Payroll Tax "Cut" and the $600 Bush/Obama/Democrat Stimulus of 2008

Remember the FIRST failed "stimulus" in 2008, BEFORE the economy collapsed? It was that reincarnation of George McGovern, wherein almsot everyone got a $600 payment form the Federal Government. It didn't work, and maybe is partly responsible for the collapse that happened (mainly be pugging th e focus on "stimulus", instead of the mounting financial problems that were about to sink us). This, of course, happpens every time (like with that $8000 "credt" for bying a house, or that "cash for clunkers" program). The "free" Federal money COSTS you dearly: much more than the "free" mhney you get. The GOP seems unable to make this case, even thought the American people are ready for it That is why I have abandoned the GOP---whch continues the BETRAYAL by WANTING to estend the "payroll tax cut" and that ridiculous 99 weeeks of unemployment benefits (if the Democrats will ony let them betray conservatives, in some sort of face saving way).



You say that the "payroll tax cut" is not the same as that $600 paymetn? Well, you are wrong. In fact the $600 payment was SOLD as a type of "tax rebate" (no different from a "tax cut"). The only difference is that the "payroll tax cut" is CASH paid over a year, instead of in one check It is actually the SAME as the monthly payment that was part of the FAILED Obama "stimulus" bill, except that was not LABELED a "payroll tax cut" (although it wAS labeled by Obama as a "tax cut"). The "payroll tax cut" LIES. It says it is a cut in the Social Security tax. And it IS a direct attack on the entire concept of Social Security as a self-funding program. It is the first step in turning Social Security into just another WELFARE SYSTEM. Indeed, the "payroll tax cut" is a WELFARE PAYJMENT. It is simply cas payments out of general tax revenue--exactly like the $600 Bush/Democrat/Obama (Democrats contrlled Congress) $600 cash payment in 2008, although now we are doing it in installments (and exclusing some unlucky peole who do not pay "payroll taxes", like the elderly--although I admit that I don't know it they figured out a way to INCLUDE the elderaly in the supposed" tax cut"). You KNOW that this is a FRAUD when you realzie that a supposed "cut" in the funding of Social Security is NOT gong to be "made up" with Social Security taxes or reduced benefits. Obama and the Democrats want the money to come from "millionaires" (over TEN YERS or more). You can try to explain how this is different from a wealth redistribution payment for a thousand years, and sitll not ever have it make sense. It is NOT a "tax cut". It is a WELFARE PAYMENT--just like the $600 payment in 2008.


Was it a TAX INCREASE to allow the TEMPORARY $600 payment to exire? Obviously not. That was a STIMULUS, and it is absurd to suggest that a TEmPORARY "stiulus" becomes a "tax entitlement". No, the "Bush tax cuts" (whre more money "went" to the middle class and poor than to the "rich") were NOT the same thing. They were not meant as a "temorary" stimulus (although they may hve been hoped to be a stimulus). they represented a rEAL cut in TAX RATES that was meant to be PERMANENT (10 years, by the way, being the equivalent of l"permanent", as shown by the fact that the Reagan tax system could nto even surve the elder Bush). Do Democrats want the "payroll tax cut" to be PERMANENT? They do not dare say so, but I think they do. There GOAL here is to make Social Secruitiy a WELAFRE SYSTEM--rather than the self-funding (if severely flawed) program that FDRset up (to the delight of my mother, who grew up in the Great Depressioin in a "poor" household). Democrats are actually ATTACKNG the whole concept of Social Security, as we and FDR knw it. A "permanent" cut in the Social Security tax WOULD be a "tax cut", and a later increase int hat RATE a tax increase, EXCEPT that the Social Security tax is DESIGNATED to fund Social Security. A permanent, or even temorary, "cut" in the Social Security tax meanst that the FUNDING is not there for Social Secuirty (which already is not fully funded into the future). But the FRAUD here is obvius, when ou realzie that Democrats (and GOP collaborators) intend to simply TRASNFER the funding mechanism for Social Security into general tax revenue. This means that thre would be NO separate funding for Social Seucirty--converting it into the welfare system that Democrats (politician kind) want it to be.


If you can't see that cash payments, ffrom general tax revenue (the payroll tax cut) are the SAME as a cash payment of $600 to "taxpayers"--both for the ANNOUNCED purpose of "stimulus"--then I can't help you,. You should run for either a Democrat OR GOP spot in Congrss. You are sufficiently dumb/dishoenst (like Dishonest Bill Kristol) to qualify.


Oh. This blog OPPOSED the "Bush" (Democrats controlled Congress, and Obama was part of that majority that FAILED to do anyting to stop our economic collapse)"stimulus" of 2008. It failed. This blog OPPOSED the Obama "tax cuts" (temporary welfare payments) int eh Obama "stimulus" bill It FAILED> This blog OPPOSED the GOP "compromise" which CREATED the TEMPORARY STIMULUS of the "payroll tax cut" at the end of 2101.0. This blog, naturaly, OPPOSES any extension of that deficit busting boondoggle (which totally undermines the seflf-funding concept of Social Security).


Meanwhile, the GOP FAILED to make a real case against ANY of those FAILURES. Oh, if you are willing to SELL OUT your country (and conservatives), as Bill Kristol is willing to do, then you can argue that the GOP shold GIVE Obama everything he wants, on the (correct) theory that this iwill make it MORE LIKELY that our eonomcy can't recover (although Obama is really depending on a TEM

P.S No proofreading or spell checking, as usual (bad eyesight).