What’s in your wallet”.
That would make a good McCain ad.
An Obama 3 dollar bill.
We have an underqualified presumptive nominee. That’s what happens when you have someone who SCAMS the system. The DNC put in place proportional distribution, primary schedules, and all these other (now exposed as assine) systems to give a inital “level playing field” and “leg up” to lesser known and minority canidates. He SCAMMED the system with laser precision!
And he is a political novice. Amazing that he could come up with that all by himself, eh?
He’s from the cesspool that is Chicago politics. I believe it’s a required course even for novices -” Scamming 101″. Nobama got an A+ on his first exam- knocked off his opponent on a technicality.
There is no confusion on BO’s SS plan. And as far I am concerned it will be what he is told it is by Nancy and Penny.
BO is incapable of advancing a plan on SS because he is nothing more than a puppet.
Penny Pritzker
“http://www.boomergirl.com/stories/2007/oct/18/billionaire_breaks_gender_barriers_campaign_trail/”
I thought the people here were real Democrats. Democrats don’t call Social Security a ponzi scheme. This article also makes no sense, The person admits the wealthy won’t get any new benefits, but then cites a number based on the assumption that they will get additional benefits. And, solving 1/3 of the shortfall does not mean “won’t help long-term solvency problem.” No one said this was the only solution, but it can be part of the solution. Obama is the only politician at least discussing how we might deal with it. That seems pretty brave to me.
Obama is using what Bush used in his last campaign. The SS system is broke. Obama proposes the same thing Bush proposed, nothing new.
The system wouldn’t have a shortfall if the government didn’t skim off the top. The Dem Congress can fix this problem but they choose not to.
Hun? Both Bush and McCain want to move to private accounts, which would put the risk on working people instead of the government. They pay for the shortfall by cutting benefits and hurting low income people the most. Obama wants to have the wealthy pay for part of the shortfall. This is similar to the plan put out by the Brookings Institution. A mainstream center-left-organization. Unlike Donald Luskin, who is a right-wing-crackpot.
The Wealthy are not paying for the shortfall. We all are. Whatever money that wealthy dude puts into SS they are entitled to it after they retire. This idea that this payroll tax kicks the rich guys in the balls, and that somehow makes for good policy, is nothing more than feel good talk that works on the rabble. No substance, just populist rhetoric BS.
You do not understand how SS works. They would not be entitled to it. How much you get depends on what you made. You should read about the program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)
LOL*….thanks for taking the time.
I just scrolled past, personally.
I have teacher friends who STILL think that Hillary was proposing single-payer health care.
Why?
Because Obama said so.
Obama said that? I don’t think so.
Do you understand that his advisers are on the record as being in favor of privatization? Can you understand that he is just a cardboard cutout with no policy and no position? He doesn’t offer solutions. If he did, he wouldn’t have bailed on FISA or public funding of political campaigns. He’s a poser. He’s a class A phoney. With any luck, he’ll be an accused FELON before November!
This is one of those nice little lies put out by anti-Obama people. See this post. http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/06/jason-furman-so.html
Paul Krugman, who is no Obama fan, has said his advisers are excellent. I know you want to believe he has no policy position, but he has surrounded himself by people who are smart and respected. He has also been more consistent on these issues than the other candidates.
:::cough::: That’s what they said about Bush too :::cough:::
what issues? FISA? NAFTA? what exactly do you mean by consistent? Obama’s supporters’ standards have been extremely flexible lately…
extremely flexible lately……
Gumby economics?
I thought the people here were real Democrats.
Actually, we’re a mixed group. I’m an Independent, and I think at least several others are as well.
Social Security is a hot button topic—especially since the largest voting block is people between ages of 45-75. The older Baby Boomers are already worried about what’s going to happen to Social Security. I don’t necessarily believe in privatization, because there will still have to be a whole lot of government controls on it to make sure that it’s handled fairly and above board for everyone.
The problem with Social Security is that there aren’t enough younger people (thanks to the birth control revolution) contributing to SSI to support the number of older people drawing from it. And also, thanks to medical science, people are living a lot longer. So it’s conceivable that someone might draw Social Security for 30 years.
