House GOP has manuevered itself into a dead end
“You’ve always been crazy, this is just the first chance you’ve had to express yourself.”
– Louise to Thelma
——————————-
Even the folks on the Wall Street Journal editorial board understand that the House GOP is acting suicidal, noting that the squabble with Senate Republicans has turned into a “circular firing squad” and that “the political rout will only get worse” unless they concede the standoff with President Obama.
“At this stage, Republicans would do best to cut their losses and find a way to extend the payroll holiday quickly. Then go home and return in January with a united House-Senate strategy that forces Democrats to make specific policy choices that highlight the differences between the parties on spending, taxes and regulation. Wisconsin freshman Senator Ron Johnson has been floating a useful agenda for such a strategy. The alternative is more chaotic retreat and the return of all-Democratic rule.”
But Thelma and Louise, also known as John Boehner and Eric Cantor, show no signs of altering course, as the New York Times reports:
“Mr. Boehner of Ohio, the first-year speaker who has struggled throughout 2011 to corral his members, said House Republicans would not relent and accept a two-month extension of the tax cut that was approved by the Senate on Saturday as a way to buy time for a more permanent solution. He instead named members to a committee to negotiate a new agreement with the Senate, which adjourned Saturday….
Mr. Boehner called Mr. Obama to summon the Senate back to Washington to bargain with House Republicans despite the approach of the holidays. “I just think the American people expect us to do our work,” Mr. Boehner said.
But he was rebuffed by Mr. Obama, and by House and Senate Democrats, who said they would appoint no counterparts to Mr. Boehner’s newly named negotiators. And more Republican senators who voted for the Senate bill urged Mr. Boehner to get his lawmakers to do the same, saying the ugly fight was damaging both Republicans and the already badly battered Congress.
“It is harming the Republican Party,” Senator John McCain of Arizona said in an interview on CNN. “It is harming the view, if it’s possible anymore, of the American people about Congress. And we’ve got to get this thing resolved and with the realization that the payroll tax cut must remain in effect.”
Obama and the Democrats must think it’s Christmas or something.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
1,134 comments Add your comment
Thulsa Doom
December 21st, 2011
12:52 pm
Bless your heart (like, if you had one.)- Matti
Matti,
I was wondering when I would get a “bless your heart” card. I think that’s the 4 millionth of those cards the libs have passed out. When you can’t win a debate just use the “bless your heart” card.
“If you have one”. Yep. I shore do. I just believe that the best way to help people as proven by economic history is for govt to get out of their way and let them pursue their own self-interests without the nanny state dictating everything. You believe in the welfare state taking care of people. The only thing the nanny state does is create more problems than it solves and reduce people to being wards of the state. And people like you call it “compassion”. Shame on you. And if you don’t believe the nanny state creates even more problems than perhaps you should read Patrick Moynihan’s book( a liberal NY senator)who stated back in the early 70s that the welfare state would end up destroying the black family. He was right and liberals like you just refuse to learn.
But go on with your idea that you have a heart because you believe in the nanny state. It obviously makes you feel better. And being a person of such great heart I’m also certain you have a heart for babies and are anti abortion right? I would hate to think you don’t have a heart for the most innocent among us.
Granny Godzilla
December 21st, 2011
12:52 pm
I’ve seen the same error mentioned today at least twice…
“What I want to know is why no one seems to be talking about how the FICA tax cut is simply defunding Social Security at a time when SS outlays exceed revenues for the first time in 2010, but appears to be in deficit for years to come.
”
Simple answer is: it’s fully funded.
More here
Each of the plans under consideration is fully paid for, replacing revenue the Social Security Trust Fund would have lost from lower payroll tax receipts with money made up from either alternative revenue sources or spending cuts. The earlier payroll tax holiday, set to expire this month, was also fully-funded, and the program has thus far “been held harmless” from the holiday, as Reuters noted today.
it’s not the stupid that bothers me as much as the childish refuse to do their homework folks. they were not raised well.
Billings
December 21st, 2011
12:52 pm
In contrast to Bookman’s linked WSJ editorial .
If the pols want economic recovery, they should go long.
Want Growth? Try Stable Tax Policy
The payroll tax cut is one of 84 tax provisions expiring this year, 10 times as many as expired in 1999. .
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204791104577110152436029914.html?mod=opinion_newsreel
too little time
December 21st, 2011
12:52 pm
Really, I can understand the Republicans point of the whole 2 month extension being pointless. But if their purpose is to pass it for a whole year, 2 months ought to be fine. It would have been better to pass it now AND slam Harry Reid.
“We are going to pass this thing even though it is a cheap shot on parting Democrat Senators not to do their jobs and get a 12 month extension done.”
