Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Simple theory: People notice the slight increase the first couple of paychecks. And then they adjust their lifestyle around those few extra dollars and then it just becomes absorbed as if it were always there. If Obama wanted to score political points (only), he'd let it expire and the citizenry would notice the extra dollars gone from their paychecks, thereby presumably reflecting negatively on the GOP.
Barack Obama is not that kind of risk-taker, though. That kind of calculus wouldn't make it through the political filter between his ears.
I got an e-mail from an old friend in 'Texas today that said something to the effect that people aren't supposed to notice tax raises of say, $800 per year but they sure are supposed to notice when they get a $30 cut. I think that most politicians think just like that.
Didn't the dems LEARN from the stimulus? $13 dollars twice a month is hardly noticed. Same with this avg of $40 per paycheck.
You bet they do. Stopping the obamanomic train wreck of overspending.
Dems? What was McCain proposing to do with his stumulus. Oh yeah, the same thing.
If you're going to be a partisan whiner, at least get some reference to your arguments before you get your panties in a bunch.
To boot, the reason why the current stimulus bills were designed was that the economic impact of passing out money this was way seemed to be higher. People tended to spend more if they had a little more on their paycheck instead of getting a lump sum.
Basically, the Bush administration learned this from the early 2003's when it borrowed money from the Chinese to give people handouts, err, tax rebate checks.
It's sort of sad that you'd be complaining about this and not really know what you're talking about.
Dems? What was McCain proposing to do with his stumulus. Oh yeah, the same thing.
Same thing? Oh, I don't think McCain had any plans to filch $1+ Trillion out of the private sector to distribute to his union buddies, his bundlers and billionaire fund raisers, which is what obama did.
If you're going to be a partisan whiner, at least get some reference to your arguments before you get your panties in a bunch.
Panties in a bunch? Oh no, obama was warned about his failed stimulus AND the payroll tax...he didn't want to listen. Too bad for him. Not he gets to reap the rewards of his bad ideas.
To boot, the reason why the current stimulus bills were designed was that the economic impact of passing out money this was way seemed to be higher. People tended to spend more if they had a little more on their paycheck instead of getting a lump sum.
Obviously, the people DISAGREE with you. Nickles and dimes in a $13 a week cut or even $40/paycheck is really NOT noticeable, as you've learned.
Basically, the Bush administration learned this from the early 2003's when it borrowed money from the Chinese to give people handouts, err, tax rebate checks.
That lump sum $800 bucks I got was noticed, felt and SPENT. THIS is the way STIMULUS is supposed to work.
It's sort of sad that you'd be complaining about this and not really know what you're talking about.
Now, who doesn't know what they're talking about again?
I guess we should believe you over a majority that says the impact of $40/month was negligible.
PolitiFact is no stranger to claims that the Recovery Act was a complete dud. In June, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-7th, received a False rating on his claim that the stimulus "failed to get people back to work." His office argued it was a broad statement that the Recovery Act failed to improve the economy, not a claim that no one benefited from it.
Echoing Cantor, the NRSC later in June put out a news release saying the stimulus "failed to create jobs," and that also received a False rating from PolitiFact.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry said during a Republican presidential debate Sept. 12, 2011, that the stimulus "created zero jobs." He earned a Pants on Fire from our national PolitiFact colleagues.
There was also smoke in the air after U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., said in February 2010 that the stimulus "didn’t create one new job," and after Florida Republican Rick Scott claimed in September 2010 while successfully campaigning for governor that the stimulus "has not created one private sector job."
The zero-job claim is not credible for a simple reason: The stimulus did put people to work.
It is helping my 401K, I put the payroll taxcut money into it. Figure I might need it since the cut further defunds SS.
Actually, Republicans agreed to transfer general revenues to Social Security to make up the difference. Please have your facts before posting.
Ideology aside, the bottom line is that a temporary tax cut is inconsequential to Social Security’s long-term health, from an accounting perspective.
Actually, Republicans agreed to transfer general revenues to Social Security to make up the difference. Please have your facts before posting.
Ideology aside, the bottom line is that a temporary tax cut is inconsequential to Social Security’s long-term health, from an accounting perspective.
You really believe there are funds dedicated to SS? All these deficits and unfunded liabilities are going to have to be paid for someday in some way. I do agree this added debt is just a bump on our mountain of debt and unfunded liabilities.
You really believe there are funds dedicated to SS? All these deficits and unfunded liabilities are going to have to be paid for someday in some way. I do agree this added debt is just a bump on our mountain of debt and unfunded liabilities.
You are entitled to believe what you want, even if it does not correspond to actual facts. The fact is there is a SSA trust fund that has ample assets for the next 25-75 years.
Quote:
In the annual Trustees Report, projections are made under three alternative sets of economic and demographic assumptions. Under one of these sets (labeled "Low Cost") the trust funds remain solvent for the next 75 years. Under the other two sets (the "Intermediate" and "High Cost"), the trust funds become depleted within the next 25 years. The intermediate assumptions reflect the Trustees' best estimate of future experience. Trust Fund FAQs
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
