Would You Be OK With The Obama Compromise Minus The Tax Cuts 4 The Rich?

[stopbush]

Poll question: Would You Be OK With The Obama Compromise Minus The Tax Cuts 4 The Rich?

Simple question: would you accept the compromise bill fashioned by Obama if the ONLY thing that changed was that the tax cuts for the rich were allowed to expire on January 1?

That means everything else stays in, including the payroll holiday and the estate tax deduction.

This assumes the Rs would go along with stripping out the tax cuts for the rich.

Vote below.

[Still a Democrat]

1. I support it with reservation now

So I'm a yes. This makes it better.

[Edweird]

2. The payroll tax holiday is insidious and inexcusable, especially coming from a "Dem".

[Peregrine Took]

21. That's the killer for me. n/t

[Sherman A1]

65. Me too

Although I believe the whole thing is pretty stupid aside from the Unemployment extension

[stopbush]

26. Q: if there is no payroll tax holiday, what happens to the $ that is overpaid into the SS fund?

Do you know?

[Edweird]

35. Q: What happened to all the cries of SS being 'broken' and 'insolvent'? Did the SS fairy

come and leave a sack of money under your pillow?

[stopbush]

39. See my post #28 below. And stop answering a question with a question.

Better to admit you don't have an answer.

[Edweird]

41. 1) I'll answer any question any way I damn well please. You don't tell me what to do.

2) It's funny how the response is always to attack social security. "Social security is running out of money - quick dismantle it!" "Social security ISN'T running out of money - quick dismantle it!" It's also very suspect that we went from unsustainable insolvency to unsustainable surplus in a matter of weeks. How about we just leave social security well enough alone.

[stopbush]

43. I'm not saying SS is out of money. Quite the opposite.

You're seeing red, and it's blinding your ability to comprehend what I'm actually contributing in this thread.

I little less knee-jerk and a little more pondering might help.

And you still didn't answer the question. Read a few of my posts in this thread and learn something.

[Edweird]

44. All you're 'contributing' are RW talking points. Talking points adopted by "Dems".

Talking points that are going to make November 2010 look like a happy time in comparison to 2012.

[stopbush]

45. You're substituting being offensive for a cogent response.

And I take great offense at your tone and what you're saying.

I'm a lifelong D who has been voting since 1972.

I have supported and continue to support Dem causes, causes like DU. I put my money where my mouth is - I've got a star next to my DU moniker. Where's yours, Sonny?

Look in the mirror. It's YOU who has no understanding whatsoever of how the SSTF works, not me. I've called you on your ignorance, so you resort to name calling and the tired BS that any INFORMED opinion is by definition a RW talking point.

Go donate some $ to DU. Until you do, I'm done talking with you.

[Edweird]

55. Whatever works for you. See you in 2012.

[Egnever]

73. Nicely done sir!

[lob1]

3. No. They also have to take out the s.s. killer tax break.

[Better Believe It]

4. And what about the cut in the Social Security payroll tax?

That's what Republicans and the right-wing has been demanding for years in order to lay the basis for starving the Social Security trust fund and forcing cuts in benefits.

This is the first time general government tax revenues will be used to finance Social Security, 120 billion dollars worth!

This is what the Republicans have been agitating for and they got it under the Obama/GOP tax cutting plan!

This "deal" should be opposed for that reason alone.

[stopbush]

28. I remember when Ds were up in arms when Reagan pushed through a rise in SS tax.

Back then, we were told said rise would make SS solvent forever. What it really did was create even more over funding of SS, which meant by law that more $ was transferred out of SS and into the general fund to fund other programs.

Here's the deal that many DUers obviously don't get: the SS trust fund is funded by our payroll deductions. SS had been running a SURPLUS for years. But because SS has never been placed in Al Gore's "lockbox," that surplus doesn't stay in the SSTF. BY LAW, it is "lent" to the general fund, with an IOU deposited in a SS file drawer. There are currently about $2-TRILLION worth of IOUs sitting in that file drawer, IOUs that nobody believes will ever be paid back to SS.

