Right-wing media praise Bunning for blocking worker pay, relief to unemployed
Right-wing media have praised Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) for blocking legislation that would extend unemployment benefits for hundreds of thousands of Americans, prevent rural areas from losing local television, and prevent cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors. The Department of Transportation also reportedly furloughed nearly 2,000 workers without pay as a result of Bunning's action.
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.
Bunning's hold on bill results in unpaid furloughs, lost jobless benefits
Bunning "single-handedly" blocked bill that would extend federal funding programs. The Chicago Tribune's James Oliphant reported in a March 2 article that Bunning used a procedural tactic to "single-handedly block a bill last week that would have provided a short-term extension for federal funding programs that expired March 1" because "it doesn't include an offset in spending so that the federal deficit doesn't increase."
DOT temporarily lays off nearly 2,000 workers without pay as a result of Bunning's action. A March 1 McClatchy article reported that "[t]he Department of Transportation furloughed nearly 2,000 employees without pay Monday as the government began to feel the impact of Republican Sen. Jim Bunning's one-man blockage of legislation that would keep a host of federal programs operating." McClatchy further reported:
Bunning's "hold" also affects jobless benefits for thousands of unemployed workers, rural television customers, doctors receiving Medicare payments and others.
Bunning wants the $10 billion price of extending the programs offset by reductions in spending elsewhere in the budget to not drive up the deficit.
The Department of Transportation stated that "[t]he action comes as a result of Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning's decision to block key legislation that would have extended several critical priorities for middle class families."
Labor Department: 400,000 will soon lose unemployment benefits if funding is not restored; millions will lose benefits if extension not granted within two months. The Associated Press reported that if the hold lasts through March, "about 1.1 million people would lose benefits." The Labor Department stated that "[i]f Emergency Unemployment Compensation and full federal funding for the Extended Benefit program are not extended, 400,000 Americans will lose unemployment benefits during the first weeks in March" and that "[w]ithout an extension, the number of Americans who lose unemployment insurance benefits will increase to 1.5 million within a month. Within two months, nearly 3 million Americans will have lost their benefits."
Numerous federal highway projects shut down as result of Bunning's hold; 90,000 could lose jobs. McClatchy reported that "[f]ederal projects shut down include more than $38 million in project funding for Idaho's Nez Perce National Forest and Fernan Lakes Idaho Panhandle National Forest and $86 million for bridge replacements in the Washington, D.C., area. Bunning's home state of Kentucky has no projects affected by his action." McClatchy further reported that "[l]etting the highway program lapse could mean an estimated 90,000 jobs lost." McClatchy included the following graphic:
Bill would also provide COBRA subsidies, spare doctors from cuts in Medicare payments, and extend small-business loan and flood insurance programs. The AP reported on March 1 that the legislation blocked by Bunning would provide laid-off workers "with subsidies to help pay health premiums through the COBRA program." The AP further reported that the bill would "spare doctors from a 21 percent cut in Medicare payments" and "extend a small business loan program [and] the National Flood Insurance Program."
Two million families could lose local TV access. McClatchy reported that "[a]s many as 2 million families could lose access to local television because a copyright law expired" as a result of Bunning blocking the bill.
Right-wing media praise, defend Bunning
Carlson: "[H]e's taking a stand, and I'm all for that." On the March 2 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson said of Bunning: "I propose to you that this is what a lot of the people in the American public want their politicians to do right now. Speak your own convictions for God's sake. ... You disagree with something? Don't worry about all the other backlog kind of stuff going on." She continued, "[I]f this is what he believes, he's taking a stand, and I'm all for that."
Ingraham expresses support for Bunning. On the March 2 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham said, "I promise you, if you poll tested that Bunning statement across this country, people would be standing up and cheering him and saying, 'We need more people like Jim Bunning.' " Co-host Steve Doocy said Bunning's "point is, look, we are out of money. How are we going to pay for this stuff?" while co-host Brian Kilmeade claimed that "there is a lot of other people who maybe are on the rolls that don't want to get off the rolls because they know it's going to be extended because it's politically unpopular to stop it."
Baier: Bunning "taking a position that millions of American families have to live by." Introducing a report on Bunning during the March 1 edition of Fox News' Special Report, host Bret Baier said: "The idea of buying only the things you can actually pay for hasn't been a big seller in Washington for decades. And right now, one Republican senator is catching all kinds of grief for taking a position that millions of American families have to live by."
NewsBusters: Bunning "stood up last week for principle." In a March 2 NewsBusters post, Brent Baker wrote: "A retiring Senator not facing re-election stood up last week for principle, insisting new federal spending be covered by a matching reduction elsewhere, but instead of hailing Senator Jim Bunning as a 'maverick' making sure the ruling party adheres to its promise new spending will be 'paid for,' television network journalists on Monday night painted him as an ogre, focusing on the presumed victims of delayed spending."
Limbaugh mocks concern for furloughed workers: "Oh my God, this is the worst thing that's ever ... " On the March 1 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh said: "Now, who knew? Who knew? But if you look at this story, folks, this is the worst thing that could have ever happened. Two-thousand federal workers are going to be furloughed, and there might be a delay in some unemployment benefits being paid. Oh my God, this is the worst thing that's ever -- who knew, folks, that one lone senator from the minority party could wreak so much damage to our economy?" Limbaugh later said, "Unemployment advocates are calling for Jim Bunning to be removed from the Baseball Hall of Fame."
National Review: "Democrats were outraged" by Bunning, "but why?" In a February 27 National Review Online blog post entitled, "Senator Bunning's Unappreciated Gifts," former National Review economics editor and Cato Institute senior fellow Alan Reynolds wrote: "Sen. Jim Bunning (R., Ky.) blocked 'extended' unemployment benefits beyond their scheduled expiration on February 27. That thwarted bill would also have put off, again, a scheduled 21 percent cut in Medicare payments to physicians. Democrats were outraged. But why?" Reynolds claimed the "evidence is overwhelming" that "extending unemployment benefits from six months to nearly two years has raised the unemployment rate by a percentage point or two," and asked, "[H]ow can [Democrats] possibly object to saving money sooner rather than later?"
