View Full Version : Social Security Prompts Debate Miscues
From last night's foofarah on CNN.
Richard :munchin
FACT CHECK: Social Security prompts debate miscues
Rick Perry 1.0 thought Social Security was a "disease" inflicted on the population by the federal government.
Rick Perry 2.0 thinks Social Security deserves to be saved "for generations to come."
That metamorphosis by the Republican presidential hopeful over recent months contributed to some factual stretches Monday night in a GOP debate, both by the Texas governor and his opponents for the nomination.
A look at some of the claims in the debate and how they compare with the facts:
PERRY: On Social Security for younger workers, "No one's had the courage to stand up and say, here is how we're going to reform it."
THE FACTS: Many have done just that. Former President George W. Bush and a variety of Republicans since, including some running for president now, have stood for the position that Social Security should be partially privatized, enabling younger workers to divert some of their payroll taxes to individual investment accounts while the entitlement program is kept whole for those already using it or close to retirement.
___
MITT ROMNEY: "The real issue is, in writing his book, Gov. Perry pointed out that in his view that Social Security is unconstitutional, that this is not something the federal government ought to be involved in, that instead it should be given back to the states."
THE FACTS: Perry indeed roundly criticized Social Security in his book, but not quite to the point of calling it unconstitutional. In words he is trying to walk back now, Perry branded the program the "best example" of the "fraud" and "bad disease" spread by Washington in Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. Perry furthermore criticized the Supreme Court of that era for "abdicating its role as the protector of constitutional federalism."
That falls somewhere short of declaring Social Security unconstitutional.
Perry now has abandoned such rhetoric, adopting the conventional Republican view in a USA Today column Monday that its finances must be made whole to protect current and imminent retirees and make it viable for "generations to come."
___
MICHELE BACHMANN: Obama "stole over $500 billion out of Medicare to switch it over to Obamacare. ... These are programs that need to be saved to serve people, and in their current form, they can't."
ROMNEY: "He cut Medicare by $500 billion. This is a Democrat president. The liberal, so to speak, cut Medicare. Not Republicans, the Democrat."
THE FACTS: "Stole" is a hyperbolic way to describe the kinds of shifts in budget priorities that happen every day in Washington. To pay for expanded insurance coverage, Obama's health care law cuts $500 billion in payments to the Medicare Advantage program — which a congressional agency said was being overpaid — and to hospitals and nursing homes. Nearly all House Republicans, including Bachmann, later voted for a GOP budget plan that retained the same cuts Obama had made.
___
PERRY: The $814 billion economic stimulus program pushed by President Barack Obama "created zero jobs."
THE FACTS: There is no support for that assertion. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said last year that the stimulus increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million as of mid-2010. It cut the unemployment rate between 0.7 and 1.8 percentage points, the CBO found.
Economists debate whether the stimulus lived up to its promise or was worth the cost, but no one seriously argues that it created no jobs. Many believe it helped to end the recession even while falling short of its employment goals.
___
BACHMANN: "I was one of the only people in Washington that said do not raise the debt ceiling. Don't give the president of the United States another $2.4 trillion blank check."
THE FACTS: Love or hate the debt deal, it was not a blank check for the president. Congress controls spending. The president can only suggest how the budget should be divvied up. Moreover, the "check" was not exactly blank. The deal that averted a national default requires automatic spending cuts to kick in if Congress does not accept cuts that will be proposed by a supercommittee.
___
RON PAUL: As a Texan, "my taxes have gone up. Our taxes have doubled since (Perry's) been in office. Our spending has gone up double. Our debt has gone up nearly tripled." Perry responded that he had cut taxes by $14 billion in 65 different pieces of legislation.
THE FACTS: Even though they seem to be contradicting each other, both have a point. Overall, the tax burden has grown, but shifted to some extent from state to local governments. Based on statewide tax collection figures, it is quite probable that Paul's total tax burden has doubled. But Perry did sign 65 pieces of legislation that reduced taxes. Taxes would be much higher in Texas if those laws had not gone into effect.