The reason for not passing it (i.e. only two months) is not satisfactory and makes Republicans look bad. So, was the Senate petty? Absolutely. Was the House even more petty? ABSOLUTELY.
USinUK
December 21st, 2011
12:54 pm
jewcowboy – 12:50 – but you’re forgetting the rally cry of the right — compared to the poor of Mumbai, the poor here are living the high life!!! they have a refrigerator! dishwasher! indoor plumbing!!!
$24.52 x 30 days = $735.60
sweetjeebuseatingRamen, don’t you know that’s more than 5 years’ wages for people in Mumbai!!!
jewcowboy
December 21st, 2011
12:54 pm
josef,
“Who said that?”
I would say just about all of these folks: http://www.gop.gov/republicans/name?forward=media
MPercy
December 21st, 2011
12:55 pm
Bruno: Exactly. If George Bush in 2006 had promoted 2% reduction in SS taxes the world would have been ending according to the left. Obama promotes the idea today and it’s all wine & roses.
I also am amused that the various proposals to “pay” for the SS tax holiday are general revenue items. I seem to recall Jay and company arguing here vociferously that SS does not affect deficit at all. But if we’re going to pay for an SS tax holiday with general funds, seems to me that ain’t so, now, is it? Of course, it wasn’t so when they said it then either, since SS is now in deficit (outlays exceed annual revenues), the “trust fund” IOUs are starting to come due and must be paid out of general revenues–which mean more borrowing from China, et al. And SS outlays become a deficit driver, or rather did as of 2010 and will be until the system collapses in the not-too-distant future.
josef
December 21st, 2011
12:56 pm
jewcowboy
Seriously…who said it…?
USinUK
December 21st, 2011
12:57 pm
josef – seriously, it was the beginning of gone with the wind
Peter
December 21st, 2011
12:57 pm
HDB . please tell us of a “Single Bill” that is clean, and has zero attached to it.
That is the way of Washington, and the Pork problem.
Granny Godzilla
December 21st, 2011
12:57 pm
M PERCY
Fully Funded.
No deficit to SS.
RPEATED FOR EMPHASIS
Fully Funded.
No deficit to SS.
AND AGAIN
Fully Funded.
No deficit to SS.
HOW ABOUT JUST ONE MORE
Fully Funded.
No deficit to SS.
(GOP requires that, ‘member?)
Peter
December 21st, 2011
12:58 pm
MPercy. did those wars Bush started effect SS ?
jewcowboy
December 21st, 2011
12:59 pm
josef,
Ben Hecht.
josef
December 21st, 2011
12:59 pm
USinUK
Seriously, which GWTW…?
HDB
December 21st, 2011
12:59 pm
josef
December 21st, 2011
12:48 pm
That’s the opening line in “Gone With the Wind”; didn’t Margaret Mitchell write it??
Thulsa Doom
December 21st, 2011
12:59 pm
Common sense, Matti, HDB, and they BOTH suck- good to see ya again,
Most of those bills the house passed weren’t even brought up in the senate. How can they be seriously debated if the Senate won’t even bring them up or debate them. You all have a point about extra things being attached to some of the bills but even then that’s been standard on a lot of bills for a long time. Nothing new there. Seems to me that even if there is something attached to a bill that the senate should at least look at the bill rather than just squashing it without any debate whatsoever. How can one possibly take the Senate seriously if they won’t even bring up a bill for debate?
josef
December 21st, 2011
12:59 pm
jewcowboy
Close, but no banana…
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 21st, 2011
12:59 pm
Boehner cuts off C-SPAN Cameras when Dems attempt to bring vote on payroll tax cut. Oh I am sure this lack of transparency is Obama’s fault and we will here the chorus of the right wingnuts decrying the lack of transparency. Wait for it……. Wait….
josef
December 21st, 2011
1:00 pm
HDB
Nope. She didn’t.
jewcowboy
December 21st, 2011
1:00 pm
USinUK,
“they have a refrigerator! dishwasher! indoor plumbing!!!”
Lucky b@stards.
USinUK
December 21st, 2011
1:01 pm
it’s the verbiage that plays at the very beginning of the movie, before you see Scarlett on the porch with the Tarlington twins
HDB
December 21st, 2011
1:01 pm
Peter
December 21st, 2011
12:57 pm
Bush’s Debt Ceiling increases were “clean”……
Talking Head
December 21st, 2011
1:01 pm
So the House GOP wants to sit down and talk with Dems from both the House (who are willing) and the Senate (who are unwilling). Harry Reid won’t talk until a short term bill is passed. Hmmmm I recall a couple of years ago when Harry wouldn’t let anyone go home to push through a very important bill…oh yeah Obamacare. Harry Reid is a piece of garbage.
