Grover Norquist On Mitt Romney 47 Percent Comment: He 'Mixed Up' His Issues

Lie number 3) U.S. corporatio­ns are over-taxed­.

Example: Republican presidenti­al candidate Tim Pawlenty

We have the highest corporate tax rate, or one of them, in the OECD nations.

Actually, as measured in terms of share of GDP, the U.S. has the lowest corporate tax burden of any OECD nation. While the official tax bracket may seems high -- 35 percent -- if one takes into account various loopholes and tax dodges, the effective tax rate is considerab­ly lower, or around 27 percent, which comes in as slightly higher than average for OECD members. And according to ace tax report David Cay Johnston, the bigger you are, the less you pay -- the effective tax rate for the biggest U.S. corporatio­ns is only about 15 percent.

There you have it, for future handy reference. Poor people do pay taxes, the biggest corporatio­ns don't pay enough, and the United States, as a whole, has a low tax burden overall.
About Grover Norquist
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Grover Norquist On Mitt Romney 47 Percent Comment: He 'Mixed Up' His Issues

Lie number 2) The U.S. suffers from high taxes.

Example: The Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore:

What all this means is that in the late 1980s, the U.S. was nearly the lowest taxed nation in the world, and a quarter century later we're nearly the highest.

Totally untrue. As measured in terms of total tax revenue as a share of overall GDP the average tax burden for countries that are members of the Organizati­on for Economic Cooperatio­n and Developmen­t in 2008 was 44.8 percent. The U.S. -- 26.1 percent. The U.S. pays less taxes, as a share of GDP, than Denmark, Sweden, Italy, Austria, France, Netherland­s, Germany, United Kingdom, Canada, Spain, Switzerlan­d and Japan.

Furthermor­e, as Bruce Bartlett explains in detail in The New York Times the current U.S. federal tax burden, measured, again, as a share of GDP, is only 14.8 percent -- a 60-year low.

KEEP READING
About Grover Norquist
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Grover Norquist On Mitt Romney 47 Percent Comment: He 'Mixed Up' His Issues

You need to get an education..You faiI to mention that 1% of the people are paying 40% OF THE TAXES AND 50% of the people pay nothing...who has the stranglehold?

===========================

If you don't pay federal income tax, do you think that that means that you don't pay any taxes?

The Top 3 Lies About Taxes:

Lie Number 1) Poor people don't pay taxes.

Example: From The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities­:

At a hearing last month, SenatorCharlesGrassley said, "According to the JointCommittee on Taxation, 49 percent of households are paying 100 percent of taxes coming in to the federal government­." At the same hearing, CatoInstitute Senior Fellow AlanReynolds asserted, "Poor people don't pay taxes in this country." Last April, referring to a TaxPolicyCenter estimate of households with no federal income tax liability in 2009, Fox Business host Stuart Varney said on Fox and Friends, "Yes, 47 percent of households pay not a single dime in taxes."

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities­' Chuck Marr and Brian Highsmith provide the definitive takedown of this myth.

In 2009, Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation found that 51 percent of households owed no federal income tax. According to Marr and Highsmith, that figure was inflated by special recession-­related factors -- In a more typical year, "35 to 40 percent of households pay no federal income tax."

But that doesn't mean that these households pay no federal taxes at all. Far from it: Nearly all working Americans pay payroll taxes to fund Medicare and SocialSecurity. In 2007, the poorest Americans -- taxpayers in the bottom fifth of income -- paid 8.8 percent of their income as payroll taxes. The next fifth paid almost ten percent. The top 20 percent of earners paid only 5.7 percent.

And of course, these numbers don't include state and local taxes or excise fees like gas taxes, which tend to have a regressive impact that hits poorer Americans harder. Bottom line: only 14 percent of Americans don't pay either federal income taxes or payroll taxes -- and that group is made up primarily of "low-incom­e people who are elderly, unable to work due to a serious disability­, or students."

The rich have gotten rich off of the sweat and labor of others and then have taken those profits to buy politician­s who've gamed the system so that they wouldn't have to pay taxes through all manner of tax schemes not available to the poor and middle classes.  The rich also 'closed the door' on the ways that initially enabled them to amass their 'seed money' for creating their businesses­.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Does President Obama Want to Cut Social Security by 3 Percent?

That's because we have two political parties with 180 degree opposing views.  Regardless, seems to me that Repubs call for more tax cuts, and that's just fine and dandy for those on the right, but when the president offers them up as temporary payroll tax cuts reimbursed by the general fund, he's bankrupting Ameica.

====================================

180 degree opposing views??

Democrats delivered what Republicans called for (tax cuts for the rich) along with (payroll) tax cuts for the working class that wind up hurting the working class.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Does President Obama Want to Cut Social Security by 3 Percent?

Let him say it, unequivocally, no spin, no Bush-speak/lawyer-speak, no couching it, no qualifying words, no weasel-words.  

