[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama: Where's your lunch money, kid?

[Nelson]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> Politicians are sneaky bastards. They passed two of the largest bills
> in history during a "CRISIS" and THEY DIDN'T READ THEM because they
> didn't have TIME.  They didn't read the Patriot Act and Bush shredded
> the Constitution. They didn't read the recent Stimulus Bill and Obama
> is shredding our tax dollars. 
> 
> The first Stimulus Bill PDF was 424 pages long and the second PDF was
> 575 pages long, making the total bill 999 pages long.  After the House
> Appropriations Committee finished, it grew another 496 pages,
> increasing the length of the total document to 1,071 pages. 
> 
> It's an old trick: Under the cover of "crisis," bury Congress in
> paper, forget about the "fine print" then sneak in whatever you want
> to screw America.
> 
snip
  Have to admit they have got an outstanding PR program as most people
believe they are going to be well taken care of.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama: Where's your lunch money, kid?

[raunchydog]

Politicians are sneaky bastards. They passed two of the largest bills
in history during a "CRISIS" and THEY DIDN'T READ THEM because they
didn't have TIME.  They didn't read the Patriot Act and Bush shredded
the Constitution. They didn't read the recent Stimulus Bill and Obama
is shredding our tax dollars. 

The first Stimulus Bill PDF was 424 pages long and the second PDF was
575 pages long, making the total bill 999 pages long.  After the House
Appropriations Committee finished, it grew another 496 pages,
increasing the length of the total document to 1,071 pages. 

It's an old trick: Under the cover of "crisis," bury Congress in
paper, forget about the "fine print" then sneak in whatever you want
to screw America.

IMO Obama's Stimulus Bill is the final nail in democracy's coffin. The
corporate elite, our new ruling oligarchy, have finally succeeded in
consolidating economic power into the hands of a very few (undefined)
people who will eventually squeeze every last dime out of your pocket.
No one gets something for nothing. It's a shell game you're bound to
lose. Here is a recent example: (Source: http://tinyurl.com/bldaay )

When Bush pushed the Bankruptcy Bill, http://tinyurl.com/camc64
homeowners could no longer protect their home in a bankruptcy. So,
seeing a no risk opportunity, the banks and AIG handed our mortgages
to folks whether they could afford it or not and "...we started seeing
a rush for ARM, Balloon, 80/20 no money down, and 40 and 50 year
mortgages..." 

"Private Equity firms seemed to be gobbling up every profitable stock
it could get its hands on, dwindling the profitability options for
401K investors like us regular schmucks. These elitist investment
organizations were clearly becoming the power players in the economy
and I wondered how much they were going to benefit from this homeowner
crisis.  I began to sound the alarm about 3 years ago to beware and be
alert everytime you hear the words "Private Equity Firm."  Strangely
enough, I just came across this today:

"Volatility Can Create Opportunities" http://tinyurl.com/bl5mta
5/28/08

"Despite the negative news, the economic slowdown presents
opportunities for those interested in real estate investment
funds.Although real estate has always been a key wealth driver for
sophisticated investors, today, a broader range of investors can
access the sector.Many investors have a comfort level with real estate
because it is easy to understand. They can touch it and feel it, and,
"They're not making any more land," as the adage goes. 

Despite distress in the real estate market, there are investment
opportunities through private-equity funds and other real estate
investments. The opportunities require investments of $250,000 to
several million dollars."

Yep, sure enough, those Private Equity Firms are benefiting from this.
Gee…anybody out there got $250,000 laying around to get into one of
the PEFs to make some quick money?"

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> "...it appears that there are some very suspicious ties to Social
> Security funding in all of this stimulatin' the Dems are
> proposing... Let's start with the new plan to subsidize Cobra
> payments for the unemployed.  First of all, conceptually the idea is
> excellent.  However, once again we need to look at the fine print and
> see where the money is going to come from.  The basic mechanics are as
> follows   
> Posted on March 2, 2009 by Stateofdisbelief
> http://tinyurl.com/2rnlwm 
> 
> 
> An "assistance eligible individual" will only be required to pay
> 35% of his or her COBRA premium. The remaining 65% of the COBRA premium
> will be reimbursed by means of a payroll tax credit to the employer (in
> the case of a self-funded plan), the plan (in the case of a
> multiemployer plan), or the insurer (in the case of an insured plan that
> is not subject to federal COBRA). The Secretary of the Treasury will
> issue guidance on how a claim for the tax credit is to be filed. If the
> payroll tax credits are insufficient to cover the COBRA expense, then
> the entity entitled to reimbursement will receive the remainder of
> reimbursement directly from the Secretary of the Treasury.
> 
> So…what is an employer payroll tax?
> 
> Employer Payroll Taxes
> 
> 
> Companies are responsible for paying their portion of payroll taxes.
> These payroll taxes are an added expense over and above the expense of
> an employee's gross pay. The employer-portion of payroll taxes
> include the following:
> 
> · Social Security taxes (6.2% up to the annual maximum)
> 
> · Medicare taxes (1.45% of wages)
> 
> · Federal unemployment taxes (FUTA)
> 
> · State unemployment taxes (SUTA)
> 
> Uh oh…bingo.  Social Security tax payments made by the employer will
> be the source of the funding.  Since Social Security funding costs are
> equally shared by the employer and the employee (each pay 6.2%

