WELCOME TO OPINIONS BASED ON FACTS (OBOF)
Name | Published |
OVERVIEW | Dec. 28, 2010 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 1 | Dec. 30, 2010 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 2 | Jan. 10, 2011 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 3 | Jan. 17, 2011 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 4 | Jan. 24, 2011 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 5 | Jan. 31, 2011 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 6 | Feb. 07, 2011 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 7 | Feb. 14, 2011 |
SPECIAL ISSUE | Feb. 18, 2011 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 8 | Feb. 21, 2011 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 9 | Mar. 01, 2011 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 10 | Mar. 07, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 1 | Mar. 14, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 1A | Mar. 21, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 2 | Mar. 25, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 3 | Mar. 29, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 4 | Apr. 04, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 5 | Apr. 11, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 6 | Apr. 18, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 7 | Apr. 25, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 7A | Apr. 29, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 8 | May 02, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 9 | May 09, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 10 | May 16, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 11 | May 24, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 12 | Jun. 06, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 13 | Jun. 20, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 14 | JULY 05,2011 |
SS & MORE PART 14A | JULY 18, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 15 | JULY 19, 2011 |
SOCIAL SECURITY & MORE PART 15
IN THIS ISSUE
1. Vote an educated vote.
2. Debt ceiling debate.
3. Example: Don't ever privatize Social Security.
4. Debt talks: Obama moves to the right.
5. Why taxes will rise in the end.
6. Senator Colburn announces deficit reduction plan.
VOTE AN EDUCATED VOTE
Campaigning for the 2012 election is in a good start, as far as the Republicans are concerned. They have been quite vocal and most people are aware of, at least, the top few.
How about the Democrats? Up until now, unless you have been a strong supporter in the past, you haven't heard a lot. BUT a lot has been happening and before long you are going to be hearing a lot about the Democratic movement.
There has been a lot of fundraising. Most have been keeping an eye on the recent reporting of the amount that has been raised through the second quarter. Now keep in mind that President Obama does not accept funds from lobbyists, PACs or Corporations. All his money comes from individuals like you and me. SO! When his report came out showing $83.4 million it was a shock to most. He even broke his previous record when he first ran for President. In addition, and really important, there were 267,000 new first time donors.
These two things tell, and particularly the number of new donors, that the people are truly behind him and satisfied enough that they want him to stay for four more years. Of course, it is a long time before election and there will be a lot of misrepresentations presented in a number of ways, with big money behind the Republican campaign.
The Republican candidates for President reported the following:
Romney: | $31.1M |
Paul: | $7.5M |
Pawlenty: | $6.3M |
Bachmann: | $7.9M |
Cain: | $3.1M |
Gingrich: | $2.4M |
Santorum: | $810,000 |
President Obama cannot campaign now. He has to do his job instead, but WE can pick up on campaigning now and particularly until he can get with it next year. Donate whenever and whatever you can - every dollar counts! Also, talk about what President Obama has accomplished in just two and half years. There was a list put out some time ago of 92 things he had done in just two years. I AM GOING TO TRY TO GET A LIST OF EVERYTHING HE HAS ACCOMPLISHED, UP TO AND INCLUDING THE CONCLUSION OF THE DEBT DEBATE.
DEBT CEILING DEBATE
I am sure, that, whether or not, you have been following the debt debate in detail, you are, at least, aware of the possible crisis our country may face by August 2, 2011. Just a few interesting notes about Debt Ceilings.
Since 1980, the debt ceiling has been raised 39 times. It was raised 17 times under Ronald Reagan, 4 times under Bill Clinton, and 7 times under George W. Bush. So far, it has been raised 3 times under President Obama. This time would be number 4.
In the past three months, the President has taken a number of steps to embrace the Republicans with various approaches. At one time, the Republicans wanted to have, what is now referred to as, a "grand bargain." It included $4 trillion of spending cuts. The President couldn't go along with a plan that addressed spending alone without any revenue enhancement.
Many things have happened since, until now, the President has made an offer to cut spending by $3 trillion and close some tax loopholes & tax cuts for another $1 trillion. The total, obviously, is $4 trillion, the same sum the Republicans wanted earlier. The Republicans could not go along with a plan that had revenue enhancement in it.
After two weeks of urging Congress to embrace his plan to shave $4 trillion off the projected national debt, Obama said that other options must be on the negotiating table with the Aug. 2 deadline just days away.
President has met with Senate and House leaders five days in a row, trying to iron out differences. As of Friday the 15th, President Obama said "We are obviously running out of time. And so what I've said to the members of Congress is that you need, over the next 24 to 36 hours, to give me some sense of what your plan is to get the debt ceiling raised through whatever mechanisms they can think about."
THE BIG PROBLEM
In the House, there are dozens of conservative Republicans that have vowed not to support any increase in the debt limit unless it is accompanied by legislation - know as the Cut, Cap, Balance Act. It sets strict caps on future spending. From what I have heard, it is the most constrictive Legislation that has ever been drafted.