Then we'll see.  You and I both know bs when we hear it.  But right now, Obama's 'most ardent admirers' are the problem.  They keep his poll numbers up and that let's him promise them absolutely nothing but more of the same austerity and pain.  Worse, really.  Right now, Obama has nothing to fear because his fans are saying they'll vote for him no matter what, because he doesn't have an 'R' after his name.  It doesn't matter that he governs as a Republican, just so long as he isn't officially a member of the Republican Party.  

So as far as I can see, they hold the key.  They are what lets Obama deliver to the 1% and against the interests of the 99%.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Does President Obama Want to Cut Social Security by 3 Percent?

There's are two books that I read about 30 years ago by Raoul Hilberg that I think probably prepared me more for this period in our history than anything else I've ever read or studied. They help explain how government leaders manage to get citizens to accept that which the citizens would never grant permission for, and to do the unspeakable, unthinkable, to fellow human beings. 

Hilberg, a historian, was writing about Nazis and WWII, but the methods are strikingly similar to what Democrats and Republicans in the US have been up to. Hilberg set out to try to understand how and why so many J3ws went to their deaths seemingly without resistance, and how they didn't see the writing on the wall until it was too late.

Edicts curtailing their rights and movement (everything from limiting the amount of money they could have to where they could actually be in public, banning them from being in public squares or shopping at stores, and sending their children to school) didn't happen all at once, but one at a time, and their response each time was, "This has to be the worst that will happen; we can live with this", until they were rounded up and put on trains to death camps.  And their neighbors, who had lived among assimilated Jews, as friends and family, did nothing as the net was closing around the J3ws. 

It's an eye-opener, about how it can happen to any people (and has since), and how so many of the same tactics used by the Nazis are used by modern day politicians. 

The only weapon against these tactics working is an informed electorate that see these tactics coming.

The Destruction of the European J3ws 

&

Perpetrators, Victims and Bystanders by Raoul Hilberg
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Does President Obama Want to Cut Social Security by 3 Percent?

Obama could make an appeal to me and the other 99%ers, saying, "I've been a fool and all that stops if I'm reelected.  All this talk of 'austerity' ends now - The 1% have gotten rich off of the poor and middle classes, and they're going to be shouldering the burden for the devastation they've created.  I'm unleashing my DoJ to start prosecuting Wall Street, torturers and the war criminals of the Bush-Cheney administration.  I will also instruct my DoJ to stop going after whistleblowers, and stop raiding and shutting down marijuana dispensaries and reschedule marijuana.  My administration will work to expand Medicare, lower the age of eligibility, and negotiate lower prices on pharmaceuticals.  Beginning today, I'll instruct the joint chiefs to begin bringing all of the troops home from Afghanistan and end the drone strikes.  The bogus war on terror ends now.  All of the free trade treaties will be renegotiated, the TransPacific transactions will be opened for scrutiny.  The People's Budget will be the template for budget talks and Erskine Bowles won't see the light of day inside an Obama cabinet.  And neoliberals will be excommunicated from my administration and the DNC."  

For starters.  

Let him work for my vote.   Would I believe him given as how he's lied?  I don't know, but as it stands now, I have absolutely no interest in voting for him, much less working for him; I do have much interest in working against him.  Obama has crossed Rubicons that no Democrat should have crossed.  Read John Cusack's Interview of Law Professor Jonathan Turley About the Obama Administration's War on the Constitution and journalist Russell Mokhiber's Ten Reasons I'm Not With Barack Obama.

Then read/listen to A Great Silence is Spreading Over the Natural World.

And Chris Hedges' Life Is Sacred (no, it's not about abortion).

Then consider all of it against the backdrop of this, AfterTheWarming.

Then vote as if your life depends on it.  Because it does.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Does President Obama Want to Cut Social Security by 3 Percent?

Kind and flattering words, but please remember this isn't about me or what I'm going to do.  I can tell you what I think the options are, but in the end people have to think it through and make the decision that works best for them - I have no doubt that they will, no matter what I say on the matter.

If the election was held today, I'd vote for Jill Stein.  Obama's 'most ardent supporters' like to say that that would be throwing my vote away.  I think voting for Obama, who takes my vote (and all others like me) for granted, is throwing my vote away.  If Obama wins reelection, it gets me absolutely nothing.  He's already said he's going to do more of the same, and worse.  Simpson-Bowles.  So an Obama win sets this government on the same trajectory as if Romney wins.  Pain and austerity for the 99%, more war crimes, more insane Republican-like policies and legislation.

But the election isn't being held today, and here's where the true colors of Obama's 'most ardent supporters' come into play.  Where they can use their influence, their power, for all of our good.  To push Obama to do the correct thing, and become the leader they want him to be.  To become the progressive, the liberal that these times call for.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Angela Yartz, Walmart Debtor, Threatened With Jail Over $48 Bounced Check

Debtors' prisons make an American comeback
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Does President Obama Want to Cut Social Security by 3 Percent?

This Headline should read "Obama cuts Social Security" .. but .. but .. he already has .. his reduction in the Payroll Tax shortened the life of Social Security for everyone.

