That is the tag line by the White House communications director, Dan Pfeiffer.

2% is Significant.
If the average income of 36K is used, this is $ 720.00 per year.
Given the number $ 720.00 is a lot of money to a person that is making 36K, we are talking about $ 13.85 per week increase.

Add insult to injury, Pfeiffer added that this 2% increase would damage the economy and job growth.

I have to ask, what is the 2% reduction on employee contribution to Social Security, doing to create job growth ?

I know basic math tells me that 13.85 * 160M people is ~ $ 2.2M per week that is available for spending, but the top 50%, it might be safe to say are not spending it ( ?? )
This leaves ~ $ 1.1M per week, which is creating jobs or just keeping existing jobs afloat, as the economic policy of the 111the and 112th congress and the current administration have been focused on something else.
Back to jobs created or jobs saved. If Ben was right with a penny saved is a penny earned, why can't the same be said of jobs ? Maybe that is where that was started at.

How about Pfeiffer mentions what short changing social security 2% for a year is going to do in the future ?

The White House keeps referring to this as a tax cut or tax increase.
They do not call out it is the Social Security Tax, which is money that is needed to feed the ponzi scheme that is quickly running out of cash.

Why not mention that the average tax payer gets an additional $ 13.85 in their pocket every week today, for the possibility of not having Social Security tomorrow ?
That's right, they don't want to shine a light on the economic policies by this administration is setting up the screwing of American in 2035 and beyond.

The propaganda machine ( aka MSM ) is doing a good job of selling how great this idea is, all for 13.85 a week today.
Why mention the pain they are going to have when they retire, and the govt only has 20.00 per week to give to them, and the federal health care system costs them 400.00 per month, which 50% will be on the person.

Here we go, Hope and Change.
I hope the system does not fall apart by time I get there, and the change is more of the same, only 1.5x.
Jimmy Carter is looking better and better all the time....

 

The politics and spin being put on this whole thing are pretty sickening.

BTW, the payroll tax extension the Dem's want is for only 2 months. So it would not 'save' the average taxpayer $720 in 2012, but only 1/6 of that amount.

As a small employer, I can tell you having the payroll taxes change back and forth every two months is a hassle, and not confidence inspiring.

Extend it for a year (like the Republicans are trying to do) or let it expire.

Two months is a chicken poop action that does not accomplish anything except give the Presdient and Dems a campaign slogan that Repulicans raised taxes on 160 million Americans.

 

I dont think the US government should run up debt. I dont like paying taxes any more then anybody but in the end if they cant cut out of the dept then I'm OK with paying taxes so my grandchild inherits a country that is not bankrupt. I'm also for government cutbacks including massive cuts to the military. The US spends more on its military then the rest of the world combined. I'm OK with seeing that change. I consider myself very pro military but I think they should be able to protect our intrests for about half what its costing us.

 

We are so far in debt now, that you, your kids, and your grandkids have absolutely no chance to pay it off.

This year, the government will borrow $0.42 for every $1.00 they spend.

The 'cuts' they fight about are only in how fast spending and debt will grow. When they say they are cutting $1 Trillion in spending, it means that the debt will only climb from $15 Trillion to $23 Trillion instead of to $24 Trillion like they initially expected.

Face it, standard of living is going down for future generations. Politicians have already put $1+ million of debt and unfunded obligations on each of your grandchildren.

www.usdebtclock.org

 

jet--The problem is we can't tax residents enough to pay the debt. Hell we can't tax residents enough to pay the deficit. Spending cuts have to come. The problem with cuts are the Dems have their golden calves that can't be touch and the GOP has theirs. I don't know if defense can be cut without harming our ability to defend the country, but the generals know. Ask them how much can be cut, then cut it. If I recall correctly Obama did that and the Generals said they could take a without too many problems. If you try the same with the entitlement spending nothing can be cut nd if fact they need more money. Hell they can't even figure out a way to reorganize programs so spending can be cut but not benefits. Instead of reeling in spending the Dems are set on increasing spending. Look at the $800 billion stimulus bill that did jack squat. Look at the trillion dollar health care bill that has already caused insurance premiums to go up and will continue to do that until the government finally takes complete control of health care. Everyone else is running away from socialism, except the US. Our leaders are under the delusion that socialism didn't work anyplace else because we didn't do it.