Ergo, a reduction in the SS deductions taken from our paychecks for a couple of years will NOT send SS into the red. It will just mean that there is less "in the black" overage to transfer from SS to the general fund.

The problem arises down the road when SS ceases to take in enough $ to cover its liabilities (ie: payments to retirees). At that point, the general fund will need to lend $ to SS to cover its obligations. But the fact is that by the time that happens, there will be about $3-TRILLION worth of IOUs sitting in that file, IOUS written by the general fund to the SSTF and backed by the full faith and credit of Uncle Sam.

We will have, in effect, a situation similar to that of a parent who has lent the kids money over the years, kept track of that money AND the interest accrued, who finds themselves coming up short and must ask their kids to start repaying all of the loans with interest. The difference is that while some kids will have the resources to pay back their parents, those IOUs from the general fund to SS are basically worthless, because that "loaned" money is long gone, was not invested, but was used to fund pork, and won't be repaid because it isn't there to be repaid.

And there will be no more $ in the SSTF tomorrow if the payroll deduction is cut 2% than there would be if it wasn't, because that "extra" 2% doesn't stay in the SSTF. It goes into the general fund.

The only real solution is for the economy to improve to the point where the general fund begins to run surpluses as it did under Clinton. We could pay down the deficit as we did under Clinton. That would make money more affordable to borrow because the Feds would be out of the borrowing market.

With the general fund running surpluses, funding any shortfall in SS through the general fund amounts to an accounting gimmick where the general fund simply pays back on some of the IOUs it put into the SS trust fund file. The money the general fund would be "loaning" to SS would actually be them paying back their IOUs, so it isn't a loan at all. The only reason to call it a loan is if the general fund isn't running a surplus, because they wouldn't be in the position of paying back the IOUs. The general fund would then be "loaning" the money to SS with the same hope that SS would eventually pay back the general fund.

It's like a parent lending their kid $100 at a time when the parent can't pay the $100 minimum payment owed on their own credit card.

[Ruby the Liberal]

5. Absolutely not. The Payroll tax is more insidious than anything else in that bill.

[polichick]

11. Agreed. nt

[DJ13]

6. No, because it raises taxes on the lower class

They had a good thing going with the current Make Work Pay tax refund, and it didnt potentially damage Social Security like the proposed 2% FICA reduction.

[Blue_In_AK]

7. Sort of ...

But I don't like the inheritance tax break either. I don't see why we need to help out the Walton Families of the world with their 32 billion or whatever it is. I'm sick of these rich fucks getting all the breaks. And the payroll tax break makes me queasy.

So on second thought, no, I wouldn't support it.

[robinlynne]

8. almost. payroll reution HAS to go too. Estate tax is disgusting, but not as important.

[L. Coyote]

9. NO, because the plan RAISES taxes on workers.

[bobbolink]

10. You left out HELL NO! Contrary to DU opinion, I vote my interests, and

raising taxes on poor people and setting the stage to destroy SS is NOT. IN. MY. BEST. INTEREST.

[TheKentuckian]

12. Not even close. I see it as an unadulterated fuck load of fail in exchange for continuing

unemployment benefit extensions in a worse environment than the emergency that led to their passage.

The entire conversation is madness.

[phleshdef]

13. That would be almost exactly the same plan Democrats have been pushing this whole time...

...the plan that a lot of people on here voting no once supported.

This place is nuts.

[TBF]

14. Absolutely not - remove the poison pill for social security and we'll talk.nt

[mmonk]

15. When hell freezes over.

[Laelth]

16. The payroll tax holiday is the biggest problem (threat to SS).

And the estate tax give-away is fiscally stupid and totally unnecessary.

-Laelth

[Tx4obama]

23. Estate tax is now ZERO. So, a tax on everything over 5 million is better than what we have now. n/t

[reformist2]

32. And if there's no deal, estate tax automatically goes to 45% on estates over $1M.

[Tx4obama]

36. Thanks for the info. n/t

[Laelth]

33. Either you're uninformed ...

... or that's a very disingenuous argument, as Reformist2 shows, above.