Erickson: "God bless Senator Bunning. His filibuster is going to put government bureaucrats out of jobs! Hallelujah." In a March 1 Red State post offering support to Kentucky congressional candidate Rand Paul, Erick Erickson wrote: "The point of supporting Rand Paul was driven home to me last Thursday night as Senator Bunning launched a one man filibuster against the Democrats. He came under relentless attack and even his own Republican Party would barely come to his aid (kudos to Bob Corker (R-TN))." Erickson said Paul was a "senator who was his own man, like Senator Bunning." Further, in a February 26 Twitter post, Erickson wrote, "God bless Senator Bunning. His filibuster is going to put government bureaucrats out of jobs! Hallelujah."
RedState blogger: Bunning "standing strong for the American people." RedState blogger "hogan" wrote in a February 26 post: "Last night, while most Americans were watching the Olympics, Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) was standing strong for the American people on the floor of the United States Senate. Oh, it won't be portrayed as such -- believe me." The post further stated: "Bunning took to the floor to object to a unanimous consent request to call up and pass the House-passed extension of a number of expiring so-called 'stimulus' and other benefit programs, because Bunning dared to ask the simple question of how these extensions would be paid for."
durbin, sheehan et all
block away
as far as the bleach blondes on fox are concerned, hopefully in focus groups conservative white males change their voyeur preferences to brunettes or asian women and they can join the ranks
Go bunning! Dems, do the right thing, don't throw the real long term unemployed under the bus
So I'm sorry that those of you are fortunate enough not to have been unemployed yet have to pay some extra taxes for those less fortunate; you can still console yourself that you're still better off than the poor jerk who got laid off and is now living on the pittances he gets from the unemployment office. Oh, by the way, I can guarantee it's not in your best interest to live in a society where people starve if they can't get a job.
A short term extension? It has already been extended 99weeks! The dims want to extend it to the end of this year. How is going to be paid for?
Remember also this little tidbit in the bill. Public funds to prevent a 21% reduction in payments to docs who treat Medicare patients. This is what is coming down the pike when ObamaCare is implemented. In fact my mother's doctor just dropped her because of the proposed changes.
ObamaCare. Kicking little old ladies to the curb. This is OUR future under this turkey.
What does bother me is that he couldn't work up the courage for such an objection until he decided to announce his retirement and not to seek re-election.
This is naked partisanship at its worst.
And that sly fox Reid better keep his eye on his own Nevada hen house because his time is running out for pulling partisan shenanigans.
They've voted for unfunded spending time and again forgoing pay as you go rules until the Democrats regained control in 2006.
-- What does bother me is that he couldn't work up the courage for such an objection until he decided to announce his retirement and not to seek re-election. --
Do try to keep up.
"How anyone can defend one man effectively cutting off support for thousands of fellow Americans is beyond me."
I'm guessing the government is in worse financial shape than any of those thousands of Americans. How anyone can defend the United States and its poor budgeting is beyond me.
I suppose we can just print more money right??? :(
It's better for the economy to have deficit spending right now than to fail to pay these people unemployment insurance benefits and we don't need to be cutting any spending right now to account for it. We have a deficit commission getting set up, and they'll do that.
Please tell me you remember that.
no what is disgusting is you and bunning.
Yes, he should have objected before. But he shouldn't be objecting NOW! You're totally off base, Weasel.
Do try to keep up.
Like I explained elsewhere, there are times when deficit spending is unwise and unnecessary, but there are other times when it's very necessary and would be stupid to not do it.
I've been making this same argument WRT to the financial stimulus bill for months - that at times, unfunding spending is better for the economy than the alternative. This is a similar time - it's better to have unfunded spending for unemployment insurance than it would be to cut spending elsewhere right now!
You don't know what you're talking about.
If this is crucial, fine. Then prioritize and cut spending in areas that aren't as crucial. That is what Bunning asked for.
Can YOU not follow and READ?
There isn't a good place to cut at this point in time. It's OKAY to have unfunding spending in some circumstances.
Just like I've explained multiple times WRT to the financial stimulus spending!!!
But no, this spending should NOT be a place where you say that it has to be offset with a spending cut elsewhere.
Are you REALLY this dense?
How many times have I said that there are times when unfunded deficit spending is warranted? I've been saying it about the 2009 financial stimulus for the past 6 months!
All you do is insult. Once you start that it means your argument has run its course and you only have your potty mouth.
This is not rocket science. What it shows, when I am able to definitively say that you're being ignorant and dense, is that you're ignorant and dense, not that my argument is flawed!
You must remember that Tommy is intentionally being intellectually dishonest in order to start an argument.
This is not rocket science. What it shows, when I am able to definitively say that you're being ignorant and dense, is that you're ignorant and dense, not that my argument is flawed!
Well, this time I WASN'T responding to you.
Let me intervene here. I agree with your principle that the dems should have accounted for this spending as Delly stated that there are lots of places (in your "less crucial areas") where a spending cuts can be made.
The counterpoint here is that Bunning chose a bad time to stand up for that principle, and a lot of people have been thrown under the bus in protection of this principle. Also, where was Bunning's accountability principle during the Bush years.
Was it OK for Bush to spend tons of money on his war (based on false pretenses) and to cut taxes on the rich but the Dems cant spend to save the economy that has been tanking since early 2008.
I guess that was a loaded question, as I am sure that you believe Bush's war to be just and necessary, and the spending on our economy as wasteful and evil.
Anyway, the counterpoint is still valid however you feel about that little tangent.
Then, you say there are LOTS of places that it could be cut.
You defend your position by saying this is something that should be through regardless of other spending.
Call me crazy, but if there is an opportunity cut one of those "lots" of places, why not do so? There is no reason not to cut another program that I can think of. I am new here, and if you have reasons for this policy, please explain.
There's not an equivalent place that will fill that same need that jumps out at one to cut and to say that we cannot pay for this without this equivalent cut.
But of course there are lots of things that can be cut in the budget.
It's wrong to say that THIS emergency spending has to be paid for before it can be spent. That's the problem here.
As I've explained about 10 times now.
However, as you might expect, I find the reasoning wrong. First- Does it have to be exact? Nope. Second, it seems a bit short sighted to say there are none wihout considering them first. Now, this one at first glance would suggest your point that this is something that must be acted on quickly. However, it is also true that these guys know what is out there and what can be cut. (Personally, I think there are some studies out there funded by the government are unnecessary that could be cut. Also, some serious work should be put to reduce government fraud and waste.) There are some pretty easy things that come to mind that can be cut and cut quickly.
