Boehner reverses his position from Sat to Sun and rejects 2mos payroll tax extension

[Ausm]

Yes, it's all about you.

That's how the Right thinks.

 

[Fern]

Sorry but putting a gun to the administrations head to try a force through an environmentally unfriendly pet project...

Approval for the pipeline was first extended in 2010. So, they had another year.

So, it's been about 2 years and trying to get a decision is now called "putting a gun to the administrations (sic) head"?

How many years does it take?

Everyone admits that Obama's proposed delay until 2013 is because of political calculation, not environmental studies.

Make the d@mn decision already.
-----------------

Disagree 100% with creating a (new) fee on home mortgages to pay for an (unrelated) tax cut.

----------------

The Senate's is on recess? So, what? How long of a recess do they need? Go back to work after Christmas like everyone else and pass it before Jan 1.
---------------

Finally, I don't think Boehner had much choice about changing his mind. I'm pretty sure he found out that there was no support in the House for a 2 month deal.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

I take it you like President Obama?

Not particularly. Like most Presidents I like some things he's done and dislike other things he's done. He's nowhere near as bad as I feared. I think he's done an excellent job on Afghanistan, largely following Bush's plan but changing it when he thought it needed changing. I think he made the hard (and correct) decision in taking out UBL. I think his part of the bailouts were largely needed - I don't like the way he did them, but I don't think on balance he did any worse than Bush, and I can accept that speed and/or confidence might honestly be judged more important by those more informed than my desire to NOT make "too big to fail" even bigger and also make it "too big to fail to pay our bonuses." I'm pragmatic enough to accept that what I want to see on principle may have to be sacrificed to other valid concerns.

On this however he is purely wrong, attempting to kill the pipeline without taking the political hits for doing so. He's attempting to continue insisting he wants jobs and infrastructure and energy without admitting that these things have environmental consequences as well. I can support him fighting for some changes based on environmental concerns, but his current course is the worst of all worlds, compromising our future energy security and killing much-needed jobs (and future revenue) while getting nothing in return for some environmentalist campaign dollars and votes. If he honestly wants to kill the project, he should put on his big girl panties and do so - and take the hit for his convictions.

 

[werepossum]

Yes, it's all about you.

How is this any different from the position of the majority of Democrat supporters? "Gimme my 2% cut and make those rich bastards pay" is hardly any different from his position - well, except that Piasabird wasn't concurrently demanding that money be taken from "someone else" and given to him.

 

[senseamp]

How is this any different from the position of the majority of Democrat supporters? "Gimme my 2% cut and make those rich bastards pay" is hardly any different from his position - well, except that Piasabird wasn't concurrently demanding that money be taken from "someone else" and given to him.

2% is money that working people pay. It's not going to be taken from someone else, it's their money that Republicans want to take.

 

[Doppel]

The thing should get a 0 day extension, it's a total asinine payroll cut. Asinine.

 

[umbrella39]

Looks like Boner is putting his 9% approval rating on the line.....

The House GOP stands for one thing right now, opposing all things Obama, cue fools saying he is just doing what Obama wants...

 

[werepossum]

2% is money that working people pay. It's not going to be taken from someone else, it's their money that Republicans want to take.

Actually it's money the Republicans don't want to take, and since they don't want to take it, they don't want to spend it. Democrats also don't want to take it, but they still want to spend it, so they support taking the equivalent from someone else.

The thing should get a 0 day extension, it's a total asinine payroll cut. Asinine.

I largely agree, but this is one of the few areas where Ds and Rs agree, even if they can't agree whether or how to make up the money. Still, even though much of this money will go straight out of the economy to Red China, it's probably more stimulant than the converse, taking less money from high earners (which presumably would otherwise be loaned to the federal government.)

Perhaps we can compromise - extend the 2% if people agree to spend it on American-made goods and services. Buy some lumber, hire a babysitter and take the wife out, buy new American-made tires.

