Hannity and his entire panel applaud Bunning's obstructionism
March 02, 2010 9:57 pm ET
From the March 2 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Churchill rose to the occasion during WWII, much as Guliani did for a few days in September of '01. Churchill was also prescient when, out of government, he described the Versaille Treaty as setting the stage for the next great war. But Chamberlain did use his "appeasement time" to rearm, and the Brits turned Churchill out of office as soon as the war was over. These facts may be unsettling to your hero (or is it superman) worshipping mind, but they are facts nonetheless.
WW2 was the fault of Hitler and Tojo. I am saying that it could have been prevented had the French and British intervened when Hitler invaded the Rhineland.
We should learn this lesson with Iran. We should attack them now before they grow stronger.
B*llsh*t.
Levin's opinion seemed to be that being unable to find a job for a short period wasn't too bad, but a person who was unable to find work for a longer period of time was very bad. Just like the victim in the clip crying that somebody wants to write a blank check on his account, these wingnuts seem to reserve most of their hate for those having the worst time of it..
I'm still holding a grudge about that. This latest stunt of his validates my feelings towards him.
The Jim Bunning we know today seems a few Cracker Jacks short of a full box. No wonder Mitch McConnell wants to send him to the showers.
Jerry Elsea
Sounds familiar. Where have I....? Oh, yeah, got it.
"With all due respect," Senator Kyl, you're a jerk on camera, and you're a jerk online.
We've got multiple people applying for every job.
It doesn't matter if Person A doesn't get the job because they didn't get there first, or that Person B didn't get the job because they asked for too much in salary, or that Person C didn't get the job because they were too lazy to go out and look for a job - there are still 3 people unemployed while Person D got the job. If Person C gets up and goes out and gets that job instead, then we STILL have 3 people getting unemployment benefits!
This is not rocket science. It's common science when unemployment is as high as it is. The jobs aren't there. Your argument would make sense if we were at "full employment". But we aren't, and haven't been for many months, and so the people who are getting unemployment now need it and deserve it and we aren't wasting it on someone who could get a job!
If you were so "organized" and "hard working", I wonder why another job search was even necessary . . .
--BJ fan's intern, continuing BJ fan's post
Lots of guys working "the Asian Markets" at high-level investment firms who type like 10th graders. Yeah BJ fan, I'm sure you are teh awesome lol!
Seriously, I can't wait to hear the rest of your imaginary resume. Too much.
That certainly sums it up nicely for you.
Tell me please, is it physically painful to lie thru your teeth like that?
Elitest Dbag!
Please stop lying.
BJ, you really should learn that the talking points you post here are rarely, if ever, true. Generalizations almost NEVER are.
I'm going to guess that BJ fan didn't have that getting in his way,if there's any truth to his inspiring story. The max unemployment benefits here come out to about 12 bucks an hour, so a job search for somebody who knows they're worth less than that may take only 72 hours.
Congratulations boobyJF, that's one of the highest thumbs-down score I've ever seen on MMA!!!
Kudos, man!!
And this latest scam of Republicans (43 Senators) who voted "NO" for an EXTENSION on Unemployment Compensation for many Americans who had to WORK first to QUALIFY for their Unemployment Compensations in the first place, was just pure Republican genious. The goal with how Republican Voters "cringed" over Unemployed Americans wanting extension to their Unemployment Compensations was achieved. Hmmm. LOL.
----------------------------------------------------------
Rich c*cks*ck!ng scumbags.
Well, most unemployed folks I know don't need to have their unemployment check discontinued to "motive" them to look for a job. $400.00/week when you are accustomed to and have bills reflecting $800.00/week is a pretty big motivator. One cannot live, in this economy, on $400.00/week. The lowest rent in my city for an average apartment is around $500.00/month. The utility costs in my city are some of the highest in the state. We have no mass transit to speak of, so a car is a must to get anywhere in order to even look for a job.
Try researching your false talking points before you post them. They make you look incredibly stupid.