USinUK
December 21st, 2011
1:01 pm
jewcowboy – 1:00 – seriously, they should stop complaining!
seriously
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 21st, 2011
1:02 pm
How can one possibly take the Senate seriously if they won’t even bring up a bill for debate?
Nope…no noticeable irony in the fact that this absurdity is mentioned in a blog thread about the House not even bringing up a bill for debate or a vote that the Senate passed with 89 votes…… NO IRONY AT ALL.
Rant on!
Normal
December 21st, 2011
1:02 pm
Josef,
Uncle Remus?
jewcowboy
December 21st, 2011
1:02 pm
josef,
Are you referring to Victor Fleming?
They BOTh suck
December 21st, 2011
1:02 pm
TD
“How can one possibly take the Senate seriously if they won’t even bring up a bill for debate?”
There is merit to what you are saying; however you know very well that the House with their majority as sent bills knowing that the Senate would not bring them up…. heck even the Repubs in the Senate knew they were going nowhere.
It is a game on both sides……… The House as the ability to pass what they want knowing it will not fly in the Senate… then they can say… see “Reid is a do nothing”…..
HDB
December 21st, 2011
1:02 pm
‘Doom….back at’cha!!
jewcowboy
December 21st, 2011
1:03 pm
josef,
Or Sidney Howard?
Normal
December 21st, 2011
1:04 pm
Josef,
Christopher Plummer?
josef
December 21st, 2011
1:04 pm
USinUK
It does, that…but who wrote it?
jewcowboy
Not quite there yet…
Normal
You jus bein nasty now!
They BOTh suck
December 21st, 2011
1:05 pm
TD
Granted this is a simplistic analogy but it is like a kid who is on restriction but still asks his parent to go to the movies. They say “no” and he throw a fit….. He already knew the answer, especially if his parents do always stick to their guns.
Yes that goes both ways and both Ds and Rs cry when it happens
Thulsa Doom
December 21st, 2011
1:05 pm
MPercy,
Your first error is that you’re making too much sense.
Secondly I don’t think the liberals on here give a damn about how debt we continously accumulate. Their morality does not allow them to care about the burdens being piled onto the small backs of our children and grandchildren.
A favorite mantra of the left when proposing legislation on something like gun control is that we must do it “for the children”. If there is anything at all that we should do “for the children” it would and should be to quit piling vast sums of debt onto their little backs. Strangely the liberals are silent on this issue. Except for ranting about W’s debt of course which is the first thing out of their mouths in a conversation about debt. Nevermind today’s debt cause its easier to just blame W.
josef
December 21st, 2011
1:05 pm
BTW there is a reason I’m asking…and it’s not just to get a new thread from the Imam…
Common Sense isn't very Common
December 21st, 2011
1:06 pm
USinUK – you’ve got indoor plumbing
TMI
that’s right UK is socialist LMAO
Adam
December 21st, 2011
1:07 pm
Strawman: 99 weeks is 1.9 years, not 3. And as Jay pointed out earlier, 52 weeks is now close to a standard amount of time to look for work, by a much larger margin than before 2007. Ending the 99 week extension causes the benefits to only be disbursed for 26 weeks max. A case to end unemployment in this manner could be made if the economy was good enough to support millions of Americans getting jobs, but I can guarantee you there will be no massive spike in hiring because of the extension being dropped, as many cons imagine would happen, because of the stupid belief that people are just sitting on their butts NOT looking for work because they have their cushy unemployment check of $100.
Adam
December 21st, 2011
1:09 pm
godless heathen: Begrudge Michelle and the tikes their vacation? Poor poor overworked Michelle.
Yep, I have my answer. You DO begrudge them their vacation.
Thulsa Doom
December 21st, 2011
1:10 pm
They BOTH suck,
BTW I don’t think Americans are lazy but I do think we have lost some of our work ethic and that just out of basic economics most people realize that its easier to draw $1000 a month unemployment than to work at McDonalds at $8 an hour/40 hours a week to make roughly the same as unemployment. Very few people would work a low wage job while looking for a better job if the money they draw from unemployment is close. Also, take a look at all the jobs that illegals have taken- restaurant, construction, the poultry, meat, and carpet plants. These are all jobs that Americans used to work. Why do we not work these jobs anymore?
MPercy
December 21st, 2011
1:11 pm
Granny Godzilla
Fully Funded with deficit spending on the general revenue side of the “lockbox”.
No deficit to SS.