 

[senseamp]

Actually it's money the Republicans don't want to take, and since they don't want to take it, they don't want to spend it. Democrats also don't want to take it, but they still want to spend it, so they support taking the equivalent from someone else.

So Republicans are against extending the payroll tax cuts? They should run on that

 

[Spikesoldier]

How is this any different from the position of the majority of Democrat supporters? "Gimme my 2% cut and make those rich bastards pay" is hardly any different from his position - well, except that Piasabird wasn't concurrently demanding that money be taken from "someone else" and given to him.

ba-zing!

wheres my welfare check?



on topic:

so lets take a step back and think about how they are going to pay for this cut. they are going to raise the PMI rate by .25%. Lets see, the poorest people are probably on section 8 or on the streets, and don't own their own houses, so they aren't paying. The lower/lower-mid class people probably rent an apartment or house, so they aren't paying. The middle class who needs to get PMI are definitely paying, along with everyone else who needs PMI. The upper-mid and of course wealthy earners and *gasp* 1%'ers will likely not need PMI.

In another related thread, someone used an example of a $200,000 home would pay an extra $17.00/mo due to the .25% increase in PMI rate. So lets calculate that $17/mo over the life of a 30yr loan. $17 * 12mo * 30yr = $6,120 over the life of a 30yr loan. Damn, if the First-time homebuyer credit was still around, that would have nearly evaporated the whole enchilada.

So in conclusion, middle class gets fucked, all for two months of cuts.

 

[RightIsWrong]

If the Dems had any balls or brains, both of which they lack in spades, they should tell Boner that the Republicans will only get thier pipeline if they concede the payroll tax and the immediate expiration of the Bush Billionaire's club tax cuts.

 

[werepossum]

ba-zing!

wheres my welfare check?



on topic:

so lets take a step back and think about how they are going to pay for this cut. they are going to raise the PMI rate by .25%. Lets see, the poorest people are probably on section 8 or on the streets, and don't own their own houses, so they aren't paying. The lower/lower-mid class people probably rent an apartment or house, so they aren't paying. The middle class who needs to get PMI are definitely paying, along with everyone else who needs PMI. The upper-mid and of course wealthy earners and *gasp* 1%'ers will likely not need PMI.

In another related thread, someone used an example of a $200,000 home would pay an extra $17.00/mo due to the .25% increase in PMI rate. So lets calculate that $17/mo over the life of a 30yr loan. $17 * 12mo * 30yr = $6,120 over the life of a 30yr loan. Damn, if the First-time homebuyer credit was still around, that would have nearly evaporated the whole enchilada.

So in conclusion, middle class gets fucked, all for two months of cuts.

Pretty much. Incidentally, for anyone who doesn't know, check the requirements for PMI. When I bought my house I didn't realize that I could have avoided paying PMI by paying 20% down rather than 10%.

If the Dems had any balls or brains, both of which they lack in spades, they should tell Boner that the Republicans will only get thier pipeline if they concede the payroll tax and the immediate expiration of the Bush Billionaire's club tax cuts.

Since the Bush tax cuts went to everyone with taxable wage income, that establishes the Democrat concept of a billionaire - anyone with a job!

 

[Craig234]

If the Dems had any balls or brains, both of which they lack in spades, they should tell Boner that the Republicans will only get thier pipeline if they concede the payroll tax and the immediate expiration of the Bush Billionaire's club tax cuts.

Hard to find anything to argue with there.

 

[Throckmorton]

Pretty much. Incidentally, for anyone who doesn't know, check the requirements for PMI. When I bought my house I didn't realize that I could have avoided paying PMI by paying 20% down rather than 10%.


Since the Bush tax cuts went to everyone with taxable wage income, that establishes the Democrat concept of a billionaire - anyone with a job!

But the billionaires don't even notice the extra money, because it's nothing to them, and it doesn't benefit the economy for them to keep more income.

 

[Balt]

Boehner has a point this time around. The tax cut and extension of unemployment should be for the entire year. It's better for economic stability, and it would obviate the need to continue wrangling about it next year.