Republicans are like nieve children; they think everyone can just snap their fingers and get a job if they really want to. I think it all stems from the urge to believe they are not unemployed because they are virtuous, not because they got a lucky flip of the coin in a world that is unfair and indifferent. Either that or they're simply too shallow to have imagined if they were born in different circumstances.
The purpose of the modern conservative philosophy is to give a higher justification to shallowness and amorality.
--------------------------------------------------
OTOH, if your goal was just to sound like an @$$hole, mission accomplished. Well done.
Maybe some of you lying chickenhawks should go serve in Iraq, the War that Would Pay For Itself.
(But it didn't and we can't afford it.)
Dimwitted dittobot zamfir273114.
~
For practical purposes Israel needs a military/security buffer zone to protect themselves from terrorist attacks.
THe folks in uniform are willing to die for your right to spout idiotic nonsense. You should be ashamed of yourself. You owe everyone in uniform an apology.
No, I'm doing the exact opposite: demeaning and belittling you.
You mocked soldiers for eight years because you hate GWB. I despise BHO would I would never stoop so low as to dengrate out soldiers. Doing so is unpatriotic.
Really? Says who?
Yeah, and the Native Americans much more of a claim on the land you live on right now. I guess u wouldn't mind just handing it back then?
Gaza?
Bobby Jindal was born in Baton Rouge - he is a US citizen.
FIXED
Oh, and my ancestors would disagree with your claim of legitimacy. They were here to welcome the folks who stole their lands, killed their families, destroyed their hunting grounds and herded them onto desolate lands far from their homes. My other ancestors actually fought for independence from England during the Revolutionary War . . . there were no immigration laws at that time. Am I not a legal citizen of the United States? According to your definition, I guess I'm not.
You are not a bright person.
We can't afford to cut spending right now. Yeah, it means more deficit spending, and under normal circumstances we should avoid deficit spending. Too bad Bush and the Republicans didn't behave well when they had the chance. But right now, deficit spending is the least of our worries.
There are times when deficit spending is required, wise, and kind. These are those times!
Had they been president in 1929, we would have had an ordinary cyclical recession which would never have turned into a recession.
I will stipulate that GWB caused this recession. However, BHO is turning the Bush recession into the Obama depression by applying Keynesian methodology. Obama does not trust the market - he thinks big government is the answer to everything.
Ever heard of the roaring 20's? On its own, this statement is enough for me to disregard everything else you have written. Nothing wrong with not knowing but spouting "facts" that are just plain wrong is annoying.
I would simply ask that you look at our GDP growth rate in 1922 and compare it to our GDP growth rate in 1924.
This is not my opinion - it is an objective statistic.
Please read this and explain to me how I am wrong.
You are batting .500 You are absolutely correc that the Republicans were irresponsible profilgate spenders whilst in teh majority. However deficit spending is the NUMBER ONE problem we face. Deficit spending is the cause of our difficulties. Further deficit spending only exacerbates the problem.
And I'm sure you were speaking out against it every day of the Bush Administration.
Sure, Keynesians - but most certainly not Austrians. I will cast my lot with the Austrians over the Keynesians any day of the week.
The first priority is creating jobs. The FAIR Tax would cause a massive inlux of foreign capital to be invested.
Barring passing the FAIR tax, my first priority would be to eliminate the death tax. Small business is responsible for teh creation of roughly 60-65% of all new jobs. Many small businesses do not survive the death of their founder. In order to pay the taxes, they are oftentimes forced to sell or close the business. THis results in many people losing their jobs. If there were no death tax, the business would pass to the heirs and the jobs associated with the small business would survive intact. I would find a way to work with municipalities to eliminate inventory taxes on businesses employing less than 50 people.
Barring that I would follow the model of Ireland in the 1990s which created teh Celtic Tiger. Ireland cut corporate tax rates to 5%. Massive capital influx ensued. Microsoft, Oracle, Dell, etc. built plants outside of Dublin. In 2008, I decided to vote for Mitt Romney in the primary precisely because he cited the Irish economy as a model for economic growth.
