GOP abandons its principles and folds to the Dems

Remember the huge fight two months ago regarding extending the 2% payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits through 2012?

Congress ended up with a two month extension to let things settle down. But in doing that, the Republicans rejected a Democrat proposal to increase taxes for those making over $1 million a year. Instead we ended up with something that affects the middle class, a tax increase on many home mortgage loans. So once again the Republicans showed they'd rather raise taxes on the middle class than increase taxes on the very wealthy.

And now that the two months are up you'd think the Republicans would come back fighting again? But no, now they've completely folded. The upcoming election is more important than whatever principles they had before. The payroll tax and unemployment benefits are going to be extended through 2012 with nothing in return from the Dems.

Do the Republicans have any real leadership at all?

Is this how it ends? With a whimper, not a bang?

I'm talking, of course, of the epic beltway battle that was shaping up over the extension of the payroll tax holiday.

At the end of 2010, the White House and Congress agreed to temporarily reduce the payroll tax from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent for 2011. As 2011 careened to a close, the White House and Republicans in Congress agreed to extend the temporary tax cut into 2012 — but only for two months. The two parties simply couldn't agree on how — or whether — to offset the revenue likely to be lost as a result.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-gross/explaining-gop-payroll-tax-cut-surrender-194717587.html

More details...

The deal would not only be a win for Obama but would take the payroll tax fight — which put Republicans on the defensive — off the table for the fall election campaign.

"The mood is to get it off the table," freshman Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Fla., said. "We've got to move on to another issue."

http://news.yahoo.com/negotiators-reach-tentative-payroll-tax-cut-pact-000507483.html

OR... it could be an incredibly smart move. They approve the payroll tax extension and separate from the unemployment benefit extension. The only way the Dems could get the UI extension was to couple it with the payroll tax. EVERYONE wants the payroll tax extension. if it is separated, then the Dems have lost their leverage on UI benefit extension.

interesting article... major plan change to "retain the House" so the GOP will stop fighting this year to seem more electable

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/us/po ... ss&emc=rss

It seems to me like a clear illustration of what politicians on either side of the isle will do to get reelected; butter up the public and reassure them that better times are ahead as long as their butts go back to their elected posts. The reality is these tax breaks give most of us back about $30.00 a month. Sure I'd like to have that money but is it worth shorting medicare, medicaid, and social security? It's a bandaid on a severed limb.

I'm not a fan of large Gubment or entitlements in general but there are too many baby boomers who depend on medicare, medicaid, and social security today. Not funding those programs will hurt the economy more than it will help IMHO.

So what to do? How about attracting businesses back to our shores by keeping regulations simple and creating an environment that is business friendly? Put citizens back to work and off of unemployment, welfare, and other federal assistance programs.

Yeah, I wish the GOP would do it's usual dig-in/no-compromise bat-sh*t-crazy routine and show everyone that they don't DESERVE to get reelected. Let the public see for themselves that they don't care a flip about the middle & lower classes. Then the Dems will take over the House again, they'll throw out the teabaggers with the trash, and they'll finally get something done again.

We can debate all we want, this is a now vs. later issue. If we have a payroll tax that is 12.4% for SS (6.2+6.2) that is reduced by 16% to 10.4% (6.2+4.2), the way to make sure we really know how what we are doing feels like, we need to reduce SS benefits by 16% or get 16% of people off the roll.

You will say I am mean and they paid, but this is what we are doing no matter what, do we do it today or do we do it tomorrow or in 10 years, etc. We don't really have any basis to make a decision except our guts of what it could be like in the future. Drop the benefits today and we will have no problems understanding the impact of such policies to begin with.

SS, MC, School Benies (a very big one - I have paid more in local school taxes than both myself and my employer matching (which I pay too) combined)......all should be provided only to those who financially show that they cannot hack it themselves.

Those who take SS just cause they paid in, who are doing ok, no poor and asking for help, are just as bad as welfare moms who worked in high school and justify their welfare because they paid taxes at their clerk job after school. This is the same as Fred, the conservative, treating SS like a pension program, because he paid in. The saps on the program are people with this attitude and this is the reason that 10.4% is not enough, and why 12.4% also was not enough. This makes LJs point on the tea party cartoon. This is the same as someone who is not desperate sending their kids to the local school and then reading about all the 1000 properties that will be taken by the county....because those folks did not pay enough for your kid's ed, and not giving even $10 more than their taxes said to-freebees all around.

LadyJazzer wrote: Yeah, I wish the GOP would do it's usual dig-in/no-compromise bat-sh*t-crazy routine and show everyone that they don't DESERVE to get reelected. Let the public see for themselves that they don't care a flip about the middle & lower classes. Then the Dems will take over the House again, they'll throw out the teabaggers with the trash, and they'll finally get something done again.

Let the public see for themselves that the Obama doesn't care a flip about the white working class.

For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.

All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/ ... coalition/

The GOP will take over the Senate again, and they'll throw out the socialist with the trash, and they'll finally get something done again.

popcorn eater wrote: We can debate all we want, this is a now vs. later issue. If we have a payroll tax that is 12.4% for SS (6.2+6.2) that is reduced by 16% to 10.4% (6.2+4.2), the way to make sure we really know how what we are doing feels like, we need to reduce SS benefits by 16% or get 16% of people off the roll.

You will say I am mean and they paid, but this is what we are doing no matter what, do we do it today or do we do it tomorrow or in 10 years, etc. We don't really have any basis to make a decision except our guts of what it could be like in the future. Drop the benefits today and we will have no problems understanding the impact of such policies to begin with.

SS, MC, School Benies (a very big one - I have paid more in local school taxes than both myself and my employer matching (which I pay too) combined)......all should be provided only to those who financially show that they cannot hack it themselves.

Those who take SS just cause they paid in, who are doing ok, no poor and asking for help, are just as bad as welfare moms who worked in high school and justify their welfare because they paid taxes at their clerk job after school. This is the same as Fred, the conservative, treating SS like a pension program, because he paid in. The saps on the program are people with this attitude and this is the reason that 10.4% is not enough, and why 12.4% also was not enough. This makes LJs point on the tea party cartoon. This is the same as someone who is not desperate sending their kids to the local school and then reading about all the 1000 properties that will be taken by the county....because those folks did not pay enough for your kid's ed, and not giving even $10 more than their taxes said to-freebees all around.

So you would make Social Security a needs based program?
We could even expand that, if your family has income over 80K, you have to pay for public school tuition. That would help out our schools.
Roads? Lets triple the gasoline tax for people who have income over 50K.

Keep rewarding sloth and penalizing people who work hard and achieve and see what you will get.

It certainly should be means-tested for those who make enough off of their investments, trust funds, offshore accounts, and the "money daddy gave them". Medicare too. If your annual income exceeds a certain level, you shouldn't get to take it back out just because you put it in... I'd like all the money back that I put in to give everybody else's kids a "free" education...but I happen to believe it was for the "general welfare"... (There's a phrase guaranteed to send a couple of people here over the edge...)

LadyJazzer wrote: "general welfare"... (There's a phrase guaranteed to send a couple of people here over the edge...)

<over the edge> Redistribution of wealth is an evil, twisted idea that basically yells out "Take a flying **** in a rolling donut all you dang free market capitalists!".

Your socialistic tendencies are showing.</over the edge>

Is that about what you were looking for?