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama: Where's your lunch money, kid?

[raunchydog]

"...it appears that there are some very suspicious ties to Social
Security funding in all of this stimulatin' the Dems are
proposing... Let's start with the new plan to subsidize Cobra
payments for the unemployed.  First of all, conceptually the idea is
excellent.  However, once again we need to look at the fine print and
see where the money is going to come from.  The basic mechanics are as
follows
 :
Something Stinks…
   
Posted on March 2, 2009 by Stateofdisbelief
http://tinyurl.com/2rnlwm 

 
[http://riverdaughter.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/stench-modified.jpg?w=\
468&h=313]


An "assistance eligible individual" will only be required to pay
35% of his or her COBRA premium. The remaining 65% of the COBRA premium
will be reimbursed by means of a payroll tax credit to the employer (in
the case of a self-funded plan), the plan (in the case of a
multiemployer plan), or the insurer (in the case of an insured plan that
is not subject to federal COBRA). The Secretary of the Treasury will
issue guidance on how a claim for the tax credit is to be filed. If the
payroll tax credits are insufficient to cover the COBRA expense, then
the entity entitled to reimbursement will receive the remainder of
reimbursement directly from the Secretary of the Treasury.

So…what is an employer payroll tax?

Employer Payroll Taxes


Companies are responsible for paying their portion of payroll taxes.
These payroll taxes are an added expense over and above the expense of
an employee's gross pay. The employer-portion of payroll taxes
include the following:

· Social Security taxes (6.2% up to the annual maximum)

· Medicare taxes (1.45% of wages)

· Federal unemployment taxes (FUTA)

· State unemployment taxes (SUTA)

Uh oh…bingo.  Social Security tax payments made by the employer will
be the source of the funding.  Since Social Security funding costs are
equally shared by the employer and the employee (each pay 6.2% of the
employees wage), this proposal diverts the EMPLOYER's share to pay
for this subsidy – no?

Let's see if there's more to confirm this theory (and note the
quotation marks around the word "pay" in the first sentence):

Employer's Paid COBRA Premium Subsidy Through Payroll Tax Credit


The federal government will "pay" the subsidy by allowing
employers to claim a credit equal to the subsidy against the requirement
to make deposits or payments of payroll taxes, such as income tax
withholding, employee FICA withholding, and employer FICA taxes. An
employer is not allowed to take the payroll tax credit until the
assistance eligible individual pays the subsidized premium. The federal
government will make a direct payment to the employer for any portion of
the subsidy that cannot be recovered by means of a credit.

Well, since the only tax listed that could be considered a "tax
credit" to the employer would be the employer's portion of FICA
taxes, it appears that this is where the funds will come out of.



So then, just what are FICA taxes?

FICA Taxes 
FICA stands for the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. The FICA tax
consists of both Social Security and Medicare taxes. Social Security and
Medicare taxes are paid both by the employees and the employer. Both
parties pay half of these taxes. Employees pay half, and employers pay
the other half. Together both halves of the FICA taxes add up to 15.3%.
The 15.3% FICA tax is broken down as follows:

· Social Security (Employee pays 6.2%)

· Social Security (Employer pays 6.2%)

· Medicare (Employee pays 1.45%)

· Medicare (Employer pays 1.45%)

Again…something doesn't smell right here.  OK, now, let's
look at our big $13.00 per week stimulus tax credit.  Where is THAT
money coming from
 ?

The program provides that working people will get a tax credit for 6.2
percent of their earned income, up to $400 per person per year or up to
$800 total for a married couple filing a joint tax return.

What what what? Now, where did I hear that 6.2% figure before?  Oh,
yeah…that's the shared portion of SOCIAL SECURITY PAYROLL TAXES.
Once again, this money WILL NOT be taken from the employee, diverting
this funding back to our wallets.  So, what will all of this funding
mean to the Social Security fund?  I'm guessing it will mean reduced
contributions to the fund in the amounts necessary to subsidize these
initiatives.  But then again…I'm just musing.  However, just for
shitz 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama: Where's your lunch money, kid?

