Cleo's Mom

But spending is exactly what you do to facilitate a recovery. Our economy operates on money - the ability to get it, loan it and spend it. And there was no money before the bailouts and stimulus. The banks weren't loaning, businesses couldn't meet payroll, people couldn't get loans, etc...Everyone was hurting. Bush ran up the deficit with 2 wars, one unnecessary, at the same time he gave a big tax cut to the rich - which should never happen at the same time. Plus he pushed through deregulation of wall street which fed their greed. All of this resulted in the economic tsunami that we are currently living in. It was bound to come crashing down and it did. Pres. Obama inherited this economic mess and deficit. Unfortunately the only way to help was to stimulate the economy, which the stimulus did. It was not big enough, however, and too much of it went to tax cuts (to appease the republicans in a show of bipartisanship). People that got the tax cut did not spend that money (which would have helped the economy) they instead paid down debt (which doesn't stimulate the economy and create jobs). When he took office we were losing over 700,000 jobs a month. We are still losing jobs, but it slowed to 11,000 jobs last month. That's an incredible achievement. Our unemployment dropped .2% last month. Still bad, but an improvement. And the stock market jumped 4000 points since he took office, yes largely because of the bank bailouts, but it's a step in the right direction. If the stock market had fallen 4000 - well we'd be in a depression. Some of the banks are paying back their bailout money (with interest) - some of that money is going to pay down the debt and some to help with a jobs creation program. So, all in all, considering the economic mess and deficit that Pres. Obama inherited, he is doing the best he can. Most economists are guardedly optimistic about things improving in 2010 and believing the worst is over. Unfortunately, jobs are the last thing to recover. Deficits can't just START to matter now. Without the deficit spending the economy, that was in a free fall, would have crashed and we would have been in a full fledged depression. Unemployment would have been 20% and nothing we owned would have any value. Remember what cheney said about bush's deficit spending when asked? He said: "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." I find it interesting that deficit spending under both republican presidents doesn't matter but suddenly under a democratic president it does. Makes you want to go hmmmmm.

Oh boy, here we go again with PG's lengthy, SELECTIVE historical "writings" about the fallacy of the separation of church and state idea. Our founding fathers, blah, blah, blah. I would love to have one thread not morph into religion or our founding fathers. Spare us PG: we've seen it all before.

Bet you're sorry you voted for Bush (twice) now that we are reaping the mess that he sowed, the mess Pres. Obama is trying to clean up. The bush/repub Years by jimstaro Share this on Twitter - The bush/repub Years Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 06:41:03 AM PST As the old saying goes, "Read it and Weep!" jimstaro's diary :: :: ZERO Net Jobs Created Since 1999 For most of the past 70 years, the U.S. economy has grown at a steady clip, generating perpetually higher incomes and wealth for American households. But since 2000, the story is starkly different. The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity that is leading economists and policymakers to fundamentally rethink the underpinnings of the nation's growth. Snip There has been zero net job creation since December 1999. No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent. Economic output rose at its slowest rate of any decade since the 1930s as well. Middle-income households made less in 2008, when adjusted for inflation, than they did in 1999 -- and the number is sure to have declined further during a difficult 2009. The Aughts were the first decade of falling median incomes since figures were first compiled in the 1960s. And the net worth of American households -- the value of their houses, retirement funds and other assets minus debts -- has also declined when adjusted for inflation, compared with sharp gains in every previous decade since data were initially collected in the 1950s. ..>>>>> There wasn't a month in those eight years that went into positive job creation numbers, for a very short time that was being reported, then it quickly stopped and never mentioned again! With two occupations started they even kept changing the numbers of recruiting monthly goals to show them as continuing reaching the military numbers needed for National Security and Two Occupations. They also raised the recruitment age and lowered the criminal backrounds! Will add: Though many will say the Democrats took over Congress in '08 so maybe they should share any blame for the last couple of years all one would need do is visit the Congressional Records to see that they've been trying to clean up the total mess, in a number of area's, that preceeded them from the No working repubs. Just take the Veterans and Military, i.e. Walter Reed and Base living etc.. They were finally doing oversite and investigative hearings into what wasn't done or didn't concern the previous congresses as they waged two long running occupations with their rubber stamping of that administrations wants!! Oh ya, they were also telling us that with the new, after 9/11, Homeland Security Agency that intelligence sharing was working better then ever before!! We saw how good on Christmas Day!!

