“It hasn't 'come from' anywhere - it is a cut. They are taking LESS tax than they did before.
Just like if the store drops the price on your Pampers by 2%, nothing has been created, it has been removed.
As SS can't go into debt, it means they will be taking in less and paying out less, if the fund doesn't have enough money to cover payments - that is IF...
The figures in the article include the 2% tax cut. They are still taking in more than they are paying out.”
Zootalaws on Dec 13, 2012 at 03:25:20
“@wewin Which has nothing to do with the question you asked - which was: "where this 2% has come from"
It is a cut - it didn't 'come from' anywhere, just like a lack of oxygen to your brain doesn't 'come from' anywhere...”
wewin on Dec 13, 2012 at 00:09:20
“What about this:http://taxes.about.com/od/payroll/a/Reduced-Social-Security-Withholding-For-2011.htm
What Happens to the "Missing" Social Security Funds?To prevent Social Security from losing tax revenue, Congress mandated that revenues be transferred from the general fund to the Social Security trust funds to make up for the tax reduction. This is provided for in section 601 of the Tax Relief Act, which reads in part, "There are hereby appropriated to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund established under section 201 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401) amounts equal to the reduction in revenues to the Treasury by reason of the application of subsection (a). Amounts appropriated by the preceding sentence shall be transferred from the general fund at such times and in such manner as to replicate to the extent possible the transfers which would have occurred to such Trust Fund had such amendments not been enacted."”
“But you know they are really standing there, with their fingers in their ears, going 'nyah, nyah,nyah I can't hear you' and then getting all hot and bothered because of things that happened that they didn't know about...”
“Under the law, Social Security cannot possibly contribute to the on-budget deficit. It can only spend money that has been collected from the designated payroll tax or from the investment of past surpluses. (The money from general revenue to make up for the temporary payroll tax cut the last two years is an exception to this rule.) If benefit payments exceed current revenue and the money available in the trust fund, as the Congressional Budget Office projects will happen in 2038, then Social Security would not be able to pay full scheduled benefits. It could not force the government to increase its deficit.”
wewin on Dec 12, 2012 at 23:53:33
“I have not got a straight answer on where this 2% has come from and have asked many people. If the 2% came from the trust fund, it was a foolish thing to do. If it came from the general fund, it was stimulus, but did add to the debt.
Seems you are saying it came from the trust fund, but we can make the general fund pay if we are short before 2038?”
“You need to work on your math. And you need a better-fitting tinfoil helmet.
There is no transaction tax, nor is there one proposed.
The Obama administration is considering a transaction tax on stock trades, to kill these tens of millions of speculative trades that overheat the market, seeing as the markets themselves have abrogated their responsibility to actually own the shares they are so wilfully trading.”
Tekar on Dec 12, 2012 at 23:35:37
“LOL..I like my tin hat and i had nothing in my post about Obama doing it.. I am saying the powers that be that are pushing for the privatization of Social Security are interested in it because of the %... if you fail to see how many companies profit off of transaction fees processing government services you're completely blind (BofA unemployment debit cards anyone?). I may have a tin foil hat preventing the aliens from hearing my thoughts, but you've got to remove your ear plugs so you can hear people talk... you seem to have missed a lot. It saddens me how many people claim to be skeptical or liberal or whatever, but completely fail to follow the money of politics (I guess that's why so many liberals fail to understand why Obama is not anything close to a progressive)...and you and I probably see eye to eye on many things... but you're missing my point completely.”
“In my experience, the baggers are so upset because they didn't get theirs. They aren't angry at us liberals for nothing - they are angry because we didn't spend all our money mortgaging our house to buy trinkets and baubles.
Sensible investing, saving for old age, sensible collective bargaining, worker/management partnerships, company/worker wealth distribution, you know - the things that work in other countries are the things we should be working towards, but instead we stand on two sides of a ditch throwing shit at each other.”
“OK.. yes you win. I'm a kid. Punched cards and paper tape not a big enough clue for you?
Glad to see you've worked out how to spell Turing's name at last - you must be an expert...
Hate gays? Where did that come from? I have no idea of your gender, your proclivities or your preferences. But judging by your self-aggrandisement, I can only surmise you are a blowhard.
Don't try and lecture me on computers, kid. the first ones I worked on were analog. I've no doubt you will come back with some idiotic comment - knock yourself out, I'm done with you and your ignorance.”
“You really need to work on your comprehension. Home schooled?
Anyone with the reasoning ability of a ten-year-old could follow the links, correlate the dates and work out fo themselves that an article dated THURSDAY that refers to WEDNESDAY isn't talking about some other month, some other year.
You are clutching at straws, when the evidence is right before you. So typically ignorant and hair-splitting.
As to your comment on the voucher program, not worthy of further discourse. If you only visit HP to pick holes of minutae and to spout ignorant rhetoric, wouldn't you be better served at Mother Jones?”
“You should have stayed at school. $168 per HOUSEHOLD per day, $137 per PERSON median income.