I doubt he truly cares very much about that.

Depends on how reasonable the GOP's additional demands are.

I'm fairly certain he cares quite a lot about that.

 

[shira]

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...xl-pipeline-delay-obstructs-energy-jobs#_edn5
"Recognizing the need for more energy supply and more jobs, both Democrats and Republicans expressed support for the Keystone XL pipeline, a $20 billion private-infrastructure investment in the United States. The states through which the pipeline would pass—Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas—would benefit greatly. The six states are collectively projected to receive $5.2 billion in property taxes from TransCanada in the course of the 100-year operating life of the pipeline.[5]"

You behave as thought there are no issues with this proposed pipeline. From the Wiki article:

On August 21, 2011, the New York Times published an editorial opposing the Keystone XL pipeline because of the additional greenhouse gas emissions and the probability of oil spills in sensitive areas. While TransCanada had asserted that a set of 57 conditions will ensure Keystone XL's safe operation, investigative journalists asserted that all but a few of these conditions simply restate current minimum standards.

In October 2011, the New York Times questioned the impartiality of the environmental analysis of the pipeline done by Cardno Entrix, an environmental contractor based in Houston. The study found that the pipeline would have `limited adverse environmental impacts,` but was authored by a firm that had "previously worked on projects with TransCanada and describes the pipeline company as a `major client` in its marketing materials." According to The Times, legal experts questioned whether the US government was "flouting the intent" of the Federal National Environmental Policy Act which "[was] meant to ensure an impartial environmental analysis of major projects." The report prompted 14 senators and congressmen to ask the State Department inspector general on October 26 "to investigate whether conflicts of interest tainted the process" for reviewing environmental impact.

And now, in the face of these genuine questions about this project, Republicans want a fast decision. Presumably, a rushed decision means no impartial analysis of environmental impacts. And your attitude is that this project just has to be wonderful for America?

Is it a crystal ball or a Ouija board - or possibly both - that allows you to so clearly see that the Keystone pipeline project is environmentally safe?

 

[wirelessenabled]

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...xl-pipeline-delay-obstructs-energy-jobs#_edn5
"Recognizing the need for more energy supply and more jobs, both Democrats and Republicans expressed support for the Keystone XL pipeline, a $20 billion private-infrastructure investment in the United States. The states through which the pipeline would pass—Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas—would benefit greatly. The six states are collectively projected to receive $5.2 billion in property taxes from TransCanada in the course of the 100-year operating life of the pipeline.[5]"

Gotta love the good 'ole Heritage "Foundation", but they are just not a good fact-checking, truthful kind of group.

Even the builder/owner, TransCanada calls it a $13 billion project, keep in mind that about a third is in Canada.

http://www.transcanada.com/keystone.html

Project Overview

The U.S. $13 billion Keystone pipeline system will play an important role in linking a secure and growing supply of Canadian crude oil with the largest refining markets in the United States, significantly improving North American security supply.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Approval for the pipeline was first extended in 2010. So, they had another year.

So, it's been about 2 years and trying to get a decision is now called "putting a gun to the administrations (sic) head"?

How many years does it take?

Everyone admits that Obama's proposed delay until 2013 is because of political calculation, not environmental studies.

Make the d@mn decision already.
-----------------

Disagree 100% with creating a (new) fee on home mortgages to pay for an (unrelated) tax cut.

----------------

The Senate's is on recess? So, what? How long of a recess do they need? Go back to work after Christmas like everyone else and pass it before Jan 1.
---------------

Finally, I don't think Boehner had much choice about changing his mind. I'm pretty sure he found out that there was no support in the House for a 2 month deal.

Fern

But the version of the bill passed by the house did more than press the decision, it tied the tax cut to the approval of the project taking the decision away from the administration all together.

I have no problem forcing a decisions. But to say approve the project or no continuation of the tax cuts is political blackmail plain and simple.
And that kind of reckless "my way or the highway" behavior has no place in politics IMO. But it seems to be the GOP's main tactic these days.