-Laelth

[stopbush]

17. So if I get this right, the majority of poll voters and commentators here

won't accept anything in a compromise that would gain a single R vote in the Senate to pass a compromise...because in essence, you are against any kind of compromise whatsoever.

We need 3 votes in the Senate to pass the Obama compromise before the end of the year, a compromise that will pass the Senate tomorrow. Your strategy is to not strip out only one of the compromises given to Rs to get their support for this bill, but to strip out any compromises.

And that gets us 3 R votes how? 2 votes? 1?

Your strategy comes down to doing nothing and allowing the tax cuts to lapse, which means the legislation will be taken up in a House that is overwhelmingly R and a Senate that is only marginally D...and you think that the deal coming out of that Congress will be better than what's on the table today?

I'm asking. Is that what you believe?

[Laelth]

18. The R's will cave on the unemployment extension.

The left gets nothing out of this deal. Let the Bush tax cuts expire, if necessary.

-Laelth

[stopbush]

20. You're kidding, right?

[Laelth]

30. No. I am not.

They have unemployed people in their districts. They want to go home for the holidays.

Put the unemployment extension up for a vote on the 23rd and don't let anyone go home until it passes. If the R's leave, the D's pass it without them. And they know it. So, they'll pass it and go home.

Lots of legislation gets passed this way. It would have been easy.

-Laelth

[stopbush]

37. That won't work in the Senate.

You cannot sustain a cloture motion with fewer than 60 votes.

You can't vote on cloture if only the Ds are present. It isn't a matter of getting 3/5ths of the vote of the head count in the chamber at the time of the vote. If 50 Ds are there and 0 Rs, you don't get a cloture vote with 30 D votes. You need 60 votes.

From the Senate rules:

cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.

All the Rs need is to have ONE Senator present to threaten filibuster and a cloture vote must be taken to proceed. If there is no threat of a filibuster, then the Senate can move forward and pass legislation with a simple majority. You need 11 Senators present to call for a roll call vote.

[totodeinhere]

27. The best they might agree to w/o this compromise is 3 months.

We have got to realize just how far to the right that party has moved. The very best we might expect is a three month extension rather than the 13 month extension Obama negotiated for. Then after three months with the GOP controlling the House, we could kiss any more extensions goodbye.

[Laelth]

31. I disagree. They would have passed it, alone, with no compromise.

They were just seeing what they could get out of Obama. The answer was ... A LOT.

-Laelth

[JamesA1102]

24. It's called putting principle before people.

Who cares that the children of the unemployed will have to go hungry.

[Chan790]

48. Well..

You've missed the boat. Yes, do nothing. Let the GOP house pass whatever they want in Jan. If they actually get it past the Senate, it'll be vetoed. There is no path to the veto override in the Senate.

That means the tax-cuts are dead...that's the best available option on the table at this point, honestly...unless the GOP capitulates.

[stopbush]

58. And why on earth would the GOP capitualte when they'll be able to tap into voter anger

over the fact that their taxes went up 50% in some instances? Why capitulate when you can blame those higher taxes on Ds who were unwilling to compromise, while the Rs were willing to compromise with Obama?

You seem to think the Congressional Ds have a few arrows still sitting in their quivers, and that they will somehow have even more arrows come January.

What makes you think that lower and middle-class taxpayers who saw their taxes go up, families who saw the Earned Income and Child Care credits evaporate and unemployed people who saw their benefits exhausted would get behind the Ds who decided to - in your words - "do nothing" to help them out?

[Chan790]

68. Because...

the GOP is already taking heat on these things. It's funny, when the electorate makes a sea-change they blame the beneficiaries of that change when they fail to see results...in that sense, 2010 was a blessing. They've not even taken power and they're riding the bulls-eye already. If things stay bad...the GOP is going to take more shrapnel for failing to compromise than the President will...provided Obama is willing to look like a champion and not a compromiser. The people are stewing for signs of fight in their leaders and regardless what he achieves, he is on course to milquetoast his ass out of office.