SS is in deficit on it’s own accord. So says the SS board of trustees.
REPEATED FOR EMPHASIS
Granny Godzilla
Fully Funded with deficit spending on the general revenue side of the “lockbox”.
No deficit to SS.
SS is in deficit on it’s own accord. So says the SS board of trustees.
Granny Godzilla
Fully Funded with deficit spending on the general revenue side of the “lockbox”.
No deficit to SS.
SS is in deficit on it’s own accord. So says the SS board of trustees.
Granny Godzilla
Fully Funded with deficit spending on the general revenue side of the “lockbox”.
No deficit to SS.
SS is in deficit on it’s own accord. So says the SS board of trustees.
USinUK
December 21st, 2011
1:11 pm
“that its easier to draw $1000 a month unemployment than to work at McDonalds at $8 an hour/40 hours a week”
sweet jeebus …
where on earth do you get your facts???
who do you think is getting $4k/month in unemployment???
seriously
who.
jewcowboy
December 21st, 2011
1:12 pm
josef,
“Not quite there yet…”
Sorry, but the “The New Biographical Dictionary of Film” says Ben Hecht.
Granny Godzilla
December 21st, 2011
1:12 pm
Speaking of unemployment,I assume the “non-homework doers” haven’t seen this study
Check out the last paragraph of page 1.
It’ll shock and awe your craven little hearts.
USinUK
December 21st, 2011
1:12 pm
sorry – my misread – thought that said $1k/week not $1K/mo
that’s what I get for multitasking
josef
December 21st, 2011
1:13 pm
If anybody needs a vacation it is First Lady Michelle Obama…can you imagine how difficult it is to have to entertain all those jackasses, smile, and be nice? I wouldn’t last a day in her job. So far she’s been quite the gracious First Lady…I like her…
Adam
December 21st, 2011
1:13 pm
Stevie Ray: Why exactly does POTUS not pay for any part of his vacation?
With what? His government paid salary? And I’m curious, is it even POSSIBLE for him to offer up money to pay for it?
at least the prior wingnut had his own place to stay in Crawford so $50k a night isn’t wasted…
^ What the hell kind of nonsense tripe is this?
BO sure picks the most expensive places to vacation….
Yeah, like “home for the holidays.” Pretty expensive to do that. might as well not bother.
ADAM…with no budget does that mean you man can spend 4million anytime he wants to vacation?
Is this like the time he spent $200 million per day to be in Asia? Sorry, but I’ll not take your word on cost estimates for his vacation for two reasons 1) The track record isn’t that great and 2) He hasn’t even LEFT YET.
josef
December 21st, 2011
1:14 pm
jewcowboy
He was the chief writer of the filmscript, but those were not his words…
Thulsa Doom
December 21st, 2011
1:14 pm
“House not even bringing up a bill for debate or a vote that the Senate passed with 89 votes…… NO IRONY AT ALL. Rant on!”
Keep up,
If the senate really gave a damn have them stay and work through Christmas. Unfortunately they just don’t care and there is no point in the House bringing the bill up for debate if the Senate simply does not want to work for the American people.
Granny Godzilla
December 21st, 2011
1:15 pm
MPercy
Really?
Provide Linkee….
Cause I read this at Fact Check
Reducing the Social Security payroll taxes paid by employees by 2 percentage points (to 4.2 percent) obviously brings in less money for Social Security. But the trust fund isn’t suffering as a result. The government must cover the shortfall with general fund money.
The Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees said in its 2011 report: “The loss of payroll tax revenue due to this one-year reduction will be made up by transfers from the General Fund of the Treasury to the OASI and DI Trust Funds and will thus have no financial impact on either program.”
Fully funded and approved by 39 senate republicans.
Common Sense isn't very Common
December 21st, 2011
1:15 pm
ok kids it is time for me to take Big Bird home for the holidays.
Play nice together and I will see you tomorrow.
Talking Head
December 21st, 2011
1:15 pm
“that its easier to draw $1000 a month unemployment than to work at McDonalds at $8 an hour/40 hours a week”
is the unemployment monthly check seriously around $1000? if that’s true then I can’t believe anyone is working at mcdonalds
jewcowboy
December 21st, 2011
1:15 pm
Thulsa Doom,
“most people realize that its easier to draw $1000 a month unemployment than to work at McDonalds at $8 an hour/40 hours a week”
“Why do we not work these jobs anymore?”
Perhaps because there were only 62K opening and had more than a million applicants.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-28/mcdonald-s-hires-62-000-during-national-event-24-more-than-planned.html
TaxPayer
December 21st, 2011
1:15 pm
This is too funny. A showdown between Senate and House Republicans. Who would have ever thought that the Senate Republicans would be calling out the House Republiocans for not caring about the middle class worker.
