Three reasons why the House GOP isn’t going to win the payroll tax-cut fight

[michal1980]

Agreed. The Senate should not have passed a two month extension - but it did. The Senate should not have left on vacation with important unfinished business - but it did. The House Pubbies need to accept the cards they've been dealt, put on their big girl panties, and pass the Senate bill, as there is absolutely no chance of producing a year-long compromise in the time remaining. The way things are going, this whole thing may end up being extended in two-month increments, with ten-year tax hikes to pay for each. That's abysmally stupid and hurts businesses (and therefore the economy), but since dropping the payroll tax holiday would also hurt the economy, the House Pubbies should choose the path with the least political damage.

Why should the house cede power to the senate?

Should the senate dems just do whatever they want at the last minute, and expect the house to roll over?

 

[Lemon law]

I got to love all the thinking of all the GOP leaning stinking thinking on this thread.

But come the first 2012 paycheck for 160 million American workers, and those 160 million workers discover their paychecks are now lighter, it ain't rocket science to figure out which political party to blame.

Maybe the few really right leaning thinkers may think the AVERAGE American worker will blame the Dimocrats, but about 90% of American workers will blame the Replirats for the shortfall instead.

 

[Ausm]

So it is a game to shaft people and kick the can down the road again rather then designing up a proper bill.

The stated purpose was to not keep implementing stopgap measures and handle issue properly for the complete picture.

The Senate did not want that hot potato responsibility so came up with a quick fix again. Playing the usual smoke/mirrors game for government spending.

No bill is better than a bad bill. People made it by without the $40/wk (max) over a two month period previously; they can do it again. Those that hit the $40 make about twice the average worker anyhow.

I feel the same way about the Bush tax cuts which Obama better not cave on AGAIN to pacify the whining coming from the GOP caucus.

 

[Ausm]

Why did the Senate not even consider the House bill?
Reid would not let it come up for a vote!

Maybe because the Senate Bill came out first with Bi-partisan support.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I feel the same way about the Bush tax cuts which Obama better not cave on AGAIN to pacify the whining coming from the GOP caucus.

It appears that you support the Payroll Tax cut and oppose the Bush tax cut? How do you logically reconcile this apparent contradiction?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Maybe because the Senate Bill came out first with Bi-partisan support.

The House bill went to the Senate and was blocked by Reid before the Senate bill was voted on. We never got a chance to see if the House bill had bi-partisan support in the Senate.

 

[Ausm]

It appears that you support the Payroll Tax cut and oppose the Bush tax cut? How do you logically reconcile this apparent contradiction?

Speaking for myself I don't need the Payroll tax cut but I do think there are a lot of families out there who could use the extra cash. I say end the Bush tax cuts period ideally I would love to seem them place permanently for the Middle class and working poor but I don't want to listen to the GOP whine for the next ten years or more like forever.

 

[Ausm]

The House bill went to the Senate and was blocked by Reid before the Senate bill was voted on. We never got a chance to see if the House bill had bi-partisan support in the Senate.

If I was a betting man I would say...it didn't.

 

[Ausm]

The House bill went to the Senate and was blocked by Reid before the Senate bill was voted on. We never got a chance to see if the House bill had bi-partisan support in the Senate.

Check this out.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...l-on-house-floor-for-vote-on-payroll-tax-cut/

 

[Ausm]

YES!!! I have hope that the POTUS will finally make a stand.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-boehner-payroll-tax

 

[werepossum]

Why should the house cede power to the senate?

Should the senate dems just do whatever they want at the last minute, and expect the house to roll over?

Philosophically I see no reason it should. Politically however Reid in the Senate outmaneuvered Boehnor in the House. That's just the political reality, and the House cutting off its nose to spite its face isn't going to change it. Sometimes a stupid deal offering some of what you want is the best you can get, and while I generally agree that a bad bill is worse than no bill, politically the Republicans are going to take heat for not doing something they supposedly want to do. For their side, the Republicans got a great deal of what they wanted - no income tax hike, Democrats on board with forcing a decision on the pipeline, a cut in subsidies for better-off retired Americans in lieu of tax hikes, restoration of some of the worse Medicare cuts. Frankly I'm amazed at how well Boehnor did against Obama and Reid. However, the price for getting that is a measly two-month extension rather than a year, during which time both parties will presumably negotiate in good faith to find an agreeable way to replace the lost revenue. That's politics; with the exception of Obama's brief heyday where the Democrats were unstoppable, neither party gets everything it wants. Hell, even when the Dems had the trifecta, probably most of them were unhappy with either how much got passed or how much didn't get passed. Senators and Representatives are entitled to get no more than can draw a majority in the House, 60 in the Senate, and a signature from the President.

