No to stimulus 5. Paying people to not work and to bail out bad local governments and unions is wrong

[kaz]

Are you some kind of fucking retard.

A moderate illness can wipe a family out economically... Even my knee surgery cost me tens of thousands beyond what insurance covered (after I had to fight with Cigna for a year).

Nobody is going to be able to buy insurance to cover their family for an extra $500.00. Not good insurance, anyway.

Look dude, we were a small business with less than 50 employees. Obamacare was DESIGNED to make it complicated and costly for small businesses to continue insurance. It worked. I couldn't hire someone just to manage a far more complicated and expensive group insurance program. We weren't big enough.

That's why most small businesses did cancel our policies. You voted for Obama, take it up with him. But it was CLEARLY intentional. Obama wanted small companies to end insurance so the workers were on the government plan. You know that, stop lying. It worked because it was SO expensive to continue. So stop whining that you got the consequences of your own choices. You voted for the Democrats who did that.

You're the one too who keeps saying how government run insurance is soooo much better. You got it. So what's the problem?

 

[kaz]

It's a mix. You should know that. The management and designers all had college degrees. Most of the rest were support roles and didn't

Again, worked with bottom feeders like you for years... and those shops were always a little sad to visit on Vendor Inspections I had to do to complete ISO certification.

So now you think I was YOUR vendor? Freebasing this morning?

Dude, you were a quote and order middle man. You didn't do shit other than arrange deals. Your deals were only about price. It was the lowest end work we did. You got a RFQ, you contacted typically three vendors and got quotes. If the customer picked us then you sent in their artwork and filled out the screen where to deliver the boxes. You invoiced the customer and you were done. That's why designers weren't even involved unless the customer wanted anything done with the art work

 

[Brain357]

What Trump did is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work.

Now I'm certain the Kaz is going to tell us how wrong Trump is....

 

[Markle]

Average $59,000 in this state. Yikes that's scary low. People living on less calling it a "dream".

What state is that? Source and link, please.

 

[Moonglow]

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

Rep. Lance Gooden said Wednesday that at least 20 Republicans won't vote for a new stimulus agreement.

www.foxnews.com

But the 4 trillion dollar slush fund for the wealthy and corporations is just fine for yous since you managed to leave them out of it. Shouldn't we also raise the interest rates back to where they were and stop giving in to Trump and his free interest loans for his businesses?

 

[kaz]

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

Rep. Lance Gooden said Wednesday that at least 20 Republicans won't vote for a new stimulus agreement.

www.foxnews.com

But the 4 trillion dollar slush fund for the wealthy and corporations is just fine for yous since you managed to leave them out of it. Shouldn't we also raise the interest rates back to where they were and stop giving in to Trump and his free interest loans for his businesses?

Wow, another leftist who reads minds. Telling me what my position is. That's so cool.

I'm thinking of a number between one and a million. What is it?

 

[iceberg]

What Trump did is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work.

Now I'm certain the Kaz is going to tell us how wrong Trump is....

God damn you just make shit up too.

 

[Brain357]

What Trump did is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work.

Now I'm certain the Kaz is going to tell us how wrong Trump is....

God damn you just make shit up too.

It's based on the OP, did Kaz just make it up? He didn't want the big money give away. Has he changed his mind already?

 

[Papageorgio]

No Obama didn't do that. George W. Bush bailed out Wall Street on October 3, 2008 - one month BEFORE Obama was elected, but nice try. Wall Street used the bailout money to pay bonuses to the people who crashed the economy.

President Bush bailed out the banks. All of that money was repaid in full plus interest.

Failed former President Barack Hussein Obama then used that money to bail out the Auto Unions at GM and Chrysler. GM ended up owing us billions and Chrysler is not owned by Fiat, an Italian auto manufacturer.

The auto bail out was done in 2008, part 2 was executed under Obama's term.... we became stock holders of it.... until we were bought out and made our money back.

The too big to fail d BS, that was the last straw with Bush, then McCain and Obama votes for it. No one prosecuted, the rich got a big break, something Democrats and Republicans would never do for the working class.

Not a Trump fan and not a EO, however Trump did something he said he’d do and showed the House and Senate what they should have done this week, without the pork games.

 

[RodISHI]

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

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."

U.S. Federal Government Tax Revenue

The federal government generates tax revenue through a variety of sources, including income and corporate taxes. Learn how much tax revenue the U.S. generates.

www.thebalance.com

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

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.

Social Security History

www.ssa.gov

And;

Social Security History

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.

 

[kaz]

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

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."

U.S. Federal Government Tax Revenue

The federal government generates tax revenue through a variety of sources, including income and corporate taxes. Learn how much tax revenue the U.S. generates.

www.thebalance.com

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

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.

Social Security History

www.ssa.gov

And;

Social Security History

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

 

[berg80]

Look dude, we were a small business with less than 50 employees. Obamacare was DESIGNED to make it complicated and costly for small businesses to continue insurance.

Liar. Maybe you were just too stupid to figure it out.