Aside from taxes, I would eliminate the mark-to-market provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley. It causes firesales of assets and brings down businesses. Sarbanes-Oxley was an overreaction to Enron. Enron was outrageous, but it was only 2-3% as large as the AIG bailout.
Exporting is certainly an area where we have room for growth. I would ratify the free trade treaties with Colombia, South Korea, and and Chile forthwith. Caterpillar had a contract with Colombia cancelled due to the failure to ratify the treaty. Most people estimate this cost at least 2,000 jobs (this is but one example).
I realize this is a long shot, but I would slay the Creature from Jeckyll Island (the Federal Reserve) and reinstitute the Gold Standard. We need to have a currency that is actually worth something. YOu can not build an economy based upon phony money.
I would also threaten China with removal of MFN status if they refused to cease articially holding down the value of the yuan. They use it to dump chease plastic crap (probably full of lead) on our markets. We have avenues of influence with them, but Obama lacks the guts to use them (in fairness so did Bush).
As far as eliminating the death tax....is it more important for you to scew the "evil rich" by taxing the hell out of them or is it more important to create jobs. I have never had a job from a poor person.
Be pragmatic - you are one of two or three people who has reasoned posts. I don't agree with you, but I don't think you are completely blinded by ideology. Your desire to screw the rich is not so great that you want to do so at the expense of jobs for the middle class.
I realize you are a liberal, but your posts suggest that you are open to reason. I suspect that you actually read my posts before you give it a thumbs down as opposed to the druids who give me a thumbs down regardless of content simply because I posted it.
Near as I can see, the FAIR tax that you are talking about is a national retail sales tax. That about right? A flat tax on all retail transactions? Along with repealing the death tax, by which you likely mean the estate tax?
This would eliminate ALL other taxes (death/estate tax, capital gains tax, income tax, etc). This is the one and only issue on which I would agree to a tax increase.
If 17% is revenue neutral, I would even allow the Dems to go to 20% if they wanted. The damage of raising taxes would be more than offset by the influx of foreign capital. WIth a 0% corporate tax every corporation in the world would want to locate here and that would create an untold number of jobs. Ireland basically proved this in the 1990s.
Yes, this vastly disempowers the government. THe lobbyists will oppose it. Corporations hire lobbyists to bribe congessmen to write loopholes into the tax code. With a national sales tax, many lobbyists would be out of business as there would be no loopholes.
The government uses the tax code for social engineering as much as revenue generation. This would put an end to that and vastly limit the power of government in the process.
The Wall St. whores would probably fight it because they own Congressmen. They have a vested interest in mainitaining the status quo.
Let's take a quick look at some numbers, shall we? The median income in the U.S. is currently around $50,000. So, we're going to take two examples:
At $25,000 a year, which works out to $12.50 an hour, let's see what happens with a 20% retail tax. I think that $500 a month in rent/mortgage, $250 a month for phone/utilities, $200 a month car payment, and $200 a month in insurance all seems very reasonable, just for average America round number talking. It further assumes that these expenses will not be subject to the retail tax. That works out to $1150 a month in standing expenses. Out of $2083, that leaves $933 for food, clothing, entertainment, transportation, and incidentals, not to mention putting money away for a rainy day. All of this expenditure would be subject to your retail tax, meaning that the $933 turns out to be $746. So, the person making $25k per year pays $186 per month, or $2239 a year, or right around 9% of their income back to the government in taxes. That doesn't count any state based income tax at all, and further assumes that things like cigarettes and gasoline will no longer have surcharge taxes on them, above and beyond the retail tax.
Okay, let's look at someone making $1 million a year, which is by no means extraordinary these days. Just for fun, we'll say they are very parsimonious, and decide to live as frugally as their $25k/yr friend. So, they have the same expenses, but they have $83,333 a month to take those expenses from. What happens? Their base expenses are still $1150 a month, and the money they spend that is subject to the retail tax is the same $933 a month, so they pay the same $186 a month in federal retail sales tax. But, in the case of the millionaire, that works out to less than one fourth of one percent of their total monthly income.
