I know I'm making 80 less dollars a month this year, how about you?
That was not a tax increase - it was a removal of a temporary tax reduction.
Didn't you know - all politicians play with words! Obama didn't lie - he just didn't explain why this isn't a tax increase!
Same thing goes for the Republicans - they didn't want any tax increases - however they wanted to eliminate many deductions (such as mortgages) so while no one would pay more taxes, when it came to the year end many would find that their income tax return would be reduced - hence while taxes may not go up, their cash flow goes down!
It's all about manipulating words to make one sound better than the other - at the end of the day both parties would have ended up costing us more....
Numbers don't lie, when you end up being forced to give more money to the government, call it what you will, it's an increase of taxation. And it increased because of the new social security tax. They have to take more money from the wealth producers in order to promise more free stuff to the non-producers.
It's a shame you can't understand the difference between the end of a tax break and a tax increase.
Well, it does get difficult when the Prez takes credit for a "tax cut" for two years and when it was coming to the deadline accused the Republicans of allowing"a tax increase on the middle class" So if the Prez called it a tax cut then a tax hike, why are you questioning him?
SimeyC- The topic of this forum may not technically be a tax increase in your book. What would you categorize the Affordable Healthcare taxes. The Supreme court says its a tax.
I am just pointing out that Obama isn't the only one saying no taxes. The Rs said they wouldn't increase taxes but would remove deductions - amounts to the same thing! Ever politician will be careful with the truth!
At the end of the day we will pay 'more' taxes with Rs and Ds - simply no choice if we want to tackle the 'fiscal cliff'
What are they taxing .. not paying INSURANCE?
Yes. it 's really a fine.
And I cannot accept a fine
I think until they get rid of this Ma Ma Care We should go to a cash only society.
That would be an excellent revolution and rebellion against this injustice.
So, l e t 's d o i t ! !
Oh, off topic...
Non-producers like infants, the elderly, wounded veterans etc? Yeah, well, I value people on a different basis--and I will contribute to supporting them.
Thats right, because you don't have a choice!
Well yeah, You think it goes to those groups, and it feels nice to think that you are helping out when in fact most of the money goes to people who never intend to put into the system in the first place, that's pretty much why socialism doesn't work.
It's only for buying votes, and it's ran by a giant, inefficient, government bureaucracy that couldn't balance a check book if they cut down all the trees in the world and printed dollar bills till the cows came home.
If you want to be charitable give to churches and charities, at least then you will have a choice as to what is done with your money and if the organization is crooked like, oh I don't know, a politician, (Because they have a great track record for being honest), then you can dump the charity and find another one that you like. It's just that simple.
See? You have 100 percent of the power to choose your own charity. You only get one vote out of the millions of other idiots in America to choose your government.
91% of Entitlement spending goes to Veterans, the elderly, the disabled and working households. Your comment thus just perfectly illustrates your ignorance and that of many (but thankfully not quite enough) of those idiots you menhtioned.
Edit: That does not include Veterans, with that included 95%.
And how many charitable organizations do you know of that are 16 trillion dollars in debt?
None my comment adressed your claim that most of the money " helping out when in fact most of the money goes to people who never intend to put into the system in the first place" this is a falsehood either a mistake or a lie, I think you are ignorant rather than intentionally misinforming.
Now do you know any charities with the sort of income or responsibilities that the US government has?
No, The charities aren't stupid enough to believe that socialism works.
No see that is because charities are not governments, they do separate things auxiliary to one another which is why suggesting charity as an alternative to welfare is just as ignorant and misinformed as your earlier grossly inaccurate claim about most entitlements.
So rich you see fit to call others idiots
Sorry I didn't hear you over all that responsible government spending
IF donated goods are suspect in food quality they have to be destroyed because destroyed meat is preferable to a massive salmonella outbreak. That is why goods have to be prepared by people licensed to do so.
Obama phones. A program started by Reagan actually (the ignorance just flows) a Reagan policy I happen to agree with, people being able to call 911 in the case of an emergency is very important, and getting a job without a phone is very hard.
So what? Food stamps are legal tender all over the place for all kinds of goods, they cannot be used for alcohol in most states some do allow it for some reason (not a policy I agree with).
Nothing wrong with cash for clunkers.
The next image says nothing at all.
The last is actually functioning economic theory (which I am sure you neither know nor understand due to aforementioned ignorance) I have an economics degree so let me explain.
The faster money passes through a system the faster the system grows, poor people spend money fast because they need basics, wealthy people generally leave their money static for longer periods so a system that moves slow money and turns it into fast transit money grows an economy.