This is going to be a tough issue to tackle for not only the next president but the next congress as well.
Yes, there is a shortfall in part due to a large cohort retiring over the next 20-30 years. There are 3 choices to deal with this. Borrow, make low-income people pay by higher payroll taxes and benefit cuts, or have higher taxes on the wealthy. Being a progressive Democrat, I want the wealthy to pay for part of the shortfall. If you like the McCain/Bush position, then you should vote for McCain. But don’t pretend Obama has some crackpot inconsistent position. He is in the mainstream of Center-left policy.
Don’t you understand - Obama thinks just about everyone in America is rich, he compares us to people in Africa. That’s why he authored the Global Poverty Act. Tax ALL Americans to give to the poor Africans via the UN.
Where did this come from? He is talking about people in the top 1% or more. If you want to make a case against his plan, you shouldn’t just make stuff up.
This isn’t made up. go to http://www.thomas.gov and google it.
I’ve watched for months as people at HuffPo accused long-time Democrats of being REpublican.
Your comment is similar. “Real” democrats indicates to me you are probably new to this party.
The Democratic Party has a long and proud tradition of not being single-minded. We’re a big group, filled with a lot of constinuent groups. We intersect with one another on various issues. We differ on others.
Until now, this worked.
This is the first time it hasn’t and won’t work.
We’re now being told we have to think alike to be a real Democrat.
Here’s what won’t work with that. It goes against the “real” spirit of the party.
It won’t work.
It never will work.
jc - But SS basically has become a Ponzi(or pyramid)scheme. To begin with it was like a normal triangle, but with increased longevity balanced with fewer younger workers it is now an inverted triangle. So the young are trying to hold up a heavier and heavier load. Plus, there ain’t no little “lock box” for SS, just a pile of IOUs, since the government doesn’t keep it safe and separate - it sucks it up into general revenue and swears to pay it all back. Because spending our money in Iraq etc. is so much more important in the grand scheme of things, don’t you know.
I happen to be a payroll accountant and this is a really stupid idea. I can see raising the cap, but this plan to only tax salaries again after reaching $250K is a joke. It would literally ruin thousands of businesses. The additional salary taxed at 7.65% on the employer side would be a massive tax hike, would raise prices across the board.
The clincher though is that when Obama gives that money to his corrupt DC/DNC/Chicago buddies via lucrative contracts with the Obama Adinistration, we’ll still have to pay that money back to those high salaried employees after they retire long after Obama’s gang of criminal thugs are gone and pardoned, thus literally destroying the program in a few short years.
Nifty little scheme, eh?
I thought it would impact business. Isn’t it on the gross amount?
Thank you for clarifying.
How come that BHO doesn’t have a payroll tax accountant on his team? Or he does, but his agenda matches up nicely with his plans.
Or - as usual - it is all talk. When time comes to make the changes, oops, couldn’t be done.
News Updated
Clinton to Obama: “Kiss My Ass”
http://www.obama-wire.com
Good for Bill. This will endear him to alot of Hillary’s supporters! He can kiss Bill’s ass. I’d even donate money to the campaign to see that!
Oh good. The embalmed heads of CorpsMedia will clutch their pearls and speculate about the aftereffects of that little bypass operation, but as long as it is talked about.
A large and LOUD cheer will go up from the quondam sovereigns (the people).
Real good article. I like someone who stays true to their beliefs. Good for him. Bill is a realist, no lala fairy dust in his eyes.
Susan, CAN THIS BE FEATURED????
I second that! This is a great article and even though written by DNC stoolies, it brings forth the essence of our anger.
I saved it. Will be gloating over it for years when we look back what were the major factors in nobama and the other tyrants’ defeat and exile.
Like the Battle of Midway.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2211812/Bill-Clinton-says-Barack-Obama-must-‘kiss-my-ass’-for-his-support.html
Interesting. What’s fascinating to me is there are Democrats saying that he should get over it.
Why?
I see no benefit to Bill whatsoever to get over it. I think he should stick to his guns about the mischaracterization that Obama employed against him and everything he stood for his entire career, even today.
