Now for the truth...

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Some of you know I work on Andrews AFB. This email just got sent out today:

Team Andrews,

The press release below is being sent FYI regarding military and civilian
paycheck changes.

1/4/2013 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- The legislation President Barack Obama
signed Jan. 2 postponed the fiscal cliff and means changes to military and
civilian paychecks, Defense Finance and Accounting Service officials said
today.

The legislation increases Social Security withholding taxes to 6.2 percent.
For the past two years during the "tax holiday" the rate was 4.2 percent.

The increase in Social Security withholding taxes affects both military and
civilian paychecks, officials said.

For civilian employees, officials said, this will mean a 2 percent reduction
in net pay.

For military personnel, changes to net pay are affected by a variety of
additional factors...

So where it hurts most - our military. I'll be interesting in hearing how the libs will defend this; unless of course promises really mean nothing. Run on an idea, then once elected on that idea, renege!

[Tilted (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Some of you know I work on Andrews AFB. This email just got sent out today:

So where it hurts most - our military. I'll be interesting in hearing how the libs will defend this; unless of course promises really mean nothing. Run on an idea, then once elected on that idea, renege!

Not for nothing... but those video clips were from the 2008 campaign, no?

Now, I'm sure you can find a variety of ways to (fairly) make the point that President Obama has broken promises or failed to deliver on pledges. But how does the reversion of payroll taxes (in this context, by that I mean the Social Security taxes you highlighted) to the previous (i.e. 'normal') level amount to him breaking the promise he was making in those video clips (i.e. that payroll taxes on people making less than $250,000 / year would not go up)?

The employee's side of the payroll tax was 6.2% when he made that pledge. It was later lowered to 4.2% - a change that was, ostensibly, to be temporary. Now it has been allowed to go back to 6.2%. It hasn't been raised relative to where it was when he made the pledge in those video clips. Did he, in those clips, pledge that payroll taxes wouldn't be temporarily lowered? Or, did he guarantee that if payroll taxes were lowered at some point in the future the lowering would be permanent? It would take a highly technical (read: a highly disingenuous) interpretation of the pledge made in those clips to conclude that said pledge was violated by the rates going back up to where they were when he made the pledge.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Tilted

Not for nothing... but those video clips were from the 2008 campaign, no?

Now, I'm sure you can find a variety of ways to (fairly) make the point that President Obama has broken promises or failed to deliver on pledges. But how does the reversion of payroll taxes (in this context, by that I mean the Social Security taxes you highlighted) to the previous (i.e. 'normal') level amount to him breaking the promise he was making in those video clips (i.e. that payroll taxes on people making less than $250,000 / year would not go up)?

The employee's side of the payroll tax was 6.2% when he made that pledge. It was later lowered to 4.2% - a change that was, ostensibly, to be temporary. Now it has been allowed to go back to 6.2%. It hasn't been raised relative to where it was when he made the pledge in those video clips. Did he, in those clips, pledge that payroll taxes wouldn't be temporarily lowered? Or, did he guarantee that if payroll taxes were lowered at some point in the future the lowering would be permanent? It would take a highly technical (read: a highly disingenuous) interpretation of the pledge made in those clips to conclude that said pledge was violated by the rates going back up to where they were when he made the pledge.

Go to 2 minutes:



Go to 5:30



You can quibble on about what happened when, the fact is our military and civilians - as well as every American making less that $250k - WILL see their paychecks decrease contrary to promises made by this president and many in congress. This is the kind of game a lot of liberals play: "No one will really see their taxes go up; we're just going back to the Clinton years of taxes.

[Tilted (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Go to 2 minutes:



Go to 5:30



You can quibble on about what happened when, the fact is our military and civilians - as well as every American making less that $250k - WILL see their paychecks decrease contrary to promises made by this president and many in congress. This is the kind of game a lot of liberals play: "No one will really see their taxes go up; we're just going back to the Clinton years of taxes.

Now we're talking about something different (and, in this case, it's a difference that matters when assessing whether President Obama kept a promise or not).

Even still, in the places you referred me to in those two new clips he wasn't talking about Social Security taxes. He was talking about 'that which everyone agreed about', which was not letting the marginal tax rates go up on people making under some level of income. In those clips, he didn't promise that Social Security taxes wouldn't go back to where they normally are.

I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised that the Social Security taxes were allowed to go back up. I don't recall a lot of conversation from ether side about extending the Social Security tax rates again, and I certainly don't recall the President or anyone on our side (by that I mean so-called fiscal conservatives) promising that they wouldn't let Social Security tax rates go back up. Existing law called for them to go back up and it seemed pretty clear that they were going to be allowed to - that most on both sides of the isle in Washington felt that they should be allowed to. That particular tax break was always discussed as being a temporary one. I recall a number of people criticizing the choice to extend it the first time.