After reading this thread, some among us are the very sort of Pyrrhic Democrat I fear most, the ones that will cheerlead us to our oblivion by rooting for solutions worse than the default non-action result. There is a grace-filled benefit sometimes to doing nothing at all...but I suspect that to be too fucking zen for some people to grasp.

[stopbush]

69. Sorry, but that's just delusional.

Where have you heard the GOP taking any heat at all? Give us a few links to support your statement.

Any heat the Rs are taking on this pales in comparison to the heat Obama is taking from his liberal base. Do you think the public is hearing any criticism of Rs over that hurricane?

In case you haven't looked, the Rs are in a perfect position. They've compromised with Obama on the tax cut package. If it goes through the deficit goes up which pisses off nobody but the tea baggers. If the package fails, it's because the Ds wouldn't support their own president.

And if it fails, the Rs get to come back in January and "write a package that reflects the will of the people as expressed in the election." That package will make the present package look like, well, Christmas.

BTW - zen has no place in the cut throat world of American politics. Karma doesn't exist in real life, so why expect it to exist in politics? The just-say-no Rs realized this. That's why they opted to "do nothing" by actively saying no. It was a strategy that worked for them in the election. In effect, they expended a whole lot of energy not doing anything, and the public bought it as being tough.

[Chan790]

71. Dude...

:rofl:

(There is no point rebutting someone whose post contradicts itself. We can't do that because it won't work because the GOP is doing it and it works for them. No wonder you think politics is something other than zen.)

[Egnever]

75. Sorry that just doesnt work

your theory assumes all things are equal and they are not. The media is an echo chamber for whatever the pukes are selling not what the dems are selling.

If you deny this then you have no claim to anything but delusional.

[stopbush]

79. You're not one for nuance.The devil is in the details.

I get that. You don't.

:rofl:

I'm still waiting for you to provide examples of the Rs catching heat for this deal.

Should I hold my breath, or should I just assume you were speaking through your hat?

[Vinca]

19. We need to fund social security.

[Tx4obama]

22. Obama compromise requires general fund to write SS fund a $120B check. n/t

[stopbush]

25. And when one realizes that the entirety of that $120-b check drawn from the general fund

is actually money that was overpaid into SS, then transferred by law into the general fund, one realizes that this is all an accounting gimmick that won't take a single penny out of the SS trust fund.

[Ruby the Liberal]

38. Its worse than that. Involving the general fund opens it up to budget negotiations.

Exactly the opposite of what FDR originally designed. He set it up as a paid-into insurance fund for the very reason that no politician could defund it. Adding the general fund into the mix removes that safety net.

[stopbush]

42. Nope. Because the SS trust fund BY LAW is EXCLUDED from all budgets:

EXCLUSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY FROM ALL BUDGETS Pub. L. 101-508, title XIII, Sec. 13301(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104Stat. 1388-623, provided that: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of - (1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted by the President, (2) the congressional budget, or (3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

Here is the real problem in a nutshell:

• the Republican call for tax cuts has had the effect of depleting the GENERAL FUND of the USA. This is the fund that pays for the military, etc. The tax cuts given to EVERYBODY over the years mean there is less $ in the general fund.

• SS runs a SURPLUS. BY LAW, any surplus run by SS in a given year is invested in government securities. It's like SS is using their surplus to buy US Treasury bonds just like you or I can.

• The money is taken out of SS and put in the general fund, and SS is in effect issued an IOU, ie: a government security, by the US Gov on behalf of the general fund.

• Because SS is overfunded, politicians know that they can cut taxes and create shortfalls in the General Fund because the general fund will BY LAW be borrowing money from SS and issuing securities as collateral. Ergo, they can cut taxes and deprive the general fund knowing those cuts will be pasted over with SS funds.

THAT is the real problem - cutting the tax revenues flowing into the general fund.

There are a couple of solutions:

1. Place SS in a lock box. That would end the Government being able to borrow from the SSTF to fund the general fund. It would mean that they would need to raise taxes dramatically to fund the general fund, OR they would need to cut spending dramatically. It would mean much greater honesty in the tax system about how we fund our government.

