What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. And the rest is a giveaway to unions and bad blue State governments and their huge pension fund liabilities that were never adequately funded. And then she wants other green and leftist objectives to tie it all up in a nice bow. I didn't see ANYTHING in her bill that I supported. There is no compromise with that. Far better to not do anything.
This is an unusual time since government forced businesses to shut down. So I'm open even as a libertarian to spending I would not normally support. But the bill would have to be payouts to get businesses running and hiring again. A payroll tax suspension would be great for workers and businesses. But those are non-starters for Nancy. At least 20 or so Republicans realize that a deal is not always a good thing. And this deal isn't worth making. Let's send them home for their August break.
"Rep.
Lance Gooden, R-Texas, said Wednesday that at least 20
Senate Republicans will not vote for a fresh
coronavirus stimulus deal."
Rep. Lance Gooden said Wednesday that at least 20 Republicans won't vote for a new stimulus agreement.
www.foxnews.com
Wouldn’t a payroll tax break hurt social security?
No. There is no social security trust fund. There is no money. So the idea that it's taking money from the fund is a ruse since it doesn't exist. Social security is a welfare program
Social Security is paid for by workers. Subsidies to corporations is a welfare program.
Allowing companies to buy back their own stocks, which used to be illegal, at the expense of laying off employees, after receiving tax breaks is a welfare program.
What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. And the rest is a giveaway to unions and bad blue State governments and their huge pension fund liabilities that were never adequately funded. And then she wants other green and leftist objectives to tie it all up in a nice bow. I didn't see ANYTHING in her bill that I supported. There is no compromise with that. Far better to not do anything.
This is an unusual time since government forced businesses to shut down. So I'm open even as a libertarian to spending I would not normally support. But the bill would have to be payouts to get businesses running and hiring again. A payroll tax suspension would be great for workers and businesses. But those are non-starters for Nancy. At least 20 or so Republicans realize that a deal is not always a good thing. And this deal isn't worth making. Let's send them home for their August break.
"Rep.
Lance Gooden, R-Texas, said Wednesday that at least 20
Senate Republicans will not vote for a fresh
coronavirus stimulus deal."
Rep. Lance Gooden said Wednesday that at least 20 Republicans won't vote for a new stimulus agreement.
www.foxnews.com
Wouldn’t a payroll tax break hurt social security?
No. There is no social security trust fund. There is no money. So the idea that it's taking money from the fund is a ruse since it doesn't exist. Social security is a welfare program
Social Security is paid for by workers. Subsidies to corporations is a welfare program.
Allowing companies to buy back their own stocks, which used to be illegal, at the expense of laying off employees, after receiving tax breaks is a welfare program.
You're just babbling Marxist propaganda. Nothing you said makes sense
kaz What is it about this that you think is "Marxist propaganda"? Or are you talking about Sealbooboo's remarks?
"Social Security is paid for by workers. Subsidies to corporations is a welfare program.
Allowing companies to buy back their own stocks, which used to be illegal, at the expense of laying off employees, after receiving tax breaks is a welfare program. "
^^This is where the major corporate bodies have truly screwed the American work force along with taking good manufacturing out of the country.
I see many of those same companies will be going into bankruptcy but even in that they will screw over many pension funds as they know before hand those companies are going down and they shuffle their losses to make it others losses. The problem is many of our legislators have been bought and paid for by unscrupulous, unethical, unconscionable business men/women.
You're mixing a bunch of unrelated things. You talk about social security, but then talk about corporate "subsidies" and I don't know specifically what you are referring to. Then you ramble about buy backs and link that to laying off employees, which doesn't make sense. And again no idea what "tax breaks" you're referring to. So I'll make two points, feel free to clarify what you meant by the others if you want me to address those.
1) We tax businesses on profits. Taxing profits means we can deduct our expenses. So again I don't know what you're referring to with subsidies and tax breaks. Deducting expenses is not a subsidy. It's our system.
2) The point with social security is none of the money is saved. You aren't paying into social security. You're just paying taxes. Just like if you pay taxes and the money is spent on the military, there is no "military trust fund." Not one dime of your social security check will be money you paid into the system. That was spent and gone as it came in.