Those figures are for the total of welfare spending, including Medicare and Medicaid, which isn't only given to the poverty-stricken. I could point out more of the fallacies in your post, but I really can't be bothered. Nothing I say will sway you from your myopic vendetta. No facts, no truths, no realities.
You should stop using the Blaze for your information, it is about as reliable as Fox News
You could always off yourself and save all the heartache of another Democratic term?”
“Alan TurinG was a mathematician, cryptographer and yes, a computer scientist, but stating that without him there would be no IBM, Oracle, Microsoft is just plain ridiculous.
Without Alan Shockley, Bell Labs wouldn't have invented the transistor - that isn't to say someone else wouldn't have - there were many people working on a replacement to the triode at the time, if it wasn't Shockley's group, someone else would have found one.
The same for Turing. He was one of many. As it is, he took his own life at the peak of his creative period. Who knows where we would be now if he hadn't. Which isn't to say someone else, equally as talented, wouldn't have developed similar solutions to computation problems.
Max Newman, Turing's head at Manchester's Royal Society Computing Machine Laboratory, could equally be said to be the father of the modern computer, as could Williams and Kilburn, the engineers that turned theory into a working machine.
And I am not a capitalised anything, except a computer engineer since the days of punched cards and paper tapes. But I know my history, specifically the history of computing.”
Little Serpent on Dec 9, 2012 at 21:00:31
“The first computer had no transistors. I guess you are talking about Apple history. You probably are very young.Did I say Turing was the only one? Arab numbers are key in computersHe came with the famus Turing machine concept.Yes, somebody else could come with an equivalent concept but that would change the history.I think the bottom line here is that you hate gays but for me, they are real humans with many, many achivements. I and many people in the world appreciate their contributions to the man kind very much.We admire and rescpect them. Including the greatest of the greatest Leonardo :)”
“Alan Turing was the father of the iPad? You are not gay or teen and, it would seem, not a student of history...”
Little Serpent on Dec 9, 2012 at 05:05:52
“No problemo at all.
Just go to wikipedia and check out what I say.
Without Mr. Turin no IPAD's, IBM, Oracle, Microsoft, etc etc etc.
He was the brain for all this stuff we take for granted.
I am a MATHEMATICIAN and ANTHROPOLOGIST, We are open minded with no the limits of fanatic people (christians, muslims, etc).
The difference of a genius like Eistein and a common people is the ability to open your mind to see the real universe, the real life. No more and no less.”
“Regardless of whether you agree with marriage between people of the same sex, this case should be cut-and-dried: The federal government is differentiating tax law based on the sex of a person and that is against the law. DOMA is a farcical piece of legislation”
henrypapillon on Dec 9, 2012 at 09:38:24
“That is no worse than basing it on how you earn your income. Rich people (dividends, capital gains) get a break over poor people (interest , wags) depending on how they earn their money.”
“lol...if you want to stay in your reductionist bubble of denial...carry on. You don't want to seem to go anywhere near the myriad of uses for hemp. That study dismissing the feasibility of hemp is worthless because it presumes the only yield from any hemp crop would be for its textile fiber. No surprise coming from the USDA, a subsidiary of Big Ag.”
“"What you and most people miss on this topic is that this isn't about pot at all."
Actually, it is.
Conspiracy theories about the power of cotton pale into insignificance when you consider the $100B in cost spent in prohibition of Cannabis compared to the total cotton industry revenues (including processing and manufactured goods) of around $20B.”
marxmantakesaim on Dec 7, 2012 at 02:49:58
“Hemp has the potential for a greater impact on other industries than textile. (Though one shouldn't underestimate how those that profit from the imported cheap garment industry would be impacted.)
Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Ag all have much to lose from the legalizaton of hemp/pot. It's also about more than short term dollars. It's about power and the future. Anything that leads to decentralization and more autonomy and economic viability for individuals is a direct threat to the elites.”
“I think there are a whole lot more problems for the administration to be worrying about than wasting resources on persecuting Washington and Oregon.
FFS, 60 years of cannabis prohibition has been proven to do exactly the same for the illicit drug 'industry' as it did for alcohol prohibition - create a massive criminal class, increase crime across the board, create drug barons with no morals or sense of limit.
The cost to society of this misguided and fruitless persecution is immeasurable. It has been proven to be based on bad science in the beginning, and proven to be a massive conduit of funds to those we should least wish to have unbridled resources.
We imprison and criminalise hundreds of thousands every year for what is proven to be less harmful than alcohol and tobacco.
I would be prepared to support the Government's position, if they could prove, using science, that cannabis is more harmful than drugs the Government is happy for adults in the US to consume (and for them to tax).
But they won't. They obfuscate using any sort of ridiculous reasoning and myth that they feel like to justify their immensely harmful prohibition.”
marxmantakesaim on Dec 7, 2012 at 02:22:26
“What you and most people miss on this topic is that this isn't about pot at all. It's about industrial hemp. If smoking pot was legal, there is no way they could maintain the ban on industrial hemp. The corporate elites, and their cronies in government, are desperate to stop this.”