2. Grow the economy to the point where enough revenue is coming into the general fund to meet obligations. At that point - as it was under Clinton - money being transferred from SS to the General Fund would create a surplus that could be used to pay down the debt.

3. A combination of the two, with maybe only a portion of SS funds placed in the lock box.

[Ruby the Liberal]

62. Obama's proposal changes the law.

Why do you think there is such an uproar about this?

[stopbush]

70. Oh really? I hadn't heard that. Care to show me where that little tidbit is found

in the the proposal?

[Ruby the Liberal]

72. Sure. Where the $120b will be 'pulled' from the general account

(thus making it a deficit/budget line item) without ANY mention of the accounting shifts you (correctly) note above.

Had those caveats been in the bill language, I wouldn't be arguing with you over the proposal now.

This is one very frightening (and to date, unprecedented beast).

[stopbush]

78. So you're speculating and interpreting something that isn't in the bill at all.

For starters, the General Fund ALREADY OWES SS $2.4 TRILLION. "Borrowing" $120-b from the general fund to make up a "shortfall" in SS is hardly an issue, wouldn't you say? Paying back .0005% of what the GF ALREADY OWES SS amounts to...what?

SS cannot suddenly become a "deficit/budget line item" without a rewriting of the SS statutes, and that has not and will not happen under this legislation.

[Vinca]

77. I realize the money is coming from the general fund.

The same general fund that is running up the Chinese credit card.

[ljm2002]

29. No, they would have to remove the *extra* cuts for the rich...

...and the payroll tax holiday.

I emphasize *extra*, because in fact the rich get the same tax break as the rest of us, namely a reduction in taxes on the first 250,000 of income.

The payroll tax holiday is a terrible idea and it is inexcusable that it has been proposed by a Democratic president.

[On the Road]

34. That is a Reasonable Compromise

given the likelihood that the bill would be blocked and thrown to a GOP-controlled House. The current "compromise" is way, way out of balance.

The payroll tax holiday undercuts Social Security slightly, but it is already adequately funded provided that the economy moves into growth in the near future. It benefits workers and the middle class more than the rich.

[stopbush]

47. Sadly, removing the tax cuts for the rich from the compromise makes it unacceptable

to Rs, while (apparently) including ANY compromise that an R would vote for makes it unacceptable to the majority at DU.

Sounds like a win-win to me...not!

[On the Road]

49. I Agree

Obama's 'compromise' is not a win-win. And not the best deal he could have gotten.

[stopbush]

51. Well, I think it IS the best deal he could have gotten at this time.

I say that with the hope that things like the estate tax giveaway are in there as bargaining chips to be negotiated away. But if that's what it takes to get a compromise, we may have to live with that as well.

[Chan790]

53. It actually does sound like a win-win to me.

I want the tax-cuts dead. Doing that requires not a thing beyond stalemate.

The GOP will pass an unemployment extension regardless come Jan. because they don't want to be out on their asses in 2012. We'll get a better deal by waiting, because first they'll craft the deal they can live with, then we'll bully them to the deal they can get signed.

[Citizen Worker]

40. What about the 99ers? They are excluded from this "pragmatic compromise." Are they to starve?

[stopbush]

46. My poll limited it's parameters specifically to avoid these kinds of debates.

Vote on the poll as is, or create your own poll.

[Little Star]

50. Hell no!!!! No back door's into SS!!!!! n/t

[stopbush]

52. How is it a back door into SS? To wit:

EXCLUSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY FROM ALL BUDGETS Pub. L. 101-508, title XIII, Sec. 13301(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104Stat. 1388-623, provided that: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of - (1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted by the President, (2) the congressional budget, or (3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

[Little Star]

54. Here is a nice primer by Faryn Balyncd....

Titled:"Payroll Tax Holiday" - - - the political equivalent of a "Pay Day Loan" scam for American workers.

He explains why Republican sharks have been pushing a "payroll tax holiday" for YEARS....as a poison pill that will lead to the destruction of Social Security as viable and public.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9753221&mesg_id=9753221

Plus there are many, many other threads on the subject here on DU.

