House Republicans Cave on Payroll Tax Cuts Extension

Eighty Deuce · Dec 23, 2011

1Perry said:
Everyone in D.C. agree's the tax should be extended for the full year. Arguements aside if this is good, everyone has agreed it shoul dbe done. Rather than doing the work to do it, they decided they would rather go on vacation. This should make everyone mad. They've known for a long time the cuts end and a decision had to be made. They had plenty of time to have addressed it.

Once again they decided to not do the hard work. Boehner was right that the 2 month deal was a failure on the part of D.C. but he was stupid for not willing to stand up for that position.

Gonna take a little issue with you. As I have noted, from Obama's view, this is not just about extending these. Its about getting the extension WITH a concurrent tax increase on the rich, so that he has fed the beast he is creating that is class-envy. As I have said, I believe he first wants this to pinch the American people, where he has maneuvered the GOP into taking the blame for "protecting the rich". The last thing Obama wants is an extension where the funding comes from such as the sale if drilling permits, or oil royalties, from Federal Land, for instance

Dems saw that they had lost their political edge on this in the Senate. So they needed a do-over. As others have noted, the Senate GOP was fine cause they wanted to go home, and don't have much of a dog in this hunt right now. House GOP needed the demonstration before they left town. We got a big fight coming in February.

justabubba · Dec 23, 2011

Eighty Deuce said:
LOL ... nothing "pathetic" here. As I noted in a concurrent thread on this, Boehner made what is known in the Military as a "Demonstration".

actually your attempt at spin is 'pathetic'
boner stepped on his dick

Obama needs to make Febraury a big mess. The goal of the original payroll tax cut is to be a wedge issue for Obama. To prop up the class-envy issue. Just like the Occutard astro-turf. The goal by the Dems for Feb is to make a mess. Obama must have the populace blaming the GOP for protecting the rich.

the republicans can be counted on to make a big mess. they have no vision other than to subvert any efforts by Obama to get us out of the ditch the republicans placed us in
the GOP IS protecting the rich. thanks to Occupy, that has now become very evident to the general public

So Boehner demonstrated.

no. boner whiffed. struck out looking (stupid)

2-3 days of being sure to have it on record that Obama did not want to get a one year deal so that the problem would be "solved already" when the blame mud is slung in February. Cantor even made the crack that Obama could bring his dog to negotiations. That line serves but one purpose. To be remembered.

for those of us who dwell in this place called reality, the house version was VERY different from the senate plan. the house proposed to impose tighter rules for unemployment benefits, blocked air pollution rules pertaining to coal fired devices, and cut more than $20 billion in spending under Obamacare

and Obama came forward and publicly scolded the house into finally voting for the senate plan. undermining the criticism that he shows weak leadership

this was a gift, wrapped by boner, to be publicly delivered to the president

danarhea · Dec 23, 2011

j-mac said:
Yes. these programs are unconstitutional.

I don't need a nanny state...Maybe you can't manage your own money, but that is not my problem.

j-mac

That's all fine and good, but millions have paid their own money into the program for 30-40 years. So we now end the program? I don't think so, unless you want millions of seniors picking up guns and going out to get their money back.

Eighty Deuce · Dec 23, 2011

justabubba said:
..............
no. boner whiffed. struck out looking (stupid)

for those of us who dwell in this place called reality, the house version was VERY different from the senate plan. the house proposed to impose tighter rules for unemployment benefits, blocked air pollution rules pertaining to coal fired devices, and cut more than $20 billion in spending under Obamacare

and Obama came forward and publicly scolded the house into finally voting for the senate plan. undermining the criticism that he shows weak leadership

this was a gift, wrapped by boner, to be publicly delivered to the president

LOL ...... I would ask anyone, rhetorically, given that the Senate GOP passed the two month deal overwhelmingly, how we are all so much smarter politically than Boehner and Cantor and the rest to not realize that had they chose to fight this battle now, to truly stop the deal, that they could possibly sustain poltically ? We new it, they knew it. Everyone knew it.

It was a simple Demonstration, designed to gain some political arrows for the coming fight.