As for spending, it's reaching $86 billion in the next two years, up from $56 billion in Perry's first two years as governor. That's not quite double, as Paul claimed.
Texas' debt has tripled, primarily because of a Perry-backed move that allows the state to finance road construction with bonds instead of having to use cash.
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-social-security-prompts-debate-miscues-013414715.html
Badger52
09-13-2011, 11:16
Thank you Richard. Plus ca change.
'Tis the season and the WOTD is 'hyperbole'. Awful lot of third rails out there.
I should do some checking and see if anyone has ever gone into Iowa and campaigned against fuel-corn production (http://www.financialsensearchive.com/editorials/cooke/2007/0202.html) and its resultant subsidies, and been successful after doing so.
1stindoor
09-13-2011, 11:22
From last night's foofarah on CNN.
RON PAUL: As a Texan, "my taxes have gone up. Our taxes have doubled since (Perry's) been in office. Our spending has gone up double. Our debt has gone up nearly tripled." Perry responded that he had cut taxes by $14 billion in 65 different pieces of legislation.
THE FACTS: Even though they seem to be contradicting each other, both have a point. Overall, the tax burden has grown, but shifted to some extent from state to local governments. Based on statewide tax collection figures, it is quite probable that Paul's total tax burden has doubled. But Perry did sign 65 pieces of legislation that reduced taxes. Taxes would be much higher in Texas if those laws had not gone into effect.
As for spending, it's reaching $86 billion in the next two years, up from $56 billion in Perry's first two years as governor. That's not quite double, as Paul claimed.
Texas' debt has tripled, primarily because of a Perry-backed move that allows the state to finance road construction with bonds instead of having to use cash.
Richard,
Question, since you're still in Texas and I haven't truly lived there for over 20 years...Do you think that's accurate as far as the tax burden? I always thought that considering everything else at least you don't have to pay state taxes.
1stindoor
09-13-2011, 11:23
Thank you Richard. Plus ca change.
'Tis the season and the WOTD is 'hyperbole'. Awful lot of third rails out there.
I should do some checking and see if anyone has ever gone into Iowa and campaigned against fuel-corn production (http://www.financialsensearchive.com/editorials/cooke/2007/0202.html) and its resultant subsidies, and been successful after doing so.
Do you think fuel corn is a viable and cost effective solution? It's a growing debate here in NC.
Richard,
Question, since you're still in Texas and I haven't truly lived there for over 20 years...Do you think that's accurate as far as the tax burden? I always thought that considering everything else at least you don't have to pay state taxes.
We don't have a state 'income' tax - the rest are fair game.
Richard :munchin
Team Sergeant
09-13-2011, 12:06
Richard, you may be the only person I know that watches CNN. Or for that fact uses anything from that "discredited" news agency.....:munchin
Operation Tailwind + CNN, all lies.
Richard,
Question, since you're still in Texas and I haven't truly lived there for over 20 years...Do you think that's accurate as far as the tax burden? I always thought that considering everything else at least you don't have to pay state taxes.
Texas has a state sales and use tax of 6.25%, which hasn't changed since July 1, 1990 (Source (https://ourcpa.cpa.state.tx.us/taxrates/RateHistResults.jsp)). Other taxing entities (cities, counties, transit authorities and special purpose districts) can impose additional sales taxes, not to exceed a total of 8.25%. Source (http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/sales/)
If you are a homeowner in Texas, local property taxes will most likely be your largest tax burden (set by local taxing units), besides your federal income tax. Taxes assessed on property fluctuate with the appraised value of your property.
For a list of taxes and fees assessed in Texas, click here. (http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxes/)
Richard, you may be the only person I know that watches CNN. Or for that fact uses anything from that "discredited" news agency.....:munchin
Operation Tailwind + CNN, all lies.
I haven't watched CNN since its Tailwind: Valley of Death fiasco - I've just watched some of the various news responses and read some of the OpEd pieces to last night's debate - the Fact Check piece came from AP.