Merry Christmas. HoHoHoes.
Erwin's cat
December 21st, 2011
1:15 pm
Adam – “NOT looking for work because they have their cushy unemployment check of $100″
————————-
more like $325/week…not that it makes a difference, but let’s try and be accurate…it only takes a little more time.
Thulsa Doom
December 21st, 2011
1:17 pm
USinUK,
Reading comprehension is fundamental. The mistake and ensuing knee jerk reaction is ok. I expect it from liberals.
Traniqua
December 21st, 2011
1:17 pm
“…Senator John McCain of Arizona said in an interview on CNN. And we’ve got to get this thing resolved and with the realization that the payroll tax cut must remain in effect.”
You have to wonder if the ditsy old fool realizes that the ‘payroll tax cut’ is defunding the social security trust fund, which is already empty. What we really need is a payroll tax INCREASE and a moratorium on new federal spending – including no new wars – for several years.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 21st, 2011
1:19 pm
Thelma, you can whine all you want about the Senate. The Senate Bill has sufficient votes in the House to obtain a MAJORITY Vote of the House Representatives. There is no Constitutional requirement that the Senate negotiate with a Boehner’s committee who do not want any bill passed to work out a bill that has the votes to pass the House.
So who is not working for the American people? Can you say Boehner and the Tea Party?
TaxPayer
December 21st, 2011
1:20 pm
more like $325/week
You sure that isn’t the max amount based on one’s past employment history and state of residence. I wouldn’t want you to present any inaccurate information after all.
HDB
December 21st, 2011
1:21 pm
Thulsa Doom
December 21st, 2011
1:05 pm
First, you ARE in error when yo state the liberals do NOT care about the debt…..many conservatives forget that the CLINTON Administration worked towards balancing the budget in his second term and had a plan to pay DOWN on the debt. That was sideetracked when the nation got BUSHwhacked! Remember what Bush said right after 9/11 when he stated that terrorism wasn’t going to take the nation off-stride: “Spend money!” That’s EXACTLY what he did….and NO ONE cried about his level of spending! When the nation went into economic freefall, the source of last resort in order to arrest the freefall was…and IS…the government!!
Logically, we all know that as a nation, we can’t continue in this methodology…but we also know that you INCREASE government spending in bad economic times….and CUT government spending in good economic times!! If you look at the nations that have contracted their government spending, their recovery has been made more difficult!!
You can’t blame Obama for the cards that Bush dealt him…..he just has to play the hand!!
Talking Head
December 21st, 2011
1:21 pm
This is my impression of liberal pandering:
Obama and the Democrats hate old people! They cut $500 billion from Medicare to pay for Obamacare and cut the SS tax by 2%. Old people are going to die faster and will be forced to eat dog food.
That was fun.
godless heathen
December 21st, 2011
1:21 pm
Michelle can have a stay-cation any time she wants. She can pay for her own vacation anytime she wants. When she could save the taxpayers a few hundred thousand by spending one or two more days with that egotistical husband then ……… Wait nevermind.
Can’t say that I blame her. His head has gotten so big it probably takes up all the seats on AF1.
Erwin's cat
December 21st, 2011
1:22 pm
TaxPayer – Fair enough
http://chartingtheeconomy.com/?p=1399
jewcowboy
December 21st, 2011
1:23 pm
TaxPayer,
“You sure that isn’t the max amount based on one’s past employment history and state of residence.”
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/05/12/unemployment-benefits-best-worst-states/
jewcowboy
December 21st, 2011
1:25 pm
Erwin’s cat @ 1.33,
That is from 2009.
Welcome to the Occupation
December 21st, 2011
1:26 pm
Tales of the Rich and Famous …. . and the melting Armani shoes :
“I am a fat cat, I’m not ashamed.” – Ken Langone, co-founder, Home Depot
cosby
December 21st, 2011
1:27 pm
Dems and the main street media win again. no word on why Harry passed a bill to be sent back to the house, knowing it would be rejected and then closed the Senate. Then the main street attack on the Tea Party…press, Obama, socialist, big Government lovers and be damn any freedom.. the price will be paid is going to be heavy and I blame folks like you JAY…let the war begin!!
USinUK
December 21st, 2011
1:27 pm
“Reading comprehension is fundamental. The mistake and ensuing knee jerk reaction is ok. I expect it from liberals.”
ahem, POT.
TaxPayer
December 21st, 2011
1:27 pm
They cut $500 billion from Medicare to pay for Obamacare…
If you cut money from a program that was never funded — I’m thinking Medicare Advantage — have you really cut anything at all or did you just right a wrong.
