So House Republicans shoot down the extention on payroll tax relief? Are they going to play that bad brinksmanship game again–you know, the one that makes the stock market wobble on its axis and sets the already unstable European markets nuts? Can we expect yet another credit downgrade?
I guess the Senate Bill just wasn’t good enough. Is John Boehner speaking out of both sides of his mouth? First he agreed with what the Senate did. Then his whoop-dee-doo financial wizards get hold of him and he comes out brainwashed. So what will happen?
From Huffington Post:
The House was returning to work Monday, two days after the Senate easily approved a compromise solidly supported by both parties and left town for a month. The House scheduled a vote late Monday, with leaders saying they would either formally request talks with the Senate on a new bill or make changes in the Senate measure that were uncertain late Sunday.
Without congressional action, the payroll tax would rise 2 percentage points on Jan. 1.
Extending the payroll tax cut and jobless benefits have been a keystone of President Barack Obama’s and congressional Democrats’ effort to spur a revival of the flaccid economy. Congressional Republican leaders also say they support the idea, but some of their rank-and-file remain unconvinced, saying the unemployment coverage is too generous and that cutting the payroll tax does not create jobs.
The Senate bill would cut the payroll tax, extend jobless benefits and avoid cuts in Medicare payments to doctors through February. Both sides say they want to renew all three for a full year, but bargainers have so far failed to agree on how to pay for a package that size, which could cost roughly $200 billion.
“If House Republicans refuse to pass this bipartisan bill to extend the payroll tax cut, there will be a significant tax increase on 160 million hardworking Americans in 13 days that would damage the economy and job growth,” Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, said Sunday.
Many of us have come to the conclusion that some House Republicans will literally do anything to get rid of President Obama. I hope I am wrong but time after time, that’s really what it is looking like. Party first, country second. There is really no need for this. Has there ever been a worse congress than these clowns?
Of course its the GOP that’s playing brinkmanship. The Senate adjourning before all of the work is done so as to make it harder to negotiate a deal plays NO part in this. Or is this yet ANOTHER do it the Democrat’s way form of compromise?
I thought that the Social Security fund was supposed to be sacred and untouchable. It needs to be funded. The idea that missing this dead line and having Social Security return to its normal rate at .02 per dollar higher is going to end civilization as we know it is hyperbole. Apparently, the Senate is refusing to negotiate with the House, refusing to accept that House members are more conservative than Senate Republicans.
Of course…the Senate could just pass a House bill and all would be well, right?
This is how the government works. I thought you were all about the compromise. Well, this is how you get a compromise. It ain’t pretty.
I give the Senate credit for having a little more sense than I give the House. The House seems to be sheltering way too many dumb asses.
No, this isn’t how government is supposed to work and this isn’t compromise. No one wants a roller coaster ride from their government. You tea party types puff all up with pride over these no brain solutions that are just an indication of how much you hate Obama. It is tiresome. Nothing is getting accomplished.
Those serious about the social security fund would lift the ceiling that is on it. Otherwise, any rhetoric is just lip service.
I hardly call creating a bill for a 2 month extension – Success. Why can’t the Senate and House take on an issue and deal with it. I knew the tax expired at the end of the year, along with unemployment benefits, and the doctor fix (that they have been extending by a year for years). I will have to check and see if they fixed AMT for another 1 year extension. This is where Congress has been failing us for years – and they attempt to blame it on the political parties. They voted in all the spending, and then blame the other side for spending. They voted in the tax cuts, and then blame the other side.
Congress is failing us folks – and it is business as usual.
Amen, Pat.
Its both the fault of both sides. I think the House bill is set up for a year’s worth of whatever they’re offering, but the Senate is afraid to take it up.
Happily, opposing Obama and doing the right thing for the country are synonymous in this case. I am usually for tax cuts, but reducing payroll taxes removes money from your precious social security. I am surprised that you’re not “howling” about this. The tax cut is too small to really do anything to the economy and it makes SS even less solvent.
It’s been going on for a long time.
The howling is over. I just don’t like roller coaster politics. “My precious social security” sounds as though you are being snide or mimicking me. I hope I am wrong. You must not pay into social security or it would be precious to you also.
You Obama haters play both sides of the middle. You would have a kitten with a calico tail if Obama raised taxes. When the fair haired children do it…well…[much back slapping] that’s ok …
This is not the right time to raise taxes on the middle class, while protecting the job creators who haven’t created any jobs.