I, too, am weary of EVERY thread morphing into a long, winded analysis of the bible. So, Pattygreen, might I suggest that you start a new thread perhaps titled: " Pattygreen's interpretation of the bible". And limit your religious/bible interpretations and suggestions to that? And not subject those of us who want to engage in a SERIOUS debate about a topic to the constant religious/biblical angle? If you can't debate a topic without that then perhaps stay out of it.

You pay into unemployment, it is a benefit that when you are unemployed, you use. There should be no guilt in that. If Chef jobs are so plenty, I question why he was laid off. Additionally, the government doesn't just hand out money to healthy, childless people who are capable of working and choose to just sit back and collect all these benefits. Most of the people who get rent subsidies, utility subsidies, food stamps, etc. are the WORKING poor. AND MOST ARE SINGLE PARENTS. SHOULD WE NOW PUNISH THE CHILDREN, TOO? And until we pay them a living wage, one that will allow them to live on their own and pay all their utilities, then we provide them a helping hand. There will always be people who have to do the menial tasks and jobs. Clean your hotel or hospital room, pick the fruit you eat, stock the shelves at the grocery store and work the cash register at WalMart. MANY of those work those jobs while they are trying to better themselves by going to school or getting training. But in the meantime, they need some help. WALMART ACTUALLY HELD SEMINARS FOR THEIR LOW PAID EMPLOYEES ABOUT WHAT GOVERNMENT BENEFITS THEY COULD APPLY FOR. AND OF COURSE, WALMART FIGHTS INCREASES IN THE MINIMUM WAGE. BETTER TO HAVE US TAXPAYERS SUBSIDIZE THEIR EMPLOYEES THAN TO PAY THEM A DECENT WAGE. WALMART IS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE GREEDY CORPORATION OF WHICH I FREQUENTLY SPEAK OF. And that public transportation that you mentioned you friend takes (instead of owning a car)? Well, guess who subsidizes that? That's right, the government. And guess who backs up that student loan she got? Right again, the government. And what is wrong with owning a $10,000 car (a rather cheap car, I might add) if it helps that person get to school or a job - and still qualify for a loan? NO ONE IS JUST GETTING THE MONEY HANDED TO THEM. Most are loans that must be paid back. It is very difficult to be eligible for the Pell grants. Public transportation is terrible where I live. If you want to get anywhere, you need a car. Maybe some cities have better public transportation and you can use it to meet your needs, but where I live you need a car. Oh, wait, I guess your solution would be to have everyone move to a city with great public transportation. You always paid very simplistic solutions to very complicated problems. That speaks to your lack of understanding of complex issues. And your disdain for anyone who isn't like you or who hasn't done what you have done. Or believe what you believe.

Here is the Chris Matthews interview with Bishop Tobin. The Catholic Church has long been in the forefront of the anti-abortion movement and was instrumental in the language in the current healtcare reform bill, but when it comes to having answers for the hard questions, well - just watch the video. Chris Matthews nails this bishop who has a lot of rhetoric but NO ANSWERS. It's the best interview I've ever seen Chris Matthews do. Please watch: YouTube - Chris Matthews Pwns Catholic Bishop on Rep. Patrick Kennedy Issue

And lets not forget that some who post here want to criminalize abortion and throw all the women and doctors into jail. What would become of the babies they are then forced to have in jail has never been addressed. If they are forced to have the baby, shouldn't they have the right to keep it? Or should they be forced to have the baby and then the GOVERNMENT that forced them to have it takes it away from them? And then does what with the baby? That's a lot of power given to a government that those anti-abortionists say already has too much power and interferes too much in our lives and doesn't get anything right, anyway. These questions cannot be answered because there are no answers. Even the bishop of Rhode Island who wants to keep Patrick Kennedy from communion because he votes pro-choice will not even say he wants women to go to jail. He wants to make abortion illegal but doesn't have any answers beyond that. That's because the anti-abortion movement doesn't think about those things.

