Why are republicans upset about payroll tax extention-break?

They want the extension; they just don't want it without being able to attach riders that have absolutely nothing to do with payroll taxes, such as:

1. Fast tracking the XL pipeline

2. Requiring people receiving unemployment to have a GED or high school diploma and to be drug tested

3. Cutting unemployment benefits from 99 weeks to 56 weeks

4. Relaxing EPA regulations on polluters

5. Preventing people without Social Security numbers from taking the children's tax credit on their tax returns

And no, I'm not kidding.

Edit: No one has been "stealing from" the Social Security Trust Fund. The last time the government borrowed from it was in 1984, it was paid back with interest in two years, and new legislation was put in place to prevent it from happening again. The Fund is completely solvent for the next 25 years, then will have about a 20% reduction in benefits.

Just a note to the people claiming FICA is not a tax. It most certainly IS a tax or the government would not be able to collect it like a tax.

Since the 1930's the Social Security has been a tax. See :

Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S, 548[26] (1937) held, in a 5–4 decision, that, given the exigencies of the Great Depression, "[It] is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare". The arguments opposed to the Social Security Act (articulated by justices Butler, McReynolds, and Sutherland in their opinions) were that the social security act went beyond the powers that were granted to the federal government in the Constitution. They argued that, by imposing a tax on employers that could be avoided only by contributing to a state unemployment-compensation fund, the federal government was essentially forcing each state to establish an unemployment-compensation fund that would meet its criteria, and that the federal government had no power to enact such a program.

and

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), decided on the same day as Steward, upheld the program because "The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way". That is, the Social Security Tax was constitutional as a mere exercise of Congress's general taxation powers.

Since 1937 Social Security (ie. FICA) tax receipts are paid into the US Treasury. There is no, nor has there ever been, a 'lock-box'. Even today Social Security (and the rest of FICA taxes) are sold to us citizens by representatives of the government as 'retirement funds' or 'pensions'. This could not be further from the truth. It is just another 'entitlement' paid out of the general treasury that can be changed on the whim of congress. We have been being robbed for decades.

EDIT: I agree no one is 'stealing from the trust fund' since there is NO trust fund. See the US Supreme Court rulings above. The 'trust fund' is a collection of 'special treasury instruments', essentially IOUs not worth the paper the are probably not even printed on. SS taxes go to the GENERAL FUND and are paid out of the GENERAL FUND. If there WAS a 'trust fund' why is that not where the receipts and disbursements go? Payroll taxes go to the US Treasury, Social Security Benefits are paid by the US Treasury.

Because FICA is technically NOT a tax, it is the sole funding source for Social Security. It stands for Federal Insurance Contribution Act and has always been considered to be a contribution to your mandatory government retirement plan. Taking money away from this just makes the Social Security System less solvent. Republicans want to preserve, not undermine, the SS program.

They were not opposed to the continuation of the tax breaks!

They were adding other things into the bill hoping to get those things passed at the same time. This is the problem with allowing unrelated riders to be attached to critical and sensitive bills. They have a tendency to tie up important legislation.

After the Senate passed their temporary bill and sent it to COngress the GOP leadership added other tings into the bill in hopes of getting them passed at the same time. Most Democrats and many Republicans in Congress were ready to sign the bill and get it passed. BUT, the GOP leadership would not allow any discussion regarding the bill or the add ons requiring Congress to do just a "yes" or "no" vote."

Far too often legislators vote against a bill they would have normally supported because of the things added into the bill that have nothing to do with the original bill. This is how millions and millions of dollars of tax payers money is spent without hearings or direct approval! Like the statutes in some park or like the bridge to nowhere!

FICA is actually not a tax. It is a fund where that money is supposed

to be put for senior citizens when they retire (called Social Security).

Our government has been stealing out of it (called borrowing for a

long time but it's past the point now of ever seeing them repay that

"borrow" back) for other programs now until the fund itself is almost

empty and seniors are left out on a limb in the coming few years.

Why do Democrats want to wait 2 months to "fix it"? They should

have been required to forgo their Holiday vacations, and stay in DC

until they came up with a bonafide solution instead of saying "oh

we'll deal with that in two months". That's why Republicans are

upset....see?

Buffoon 0bummer made it into a political maneuver making it look like he was for cutting taxes and the Republicans were against it, when in fact they were against prolonging it by having to come back in two months to try again.

Because we wanted the cut for a year, not 2 months.

1) It defunds Social Security

2) It extends unemployment

3) It's an idiotic 2 month temp fix when Congress is SUPPOSED to be working on yearly budgets.

This is a political ploy, created by Democrats, purely to allow the uninformed to ask...

"Why are Republicans against lowering taxes?"

Why aren't liberals upset about the president breaking into the lock box and stealing old people's money to give to the rich?

O.K. let me explain it for you. I will even speak slowly, so even the most hardened leftist will understand. It is not a tax break! You still owe the money when Mr. obama comes to shake you down at tax time. It is just withholding, you are still going to give them every dime of it.