Richard
1stindoor
09-13-2011, 12:35
Texas has a state sales and use tax ...
Thanks for the links.
greenberetTFS
09-13-2011, 13:41
You guys just make me have to laugh when you go after Richard........:rolleyes: Do you honestly believe there is anything you'll say that will change his devils advocate position on this forum?....... :rolleyes: Personally,I think he keeps us from just agreeing with each other and makes us think about his posts,he always supports what he says........:)
Big Teddy :munchin
Paragrouper
09-13-2011, 14:20
Richard,
Question, since you're still in Texas and I haven't truly lived there for over 20 years...Do you think that's accurate as far as the tax burden? I always thought that considering everything else at least you don't have to pay state taxes.
Just for some context
Link (http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/89702927.html)
in 2010 Texas ranked 44th in the nation with respect to overall tax burden on income and 35th WRT tax burden per capita--number one ranking being the highest. the two greatest sources of revenue in Texas are property taxes and sales taxes.
greenberetTFS
09-13-2011, 16:26
Rick Perry's potential VP...Bobby Jindal. :rolleyes:
Big Teddy :munchin
PERRY: The $814 billion economic stimulus program pushed by President Barack Obama "created zero jobs."
THE FACTS: There is no support for that assertion. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said last year that the stimulus increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million as of mid-2010. It cut the unemployment rate between 0.7 and 1.8 percentage points, the CBO found.
Economists debate whether the stimulus lived up to its promise or was worth the cost, but no one seriously argues that it created no jobs. Many believe it helped to end the recession even while falling short of its employment goals.
The problem with this "fact" is; where are they now? http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=13307 In Dec. of '08, we were at 7.2% unemployment. It peaked at 10.2% in Oct. '09, supposedly when the first stimulus was starting to take effect. The lowest it fell in '10 was to 9.4% in Dec. In 2011, the lowest it has been was 8.8% in March, which is still 1.6% higher than when he took office. It has risen to the current 9.1% national average.
With that in mind, where are these 1.4M to 3.3M jobs, and why is there a 1.9M job gap in the estimate? That is not exactly an insignificant number to be fudging.
Post
Creating jobs in some areas doesn't mean others weren't disappearing in other areas - they were...and are.
Complex it is.
Richard :munchin
Badger52
09-14-2011, 06:05
Do you think fuel corn is a viable and cost effective solution? It's a growing debate here in NC.Honestly, sir, I'm not sure hence my curiosity. The link I referenced above is certainly one position but its reading (and other such info) leads me to think the planet would have to be turned into a big cornfield to achieve what the proponents continue to stand on. There are some intere$ts on both the growing side and the visceral satisfaction to be achieved by the environmental lobby.
Forgetting E85 for the moment, the existence of ethanol blends doesn't seem (to me, anyway) to have achieved the mark within stated objectives. Corn prices have gone up but so has the cost of growing it, starting with the price per square-inch of such land. That it is necessary to provide large federal subsidies to sustain the effort now many years down the road is a clue.
Awhile back, perusing an old Airman's Information Manual my father had during his time with B-29's, I came across the Army Air Corps benchmark for good gas in the course of explaining the genesis of octane ratings - 100. I did some checking with some folks in the area - well-regarded, I'll call them mechanics-of-choice - and they universally said that ethanol is a boondoggle (their word) and, while it creates work for them (needlessly), it's work they don't need.
Vehicle makers may have an engine that will tolerate ethanol, even to the extent of the flex-fuel E85 jobs, but that doesn't mean it's good on the engine or the air. Heck, everyone here probably has sufficient stories for the Comedy Zone of the things you can pour into an M35A2 to make it run. Small-engine repair guys who would rather be selling you a snow-blower or a trade-up for your riding mower dig it. They can give their lot kid the job of cleaning out Harry's fuel system because his rider won't start, even though he put Stabil in it "just like they say."