So, really, given that I doubt anyone expects an exactly equal cut and that there are indeed readilly ascertainable areas to cut, there is still no reason not to make some cuts right now, just as you go out to spend more.
2) Some serious work to cut the deficit IS being planned and is supported by Democrats. In fact, over the last generation, ONLY the Democrats have realistically and HONESTLY wanted to cut the deficit spending. But again, there are TIMES when it's appropriate to attack deficit spending, and then there are times when it's great and wonderful and absolutely essential that we have deficit spending. This is one of those times! For you to ignore/pretend you don't know that the Dems are the ones who are serious about deficit reduction, when appropriate, is dishonest to the extreme.
3) Shove your "with all due respect" where the sun don't shine. I don't believe a word you say.
2) Good. So lets put some meat to the charge to cut some spending. Frankly, I don't care if it is delayed, but something to paper and into motion to cut it.
3) Why don't you beleive what I say? Because I disagree with you? Because I am a conservative? Is there no room for discussion? Please, explain.
This thread is about NOT stopping the payment of unemployment benefits for people who are seriously in need. Get with the program.
So, it is also about the merits of his claim.
The only reason progressives are whining about Bunnings decision is their big hearts. How could Bunnings "throw them under the bus?" Yes Jediknight it is because he is a jerk, he just want to screw as many people as he can. If that is what you really believe you must be 12 years old.
What Bunning did is perfectly legitimate and responsible. It was the first step in balancing the budget, stop spending money without having the money to spend. It is in large part what got us to this point in the first place, and if Bunnings is finally learning that then I wish he'd run for another term. I just hope the rest of congress will learn the same lesson soon.
On the backs of the poor, unemployed, and now laid off. That's compassionate conservatism for ya.
What Bunning is doing is irresponsible and selfish to the nth degree and totally illegitimate.
Bunning is not intentionally throwing anyoen under the bus because he's evil, even though that is the apparent lesson the left has taken from his actions. He's doing it because he has significantly different (and very valid) policy ideas.
Maybe because they are always blaming them for the countries problems and when they see a need to cut it's always the poor that get it first.
I do see them blaming liberal policies, but that is the policy, not the poor, that are in question. Actually, talk to any conservative and they will say they care about the poor very much, and about the welfare of every human. What they will also say is that in liew of handing everything out, people should work to deserve what they gain. By work I mean that working hard and making correct decisions in all aspects of life. Part of the decisions I speak of is not expecting handouts (not expecting handouts is different than appreciating or excepting them).
A conservative will have more sympathy for someone who acts as if they want to do well on their own and does not expect anything just for existing. However, it is fallacy to say they do not care about the poor. The difference is best expressed in the adage that it is best to teach a man to fish than to simply give him a fish.
Now, again, if you have any evidence to show that conservatives blame the poor for the country's woes, please tell me where to see it.
The article does not discuss the merits of these positions, and seems to present them in a way that shows how callous and selfish everyone is to the poor.
The article does make some interesting points, but in the end I find it relatively shallow and not convincing.
Of course, I have a different world view than you guys, but it should be apparent to anyone that this article hardly closes the issue in your favor.
CRA and ACORN. There's 2 right off the top of my head.
Fog, please provide some more depth.
Deep enough for ya?
The video also does not give any substance to back up its assertions. It is simply this guys rant.
Does anyone care to go any deeper with the "SOS" line? Or are you going to continue to give quick one liners?
All in all, repeating that line is merely a one liner.
You're right - there's no changing the minds of the nutjobs. They get their validation every day on hate radio and Fox.
I urge Mr./Mrs. Rational Conservative to read John Dean's book Conservatives Without Conscience.
Now if only they can keep to it. A lesson everyone should learn don't spend money you don't have.
Forgive and forget man, if he wants to do the right thing now, all I can say is FINALLY.
I remember the same arguments being trotted out in the 80's as Reagan ran up record deficits,only to watch those insurmountable deficts turn into record surpluses not more than a few yrs. later. Surpluses created by sacrifices from those who work for living not those who clip coupons on Wall St. Then watched those surpluses handed right over to the wealthiest 2% in the form of tax-cuts turning back into record deficits. So excuse me if I don't get my draws in a bind when I hear conservatives and Republican rail about deficits and their dangers. Yours and their hyprocrisy still carries the strong scent of cowdung.
You need to go back and read some of Reagans economic advisers thoughts on this I believe his name was Stockman,David.
So if you want to turn the clock back and blame bush and regean, I'll turn the clock back farther and blame Roosevelt and his cronies. Since in fact they, in a epic use of fear ongering used a financial crisis to morph the United States into a welfare state.
SS and Medicare has made sure that senoirs could live out their lives in dignity and medicare has ensured that those who previously became bankrupt or just suffered in silence or did without the same medical care as the well off. The programs implemented made the great society available to more people.
So go ahead and blame Roosevelt for these contributions I'll stand by it all the way. You on the other hand have just proved how far from reality and baseless your knowledge is. You hate progressives...so what...and that is all your post amount to.
17) when your opponent attacks a Republican/conservative President's policies, blame them on a Democratic Congress (or vice versa)UPDATE: the Activist Judges
I never said there weren't times when the governemnt should borrow money, but this is no one of them, especially when they already borrowed nearly a trillion to fix the economy.
I'm not so sure you know what hypocrisy smells like because I have always argued against deficit spending when it wasn't necessary. I have always voted that way too, so when a senator finally speaks up and makes a stand, I support it. Hypocrisy, I don't think so.
Can we also agree that unfunded spending is to be avoided?
I've read somewhere, maybe it was Jefferson who made the point, I can't remember. Anyways, I believe it's true that we'd be much more cautious entering wars if we had to pay for them ourselves as opposed to making future generations pay for them. It seems a parallel ought be drawn for this sentiment in regards to domestic government programs (and bailouts) as well. At least it does to me.
What are your thoughts?
Respectfully.
"Bunning said again Tuesday that he opposed the extension because it would add $10 billion to the budget deficit, and he attacked Democrats for abandoning promises to pay for legislation instead of contributing to a budget deficits projected to hit almost $1.6 trillion this year. Bunning proposes to pay for the extension with unspent money from last year's massive economic recovery package, but (Senate Majority Leader Harry) Reid, R-Nev., objected."