[stopbush]

56. Yeah, I've read all those, and the arguments are flawed.

Simple point: they say SS has built up a $3-trillion trust fund. Well, not really. There's $2-trillion worth of IOUs sitting in the SSTF in the form of government securities. But there is NO CASH surplus in the SSTF.

The only way Wall Street can "get their hands" on that phantom $2-3 Trillion would be for that amount to be paid to them out of the General Fund. That money doesn't exist in the general fund either.

Ergo, the only way Wall Street can get their hands on SS is by buying that debt from the government in the form of bonds, the same way China buys Treasury bills today. What Wall Street would be left holding is an incredible amount of debt. That in and of itself doesn't mean that Wall Street would be running SS. They would simply own the debt.

What they could demand is that the US government raise taxes on everybody to, oh, say 90% to cover that debt. The threat - just like threats against currency - would be to sell that debt on the open market for pennies on the dollar. That would destroy the "full faith and credit" of the USA as both a lender and a debtor nation, turning us into the biggest third-world economy in history.

Why Wall Street would wish to do such a thing is beyond my comprehension. Maybe to have the leverage to acquire water and air rights. Who knows.

[laughingliberal]

64. You can type all day long & it won't change that they are going to try & cut our benefits...

and this 'payroll tax holiday' will be used as a weapon in the fight to do it.

[stopbush]

80. I doubt very much that you even know what the current SS deduction is.

Here's the facts:

Social Security is funded by a 6.2 percent payroll tax on the first $106,800 earned by a worker. The tax is matched by employers. The package negotiated by Obama would reduce the tax paid by workers to 4.2 percent for 2011. Employer rates would stay unchanged.

So, the amount paid into SS would go from 12.4% of a workers wage to 10.4% for one year.

Workers making $50,000 in wages would get a $1,000 tax cut; those making $100,000 would get a $2,000 tax cut.

Obama administration officials say that a payroll tax cut is an efficient way to stimulate the economy by immediately increasing take home pay for about 155 million workers. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office agrees, and many business groups and Republicans support it.

"What came out of the compromise was the idea of the payroll tax holiday, which, frankly, a huge number of economists and other experts had been talking about over the last two years with a lot of support in both political parties," said Larry Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser.

The United Auto Workers endorsed the deal, saying, "Working families will likely spend this money in their local communities, creating jobs and stimulating overall growth."

"The payroll tax cut has absolutely no effect on the solvency of Social Security," said White House economic adviser Jason Furman.

Social Security has accumulated a $2.5 trillion trust fund since the 1980s. But the government has borrowed that money to pay for other programs. The Treasury Department has issued special bonds to Social Security, guaranteeing the money will be repaid, with interest.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101213/ap_on_bi_ge/us_payroll_tax_holiday

[Odin2005]

57. No, the SS tax "holiday" is a trap that leads to the end of SS.

[stopbush]

59. How so? Please explain.

[Odin2005]

66. Do you think they are going to let the "holiday" expire?

Hell no, that would never happen, the Right would be all on it, calling the expiration a "tax hike" and the Dems will fold.

[democrat2thecore]

60. delete - wrong thread. sorry. -nt

[panzerfaust]

61. ALSO get rid of Estate tax sell-out, Social Security defunding "tax holiday"

... then it would be fine.

Oh, and just for the record, Obama did not compromise.

"Compromise" means that both sides give up something they really want. He simply handed them basically all that they wanted - except for making the tax cuts permanent.

If I had wanted a Republican president, I would have voted for one.

[laughingliberal]

63. No. I want the payroll tax holiday killed and the Making Work Pay credit restored.

Otherwise, the working poor see a tax increase.

[lonestarnot]

67. And how is the estate tax deduction not about the rich?

[eridani]

74. If the assautl on Social Security remains, FUCK NO!! n/t

[Confusious]

76. This deal is going to bankrupt the country

And we'll all be searching for something to eat in the next few years.

The R's have sold this country to china, and now Obama is helping