John who lives in poverty can now afford more groceries which means, his grocery store needs more employees to meet demand, which means more goods are sold, which means suppliers need to make more product and the store can open new chains etc. etc.
It's simple economics, I am sorry you don't understand it.
Ah the Keynesian approach, as they say it all looks good on paper, Ha! It's a pity you didn't crack open that Adam Smith book you were supposed to be required to read in your economics class, (unless you went to school in some eastern block commie wonderland), you might have gotten an idea of what a successful economy looks like.
The nice politician thought it would be a good idea to take money from the wealth producers and give out stimulus checks to the rest of the people so they would vote for him.
So Johnny decided to open a ski boat store because everyone in town had the extra money to spend on crap they didn't need and couldn't have otherwise afforded. A couple of years went by and the nice politician ran out of money to give everybody because he wasted it all on promises he couldn't keep. So Johnny went bankrupt, the ski boat store closed, and everyone went and stood in line to collect their unemployment checks.
I love how you pump out falsehoods and when called on them ignore it and spew some new ones. Adam Smith is not the center of modern Austrian economics the wealth of nations is simply a foundational text, woefully out of date, (just goes to show what you know about economics) and yes I have studied most of the Austrian economics major texts and philosophies and I, like the vast majority of economists, decided it's a simplistic model based on outdated understanding, a good model for it's time, but surpassed by better ideas and brighter minds. (not Keynes in particular).;
That btw is why the vast majority of economists vote Democrat as found by every survey done on the question. Like this one where Democrats outnumbered Republicans 2.5 to 1.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 … 006-7509-6
The example you give is why money is only given in small quantities and to the desperately poor to avoid frivolous spending, though really it's not essential, the problem there is not economic stimulus but people deciding to stop it if the stimulus had continued unabated (thus creating more tax dollars and funding itself) there would ahve been no issue, as ever the problem is not with the policy but the mess immediately created when ignorant and backwards people try to run an economy.
Bush being a perfect example, fastest growth in US history to recession in 8 just years, conservatism at work.
Have you read anything by Milton Friedman, Josak?
Bush is the prime example? You obviously haven't been paying attention the last four years. Anything short of laissez faire economics is economic planning, and that always fails.
How many charities spend all their money on more and bigger guns?
You can hardly blame welfare for the US's deficit, well not with a straight face anyway.
First, the end of the social security tax decrease would have happened no matter who was elected president and everyone knew that.
Second, only people who pay into social security get anything out of social security. That money goes into a trust.
Third, the reason the social security trust is in trouble is because the government keeps stealing from it to pay of the debt. If they simply put the money back into the trust that was taken out, it would be solvent.
That's right, it is supposed to go into a trust, but thanks to our nice Mr. President Clinton's legislation, they are now allowed to take from that fund in order to support welfare recipients. Thus anybody who pays into social security will expect a minimum of a -22% return.
If you go research where the Social Security surplusses have gone, you can hardly blame Clinton. The government, through presidents both Republican and Democrat, have been taking all the surplus money.
Show me a link that explains how money from Security is taken to pay for welfare. I believe that is inaccurate. The surplus was used to pay for all sorts of government programs that contributed to the debt.
And I'll just point out that your original post blames Obama for a tax increase, which is inaccurate. Everyone knew that social security deduction was set to expire.
“Politics: “Poli” a Latin word meaning “many”; and "tics" meaning “bloodsucking creatures”.”
by SparklingJewel7 years ago
"The vision of getting something for nothing, or getting something that someone else has to pay for, explains why so many Americans are duped by politicians. A congressional hoax that's flourished for seven decades...
by Peter Leeper6 years ago
Is the Social Security Tax in The United States Unfair to the Masses?According to the Social Security Administration after you have earned $110,100 in a single tax year, you no longer pay Social Security tax for the...
by Petra Vlah5 years ago
Through our working years we all paid for Social Security and Medicare, so why are they considered entitlements when in fact we contributed our own money into the system?
by American View6 years ago
Obama and those on both sides of the aisle want to extend the tax break( it is not a tax break, it is an entitlement reduction). Here is what Whitehouse.gov sent to me today and Obama is saying the same thing:"If...
by Josak3 years ago
Having lost the national debate on social issues, abortion, same sex marriage etc. the right has turned to the economy as it's saviors claiming that they can run economies better. Let us examine this historically.As we...
by SparklingJewel6 years ago
I would be interested to hear opposition to the stated "facts" in this video...Has anyone done an extensive research on the origins of Social Security?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4BjLrTq … r_embedded
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.