If I were in Bill’s shoes, I wouldn’t ever yield on this. There’s no way that Obama can undo the damage he did to the only Democrat to win twice in our lifetime.
He will simply need to accept that, accept the fact that Bill will always dispute him, and move on.
The Big Dawg barks!
And those Democrats who are shocked need to grow up and get out of politics.
What Obama did was crossing the line. There are consequences.
Ditto for Richardson.
Shocking!! Bitter!! Tsk tsk tsk!
Worried about the guy!
Why are you worried about the guy? He’s got his sh*t together.
I think it was a snark!
The most relevant part is that…
“A second source said that the former president has kept his distance because he still does not believe Mr Obama can win the election.”
Remember the New Yorker article on Hillary’s fall and Rise.
How it said the pessimism that they both have about Nobama’s chances.
Bill Clinton is possibly the most successful and empathic politician there is.
He knows.
well alrightie for Bill!!
You cannot enhance the lot of the poor by bringing down the rich. America’s workforce depends on companies being able to hire and pay employees. As for Obama’s remark about the economy, not a plan, but ‘fair’. I’d like to ask him FAIR in who’s opinion? Let’s see, I worked 36 years for the same company, tried to save, raised children as a single mother, earned my retirement (not SS), but here comes a wannabe Robin Hood and I should be ’sharing’ with those have not worked, saved, etc? No thanks Obama, I’ll start sharing when I see you and Rev Wright give up your fancy homes, unlimited spending money….until then, bite me.
I wish they would just close the loopholes that abound in so many laws that govern investment, finance, etc.
That would make a big difference.
Those loopholes were purchased with hard-earned money donated by the beneficiaries of same. They are in a sense legislative private property. You aren’t against private property, now, are you?
Congress should adopt what the military has. When there is a mixed installation- Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force - like the Pentagon, everyone is a “Purple Suiter”. You stop quoting your branch of service in this case your party and you start working for what is best for everyone.
The party system in Congress is broke and our representatives forgot who they work for.
I even think that the voters should vote on the pay raises that congress gets beside cost of living raise.
I don’t understand why congress doesn’t run the White House government the way I run mine during a recession. I got rid of most of our expenses that were luxury expenses: The cleaning lady, the lawn service, high speed internet (I now have the free basic link), I still have cable but trimmed down to the basic package, I cut our grocery shopping (although that didn’t help because milk, bread and egg prices seem to climb but I did plant a few more vegetables in our garden this year). Government needs to cut the fat right now like those bills for golf courses and museums etc……. that I can’t afford anyway. Yes it’s nice to haves but not necessary right now.
This is the craziest economic plan I have ever seen but the media is trying to tell you how great it is. Please judge the FACT’S for yourselves. A picture sometimes is worth a thousand “just words.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5zy5Y4Jl8A
Most americans are against redistribution and too much government intervention to fix economy.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108445/Americans-Oppose-Income-Redistribution-Fix-Economy.aspx
Yes, but they also think the wealthy should pay more. http://www.gallup.com/poll/106813/Many-Americans-Increasing-Taxes-Rich.aspx
So, does Hillary Clinton and the vast majority of other Democrats.
Again, you’re citing a poll. What was the exact question they asked and who were the demographics?
Comment by D | 2008-06-28 11:07:48
News Updated
Clinton to Obama: “Kiss My Ass”
http://www.obama-wire.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thank you for the article.
I am one of those Clinton supporters that was actually shocked to see Hillary running with Obama when there was no type of apology from Obama or the DNC.
Apparently we owe Michelle an apology and just maybe the Clintons will get an apology.
Im truly glad that Bill is standing tall and waiting for Obama to show some decent manners.
We don’t owe Michelle squat. What she got, she brought it on herself. She should think before talking. If she was ‘brutalized’, it happend at home, behind closed doors.
I could care less of Obama’s apology. Everyone knows it wouldn’t be honest.
Hillary does what Hillary has to do. Thanks God, Bill is less restricted.
Bill is right, Obama can’t win.
This act says nothing about everyone in the US being rich. It is trying to reduce global poverty. Is has many co-sponsors including Hillary supporters.
I was horrified when I heard him in that last debate talk about capital gains like a complete ignoramus.