Welcome to the Occupation
December 21st, 2011
1:27 pm
More Famous Last Words from the Land of the Melting Armani Shoes:
“If I hear a politician use the term ‘paying your fair share’ one more time, I’m going to vomit.” — Tom Golisano, founder, Paychex Inc.
MPercy
December 21st, 2011
1:28 pm
“MPercy. did those wars Bush started effect SS ?”
Not in the same sense that cutting the SS tax rate temporarily has. According to the SS Board of Trustees, SS took in $49 billion less in 2010 than it expended. The deficit was paid for by redeeming some of the IOUs, so there was no overall funding gap. But SS still took in less than it spent–it had to dip into its savings for the first time in 25 years. It will have to do so again this year, only with a larger deficit (about $150B, based on projected deficits of $46B plus the circa $100B I’ve seen mentioned as the cost of the year’s cut). This will be made up in part by funding SS $100B from general revenues (as GG has insisted it’s FULLY FUNDED), and the rest by cashing some more of those IOUs. Keep funding at 4.2% for a few more years and those IOUs will be used up even faster than there were expected to. At 6.2% rates, the IOUs were expected to last until 2036 (ten more years), so I have to assume they will run sooner than 2036. In fewer than 25 years we will see SS in a real problem. Keeping the 4.2% rate is just hastening the problem.
The wars didn’t defund SS in the same fashion. Instead, they were funded at least in part by SS surpluses, which were converted to Treasuries (IOUs) and the proceeeds then spent on the wars and other things. So the wars (and other things) owe SS money back (with interest).
P.S. The Iraq war was started with strong Democratic support. H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 296-133, and passed the Senate by a vote of 77-23. Eighty-two Democrats in the House (40% of their number) and 29 Democrats in the Senate (50% of their number) also supported the action.
The Afghanistan war was even more strongly supported by Democrats. House Joint Resolution 64 passed in the House 420-1-10, and the Senate version passed 98-0-2. I don’t have the break down those numbers, but it hardly seems necessary.
Erwin's cat
December 21st, 2011
1:28 pm
jc – it’s the best I could do on short notice and likely still comparable, at any rate it’s still better than making up or exaggerating the amount for dramatic effect
josef
December 21st, 2011
1:29 pm
Taxi
@ 1:20
From what I understand, that’s pretty much it…
jewcowboy
December 21st, 2011
1:30 pm
godless heathen,
“When she could save the taxpayers a few hundred thousand by spending one or two more days with that egotistical husband then”
Again, Bush took 77 trips to Crawford at a cost of $70M for AF1 alone, or $8.75M per year. Or is it only Democrats vacations that raise your ire?
MPercy
December 21st, 2011
1:31 pm
MPercy Really? Provide Linkee….
I did. I my first posting on the subject, but perhaps it got mangled. I’ve forgotten how or never knew how to make real links work here. Summary of the 2010 Board of Trustees report.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html
Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Through 2022, the annual cash deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury. Because these redemptions will be less than interest earnings, trust fund balances will continue to grow. After 2022, trust fund assets will be redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than was projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2085.
Granny Godzilla
December 21st, 2011
1:33 pm
M Percy
You’ll note my back up is 2011….
Welcome to the Occupation
December 21st, 2011
1:33 pm
More Famous Last Words from the Land of the Melting Armani Shoes:
“Acting like everyone who’s been successful is bad and because you’re rich you’re bad, I don’t understand it.” — Jamie Dimon, CEO, JP Morgan Chase
And all the wise gentlemen grunted among themselves in agreement.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 21st, 2011
1:34 pm
Welcome: Grunted only? No hurumpfs?
jewcowboy
December 21st, 2011
1:35 pm
Erwin’s cat,
From the link I posted it looks like the range is from $213(AZ) to $416(HI) per week. I can’t seem to find an average for 2011.
USinUK
December 21st, 2011
1:35 pm
Welcome – 1:33 – you forgot the last half of his quote, “cake, anyone?”
Bruno
December 21st, 2011
1:35 pm
But the trust fund isn’t suffering as a result. The government must cover the shortfall with general fund money.
Granny–Can you say “shell game”??
Talking Head
December 21st, 2011
1:35 pm
“They cut $500 billion from Medicare to pay for Obamacare…
If you cut money from a program that was never funded — I’m thinking Medicare Advantage — have you really cut anything at all or did you just right a wrong.”
Medicare Advantage funding cuts only account for about 1/5 of the amount to be cut….Democrats hate seniors! They cut funding for SS! They want to punish those who are going to buy houses or refinance their houses to pay for it! Obama hates anyone who buys a house! AHHHHHHHH!
