It answers were the defunding of Social Security fearmongering is coming from in a previous post:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3869000/posts
How about a cut on SSI income? Election winner. Gummer vote.
So just give more to those not working. Don’t cut pay role taxes to those working. I’m opposed to all of it but damn, I am expected to pay for it.
Shame. It was a good idea
To borrow a phrase from Hillary: What difference, at this point, does it make?
Gold, silver and Bitcoin exploding as the debt piles up.
GOPe against the payroll tax cut not bc of Dem opposition, or SS or Medicare... but bc the economy would take off and help Trump
some have suggested taking advantage of recent DACA ruling, and deferring collection of the payroll tax thru executive order until after the election.
With allies like them...
Does Trump really think McConnell cares what the President wants?
> the expensive idea
Cutting taxes is “expensive”. 1984 newspeak.
Oh, for God’s sake. Republicans have absolutely no spine at all, none whatsoever—invertebrates.
Can’t give anything to people who actually work for their money.
A great idea that could have easily been defended with the right rhetoric delivered in a heartfelt manner. The White House gave up too easily. (Kushner?)
What happens if Trump asked the Senate not to fight it out to get the payroll tax ended? Well it would not be in the bill and McConnell could use it as a bargaining chip and maybe get something for it. But what happens of gets into the bill and Pelosi sees it works and claims it. Now what happens when Trump uses a EO to order it and takes all the credit for it?
” the cut in taxes that finance Social Security and Medicare. “
A bald lie. Those taxes go into the general fund and get spent.
And they included another lie by omission:: payroll taxes are paid 100% by consumers.
Trump’s cut would have saved consumers money.
Trump says he dropped it because of democrat opposition. Article says it was GOP opposition. The truth? Same thing.
Tell me why people who have not lost their jobs - have never been out of work during the whole “pandemic” - deserve, or need, a payroll tax cut? They don’t.
I am not in favor of a federal stimulus bill, we have enough federal debt already and should quit adding to it.
But recognizing majorities in Congress are going to disagree with me, then at least any “stimulus” should go to sectors in the economy - people and businesses - that are not now providing any “stimulus” in the economy because they are down - out of work, closed business, restricted business operations, those indirectly impacted negatively due to all four of those areas (for instance, indirectly, many in the “supply chain” industries though considered essential are hurt because many of their main clients have had their operations shut or restricted.
“Stimulus” should not be shot out like a blunderbuss of a shot gun - scattered hither and yon without direction. Stimulus should be targeted to where sectors of the economy - people and businesses - have been unable to provide their usual economic input, not to those whose economic input has been mostly sustained so far.
For instance, that means I would not give a dime to the banks or their Wall Street subsidiaries, to the tech giants or the telecom giants, or the retail giants, or Amazon or Fed Ex or UPS, unless and only on a per-employee basis for each employee they newly hire or rehire.
It also means I would not give a dime to any of us who have not lost a job and/or still have our retirement incomes.
With my kind of stimulus, the cost would be far less and the Dims would be shown as hypocrites for it would truly only go to those who have been most negatively affected, NOT to nearly everybody which would include millions who do not need it.