Senate Blocks Plan To Tax Rich, Pay For Obama Payroll Tax Cut

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate has blocked a Democratic plan to tax the rich to pay for President Barack Obama's plan to renew - and make more generous - a payroll tax cut due to expire at the end of the month.

Republicans and a handful of Democrats teamed up to block the plan Thursday. Democrats were poised to quickly kill a Republican proposal to renew the existing 2 percentage point payroll tax holiday and pay for it with cuts to the federal workforce.

The moves are the opening steps in end-of-session maneuvering over renewing the payroll tax cut, the centerpiece of Obama's jobs plan.

Republicans have signaled they'll permit passage of at least an extension of the current tax holiday, but the two sides haven't begun negotiating over how to finance it.

You must be logged in to post comments.

Password (case sensitive):
Remember Me:

Read Comments

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
  • by Obama Snake Oil co Location: Washington on Dec 6, 2011 at 08:23 AM
    Wrong, spin, hasn't even happened. Oh and the latest update; The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 21% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19
  • by Down with the GOP on Dec 3, 2011 at 01:39 AM
    When you get your pay check after Dec 2011, you will see more taxes taken out. Thank you Republicans. You have no problem looking out for the tax breaks for the wealthy, but will turn your backs on the working class.
  • by Say NO to GOP in 2012 on Dec 2, 2011 at 06:26 PM
    So it's clear that when they say no tax hikes, they really mean millionaires and billionaires shouldn't pay more, ever -- even if that means your taxes go up.
  • by Wolfgang Location: Chocowinity,NC on Dec 2, 2011 at 02:15 PM
    Internet news artical - Whow the Dem Lib media spin masters are in full form today. Yes 315,000 People Giving Up Hope Of Finding A Job Isn't 'Improvement' Imagine, if you will, that the entire population of the city of St. Louis decided to stop looking for a job and just gave up because the economy was so bad - and the government called it good news? My head is spinning. That's what happened today. The Obama administration announced that the unemployment rate dropped from 9% to 8.6%, and called it "improvement." But the reality is, the economy is still not creating jobs anywhere near fast enough. So, in the month of November, 315,000 people gave up and stopped looking for a job. The population of St. Louis is 319,000. All it will take to get the unemployment rate under 8% by Election Day is for a few million more Americans to get discouraged and give up on the economy and stop looking for a job! The is a strange way to get the Obama's Hope N Change. My question is what is the next Obama spin coming up?
    • reply
      by uh on Dec 2, 2011 at 11:32 PM in reply to Wolfgang
      Unemployment isn't calculated based on people who give up on finding a job. Perhaps you should research how unemployment surveys are conducted, and then study the statistical procedure behind it. I'll give you a hint: unemployment isn't calculated by counting the number of people taking unemployment benefits.
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Dec 3, 2011 at 01:34 AM in reply to Wolfgang
  • by Robin Hood on Dec 2, 2011 at 09:56 AM
    Obama promised to take from people who have jobs and vowed to give more entitlements and welfare to lazy people. What kind of ideal is that? Vote Republic to get us out of this mess!
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Dec 2, 2011 at 12:14 PM in reply to Robin Hood
      Obama promised to give more entitlements and welfare to the rich? When did this happen?
  • by Unemployment Location: enc on Dec 2, 2011 at 07:11 AM
    More bad news for GOP! Unemployment coninues to drop!
    • reply
      by Obama Snake Oil Co on Dec 2, 2011 at 08:27 AM in reply to Unemployment
      The Labor Department said Friday morning that the unemployment rate dropped sharply to 8.6 percent last month, down from 9 percent in October. The last time unemployment was that low was March 2009. “Employers added 120,000 jobs last month,” reports the Associated Press. “And the previous two months were revised up to show that 72,000 more jobs added — the fourth straight month the government revised prior months higher.” But here’s the catch: one of the reasons the number fell to 8.6 percent is because about 315,000 people decided to just stop looking for work and therefore the Labor Department doesn’t count them as “unemployed.”
  • by Curious Location: Greenville on Dec 2, 2011 at 06:49 AM
    As posted below, I'm not sure why people think that the wealthy don't pay taxes? They pay their fair share. If you've been able to make the money and be successful then you should be able to keep the money plain and simple. It's funny that Obama is asking the rich for financial contributions to his campaign when he is also the one seeking to tax them more.
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Dec 2, 2011 at 12:19 PM in reply to Curious
      Please do explain how it's 'fair' that somebody making a modest income, say under 50,000$ is taxed around 25%, but a person making 5,000,000$ a year, is only taxed at 10% more, while at the same time he's making 100X more money? There is NOTHING fair about that, whatsoever, and the amount the rich make in comparison to everybody else only increases every year.
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Dec 2, 2011 at 04:12 PM in reply to