A couple of humid days, the alcohol in the gas sucks moisture out of the air... into the gas tank and you have instant bench labor if Harry isn't handy. If they're nice they remind Harry to go to the occasional gas station that sells 100-octane (no ethanol) to fill his big red gas can, or run over to the airport to grab some. It makes engines run hotter as well because, I 'm told, not much has changed in engine design in many decades, with the exception of wide-spread use of fuel-injection.
Several of us a couple years ago headed off in a flex-fuel SUV on a round-robin long-weekend to cram several pistol matches in and ran a test. Used regular ethanol blend, 'hi-test' LL, and E85. Cost per mile was a wash. All this stuff I relate is anecdotal, so I need to dig in and see if the other side exists and can show me - quantitatively - the benefit.
As my wife's relations are down in such corn-growing country it is also a 3rd-rail conversationally for me sometimes during visits. Everyone in a room will agree that they'd all be better off with less G in their lives - except when it comes to in-bound corn-growing dollars. That leads back to my other curiosity of whether or not a politician has ever come in, spoken the harsh words, and still done well in 'da Heartland'.
Confession: The in-law angst over subsidies does have some entertainment value when I feel frisky.
:D
How's the general tone of the debate going in NC?
....Forgetting E85 for the moment, the existence of ethanol blends doesn't seem (to me, anyway) to have achieved the mark within stated objectives. Corn prices have gone up but so has the cost of growing it, starting with the price per square-inch of such land. That it is necessary to provide large federal subsidies to sustain the effort now many years down the road is a clue.................
Cows eat corn. Lots of countries depend on corn for stable foods. Anybody remember the Taco/Tortilla dustup in Mexico around 2008ish?
Burning a fuel sorce in you transportation is never a good idea - except for the farmers getting a subsidy.
Benifits? If you're a politician it buys a lot of votes in farm country.
1stindoor
09-14-2011, 10:58
Honestly, sir, I'm not sure hence my curiosity. The link I referenced above is certainly one position but its reading (and other such info) leads me to think the planet would have to be turned into a big cornfield to achieve what the proponents continue to stand on. There are some intere$ts on both the growing side and the visceral satisfaction to be achieved by the environmental lobby....
As my wife's relations are down in such corn-growing country it is also a 3rd-rail conversationally for me sometimes during visits. Everyone in a room will agree that they'd all be better off with less G in their lives - except when it comes to in-bound corn-growing dollars. That leads back to my other curiosity of whether or not a politician has ever come in, spoken the harsh words, and still done well in 'da Heartland'.
Confession: The in-law angst over subsidies does have some entertainment value when I feel frisky.
:D
How's the general tone of the debate going in NC?
We may be related! My brother in law is a farmer here in NC and corn is one of his principle crops. Mostly Silver Queen...but you can almost see the $ signs in his eyes when discussing corn fuel for the same reason...subsidies.
Personally, while I think it has merit...I don't think the payoff is greater than the overall cost.
Badger52
09-14-2011, 12:20
We may be related! My brother in law is a farmer here in NC and corn is one of his principle crops. Mostly Silver Queen...but you can almost see the $ signs in his eyes when discussing corn fuel for the same reason...subsidies.LOL. I'll go out on a limb & suggest that there are more of them than we personally know. Since next visit to HawkeyeLand will be Christmas - the season of giving - I think I may give them TR's take on it which you sustain in your sigline. After the little ones have opened presents, of course.
From Associated Press
September 14, 2011 3:16 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — Nervous that Social Security seems under siege from all sides, congressional liberals on Wednesday proposed raising the payroll tax that funds the program, but only for people earning more than $250,000 a year.
The legislation is designed to keep the pension program solvent for the next 75 years, which is the standard used by government actuaries, by putting an additional $6.5 trillion into the Social Security trust fund over that period. The plan also is intended to head off other efforts to overhaul the program or trim benefits, or to use its funds to help pay for debt reduction.