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Let's remember that the Trust Fund is the *surplus*.
> > > > We won't even need to dip into the Trust Fund for
> > > > another two or three decades. Social Security is
> > > > the least of our problems right now.
> > > 
> > > My bad: We'll need to start tapping the Trust Fund in
> > > *2017* to keep benefits at their current levels. If
> > > nothing at all is done, the Trust Fund will run out
> > > in 2041, which would mean a reduction in benefits of
> > > 22 percent.
> > > 
> > > Note that these are *pessimistic* estimates that assume
> > > the economy will grow more slowly over the 32 years than
> > > it has previously. Obviously we're going to have a few
> > > bad years, but unless the economy collapses completely
> > > and the gummint really isn't able to pay the Trust Fund
> > > back for what it's borrowed--in which case we're *all*
> > > in big trouble--Social Security should be fine for the
> > > indefinite future with a minor tweak or two, such as
> > > raising the income cap.
> > > 
> > > Very good article by Paul Waldman explaining the
> > > basics here:
> > > 
> > > http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?
> > > article=there_is_no_social_security_crisis
> > > 
> > > http://tinyurl.com/dybs25
> > 
> > Thank God, Bush failed to get his grubby Republican
> > hands on Social Security. If the Democrats hadn't
> > pushed back, (only because people were really pissed)
> > just imagine how your SS in a stock portfolio would
> > look today.
> 
> Amen to that.
> 
>  The first time Obama said Social Security needed
> > fixin' was during the primary. http://tinyurl.com/27mza8
> > It was a clear signal he was in simpatico with 
> > Republicans who call it an "entitlement" program and
> > lump it in with everything they hate about government
> > "handouts".
> 
> I don't go along with the Obamazoids' notion that
> Obama is a master at 10-dimensional chess, but
> honest to God, I think the latest move is a feint,
> a bait-and-switch to pull Republicans into what will 
> ultimately be health-care reform, not "fixing"
> Social Security.
> 
>  SS is an insurance program, it's our social
> > safety net, LEAVE IT ALONE.  Alegre's Corner has been
> > keeping an eye on any sneaky SS fixin's the Obama camp
> > might be cookin' up.
> 
> I think this is paranoid, frankly. If Obama tries
> any significant messing with Social Security, he
> can kiss a second term goodbye. The baby-boomers
> won't tolerate it, not in this economic climate.
> And he must know that.
> 
> 
> > http://tinyurl.com/d3wnky http://tinyurl.com/cvfwao
> > http://tinyurl.com/ahdqtt
> >
>

I'm more willing to wear tinfoil about SS more than you. I'm going to
need it and so will many others now that their investments have
tanked. I don't trust corporately owned Republicans or Blue Dog
Democrats either to protect SS, not one bit. Bush almost got away with
dismantling SS and the same corporate forces that pushed for it and
have pushed for years, will drive Obama's agenda as well. Obama will
just have to be sneakier about it. 

Obama's secret meetings with Blue Dog "Democrats" about Social
Security doesn't look like "transparency" to me.
http://tinyurl.com/av35z9  Let's not forget that youngsters 20 or 30
something who elected Obama will drink any amount of Kool Aid to stay
in their hopey changey love hazy craze, perfectly willing to allow
corporate media to propagandized them to believe SS won't be there for
them, it's an "entitlement" like social welfare, and stir resentment
about working to support old folks. 

Obama marches to corporate orders just as Bush did and the media that
elected Obama will have their way with SS as well. Here's yet another
privatize SS "tell" from the lips of the One, just last night:

He reminded me of Bush:

"to preserve our long-term fiscal health, we must also address the
growing costs in Medicare and Social Security. We must also begin a
conversation on how to do the same [reform] for Social Security, while
creating tax-free universal savings accounts for all Americans." 

When you hear tax-free universal "savings accounts" think "privatizing
SS investments" in Wall Street. SS was never meant to be a "savings
account" and Obama is absolutely misleading the public to equate it
with savings. It is an INSURANCE program a social safety net for the
disabled, widows, orphans and seniors. I am paranoid about SS and
rightly so.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama: Where's your lunch money, kid?

[I am the eternal]

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:16 AM, raunchydog  wrote:
>
> Thank God, Bush failed to get his grubby Republican hands on Social
> Security. If the Democrats hadn't pushed back, (only because people
> were really pissed) just imagine how your SS in a stock portfolio
> would look today.

