Social Security "Tax Cut" and Adding 1.5 Trillion Do9llars to Our Debt Ceiling

How is the Social Security "tax cut" ("pyaroll tax cut") being SOLD? It is being sold as a "popular' $1000 tax break for 160 million Americans. Simple arithmentic would tell ou that will cost 160 BILLIN dollars (1000 x 160 millin)a year, which must be ADDED to our DEBT CEILING (making an absoute moockery of the GOP hsyteria over that this summer). Now I have seen numbers which indicate that something is wrong with the 160 millin and/or the $1000. Couuld the media be transmitting a LIE? Say it ain't so!!!!!! But, of curse, it is omroe than likely that Obama nd the Dmoecrats are LYING, and the media is simply passing onlie. lie being put out by Obama and the Democrats? Say it ain't so!!!! But it probably is so. Oh, it is not that much of a lie, because the real nubmer may be 120 BILION , instead of 160 BILLION, meaning that it is UNTRUE that 160 million Americans are gong to lose an average of $1000 a year. The media, however, including the unfair and unbalanced network, put out worse lies than this every single day. Notice that the media REFUSES to report the FACTS on this bill (such as who much it will COST, and add to the reuqired NEXT raise in the debt ceiling). If you add in the constant extension of the extended unempoloyument benefits, and OTHER "extensions" of supposed "temporary" measures, the number may well be 180 BILLION or so that the GOP (not just Obama and the Democrats) proposes to add to the next required rise in the debt ceiling.


Again, how is this being SOLD. It is being sold as a BRIBE to the middle class. You jsut can't be more direct than the politicians and the media on this. Almsot every sotry and interview talks about how "160 millin Americans" will lsoe "$1000" from their paycheks starting on January 1. There is haredly ever any mention og tghe COST. There is also no mention that a good part of this BIRIBE goes to the RICH . If lyou earn $100,0000 or more, you get $2000 a year for your BRIBE. If you earn $20,000, you get $400.00. In other words, "millioniaires and billioonaires" get $2000, while porr workng people get--sometimes--only $400. Doe anyohne, including the unfair and unbalanced network,, ask abut the HYHOCRISY of complaining abut "tax cuts" for the RICH, and then supporting this BRIBE where so much benefit goes to the "rich"? Again, this is being SOLD as a straight BRIBE (money in EVERYONE's pocket), even though we can't afford it.


"But Skip, how can you do a headline that says that this will cost 1.5 TRILLION dollars, when you own figures show that the bill will cost--at most--180 billin dollars. This is only for this year."


Who says? I am serious abuot this. What were we told LAST DECEMBER (when this same bill was passed for a one-year extgension, wihtout the absurd Senate farce of an interim two month extension)? It was supposed to be a "on-time, one year" "stimulus". First it did nto work. Second, however, was it not a LIE that this wa only a one-year bill that would nto be repeated? The supposed cost LAST DECEMBHER was 147 BILLIN dollars (added to that debut ceiling the GOP made such an issue aout of). That was a LIE. Assuming that there is another "one-year" bill, the ture cost will already have been over 300 BILLIN dollars, since it will really have been a TWO YEAR bill. Why not simply do it as a two year bill, or a permanent bill, in the first place? You know the answer to thqat. It is because this is all a LIE. IF you honestly say that you intend this to be a tow year bill, or a ten year bill, then the COST is too high. Now the COST IS TOOHIGH for the TWO :YEARS that we are now trying to extend the bill into (the second year being what this "fight" is all about).


All right. The media, Obama, Democrats AND the GOP are all saying that "middle class Americans" should not be aksed to "vie up" their ONE-TIME (lol) tax holiday. Exactly why do you think that the same thing will not be siad NEXT DECEMBER? Indeed, it is my firm opinion that OBAMA and the DEMOCRATS want to get rid of the Social Secruity tax altogether, and ABANDON the FDR idea of Social Security as a self-funding system. This is an ATTACk on the self-funding aspect of Social Seucirty where EVERY worker pays somehtiong toward this own retirement (even thought it is a FRAUD that such worker is actually paying for his OWN retirement). I guarantee you this is true. Democrats are doing an ATTACK on the FDR concept of Social Security as a self-funding system. But forget that for now. The pont is that there is NO reason to say that we are not facing 1.5 TRILLIN dollars in extra debt/deficts over the nexte 10 years FROM THIS CONSTANTLY EXTENDED "PAYROLL TAX HOLIDAY " ALONE.


"But, SKip, they did not 'pay for' the 2010 bill. Now they have promised to 'pay for' any new extensions" Uh-huh, and I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you. First, John Boehner, Obama, Democrats and the ENTIRE MEDIA are LIARS about this "paid for" business. Boehner said that the GOP bill "offsets" the cost of the payroll tax holiday (and the rest) OVER TEN YEARS. Explain to me houw you "offset" a ONE YEAR increase in the DEBT and DEFICT with TEN YEARS of "offsets"--not STARTING until the future (to any great degree). In other words, NOTHING is cut THIS YEAR to pay for the 160 BILLION, or 180 BILLINO, or whatever the deficit and debtg will be INCREASEdD THIS YEAR. More importantly, we NEED any "paiying for" to "pay for" the DEFICT we already have. How do we "py for " that deficit of more than a TriLLIN dolllars at any time, if ALL "savings" and extra revenue go to "pay for" NEW additions to the deficit and the debt. This is absurd. The emperor has no clothers, and this is NOT REPORTED ANYWHERE--not even argued by the GOP or reported by the unfair and unbalanced network. It is an Orewllian Big LIe that his bill is "apid for'--the GOP bill OR the Democrat bill.