To slide to the side a bit, I've found this situation - i.e. the rhetorical consternation about the Social Security taxes having been allowed to go back up - somewhat amusing for this reason. Many of the same people that have complained about the Social Security taxes going up, and in particular who have criticized the President for letting taxes go up based on that development - as though it represents some kind of broken promise - are the same people that have spoken about 47% (or some similar portion) of people not paying any taxes. In that regard, it seems it isn't rhetorically convenient to consider Social Security and Medicare taxes to be taxes - so we pretend they don't exist or that they aren't actually taxes. But in the present context, it seems rhetorically convenient to consider them taxes - so, consider them taxes we do. Which is it, are Social Security taxes taxes or not?

The answer is, yes, of course they are taxes - much like the other taxes the federal government collects to (partially) fund its on-going operations. People that pay Social Security taxes are paying taxes just as surely as people that pay other forms of income taxes are. They might not be paying enough - i.e. a fair amount relative to what many others pay. But the assertion that they aren't paying taxes is absurd. And many of those terrible free-loaders aren't paying taxes because, well, they're old and past the time when they'd be working and paying taxes. Now they expect to be on the beneficial side of the wealth-transfering tax system, just as they might at one time have been on the non-beneficial side.

Returning directly to the topic of the moment, I don't think the President promised that the Social Security tax rate would not go back up. Perhaps he should have talked more about the reality that that was going to happen, perhaps he should have explicitly mentioned the Social Security tax situation every time he spoke about taxes. But I think anyone that was paying a reasonable amount of attention should have known what they were all talking about. It was always clear that the Social Security tax holiday was temporary. If people thought that was going to be extended, even though there wasn't much conversation indicating that it was going to be, then that's a failure of awareness and/or understanding on their part. It's not like we were actively mislead in that regard.

Can someone argue that, technically, President Obama lied because he said he wanted to extend the tax cuts for most Americans and didn't make it absolutely clear that he was talking about the ordinary income tax rates? I suppose that can be claimed. Is it a sincere complaint, is it an intellectually honest complaint? No. President Obama, and the Republicans for that matter, weren't (for the most part) talking about the Social Security tax rate when they were talking about extending the tax cuts. Reasonable people should have been aware of that (and I think the vast majority of reasonable people were). This is more searching for an 'A-HA' point than a legitimate criticism. It's technically defensible I suppose, but disdainful of common sense and reasonableness as well. There are plenty of 'A-HA' points to be noted, we needn't be manufacturing them.

Let me state it bluntly: If you or anyone else really believed that the Social Security tax rate wasn't going to be allowed to go back up, based on the totality of the political debate between the President, Democrats in Congress, and Republicans in Congress, then that is a failing on your part or on the part of anyone that believed it.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Tilted

Now we're talking about something different (and, in this case, it's a difference that matters when assessing whether President Obama kept a promise or not).

Even still, in the places you referred me to in those two new clips he wasn't talking about Social Security taxes. He was talking about 'that which everyone agreed about', which was not letting the marginal tax rates go up on people making under some level of income.

You know, I'm not going to waste my time with someone that is going to split hairs on this. 'Not a dime of our taxes' would go up. A lot of people are going to see their paychecks reduced, and the military is preparing them for the sticker shock. This is not even discussing what's coming in the new TAX called Obamacare. It doesn't matter when they lowered then raised taxes; they are going up and folks are going to feel the pain.

[Tilted (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

You know, I'm not going to waste my time with someone that is going to split hairs on this. 'Not a dime of our taxes' would go up. A lot of people are going to see their paychecks reduced, and the military is preparing them for the sticker shock. This is not even discussing what's coming in the new TAX called Obamacare. It doesn't matter when they lowered then raised taxes; they are going up and folks are going to feel the pain.

I'm not splitting hairs. You're trying to confound issues to support an assertion that isn't fairly made.

In the first video, he pledged that under his plan taxes wouldn't go up for certain people - and he referred to payroll taxes (which, used in that way, almost surely meant Social Security / Medicare taxes). Had he raised those taxes from that point, it would be fair to say that he broke his pledge (the 'under my plan' qualification notwithstanding).

More recently, he hasn't said that under his plan Social Security or Medicare taxes wouldn't go up. He wasn't talking about those taxes. He didn't specifically refer to them (as something for which he intended to extend the prior cut) and I think his comments were reasonably understood as not referring to them. So, there's no promise there that he broke. He wanted to extend the tax cuts on ordinary income tax rates for the majority of people, and that's what was done.