Our country was like that in the beginning, before the middle class was created, largely due to unions. You had the families that owned the mines, railroads, steel mills, shipyards, factories, etc.. They were the ones who lived in the big mansions on the hill and employed many servants (usually Irish maids because they spoke English). Then below, living in squalor, were the families who worked in these places which were, for the most part, unsafe. Many workers died making the rich richer. Workers united and went on strike and the big, bad government instituted workplace safety as well as economic safety nets. Such government interference with free enterprise!!! This changed things for the better as the middle class rose up and people began to live better. However, the republicans & conservatives want to go back to this 2 class system by such things as "starving the beast" (cutting all social programs), while increasing military and defense budgets and tax breaks for the rich and corporations. It's the old "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer". We have been seeing this happen since Reagan as the middle class has lost real earning power and the gap between the rich and everyone else widening.

I would agree to a totally free enterprise system if there was not corporate welfare, no tax breaks and EVERY corporation paid the corporate tax rate with NO exceptions, no time delays, nothing. Just do business and pay the taxes you owe. But we all know that that doesn't happen. Very few, if any, corporations pay the corporate tax rate and far too many are given government subsidies, tax reductions, etc... If we try to get them to pay their fair share, well they just threaten to move their corporate base to another lower tax country and take jobs with them. As I have said before, it is not the government that is the problem in this country. It is corporate america - they have ALL the power and they use it to their ($$$) advantage. And it shows!!!

The government doesn't make my health decisions now nor would they in the new healthcare bill. My insurance company, however, decides whether to approve procedures recommended by my doctor. I was free to get a flu shot or not. I am free to get a yearly Pap test, or not. I am free to pursue weight loss surgery, or not. Where is the government telling me what medical procedure to get or not? My INSURANCE company has all the decision making ($$) power now. What healthcare decisions does the government make for you? Or will make under the new bill other than to require that you have insurance (which is different than making medical decisions)? But you want the government, who you don't believe gets anything right, and who you believe has become too big and intrusive, to govern a woman's uterus.

With reference to Sarah Palin and Bristol Palin and the births of their babies: Those who call themselves pro-life and then find themselves with an unintended, unwanted and/or problem pregnancy/birth defect will often "consider" abortion before choosing to have the baby. Like Sarah Palin, and Bristol who said she "chose" to have her baby - indicating that she had a choice. That's all that those of us who are pro-choice want. We have no problem with either woman having their baby, just that they had a choice (which apparently both considered). There is a local newscaster in the town in which I live. Early in her pregnancy it was discovered that her baby had almost no brain. It was a devastating diagnosis. She considers herself a pro-life person, but guess what she did? She checked with her husband's insurance to see if they covered abortion. They did not, so she decided to have the baby. If she was pro-life, why even check to see if the procedure is covered? If you are pro-life you have no choice but to give birth. My point is that those who call themselves pro-life and then find themselves in a position of a problem or unwanted pregnancy often consider abortion and some may actually go through with it. And those who are pro-choice in the same position often have the baby. It's about choice.

I think the fact that you said you have a deep seated hatred for the poor and are selfish with a "what can you do for me?" attitude says it all. At least you're honest about it. And because of it, you're right - we will never see eye to eye.

Do you think there is an abundance of good paying jobs with health insurance going unfilled? Don't you think those in jobs without insurance look for better jobs? THERE ARE NONE!! And with the high cost of health insurance, "putting a little money aside each week" is not enough to purchase an individual private plan. Those who are uninsured ARE your problem and you are paying for them every time they go to the ER and can't pay the bill. Because if they had the money for the ER bill , then they would have money for health insurance - and they don't. My sil is a police officer. Until 5 years ago, he worked part-time at two different police stations. Because he was PT he had no health insurance. He was actually working a full time schedule, though, between the two jobs. Yes, he was looking for full time work but at the time there was none. And on his pay, he couldn't afford to purchase private health insurance. He had to go to the ER for an emergency injury (non-work related) and they charged him a fortune. Did you know that if you don't have insurance you are charged more for a procedure than if you do?? I resent the implication that somehow he, putting his life on the line each day for people like you, was lazy and just not trying hard enough. We have excellent health care for those who can afford it. Do you really think those who are uninsured or underinsured get the same healthcare as those with great coverage? The WHO ranks us 37th in healthcare, behind Slovenia. Doctors are going to quit if we have universal coverage? And do what, become a teacher?