So,
Welfare - You tax today's taxpayers, redistribute the money to other people
Social Security - Exactly the same thing
Point; those corporates are getting the SS money when they get their welfare checks from the federal coffers. It was never intended to be that away. That same handful of peeps selected that are running the majors are also allowed to get away with pumping up the prices on stocks shortly before dumping them onto the unsuspecting retirement savers who invested due to the legislation that was put in place to encourage people to invest, etc...
It really isn't all that confusing as it has been just a con game from the get go telling people what a good thing it is to let someone else manage your life finances because they are surely too stupid to do it for themselves.
Again, no idea what "those corporates are getting the SS money when they get their welfare checks from the federal coffers" means. What welfare checks are you referring to?
And that doesn't change that social security is a welfare program, it's just tit for tat
What president took money from Social Security?
In early 1968 President
Lyndon Johnson made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a
"unified budget." This is likewise sometimes described by saying that Social Security was placed "on-budget."
The federal government generates tax revenue through sources like income and corporate taxes. Learn how much tax revenue the U.S. generates each year.
www.thebalance.com
In fiscal year 2023, the federal government is estimated to spend $6.3 trillion, amounting to 24.2 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP). Of that $6.3 trillion, over $4.8 trillion is...
www.cbpp.org
What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. And the rest is a giveaway to unions and bad blue State governments and their huge pension fund liabilities that were never adequately funded. And then she wants other green and leftist objectives to tie it all up in a nice bow. I didn't see ANYTHING in her bill that I supported. There is no compromise with that. Far better to not do anything.
This is an unusual time since government forced businesses to shut down. So I'm open even as a libertarian to spending I would not normally support. But the bill would have to be payouts to get businesses running and hiring again. A payroll tax suspension would be great for workers and businesses. But those are non-starters for Nancy. At least 20 or so Republicans realize that a deal is not always a good thing. And this deal isn't worth making. Let's send them home for their August break.
"Rep.
Lance Gooden, R-Texas, said Wednesday that at least 20
Senate Republicans will not vote for a fresh
coronavirus stimulus deal."
Rep. Lance Gooden said Wednesday that at least 20 Republicans won't vote for a new stimulus agreement.
www.foxnews.com
Wouldn’t a payroll tax break hurt social security?
No. There is no social security trust fund. There is no money. So the idea that it's taking money from the fund is a ruse since it doesn't exist. Social security is a welfare program
Social Security is paid for by workers. Subsidies to corporations is a welfare program.
Allowing companies to buy back their own stocks, which used to be illegal, at the expense of laying off employees, after receiving tax breaks is a welfare program.
What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. And the rest is a giveaway to unions and bad blue State governments and their huge pension fund liabilities that were never adequately funded. And then she wants other green and leftist objectives to tie it all up in a nice bow. I didn't see ANYTHING in her bill that I supported. There is no compromise with that. Far better to not do anything.
This is an unusual time since government forced businesses to shut down. So I'm open even as a libertarian to spending I would not normally support. But the bill would have to be payouts to get businesses running and hiring again. A payroll tax suspension would be great for workers and businesses. But those are non-starters for Nancy. At least 20 or so Republicans realize that a deal is not always a good thing. And this deal isn't worth making. Let's send them home for their August break.
"Rep.
Lance Gooden, R-Texas, said Wednesday that at least 20
Senate Republicans will not vote for a fresh
coronavirus stimulus deal."
Rep. Lance Gooden said Wednesday that at least 20 Republicans won't vote for a new stimulus agreement.
www.foxnews.com
Wouldn’t a payroll tax break hurt social security?
No. There is no social security trust fund. There is no money. So the idea that it's taking money from the fund is a ruse since it doesn't exist. Social security is a welfare program
Social Security is paid for by workers. Subsidies to corporations is a welfare program.
Allowing companies to buy back their own stocks, which used to be illegal, at the expense of laying off employees, after receiving tax breaks is a welfare program.
You're just babbling Marxist propaganda. Nothing you said makes sense
kaz What is it about this that you think is "Marxist propaganda"? Or are you talking about Sealbooboo's remarks?
"Social Security is paid for by workers. Subsidies to corporations is a welfare program.
Allowing companies to buy back their own stocks, which used to be illegal, at the expense of laying off employees, after receiving tax breaks is a welfare program. "
^^This is where the major corporate bodies have truly screwed the American work force along with taking good manufacturing out of the country.