Again, I have big problems with some of the things the Senate has done. I think each chamber absolutely owes an up or down vote on legislation passed by the other, and I definitely think the Senate should have stuck around for a conference if needed, and I agree that the Senate has been extremely dysfunctional for the last few years, unable to pass a budget. But I think a two month extension is the most that can be agreed upon in the Senate within the available time limit - hell, this should have been wrapped up two months ago, to give time for the new rates to be programmed. So even though philosophically I agree with the House about the Senate's structural failings, I think this is the wrong place to take a stand, both morally and politically.

 

[Darwin333]

It is a tax increase. I don't think that was ever really in dispute but I could be wrong. The Democrats just argued that it should end because it contributed to the deficit and certainly did not "pay for themselves."

Obama only made a pledge that he would not raise taxes on the middle class (250K) during a recession and he wanted to let the Bush tax cuts expire on the "rich."

You must not have been around back then, the left argued to no end that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire was not a tax increase because it was temporary in nature. Just like the "payroll tax holiday" is a temporary measure that is making its way to permanent status because any politician that doesn't support extending it every time it comes up will be labeled as the guy who jacked up the middle classes taxes even though that is not the truth.

Its just like my Xmas bonus makes my earnings in January higher but come February, even though I earned less, I did not get a paycut.

 

[werepossum]

Wait, now it's a "hand out"?

Are we still talking about the payroll tax?

Yes, it's a handout. Social Security and Medicare rates are set at a certain level to keep the system solvent (on paper anyway) and fund each person's retirement. What we're now seeing is political pandering - we'll give a lot of people a tax break and fund it by taking money away from "someone else" (which usually means the same people we're giving money, one way or another.) Still, if we simply must do a hand-out stimulus using temporary tax cuts, except for the damage done to Social Security this is probably more useful and less damaging that an income tax cut.

Exactly.

I follow politics far more than the average person and this mess has me confused.

I really don't see one side or the other coming out as a clear loser or gainer in this debacle. I think it's just going to be seen as an another example of a dysfunctional Congress/government.

Really? A 2 month extension when they've known for a year that this thing was set to expire now? I think people are fed up with this 'last minute' bull sh!t we've been seeing for a while now.

The Senate needs a 2 month extension because they need to go on Christmas vacation for a couple of months? Really? Who the h3ll else gets that kind of extended vacation? You think people agree with dithering around, then at the last minute pulling some kind of stop-gap measure that just kicks the can the road so they can go on a long vacation? I don't.

And we're paying for it by raising the cost of purchasing homes? Really? Given the current housing market, which btw is reported today to have been significantly worse than reported for the past 3 yrs, do we really need to make housing more expensive, even incrementally?

Notwithstanding the above, I don't think people will see ANY sense to funding a payroll tax cut on the back of Fannie/Freddie. WTH does the one have to do with the other?

The whole thing is a fustercluck of absurdity.

Fern

I agree with all that, especially the housing market - that news is very scary. And I agree with Stoddard about the underlying principle. But the House Republicans are simply making things worse. In this case, protesting dysfunction is simply adding dysfunction. And unfortunately for them, I don't think most people will care how it's financed, as long as they get their hand out. That's pretty much what Wolfe said, and I think most here would agree he's more principled by far than the average bear. Indy Colts Fan was absolutely correct when he said neither party would ever have the balls to end this; it's probably here until Social Security comes crashing down. And even then the average American is likely to simply say "I don't care, take money from someone else and take less from me - but I still want all my Social Security too!"

Yeah right Obama made it very clear a month ago he would veto the extension if they stuck the Keystone pipeline provision with it, and not only did the house bill do that it also cut some of the key Healhcare provision. It was a dead duck before it even started Boehner knew it.

And Obama only agreed to accept the 2mo extension when it became apparent that that was the best that the rebub's would agree to, before Boehner renigged on his commitment.

Be honest. The two month extension was not the best to which the Republicans would agree, it's just the best for which the two parties could agree on financing.

 

[Lemon law]

Why debate this issue on a high intellectual plane, its dead simple, the GOP has exposed its bias, they favor the 1% of the wealthiest Americans and say fuck you to the other 99%. Just wait until American workers open up their paychecks in 2012, and discover the GOP threw them under the bus, again.

After all the GOP promised they would improve the economy in 11/2010, and instead, as a crowning achievement at the end of 2011, the GOP fucked the American worker. Those dots are not hard to connect.

 

[michal1980]

Philosophically I see no reason it should. Politically however Reid in the Senate outmaneuvered Boehnor in the House. That's just the political reality, and the House cutting off its nose to spite its face isn't going to change it. Sometimes a stupid deal offering some of what you want is the best you can get, and while I generally agree that a bad bill is worse than no bill, politically the Republicans are going to take heat for not doing something they supposedly want to do. For their side, the Republicans got a great deal of what they wanted - no income tax hike, Democrats on board with forcing a decision on the pipeline, a cut in subsidies for better-off retired Americans in lieu of tax hikes, restoration of some of the worse Medicare cuts. Frankly I'm amazed at how well Boehnor did against Obama and Reid. However, the price for getting that is a measly two-month extension rather than a year, during which time both parties will presumably negotiate in good faith to find an agreeable way to replace the lost revenue. That's politics; with the exception of Obama's brief heyday where the Democrats were unstoppable, neither party gets everything it wants. Hell, even when the Dems had the trifecta, probably most of them were unhappy with either how much got passed or how much didn't get passed. Senators and Representatives are entitled to get no more than can draw a majority in the House, 60 in the Senate, and a signature from the President.