Sorry, but taxing the poor so the wealthy can keep more of their money seems like a policy that any millionaire would happily support. Millionaires don't make jobs. They buy luxuries. That's why tax cuts bring about 70 cents to the economy for each dollar in tax cut. On the other hand, things like unemployment checks and food stamps return over a dollar to the economy for every dollar spent.
Do you know what makes jobs? Two things. Demand for a product or service, and capital. If you want to exempt that portion of income that is put into long term, secure investments like CDs and Treasury bonds, I'm all for that. That money, which is really invested in the country itself, can then be loaned out to small business to help them get started, and if they are already extant, to encourage their growth.
There is some social engineering in the tax code, as there is in everything that the government does. What are laws, but efforts to get people to behave in a certain way?
Having a weak central government and strong state governments may have been a fine idea back when America was a rural, agrarian society. However, in the industrial age, and particularly considering the size of the military we must maintain, a strong federal government is necessary. How else could we have an interstate highway system, which is a big part of why we succeeded as a nation, and why the Soviet Union failed.
If a man works his whole life, as Bill Gates has, and amasses an enormous fortune, good for him. But he did not accomplish that in a vacuum. Without the government services that he relies on, including things like court systems and rules of patent and copyright, he would have been completely unable to make as much as he did. If he should die, and wish to pass all that wealth to his son, that wealth should be taxed, and heavily. Why? Because if the father can pull himself up by his bootstraps, so can the son. Because even if you took away 90% of Bill Gates' money at his death, that would leave his kid with around a billion dollars. Even leaving a million behind, with a 90% tax, would still mean $100,000. More than enough to pay for a college education or start a business of their own.
In order to make a retail tax anything like equitable, you will inevitably run up against the exact same problems of exemption and loophole that plague our current income tax system. It will be just as costly to maintain, if not more so.
Why not just hand all the property in a given town over to the wealthiest individual, and let everyone else pay whatever rent is decreed? Why not just return immediately and by fiat to serfdom? Because that is the upshot of what you are suggesting here.
With 0% corporate tax, you are right. Many many companies would have 'offices' here, just as many companies maintain a corporate 'office' in Panama, so their ships can carry that nation's flag. But the actual wealth would leave. If I paid zero income tax as an American, and made over $250,000 a year, I would simply move to Europe. I could tele-commute, skip the national sales tax, ignore the income taxes in my new country of residence, and grow even wealthier. For the guy making $25,000, such a scenario would forever remain a dream.
Your theory may look good on paper, but, like so many theories, it would be abysmal in practice, and hurt those 95% of Americans who actually make this country work.
"Millionaires don't make jobs. They buy luxuries."
About 15 years ago, the Clinton administration put a confiscatory tax on yachts to "punish the rich". The "evil rich" indeed bought fewer yachts. Who was hurt? The people who work for ship building companies. These people who had these jobs were hardly millionaires. The person who installed the carpet in the yacht, the plumber who installed the sink, the carpenter, who made the closets, and the welder who shaped the framework lost their jobs.
The government targeted one group of people and missed - hurting an entirelyh different group of people. Specifically targeting anyone with a specific tax is always wrong - it often misses the target and hits an unintended victim.
Congress eventually repealed the yacht tax, and jobs were created when yacht building companies hired more people to deal with the increased demand for yachts following the repeal of the tax.
THe scenario you propose reagding moving to Europe is not feasible. Firstly, is extremely difficult to secure a work visa in any EU nation. Secondly, under your scenario you would be hit with a minimum of a 50% marginal income tax rate. If we has a FAIR tax, no American in his right mind would move from a nation with a 0% marginal income tax rate to a nation with a 50% marginal rate.
"At $25k a year, example A will have exactly nothing at the end of the year to show for his hard work. Example B, at $1 million a year, will have $975,000 left, and will have likely worked no harder than example A did. So, you tell me: what is justice? "
Yes, it is justice. THe person who earned $1 million earned it. It is his or her money and they are free to do with it as they please. It is not the place of goverment to dictate to them what they do with their money.
We are guarnateed equality of opportunity - we are not guaranteed equality of outcome, nor should we be.