Just serving notice that you all are spewing crap and no one believes you any more, including yourselves.
kelly – Yes, it is money from SS – and that is why the Dem’s were originally proposing a tax on salaries over a million dollars make up the gap. Not like when the Bush tax cuts were put into place as an unfunded stimulus, and immediately increased the debt and deficit. Not taking an extra $1,000 or $2,000 from EVERY working person is a better boost to the economy than giving the same amount to the 1% so that they can invest it overseas.
Pat — whining about Bush makes no sense. Obama has been in power for 3 years and he owns the economy. Furhermore, the Dems plan to fund the payroll tax cut from a millionnaire tax does not appeal to me at all. If I were king for a day, my solution would be to reduce corporate taxes and startup costs for new businesses.
Kelly, you are the one who is whining–the perpetual whine about Obama. Pat is simply explaining something which you either don’t know or don’t want to admit.
Obama didn’t start the Bush tax cuts. The crash occurred on Bush’s watch, not on Obama’s.
Who did you all think was going to pay for the wars? Lottery? Steal the oil from Iraq? I am curious. How can you reduce taxes and fight two wars and still have money left?
You freaking tell me and don’t dare whine about Obama.
Hell, you want to fight wars, probably with all new, modern equipment and not tax anyone but the middle class, it sounds like. Hell, I am tired of being taxed.
Alleged Democrat Gerry Connolly jumped ship and sided with the Repubs to extend the Bush tax breaks for the rich last Christmas. At the time he said:
“It wouldn’t do to penalize that segment of the population. They’re going to be closing their wallets, shutting their checkbooks and they’re going to be restrained in their purchasing at the very moment we actually need them to expand those activities and to show confidence in the economy. … I just think my fellow Democrats should move past their ideology … I’m sure it won’t be popular with my leadership or my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle.”
So we’ve got him on the Hill fighting for us.
I don’t deny that Bush spent too much. If I had my way, he would never have signed the prescription drug bill and he would have matched his tax cuts with spending cuts. But that is completely irrelevant to the present discussion, which is what should we do now going forward?
The first priority ought to be to get the economy on track. I would try to spur new business by repealing Obamacare, reducing corporate taxes (among the highest in the world), keeping government out of business decisions (e.g. meddling in Boeing’s decision to open a plant in non-union South Carolina), and eliminating barriers/regulations to the creation of new businesses (small business is where most of the jobs are).
And I would stop with the class warfare, since we need investors to take some risks on new businesses.
If you absolutely believe that the government must be involved, then the feds should re-invigorate the space program, which is where much of the US competitive advantage has emerged over the last 50 years and it should re-capitalize the DOD to maintain our military capability and ensure our enemies are not tempted to test our resolve following two long wars.
Once the economy is growing again, tax revenue should increase compared to the present. At that time, we can make an informed decision regarding the need to revise the tax code (eliminate deductions, loopholes, simplify the tax tables, shore up social security).
A good place to stop with the class warfare (whatever thaat means ) would be to stop dumping on the middle class, the poor, and the elderly. Kelly, you are more than willing to pull the rug out from under the what yoiu seem to perceive as “old people.” I did read correctly, “your precious social security,” did I not? You also didn’t want the RX bill signed. That sounds to me like a form of class warfare, or is it just being an ageist? There are people out there on social security whose medicine costs as much as their social security. The RX drug program is literally a lifesaver for millions of older Americans. I see 2 problems with it. The drug companies should have been kicked down and beaten more into taking a hit and paying for some of it rather than the tac payers. Barring that, Volume buying from Canada should have been allowed.
The problem is, until you deal with people on medicare and a lot of medicine, you don’t see the horrible disproportionate expense. Older people are on more medicine. The cost can end up being higher than many people bring in each month. You aren’t close to retirement, therefore social security, pensions and medicare A, B, D are of little or no importance to you. However, there are huge numbers of people out there who are going to vote their pocketbook and those items very much will be at ground zero of their decision making.
I think I am saying, be careful who you go to war with.
I keep hearing all these answers from Republicans. I heard the answers before the 2010 elections and I still hear these solutions. The problem is, it is still all bullshit and blather. I hear, I don’t see. Talk is cheap. let’s see some results.
