A House vote was set for Tuesday to seek negotiations on a compromise to renew the payroll tax cuts through 2012, a rejection of the bipartisan two-month extension that cleared the Senate over the weekend.
But Harry Reid ruled out new negotiations until the two-month measure is enacted.
You don't think that a two month extension from the Senate is a little ridiculous. That doesn't really solve any problems. Seems to me it was just kicking the can down the road so everyone can go home for Christmas. Don't just blame the House republicans if negotiations are ruled out.
Kicking the can down the road for a cut meant to expire at some point (when conditions improve) is ALL that SHOULD be done. This thing should be re-enacted (without whinging and Republican drama queens on the telly) every few months until we can decide that the economy doesn't need that sort of help.
A House vote was set for Tuesday to seek negotiations on a compromise to renew the payroll tax cuts through 2012, a rejection of the bipartisan two-month extension that cleared the Senate over the weekend.
But Harry Reid ruled out new negotiations until the two-month measure is enacted.
You don't think that a two month extension from the Senate is a little ridiculous. That doesn't really solve any problems. Seems to me it was just kicking the can down the road so everyone can go home for Christmas. Don't just blame the House republicans if negotiations are ruled out.
I should be paying more in Social Security taxes. All of my income should be exposed to SS taxes. All working Americans should be paying the full 6.2% - and SS taxes should be fenced.
The group of working Americans that take home less than 130% of a poverty income should pay no other taxes, including sales and use taxes.
The group of Americans that take home more than 3x a poverty income should make up the difference.
Democrat politicians should reel in their desire to make the goverment the be all, end all.
I don't have the numbers but I bet those making less than 130% of the poverty level do not pay any net taxes if they have children. If you calculate property taxes or the portion of rent that is propery taxes maybe they do. And mostly I agree with that.
Nice for you to go hungry, since you seem to want it.
Many families are going to literally suffer.
My charity work is involved with fund raising for a social services agency. I know exactly how significant $20 is to many families with young children. And this is a terrible thing, an indecent thing, an immoral thing to do to them.
I agree that 20 dollars is significant to a poor family with young children.
But was denying an extra $20 per paycheck that important to you when the democrats got rid of advanced earned income credit.
Not a bit. It leaves the tax cuts in place while they work oput a rational way to fund it. The only alternative was to let old Agent Orange tell his masters that he made Obama kiss his ass and authorize that idiotic pipeline project.
I don't have the numbers but I bet those making less than 130% of the poverty level do not pay any net taxes if they have children. If you calculate property taxes or the portion of rent that is propery taxes maybe they do. And mostly I agree with that.
The folks making 130% or less than a poverty income pay more net taxes than those making 300% of a poverty income in general, as a percentage of income.
If we limit the discussion to income taxes, then the poorest Americans fare better - but still pay a higer percentage of their income in Social Security income taxes than do the relatively wealthy.
The folks making 130% or less than a poverty income pay more net taxes than those making 300% of a poverty income in general, as a percentage of income.
I doubt it once you take earned income credit into account.
A family earning 30,000 with two children will receive a refund of over 5000 with no withholding. Their FICA is about 2300 at 7.65%.
Assuming I entered the number correctly at a tax calc site
Not a bit. It leaves the tax cuts in place while they work oput a rational way to fund it. The only alternative was to let old Agent Orange tell his masters that he made Obama kiss his ass and authorize that idiotic pipeline project.
In my opinion the millionaires do already pay enough except for the capital gains rate.
I am not sure how the unemployed were going to pay i have not looked at the House and senate bills.
What were the provisions for federal employees? If it was no raise , in general they can forego a raise like many of us in the private sector have.
Do you think the Republicans would have compromised?
No but I think the stakes were higher with not increasing the debt ceiling.
This is a 2 month extension that is going to mean less than 10 a week in someone making 25,000 as opposed to a government shutdown and US debt ratings etc.
In my opinion the millionaires do already pay enough except for the capital gains rate.
I am not sure how the unemployed were going to pay i have not looked at the House and senate bills.
What were the provisions for federal employees? If it was no raise , in general they can forego a raise like many of us in the private sector have.
They do know it will be bad politically if the extension does not go through.
I fully believe it will be extended. But I could be surprised.
No but I think the stakes were higher with not increasing the debt ceiling.
This is a 2 month extension that is going to mean less than 10 a week in someone making 25,000 as opposed to a government shutdown and US debt ratings etc.
But you know exactly what the Democrats proposed funding the tax cut with. You can't say the same for the GOP plan, because they've been hiding it.
And if you watch Fox, this is what you hear.
Did you catch all those lies? The tax cut does NOT deplete Social Security, and yet Fox viewers are told repeatedly that it does. Why does the GOP channel want to lie to their viewers?
Also, saw Bob Corker say that he now supports voting for this, but was careful to claim that this would NOT be a tax increase if your payroll taxes went up next month. I'm seriously unclear about what he's talking about, but obviously this is a new talking point on talk radio.
Anyway, to answer your question, here's WaPo on the GOP plan.
My favorite quote.
“The fact that the president doesn’t like it makes me like it even more,” Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (Ohio) said of the GOP leadership proposal as he left Thursday morning’s closed-door meeting.
Ha! As if that doesn't sum up the entire GOP caucus at this point.
So what are they asking for?
Full details of the GOP proposal were not immediately available Thursday morning. But the plan appeared to include an extension of unemployment benefits, although it would gradually scale them back from a maximum of 99 weeks to 79 weeks and 59 weeks.
Members who attended the meeting said that the proposal also included some provisions found in the Senate Republican plan including reductions in health care, unemployment and other benefits for the wealthy. They also said that it would include one provision allowing states to make certain benefits contingent on applicants passing a drug test and another that would require a child’s Social Security number to be submitted in order for parents to apply for the earned income tax credit.
So they're not really even looking for cost offsets, so much as they want to squeeze as many poison pills into the bill as possible, for political reasons.
Does this sound like the Democrats just need to "negotiate" with them, when the deciding factor for many of them was:
He said fellow Republicans were itching for a fight on construction of the Keystone pipeline and the president’s decision to come out against tying the issue together so forcefully Thursday likely brought some conservatives aboard.
David James I am now informed on the basic details and I have voted democrat almost as often as republican but lately more republican. I did vote for Tim Bishop the last time he ran and he almost won by my vote alone.
If you don't think both parties like uninformed voters you might have blinders on.
Thing is, eeyore, I have seen studies that say that the more informed voters tend to be liberal more often than conservative. Truly uninformed voters cluster around the middle.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