Bunning may have SAID the above, but that doesn't mean that it's accurate. The Dems never promised to use Paygo for emergency, temporary expenditures.
Bunning was accurate, you aren't.
You can get more facts at: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
"more than all the nations of the world combined"? Have any facts to back that up?
I don't say it's 20%, the CBPP does.
What would you have our military look like?
The facts about America's bloated, excessive, always-increasing military spending are now well-known. The U.S. spends almost as much on military spending as the entire rest of the world combined, and spends roughly six times more than the second-largest spender, China. Even as the U.S. sunk under increasingly crippling levels of debt over the last decade, defense spending rose steadily, sometimes precipitously. That explosion occurred even as overall military spending in the rest of the world decreased, thus expanding the already-vast gap between our expenditures and the world's. As one "defense" spending watchdog group put it: "The US military budget was almost 29 times as large as the combined spending of the six 'rogue' states (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.65 billion." To get a sense for how thoroughly military spending dominates our national budget, consider this chart showing where Americans' tax revenue goes:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/26/defense/
The chart is particularly revealing,please take the time to review it.
China about 6% of TGE (1/8 of US)
Russia about 4%
Size of nations (square miles)
US: 3.7M
China: 3.7M
Canada: 3.8M
Russia: 6.6M
(population in millions)
US: 308
India: 1,177
China: 1,366
"Even as the U.S. sunk under increasingly crippling levels of debt over the last decade, defense spending rose steadily, sometimes precipitously."
I'm not sure where you took it from but, I've read enough papers to know that you stole that. :) Nobody likes a copycat.
kcboomer the invasion of Iraq was wrong an illegal. Thjere were weapons of mass destruction, therecwas no connection between Al-Queda and Sadaam, and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 all of these were reasons we invaded Iraq. I think we have extended ourselves to far across the world. There is no need for billion a piece jet fighters like the raptor,and our military expenditures are robbing of us needed resources as the article I sited points out. We can surely afford to cut back some and use some of that money we spend for defense on what's needed here.
The troops coming home from Iraq and Aghanistan are going to need help. Help with PTSD,some with drug problems and alcholism,some finding jobs,some dealing with integration back into peaceful society this will cost money,how much of this money will be available to them when we spend foolishly on weapons systems the Pentagon doesn't even want. we have spent so far a trillion dollars in Iraq,with that needless adventure we could have payed for the health insurance programs some like you say we don't have the money for. We defintely have to make a decision,we don't need to be in all the places with our military we are in. We don't need all the weapons we have to deal with an enemy that doesn't even have uniforms,a navy or air force. I say we fight smarter and think before we send our fathers,mothers,sisters,daughters,sons and brothers into harms way asking them to make the ultimate sacrifice.
Our invasion of Iraq didn't make us safer it only made Iran safer and has installed in Iraq a Shia dominated government friendly to Iran. We have destabilized the area and spent 1 trillion dollars doing it. We should be smarter than this and our needs say we must,our infrastructure needs rebuilding and the cost of healthcare will bankrupt us unless we do something.
Heck the money we spending in Iraq to fight that needless war we borrowed from China!?! In Afghanistan we are propping up another corrupt government with a leader whose brother is a major drug dealer of poppies and heroin with ties to our CIA. He uses the CIA to take out his competition. This is nothing but a repeat of what we did in Viet Nan,what we're doing in Iraq and what we did in Haiti with Popa Doc,what we did in Iran in 54 by overthrowing Mossadegh(sp)and installing the Shah which culminated in what in 1979? The hostage crisis. Then we have to spend money to prop up these governments and when that doesn't work we have to use our military spending more human and economic resources. Do you know that what we appropriate financially to the CIA is secret?
This is part of our history ,wasted resources and foolish policies that have left us on the wrong side and has helped to foster hatred of us around the world. I'am just saying we can't spend militarily as much as we are and continue foreign policies that come back and shoot us the foot. We don't need empire,we can't sustain it. Just look at every country before us that have tried to achieve it.
But know this, there are many enemies in the world, not just the current situation with terrorists, that would love to see the destruction of the US. There are other "militaries" in the world that bear watching and we cannot afford to let our advantage slip. Sure there is always excess and waste in any program, wether it's the military, Medicare/aid, education, social security, and on. Our government needs to cut out the pork spending that is rampant every year, in every area.
Canada is larger than the US of A. Why don't they spend as much as we do on defense?
MAybe you are like our dear vice president and think that terrorists no longer want to aquire nuclear weapons.
Tell you what we should have done, is institute a draft to enlist all the unemployed in the army. Spent the stimulus money on equiping and training them and then sending them all to Kabul. The war would've been over already. :) *sigh
Then again he could go with you being just a lone nutcase and I'd have to give him props for nutcase.
Just because I haven't paid a big bill yet doesn't mean I can draw my bank account down to zero!
What a fool that you don't seem capable of understanding this!
The money can be used however it is deemed best to benefit the economy, and if paying unemployment benefits is the way to do that then congress can se the money for exactly that.
And yes you can draw the account down to ZERO, congress has been doing it for years.
Thanks.
It has always baffled me why the government can't run its finances like any ordinary American family is forced to.
Duh, I know, it's not their own money they're spending.
How many of you remember way back when to those 'pesky' bounced checks? What's good for the goose most definitely is NEVER good for the gander it seems when it comes to our elected reps.
Also, it's much easier for members of Congress to be reelected by spending a lot and never having to worry about where it's going to come from.
However, if they were to have raised taxes on everyone to pay for things they come up with (going to war in Iraq, for example) people would be less willing to go along with such things and vote them back into office.
That's how you fix unemployment...expand the govt.
Fiscal Economic Bank for the Buck
One year $ change in real GDP for a given $ reduction in federal tax revenue or increase in spending
Tax Cuts
Non-refundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.02
Refundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.26
Temporary Tax Cuts
Payroll Tax Holiday 1.29
Across the Board Tax Cut 1.03
Accelerated Depreciation 0.27
Permanent Tax Cuts
Extend Alternative Minimum Tax Patch 0.48
Make Bush Income Tax Cuts Permanent 0.29
Make Dividend and Capital Gains Tax Cuts Permanent 0.37
Cut in Corporate Tax Rate 0.30
Spending Increases
Extending UI Benefits 1.64
Temporary Increase in Food Stamps 1.73
General Aid to State Governments 1.36
Increased Infrastructure Spending 1.59
I'm in! Anyone else.
if you quit, you get nothing. sooo....nice try but you just proved your an unintelligent troll
If you want to fix the problem put those people back to work. According to your article infrastructure is just under UI benefits and promotes longer term employment. There are billions of dollars waiting to be spent on infrastructure, put them back to work.