How ACA Affects Employers With Less Than 50 Employees

Tips from the IRS Most employers have fewer than 50 full-time employees or full-time equivalent employees and are therefore not subject to the Affordable

www.nsacct.org

 

[Markle]

But the 4 trillion dollar slush fund for the wealthy and corporations is just fine for yous since you managed to leave them out of it. Shouldn't we also raise the interest rates back to where they were and stop giving in to Trump and his free interest loans for his businesses?

I'm sure you simply forgot to include your reliable source and working link supporting your amusing allegations.

 

[kaz]

Look dude, we were a small business with less than 50 employees. Obamacare was DESIGNED to make it complicated and costly for small businesses to continue insurance.

Liar. Maybe you were just too stupid to figure it out.

How ACA Affects Employers With Less Than 50 Employees

Tips from the IRS Most employers have fewer than 50 full-time employees or full-time equivalent employees and are therefore not subject to the Affordable

www.nsacct.org

The problem was:

1) Obamacare still drove up the cost of group plans: Yes, under 50 we were exempt from being required to offer a plan, but if we did anyway then the cost of the plan went dramatically higher. That's what we're talking about, right?

2) Obamacare removed the deductability of contributions to plans that did not meet certain guidelines. In my case, I made set contributions to insurance plans. However, Obamacare eliminated my ability to do that tax free unless I paid 50% of all policies. As a small business, insurance costs wildly fluctuated between employees and I wasn't big enough to spread those costs out

So, what I did was contribute an average of $500 per employee. It went up or down based on several factors, but the contributions were all within a couple hundred of that. Obamacare took away the deductibility of doing that. I would have had to get involved in everyone's insurance to meet all the hurdles. Again, we weren't big enough to deal with that.

I talked to my staff and they got that this was Obama and Obamacare. We discussed the group policy, but we agreed that I would take whatever I was paying for their insurance and roll it into their salary. They still got the money, it just was no longer tax free.

You can thank Obama for that

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Seems like a no brainer to me.

Paying people to not work gives her base more time to pull down statues, torch buildings 'n shit.

 

[RodISHI]

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

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."

U.S. Federal Government Tax Revenue

The federal government generates tax revenue through a variety of sources, including income and corporate taxes. Learn how much tax revenue the U.S. generates.

www.thebalance.com

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

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.

Social Security History

www.ssa.gov

And;

Social Security History

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 ...

 

[kaz]

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

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."

U.S. Federal Government Tax Revenue

The federal government generates tax revenue through a variety of sources, including income and corporate taxes. Learn how much tax revenue the U.S. generates.

www.thebalance.com

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

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.

Social Security History

www.ssa.gov

And;

Social Security History

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 ...

Explain the specific corporate subsidy you are referring to. These links are on different topics. I'm not going to read a bunch of links and guess what you are referring to.

Make your argument and SUPPORT it with links. Don't just say here are links, figure out what you mean

 

[RodISHI]

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

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."

U.S. Federal Government Tax Revenue

The federal government generates tax revenue through a variety of sources, including income and corporate taxes. Learn how much tax revenue the U.S. generates.

www.thebalance.com

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

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.

Social Security History

www.ssa.gov

And;

Social Security History

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 ...

Explain the specific corporate subsidy you are referring to. These links are on different topics. I'm not going to read a bunch of links and guess what you are referring to.

Make your argument and SUPPORT it with links. Don't just say here are links, figure out what you mean

It says right on the links subsidizing Big Pharma. Why are you being so obtuse about it all?

 

[kaz]

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

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."

U.S. Federal Government Tax Revenue

The federal government generates tax revenue through a variety of sources, including income and corporate taxes. Learn how much tax revenue the U.S. generates.

www.thebalance.com

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

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.

Social Security History

www.ssa.gov

And;

Social Security History

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 ...

Explain the specific corporate subsidy you are referring to. These links are on different topics. I'm not going to read a bunch of links and guess what you are referring to.

Make your argument and SUPPORT it with links. Don't just say here are links, figure out what you mean

It says right on the links subsidizing Big Pharma. Why are you being so obtuse about it all?

So "Big Pharma" is your example of corporate subsidies? That doesn't even make sense.

Look man, I'm not going to read a bunch of links and guess what you are referring to. Make your argument and SUPPORT it with links. I'm glad to discuss this with you, but you have to make the case, not just say read this

 

[Brain357]

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

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."

U.S. Federal Government Tax Revenue

The federal government generates tax revenue through a variety of sources, including income and corporate taxes. Learn how much tax revenue the U.S. generates.

www.thebalance.com

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

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."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

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.

Social Security History

www.ssa.gov

And;

Social Security History

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 ...

Explain the specific corporate subsidy you are referring to. These links are on different topics. I'm not going to read a bunch of links and guess what you are referring to.

Make your argument and SUPPORT it with links. Don't just say here are links, figure out what you mean

It says right on the links subsidizing Big Pharma. Why are you being so obtuse about it all?

So "Big Pharma" is your example of corporate subsidies? That doesn't even make sense.

Look man, I'm not going to read a bunch of links and guess what you are referring to. Make your argument and SUPPORT it with links. I'm glad to discuss this with you, but you have to make the case, not just say read this

Why don't you tell us how you now support giving money for people not to work. Now that trump told you that you are for it.