Social Security, Obama and Payroll Tax Cut: Democrat Plan to Destroy Social Security (Boycott Yahoo and AT&T)

"GOP may okay tax increase that Obama hopes to block"


That was the AP/Yahoo/AT&T headline today, and it was one of the most partisan, dishonest headlines and stories ever written (saying a lot for the despicable AP). Read my previious article, as to which this is part 2, for an extensive explanation of what is going on.


Yes, part of the Obama "jobs" plan is to ush another "stimulus" that has already failed. In fact, it has failed several times, since it is really just a PAYMENT OF MONEY to people. This is the proposed extension of the "payroll tax cut", which was part of the "lame duck deal" at the end of 2010. It was supposed to "stimulate" the economy,. It didn't., as previous similar gimmicks didn't. It was supposedly a TEMPORARY (meaning the CBO "scoring" was in BILLIONS added to the debt instead of HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS added to the debt and deficit) one year "cut" in the WORKER part of the payroll tax (meaning it did not help employers add jobs at all--which is NOT an excuse to expand it to include emplyers this time).


A famous wit in history once said this about the Holly Roman Empire: It was not holy, it was not Roman, and it wsa not an empire. The "payroll tax cut" is not a "tax cut", has nothing to do with the payroll tax, and is really just another "stimulus". The AP story and headline are pure propaganda, and a COMPLETE LIE. The lead paragraph said sometinbg like: "GOP lawmaters, desite violently opposing tax increases, are proposing to increase the payroll tax to raise taxes on workers." Hogwash. Remember the Bush/Democrat/Obama "stimulus" bill in the sprin of 2008 (giving $6oo to essentailly every person). Was it a tAX INCREASE to not "extend" that EMPORARY measure? Of course not . No, this is NOT the same as the "Bush tax cuts"--in effect for almost 10 years and whihc were INTENDED to be a cut in general tax RATES which everyone knew Bush INTTENDED to be permanent (because he said so, =but could not get the permanent bill passed). Nor is it the same as closing long-standing tax deductions and loopholes, although that would not be "tax increases" either if it is part of "tax reform" insead of an attempt just to raise revenue for more spending.


No, this is not a matter of opinioni. It is an objecti e LIE--dishonest, partisan propaganda by the despicable AP. Under the AP reasoning, fed to the AP by Obama operatives, every EMERGENCY measure SOLD as a TEMPORARY (really temporary--one year in this case) STIMULUS becomes an ENTITLEMENT. In fact, Obama's failed "stimulus" bill had what Obama called "tax cuts" in it. Tose EXPIRED, as they were supposed to be part of a TEMPORARY "stimulus", and not long-term. These vairations of "stimulus" are all the SAME THING: They are a PAYMENT OF MONEY to people disguised as a "tax cut". If we start considering the failure to exend every one of these temorary GIMMICKS because that represents a "tax increase", then we might as well give this country to the Chinese. We cannot survive that kind of dishonesty and stupidity.


The AP story said that the GOP "violently" opposes tax increases (generally true). However, does that mean that the GOP has "violently" (or at all) opposed the END of these temporary stimulus measures--not consituting a general tax reate cut? Forget it. The GOP has never said any such thing, and the AP satement otherwise is an outright, dishonest, partisan LIE.


No,this is NOT a "cut' in the Social Securty tax that we are talking aoubt. Again, read my previous article(part 1 of the total article). Social Security is SUPPOSED to be a "closed system"--a "self-funding", self-sustaining" system. The payroll tax (Social Security tax) is not supposed to be simply another "gax", funding the government. It is supposed to FUND Social Security. What happens when the payroll tax is "cut". Again, that means that the FUNDING for Social Security is being "cut". That is waht makes it obvious that this is all a wealth redistribution FRAUD. The gimmick here is that Democrats (and Repuibcans, for that matter) set up the previous "payroll tax cut" (that deal at the end of 2010) so that the Social Security "trust fund" would be REIMBURSED for the CUT in funding. Notice what this means. It means that this 'payroll tax cut" has NOTHING to do with the "payrolkl tax"--supposedly the SOLE funding for Social Security. The "payroll tax" is merely be used as a DISTRIBUTION MECHANISM for payments just like those $600 payments under the Bush/Democrat/Obama "stimulus" of 2998, and the Obama "stimulus" "tax cuts" of the Obama "stimulus" bill of 2009. Notice how tis kind of thinking makes our debt/deficit "crisis" PERMANENT and INSOLUBLE. No "stimulus" can ever go away, no matter how badly it works.


Wait a second. I am saying that Obama and the Democrats have SOLD these things as "temporary", and asked the CBO to "score" them that way . However, do Obama and the Democrats really want to do away with the payroll tax, or at least the worker part of the payroll tax? I think they do. The ONLY tax that more than half of Americans are now paying is the payroll/Social Security tax. That "tax" was supposed to set Social Security up as a "self-funding" system, rather than a CLASS WARFARE welfare plan. What Democrats and Obama want is the WELFARE, CLASS WARFARE plan. Yes, Democratws want to DESTRY Social Security as we know it, and make it just another Big Government welfare lan. That means doing away with the payroll tax (which Democrats can "cut" until it no longer exists, while not "cutting" gneral tax rates) until it no longer exists. This is part of the general Democrat plan to have MOST of the people of this country have no stake in the country. If people do not even have to pay ANYTHING toward their retirement, have we not reached the final states of class warfare? As I have stated, I am ASHAMED that too many Republicans and conservatives bought into the idea of a "payroll tax holiday" as an "alternative" to the Obama "stimulus".