I have no problem reinvigorating the space program. Recapitalizing the DoD helps this area. Not sure it does much for the rest of the country. As for the rest, perhaps the rest of us have other priorities.
All those who used to call them a “do nothing Congress” are going to have to come up with a new one. No, they didn’t do anything today on the payroll tax bill, but they did pass a bill introduced by Speaker Boehner to put a bust of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in the Capitol. And just to show how the Rs and the Ds can in fact work together for the good of the country, Dem (alleged) Gerry Connolly spoke on behalf of the Boehner bill.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/john_boehner_seeks_winston_churchill_bust_in_capitol-211183-1.html?pos=hln
@Moe,
Gerry sure is showing his stripes, isn’t he? His R stripes.
I saw his stripes on an immigration issue. Immigration? [cartoon whistling] Whats that? Constituent? [more whistlin] its a federal issue. Well, dummy, you are a federal Congressman!
Kelly – ok, maybe I was whining about Bush – I guess what I am getting at, is that the R’s woke up when Obama got elected, and found their political non-spending religion. All of a sudden, we could have no spending unless it was paid for, well, except for military and any other spending that the R’s wanted – they have even put in (with some D’s) earmarks in the spending bill – During the Bush admin, there was no fiscal responsibility on either side.
Now, with Obama, with a cratered economy, financial disaster – at a time when government spending increases without doing anything (unemployment costs, medicaid, housing, etc – all increase as the economy decreases) – This is the time for government to spend the money, when the private sector is not.
You cite that the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world – yes, but no company pays those taxes – look at GE and others – they lobby for, and get tax breaks all around – and they do not pay the advertised rate. Fix the tax code, I say – and make them pay it. The individual tax rates are too high too, but the high earners do not pay those either – they have their own loopholes and ways around them. The middle class pays a higher percentage of salary than the high earners. Hedge fund owners pay 15% on their millions.
You want us to invest in Space – I agree there is/was a significant amount of invention and discovery with the US investment in the space program. It was worth it. Now, what if Obama said, I want to create a new Federal entity to explore energy the same way we did the space program. It would be a non starter. Instead, the Obama admin has given seed money to energy companies (Solyndra) to try and invent – and he gets crucified, because one went belly up (and should be investigated). What was the difference – Solyndra was a private company, but how much has NASA given to private companies that went no where, yet we both agree that NASA was a good investment. Look at the money that was spent on the failed Orbital Space Plane program. Look at how much Congress has given the F35 Second engine.
Speaking of NASA – we had the Challenger disaster in 1985, which shut down the program for nearly three years – yet, we have the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and Obama gets knocked for putting a moratorium on new permits. Talk about double standards.
Do you realize that a major component of the economy is construction – and with the housing market still not recovered – ie, still more foreclosures to come – it is hard to get an economy moving – especially since we have had stimulus dollars since 9/11. We should be spending on infrastructure – hopefully, this down time will create a boom for the next term – whoever is in office, and we can recover some more.
Deficits and Debt – I think Obama was more than willing to meet somewhere in the middle. How many times has he tried to get a Deficit commission, debt reduction, etc – and he has not been met in the middle. Congress even came up with the sequestration on its own, and now wants to balk at the DOD cuts provision – the DOD cuts were put in there so that the R’s would have an incentive to negotiate – and they failed at it. The D’s also failed at it, as they did not get a compromise either. What gets me here, is that the R’s discovered unfunded spending on January 20, 2009. And not to worry – the House is back to Omnibus spending bills, earmarks and last minute deals and patches – this will ensure deficits and debt. Even the much touted Ryan plan does not reduce the deficit – still nearly a trillion a year.
Obamacare – If McCain was elected and instituted his healthcare mandate (that he campaigned on) – Would there be such an out-lash against it? Would it be in the Supreme Court? – I think not. Obamacare is largely not understood – mostly on purpose, so to confuse everyone.
Obama should be given more credit for averting a Major Depression. Is the economy where I want it to be, no, and it is not where he wants it to be – but it is slowly gaining steam. The way the economy was teetering at the end of 2008 was on the brink of disaster – it takes time to recover. He should be given more credit for dismantling Al-Queda – he said he would go into Pakistan and take out OBL, and he did.
When the R’s had Congress and the Presidency for 6 years – what did they do – did they shore up SS, Medicaid, or fix the tax loopholes – no, they listened to their favorite K Street lobbying (Abramoff) and spent spent spent – so no, I do not trust they the have the countries best interest at the forefront. The D’s have not done much better.