        I will put the ball in your court. Please explain how it is "fair" that somebody making a million dollars a year pays more in taxes than most middle class people make in an entire year and you think they should pay more. Do they get more for their dollar than the middle class person from the government? The answer to that question is no they do not so why should they have to pay more? I see no sense of "fairness" in that at all. I have another question for you. Should they also pay five or ten times more than everyone else for food, gasoline and other items for which we all pay an equal amount? Where does it end? When does everyone have to accept personal responsibility? When do those who do nothing yet collect federal tax dollars have to start paying in? I know if I get pregnant I cannot go to my boss and insist on a raise, why do welfare recipients get increases when they add on to a family that they already can't support. Please explain all of this to me, I doubt any reply will be fair to any working person, wealthy or not.
        • reply
          by uh on Dec 2, 2011 at 11:36 PM in reply to Anonymous
          Actually they do get more for their dollar. The cap on the capital gains tax, the cap on the payroll tax, and corporate domination of congressional decision-making are all examples of how millionaires get a lot more service for their dollar.
  • by BF on Dec 2, 2011 at 06:08 AM
    A lot of people seem to miss something in the government spending debate. They see money going out of the government without realizing where it's going. A great deal of government spending goes to small businesses who hold government contracts. Therefore, the government spending goes right back into the community where the business is located. The money flow is from the government to the business, to the employees, to the community. Even money given by the government to welfare recipients still gets into the community. Even if welfare recipients (illegally) buy beer and cigarettes with it, it still gets into the community. The cutbacks in government spending being required by the conservatives are directly impacting money into the communities. This is what's causing the continuing economic problems. In bad economic times, government spending is all the keeps an economy afloat. Government spending, in the form of the Civil Conservation Corps, the Works Project Agency, and others, are what pulled the U.S. out of the Great Depression. The unnecessary stifling of government spending is what is prolonging the current economic difficulties.
    • reply
      by Sorry on Dec 2, 2011 at 08:28 AM in reply to BF
      I think that it is you BF who is missing something. Quite simply stated, government spending hand over fist will not solve anything, it will just create more debt for our future generations to pay back.
  • by Barlow Location: Winterville on Dec 2, 2011 at 06:06 AM
    The jobless rate has dropped to 8.6%. NOW do you see why the Repugs want to throw more people out in the street? They can't have the jobless rate dropping can they? That would show that the economy is recovering and they don't want that because they want the Obama administration to fail. Despite every attempt the Greedy Old People have made to stop this country from getting back on it's feet before the elections, we are still gaining ground. Imagine where we would be if we could just get rid of the Party of NO.
    • reply
      by But on Dec 2, 2011 at 07:31 AM in reply to Barlow
      Now take into account the number of unemployed who are not counted Barlow. The spin on these numbers and your post is laughable. What ever happened to Obama's PROMISE that unemployment would never go as high as 8%? I guess all his broken promises are forgiven by his blind followers. I am curious though, are you paid to make the ignorant comments you make on this site or are you just that stupid? Look out for that cliff, never mind, you have already fallen off of it!!
      • reply
        by Obama Snake Oil co on Dec 2, 2011 at 11:53 AM in reply to But
        He is just spinning it like the others. Seems they never give the facts. I posted them above this post later. Funny, he had access to the same internet I did. I posted the truth and he posted spin..Spin, when flushing the toilet what the water does when going down.
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Dec 2, 2011 at 08:14 AM in reply to Barlow
      It's funny, Boatload, how you talk about the GOP stopping bills from passing but the SENATE is held by a Deamoncrat MAJORITY. So how did this bill not pass? Seems you Deamoncrats have NO idea what is good for the country either.
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Dec 2, 2011 at 12:21 PM in reply to
        They'd actually need a supermajority to have control of the Senate, as it is now, they can still only pass bills with support from Republicans. That also assumes that every politician is a mindless robot who's going to vote down the party line on each item, regardless of how it could possibly affect their state and the people they are supposed to represent.
  • by Democrats must go!!!! on Dec 2, 2011 at 06:02 AM
    If you want a job next year, vote straight Republican! Democraps are so corrupt!!!
    • reply
      by Ex- Democrap! on Dec 2, 2011 at 07:21 AM in reply to Democrats must go!!!!
      Amen!! Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me!!! Obama is not going to fool me again!!

275 E. Arlington Blvd. Greenville, NC 27858 252-439-7777
Copyright © 2002-2016 - Designed by Gray Digital Media - Powered by Clickability 134878053 -
Gray Television, Inc.