My daughter just found out she's pregnant - she's about 5 weeks along. Have any of you discussed getting the H1N1 vaccine or the seasonal flu shot with your obstetrician - and if so at what point (weeks) in the pregnancy is it safe? Is it safe to get it in the first trimester? Thanks. Signed - a nervous mother and grandmother to be

How fortunate that there was a full time position available that you could move in to. Otherwise you would have had to stay PT without insurance and if you needed healthcare, would have just had to pay for it out of pocket. Good thing you didn't get cancer and have to pay for that. I heard it can be a tad expensive!! We better get the word out quick to all PT workers: Hey you slackers - just apply for FT work and get that insurance. It works everytime.

It's you who makes the really big assumptions here. 80% of those without health insurance are employed. Many employers cannot afford to offer health insurance due to the rising costs of premiums due to the greed of the insurance companies. And most of the people who have lost their jobs have lost their health insurance. The government gives corporation tons of welfare. And their CEO's are greedy and then get out with golden parachutes. They have great health insurance. What makes our country different than developing countries is that we have a safety net and support system. We take care of the poor, elderly, disabled. That is what sets us apart. It's what makes us better. I don't want to be like countries that don't take care of the least among us. None of you knows when the tables will turn and you might be someone who needs help. You can be judgemental and speak of those who receive help or benefits as if they are a lesser form of humans. But many of them had jobs, insurance, homes and then some incident happened to change all that. Yes, there are people who exploit the system and try to get something for nothing, but that happens in corporate america, too, with larger $$$ losses - like what happened with the recent greed of wall street.

Sarah and her lies (well some of them, anyway) - not exactly virtuous, christian or otherwise: To Visit WashingtonMonthly.com Click Here Sep 4, 2008 Factchecking Palin (Political Animal) Factchecking Palin The other, which the commenters I saw on TV for some reason neglected to mention, was that she told a lot of lies. A few that stood out for me, or that I spotted in my quick run-through of some blogs: Palin: "To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House." Sarah Palin might have changed her mind on this one recently. However, a comment here notes that Palin actually slashed funding for schools for special needs kids by 62%. Budgets: FY 2007 (pre-Palin), 2008, 2009 (all pdfs). Palin: "As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes, and whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man." Steve's list of McCain flip-flops is here. See for yourself whether constancy is, in fact, John McCain's middle name. Palin: "I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves." Just to reiterate what others have said: Congress' requirement that funds be spent on that bridge (aka the 'earmark') were removed before Sarah Palin became governor. She was therefore in no position to tell Congress anything about the bridge, one way or the other. During her campaign, she said she supported funding for the bridge. Brad Plumer, citing the Anchorage Dialy News via Nexis: "5. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges? Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." Later, she accepted the money -- now not restricted by an earmark -- and used it for other infrastructure projects. Here's her statement about why she wasn't building the bridge (also via Plumer.) Decide for yourselves what role a principled opposition to earmark funding plays in it. Hint: here's what residents of Ketchikan AK said when they heard her recent remarks: "In the city Ketchikan, the planned site of the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere," political leaders of both parties said the claim was false and a betrayal of their community, because she had supported the bridge and the earmark for it secured by Alaska's Congressional delegation during her run for governor. (..) "People are learning that she pandered to us by saying, I'm for this' ... and then when she found it was politically advantageous for her nationally, abruptly she starts using the very term that she said was insulting," Weinstein said." Palin: "But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate." Ha, ha, ha. I gave a rundown of Obama's accomplishments in the Senate here. They include the Lugar-Obama bill on nonproliferation, and an ethics reform package that the Washington Post called "the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet." Ruth Marcus summarizes his record on reform: "He helped pass a far-reaching ethics and campaign finance bill in the Illinois state Senate and made the issue a priority on arriving in Washington. Much to the displeasure of his colleagues, Obama promoted an outside commission to handle Senate ethics complaints. He co-authored the lobbying reform bill awaiting President Bush's signature and pushed -- again to the dismay of some colleagues -- to include a provision requiring lawmakers to report the names of their lobbyist-bundlers. He has co-sponsored bills to overhaul the presidential public financing system and public financing of Senate campaigns." Not a single major law or reform, indeed. And I wasn't aware that writing memoirs was something to be ashamed of. Obama has, in fact, written only one. McCain (with Mark Salter) has written at least two. Palin: "America needs more energy ... our opponent is against producing it." No -- he plans to develop a lot more energy than John McCain does. It's just that a lot of it is renewable, not carbon-based. Moreover, Obama hasn't skipped the last eight votes on renewable energy. Palin: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes ... raise payroll taxes ... raise investment income taxes ... raise the death tax ... raise business taxes ... and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. My sister Heather and her husband have just built a service station that's now opened for business - like millions of others who run small businesses. How are they going to be any better off if taxes go up?" Well, it all depends whose taxes go up, doesn't it? If Heather and her husband make less than $250,000, their taxes will not go up. Most Americans will pay less in taxes under Obama's plan than under McCain's. So they might well be better off. Those are just the falsehoods that leapt to mind. I'm sure there are others. She speaks like a politician, that's for sure.