Welcome to the Occupation
December 21st, 2011
1:37 pm
More Famous Last Words from the Land of the Melting Armani Shoes:
“You’ll get more out of me if you treat me with respect.” — Leon Cooperman, chair, Omega Advisors
Thulsa Doom
December 21st, 2011
1:38 pm
HDB,
2 things. First of all it was Newt and the Republican house that forced Clinton into balancing the budgets.
Secondly the rest of your post as I predicted is nothing more than blame W. What exactly does Bush have to do with the FY10, 11, 12 budgets and the forecasted enormous deficits by the Obama administration through 2020?
Reagan didn’t spend his time worrying about the 7.5% unemployment and double digit inflation and interest rates and stagflation that Jimmy Carter left him. He just went to work and produced 16 million jobs and an mindblowing 7% economic growth rate 2 1/2 years into his presidency. Apparently Obama is going to spend all 4 or 8 years blaming his predecessor. What a pathetic POS loser.
TaxPayer
December 21st, 2011
1:39 pm
So if you got laid off from one of them $7.50 an hour jobbies in Florida, the most you could hope to get would be $88.50 per week. Also, isn’t there a limit on the number of weeks you get based on the number of years employed. Anyway, I don’t see what sort of point anyone would hope to make about people supposedly living the good life off of that pittance.
Welcome to the Occupation
December 21st, 2011
1:39 pm
USinUK: “Welcome – 1:33 – you forgot the last half of his quote, “cake, anyone?”
I think what they’re saying these days is Let them eat APPS!!
josef
December 21st, 2011
1:40 pm
That crawl at the beginning of the film was Selznick…Mitchell was not at all happy about it, feeling it mispresented what the epic romance was all about…Hecht had a lot to say about the dickering with his script.
Ms Mitchell was particularly put off by the excising of her tertiary characters few of which made it to the big screen and, in cutting them out, she felt that the film missed in capturing the lives of the non aristocratic and the Big House without which the complexity of the socio-cultural world she sought to depict became nothing more than essentially a cardboard cut-out.
A lot of people who critique GWTW have only seen the film (or clips) and have never read the romance. And that is sad.
godless heathen
December 21st, 2011
1:41 pm
jewcowboy,
“Again, Bush took 77 trips to Crawford at a cost of $70M for AF1 alone, or $8.75M per year. Or is it only Democrats vacations that raise your ire?”
Trying that red herring again? I said earlier I have no objection to the President and family going on a vacation. Fine. And I can’t blame Michelle for not wanting to travel with the super ego. It’s just too bad they are not more sensitive to the perception that they are not concerned about how much money is spent for their pleasures, especially right after the President has given a speech about shared sacrifice.
Do you have a cite of an instance where Laura Bush flew to Hawaii alone when she could have waited another 2 days and traveled with the President?
And for how many years will you use the “but but but George Bush” excuse?
Granny Godzilla
December 21st, 2011
1:43 pm
Shell game…sure I can say it.
It remains fully funded.
A GOP requirement that was meant.
The whining is about lentgh of time not funding right?
Matti's Observant Eye
December 21st, 2011
1:43 pm
Whatevs. All I know is that my millionaire Congressman fought a relentless battle to keep his own tax cuts — and those of his billionaire sponsors — from expiring, but he’s holding MY measly little tax cut hostage for a variety of reasons, none of which has anything to do with what’s best for me.
You can “shame” me all you want, and pretend to know what I think of your idea of a “nanny state” but you can’t refute the FACTS: My GOP Congressman does not give a F**K about people like me who work for a living, pay our bills on time, and watch our net worth plummet while his skyrockets.
Please, cons, keep up the “lalala, well shame on you liberals” garbage. The FACTS speak for themselves, and the last effing straw is about to be laid on the proverbial camel’s back any day now. This won’t stand.
MPercy
December 21st, 2011
1:43 pm
“The government must cover the shortfall with general fund money.”
This being a first step toward removing even the thin veneer that SS is some sort of retirement plan–pay in to get out. Benefits track payments, i.e. if you pay in more then you get a higher benefit.
Fund it from general revenues and it’s just a welfare transfer payment decoupled entirely from contributions. Well, that’s already in effect, with EITC credits (paid for from general funds) more than offsetting income *and* payroll taxes for about 20% of tax units. And in 2011 (and 2012 maybe at least) you’ll have general revenue paying for another 16% of SS revenues.