We need to drink our Castor Oil – and make the tough decisions that need to be made, but neither side will talk about it – instead, just point fingers blaming the other side, and sticking their tongues out yelling nah nah nah nah naaaaa….
You weren’t whining. I am tired of the current situation where non-Republicans or moderate Republicans cannot mention Bush. They cannot reference anyting that happened during his administration that had a lingering effect and yet the ” Real Republicans” spend every waking minute bitching and whining about Obama. You owe no one an apology. You always explain your point of view and don’t just throw stuff out there.
@Pat
@Pat.Herve
Well stated.
The Senate has gone home. What are the fools thinking? They have undermined their own party. They have handed Obama handfuls of ammo. They have raised taxes, they have cut off unemployment for the middle class, and screwed over those receiving medicaid.
If these people were great thinkers or who had come up with a better plan, perhaps we could entertain them. But they aren’t. They are binary thinkers.
Oh well, Merry EFFEn Christmas, Americans. This tax hike was brought to you by the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party.
No excuses. Its all them this time.
Happy Birthday, Lafayette!
Happy Birthday, Lafayette! I hope you didn’t have to make your own cake, but we know that if you did, it would be delicious.
@Moon-howler
Maybe the Senate is telling the House to solve the problems it creates. Unfortunately, both will be blamed. Nothing like starting the new year with a tax increase – even if it’s just back to the old rate. Why those dummies don’t realize that their moves only validate the OWS crowd’s points escapes me. They live in a bubble.
@Pat.Herve
Pat, we will just have to agree to disagree on many of your assertions. However, I was intrigued by your bold (which I appreciate) statement that our misunderstanding of Obamacare leads to our opposition. Please do tell what it is that we misunderstand.
@Moon-howler
MH: I agree that we should provide a robust safety net. However, I believe that entitlements will have to be reduced to their historic purpose, which was to subsidize personal savings and family support, not be the sole means of support. Since SS and Medicare were not kept separate from the general budget, the programs depend on robust population growth to remain solvent, which is not happening.
So I am not attacking the elderly or the middle class –I just think that benefits have to be reduced if we hope to get the deficit under control. You are absolutely right that Bush overspent, but doubling down with even more spending by Obama will not fix the problem.
And my statement about “precious social security” was my amazement that contributors on this blog support a payroll tax cut that will exacerbate the insolvency of SS.
Kelly – I cannot tell you what you misunderstand. All I can say is that there are a great many people (including those in the Know, ie Republican leadership) – that twist Obamacare so that people are against it.
I will give you a for instance – Romney is saying in all the debates, that it should be up to the states to decide if there is a mandate. What is in Obamacare is an option for a State to waive out of Obamacare – Massachusetts and Utah has already applied to be waived.
How do you solve the number of uninsured (and get them to pay into the system) without a mandate? Many say, a person should not be forced into such a program, yet, at the same time, the Government tells a private entity (Hospital) that it must deliver services, with no expectation of getting paid. Where is the individual responsibility of people without healthcare insurance.
Kelly – can you tell me what is so wrong with Obamacare – I do have issues with it – it does not solve all the problems.
I’m not Kelly, but my basic problem with it is that no one can tell me where this type of power ends. Think about what’s going on here – you are being forced by the government into a contractual relationship with a private corporation. Yes, yes – I understand that rapidly rising health care costs are a threat to the economy, etc. but I can make a very good argument for the theory of peak oil, and demonstrate that the theory is playing out right on schedule in places like the North Sea.
Does that mean that I (government) should be able to force you to purchase an electric vehicle?
So what do you propose to do about it? If everyone isn’t in it, it won’t work. Huge amounts of taxpayer money are gong towards health care for the uninsured. Pay me now, pay me later.
Are you going to turn down medicare?
If you drive a car, you have to be insured. If you buy a house, you have to insure it. I can make a good argument for or against all sorts of things. I am not sure it matters. Let’s just look at the practical end.
@Pat.Herve
My concerns about ObamaCare are based on principle and practicality:
1) No matter how the Supreme Court rules, I am convinced that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. I get the practical argument that everybody has to be participate for ObamaCare to work, but the inconvenient truth is that the Commerce Clause was meant to regulate commerce among the states. It was never meant to REQUIRE citizens to partake in commerce, no matter what the practical reason for it is.