Wrong again. These benefits are cycled back into the economy because the unemployed will spend every penny of their benefits, you know, for things like food.
It's the tax cuts for the rich that go into Swiss bank accounts that DO NOT benefit the economy.
That makes sense.
you obviously have never been unemployed. im sure working for daddy has its benefits.
id ask you to come down off your pedestal but i think the fall would kill you
Oh, I don't work for my dad either.
Watch out below.....
No that would be the fat cats that stole your labor and are now using your tax-subsidies in a casino game of craps, where unless your're one of them you always loose and they win. You would think that all the wealth the unemployed have they would be getting richer and owning more property. Here's a newsflash for you skipper.the gap between rich and poor has widened considerably. The top 2% own and control more wealth than the bottom 60% combined.
Hers another tidbit to chew on from a 2009 NY Times article:
"...A researcher at the Harvard School of Public analyzed detailed employment and health data from 8,125 individuals surveyed in 1999, 2001 and 2003 by the U.S. Panel Study of Income Dynamics.
Workers who lost a job through no fault of their own, she found, were twice as likely to report developing a new ailment like high blood pressure, diabetes or heart disease over the next year and a half, compared to people who were continuously employed..."
"...David Williams, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health who was not involved in the research, said the study is a reminder that job loss and other life stressors have a tremendous impact on both mental and physical health and contribute to the development of chronic conditions..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/09/health/09sick.html?_r=1
do you know anyone who is unemployed right now and was getting UC benefits?
i dare you to look someone in the eye who is and tell them that they are lazy.
but you don't have the stones and you know it, you gutless wonder
You wouldn't know anything about my "stones".
I don't harbor any ill will for those who are unfortunate to be out of work, and are struggling and need help. It's great that it is available, and should be used as a temporary bridge until permanent work is found.
We blow $10 billion a year on "missile defense" that doesn't work. But it's a great make work project. I have friends (Phd Physicists) who have been on this boondoggle since Reagan.
There's the line to draw.
It is just a fantasy they construct to dehumanize the poor. It is easier to belittle the unemployed and the working poor than to offer constructive ideas as to how to mitigate the effects of the economy caused by Republican policies.
Yep, those people are living the highlife on $200 a week. Heck, after groceries, they can go splurge on a little electricity. Why would they ever want to get a job again?
That's how you fix unemployment... give more money to the already filthy rich.
Just because I don't agree with Obama, or pelosi, I truly don't think they hate Americans. Did you ever meet George Bush Jr., do you know him? I had several chance to meet the man and I can tell you for a fact that he doesn't hate America.
I know hundreds of democrats and hundreds of republicans, and not a single one hates American or America. They have different ideas about what is best for it, but they don't hate it.
The only group of people i ever met who hated America was the socialist students union in college. They advocated a complete overhaul of the American System, a complete redistribution of power, in a communist fashion. Communists hate America, not Democrat or Republicans. Even the most rightwinged conservative nut case, I've met a few in North-western Idaho don't hate America, they might hate the government, but they don't hold any animosity towards America, they may be racist but they didn't hate every American.
When I see you make such broad, sweeping comments claiming that Republicans hate Americans, i conclude that either you are a child and you are still in middle school, or you harbor the same hate in your heart that you accuse others of, and you are a hypocrite. I despise hypocrites more than anything else. They rarely change their ways and constantly blame others for their failures, I can't think of many things worse.
Just because I don't agree with Obama, or pelosi, I truly don't think they hate Americans. Did you ever meet George Bush Jr., do you know him? I had several chance to meet the man and I can tell you for a fact that he doesn't hate America.
I know hundreds of democrats and hundreds of republicans, and not a single one hates American or America. They have different ideas about what is best for it, but they don't hate it.
The only group of people i ever met who hated America was the socialist students union in college. They advocated a complete overhaul of the American System, a complete redistribution of power, in a communist fashion. Communists hate America, not Democrat or Republicans. Even the most rightwinged conservative nut case, I've met a few in North-western Idaho don't hate America, they might hate the government, but they don't hold any animosity towards America, they may be racist but they didn't hate every American.
When I see you make such broad, sweeping comments claiming that Republicans hate Americans, i conclude that either you are a child and you are still in middle school, or you harbor the same hate in your heart that you accuse others of, and you are a hypocrite. I despise hypocrites more than anything else. They rarely change their ways and constantly blame others for their failures, I can't think of many things worse.
Really, think about it, is that what you believe?
If he was always against not spending what you do not have, he would have a point.
However, they have technically been in debt for the past twenty years--they've been paying a house note the whole time. The fact that they were paying a house note did not prevent them from purchasing my mother a new car when she needed one, they just continued to pay the house note and the car note in addition. When the a/c was busted they put the repairs on a credit card, and then paid that debt off. They've never been late on a payment, they're extremely financially responsible but they are, nevertheless, still technically in debt.
Most ordinary American families are in debt in much the same way--paying house notes and car notes etc. It's necessary to maintain a family and a household. Sometimes life surprises you--the heat busts in the dead of winter and you've got to put the repairs on the credit card and focus on paying it off. Either that or let your family freeze.
The government is just charged with the responsibility of maintaining the househould for 300 million people.
Most people who manage their money well are in debt through much of their lives. They have a certain amount of debt they're comfortable maintaining, and they don't want to go above that limit, but when emergencies happen, those same people extend themselves even further. They may determine that they need to tighten their belts elsewhere to recover from that additional debt, but it doesn't demand that they do that.
So, as I already explained to you once, yes, there are places where government spending could be and should be cut, but it's not necessary to directly pay for this emergency expenditure by Congress this timeto have to have a corresponding cut in spending elsewhere. Sometimes it's okay, and even responsible, to go deeper into debt in order to prevent something worse from happening.
Let's say that your sibling had health issues and had to pay out of pocket for medical treatment and they didn't get to pay their mortgage payments for a couple of months. Wouldn't you think it wise to go deeper into debt yourself to pay off those late mortgage payments rather than your sibling's family losing their home and losing all the money they've already invested in that home? Of course you would. And it may be that you can cover that extra debt right away with decreased spending, or you may have tightened your belt as much as you can already, and so you'll just have to carry that debt for a while until your income increases or you can cut your spending some other way!