No, it didn't. The reduced SS revenue was replaced from the general fund. He used the payroll tax as an easy way to let people keep the money immediately. It was equivalent to an across the board tax cut for everyone.

=======================

The payroll tax cut was supposed to be temporary, but its already been extended once.  As the fight over tax increases versus tax cuts of the past couple of decades should have shown you, short term tax cuts in Washington (that was what the Bush tax cuts were supposed to be in the first place, short term) have a way of sticking around longer than planned, especially as economic growth remains slow and law­makers are wary of raising anyone’s taxes. 

To continue payroll tax holidays by moving money into the trust fund from the general fund means Social Security will lose its status as a protected benefit owed to every working American and instead become politically vulnerable, just like any other government program.

Charles Blahouse, one of two public trustees for Social Security and a research fellow with the Hoover Institution said: “It’s a grave step for Social Security, and the program both financially and politically will be on a lot rockier footing.”

Robert Reischauer, the other public trustee and president of the Urban Institute, said "extending the payroll tax cut could, if it continues for a substantial period of time, undermine one of the foundational arguments that makes the Social Security program inviolate.”

Since Social Security began, it's been premised on a simple contract: Americans pay into the program’s trust fund over years of paychecks through the payroll tax. In return, when they retire, they receive monthly benefits.

The payroll tax cut changed that. Instead of being a protected program with its own stream of funding, Social Security, by taking money from general revenue, becomes more akin to other government initiatives such as Pentagon spending or clean-air regulation - programs that rely on income taxes and political jockeying for support.

Now, Social Security will have to compete with every other program, whereas before it had its own dedicated revenue.  It broke the firewall that had always existed between the trust fund and the operating fund.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Does President Obama Want to Cut Social Security by 3 Percent?

Obama put SocialSecurity "on the table" for consideration by his DeficitCommission -- even though SocialSecurity has not contributed to creating or sustaining the deficit/debt in the first place.  He kept Social Security on the table when he made a deal to delegate deficit reduction authority over entitlements to an undemocratic Super Committee.  Now, in a speech reportedly about jobs, he proposed to extend and increase the ill-considered FICA tax cut he embraced last December -- a tax cut that directly undermines the financial integrity of Social Security.

According to the WhiteHouseFactSheet on "TheAmericanJobsAct" the FICA tax holiday for workers will be increased to a 50% reduction, lowering it to 3.1%.  Under the 2010 tax deal, the payroll tax for workers was reduced from 6.2% to 4.2%.  In addition to expanding the tax cut for workers, Obama has extended the FICA tax holiday to employers by cutting in half the employer's share of the payroll tax through the first $5 million in payroll. 

Big questions about the wisdom, efficacy, and implications of a tax-based jobs strategy need to be debated.  Even bigger questions about the consequences of the payroll tax holiday in particular need to be answered.  These questions are not just about the relationship between payroll tax cuts and job growth.  They are about the future of SocialSecurity.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Does President Obama Want to Cut Social Security by 3 Percent?

The FICA/payroll tax goes into the SocialSecurity TrustFund.  This is a dedicated fund currently worth $2.6 trillion, which has been built up over time through employee and employer contributions, along with accrued interest.  Current and future SocialSecurity beneficiaries receive benefits from this fund.  No general revenues are involved, except for administrative and clerical costs.

Under the payroll tax cut initiated in the 2010 lame duck tax deal, the revenue loss to the TrustFund from the payroll tax holiday is made up through compensatory payments into the TrustFund from general revenues. This scheme is now continuing -- deepening a relationship between SocialSecurity and general revenues (read deficit) that did not exist until the December 2010 tax deal.  This will make SocialSecurity increasingly vulnerable to demands for "reform."

In the worst case, Congress could choose to enact the payroll tax cut without actually appropriating revenue compensation for the TrustFund.  This would mean that the payroll tax cut directly depletes the TrustFund, creating financial/actuarial problems far sooner than the currently anticipated shortfall date of 2036.

But even if the TrustFund receives full revenue compensation -- for both employer and employee contributions -- SocialSecurity will be jeopardized.  That's because the resources in the TrustFund will be increasingly comingled with general revenue funds -- and, hence, increasingly connected to the deficit.

If the government can't  pay back SocialSecurity money it has borrowed to pay for other things (through IOUs, bonds, etc), it certainly won't be shy about cutting SocialSecurity to pay itself back for funds it shared with Social Security to offset revenue losses from the payroll tax holiday.

Also worth worrying about here is contagious political cowardice about "raising taxes."  The payroll tax holiday is framed as just that -- a holiday, ie, a short-lived break. But as we know from other tax cuts with built-in expiration dates, the planned end of a tax cut quickly becomes a "tax increase" in popular parlance.  There hasn't been much resolve to allow the years-long tax holiday for the rich to end.  When the time comes, will there be greater resolve to allow an end to the 2-year tax holiday for workers and 1-year tax holiday for employers?  Even when billed as a "middle class tax increase" and a "job-killing tax on business"?

Once the payroll tax basis of SocialSecurity financing has been corrupted the future of SocialSecurity will no longer be in doubt.  It won't have one.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...