2) There is a one-size fits all mentality. I am not a huge consumer of medical care. I went to the doctor the other day for the first time in three years (mostly to placate the spousal unit). I would prefer a catastrophic health insurance plan with a high deductible and just pay cash for normal services rendered. When I paid for healthcare out of my own pocket, I have found that doctors are more careful in determining which tests are needed and they charge less for their services because they get paid immediately and avoid paperwork. So I would prefer the federal government stay out of the medical insurance business — let the states and individuals handle it.
3) Supporters of Obamacare provide a false dilemma: Hospitals are required to provide healthcare to the uninsured, so participation is required to make sure that it can be paid for. But the other option is to change the law that requires hospitals to render assistance even if a person cannot pay for it. We do not require hotels to provide lodging for the homeless. We do not require restaurants to provide food to a hungry person if he cannot pay for it. The regulations requiring hospitals to provide care regardless of ability to pay should be relaxed to require only basic emergency care.
4) Obamacare is really designed to ensure the very healthy and/or young heavily subsidize medical care for everyone else. It really is the same type of Ponzi scheme as social security. The big question is will there be enough healthy/young people to keep healthcare costs low in the future. With declining birth rates, I believe that Obamacare will eventually lead to a lower quality of healthcare and long delays to get treated. Why would you believe that the future of Obamacare will be any better than what has transpired for social security or medicare?
5) The comparison between Obamacare and home/auto insurance is fallatious. An individual can buy a car/home or not. If a person pays off his mortgage, homeowner’s insurance is no longer relaxed. If someone does not want auto insurance, the person has the option to get rid of his car. On the other hand, Obamacare requires the individual to purchase insurance simply for existing. That should not be the case in a free country.
These are just a few of my criticisms of Obamacare.
Kelly,
my feelings –
1) I understand where you are coming from, and I too was against the mandate, until I realized that in order to keep private insurance, and to remove a pre-existing condition clause, one must be required to have insurance.
2) High Deductible plans are not going away – I actually think the industry is going to move more towards HD plans that away from them. You can pick your plan. The states can waive out. The state you live in will determine what is a minimum plan for your state. Each plan does have to meet a minimum threshold to be considered comprehensive.
3) If I am unconscious and brought into an emergency room, the last thing I want them to do, is to try and determine if I can pay for the services that are about to be rendered. Also, EMTALA has been expanded, as in, it does not require a Hospital to treat for non life/limb/organ threatening issues – but for public health concerns, the Hospitals do provide services. You and I are paying for this – in increased taxes, insurance costs and availability of services.
4) Not really – what Obamacare attempts to do, is have the cost of the insurance be affordable – by all – very similar to the auto insurance industry – where all participants are part of the pool. Currently, there are many people that try to game the system – ie, They have a basic plan, and need something expensive (Knee, open heart, organ transplant), and then move to medicare or a more comprehensive plan to have the high expense procedure. This increases the costs of all currently insured.
5) Yes, the mandate – I still wonder how many people would be against the mandate if it was enacted by the Republicans (ie, not Obama), as they (the Republicans) lobbied many years for, and McCain (and others) campaigned on. Where was all the outcry when McCain was talking about the mandate (when Obama was not) during the campaign in 2008? To use Perry words – The Republicans were for it, before they were against it. Without the mandate, how do you resolve the pre-existing conditions clause. Before HIPAA went into effect, I was unable to leave an employer that I did not like – because I would loose my health insurance – and could not afford to loose coverage. I know what it is like to be restricted because of an insurance policy.
Healthcare is bankrupting our country. Costs need to be contained – there are many deficiencies in the Healthcare industry, and the current system is not working. It is the only industry where the consumer of the service (insured person), does not know, nor care, the true cost. Healthcare also needs to change – currently, we treat the symptom – the industry needs to change to where we treat the population to keep everyone healthy, so that the costs are more constrained. For example, your doctor is not paid to review your medical information on a regular basis, and reach out to you to say – It is time for you to come in and get a colonoscopy – What happens today, is that you go in for say, a sinus infection, and your doctor say – oh, you should have had a colonoscopy three years ago. If they find an issue, the fact that your colonoscopy should have been done three years ago, may lead to a much darker prognisis – and rising costs. Between Medicare, Medicaid, TriCare, MHS, IHS, CHiPS, SCHIP, VA, etc – our Federal Government already pays nearly 50% of all healthcare costs in the US.