Again, this is not rocket science. Sometimes you have to determine that deficit spending is necessary and wise. In this case, it is.
Responsible adults do exactly that. Irresponsible "adults" don't. Your answer tells us which category you fall into.
You don't know what you're talking about, and you haven't a leg to stand on in this argument.
There are times when deficit spending is wise and necessary. This is one of those times. Bunning deserves no praise.
But to try and drum responsibility into a mindset such as yours is futile. I am not surprised this whole concept escapes you, don't worry about not understanding any of it.
Some people look at it and see a case of the heat busting in winter, and others look at it and see a vacation in the bahamas in the winter.
And I don't know. I look at the prospect of people losing their jobs and my automatic response is to see the busted heater in thirty degree weather. But some people see something different.
Congress fixes the heater and goes to the Bahamas.
That is the fundamental difference.
Besides, I could give you an anecdotal piece of government waste if you'd like, but those don't fly around here when they go against sainted liberal spending programs.
It's you who has demonstrated that you can't understand simple concepts nor absorb any new thoughts, not me.
What we're saying is that cutting spending should NOT be a requirement to choose to spend this emergency, temporary funding!!!
This is not rocket science.
As I explained above, families who have an emergency expense PAY for that expense if it's necessary. Whether they have an excess of available cash or were already running in the red, they pay for necessary emergency expenditures, and then they figure out what to do afterwards. They don't say "I can't pay for this emergency until I figure out what I'm going to cut from my current expenses". They take care of the emergency!
Yeah genius, do you think Congress is going to cut spending "after" the fact? Or is figuring out what to do afterwards mean a tax hike?
Forget it, deal with what to cut now otherwise step aside and let the adults do it. This is no time for spineless wimpy elected official who don't have the brains or the balls to figure it out now.
You give nothing but excuses to politicians, I don't.
Right now, however, there's no good reason to demand an equivalent spending cut to cover this emergency, temporary increase that's there to stimulate the economy.
Just like there was no good reason to immediately have to pay for the stimulus we did 13 months go, or the bank bailout 18 months ago.
You don't seem to understand that it'd be worse for the economy to demand spending cuts to match every temporary, economy-stimulating spending program.
Even after it's been explained to you about 12 times.
That's your failing, not mine.
It may mean a tax hike. It may mean fee hikes. It will likely mean targeted tax hikes and additional fees AND some entitlement cuts AND some program cuts and some program eliminations. It'll be a combo of things. But right now is an inappropriate time to demand an equivalent spending cut to cover this temporary spending!
This is not rocket science.
But that is not what is in front of Congress. They are faced with a serious situation, call it an emergency, if you will. However, they do have an option to cut other spending. So, why shouldn't they?
Taking the family in the emergency, if they have the option to sut other expenses before spending the money, they will cut the other expenses first or at the same time. This is the situation in front of Congress, not the scenario you give.
And when confronted with an emergency, one pays for that emergency and then figures out later on how to pay for that extra expense - do you get a part-time job, do you borrow against your inheritance, do you sell a valuable item, do you stop eating out, do you do a combination of things, or are you pretty well tapped out and you've tightened your belt as much as you can, and so you simply carry the extra debt for another little while until you can better manage to bring it down.
Right now, our economy doesn't need ANY constrictions in spending! In fact, we probably need ANOTHER jobs bill, another stimulus. Had we known how bad the economy actually was in the last quarter of 2008 while they were crafting the stimulus bill, they would have made it bigger then!
We don't have any room to cut spending in other places right now. This is not rocket science. Every reasonable economist will tell you this.
You are also saying that all of our government spending goes directly into the economy?
If there are programs to cut, and we have time to consider them, we should consider and cut them. As far as I can tell, Congress doesn't even work enough to say that they have to act tomorrow. In other words, in reality, we have time to consider and cut, and the emergency you speak of does not exist in the form that you speak of it existing.
I am saying three things, and now I've said them about 15 times!!!
One is that it is inappropriate to demand a spending cut BEFORE this temporary, emergency spending is done.
Second is that right now is not the time to be cutting the budget. You don't cut spending during an economic slowdown, especially one as severe as the one we're still climbing out of.
Last is that the Dems ARE THE ONES WHO ARE SERIOUS ABOUT DEFICIT REDUCTION WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So stop pretending that you are willing and able to do the right thing here when you keep suggesting that you'd do the absolute wrong thing (because it's the wrong time).
He's not just some hack, either, as head of the Ways and Means Committee.
My only point is that the corruption is not isolated to one side, including Mr. Jefferson.
What a fake screen name you have - rational?
So you are saying unemployment compensation is a luxury? Food and shelter are anon-essential perks?
And this whole idea that government is the adult head of a household is patently ludicrous. Government is not a family household. It is not a business either. It has different priorities from both. To continuously use these false analogies is disingenuous and/or ignorant.
By the way, are the Bush tax cuts perks or essential? Are public highways luxuries? Since I know that money for armed forces is probably the one (?) govt. program deemed necessary by all conservatives, do responsible adults invade countries that have not attacked their own country? Is not purchasing personal health care insurance in order to afford food for non-aborted children shirking one's duty. Are such things as safe food, clean drinking water, sewage systems, bank regulations, police enforcement and fire protection, and, oh, let's say, the right to vote in public elections non-essential perks? Or is it just the unemployment benefits you object to? Just curious.
What do you mean by ordinary American family managing it's finances? They are as good, or as bad, as the government.
I assume you're referring to the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and the Medicare prescription drug bill?
Do we need to have Eisenhower to once again put this in perspective?
Clap, clap, clap!!
Curious how the spending always has to STOP, and the balance has to magicaly be balanmced whenever the Democrats come into office. Where the hell are all you deficit hawks when the Republicans are in power?
------------------------------------------------------------
Bunning didn't say a word for 8 years under Bush, he should have STFU for the next 8 MONTHS under Obama.
Hear, hear!
Hilarious!
I'm going to take exception with that call, eddie. The budget deficit decreased in 2005, 2006, and 2007.
Regardless of the fact that the deficit did not increase every year under the Bush administration...I'll agree with what I think is your larger point...Pres.Bush led a poor effort in controlling costs.