For you Unbubba, or for anyone, to think that this will matter two beans against Boehner or the House GOP even next week is the stuff of ......... falling for the Demonstration

. Boehner got everything he wanted out of these last few days.

Tell me Unbubba, as my spin is so pathetic

Is this the new Democrat legislative process ? Two month bills ? How long is this going to work for ya

Dittohead not! · Dec 23, 2011

cpwill said:
meh. it gives people piddling sums in return for weakening social security, and not increasing hiring. woopee.

Yet, by making a big deal of it, both parties seem to think that they can somehow win points.

cpwill said:
though by de-linking taxes with benefits, the Democrats may have made a strategic error.

That happened several decades ago, didn't it, when Johnson put the SS "trust fund" into the general fund in order to fund a war and the "great society" at the same time? It has been a de facto tax on the middle class and working poor ever since.

cpwill said:
this is incorrect. Both Republicans and Democrats wanted to extend it for a year (Obama has now called for 4 years). Democrats, however, can't figure out how to pay for it in a manner that can pass even the Senate, and Republicans passed a year long bill in the House, but tied it to making the President decide yea or nay on the Keystone pipeline. So democrats punted the can down the road for two months (we'll be having this conversation again at the end of February).

Oh, that makes sense. They're engaged in partisan gamesmanship, as usual. The Democrats can't possibly make a decision on the Keystone project, as they would either anger the environmentalists or labor, depending on how they decided, so they want to wait until after the election to decide.

and, of course, no one can figure out how to pay for yet another tax cut. There is no way to pay for another tax cut. The Congress is operating in Never Never land mode.

cpwill said:
both parties have managed to lose, though Obama wins.

Obama wins? He wins because he doesn't have to make a decision that would lose points regardless of what he decides until after the election, is that how he wins?

Meanwhile, the country loses.

What a sorry situation.

j-mac · Dec 23, 2011

danarhea said:
That's all fine and good, but millions have paid their own money into the program for 30-40 years. So we now end the program? I don't think so, unless you want millions of seniors picking up guns and going out to get their money back.

Yeah, go ahead and give that a go....See how it turns out for ya. But yes do away with it. Let that be a lesson in what placing blind trust in government to take care of you does.

Tell me, remember when there was such a conniption fit thrown when Bush wanted to allow people to opt 3% of their contribution each week toward their own investment? At least that would have produced some kind of return, now we have Obama using 1/3 of the contribution as a wedge for his class warfare....But that's ok right?

j-mac

kpt018 · Dec 23, 2011

j-mac said:
Yes. these programs are unconstitutional.

Will you be cashing your social security checks or using medicare if needed? You paid into the program for many years and now you believe the benefits should be cut?

I don't need a nanny state...Maybe you can't manage your own money, but that is not my problem.

j-mac

I'm actually a CPA and perfectly capable of managing my money. The fact is events occur in life that can drastically alter you finances and they are beyond your control. But I think you hit on something here, the attitude "that's not my problem".

j-mac · Dec 23, 2011

kpt018 said:
I'm actually a CPA and perfectly capable of managing my money. The fact is events occur in life that can drastically alter you finances and they are beyond your control. But I think you hit on something here, the attitude "that's not my problem".

It's not. Are you saying that someone who doesn't have the foresight to plan for their later years holds a claim to my labor, simply because I did?

j-mac

justabubba · Dec 23, 2011

j-mac said:
It's not. Are you saying that someone who doesn't have the foresight to plan for their later years holds a claim to my labor, simply because I did?

j-mac

please document these persons you insist "holds a claim to my labor"
for extra points, show us the actual claim

j-mac · Dec 23, 2011

justabubba said:
please document these persons you insist "holds a claim to my labor"
for extra points, show us the actual claim

I believe that the point that kpa is pointing out is that there is a problem with me saying that those that don't plan for their future not being my problem, is a social problem...So I ask the question....Gheeze, must we explain everything?

j-mac

justabubba · Dec 23, 2011

j-mac said:
I believe that the point that kpa is pointing out is that there is a problem with me saying that those that don't plan for their future not being my problem, is a social problem...So I ask the question....Gheeze, must we explain everything?

j-mac

so, the assertions you made were not actually - legitimate
got it

Dickieboy · Dec 23, 2011

Given that the President signed the PR tax extension today reflection on the past month reveals his reversal. It has been argued in this thread that the memory of the public is short enough that this week’s events will be forgotten when debate starts up in February. Consider the President made this statement on December 7:

"Any effort to try to tie Keystone to the payroll tax cut I will reject," Obama told reporters after a meeting with the prime minister of Canada.

