• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Obama warns GOP not to tie pipeline to tax cut

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Faster horses

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
29,278
Reaction score
478
Location
NE WY at the foot of the Big Horn mountains
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama warned congressional Republicans that he would reject any effort to tie extraneous issues to an extension of the payroll tax cut, including the approval of a controversial oil pipeline between the U.S. and Canada.

"If the payroll tax cut is attached to a whole bunch of extraneous issues not related to making sure that the American people's taxes don't go up on Jan. 1, then it's not something I'm going to accept," Obama said Wednesday following a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Obama stopped short of issuing a veto threat, saying he did not believe lawmakers should let it come to that.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other Republican leaders have pushed for Obama to approve the pipeline project, saying it would create much-needed jobs in the U.S. And they've suggested adding a provision to a payroll tax cut bill that would be designed to speed construction of the pipeline.

The payroll tax cuts are due to expire at the end of the year. If the cuts are not extended, the White House says the average family would see their taxes increase by $1,000.

As with the payroll tax cut extension, the Keystone pipeline has become a heavily contested political issue for Obama, who risks angering environmental supporters — and losing re-election contributions from some liberal donors — if he approves it.

The State Department, which has been overseeing the review process, decided last month to delay a decision on whether to proceed with the pipeline until 2013, after the presidential election. The delay is intended to allow the project's developer to figure out a way around Nebraska's Sandhills, an ecologically-sensitive region that supplies water to eight nearby states.

The move was poorly received in Canada, which views the project as critical to its economy. Labor groups in the U.S., as well as Republican lawmakers, also want the pipeline, and see it as a way to create U.S. jobs.

With Harper by his side, Obama denied the delay was tied to politics, and said it was important for Canadians to understand the need to make sure all questions regarding the pipeline project were properly understood, especially the environmental impact and the health and safety issues.

"I assured him we will have a very rigorous process to work through that issue," Obama said.

Harper has been critical of the delay, and has previously suggested that American politics may be at play. But standing alongside Obama at the White House Wednesday, Harper was more measured. He showed no sign that their talks had yielded any progress on the issue.

"Barack and I have discussed that on many occasions. He's indicated to me, as he's indicated to you today, that he's following the proper process," he said. "I take that as his answer and you can appreciate that I would not comment on domestic politics on this issue or any other issue here in the United States."

The Keystone XL pipeline would carry an estimated 700,000 barrels of oil a day, doubling the capacity of an existing pipeline from Canada. The 1,700-mile structure would carry as much as 700,000 barrels of oil a day from tar sands in Alberta, Canada, to refineries in Texas, passing through Montana, South Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma.

Supporters say it could significantly reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil while providing thousands of jobs. Opponents say the pipeline would bring "dirty oil" that requires huge amounts of energy to extract. They also worry about possible spills, noting that a current pipeline operated by TransCanada has had several spills in the past year.

Senate Republicans have introduced a bill that would require the administration to approve the Keystone XL pipeline within 60 days, unless the president declares the project is not in the national interest. But the Republican bill has little chance of approval in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Ahead of Obama and Harper's meeting, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said approving the pipeline would give Obama an opportunity to follow through on his pledge to make job creation his top priority.

"Here's the single greatest shovel-ready project in America, ready to go, and for some reason he's suddenly not interested," McConnell said.

Boehner had urged Obama to use his meeting with Harper to announce his approval of the pipeline, saying, "While it might make for inconvenient politics for the president, the administration is out of excuses and running out of time."