And I was right here...expressing my displeasure with the spending habits of Pres.Bush, the republicans, and the democrats during that period.
Now...
You are correct that the DEFICIT did not increase every year. I misstated that, clearly. So, point conceded. However, I've taken another look at the numbers and, once adjusted for inflation, to 2010 dollars, four of Bush's deficits were among the 9 largest ever, and all 8 deficits were among the 22 largest in history, going back to 1913. (Which is as far as my data goes.) Think about that: He single handedly makes up over a third of the top quartile!
So don't tell me that you "voiced your displeasure" unless you voted for Kerry or for a third-party candidate. And before you go blaming the DEMOCRATS for the Bush deficits, you might want to consider that they typically OPPOSED him, were the only ones to do so, and routinely got MOCKED for it.
-------------------------------------------------------
I'm tired of Republicans telling me how reckless the Democrats are. The last two Presidents, going back 35 Years, to have a balanced budget were Clinton and Carter, both Deomcrats and Meanwhile Republicans have run up 18 of the highest 22 deficits since 1913, once adjusted for inflation.
Another little bit about W, did he or did he not alter his stances after election to term 2?
The point of these questions: blaming someone for Bush's increases because they voted for him when he (Bush) altered course after the second election is a bit of an exaggeration.
A final point, his treatment of the budget is a big reason why many conservatives abandoned him. So, its not entirely true to lump conservatives in with Bush's treatment of the budget.
1) Bush didn't "change his stances" when running for relection, or even immediately after. As I recall, it was Kerry who was mocked in '04 for trying to change the course we were on. What's more, when Bush DID change, it was to START VETOING things left and right, and he didn't start doing THAT until the Democrats controlled congress in '07, and became the ones writing the checks. Recap: He DIDN'T change, except to BECOME fiscally conservative, AFTER the Dem's took over. And what's more: anyone, Lib or Con, who was against TARP, Auto-Bailouts, etc... Just don't understand economics. I didn't LIKE them, but I recognize that extreme measures were called for.
2) I hear a lot of conservatives say they "abandoned him," but they not only voted for him twice, they also voted for McCain, and continue to vote Republican down ticket. WHY? Becuase the Democrats are WORSE? Are you kidding? On what basis do you condluded that? The only fincal discipline we've had since 1976 has been under Democrats! You people just keep buying the Rush Limbaugh line of bull that no matter how bad the Pub's get, the Dem's will always be worse. But there's simply no historical evidence to support that!
Reagan, Bush'41, Bush'43: 20 years, 20 Deficits, all large enough to rank in the top 25 since 1913, once adjusted for inflation.
Carter, Clinton: 12 years, 4 surpluses. And no deficits anywhere near those of Reagan, Bush'41 and Bush'43, once adjusted for inflation.
Obama? Yeah, it's bad. I'll give you that. Point conceded. But were still in an economic mess. We're getting better, yes, but we're nowhere near strong enough to risk balancing the budget! Remember: ANY action taken to reduce the deficit (raise taxes, cut spending) will harm the economy. In hard times, deficits HELP, and are NECESSARY. If a year from now, things are booming and he's still making no effort to reign it in? FINE, I'll join you in criticizing him. Believe me. But Reagan, Bush'41 and Bush'43 ALL had years when the economy could have weathered some fiscal conservatism and they NEVER practiced it. NOT ONCE.
In 35 years, it is only DEMOCRATIC Presidents that had managed to balance the budget, create a surplus and start to pay down the debt. So WHY do you keep voting Republican?!
------------------------------------------------
My guess: You've been listening to Rush Limbaugh for so long, that you're immune to all evidence thats contrary to his teaching!
(Read my blog entry from Feb 1 for more info on this.)
You are wrong that most conservatives voted for McCain. There are many, many who sat out this last election.
My problem with Obama is more the extremity of his spending. You can point out the things others have done, but they are nowhere near the trillions Obama is throwing out there. There is a level of degree that is relevant to judging policy.
Agreed, 100%. You don't have "political capital" when you win reelection by the narrowest electoral margin in history. (Meaning: Every incumbant with a samller electoral margin DIDN'T WIN!) So regardless of his policies, lib or con, he misread the landscape BIG TIME that year. And he paid for it in the following mid-terms.
You are wrong that most conservatives voted for McCain. There are many, many who sat out this last election.
Fair enough, but I have to ask: WHY? First off, why NOT vote Democrat? After all, historically for the past 35 years anyway, their the only party that balances the budget, so why NOT take a chace with them? (Well, by staying home, I guess you DID. LOL) But what was so bad about McCain anyway? He was the frontrunner in 2000, and had only moved to the right since then, so why NOT McCain? And finally, to some extent, I'd say that a person or group of people that doesn't even participate in the process is hardly in a place to complain about how it works out. A few hundered people in Florida or a few thousand in Ohio could have changed history. (Or DID, depending on your POV I guess.) So votes MATTER. The way I see there's just no excuse for not doing what you can within the process if you plan to complain about the results afterwards. You've got to buy a ticket if you want to ride the ride.
You can point out the things others have done, but they are nowhere near the trillions Obama is throwing out there.
OK, I agree with your overall POINT. I get the big picture. However... I will point out that Bush's last (8th) total deficit, including emergency spedning, etc... came to 1.584 Trillion Dollars. (In 2010 dollars.) Obama's is projected to be $1.6 Trillion. A LOT, to be sure, but not unprecedented - only $16 Bilion more! Cleary, Bush WAS "[somewhere] near the Trillions that Obama is throwing out there." And while the economy is growing again, Jobs are still lagging, so were not out of the woods yet. Obama's budget is still dealing with the same mess that Bush's was. Fix the economy, finally get completely out of Iraq, lose the Bush Tax Cuts for those over $250K... How far does that go towards fixing things? (And how much will the Republicans obstruct those efforts?) Then get back some of that TARP and bailout loan money... All I'm saying is that it is neither completely unprecedented, nor is it inevitable that every year will look like this one.
It took Clinton 6 years in a MUCH better economy to fix the Reagan/Bush'41 budget mess, and that was MUCH smaller in scope than the situation Obama inherited. So I'm willing to be every bit as patient with Obama as well. Let the economy turn around first, THEN lets start worrying about the budget again. I'll be right with you, concerned about the budget, as soon as I'm no longer worried about my JOB or my INDUSTRY.