Obama threatens payroll tax veto over Keystone provision - Los Angeles Times

So how many remember? Did he hold true to his word? I’m sure it will be argued that he meant a ‘forced approval’ but as Karl stated the pipeline is approved by default if the decision is not made in 60 days.

j-mac · Dec 23, 2011

justabubba said:
so, the assertions you made were not actually - legitimate
got it

Wait a minute...Assertions? What the **** are you talking about? I gave an opinion, another poster chimed in with some pablum of social responsibility that I must hold, and I gave an opinion. What assertion must I back up to be acceptable to you? Not that I really care if you accept anything or not, just wondering.

j-mac

cpwill · Dec 24, 2011

Dittohead not! said:
Yet, by making a big deal of it, both parties seem to think that they can somehow win points.

when in doubt, always bet on people pursuing their self interest. do not, however, bet on the long-term wisdom of anyone who does not suffer directly the consequences of their mistakes.

That happened several decades ago, didn't it, when Johnson put the SS "trust fund" into the general fund in order to fund a war and the "great society" at the same time? It has been a de facto tax on the middle class and working poor ever since.

yes, but not in the public eye. seniors across America are convinced they are only "getting their money back" and "getting what they paid for". We have to break that if we are to fiscally survive.

Oh, that makes sense. They're engaged in partisan gamesmanship, as usual. The Democrats can't possibly make a decision on the Keystone project, as they would either anger the environmentalists or labor, depending on how they decided, so they want to wait until after the election to decide.

naturally. It's a real pickle for them, but that is because portions of their base have mutually excluding goals.

and, of course, no one can figure out how to pay for yet another tax cut. There is no way to pay for another tax cut.

sure there is. what we can't do is agree on how to pay for this tax cut. there are plenty of ways to offset the added burden to the treasury.

the Congress is operating in Never Never land mode.

and has been for years if not decades.

Obama wins? He wins because he doesn't have to make a decision that would lose points regardless of what he decides until after the election, is that how he wins?

he wins because he has made the optics work for him. amazingly, he, his media allies, and Senate Republicans have all conspired to make House Republicans look like they are in favor of not extending a middle class tax cut because in fact they wanted to extend it more. as I understand it, his favorability has gotten a slight bump on it, even as republicans have dipped.

Meanwhile, the country loses. What a sorry situation.

yup. Can we please just go ahead and pass Bowles-Simpson tax reform? 1 Trillion in added revenue for Dems, lower, flatter rates for Republicans.

jgarden47 · Dec 25, 2011

The bottom line is that the Republicans in the House, for whatever reason, voted down a bill that had been supported by 38 GOP senators and negotiated by the Minority Leader.

The fact that Boehner had to reverse the House's position within days is a reflection of his own party's reaction to the gross mishandling of the situation.

Eighty Deuce · Dec 25, 2011

jgarden47 said:
The bottom line is that the Republicans in the House, for whatever reason, voted down a bill that had been supported by 38 GOP senators and negotiated by the Minority Leader.

The fact that Boehner had to reverse the House's position within days is a reflection of his own party's reaction to the gross mishandling of the situation.

House Republicans did not vote down the bill. They demonstrated to show that they did not like it, and had wanted a better plan. Then they passed it, as they had no hope of a viable political opposition to it at this time. As the fight is renewed in two months, this skirmish is almost already forgotten.

danarhea · Dec 25, 2011

Eighty Deuce said:
House Republicans did not vote down the bill. They demonstrated to show that they did not like it, and had wanted a better plan. Then they passed it, as they had no hope of a viable political opposition to it at this time. As the fight is renewed in two months, this skirmish is almost already forgotten.