I clearly heard Obama mention savings accounts for SS during his
non-State of the Union address last night.  Allen Greenspan has some
sage words on savings accounts for SS.  One is that the market crashes
periodically (like now), two is that there are not enough tradeable
securities to use up the money.  What securities there were would be
all owned in SS accounts making for a very strange securities market.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama: Where's your lunch money, kid?

[Richard J. Williams]

raunchydog wrote:
> "...We is being robbed." 
>
"The President is talking about a modified version 
of the same bullshit Bush was proposing to destroy 
social security..."

'What was that about Social Security?'
TPM, February 25, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/anjzca

> read more: http://tinyurl.com/azem4o
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama: Where's your lunch money, kid?

[Richard J. Williams]

Judy wrote:
> Social Security should be fine for the indefinite 
> future with a minor tweak or two, such as raising 
> the income cap...
> 
John Podesta is among those arguing for action sooner 
rather than later on Social Security reform. From what 
I've read, Medicare, by contrast, requires big infusions 
from general revenues each year; its hospital trust fund 
is already running annual deficits and will be exhausted 
by 2019. You've got to realize that Obama only has four 
years to make a significant change.

"To preserve our long-term fiscal health, we must also 
address the growing costs in Medicare and Social Security.
Comprehensive health care reform is the best way to 
strengthen Medicare for years to come. And we must also 
begin a conversation on how to do the same for Social 
Security, while creating tax-free universal savings 
accounts for all Americans." - Barak Obama 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama: Where's your lunch money, kid?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
wrote:
> > 
> > > Let's remember that the Trust Fund is the *surplus*.
> > > We won't even need to dip into the Trust Fund for
> > > another two or three decades. Social Security is
> > > the least of our problems right now.
> > 
> > My bad: We'll need to start tapping the Trust Fund in
> > *2017* to keep benefits at their current levels. If
> > nothing at all is done, the Trust Fund will run out
> > in 2041, which would mean a reduction in benefits of
> > 22 percent.
> > 
> > Note that these are *pessimistic* estimates that assume
> > the economy will grow more slowly over the 32 years than
> > it has previously. Obviously we're going to have a few
> > bad years, but unless the economy collapses completely
> > and the gummint really isn't able to pay the Trust Fund
> > back for what it's borrowed--in which case we're *all*
> > in big trouble--Social Security should be fine for the
> > indefinite future with a minor tweak or two, such as
> > raising the income cap.
> > 
> > Very good article by Paul Waldman explaining the
> > basics here:
> > 
> > http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?
> > article=there_is_no_social_security_crisis
> > 
> > http://tinyurl.com/dybs25
> 
> Thank God, Bush failed to get his grubby Republican
> hands on Social Security. If the Democrats hadn't
> pushed back, (only because people were really pissed)
> just imagine how your SS in a stock portfolio would
> look today.

Amen to that.

 The first time Obama said Social Security needed
> fixin' was during the primary. http://tinyurl.com/27mza8
> It was a clear signal he was in simpatico with 
> Republicans who call it an "entitlement" program and
> lump it in with everything they hate about government
> "handouts".

I don't go along with the Obamazoids' notion that
Obama is a master at 10-dimensional chess, but
honest to God, I think the latest move is a feint,
a bait-and-switch to pull Republicans into what will 
ultimately be health-care reform, not "fixing"
Social Security.

 SS is an insurance program, it's our social
> safety net, LEAVE IT ALONE.  Alegre's Corner has been
> keeping an eye on any sneaky SS fixin's the Obama camp
> might be cookin' up.

I think this is paranoid, frankly. If Obama tries
any significant messing with Social Security, he
can kiss a second term goodbye. The baby-boomers
won't tolerate it, not in this economic climate.
And he must know that.


> http://tinyurl.com/d3wnky http://tinyurl.com/cvfwao
> http://tinyurl.com/ahdqtt
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama: Where's your lunch money, kid?

