House Passes Payroll Tax Cut Extension (updated 2x, Senate too)

Deal trims maximum jobless benefits to 73 weeks
http://www.suntimes.com/business/10703711-420/deal-trims-maximum-jobless-benefits-to-73-weeks.html

proposal keeps the 99 weeks in place for all high unemployment states through the rest of this year. It remains in effect for other states through August. The spin on this is completely misleading since states are already falling below the index.

Republicans wanted to reduce it immediately to 59 weeks.

Dems managed to lessen the blow, but they did whatever damage they could. That's what their base likes.

Apparently they have some seriously deep-seated hatred for the poor.

The only reason the rate is going down is because people run out of weeks. After they go off unemployment they do not count in the rules. So this way the more people who are unemployed the lower the unemployment rate. So the Democrats and Republicans are both screwing the unemployed. The Democrats want a lower rate for talking points and the Republicans want to save Business money. Who gets screwed. The little guy whose job went to China. Phooey! If they buy me a ticket to China maybe I can find my lost job and bring it back.

...makes no sense. If people run out of the 99 weeks, then the existing law does nothing for them anyway. That's a different issue.

Also, the rate is not going down because people are no longer qualified for unemployment.

The people will not get any unemployment even if they can not get a job. So how can they pay their bills? After 40 weeks they are done for. A lot are over 40 weeks and will get cut off. After one goes off unemployment they are not counted and the government rate goes lower. Actual unemployment is over 10%. In fact the CBO report has it over 10%. The Labor Dept. report uses cooked stats. It shows trend not actual.

...on earth does any of that have to do with the OP, which has nothing to do with state rules.

"The Labor Dept. report uses cooked stats"? WTF?

But I was laid off in Nov. and could not pay the bills without it right now. The Port Captain says nothing on the horizon for work. I am not getting called back through the summer at least. Without the unemployment insurance it would be up the creek without a paddle. If someone runs out of unemployment they are not counted as looking for work in the labor dept. rate. The rate is only the people counted as looking for a job as far as I can tell. Now before you could collect the insurance 99 weeks. Now in a lot of states only 40 weeks. If you are over 40 weeks in those states you are cut off of the insurance. I know it sounds complicated. Other sources like the Gallup Poll rate is over 9% and some over 10%. But the certain states go by the Labor Dept. Rate. So if they are cut out of the insurance and can not get a job they can't pay their bills. It is part of the bill for the tax cut off of social security.

Only yesterday I saw an exchange between Geithner and Paul Ryan about the challenge that funding Medicare and Medicaid will present when the baby boomers have retired in large numbers.

Our biggest challenge is funding retirement for the baby boomers, and what are they doing? Cutting the tax revenue that is supposed to fund that retirement. It is just the stupidest, most nonsensical move in the world. I wish someone could explain to me why they are doing it?

I think they are purposefully trying to bankrupt Social Security and Medicare so that they will have an excuse for telling future seniors: Too bad. You already got your money. It's not our problem.

Destroy Social Security.

If this will affect how much you get on social security? Especially if you are about 60 t0 63. I think they figure your benefit by the last 5 years contribution before you collect. I thought it was better to put more in the last 5 years.

This "temporary" cut is never going to be repealed because that would be a "tax increase". Eventually they're going to stop compensating the SS fund and thus turn thefake Social Security crisis into a real one. This is the first step towards killing Social Security and it bugs me that people don't see that. FDR said nobody could kill Social Security because it's self-funded. We've gone and destroyed that in the name of some temporary benefit. If the tax cut is so important, why can't it be a 2% cut on the lower tax brackets? That would have EXACTLY the same effect on paychecks* and the general budget. The ONLY reason is because that wouldn't give TPTB their backdoor into killing Social Security which is the true purpose of this cut.

*Don't give me some BS about having to wait until tax returns are filled... tax rate changes cause changes in the IRS withholding tables.

...it baffles me that people are even making this argument. If the Republicans try to make it, I hope Democrats counter with logic. Do those who make this argument plan to counter by calling Democrats hypocrites? I see no point in making the Republicans argument for them especially when it has no basis in reality, but relies on speculation about what Republicans will do.

As I posted in another thread: How does the government borrowing money from Social Security and paying it back contribute to the deficit or as you state here "bankrupt Social Security" (which by the way has a $2.6 trillion surplus)? This arrangement is the government borrowing money to stimulate the economy. Taxpayers didn't voluntarily decide not to pay into the system.

Dean Baker, September: The Payroll Tax Cut Did Not Cost Security Revenue


Borrowing money from Social Security and then replenishing it, does not change the structure of the program.

The program's structure is codified by law. People pay into the fund, and any approved arrangement, such as the temporary tax holiday, is on the government, not the beneficiaries.

If $1 is collected instead of $1.25 because the government made an arrangement, the government is liable to repay the fund. That has nothing to do with the structure of Social Security related to the budget or deficit.

Claiming that Social Security adds to the deficit because the President and Congress approved borrowing from the fund and paying it back is like a guy borrowing $50 from you, giving it back, and then maintaining that every $50 he sees you with came from him, therefore you owe him money.

That makes as much sense as claiming that because the government has been raiding the fund, Social Security contributes to the deficit.

Many economists have supported a payroll tax cut as urgently needed stimulus as this time.

That's the bottom line. You can shout them down until you're blue in the face, but towering above anything you say is the President's own record of ignorant deficit hysteria.

"No one trusts Obama to protect SS."

...the spokesperson for everyone!

"You can shout them down until you're blue in the face, but towering above anything you say is the President's own record of ignorant deficit hysteria."

Or you can scream "Obama is going to cut Social Security" until "you're blue in the face," but he hasn't. For your sake, I hope you aren't holding your breath.

Waiting for a tax increase on the wealthy? Or are you claiming that because it hasn't happened, Obama hasn't called for it to happen?

"Would we turn equally blue Waiting for a tax increase on the wealthy? Or are you claiming that because it hasn't happened, Obama hasn't called for it to happen?"

...you're holding your breath waiting for Obama to pass his proposals to increase taxes on the rich, then you would.

so it shouldn't count against his record.

"Obama only demanded cuts, but was unsuccessful so it shouldn't count against his record."

...did no such thing. I suppose you're going to post that bogus claim by Conyers (or some other media rumor like he's going to announce it in the SOTU) because you can't point to any direct quote, proposal or any other action by the President that mentions cuts to Social Security.

"We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security." - Remarks by the President, Whitehouse.gov

Briefing room word games: What's a 'slash' versus a 'cut' in Social Security?

and, of course... Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP

P.S.: Are you calling Conyers a liar?

...it figures you'd post half the quote, Conyers' bogus claim and another nonsensical semantic exercise.

Savings are not cuts to benefits. The President's budget this year includes similar "cuts."

Obama’s Budget Health Care Savings In One Chart
http://election.democraticunderground.com/1002313547


What's interesting is that Conyers voted for the bill in the OP.

Flying goalposts!

First you claim Obama never called for cuts, but the facts clearly, very clearly, show otherwise. And you call the good Senator Conyers a liar.

When I demonstrate (yet again) that Obama has certainly asked for cuts to Social Security, you say it's OK to cut benefits as long as it only affects future beneficiaries. And then you try to change the topic by pointing to health care stuff. Social Security is not health care, kiddo.

Do you also buy Obama's fantastical claim that Social Security is going bankrupt?

...more nonsensical bullshit!

It's time to move beyond the SOTU fantasy!

And you say "la-la-la, not listening".

That would pretty well explain how your worldview came to be.

good night.

...you posted nonsense, and I said "bullshit!"