I see many of those same companies will be going into bankruptcy but even in that they will screw over many pension funds as they know before hand those companies are going down and they shuffle their losses to make it others losses. The problem is many of our legislators have been bought and paid for by unscrupulous, unethical, unconscionable business men/women.
You're mixing a bunch of unrelated things. You talk about social security, but then talk about corporate "subsidies" and I don't know specifically what you are referring to. Then you ramble about buy backs and link that to laying off employees, which doesn't make sense. And again no idea what "tax breaks" you're referring to. So I'll make two points, feel free to clarify what you meant by the others if you want me to address those.
1) We tax businesses on profits. Taxing profits means we can deduct our expenses. So again I don't know what you're referring to with subsidies and tax breaks. Deducting expenses is not a subsidy. It's our system.
2) The point with social security is none of the money is saved. You aren't paying into social security. You're just paying taxes. Just like if you pay taxes and the money is spent on the military, there is no "military trust fund." Not one dime of your social security check will be money you paid into the system. That was spent and gone as it came in.
So,
Welfare - You tax today's taxpayers, redistribute the money to other people
Social Security - Exactly the same thing
Point; those corporates are getting the SS money when they get their welfare checks from the federal coffers. It was never intended to be that away. That same handful of peeps selected that are running the majors are also allowed to get away with pumping up the prices on stocks shortly before dumping them onto the unsuspecting retirement savers who invested due to the legislation that was put in place to encourage people to invest, etc...
It really isn't all that confusing as it has been just a con game from the get go telling people what a good thing it is to let someone else manage your life finances because they are surely too stupid to do it for themselves.
Again, no idea what "those corporates are getting the SS money when they get their welfare checks from the federal coffers" means. What welfare checks are you referring to?
And that doesn't change that social security is a welfare program, it's just tit for tat
No it is not tit for tat on SS and it is not a welfare program but legislators have used it for a hell of a lot other than retirees and their spouses.
And;
Since the assets in the Social Security trust funds consists of Treasury securities, this means that the taxes collected under the Social Security payroll tax are in effect being lent to the federal government to be expended for whatever present purposes the government requires. In this indirect sense, one could say that the Social Security trust funds are being spent for non-Social Security purposes.
There is no trust fund. Social Security money is spent as it comes in. Ironically your own quote at the end while spinning it agrees with that. Writing down every week what you spent on groceries doesn't give you a grocery trust fund. You have to actually save money to do that. No actual money is saved. The Treasury just writes IOU notes to itself, that isn't money.
And you never explained what you are referring to with your endless use of the term "corporate welfare." Writing off your expenses is how we tax corporations since we tax them on their PROFIT. Profit = revenue - expenses
Here is one such industry w/mega corps and there are more...
Inside The Pharmaceutical Lobby's Campaign For More ...
www.forbes.com › sites › theapothecary › 2019/07/19
Jul 19, 2019 -
Pharmaceutical companies, in a furious lobbying effort, are trying to blow up a ... that taxpayers spend tens of billions on drug industry
subsidies.
Pharmaceutical corporations need to stop free-riding on ...
thehill.com › opinion › healthcare › 376574-pharmace...
Mar 3, 2018 -
Pharmaceutical companies have perpetuated a myth that high prices are ... public university research, grants,
subsidies, and other incentives.
Why the United States has the highest drug prices in the world ...
www.vox.com › prescription-drug-prices-explained
May 10, 2018 - ...
pharmaceutical companies and haggle over an appropriate price. ...
high drug prices help subsidize the rest of the world's drug research.
What You Need To Know About Lucrative Drug Subsidies ...
khn.org › morning-breakout › what-you-need-to-know...
Nov 8, 2017 - President Trump blasted the
pharmaceutical industry for “getting away with murder” with steep drug prices during the campaign and since, but ...
Opinion | Stop Subsidizing Big Pharma - The New York Times
www.nytimes.com › 2015/01/06 › stop-subsidizing-big...
Jan 5, 2015 - There is nothing to stop
pharmaceutical companies from creating their own philanthropies, funding research with tax-exempt dollars and then ...
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/GettyImages-591478749-fb686ce4aa5c4dc1b2ef76949bb8ea81.jpg)