No one is disputing that Social Security tax rates did go up as compared to where they were last year, or that people are going to feel pain from that. But the reality of those things doesn't mean that he lied about them. He only lied about them if he said they weren't going to happen. The 'not a dime of our taxes would go up' meme isn't fairly attributed to what he's said lately, it's fairly attributed to what he said in the first set of video clips. He didn't break the promise you're suggesting that he broke because he didn't make the promise you're suggesting that he broke (not recently) - not based on a fair interpretation of what he was saying during the fiscal cliff debate, anyway. He did make that promise, or something fairly considered to be that promise, in the earlier set of video clips. That's not splitting hairs, that's pointing out a detail - if not the detail - that's the essence of the issue. The notion that it's splitting hairs is a red herring.

I'm not the one trying to be technical here, quite to the contrary. I'm the one applying reasonableness to get at the essence of the matter. He didn't promise that Social Security taxes wouldn't go up, and even if it can be argued that the taxes he referred to should be interpreted as including Social Security taxes, that's not what he meant. And I think reasonable people that were paying attention should have known that. The other side (i.e. the Republicans in Congress) sure seem to have.

Skip over the rest of my post if you want, but do me the favor of answering this one sincere question: Did you think (within the last couple of months) that the President was saying that they were going to agree to extend the Social Security tax cut for another year? Because I don't recall many people talking about that possibility. I'm sure some people mentioned it - but it wasn't among the major points of discussion, not that I heard about. I don't think the Republicans would have gone along with that again.

I'm heading out so I probably won't get a chance to respond, but I do hope you'll do me the favor of answering that one question.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Tilted

Skip over the rest of my post if you want, but do me the favor of answering this one sincere question: Did you think (within the last couple of months) that the President was saying that they were going to agree to extend the Social Security tax cut for another year? Because I don't recall many people talking about that possibility. I'm sure some people mentioned it - but it wasn't among the major points of discussion, not that I heard about. I don't think the Republicans would have gone along with that again.

I'm heading out so I probably won't get a chance to respond, but I do hope you'll do me the favor of answering that one question.

I'm talking on behalf of those that will see their paychecks go down despite what they heard from the president. They aren't going to care one iota about statements made regarding SS tax extensions... The majority of our military haven't even been in long enough to have experienced the 4.2% it WAS at. So explain all this to them. The truth of the matter is, Obama talked about the middle-class not seeing their taxes go up - at all. They ARE going up. SS is just one. More are coming. The big deception is Obama - and many in congress - ran on the platform of keeping middle-class taxes the same. That's not going to happen.

[philibusters]

I actually don't watch the cable news networks that much. When I do I usually switch between CNN and Fox. However from the bit I did watch, both channels mentioned that the temporary payroll taxes were going up a lot so if you were listening and following the news you really shouldn't be surprised.

Temporary tax cuts have the exact same issue that temporary spending has. Nobody wants to get rid of and people feel entitled to it. Once Congress passes a new entitlement and the President signs it, getting rid of that entitlement or reducing it is really hard as people feel entitled to it. The same with this tax cut. For as long as I can remember (which is only back to like 2002 when I got my first job after my freshman year in college), the FICA tax was always 6.2%. In 2011 and 2012 it was temporary reduced and I actually saw my paycheck go up from the end of 2010 to 2011 when the FICA tax was reduced to 4.2%. It was just two years that they temporarily cut that rate to stimulate the economy, yet people feel entitled to it. Its the opposite of new spending.

[BOP]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Some of you know I work on Andrews AFB. This email just got sent out today:



So where it hurts most - our military. I'll be interesting in hearing how the libs will defend this; unless of course promises really mean nothing. Run on an idea, then once elected on that idea, renege!

Most libs hate the military anyway, so it's no skin off their butts.


PS: Raaaaaaacist!

[tommyjo]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

The majority of our military haven't even been in long enough to have experienced the 4.2% it WAS at.

You know you have no leg to stand on. As usual, your points make no sense and can't be backed up.

Now, after being shown that your position is silly, your make the statement that more than 51% of our entire military joined since the payroll tax was implemented in 2010?

That is of course assuming that you meant to type in 6.2% and not 4.2%. Because the 4.2% rate ended on January 1, 2013. If, according to your statement the "majority or our military haven't been in long enough to have experienced the 4.2% rate it WAS at", then your position is that more than 50% of our military didn't go on payroll until AFTER Jan 1 2013.

As Tilted said, the expiration of the payroll tax holiday was widely communicated across all media spectrums prior to and after the deal was struck. If you weren't aware of it, then that's your own fault.