While some are aware of the Ponzi scheme structure of SS and fully understand it is neither insurance, nor a retirement plan, nor even guaranteed, I would have to guess that the majority of the public will want to know why SS died or demand that the transfer payments continue even if they have to come from general revenues. Either way, the scam will come to an end and be revealed as a failure or morphed into a true welfare state behemoth.
TaxPayer
December 21st, 2011
1:43 pm
What exactly does Bush have to do with the FY10, 11, 12 budgets and the forecasted enormous deficits by the Obama administration through 2020?
Well, you see, there’s them bills from the past that still has to be paid. For example, there’s them wars that was kept off the books and then there’s them unfunded tax cuts and that Medicare Advantage thingie, amongst other things. I heard even TARP is gonna come back and bite us in the butts for twice what it was originally projected to cost us. And of course we had that Great Recession that took a major bite out of tax revenues while Obama and the Democrats were trying to ease the blow to millions of US citizens against the wishes of the Republicans.
Granny Godzilla
December 21st, 2011
1:45 pm
“It’s just too bad they are not more sensitive to the perception ”
Well frankly godless heathen, i don’t think they really give a damn about those whoe perception is marked with hate.
Can’t say as I blame them.
Granny Godzilla
December 21st, 2011
1:46 pm
made it all the way to ponzi scheme…..
I really prefer it when the stupid stuff is at the beginning, much less of a time waster.
MPercy
December 21st, 2011
1:47 pm
“Summary of the 2010 Board of Trustees report.”
Sorry. Make that 2011 Board of Trustees Report.
Each year the Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds report on the current and projected financial status of the two programs. This message summarizes our 2011 Annual Reports.
The financial conditions of the Social Security and Medicare programs remain challenging. Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative modifications if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided.
The long-run financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare should be addressed soon. If action is taken sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that those affected have adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also afford elected officials with a greater opportunity to minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and those who are already substantially dependent on program benefits.
Both Social Security and Medicare, the two largest federal programs, face substantial cost growth in the upcoming decades due to factors that include population aging as well as the growth in expenditures per beneficiary. Through the mid-2030s, due to the large baby-boom generation entering retirement and lower-birth-rate generations entering employment, population aging is the largest single factor contributing to cost growth in the two programs. Thereafter, the continued rapid growth in health care cost per beneficiary becomes the larger factor.
Social Security
Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Through 2022, the annual cash deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury. Because these redemptions will be less than interest earnings, trust fund balances will continue to grow. After 2022, trust fund assets will be redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than was projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2085.
Granny Godzilla
December 21st, 2011
1:50 pm
so raise the cap for a few years….
jewcowboy
December 21st, 2011
1:52 pm
godless heathen,
“I said earlier I have no objection to the President and family going on a vacation.”
The content of your posts speak to the contrary.
“It’s just too bad they are not more sensitive to the perception that they are not concerned about how much money is spent for their pleasures”
Face it…with people like you, they are damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. They can do nothing right by you.
“And for how many years will you use the “but but but George Bush” excuse?”
I’m sorry. I missed the memo that the world started on 1.20.2009. Just what would you have me use to compare Presidential terms?
MPercy
December 21st, 2011
1:53 pm
Granny, the 2011 report is what I quoted (mistyped as 2010) and it does include the text you represented: “The loss of payroll tax revenue due to this one-year reduction will be made up by transfers from the General Fund of the Treasury to the OASI and DI Trust Funds and will thus have no financial impact on either program.”
Assuming this is actually done (can you say Doc-Fix?), then no additional damage will be done to SS *beyond* the predicted effects of continuing operational deficits. So in that case, my comment about accelerating the damage may be incorrect–assuming the funding is restored.
But the transfer will have an impact on general revenues. And that is to increase general deficits.
Also see my comments on transforming SS from a conceptually separate tax system into a welfare program funded by general revenues.
Jm
December 21st, 2011
1:53 pm
What’s everyone doing since it’s the end of the world next year?
I was thinking of getting a year long massage next year. With a cooler of beer next to me. Decadent you say?
Not if it’s the end of the world. I better notify Santa
TaxPayer
December 21st, 2011
1:53 pm
Medicare Advantage funding cuts only account for about 1/5 of the amount to be cut….Democrats hate seniors! They cut funding for SS! They want to punish those who are going to buy houses or refinance their houses to pay for it! Obama hates anyone who buys a house! AHHHHHHHH!
I’m sure you have a link to that.
Bruno
December 21st, 2011
1:54 pm
It remains fully funded.
Well, there you go, Granny. No need to scratch below the surface.
The whining is about lentgh of time not funding right?
All I can say, Granny, is that we’re fortunate that we have folks in this country with a little more intelligence and maturity than you and the rest of the Free Lunch crowd have.