What we are doing is mortgaging our future for a presnet BRIOBE/STIMULUS that already FAILED to do any significant good this eyar. It is now the "center piece" of Obama's "jobs bill", and yet it has done essentially NO GOOD over the past year since it went into effect last January 1. And the ARGUMENTS for extending the bill are ARGUMENTS for KEEPING the bill as a PERMANENT "tax benefit" for the middle class" . Is not the whole argument, from ABC to the unfiar and unbalanced network to CNN to all of th erest that the American peole will not STAND for this "popular tax benefit" to be taken away form them? WHY is it ore reasonable to think that it will be EASIER to take this supposed "tax benefit" away from 160 millin Americans NEXT YER thatn it is now? Absurd. Indeed, again, this is the sam ehting that was PROMISED last December: that this was only a one year thing, and that only one year's cost needed to be figured into the calculation of whether this dhoulbd be done as a ONE-TIME STIMULUS.


Then there is the problem of whether these "savings" will ever actualy take place. This blog has already explainged abut the "doct fix" to Medicare. A PREVIOUS--long ago--Congressional bill was partly "paid for" with MEDICARE SAVINGS from changing the reimbursement formula for doctors. Guess what? This would CUT the maount doctors are paid so much that docotrs wil REFUSE to treat Medicare patients. Thus, Congress has REFUSED to enforce the "savings" that "apid for" that PREVIOUS VILL. Do you see the LIE in this "fully paid for" scam? This same bill that includes the extension of the one-time payroll tax holiday also "fixes" the Medicare reimbursement formula (which never went into effect because of constant extensions) so that doctors wil keep treating Medicare patients. BUT. Not only is this now "paid for" (SAME SCAM, putting the "paid for" off into the far future) over ten year,s (a NEW ten years), but the "fix" is only for TWO YEARS. And the GOP is PROOUD (lol) of this LIE. WHY is this "fix" limited to two years, when it obviusly needs to be PERMANENT (as the payoroll tax holiday cannot be permanent, unless you want to abandon Social Security as a self-funidng program)? COST. IF the GOP assumed that the "doc fix' would cover the entire next ten years, it would COST TOO MUCH. So the GOP, and everyone else, LIES and assumes (for "paid for" purposes) taht the bill will expire after two eyars.


Do you see why I have LOST HOPE for thi scoutry? YOu should. lAll of this is nothing but lies and deceit, as if none of this is real. Definitely, both the GOPO and Democrats are assumign that Federal mney is NOT REAL, but simpy free money. They may SAY sometng else, but that is simply more lies. Their actins belie their words, especially since their actions are all aobut DECEIT. No, I cna' tvore for ANY of these peole. Obama is only slightly worse than Romney or Gingrich. That is why Bachmann, Santorum and Paul are the only three GOP candidates that I know I would support against Obama, and all of THEM are severely FLAWED. But they would at least hold some promise of being DIFFERENT. Romney and Gingrich hold no such promise. Perry is somone I don't think would be different, and don't believe I could support, but he does occasionally say the right thing as if he means it (along with often saying the wrong thing), I don't thik I will have to worry about Perry (or really Paul, Bachmann or Santorum), and therefore I will leave the final decision on Perry to a later time. Perry, for example, had the courae to OPPOSES this fraudulent extension of the payroll tax holiday (alnog with Bachmann and Santorum, andPaul would CUT so much of the Federal government that it hardly makes much difference in his case, since he would shake things up so much).


P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Ho much of these numerous articles on the "payroll tax cut" are being garbled because I cna't proofread? I don't know, which is one reaons I keep pounding on the subject. The othe reason is that our politicians and media keep pounding as far as their lIES are concerned. Thus, we have not reached the end of blog articles on this subject. Further, we have not nearly reached the end of the "Defeat the GOP" series, where this blog NAMES GOP politicans who should be DEFEATED (at the first opportunity). I would have named Jouhn McCain again, but why bother? I have named McCain all of the time since 2008, and the peole of Arizona ignored me (and my borther living in Mesa, Az.). Therefore, the next name will not be McCain. But I assure you that there are multiple new names in prospect for GOP politicains obviously aiming to be on this not-so-exclusive lilst. You can tell that I am basicaly in favor of a ovement to defeat EVERY present member of Congress, but you GOP politicinas cannot make the list jsut by being members of Congress. You will have to do a little more, and I am more than confident that most of you WILL do, or have already done, the extra to qualify you for the liest. I will explain, as to each new entry, WHAT you have done to make the list.