Regardless of what you call yourself politically, you use broad sweeping, emotional generalizations. Welfare single parents vs taxpaying single parents? You made that comparison, not me. Very few of the parents I had experience with were on welfare. Just very low class, maybe low middle. And no minorities. They paid taxes. Dysfunctional families comes in all economic classes but the one common denominator that I did notice among the parents was the high rate of divorce. Liberals have made disciplining children illegal in most states? Do you mean people who are opposed to child abuse? Discipline does not mean hitting. And punishment doesn't mean hitting. I never hit a student but I had strict discipline in my classroom. There were consequences.

I never mentioned welfare or destroying the country, baby's mamas or spawns. Those are hate terms used by the right. Your reaction is a typical overreaction from the conservative right!!! Taken right from rush's playbook. I spoke about the devastating effect of divorce and parents who don't or won't parent - which results in a lack of discipline. And how a loving gay couple would be better for a child than a divorced couple. And the safety nets in place do not discriminate based on gender, marital status or number of children. Children are the victims and should not be punished for the behavior of parents.

My husband was a high school teacher for 34 years. I was an elementary teacher for 10 years. I know what goes on inside public schools and I also know about students and parents. And to blame the schools for students making bad choices is a cop-out to coin an old phrase. The biggest influences in kid's lives are their parents and family environment. My kids both went to public schools and public colleges and both are married and productive members of society. My husband and I would not have tolerated unacceptable behavior or associating with undesirable kids. We had high standards for behavior and academics. And I am and my husband was a liberal democrat as are both of our children. Every time I had a problem student I could trace the problem directly back to the parent(s). Most were uneducated, had little interest in education, were poor disciplinarians or overindulgent. The kids often "ran" the household. And most were in dysfunctional families. In many cases, I was the first adult in children's lives who expected them to follow rules. If I had had students who were raised by a gay, loving couple they would be much better off than those who came from divorced families. Without a doubt divorce had a devastating effect on children. Then there was mom and her boyfriend and dad and his girlfriend. But we don't see the opposition to divorce from the (religious) right. Oh, no. It's gays getting married that poses a threat to marriage. Yeah, right. That's not my experience.

So Congress gets a pass for the bad intell, but Bush doesn't? Maybe I'm wrong, Cleo's mom, but it seems to me that you are ascribing much more power and influence to President Bush than he really had. Answer me this.....Is President Obama more powerful than Bush, less powerful, or are the about the same? It wasn't bad intelligence. You missed my point. The smart people with opposing views and contrary intelligence were ignored and dismissed. The boat had already sailed. We were going to war with Iraq come hell or high Water. The only missing piece was how to sell it. After 9/11 that became easier with cherry picked and dubious intelligence. And the republicans controlled congress and rubber stamped everything bush put before them. The democrats who voted for authorization were fearful of the traitor branding. Colin Powell resigned because they made him the dupe presenting his chemical weapons propoganda. Others in the administration resigned for similar reasons. I think Pres. Obama uses his power differently than bush. And I am thankful for that. But bush wasn't the architect of the Iraqi war alone. He isn't that smart. Cheney and his cohorts had a bigger role. But if I recall, bush later admitted that he didn't even meet with Rumsfeld prior to making the decision to invade Iraq.