To move capital gain taxes up to 25% isn’t about taking from the rich. It’s about taking from those people in America who make sacrifices to save for their future, their retirement perhaps, maybe their kids’ education. Or just to save instead of having everything “NOW,” because it makes sense. He claims he wants to roll it all back to when that Terrible™ Bill Clinton was in office. Well, somebody needs to tell Comrade Obama that we do NOT have a clinton economy. During the clinton economy, small investors and savers were making so much that they didn’t MIND paying capital gains. Plenty of people could have done this back then, but too many were just plain NOW oriented, and credit card oriented. Who the hell’s fault it that?
Today, these same people who did well under Terrible Clinton™ are struggling just to feed their families and fill up their freaking gas tanks. To compare today to Clinton’s economy is just plain, stupid, ignorant and downright moronic. People who sacrifice to save toward a goal are making freaking 3% not 20%. Big Brain, there Comrade: Take 25% of it! Idiot.
The man is obviously an economics moron. If you ask me, he didn’t even have a clue what he was talking about, much less how it would effect people who AREN’T making the big bucks.
A jerk. A complete jerk.
This would only affect people who have investments and make more than $200,000. The rates were this high before and it did not have big impact on the economy.
Here is an explanation.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121408956349094669.html?mod=sunday_journal_secondary_hs
The Federal Insured Contribution Act (FICA), also known as Social Security was designed to act as a guaranteed pension fund for those whose jobs had no pension funds; which makes it more important than ever since we’re all relying on those volatile 401k plans like those folks at ENRON - remember them?
And just to be clear, in the 1980s when the Savings and Loan industry collapsed with a little help from a couple of Bush brothers, thousands of retirement savers found themselves with nothing left but Social Security. Social Security was the after-depression safety net for workers not the rich. The rich who have no salaries to deduct FICA from would not be contributing.
The political parties running our government have been trying to get rid of social security forever. Everyone always talks about “fixing it” without being honest about why it needs fixing. For years the government has used this guaranteed pension fund like their very own petty cash. And now it’s empty and they don’t want to repay it. “Rich people” without salaries won’t be contributing. “Rich people” with salaries aren’t going to miss $6,324 nearly as much as someone paying out $3,100 from a $50,000 income about to be reduced by an additional 18% for income tax.
4 months before the GE and thinking Obama is in good shape because he’s ahead in a few polls by a few points? Wow, you are in for one hell of a suprise after August. The Republicans are going to tear Obama apart piece by piece.
What happens after you take all that the wealthy have to support those who wont work then you need more but there is no longer wealthy to take from. Then they will get from you middle class.
okie/paul - Are you kidding?
1.Have you ever heard of a very wealthy person having everything taken from them? That’s why they have tax lawyers, offshore accounts, money laundering, etc.
2.Do you really believe that there are so many people who “won’t work” in the US that it would sink the ship? As an ex-Brit I can tell you that the vast majority in the US are hard workers.
3. The middle class is already paying because, due to the fact that this is the first generation of young people who will not, in general, be as affluent as their parents. Some of them don’t want to work, having been taken care of tenderly and indulged, and move back in with mom and dad to keep all the perks of a dependent. Others, who are not in Wall St., lawyers, or IT whizzes, are competing for fewer and worse jobs.
4.”you middle class”? That means you must be one of the nonworkers or independently wealthy? Okie - perhaps in oil??
Corporations and the rich don’t pay taxes-they just raise their cost of goods, lower wages and benefits, cut jobs. Who gets screwed? The middle class as always. I don’t know what the answer is but we need someone who does and it isn’t Barack Obama.
Except that Obama is a very closeted, very protected and faithful Muslim who has an agenda to fulfill for America and that means the complete obliteration of the transgendered and all those of an alternate lifestyle. He’s more closeted than we’ve ever been and the moment we wake up to this guy is the day we make the right decision for our preservation. All these political poser supporters swarming the internet posting falsehoods about Obama’s dedication to the transgendered and America in general won’t fool America when we have to get down into the fire you’ve created and we have to deal with Obama on America’s daily political frontline. That’s when he won’t stand a chance and America gets to win.