If you'll remember, that tax of Clinton's didn't last, did it? Eventually the outcry got it rescinded. I admit, there was a lasting dip in production of new boats, however. As something of a woodenboat fanatic, I really don't feel bad that the production of fiberglass boats dipped for a while. They simply don't have the same romance, but this is mere opinion. All that to one side, in the 15 years since, the boatbuilding community has made quite the comeback, so while it was indeed a mistaken idea on Clinton's part, it was not permanent.
On to the taxes. My point, really was that BOTH example A and example B earned their money. They both worked for it, and it is doubtful that example B worked 40 times harder for 40 times more money. Since government must fund itself somehow, and since we are past the point where a tiny federal government funded by excise taxes and tarriffs is possible, which of the two examples has more disposable income to be taxed? That seems a very simple question with a very simple answer. Example B has much more disposable income. Even at 50% tax rate, they will still have over 20 times more money at the end of the year, living expenses aside, right?
The person making $25,000 is likely getting by, but just barely. And why? Well, there are many necessary jobs that are plenty of hard work and not a lot of pay. But we still need those jobs done.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, if you want to exclude any income from taxation that is put into secure, long term investments like treasury bills or CDs, that is fine with me. It creates capital that can be loaned out, put to work, and used to make more money. However, I would also say that, for corporations, I would argue for a slightly different tax system. Feel free to stop reading here.
Take the lowest wage at the company, likely a janitor or secretary, and then multiply it by 10 times. Anyone income over this level would be taxed at 90% at the federal level, and untouchable by state taxation. This would apply to all benefits supplied by the company, so if a CEO has his house provided by the company, that is added to his 'income'. Likewise for transportation, whether car service or aircraft, stock options, profit sharing, insurance, tickets to events, etc. All of it would be taxable.
This would accomplish a couple of things. First, it would rein in runaway executive pay. You can't reasonably argue that the CEO of GM was really worth 15 million dollars a year. It would raise the minimum wages paid by these companies, as well, and without a government mandated minimum wage. With less money spent on exec pay, it would also lower the costs of goods and services provided to the consumer, and make the real wages go up because the value of the dollars they were paid in would be higher. I would add that in such a climate, the lower tax brackets could be eliminated, leaving the people who do the most spending with more money in their pockets, which would further help the economy.
This might help out with getting back to the gold standard, something I heartily support by the way. Taking us off the gold standard was a really bad idea, fiscally speaking. It lead to widespread inflation, for one thing.
As for market to market regulations, free trade isn't about trade without tariffs. It's about no restrictions on what is traded. I don't approve of free trade treaties. It seems to support the movement of good paying jobs to poor countries to improve the bottom line and enhance corporate bonus scales.
China is going to be a problem, and no doubt about it. There are three causes that need to be dealt with. First, we borrow $700 billion a year to pay for our petroleum habit. A green economy would create jobs and cut this figure down to a manageable size. Second, China does not adhere to the same environmental standards that we do, and until they do, we need some sort of import tax that recognizes that, and compensates for it. Third, we need to make sure that it is cheaper to make whatever it is here, than it is to make it there and ship it all the way back across the Pacific. That's a ridiculous and dangerous situation to be in. With the outbreak of something like WW2 again, we would be in very bad shape, because our manufacturing capacity has disappeared.
I'm not sure what you mean by fractional reserve banking, and I will accept your arguments about why moving to Europe is not a feasible option for the wealthier among us in the face of a federal sales tax. Though I have relatives living in Germany, I am not as up on these issues as you are.
As for rationality, I personally find it much more convincing than emotion, though I do occasionally drop in a pose strictly for emotional response. This has been an interesting exchange, and I thank you.
Those are my other suggestions. Where are you on those ideas?
Bunning is a lying hypocrite who did this as a political stunt. It backfired on him. Oh, and Bunning had nothing against the bill at all and intended to vote for it. It was political theater. That's all.
Don't play these silly games.
Mr. D'Amato, Bunning doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected since he's retiring. There's nothing courageous about his stance because there's no political risk.
Ms. Schalp, Bunning doesn't care about Pay-Go since he voted against it.