PG- I don't know where you come up with the $350/year cost but you are not taking into your cost the cost of your home, furniture, utilities, computer, materials, car, food, etc. because public schools take all that into account. Add to that all the unfunded mandates, especially special ed. where it cost at least twice per student as regular ed. Plus you don't have the transportation costs. Busing is expensive. Oh, that's right, you probably think everyone should live right next to the school and walk. Bashing teachers and their unions has long been a rallying point for the right wing. Especially from right wing homeschoolers, most of whom are from the religious right and hate public schools and demonize them as liberal mind control institutions. Teachers worked for next to nothing for years until they unionized and began to go on strike. Then their wages and benefits grew, as they should, to be commensurate with their education. A minimum of 4 years of college and in my state, continuing ed for lifetime (180 hours every 5 years) most of which they pay themselves. And teachers work more than 180 days and do not get paid vacations or holidays, unlike other jobs. They only get paid for days worked. And the problems faced in public schools coincide with the decline in functioning families. Too many families are dysfunctional and society expects schools to fix that. You said you didn't recevie a pay raise this year. So you have a paying job, homeschool your kids, work in a nursing home and run an in-home day care, and take/took care of an elderly woman in your home. You must be superwoman.

The reason the Congress voted to give bush authorization and the reason people initially gave bush the benefit of the doubt is that the war was sold to EVERYONE as if it were a product. Those on the inside, like Paul Pillar, Carl Ford Jr, Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil saw first hand that this desire to go into Iraq preceded 9/11. But it took 9/11 to be able to SELL it. Fords says: On the case of the internal Iraq issue, the policymakers really didn't listen at all. If we had said "There are no weapons of mass destruction" it might have slowed them down, but I don't think it would have had any impact on most of the people deciding on the war. I think it would have made it more difficult for them to sell the war. One of the things that led to my leaving was the sort of view that "Well, okay, but if we tell people that, if we don't focus on weapons of mass destruction, we might not be able to sell the war." The above is from the book "Idiot America" by Charles. P. Pierce. And when this war was sold anyone who wasn't buying it was labeled a traitor & unpatriotic. Now, what congressman wants to go home to his constituents with THAT label? It took people a few years to wise up to the fact that this war had nothing to do with 9/11, and how absolutely shameful and pitiful that half the soldiers fighting and dying there thought it did. So, I don't really give a damn who voted for the war but I sure do condemn those who SOLD it based on lies and the rejection of intelligence.

Yeah, those making $500,000 and above are rich and represent only a very small percentage of american workers. Only about 7% of people make over $100,000 and only about 1.5% make over $250,000. Far fewer make $500,000 or above. They have been getting a free ride under bush's tax cuts and it's time for them to pay their fair share. Let the tax cuts expire. As a member of the middle class I am tired of just getting their crumbs (known as the failed trickle down, supply side economics). Since you are against government run health care just make sure you don't sign up for medicare and instead buy private, for-profit health insurance at 65. Medicare is a good deal and the recipients know it which is why they like it. Comparing private and public schools is comparing apples and oranges. Private schools are not obligated to educate all students. They can reject those with special needs or discipline problems. They don't operate under the same mandates as public schools. The government takes your (and my) tax dollars and spends them on things many of us don't like. I don't want my tax dollars going to corporate welfare or the Iraqi war. Why should I have to pay for bush's war?

Do you think marriage penalties JUST came about under Pres. Obama? There have been marriage penalties in our tax codes and social security payments forever. You don't pay into SS based on marital status but you collect based on marital status. The single standard tax deduction is more than half of what a married filing jointly deduction is. When two social security recipients get married, they lose some of their SS payments which is why they often just live together rather than marry. If you want to correct these penalties, they you have to expect to make up these increased payments or tax deductions somewhere. Higher taxes, higher payroll SS payments????