Obama and Harper also announced a joint agreement on border management aimed at streamlining the regular flow of goods and people across the border, while also strengthening security. The two leaders also touted plans for creating standardized regulations on both sides of the border, which the Obama administration said would make it easier to trade vehicles and car parts across the border.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
the payroll tax cuts are "stealing" from the SS funds, that will be needed in the future.....$3 per day is what obama is using to buy votes......
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
kicking the can? yes, but far worse...

with one hand he cuts medicare 500 billion to fund Obamacare

he then cuts SS and medicare to cut the deficit..

and now he starves both of funds needed to operate..

and then blames the republicans for trying to abolish SS

the "actions" of Obama have done more to destabilize SS and medicare then any other words the republicans have used in trying to propose ideas to make SS and medicare solvent..

if SS fails it will be because of the actions and policies of Obama and Johnson....

those two have done more to hurt the poor, needy and elderly then anyone could imagine.. no wonder the "rich" are supporting Obama
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
Steve said:
kicking the can? yes, but far worse...

with one hand he cuts medicare 500 billion to fund Obamacare

he then cuts SS and medicare to cut the deficit..

and now he starves both of funds needed to operate..

and then blames the republicans for trying to abolish SS

the "actions" of Obama have done more to destabilize SS and medicare then any other words the republicans have used in trying to propose ideas to make SS and medicare solvent..

if SS fails it will be because of the actions and policies of Obama and Johnson....

those two have done more to hurt the poor, needy and elderly then anyone could imagine.. no wonder the "rich" are supporting Obama

wait a minute- congress hold the purse strings, EVERY congressman that voted to do this shares the blame and needs to go- EVERY ONE!
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Lonecowboy said:
Steve said:
kicking the can? yes, but far worse...

with one hand he cuts medicare 500 billion to fund Obamacare

he then cuts SS and medicare to cut the deficit..

and now he starves both of funds needed to operate..

and then blames the republicans for trying to abolish SS

the "actions" of Obama have done more to destabilize SS and medicare then any other words the republicans have used in trying to propose ideas to make SS and medicare solvent..

if SS fails it will be because of the actions and policies of Obama and Johnson....

those two have done more to hurt the poor, needy and elderly then anyone could imagine.. no wonder the "rich" are supporting Obama

wait a minute- congress hold the purse strings, EVERY congressman that voted to do this shares the blame and needs to go- EVERY ONE!

the first payroll cut and Obama care were under the past Democratic congress...as well as setting up welfare as we know it.. the deficit deal wasn't well liked by anyone, and the republicans deserve the blame for falling into that trap..

and I don't doubt that most blame congress for the mess we are in.... but they also don't set policy.. the president does and is supposed to be a leader..

in both cases Johnson and Obama or even FDR, they had a party control of the congress... when they made major policy changes that have destroyed part of our country..
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
steve wrote:

SS fails it will be because of the actions and policies of Obama and Johnson....

if social security fails it is because it is an unconstitutional socialist ponzi scheme that the politicians have been using for years to fleece more money out of sheeple. but I still say congress is responsible as they hold the purse strings and hold ALL lawmaking powers- a president just signs them if our Constitution is followed.
 

Clarencen

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
719
Reaction score
0
Location
South Central SD
Since I have been self-imployed, I did not realize for some time that this tax cut was on the Social Security tax. What kind of people have we been sending to Washington? They tell us that the Social Security Trust fund will run out of money in a few years, then they cut off some of the tax. Don't make a bit of sense does it?

Some years back they took the money out of the social security trust fund and put it in the general fund. Can you explain that? We have had some good years in the past, shouldn't the Social security trust fund have grown ?

Heck, Old Joe Kennedy put some of his money in a trust fund, and there hasn't been a Kennedy who has had to work since. Why hasn't the government done better with our money?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Clarencen said:
Since I have been self-imployed, I did not realize for some time that this tax cut was on the Social Security tax. What kind of people have we been sending to Washington? They tell us that the Social Security Trust fund will run out of money in a few years, then they cut off some of the tax. Don't make a bit of sense does it?

Some years back they took the money out of the social security trust fund and put it in the general fund. Can you explain that? We have had some good years in the past, shouldn't the Social security trust fund have grown ?

Heck, Old Joe Kennedy put some of his money in a trust fund, and there hasn't been a Kennedy who has had to work since. Why hasn't the government done better with our money?



Interesting isn't it? Teachers' retirement funds etc have no problem "making money", but government administered retirement funds always seem to be "unfunded liabilities"......