Of course they didn't vote down the bill. They didn't allow it to come to the floor for a vote because they didn't want it on record that they opposed a tax cut.

Antiderivative · Dec 25, 2011

danarhea said:
Of course they didn't vote down the bill. They didn't allow it to come to the floor for a vote because they didn't want it on record that they opposed a tax cut.

This is dumb. Republicans opposed one of the biggest tax cuts in history when Obama passed his stimulus bill in 2009.

Republicans have no problem going on the record and opposing tax cuts.

danarhea · Dec 25, 2011

Antiderivative said:
This is dumb. Republicans opposed one of the biggest tax cuts in history when Obama passed his stimulus bill in 2009.

Republicans have no problem going on the record and opposing tax cuts.

They had a problem when confronted with the opportunity to vote on one, so they didn't even bring it to the floor for a vote.

Antiderivative · Dec 25, 2011

danarhea said:
They had a problem when confronted with the opportunity to vote on one, so they didn't even bring it to the floor for a vote.

Stop lying, they have no problem voting to increase taxes. In fact, their hero passed the largest peacetime tax in history: TEFRA.

Republicans have no problem with increasing taxation and regulations. This idea that they are antithetical to taxes and regulations is a big ****ing laugh that borders on insulting informed citizens.

Please stop your lies and insults.

SheWolf · Dec 25, 2011

Gill said:
I think everyone knew this would happen. They backed themselves into a corner that had no exit.

Major Garrett wrote an article that predicted they would accept the 2 month deal in exchange for the Senate appointing a conference committee to iron out the differences.

I'm not sure Boehner is cut out to be Speaker of the House.

Yeah, I agree. I didn't really think Nancy Peolsi was great, but she actually managed to get votes and deliver most of the time. Now you could argue that she got the votes lined up for very flawed legislation, but that's a different argument. Boehner, on the other hand, doesn't seem like he is leader in any sense. He seems to be really bad at his job, and he needs to gtfo.

upsideguy · Dec 25, 2011

Antiderivative said:
Stop lying, they have no problem voting to increase taxes. In fact, their hero passed the largest peacetime tax in history: TEFRA.

Republicans have no problem with increasing taxation and regulations. This idea that they are antithetical to taxes and regulations is a big ****ing laugh that borders on insulting informed citizens.

Please stop your lies and insults.

Very bad example. TEFRA was passed in 1982 by a reasonable group of Republicans and Democrats, who could work together to get things done for the country. None of those Republicans, including the party leader Ronald Reagan, would not be nominated by the party for local dog catcher in the 2011 Republican party. This is not your father's party; this is a group of wack-a-doos.

Name one tax increase the Republicans have endorsed in the last 10 years. Danarhea is on the mark here, and you know it.

misterman · Dec 26, 2011

Gill said:
I think everyone knew this would happen. They backed themselves into a corner that had no exit.

Much like you did when you claimed that chambers of Congres routinely pass major bills from the other chamber without adding any amendments, and then promised to show us some examples, huh? Still waiting.

j-mac · Dec 27, 2011

misterman said:
Much like you did when you claimed that chambers of Congres routinely pass major bills from the other chamber without adding any amendments, and then promised to show us some examples, huh? Still waiting.

So what! That arguably has been the problem. But, hey score, you get to hammer an anonymous message board opponent. What a win!

j-mac

justabubba · Dec 27, 2011

j-mac said:
So what! That arguably has been the problem. But, hey score, you get to hammer an anonymous message board opponent. What a win!

j-mac

[emphasis added by bubba]

anonymous
hardly
we can even see that he returned to 'like' your post in his defense
he is not anonymous. he is in hiding. running from the question for which he has no answer
but thanks to both of you for the laugh

House Republicans Cave on Payroll Tax Cuts Extension

Eighty Deuce

justabubba

long standing member

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Eighty Deuce

Dittohead not!

master political analyst

j-mac

kpt018

New member

j-mac

justabubba

long standing member

j-mac

justabubba

long standing member

Dickieboy

j-mac

cpwill

jgarden47

Eighty Deuce

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Antiderivative

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Antiderivative

SheWolf

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist

misterman

j-mac

justabubba

long standing member