Mr. Gaitlin, you say you don't think people on unemployment are bad people, but you come awfully close to suggesting they are with your talk about responsibility and your Dad working until he's 82. Most people on unemployment aren't lazy and irresponsible; please stop helping to spread that myth.
If the Dems want to give people unemployment let them find a way to pay for it. This is an arguement for term limits. As Sen. Bunning is not running for re-election he is free to act upon his principles and do the right thing. If he were running for re-election he probably would not be taking this brave and courageous stand. God bless him for trying to impose fiscal discipline.
I never joked about spousal abuse - it is a serious topic. I was expressing my concern for Mrs. Harry Reid. Harry Reid said that unemployed men beat their spouses. Since Harry will be unemployed in eight months, I hope somebody is concerned for Mrs. Reid's welfare.
That, and the fact that you've copped to being a Rand worshiper, which by definition makes you a sociopath.
I am a worshiper of Jesus Christ. I am a fan of Ayn Rand. What is wrong with Ayn Rand? Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged? Guess what - John Galt, Hank Rearden, and Tagny Taggert and I are about to shrug.
Second, what was wrong with her? Her ideal man was a guy who murdered and dismembered a little girl, you moron.
I profoundly disagree with her on this issue, but I agree with everything else she says. I'm pretty sure I know more about Ayn Rand than you do. I have read every book she ever wrote as well as five biographies of her. Have you?
If not, don't tell me anything about her.
Damn, she lost you by being rational on one issue.
Nice try, BJ.
He simply doesn't know what he is talking about, ever. I'm astonished at how many replies he manages to generate for his posts, which reveal nothing but a deeply confused, conflicted person who doesn't even realize that he contradicts himself with every other comment.
Only in the context of speaking ex cathedra. His opposition to the Iraq war was not ex cathedra. He was expressing his personal opinion.
I would urge you to read teh Cathecism of the Catholic Church and you might make fewer foolish misstatements.
You fail on all levels. Maybe if you devote more time to that Very Important Investment Firm you pretend to work for instead of posing as an intellectual here (really, you've failed miserably. Nobody takes you seriously) , you won't get "tired" and have to spend three days looking for another job in the future.
Here, kid.. try it yourself....
On balance, I think Sarah Palin is the best choice. I will stipulate to the fact that Jindal and Romney have higher IQs, but IQ is not the sole criteria determing the efectiveness of a president.
Sarah has a better vision for the country and is also ideologically further to the right than either of the aforementioned.
I can be a fan and admirer of Gov. Jindal, yet still think that Gov. Palin is the best choice to be President. Between Romney, Jindal, and Palin it is a question of good, better, best.
Did you graduate from high school? Honestly?
If you are such an expert on Ayn Rand, please tell me what was Howard Roark's occupation.
More bullets, less money for those in need.
Bunning is a fraud.
I would recommend it to you. You might learn something.
Someday you can explain to us how you "mistyped" Iraq being a Defensive War and the US getting into WWII against Germany to close the Concentration Camps.
You've been owned so many times at this site, most trolls with even a shred of human dignity would have skulked away a long time ago.
Furthermore, if I saw someone with a copy of Atlas Shrugged wearing a WWJD bracelet, I wouldn't know whether to laugh or to ask them if they're studying up on the contradictions inherent in popular conservative ideology.
He's a fraud.
Liberals don't value life at all. Not only do you want to kill babies in teh womb, you also wanted to kill Terry Schiavo because she had a disability.
The one and only thing about which you can criticize me is my typing. Wow!
Yes, in the near term, we need to work on lowering the deficit. And both Dems in Congress and the White House want to do that when it's appropriate.
It's not appropriate right now. Our economy doesn't need any spending cut right now.
OMG are you serious?!?! Dems want to cut the deficit. You seriously have to be kidding me.
We do not need to cut spending? We need to slash and gouge spending. I would cut ALL discretionary spending by AT LEAST 50% with immediate effect. I would make across the board cuts in everything except military spending.
You only care about deficit spending now because the money is being spent on the American people instead of the tools of war.