Again, I have big problems with some of the things the Senate has done. I think each chamber absolutely owes an up or down vote on legislation passed by the other, and I definitely think the Senate should have stuck around for a conference if needed, and I agree that the Senate has been extremely dysfunctional for the last few years, unable to pass a budget. But I think a two month extension is the most that can be agreed upon in the Senate within the available time limit - hell, this should have been wrapped up two months ago, to give time for the new rates to be programmed. So even though philosophically I agree with the House about the Senate's structural failings, I think this is the wrong place to take a stand, both morally and politically.

Repulicans look bad only because the MSM is tilted to the left. How many people know that the House passed a bill first? How many people know the house bill extended the tax cut for a year?

Now how many people know that the house blocked a 2 month extentsion?

Whos fault is that? - the media which has an agenda.

I kind of agree, at this point the house should have taken the 2 month extenstion, and then rip the democrates 2 months from now for allowing this problem to happen again.

 

[michal1980]

YES!!! I have hope that the POTUS will finally make a stand.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-boehner-payroll-tax

he should. Then 2 months from now when the taxes go up the GOP should stand up and say

'Mr. president you wanted it for two months, and thats what you got, the GOP wanted the full year'

Then give him a middle finger in private.

 

[Paul98]

he should. Then 2 months from now when the taxes go up the GOP should stand up and say

'Mr. president you wanted it for two months, and thats what you got, the GOP wanted the full year'

Then give him a middle finger in private.

You mean lie, what the GOP does best. The president wants the extension for the full year, that's what he had been fighting for.

 

[Darwin333]

Repulicans look bad only because the MSM is tilted to the left. How many people know that the House passed a bill first? How many people know the house bill extended the tax cut for a year?

Now how many people know that the house blocked a 2 month extentsion?

Whos fault is that? - the media which has an agenda.

I kind of agree, at this point the house should have taken the 2 month extenstion, and then rip the democrates 2 months from now for allowing this problem to happen again.

Nobody would be paying attention to them "ripping the Democrats" two months from now. Just like barely anybody is paying attention to this whole mess. They will notice if their paycheck goes down, thats it.

The real political hilarity is going to begin when they try not to extend the temporary tax holiday.

This go-round they will get the extension done, just like all of the other 11th hour bullshit they have been doing lately.

 

[etrigan420]

Yes, it's a handout.

I disagree. At the very least, calling is a "handout" is dishonest. A handout implies that it was not earned. That something was given for nothing.

It implies Republican Hackery.

 

[xj0hnx]

This shows the politicians really only care about their rich buddies and could care less about the majority of hardworking americans.

ftfy

 

[Darwin333]

You mean lie, what the GOP does best. The president wants the extension for the full year, that's what he had been fighting for.

Isn't that what the House GOP is fighting for right now and why it disagrees with the Senate bill?

 

[Darwin333]

I disagree. At the very least, calling is a "handout" is dishonest. A handout implies that it was not earned. That something was given for nothing.

It implies Republican Hackery.

Are Social Security benefits being reduced to reflect the new contributions? Didn't think so...

 

[senseamp]

YES!!! I have hope that the POTUS will finally make a stand.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-boehner-payroll-tax

The mentality of the tea party caucus was best expressed by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) when he said on Fox News, “This is a ‘Braveheart’ moment. You, Mr. Speaker, are our William Wallace.”

I guess he didn't finish watching that movie

 

[Fern]

Repulicans look bad only because the MSM is tilted to the left. How many people know that the House passed a bill first? How many people know the house bill extended the tax cut for a year?

Now how many people know that the house blocked a 2 month extentsion?

Whos fault is that? - the media which has an agenda.
-snip-

I think the average person (meaning not a political junkie) is gonna have a few facts filter down to them:

- The cut expired and their payroll tax went back up.

- The Dems (Senate) wanted a 2 month extension and passed a bill for it.

- The Repubs (House) wanted a 12 month extension and passed a bill for it.

- Obama demanded a 12 month extension, then flip-flopped to demanding a 2 month extension.

How the average person figures out who to blame 100% is not easy to see.

And bullsh!t tedious details like who passed their bill first will have no effect in assigning blame. That's just childish.

Fern

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Judging by the CBS news tonight, the simple narrative is going to be house Republicans are holding up a bill and raising your taxes despite overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate. So good luck with that house Reps.