Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston



Wednesday, November 30, 2022

Who's surprised?


When the Trumpublicans said they'd cut Social Security, the voters should have believed them. Now let's see how this plays out in the poorest red states. 

Always remember that the last time the Trumpublicans passed major legislation, it was to give billionaires tax cuts, which ballooned the deficit.

Now they want to cut grandma and grandpa's social security.

BREAKING: Senator John Thune SAID he will hold the global economy HOSTAGE to force CUTS to Social Security & THIS is the UNIFIED position of the Republican Party in both the House & Senate.


Dave Miller said...

Let's remember the folks like Zabelle on the Mothership and our own Skud wondered why we'd say the GOP would do this.

We said they'd do this because, in the words of former NFL coach, "they are who we thought they were"... a bunch of politicians intent on forcing cuts and ultimately the demise of Social Security on the American people, instead of making it better.


Because to fix it and make it better for Americans would undermine their brand that says government is inefficient and does not work.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Dave And skud is the conservative who always reminds us that the Democrats are the ones who never do anything for the working and middle classes.

Of course, he horribly wrong. But he refuses to see what's in front of his nose.

Does skud understand who are the people who depend on social security and medicare, medicaid?

It sure isn't the folks in the 1% who got that generous tax cut -- permanent, BTW. And the tax cut Trumpublicans gave to the middle class will end in a few years.

skud will NEVER admit he's wrong about which political party cares about the working and middle classes.

skudrunner said...

Rev and Ms. Shaw, I never said the republicans would not do anything bad because they are spineless politicians who will do anything that benefits them, same goes for democrats. Who said anything about the demise of SS and why would one person saying one stupid thing matter. I will assume you do not favor restructuring a program designed in 1925 when life expectancy for males was 57. Restructuring SS may provide it with a way to remain solvent unlike when LBJ moved it to the general fund.

Just for clarification neither party represents the middle class but both sure make noise that they do. Regarding tax cuts If you believe the media only the rich benefited but if you look at the truth everyone did including the middle class. The tax code is regressive and the only way to make everyone pay their "Fair Share" to to go to a flat tax for everyone and eliminate all deductions so the rich cannot benefit from these deductions including charitable. Raising corporate taxes hurts everyone especially the poor. High inflation is the biggest tax for all and that doesn't seem to be much of a priority for joey and company except to blame everyone except the ruling classes mistakes.

Dave Miller said...

BTW... the NFL coach who shared those words of wisdom was Dennis Green, then coach of the Arizona Cardinals.

possumlady said...

Social Security does not need to be "restructured". All that needs to be done is to raise the ceiling of income which is currently a paltry $147,000. It should easily be at the very least $250,000 if not $300,000. That would solve all the worries in one fell swoop.

And, I'm not going to get in a pissing match, but as I've said MANY times before, I, and many coworkers at the time were burned with the 2017 tax "cuts". For the first time since I bought my home in 1998, I had to PAY federal taxes instead of getting a refund. Some benefit!! And, please don't tell me to move out of my state, as I believe someone mentioned the LAST time I called people out who stated the 2017 tax changes benefitted the middle class.

Shaw Kenawe said...

skud, "Who said anything about the demise of SS and why would one person saying one stupid thing matter."

That "one person" is the Trumpublicans' No. 2 leader in the Senate!

And it's not just him who wants to make changes in S.S. and other programs that help the working and middle classes.

Inflation, skud, is a global problem with many things contributing to it -- two years of COVID, being one.

Flat tax? Not that again! This is from a US News and World report in 2011:

Flat Tax Shifts Burden to the Middle Class

"Texas Gov. Rick Perry is now supporting a 20 percent "flat tax," a single rate to replace the existing progressive income tax, corporate income tax, and estate tax. This was first proposed in l983 by Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka, so there is really nothing new about it. In fact, the authors admitted that "it is an obvious mathematical law that lower taxes on the successful will have to be made up by higher taxes on average people." The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimates that under this plan, the richest 1 percent would have received a tax cut of over $200,000, while the bottom 95 percent would pay an average of $2,900 more in federal taxes in 2010. This means people with an income of $25,000 would end up paying $2,300 more in taxes, which is exactly what the authors of the proposal knew."

skudrunner said...

Ms Shaw, Wouldn't you think our elected political elite could figure out a tier level to determine how to make it more equitable for all income brackets. 10-20-30% with the wealthiest paying the most. The rich pay very little in income tax because they have so many deductions and with a fair tax system they would pay a fixed percent. Everyone would contribute giving everyone a stake in our country, charities and churches would not be subsidized by those who don't want to give or those who don't believe.

As to SS changes it needs to be changed to stay alive. People work longer and live longer than they did in 1925 so the start at 62 needs to be revised. It will not be eliminated but may be changed which would be a good thing.

PL, I am assuming you are referring to the cap on RE taxes. Why don't you demand your state and local legislators spend your money wisely to lower your taxes. Why should those who live in affordable states pay for those who don't.

Les Carpenter said...

Early retirement should be moved to 65 with "normal retirement set at 70. And in addition there should be NO point at with ANYONE stops paying SS because they hit what is the arbitrary maximum that was at some point established with great input from, wait for it, THE WEALTHY no doubt.

Benefit levels should remain untouched. Except for an increase annually based on the real inflation the prior year. And if by chance inflation should not occur in any given year there should be no increase for anyone.

Just my nickel worth. With some concretes.