Do you really think Clinton would have signed a balanced budget had Newt not forced him to do so? You are engagint in revisionism here.
However, you are correct that the GOP wpent like crazy when they were in charge. They were deeply irresponsible.
And yet it never bothered you. Even now, you support the same policies that led them to spend like crazy, and want most of the same people who spent like crazy back in power. In the words of a different troll, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Obama wants to cut spending with a scalpel - McCain wants to cut it with a knife - I want to cut it with a chainsaw.
Thanks for correcting my spelling. I always thought that went was spelled wpent, but now that I know I was wrong -- it is actually spent went. I appreciate your informing of that.
Ohmigod, you guys, it's Andy Breitbart!
I bring this up to make it clear that there is an economic argument for extending these benefits. They are not simply a drain on the system like a lot of people seem to assume.
Courage is defined as the ability to face and deal with danger of fear without flinching.
Courage is the quality of a confident character not to be afraid or intimated easily but without being inconsiderable.
Courage is, ALWAYS standing on principal, not just when it's convenient.
Was Bunning brave and courageous when he supported the 2008 supplemental war spending bill, with no budget offsets, which included a provision to extend unemployment insurance benefits for 13 weeks?
Was Bunning brave and courageous when he voted in favor of the Senate's $106 billion spending bill to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars through September 30, 2010. Including $7.7 billion to prepare for a flu pandemic and $1 billion for the "Cash for Clunkers" program as well as other projects?
Was Bunning brave and courageous when he voted in favor of the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 which added to the federal deficit?
The answer is simple. Bunning is the last face you'll see next to words like brave and courageous
All it took was a few calls from angry Kentuckians and zero support from fellow Republicans, before Bunning tucked his tail between his legs.
Bunning is an angry, ornery old man, who's mad because his fellow Republicans decided to put his crazy butt back in the attic!
.
Hell, if Bunning was really "brave and courageous", he'd of stood for reelection in 2010 despite his 35% approval rating in KY, Lol.
We've missed you!
King, I missed you guys!
I've been in San Francisco for the last couple of months visiting my great granddaughter.
Bunning voted for the Medicare Prescription Plan which had NO FUNDING. Bunning voted for the Bush tax cuts which contributed a trillion dollars to our deficit.
Bunning voted against the very Pay-go bill he was claiming to be supporting.
Bunning had absolutely no objections to the bill he was filibustering and was planning to vote for it anyway.
Bunning is NOT a man of principle. This was a political stunt which backfired on him. He p*ssed off the majority of his GOP cohorts.
More like 'Principal'.. gimme money!!!
Bunning enthusiastically supported extending (unpaid for) unemployment benefits in 2003. He praised the effort and how it was going to provide the families in Kentucky with the assistance they needed while continuing to seek employment.
Thanks, PJ fan, for proving TheAncients' point . . .
Yeah, he's worth paying attention to. Of course he is.
His personal failings, such as his lies about his educational background, et al, are irrelevant. He is a very avid purveyor of false talking points. We know they are false, but a casual reader who sees his asinine posts which remain unanswered may not.
How can I dispute Keynesianism when I have never heard of John Maynard Keynes.
Dissertation defense? What does that mean? I've never been to grad school.
I have never even heard of "The Social Contract" by Rousseau, "Candide" by Voltaire, or "Two Treatises of Government" by Locke - much less read them. I've also never heard of Thomas Jefferson.
Of coruse I haven't read the Federalist Papers because I have never hard of Madison or Hamilton.
You got me. I am uneducated because I have never dun nun of dat there fancy lurnin' stuff.
"since advocates of laissez-faire don't know jack."
Are you claiming Milton Friedman is a moron?
Classic Troll Behavior: get owned, declare victory anyway.
Let me make this real simple for you:
1. Nobody here believes you know anything about Aquinas
2. Nobody here believes you know anything about Ayn Rand or Objectivism, beyond what you read on her Wiki page
3. Nobody here believes you work for an investment firm
4. Nobody here believes that declaring victory is the same as achieving it. Yelling "I win" and running off to complain to mommy that someone's picking on you stops working around grade two.