 

[werepossum]

But the billionaires don't even notice the extra money, because it's nothing to them, and it doesn't benefit the economy for them to keep more income.

There is no moral right to take something as long as you believe the owner won't miss it. It's "Thou shalt not steal", not "Thou shalt not steal unless you believe they have more than they need."

You behave as thought there are no issues with this proposed pipeline. From the Wiki article:



And now, in the face of these genuine questions about this project, Republicans want a fast decision. Presumably, a rushed decision means no impartial analysis of environmental impacts. And your attitude is that this project just has to be wonderful for America?

Is it a crystal ball or a Ouija board - or possibly both - that allows you to so clearly see that the Keystone pipeline project is environmentally safe?

Not to dispute the wisdom of wikipedia, but if we cannot make a decision on something as well understood as an oil pipeline within a year, we simply don't deserve to be a country.

But the version of the bill passed by the house did more than press the decision, it tied the tax cut to the approval of the project taking the decision away from the administration all together.

I have no problem forcing a decisions. But to say approve the project or no continuation of the tax cuts is political blackmail plain and simple.
And that kind of reckless "my way or the highway" behavior has no place in politics IMO. But it seems to be the GOP's main tactic these days.

More accurately, the House bill tied passage to a requirement that a decision be made honestly rather than allowing the President to kill it while pretending to do otherwise. Again, if we honestly cannot make an environmental determination on how to route an oil pipeline from Point A to Point B, we don't deserve to be a first world level society. Here we've had two years; only the politics is an issue by now.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

And now, in the face of these genuine questions about this project, Republicans want a fast decision. Presumably, a rushed decision means no impartial analysis of environmental impacts. And your attitude is that this project just has to be wonderful for America?

Is it a crystal ball or a Ouija board - or possibly both - that allows you to so clearly see that the Keystone pipeline project is environmentally safe?

Our Democrat-controlled Senate voted 89-10 to "rush a decision" on the pipeline...perhaps you should be directing your questions towards those who drafted the current bill.

But on the bright side, House Republicans will likely vote against the bill. Feel better now?

 

[werepossum]

Our Democrat-controlled Senate voted 89-10 to "rush a decision" on the pipeline...perhaps you should be directing your questions towards those who drafted the current bill.

But on the bright side, House Republicans will likely vote against the bill. Feel better now?

Obviously I don't think that two years of study is rushing a decision. But I think the House Republicans are fools to turn down a temporary deal with 89-10 Senate support, assuming they really do want both these things, because it is fueled with an increase in the GSEs' insurance rates. Arguably those rates need to be increased anyway since that fund fairly rapidly went dry, and if the market won't handle it, we'll see a shift away from the GSEs to the private market - exactly what small government Republicans supposedly want.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The House voted 229-193 against the Senate version of the bill.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/20/politics/congress-payroll-tax-cut/index.html

Now it's the Senate's turn to come back from their holiday break. We surely live in interesting times.

 

[cybrsage]

Obviously I don't think that two years of study is rushing a decision. But I think the House Republicans are fools to turn down a temporary deal with 89-10 Senate support, assuming they really do want both these things, because it is fueled with an increase in the GSEs' insurance rates. Arguably those rates need to be increased anyway since that fund fairly rapidly went dry, and if the market won't handle it, we'll see a shift away from the GSEs to the private market - exactly what small government Republicans supposedly want.

I agree. It is stupid to say no to this when 90% of Senators agreed is good.

 

[halik]

Because it lets us keep more of our money and spend it. Cry me a fucking river about people getting Fannie and Freddie loans. Don't like it, get a loan on the free market.

I'm thinking along those lines also. Both Fannie and Freddie have certainly undercharged for default risk in the last 2 decades, using their revenue for any sort of tax cut is probably not a bad idea.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I agree. It is stupid to say no to this when 90% of Senators agreed is good.

Agree. But it was also stupid for Reid to not allow an up-and-down vote on the House bill which would have likely passed. There's plenty of stupid to go around on both sides of the fence.