BTW, perhaps we could save money and roll back the national debt by discontinuing financing wars across the globe. Oh, i almost forgot. Nobody really cares about that anymore.

possumlady said...

Like I said, I'm not getting into a pissing match. How do you know my state doesn't spend my taxes wisely. Fact is, you get what you pay for. If you want to live in a cheap state with no regulations or good infrastructure, more power to you. We are talking about FEDERAL taxes here. Homeownership is proven to move people up and out of poverty. What was the purpose of capping real estate taxes which lessen the incentive to purchase a home?

From ProPublica: "There’s no question that eliminating the deduction for millions of homeowners inflicted serious financial damage on homeowners who had no warning that a major tax deduction that they were used to getting would be wiped out.

As a result, homebuyers who had taken the value of the real estate tax deduction into account when buying their homes had their home values and finances whacked without warning."

Dave Miller said...

RN said... "And in addition there should be NO point at with [which] ANYONE stops paying SS"

Exactly RN.

Easy peasy. Make it happen and SS is solvent for decades. Decades.

But neither side will take on the big earners in society. But even an increase of the Social Security tax for every dollar earned up to $500k would be a huge help.

I also agree we could move retirement up a little again to get us to 65 and 70.

Those are great ideas from the left and center. What ideas does the right offer?

Cuts, cuts, cuts.

Dave Miller said...

Skud said... "Wouldn't you think our elected political elite could figure out a tier level to determine how to make it more equitable for all income brackets. 10-20-30% with the wealthiest paying the most."

That's exactly what we have Skud, it's called indexing. As ppl make more, they pay more. Most of us here though want to see that upper brackets moving towards the Eisenhower level where every buck over a high level was taxed at about 90%.

Our economy boomed, this country was built for a new generation, we got roads, electricity, telephone service and more all across the country.

You are right on one thing... clamp down on the loopholes that allow big, deep deductions for some.

But that won't happen either, again because the big earners and ppl who pay for politicians to run, won't allow it.

Les Carpenter said...

Maybe someday Dave, if our society is lucky, the very short vision of most politicians may change.

However, given the greed and ignorance that drives and controls American politics my quess is a major and deep social restructuring may be what will be required. And, of course THAT thought is what the wealthy and crooked establishment fears. All the way to their bone marrow all the way to the top.

Hence the realty of the current conservative and republican establishment working furiously to gain a stranglehold on the reins of government. It will NOT be easy or enjoyable for the foreseeable future i'm afraid.

skudrunner said...

I will agree with Leslie on both of his statements but according to PL no changes need to be made. Since you are suppose to pay for all your earnings you should pay SS on that as well. The problem with the indexing is the rich can take advantage of many deductions that the middle class cannot so indexing in the current form doesn't work. A flat tax with no deductions is fair to all. If you recall during the Eisenhower era companies could deduct the three martini lunch and everything else.

PL why should someone who lives in a less expensive city/state subsidize those who choose to live in a more expensive state because that is what is happening?

Anonymous said...

Perhaps people live in the states you disdain because they were born there, have family responsibilities, or had to move for a job. Think outside your bubble skud. Your perception of reality is not an accurate representation of anyone but you.

Also, and too, it’s obvious to me that you believe your good fortune is entirely due to your own efforts. Not for one moment do you consider that anyone else worked just as hard as you but didn’t have the good fortune you’ve obviously experienced. Some people aren’t as blessed, the second chances never materialize, doors are never opened. Just something to think about.

Grey One Talks Sass - in my phone.

skudrunner said...

Grey, I don't disdain any state and it is their choice where they live. Just like everyone paying for the education of the privileged kids I do object to everyone paying for people to live in poorly run states and not demanding their state govern better to reduce the burden on its citizens. When you say think outside the bubble are you referring to the American dream of working hard to achieve success. Not having a victim mentality has always worked well for me.

Dave Miller said...

Grey One and Possum... regarding Skud's concluding comment... "PL why should someone who lives in a less expensive city/state subsidize those who choose to live in a more expensive state because that is what is happening?"

Perhaps we should flip his question just a bit to bring us to this... Skud, why should someone who lives in a more expensive city/state, like New York or California, subsidize those who choose to live in states that can't pay their own way, because that is what is happening.

Because Skud, that's the reality of what is happening. Yes, folks in richer states are now paying more and it is upsetting long held financial and familial plans. In theory, all those upset could move to lower tax states. But those same lower tax states are being subsidized by the richer states in the Union, as we have done decades.

Think about phone coverage.

Rural and mostly older America has universal phone coverage because us clowns in richer cities pay a surcharge to make it more affordable for the country folk. Same with electricity. Every single month. Water to drink to certain areas? Same thing, paid for with money from richer states. Roads? Same thing. You think Mississippi had all the money they needed to build all their roads? Not a chance without tax money from other states.

This is what happens in a Union. WE WORK TOGETHER.

Are some states more expensive to live in? Sure they are. But why should we move? Your attitude seems to be so what? In spite of the reality that you live in a state heavily subsidized by those of us living in places like CA, NY, IL and NV.

It's just a reality conservatives refuse, or are unable to accept or comphrehend.

Les Carpenter said...

Ah yes. Horatio Alger. Another fairy tale type manipulation of reality. No doubt authored by a judgemental wealthy elitist to other those the well connected and wealthy diaporoved of.

Goid job skud.

possumlady said...

Thanks Dave for your comment. I thought the same thing but I promised myself not to go back and forth on this, so I just sighed and moved on.