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > Let's remember that the Trust Fund is the *surplus*.
> > We won't even need to dip into the Trust Fund for
> > another two or three decades. Social Security is
> > the least of our problems right now.
> 
> My bad: We'll need to start tapping the Trust Fund in
> *2017* to keep benefits at their current levels. If
> nothing at all is done, the Trust Fund will run out
> in 2041, which would mean a reduction in benefits of
> 22 percent.
> 
> Note that these are *pessimistic* estimates that assume
> the economy will grow more slowly over the 32 years than
> it has previously. Obviously we're going to have a few
> bad years, but unless the economy collapses completely
> and the gummint really isn't able to pay the Trust Fund
> back for what it's borrowed--in which case we're *all*
> in big trouble--Social Security should be fine for the
> indefinite future with a minor tweak or two, such as
> raising the income cap.
> 
> Very good article by Paul Waldman explaining the
> basics here:
> 
> http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?
> article=there_is_no_social_security_crisis
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/dybs25

Thank God, Bush failed to get his grubby Republican hands on Social
Security. If the Democrats hadn't pushed back, (only because people
were really pissed) just imagine how your SS in a stock portfolio
would look today. The first time Obama said Social Security needed
fixin' was during the primary. http://tinyurl.com/27mza8 It was a
clear signal he was in simpatico with Republicans who call it an
"entitlement" program and lump it in with everything they hate about
government "handouts". SS is an insurance program, it's our social
safety net, LEAVE IT ALONE.  Alegre's Corner has been keeping an eye
on any sneaky SS fixin's the Obama camp might be cookin' up.
http://tinyurl.com/d3wnky http://tinyurl.com/cvfwao
http://tinyurl.com/ahdqtt 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama: Where's your lunch money, kid?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:

> Let's remember that the Trust Fund is the *surplus*.
> We won't even need to dip into the Trust Fund for
> another two or three decades. Social Security is
> the least of our problems right now.

My bad: We'll need to start tapping the Trust Fund in
*2017* to keep benefits at their current levels. If
nothing at all is done, the Trust Fund will run out
in 2041, which would mean a reduction in benefits of
22 percent.

Note that these are *pessimistic* estimates that assume
the economy will grow more slowly over the 32 years than
it has previously. Obviously we're going to have a few
bad years, but unless the economy collapses completely
and the gummint really isn't able to pay the Trust Fund
back for what it's borrowed--in which case we're *all*
in big trouble--Social Security should be fine for the
indefinite future with a minor tweak or two, such as
raising the income cap.

Very good article by Paul Waldman explaining the
basics here:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?
article=there_is_no_social_security_crisis

http://tinyurl.com/dybs25

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama: Where's your lunch money, kid?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  
wrote:
>
> 2/24/09 riverdaughter
> 
> "I hope some of you have been following Planet Money.
> http://tinyurl.com/4zcbdn  For some bizarre reason,
> they don't seem to indulge much in propaganda...They
> try to break down the jargon...Their position is that
> of the common man trying to make sense of it all...

Trouble with that is, the "common man" simply
isn't *equipped* to make sense of it all. It's
too fantastically complicated. Not even the so-
called experts have a handle on it, at least
judging by the wide disagreement among them.


> ...the media is so busy trying to tell us how
> totally awesome Obama is

There's plenty of disagreement among the media,
too, about how "awesome" he is.


> Geithner is doing everything in his power to
> prevent the bank shareholders from losing too
> much money and surrendering control of their
> insolvent banks to the government even if that
> means that taxpayers lose 90% of their investment
> in the bank. 

Or, he knows the government is going to have to
take over the big banks sooner or later but can't
say so until it actually happens, because 
shareholders' anticipatory panic would leave things
in even worse shape.

> But when it comes to Social Security, the
> investment you made over the years will not be
> protected.  The post-partisan, non-Democrats in
> charge are looking for a way to not have to
> replace the billions of dollars the movement
> conservatives borrowed from the Trust Fund over
> the years and YOU will be expected to take a loss.
> 
> Sweeet!

Nonsense.

> There is a very disturbing psychological warfare
> being set up in the media right now to make us 
> believe that there is no money left for us and
> we deserve to have no money, while the bankers
> are innocent bystanders who simply bought shares
> in banks and they need to be bought out.

Even worse nonsense, at least in the media I read.
They're wringing their hands over the idea of
subsidizing the moronic bankers who got us into
this mess at the taxpayers' expense.

  When that happens, all that money transferred
> to banks like Citigroup will be in private hands
> and there will be no money left to pay back the
> Trust Fund.

Let's remember that the Trust Fund is the *surplus*.
We won't even need to dip into the Trust Fund for
another two or three decades. Social Security is
the least of our problems right now.


> Call me an old, working class, uneducated, sino-
> peruvian lesbian but I ain't stupid.

Not stupid, just ignorant, like most of the rest of
us. Maybe not *quite* smart enough to realize the
extent of our ignorance and get caught up in nutcase
conspiracy theories instead.

Not even the folks who are running things are smart
enough to put together and implement a conspiracy
of that extent. If they were, they'd have figured
out a way to transfer the wealth without losing
hundreds of billions of dollars of assets in the
process. It was *their stupidity*--and greed--that
got us into this mess in the first place.