It is directly out of the Grover Norquist play book. It will cut at least 700,000 jobs as soon as it is pasted and the caps make it virtually impossible to ever raise taxes. It would require a two thirds vote in the House and the Senate to pass tax legislation. That is impossible to ever happen. It puts Government in a box, so that it will be reduced in size and activities. It severely reduces the amount that can be borrowed and more.
That is just some of what has been reported. I have not read it, but the reports seem to be creditable. All this is exactly what Grover Norquist's agenda calls for. This man is so powerful it's just unbelievable. It also, requires a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget that would then be sent the states for ratification.
There are 40 House Republicans, including 20 Freshmen, that have signed a pledge that they will not vote to approve a debt ceiling increase unless it comes with the balanced budget amendment. Since it takes a two thirds vote to pass in both the House and Senate, it is doomed.
There is a last ditch plan being worked on by the Majority leader in the Senate, Senator Reid and Minority leader Senator McConnell. THIS IS WHERE WE STAND, AS OF THIS WRITING. I WILL NOT POST THIS WRITING UNTIL LATE MONDAY NIGHT, SO THAT I MAY BE ABLE TO ADD WHATEVER HAPPENS ON MONDAY WHEN THEY ARE SUPPOSE TO REPORT BACK TO THE PRESIDENT.
WELL, IT'S MONDAY
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE
Where do we go? It doesn't look like we are going to go far, if at all. The President met again with GOP leaders and it was reported that no progress was made.
As of now, there are five separate plans for raising the debt limit and, from my view point, I don't think any of them have a chance in H*$# of passing. Senator Reid, Leader of the Senate, has said that the Senate will stay in session until an agreement has been reached. The Cut, Cap, Balance Act is scheduled to be voted on in both the House and Senate on Wednesday. It is Doomed, but they have to get it out of the way, so that those who back it can say they at least tried.
After that, I guess everyone will get back to the debt ceiling. Aug. 2 is the deadline, but in order to draft the necessary legislation, get it introduced, and passed by both Houses and to the President, agreement has to be reached about a week before Aug. 2
Personally, and I sure hope I am wrong, I don't feel that it is going to happen. There are just to many in the House that are against raising the ceiling at all. Some have openly said that they want Default to happen, so that Government will wake up and start living within their means. SO! I think Default is going to occur. People, including some legislators, can't even imagine the terrible affect that that will cause.
I will feel it, personally, immediately on Aug. 3. That is when my SS check comes. I don't think it will be there. I want you to know that I am not at all rich. Instead, I have to depend on my SS check to get by.
I have had a good productive life and at one time I had some money. I believe I have a little bit above average intelligence, but I invested wrong and lost it. So here I am, 87 and have to depend on SS. I don't feel bad about taking it, because I paid into it. I have earned it.
EXAMPLE: PRIVATIZING
SOCIAL SECURITY
DON'T EVER DO IT!!
SOCIAL SECURITY
DON'T EVER DO IT!!
I am a perfect example of why we should never privatize Social Security. There are a few in our population that could probably invest the money that they put into SS and do better than what SS pays. On the other hand, I think there are a number of those that are just like me. As I said, I have felt that I have a little above average intelligence, yet I lost my money.
There would be a number of people that could wind up the same as me and if there were no SS, because of privatizing, what is going to happen to them. As that happens, and I feel it certainly would happen, there would have to be some way of not just letting them die. We wouldn't do that, so here we go back to some kind of program to take care of them, like maybe Social Security. IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO DO AWAY WITH SS.
WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE THAT SIMPLY DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO INVEST THEIR MONEY OR DON'T EVEN HAVE ANY MONEY TO INVEST? To think that most people would save the money they didn't pay into FICA is simply putting your head in the sand. It will be used for things that they feel they need. That is one of the reasons SS was started in the first place.
REMEMBER, SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM. IT IS AN INSURANCE PROGRAM. YOU HAVE PAID PREMIUMS TO HAVE THAT COVERAGE WHEN YOU QUALIFY.
The following article gives some insight as to the thinking and reasoning behind the various give and take, mostly give, as the fight for raising the debt ceiling continues.
In debt talks, Obama moves to
the right. But, Republicans won’t go there with him.
the right. But, Republicans won’t go there with him.
By Ezra Klein,
Ezra Klein is a columnist at the Washington Post, as well as a contributor to MSNBC. His work focuses on domestic and economic policymaking, as well as, the political system that’s constantly screwing it up. He’s appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show, Charlie Rose, Real Time with Bill Maher, The McLaughlin Report, the Colbert Report, and many more.A lot of Democrats took one look at the McConnell plan, which would raise the debt ceiling without substantive fiscal concessions, and saw their way out of this mess. But not the White House. What’s come clear in recent weeks is that the Obama administration is much more intent on reaching a major deficit deal — and much less intent on making revenue a major part of it — than most observers assumed.
That’s led them to offer Republicans a deal that is not only much farther to the right than anyone had predicted, but also much farther to the right than most realize. In addition to the rise in the Medicare eligibility age and the cuts to Social Security and the minimal amount of revenue, it would cut discretionary spending by $1.2 trillion, which is an absolutely massive attack on that category of spending.