 

I have a problem with the keep cutting defense ideas. We are already down to the smallest our military has ever been. Also it is one of the few things that the Gov't gets a return on. The pay for defense contracts and equipment, and all the employees and companies pay taxes on their incomes. Same with military personnel. Also, this country at this time cannot even secure it's own borders.
How many welfare recipients pay taxes. In many cases they get tax refunds even without paying any taxes.
In many gov't divisions, the only people paying taxes are the gov't employees. Everything they are handling goes out tax free.

 

Not too sure if this is correct.
The military pre WW-I was larger than what is in place now ? How about pre WW-II ?

True the companies (might) pay taxes on profits at corp rates, but this a percentage of what was spent. If you take a 40% corp tax rate, even if the govt contract was 100% profit, that leaves a 60% gap in what is spent vs what is coming back in.
The Employees, high end average of ETR at 25% so get 25 cents for every dollar in payroll ?
Sorry this part of your post almost sounds like what the congress is doing with spending.
For every dollar spent 40 cents comes back. We are loosing on each transaction, but we will make it up on volume.

 

And what percentage do you get back from other agencies. My guess is is it far smaller than from defense, by a long shot. How much do you think we get back from the Dept of Education, especially when most of the cost of educating our kids is done by the state?


And a place to look at some numbers. Including military personnel and budgets. Do not have numbers for pre 1940, but you will see it is at the bottom of the list since then.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873839.html

Another example is number of ships in the US Navy. In 1987 after the Reagan buildup there were 594 ships in the US Navy. As of 2011, there are 285. Which is worse than pre WWII when we got caught with our pants down.

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm#2000

Edit - Something else the gov't is getting back is the equipment and services needed for the defense dept, something see very little of from many others.

 

I will add this as a separate post. If you would like to see a list of gov't agencies, here is a site to see.

http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml

I would say many are useless. Did you know we have a Vietnam Education Foundation. Here is their description.

Wander how much this costs?

Still reading through the list. Here is another: Japan-US Friendship Commission

 

What a lot of people don't seem to understand (and the MSM has done nothing to help clarify) is that these so-called "taxes" for the Social Security program are in fact individually earmarked for each contributor to get back (and more) after they retire. The system is set up such that the more you put in, the more you get back. That, of course, is why each wage earner has a Social Security number to uniquely identify and tally their contributions over their working lifetime.

People's contributions being lower this past year just means that their tally for last year is lower, and their calculated benefits will be that much smaller when it comes time to collect them back.

All the articles I see on the MSM keep calling this a "tax increase" if the reduced contribution rates go back to their normal levels. Calling it a "tax" at all is a misnomer; yes it's collected by the government, but the similarity to a tax ends there -- it's earmarked for you and you alone, proportional to what you put in.

What have I done with my "tax cut" this year? Increased my contributions to my non-SS retirement funds to compensate for the reduction in SS benefits down the road. It definitely hasn't been spent!

 

I do agree there are a ton of programs that are considered off limits by the Left. Tons of pork there, does not take a PhD in Math to see what happened with the DoE loans to Sylondra and Beacon Power to see what the real reason was for these loans.
In addition to this, there are cuts that can be made in Defense.
House GOP members produced efficiencies that would allow defense to be cut by $ 1T over 10 years.
They will not implement it without the quid pro quo from the left in entitlement spending. This is politics as usual. The GOP needs to make the cut now, and let the MSM try to spin that cut, but they won't it is a bargaining chip.
Hard to tell, but mine was to the comment was towards down sizing the military. If we down size to keep what is needed local in the US for defense and not the territories or being in countries that **** off radical elements, cuts could be made. Us contributions towards UN forces is greater than the #2 & #3 combined, by a long shot. This is in number of troops and equipment provided to the UN forces as well as money.
Cut back to even with the 2nd largest ( think that is UK, France is #3 or at least was ).
Japan's last election had a pissing match over the US base there. Population likes to complain about it, but the number of citizens we employee for them is huge. Close it, come back home. Figure out what is needed, and early retire the remainder. Next location.. This is what I was getting at.