The whole idea of using the payroll tax this way--as an excuse to FUND part of Social Security with general revenue and discared the idea of Social Security as a self-funding, self-sustaining system--undermines the whole FDR idea of the Social Security system. It guarantees the eventual dstruction of the Social Security system, and probably the destruction of the United States as we know it Yes, Social Security has always been something of a FRAUD, but this Democrat push to treat Social Security just like any other Big Government program is an obvious and guaranteed way to destory it. When class warfare becomes this obvious, the demise of the United States becomes imminent--as it was for the Rooman Repubic, whic was destroyed by class warfare. Again, the whole "payroll tax cut" idea is a FRAUDULENT SCHEME to use gneral tax revenue--really borrowed money which will be eventually repaid from general tax revenue--to mkae PAYMENTS to people disguised as a reduction of their payroll tax payments. In short, the reskult is to FUND Social Secruity from GENERAL REVENU--a repudiation of the original idea of Social Security. If this were a real parroll/Social Security tax "cut", the money would have to be made up from SOCIAL SECURITY. Instead, it is nothing but a faud to use sleight of hand to justify yet another "stimuls".


Again, general tax RATE cuts are not a "simulus". It is disburbing when Republicans talk as if they were. They "stimulate" the economy, but they do so in a PERMANENT way, so long as we do not keep using temporary, fraudulent gimmicks, and cnetral planning complications of the tax code, to completely undermine what we would gain by a simplle, growth oriented tax system. We need a PERMANENT FIX--not a "magic bullet" attemt by Washington to "save us". A simple tax system of low tax RATES that are actualy PAID will ut the econommy on a growth path--along with limiting Big Government--not because it is a "stimulus", but because it is a rational PATH to growth (not to mention people making decisions on economics and not on the tax code, and avoiding paying taxes under the tax code).


I stand yby the headline. Obama and the Democrats really have a plan to destroy Social Security as we have known it, and to make every single Federal Government program a Big Government "welfare state" program.


You should be able to see now, if you did not before, why I wil vote against EVERY Repubican who supports, or votes for, any "extensioin" of any form of a "payroll tax cut". It is nothing but a FRAUD, and that is someting I no longer can stand from our politicians. Itincreases the deficit/debt MORE than Repuboicans have "cut", or even said they have "cut", through the next fiscal year. It undermines the very concept of self-funding, self-sustaing Social Security which is not just anoother welfare program. It represents another attempt at FAILED Federal Government "stimulus".


In fact, you should be able to see why merely voting AGAINST every single Republican who goes for this fraud is not enough. If the Repubican Party lets another payroll tax cut pass, then I am walking away from the Repubican Party FOREVER. No, that is not mere talk. What it means is lthat I will PRESUME that every single Repubican politicians should not be supported. This would not be a conclusive presumption that would prevent me from supportting Michele Bachmann, because I KNOW where Michele Bachmann stands. It WOULD keep me from voting for Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and any number of other Republican--Tea Party or not and whether they affirmatively suport this fraud or not. Remember, it is EASY for people who vote "no" to do so if they KNOW that they are going to lose. It is even easier for CNDIDATES not in Congress to say they would vote "no" on someting, and not do anything to actually stop it. Not accpetable. I can assure you I wil APPLY my presumption. Unless a Republican convinces me that he or she is affirmatively ready to FIGHT the Repuboican Prty of this sort of thing, then I will not support a Repuboican politician jsut because he or she SAYS things I like. Cold Rick Perry, for example, show me that I can trust him? Effectively impossible, although I wil "never say never" (except to treating the Republican Party as dead to me if this betrayal occurs--where even thin I guess I could conceive of some future takeover of the Repubican Party that would cause me to rethink, but never for 2012). I mention Paul Ryan because I already would not votte for him, and he is being discussed as apossilbe late "candidate" for President. Too many votes I regard as betrayals. Remember, a VOTE is NOT going to be enough on this payroll tax fraud. Stopping it is all I will accept, in which case I will keep up hope for the Repubican Party (until thye dash it with this fraudulent "gang of 12" fiasco", and a "grad deal" out of that).


What will I think of any REpubican who buys into the AP LIE that faiing to extend the payroll tax "cut" is a tax increase? Words fail me there Any conservativel--from Rush Limbaugh to Sean Hannity to the usual suspects--who purports to buy into that absurdity is my ENEMY. I will not accept fraukd on that kind of scale. This is just not an acceptable position for me. Whether you are a Republican, Democrat or conservative, if you buy into this fraud then I cannot either respect or support you. Is this clear? I hope so.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight and a bad thing in an article I wanted to make clear--but that is the way it is).