Fraud – the fraud in Healthcare (Medicare and Medicaid especially) is extraordinary. I do not know how to solve that problem, when Congress restricts CMS (via non funding) from investigating fraud, and CMS does not take fraud as a real issue. There are reports that 30% of Medicare billings go to fraudulent claims. The industry needs to move to electronic records to be able to root out this fraud. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/21/us-shellcompanies-medicare-idUSTRE7BK0PY20111221
The right to die with dignity – OMG, death panels, – no, not death panels – information. Should Granny have a conversation with her doctor to see what it is that is wrong with her, and her options? Well, the doctor should be paid for that time. All too often, the younger generation wants everything done to save Granny – when in reality, you are saving Granny for an extended sickness and no quality of life.
A healthy person not having insurance is really a gamble on their part, and increased costs on my part. That person does not know when they will unexpectedly need services through no fault of there own (car accident) or sudden event (heart attack) – and postpones services until they can get Medicare, and go in for the body makeover (hip, knee, open heart). Where is the personal responsibility of those people?
Neither the Democrat’s nor the Republican’s really want to fix this – just like tax reform, immigration reform, SS reform, etc – but the Democrat’s have done something – the Republicans have done nothing. The issue has not just started – that is why Clinton tried to do something.
“I think Obama was more than willing to meet somewhere in the middle. How many times has he tried to get a Deficit commission, debt reduction, etc – and he has not been met in the middle.”
In the middle of what?
He refused to accept the recommendations of his OWN committee. And he constantly wants more and more spending while saying that HE is going to cut spending and reduce the deficits. Even his medical plan increases the long term costs of medical care.
He refused to accept the recommendations of his OWN committee. – no, the Republican Leadership would not sign onto the Bi-Partisan plan that was produced. Even Ryan did not vote for it, and he was part of the process.
If Obama and the Democrat’s went in it alone, he would be eviscerated – Those are Allan Simpson’s word’s, and I agree with him.
The brinksmanship goes on. This time it backfired though. So the middle class will have more taken out of their paychecks. Merry effen Christmas, from your friends, the Tea Party.
How does ownership of that one feel? I hope not so good.
There really is nothing to say. The excuses from last time aren’t going to play out now. Tea Party thinking is binary. These things don’t exist in isolation.
When the WSJ, McCain and a host of other establishment Republicans tell them they bungled the whole thing, smart people should sit up and listen. Talk about screwing the pooch.
To whom should the Prez send flowers to? Which mental pygmy? Speaker Boehner should distance himself as soon as possible. He just can’t afford to play the game any longer.
@Cargosquid
The Senate’s work was done. They went home.
It sounds like you are suggesting that the House and the Senate Republicans should go head to head over this.
Taxed Enough Already. Bwahahahaha! Apparently the Teabaggers thought not and delivered us an increase.
The great thinkers of our time?
Of course, if the Senate could actually do their jobs, instead of trying to play gotcha…
If the Senate would obey their oaths of office and write a actual budget….
If the Senate would pass the House bill…..
If the Senate truly wanted to give a tax break they would write a clean bill…
So Yep. I blame the Senate. The Democrats, more specifically. All they want is the precedent set that to justify insane spending and for “fairness”, its ok to tax the successful, instead of cutting spending. The Senate is refusing to even consider common sense bills so that they can blame the GOP and the Tea Party for their own failures, using a compliant press.
The TEA Party stood on principle for the health of this country instead of pandering for short term political gain.
Cargo, you are going to make up excuses for the tea party no matter what, aren’t you? It doesn’t seem to me that the Senate is the problem. Now you want to blame the Democrats in the senate more than the Republicans in the Senate? Wasn’t this a bi-partisan vote? They finished their work and got dismissed. You want to hold them there indefinitely while the NO folks dither around? How unfair.
I didn’t realize how much of the kool aid you had consumed. Holy cow.
Check out the fact that people are counting on their paychecks having $X in it rather than $X – $100 or so. That $$ to some is critical in today’s economy. It might make the difference in heat or food to some people. I beg to differ that the teaparty is standing on principle. Are they or are they not willing to defer the payroll tax for a year? If yes, then whats’s the damn difference? That isn’t principle. That is obstructionist.
Perhaps I should really just ask what the principle is that they are standing on?