"No more discussion about raising the retirement age, no more discussion about cutting benefits, no more discussion about privatization," said Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., one of the sponsors.
With Republicans making opposition to tax increases their mantra, the measure seems to have little chance of enactment.
Nonetheless, it gives liberals a chance to underscore their support for the widely popular program at a time when President Barack Obama has proposed cutting the payroll tax to help create jobs and GOP presidential contender Rick Perry, the Texas governor, has called its finances a "Ponzi scheme."
Currently, workers and their employers each owe a payroll tax of 6.2 percent of a worker's wages up to $106,800 a year. That tax would also be imposed on wages above $250,000 under the liberals' plan. Other sponsors include Sens. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.
In an effort to boost consumer spending and create jobs, Obama has proposed paring the 6.2 percent payroll tax on employees to 3.1 percent next year and cutting the payroll tax for employers as well. He would replace the revenue Social Security would lose with money from the government's overall budget.
Obama's plan has split liberals. Sanders said he opposes it because it would make Social Security more vulnerable to budget cuts. Boxer said she favors it because it would create jobs while protecting Social Security.
In debt reduction talks between Obama and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, this summer, they discussed a plan to slow the growth of Social Security benefits that they never embraced. In 2005, President George W. Bush proposed letting recipients turn part of their Social Security nest egg into stock market investments. The idea went nowhere.
http://enews.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20110914/aea635bc-e552-4a3b-a724-661611382c58
Whatever happened to taking responsibility for one's self, ensuring that you have what to eat tomorrow, not just today. Seriously, while I'm no fan of the 401k system, I'll manage my own retirement plan myself, thank you, and I don't need to be insuring anyone else's either. Oh yeah, that responsibility bit must have been replaced by change. Pass the coin jar please...
Liberals would raise Social Security tax for rich
Another wet dream of the libs.
Getting that 12.4% of everything sure would be nice for the system but on top of the other taxes "the rich" pay would be crippling.
Notice once again this would smash right into small business America while zooming right past the super rich living off trusts and such.
So the small mom & pop operation running a $4,000,000 operation with with their take home profit being $280,000 will have to pay an additional (over the $106,800) $21,476.80 in SS taxes? Gee, that kinda' looks like one person's job.
USANick7
09-16-2011, 21:47
I'm sorry but it is time for someone in the Republican field to call it like it is...
Social Security is a bad program in principle. It is unfortunate that many Americans have become dependent upon it, and I do think that we have an obligation to see that the elderly who have put into it for all of their lives are taken care of, but this is NOT the responsibility of government.
It is bad enough that generations of Americans continued to vote for politicians that perpetuated not only the principled mess that is social security but also the raiding of the fund itself.
To now tell future generations that not only do they have to pay for the poor decisions of their predecessors, but that they must also accept the same ill-conceived program is just criminal. I fr one would be willing to pay a portion of my social security with the understanding that I would never be able to draw against it, as long as I could then take another portion and invest it in the fund of my choosing. because lets face it, if social security was all it is cracked up to be, it wouldn't require state coercion through taxation in order to survive.
At least Rick Perry called it what it was in his book. Romney on the other hand has lost the last stitch of credibility he ever had with me by defending it.
I'm just glad the MSM has assured us there is no problem with SS, there is no problem with the deficit, we just need to make the rich pay their fair share of taxes..............
an interesting site
http://farm.ewg.org/
The Reaper
09-18-2011, 09:26
I'm just glad the MSM has assured us there is no problem with SS, there is no problem with the deficit, we just need to make the rich pay their fair share of taxes..............
The MSM definition of rich being anyone who makes more that you do.
Is it immoral to work hard and earn more money?
Half this nation already pays no Federal income taxes. Many of those get money back that they never paid via the EITC. These people have no issue with raising taxes on those who earn more, and will vote to keep politicians in office who will maintain this fiscal death spiral. The outcome is inevitable.
IMHO, we have to abolish income taxes and institute a national sales tax in order to tax spending, not earning. Then everyone pays their fair share.
TR