Maybe that is the reason that the Republicans, and people like Paul Ryan, want to reform the system, so the employee has more control over his/her own money


An individual directing his own "retirement fund" may lose a little "buyer power", but what buying power is being gained at present with the government managing the funds?
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
Well you guys answer this, Aren't a lot of Republicans including Newt wanting people to take responsibility for their own retirement funds? Aren't they wanting them to have access to what once was their Soc. Sec. money coming out of their checks? So just let them take the extra money they'll be getting as a result of the payroll tax cut and invest it. What does a pipeline have to do with this tax cut--two separate issues.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
TSR said:
Well you guys answer this, Aren't a lot of Republicans including Newt wanting people to take responsibility for their own retirement funds? Aren't they wanting them to have access to what once was their Soc. Sec. money coming out of their checks? So just let them take the extra money they'll be getting as a result of the payroll tax cut and invest it. What does a pipeline have to do with this tax cut--two separate issues.


If you were to create 20,000 jobs and were to deduct the "payroll tax" off of the wages created, then invested those funds correctly, how much would that provide for the retirement funds that the government has already promised?

VERSUS

Cutting the amount that people contribute to what you have promised and the debt it will result in, at a later date?



Obviously this does not include the income taxes paid by the companies building the pipeline.....
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
Still two separate issues. What about the questions I asked??? Millions of taxpayers can take that money and invest it as Newt has proposed. This will offset the need for more Soc. Sec. money in the future, is this not what Newt and other Rep.'s have proposed in the past including Bush when he was president???
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
TSR said:
Still two separate issues. What about the questions I asked??? Millions of taxpayers can take that money and invest it as Newt has proposed. This will offset the need for more Soc. Sec. money in the future, is this not what Newt and other Rep.'s have proposed in the past including Bush when he was president???

Do you really think that most people are going to invest the $33 per month, when they are still being promised the same amount at retirement? How is there SS being reduced by "withdrawing" the amount that obama is allowing them to withdraw, now?


They are taking it from themselves....it will not reduce the amount that the Government has promised them, in the future, but will reduce the amount that is contributed towards the program.


What Newt has proposed is a reform of the SS system that allows an individual to contribute less to the government fund and be responsible for a little more. The Government is not a good investor, because they "steal funds" from one system to pay for promises made by another system.......


Our retirement fund, or CPP, does not make what I can make if I had control over my own contributions, and invested them myself. If they did not make what I expect, then the responsibility is on me.....a chance I am willing to take, if given the chance.....
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
hypocritexposer said:
TSR said:
Still two separate issues. What about the questions I asked??? Millions of taxpayers can take that money and invest it as Newt has proposed. This will offset the need for more Soc. Sec. money in the future, is this not what Newt and other Rep.'s have proposed in the past including Bush when he was president???

Do you really think that most people are going to invest the $33 per month, when they are still being promised the same amount at retirement? How is there SS being reduced by "withdrawing" the amount that obama is allowing them to withdraw, now?


They are taking it from themselves....it will not reduce the amount that the Government has promised them, in the future, but will reduce the amount that is contributed towards the program.


What Newt has proposed is a reform of the SS system that allows an individual to contribute less to the government fund and be responsible for a little more. The Government is not a good investor, because they "steal funds" from one system to pay for promises made by another system.......


Our retirement fund, or CPP, does not make what I can make if I had control over my own contributions, and invested them myself. If they did not make what I expect, then the responsibility is on me.....a chance I am willing to take, if given the chance.....

Aren't there some proposal for reducing future amounts, means testing, raising the age for receiving soc. security???

The more you pay into Soc. Sec. the more you receive, right?? Of course there is a cap. But if you are paying in less you receive less, right? If this is not the way it will work then I admit I don't understand. I know the more I made, the more my monthly projected benefit increased. So the monthly amount received as a result of the cut can be invested, this is what Newt is proposing basically as well as other Rep.'s in the past.

