Well, to be clear, neither Boehner nor McConnell have taken a stance on this yet, so the title is misleading.

Also, the Democrats are not Immune (as if that were any surprise):

Many Democrats also are ambivalent about Obama's proposed tax cut extension. They are more focused on protecting social programs from deep spending cuts. Some worry that a multiyear reduction in the tax designated for Social Security could undermine that program's health and stature.

Republicans are only against taxes for the wealthy.
Democrats are pandering pansies.


They are all controlled by the Corpocracy.


Tea Partiers will do whatever fox news tells them to.

Originally posted by Misoir
Ideally both the Bush tax cuts and this payroll tax reduction should be terminated immediately. Those who make the argument “we don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem” are the types of people you cannot take seriously when our revenue has plummeted because, 1) Bush tax cuts, and 2) recession. The more tax revenue we can collect to help reduce our yearly deficits the better, in my opinion. And by my interpretation of “shared sacrifice” it means everyone takes a hit, not “well we can raise the tax on everyone under $106,000 income but if you touch $250,000+ we will have an uprising”.

What happened to the Grover Norquist “No Tax Increase” pledge? Or does that just not apply to tax increases on anyone below the $250k bracket?

It is increasingly difficult to rationalize what these Republicans are thinking. One cited low taxes as helping to increase our deficit, which they claim to be against, but then they fought tooth-and-nail for the biggest destroyer of revenue in a generation. If they think tax increases are absolutely essential to battle the deficit, just say it, Americans will not throw you out for being honest. But they damn sure will not have any reservations throwing you out for being hypocritical liars with a careless favoritism towards the rich.

I don't know,Obama is doing OK.

Second line

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

And now Obama wants to extend that for at least one year...there is only one little problem....REPUBLICANS. They don't want you to have that extra cash...they want to raise your SS tax up 2%...they want to stick it to the group of people that need this extra cash the most.

I posted this on another thread about this, but it fits here:

When Obama lowered the FICA contribution by 2%, he put a little bit of cash in every wage earner's pockets. That's a positive thing, right? Well, it depends on how you look at it.

Social Security was sold and designed as sort of a savings account, or insurance (thus the "contribution" and "benefit" terms associated with it, even though it's nothing more than a tax). So, in effect, when he lowered the "contribution" amount he robbed the piggy bank and circumvented the whole reason behind it. You can't have a savings if you pull money out of it.

It's almost certain that even if anyone noticed that their paycheck was slightly bulkier, they probably didn't put it together that the 2% they just gained (and spent), is 2% they won't have when they turn 62. And it's even more unlikely that any significant amount of people took that extra 2% and put it aside for savings or, heaven forbid, invested it.

The way I've heard it from the Progressives is that grandma absolutely [can't live without even one dime being taken from her SS check. And yet our Lord and Savior Obama took 2%. Interesting, isn't it, that now that the GOP wants to restore that 2%, they get kicked in the teeth and called evil, greedy elitists by the very same people that that throw a hissy any time someone even hints at SS reform?

/TOA