5. Nobody here takes you seriously.
6. Everyone here is laughing at you and your sad attempts to pump yourself up into something you're not, and can't even pretend to be.
I actually feel kind of sorry for you, but that emotion is more than balanced by a stronger sense of disgust. Now I'm just bored with you. Stupid posers do that to me.
Nobody criticizes anything I say. All you do is call me stupid or racist and point out my typos.
You can refuse to believe the earth is flat - I don't care. Every most you manifest more and more ignorance. You are just sore because I proved you were a fraud who has never read Summa.
BTW, I NEVER use wiki. It is an unreliable source because a dimwit like you can edit any page. The fact that I get under your skins only speaks to the efectiveness of my points.
All you can do is talk about me because you can't dispute any of my contentions. Not only do I not believe you have never taken a class on Summa, I don't belive you have even been to college. I win!
You're really trying to say that peeps here are too "scared" to drop in and check out the latest freeper frothing-at-the-mouth stuff?
Oh man, I got to tell you bobbyjf, I'm really getting a kick out of your work. Please hang around, man.
THe only thing people here can do is call me stupid, a racist, or point out a typo.
I am holding my own quite well here in a 50-1 debate. At free republic you liberals would get snowed.
We know what our saying. There's no need to repeat yourself.
It was hilarious enough the first time...;P)
Bobby Jindal fan kept on blabbering: "the freepers will attack your arguements - they won't call you names"
LOL! too funny.............tnx again for the belly laffs, booby!!
"THe only thing people here can do is call me stupid, a racist, or point out a typo."
Well if the shoe fits...........
"I am holding my own quite well here in a 50-1 debate".
Gee, ya think so?..;P0
I don't really give a damn what you believe about my education, but you are so obviously a BS artist who is trying to skate by on little nuggets of information, it's really pathetic, but what the hell: BA Catholic University of America, MA University of Maryland College Park, Teacher Certification State of New York. I have an education- I don't have to pretend like you do. You probably think the Asian Market is where that guy sells plucked ducks from his store window.
I'll try one more time- please explain to us how you came to the conclusion that the US went to war against Germany to close the concentration camps. You made this pronouncement DAYS ago. I've asked you FIVE TIMES to explain it. In each reply, you've IGNORED this request. Because you can't explain it. Because you are an uneducated boor.
That's how I've Owned You, moron. You made a BS statement and you can't back it up, so you pretend you didn't make it.
This whole thread is laughing at you. You are too stupid to realize it. Ignorant punk.
I wonder if he actually puts on a cape before plopping his ass down in front of his mom's computer.
He was NOT that conservative. He was an invented icon in the 90s by the conservative party elites.
Liberals love the idea of pay-go? Has she ever met a liberal before? Liberals despise the idea of pay-go during a recession. Centrist conservadems and obama are the only ones that supported that right now. I guess she doesn't frequent the huffpost too often. Or she is calling the centrist democrats, liberals which is ridiculous as they have more in common with republicans than liberals. Just look at the fierce opposition to blanche lincoln in the primaries by groups like moveon. Liberals hate conservadems almost as much as we hate the right wing nutjobs. They give democrats everywhere a bad name
Did some Hispanic girl or guys refuse your advances? Why the constant hatred and mentioning of illegals? Your true racist tendencies are displayed everytime you go off topic to slam the Hispanics. Now grow up and face life. It is in front of you.
I don't approve of folks entering the country illegally, but until the government prosecutes the ILLEGAL EMPLOYERS who hire these folks, it's not going to stop.
Go away, troll.
Well, Seannie, while you're at it -- why not applaud the fact that the bill passed, and that Bunning, according to Durbin, in ending his opposition, agreed to the same offer he'd been rejecting for days . . .
Thats the only word for it.
I applaud Bunning's ignorance! The jokes Congress are playing is the reason why I know they are not the ones calling the shots up at Capitol Hill. The corporations are calling the shots. PERIOD!
So to listening to this panel is beyond losing an IQ points.