And the bulk of the cost is provided by the state and local govts.
Federal for FY 2011 was 140.9 B. 91.5B of that was transferred to the state govt for spending on education. The balance $ 61 B was spread up in a few programs. One large item was part of ARRP, 17.8B, so the loss of local property taxes did not cause school closings.
I will say if the teachers were not on the pay treadmill ( pays regardless if you are on your game or not ) this might not be needed, but this is an error by local govt that the 111th congress was not going to **** of a large contributor / voting block. This line item is not part of FY2012.
Special Ed and an education quality program ( think the 2nd is the formal name for no child left behind ) are the other 2 large items, the remainder are
The total for fed, state, and local govt is 911.3B, excluding the fed total of 140B, the bulk of the money ( 861.9 B ) was paid from revenues from the state and local govts. Keep in mind this is 911.3B for all 50 states.


So the military now is not smallest our military has ever been, at least that is what the URL you provided shows.
While the number of bodies is not the smallest today, what is the defense budget look like ? The number of bodies is not a good indicator of what is spent.
1985 square in the Ronnie years.
2,151,032 bodies total, but spending was $ 295.2 Billion in 1985 money.
This is $ 620 B in 2011 dollars. Today there are 1,468,364 bodies, and the 2011 money spent on defense is 929.5 B. 42% less bodies and 33% more money spent. Doubt that is all on payroll, as I can never remember anyone joining the military to make a lot of money.

True the number is down. but how many are needed now ?
If the US is not sticking its nose in everyone business in every corner of the world, the 11 current ones that hold 75+ aircraft work just fine.
To compare it to the pre " caught with our pants down" WW-II Navy is fighting the last war in the current one. This was an issue in Korea and Vietnam. Military leaders have learned that this does not work, and have changed how battles are fought. Look to the 1st gulf war, we did not fight it like Vietnam or any of the South American conflicts, or even Bosnia, and this is not how the current Iraq War is being fought. The size of the current Navy works just fine for those.

Compare the current US Navy to other countries.
Think I read it in The Economist, the US Navy is the size of the next 11 countries combined Navy, and 8 of them are considered allies. With this in mind, the Navy is too small and cannot be down sized more ? The way the US wages a battle has changed, and the number of ships reflect this. Aircraft carriers do so much more today, that is why we sent one to Hatti. They can make fresh water from sea water, can supply shore power and are a floating hospital. The mess hall alone can make something stupid like 6,000 meals per meal time. That is nothing CV-2 could do. Still think the 23 some carriers pre WW-II are better than the 11 we have today ?

 

Thank you for at least one external confirmation that this money is not going to create jobs and keep the economy moving. I knew I was not the only one.

 

This is just more Washington elites playing politics like the American people are mere game pieces.

Remember Obamas great "making work pay" tax "cut"? Some tax cut. I had to pay, instead of get a return, for the first time ever on my '09 tax returns. It messed up my wife and my witholding so that there wasn't enough taken out to cover our fair share. Fortunately, we saw it coming and had with held the money ourselves.

Enough with the game playing. It's a damn shame that we can't find honorable people to run for office. It's just a bunch of people out for thier own best interests. It's sad that we have to watch the decline of our once great country, real time, before our eyes.

There has never been a better time for a "flat", or "fair" tax. We could also reduce government spending by getting rid of these career politicians and getting some humble servants to represent us.

 

The number of military is very close to be the lowest since 1940 if not the already to that point. I also believe the active includes those reservists that have been called up, which should drop once all are out of Iraq and Kuwait. We also have reservists on the southern border which are soon to be dropped.
There is also on that site a pointer to the defense budget. And the current you listed I also believe includes monies for ops in Irag and Afghanistan. It also includes monies for help to foreign countries including Iraq and Pakistan, although I wonder why.

Just before WWII this country tried to bury it's head in the sand and isolate itself. This did not work at all and left us poorly prepared for the war. Many of the bases we have now are due to lend-lease. An example is Diego Garcia which we got from Britain on a 99 year lease. There are many others. Also some others are from the first gulf war. We created bases to store equipment. Without them we would have had a lot of trouble dealing with the second gulf war and Afghanistan.
Burying our heads and isolationism is not the answer.

 

simple solution... Ron Paul's economic plan.

He realizes that the immediate threat to our country is economic not social or military.

The quickest way to over throw a government is via a bad economy, and that is exactly what is happening...

Call him weak on foreign policy all you'd like, but without his economic policies, our nation is f'ed.