House Republicans are blaming President Barack Obama and other Democrat leaders for the congressional impasse over raising the national debt limit, while urging them to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. (July 14)
This deal isn’t just a last-ditch effort to save the economy from the damage of a federal default. The White House would far prefer this deal to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s plan, or to the $2 trillion deal that was under consideration during the Biden negotiations. So why are administration officials so committed to striking a deal composed of policies they’ve mostly opposed? Here’s their thinking:
You can’t spend till you cut: The deficit is sucking the oxygen out of everything else in Washington. It’s powerful not just as an issue in and of itself, but also as a response to any significant investments the administration might propose. If you believe we need to do more on jobs, or more on anything, you need to finish the deficit conversation. And as an added bonus, if you finish the deficit conversation in a way that convinces the American people you’ve made sacrifices and forced government to live within its means, you have, at least in theory, more credibility when proposing new initiatives that would expand the size of government again.
It’s your only shot at stimulus: A big deficit deal could include mild stimulative measures such as unemployment insurance and an extension of the payroll tax cut. That’s not much, but it’s better than nothing. A small deficit deal, or no deficit deal, won’t include any extensions of stimulus.
It’s a way to control the timing: If you strike a deal that lasts 10 years, you can backload the savings to protect the recovery over the next three or four years. If you don’t strike a deal, Republicans are likely to take out their frustrations on the 2012 appropriations. That means we won’t have much long-term deficit reduction, which most economists think we need, but we’ll have a lot of immediate austerity, which most economists think would be poison for the recovery. It’s the worst of both worlds.
Getting President Obama reelected is important: The White House believes striking a major deficit deal would be good for Obama’s reelection chances. They also believe that getting Obama reelected would be good for the priorities that Democrats care about. President Mitt Romney’s spending cuts would be worse than theirs, his hostility to taxes would be more implacable than theirs, and he’d repeal or hollow out both the health-care law and financial regulation.
Deficit reduction is good economic policy, both now and later: There’s something close to a consensus view that we need deficit reduction within the next five to 10 years or the odds of the market turning on us rise to unacceptable levels. But many in the White House also believe that a credible commitment to deficit reduction in the long and medium term could help the economy in the short term. In his July 2 radio address, for instance, Obama said: “Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs.”
To put all this slightly differently, White House officials believe a big deficit-reduction deal would do them enough good, both politically and economically, that it’s worth making significant compromises on the details of that deal. If you thought getting to $4 trillion in deficit reduction was a Republican goal, you’re wrong. It’s the White House’s goal, and the only reason it might not happen is Republicans won’t let them do it.
The Republican Party has taken the exact opposite position as the administration: A deal won’t help them politically, and they don’t actually care about the deficit all that much, and so they’re much more interested in resisting compromises on the details than passing a big debt-reduction package. Put those two positions together and it’s pretty easy to see how the deal has moved so far to the right, and also why it’ll be very hard to close.
Why Taxes Will Rise in the End
By DAVID LEONHARDT Published: July 12, 2011
So what kind of tax increases do Americans support? The old-fashioned kind. Seventy-two percent support raising taxes on income above $250,000, according to A recent New York Times/CBS poll, and a large majority likewise favor raising Social Security taxes on the affluent.
In the end, the most likely tax increase may be the one that’s already on the books. On Jan. 1, 2013, all the Bush tax cuts — on the affluent and nonaffluent alike — are set to expire, which would solve roughly one-quarter of our long-term deficit problem. If Republicans have their way, all the tax cuts will be extended. If the Democrats have their way, most of them will be.
But if the two parties each control a branch of government after the 2012 elections, neither may be able to get their way. Instead, they would have to compromise — or a stalemate would cause the Bush tax cuts to disappear. After the last few days, a stalemate doesn’t seem like such a bad bet.
The above is exactly what I thought Obama had in mind in Dec. 2010, when he agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts. He knew that he had control of those tax cuts in two years and no one could do anything about it. He was able to keep the tax cuts for everyone, last Dec., when everyone needed every penny they could get. He was betting on the economy being better by Dec. 2012.
He would then just let the tax cuts die and if he were reelected he would be in a much stronger position, so that he could get back the tax cuts for the middle class after letting the Bush tax cuts expire.
SENATOR TOM COBURN MAKES
AN ANNOUNCEMENT
$9 TRILLION DEFICIT REDUCTION
Some time ago, Senator Coburn reported that he and his staff were working on a deficit reduction plan, that would save $9 trillion over ten years.
WELL, TODAY, THE 18TH OF JULY, HE HAS ANNOUNCED THAT IT IS FINISHED AND CAN BE FOUND, IN FULL, ON HIS WEB SITE. HE SAID THAT HE AND HIS STAFF HAVE WORKED ON THIS FOR THE PAST SIX WEEKS.
I have not read it, but will before my next posting, which would normally be August 1. However, due to the deadline date of August 2 for raising the debt ceiling, I will wait till August 3, so I can report the latest situation in that regard.
With that, I say enough for this time. Talk with you again on August 3, 2011. God bless all of you.
Floyd