Having said all that...... Hypo I do agree, most people wouldn't invest it and even those that did would be subject to making poor decisions and the gov't would still wind up having to take care of them.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
TSR said:
hypocritexposer said:
TSR said:
Still two separate issues. What about the questions I asked??? Millions of taxpayers can take that money and invest it as Newt has proposed. This will offset the need for more Soc. Sec. money in the future, is this not what Newt and other Rep.'s have proposed in the past including Bush when he was president???

Do you really think that most people are going to invest the $33 per month, when they are still being promised the same amount at retirement? How is there SS being reduced by "withdrawing" the amount that obama is allowing them to withdraw, now?


They are taking it from themselves....it will not reduce the amount that the Government has promised them, in the future, but will reduce the amount that is contributed towards the program.


What Newt has proposed is a reform of the SS system that allows an individual to contribute less to the government fund and be responsible for a little more. The Government is not a good investor, because they "steal funds" from one system to pay for promises made by another system.......


Our retirement fund, or CPP, does not make what I can make if I had control over my own contributions, and invested them myself. If they did not make what I expect, then the responsibility is on me.....a chance I am willing to take, if given the chance.....

Aren't there some proposal for reducing future amounts, means testing, raising the age for receiving soc. security???

The more you pay into Soc. Sec. the more you receive, right?? Of course there is a cap. But if you are paying in less you receive less, right? If this is not the way it will work then I admit I don't understand. I know the more I made, the more my monthly projected benefit increased. So the monthly amount received as a result of the cut can be invested, this is what Newt is proposing basically as well as other Rep.'s in the past.

Having said all that...... Hypo I do agree, most people wouldn't invest it and even those that did would be subject to making poor decisions and the gov't would still wind up having to take care of them.


We're not talking about the things that "might be", but the things that are.....


The "tax cut" proposed by obama is a reduction of what is contributed, but no reduction of what is owed, or future liabililties? Further Debt


If you tie the pipeline to these "tax cuts", the additonal SS tax and the additional income tax paid on additional wages/salaries, at least pay for the future SS liabililites of the tax cuts that obama is proposing.....



You can not continue to "give" without paying for it somehow......and if the Government is administering the "giving", then you better add on about 30% for the waste, fraud, corruption and duplication
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
hypocritexposer said:
You can not continue to "give" without paying for it somehow......and if the Government is administering the "giving", then you better add on about 30% for the waste, fraud, corruption and duplication

Your kidding on the 30% right? We still have to fund Mexican Cartels, keep the EPA and Energy department afloat to give people jobs, litigate states from being able to affect illegal immigration, pay for our czars, fight the US supreme court, pay attorney fees for the AG, pay off corporate supporters, and then you have to worry about waste, fraud, corruption and duplication.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
okfarmer said:
hypocritexposer said:
You can not continue to "give" without paying for it somehow......and if the Government is administering the "giving", then you better add on about 30% for the waste, fraud, corruption and duplication

Your kidding on the 30% right? We still have to fund Mexican Cartels, keep the EPA and Energy department afloat to give people jobs, litigate states from being able to affect illegal immigration, pay for our czars, fight the US supreme court, pay attorney fees for the AG, pay off corporate supporters, and then you have to worry about waste, fraud, corruption and duplication.


Just a number I pulled out of the air to use as an example.
 

Clarencen

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
719
Reaction score
0
Location
South Central SD
Back in the 1930's I was to young to have paid any attention to politics. I don't remember of hearing anything about Roosevelts plan for social security or the controversy about it. but I do remember a lot of talk about old age pensions. There must have been a New Deal program to help the older people who could not work. I started to high school in town in 1942, there were a lot of people living in town that didn't have a job or have a business. some of these still had the younger members of their families at home. I asked "what do these people live on?" I was told "old age pension". These people had never paid into social security, in fact at that time they had never ever even paid any income tax.

Roosevelt's plan was for wage earners to pay into a trust fund to cover these old age pensions. Self imployed people did not pay into the social security system until 1956. Now as things look today, with inflation and the rise in cost of living, the government may again be obligated to pay an old age pension out of the general fund.
 

Latest posts

Top