DescentBB

Or should I say, how the tea party-controlled House got Obama re-elected in 2012.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... stpop_read

From the article linked:

"No employer is going to hire a worker based on such a small and temporary decrease in employment costs, as this year's tax holiday has demonstrated."

This makes me want to scream, and just shows how misunderstood this "cut" was. FICA is 12.4%. Unless you're self-employed (where you pay the whole thing), the employer and employee EACH pay 6.2% until this last holiday, when the employee's portion was dropped by 2% to 4.2%. As everyone SHOULD realize, dropping that 2% may have helped those that ALREADY HAVE JOBS a little, but did NOTHING for the employer. Certainly, it DID NOT decrease employment costs AT ALL.

Ok, so the problem is that we have too many people without a job. One would think that you'd try to help both sides of that problem, the employer and the ones looking. But, instead, we do a giveaway to all of us that HAVE A JOB.

Herculosis wrote:Ok, so the problem is that we have too many people without a job. One would think that you'd try to help both sides of that problem, the employer and the ones looking. But, instead, we do a giveaway to all of us that HAVE A JOB.

I agree. Congress is filled with a bunch of out of touch and dysfunctional political sycophants. The fact the House caved into the Senate's wishes just shows that it's all about politics and getting reelected, and not about the economy.

I for once agreed with Boehner that the bill was just "kicking the can down the road". I don't agree however with the House's tea party members way of achieving that change by blocking anything and everything. I also don't agree with the 'no tax hikes for the rich' mantra on the Republican side either. But it didn't matter in the end. They were run over by the same old political pressures that were not in the best interests of those who don't have jobs. AND we're going to hear more of the same bullsh*t in 2 MONTHS! Gaaaaaah!