----------------------------------------------
IMHO
Since (obviously) we've never met, I don't really KNOW you. But by "you" I'm really talking about conservtaives in general, and by "Rush Limbaugh" I really mean the enitre RW media.
So take your pick: Coulter, Savage, Hannity, Beck, O'Rielly... If you think ANY of them is really where it's at, then my point stands. If you don't listen to ANY of them, well... I have to wonder either if you're really a conservative, or what's happened to the conservtaive movement!
--------------------------------------------------
LOL
---------------------------------------------------------
Just sayin'.
Most, maybe, but we have Conservative bintx, and a few other Centrist and (real) Conservatives on here who are just as sensible as the Left...
This is one of those times.
The economy still needs stimulating and there's little that stimulates the economy better than unemployment insurance going into the pockets of unemployed people! It's not like people can save money getting unemployment insurance - all of that money goes to pay their apartment rent so they have an address to give to a prospective employer, and they have a place to get dressed every day and eat before and after work when they do get a job. It goes to pay their gas and electric bills, so that their credit score doesn't bottom out before their prospective new employer checks their credit score before they hire them. It goes to pay their cable and internet bills so they can apply online for the job and for their phone bills so that the employer can call them to tell them that they've got a job.
It really SHOULD bother you that Bunning objected to this particular unfunded federal spending.
That is, unless your greatest desire is that the economy NOT recover as quickly as possible! That is, unless your desire is that Obama's economic recovery efforts are stymied. If that's what you want, then yeah, it makes sense that it wouldn't bother you if Bunning's efforts are going to hurt our economic recovery!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------
GREAT post.
It's very frustrating to know that Bunning has voted repeatedly for similar things that weren't funded, things that helped out banks and car manufacturers and the like. Yet when this comes up that directly affects average, ordinary Americans, he chooses it to use to make his point about spending.
I do think that he has a good point, but he has terrible timing and has made a very bad decision in choosing to use this to make that point.
Besides it being utterly heartless, he didn't take into consideration that people would focus more on the affect of his stance has on people rather than the actual point of it.
I think the point is his TERRIBLE track record during his time as KY's rep. when he took no stand what-so-ever. So, why now, other than to play the part of a mean SOB?
hope you are never unemployed
My advice - stop digging.
When Reid got no objections to this bill, he brought it to the floor to be passed through unanimous consent. Why can't you understand that?
So Reid's inept because he can't read some senile senator's mind? Or he's inept because he can't trust McConnell?
My advice - stop digging.
That's fine. Good for you, I guess.
As a proud liberal, I believe that government exists to serve the public's needs and that government should reflect the intrinsic spirit of equality, empathy and responsibility we all share as Americans. We care about each other here. When our neighbors hurt, we hurt.
I believe it is the moral mission of government to protect and empower her people. That means building the infrastructure that enables us all to live in safety and security. It means putting people to work when the market has been allowed to behave like a reckless individual and destroy our economy instead of making the market a tool that we use to create a just and egalitarian prosperity.
The fundamental disagreement I have with conservatism lies in how government is viewed by the right. Conservatives think that governing will disappear if government shrinks. It's a delusion, of course, for as soon as government is removed a corporate entity will step in to take over that role of governing. The only difference is, Shell and ADM, for example, don't care about your freedom, they don't care about democracy. They care about profit, not the public good and they have no accountability to the people.
All of this deficit spending was made necessary by radical conservative tax cuts for corporations and wealthy elitists. When you cut taxes that pay for public needs, like funding for public universities, you shift the tax to students in an increase in tuition. Higher tuition creates fewer students who can afford an education (a scenario that again favors the wealthy) and our country as a whole suffers because we eliminate the creative potential of a better educated society.
People can carp about money but this spending bill is about distributive justice. It's about caring about your fellow citizens, which leads to the principles of freedom and fairness for all.
First, I agree that the government in part exists to serve people's needs, but disagree to the extent it is required to provide those needs. For example, the government's primary purpose is to protect the people. Protect them from what? Mostly from outside invasion, fraud, and other criminal acts. That does not include protection from the harms which are a part of economic cycles or that which is legal. Economies will always have ups and downs, and the government is best served to let those happen and minimally get invovled, if at all. If you look at our Constitution, you will not find anything that expressly states your position, and similarly, you will have a problem finding government invovlement to the extent you would like to see from those who created the Constitution. Why do they matter? Because they created this form of government, and what they had in mind matters in how we should apply this stuff today. If what they said does not matter, then we should scrap it and go with something that we have created rather than live by this 200+ year old document. (Interestingly, Jefferson wanted a revolution every generation or so, but at the same time he wanted an agrarian society that the government barely touched.)
Second, I disagree with your premise that the corporations will take over if there is less Federal government. (I assume you mean Federal government.) We live in a Federal system that divides power between, cities, counties, states, and the federal government. It does not follow that when the federal government gets smaller that Shell (a Dutch company, by the way) will take over. It is more likely that the states, counties, and cities will take over in lieu of a corporation.
You talk of a moral mission of the government to do certain things. I have to ask why go through the government, especially the federal government. Isn't the best and most efficient way to effect the moral duty to protect our fellow citizens to do it directly by yourself?
It is this last point that separates me from liberals, and I think a fundamental difference between the two sides. I do not think the best way to enact change is through the government, but locally at home, and in my own community. It is my responsibility to do so, and not anyone elses.
As to what you say, it is actually debatable the cause of the woes of the nation. Personally, I think the government has done quite a bit to perpetuate the woes. I do not think the corporate world has clean hands, but the government is no better in its moral standing nor its efficiency or effectiveness to remedy these woes.
I fail to understand you cons argument about some founders living over 200yrs. ago that while ascertaining that all men are created equal owned slaves having some knowledge about what should go on in our government in the 21st. century. They wwere not all seeing are all knowledgable and the system they created was is imperfect which is why we have admendments to the constitution.
You give away your bias in asserting that corporations wouldn't take over. WTF do you think is happenning today. We have become a corporatocracy.
We have a federal sysyem not a states rights system. Thank goodness we had the Federal troops to protect the Little Rock 6. If left up to the local and state authorities no telling what would have happened to those children. luckily we had the Supreme court overturn seperate but equal in the Brown v. Boaord decision and have the Federal government there to ensure that what the supremes decided was carried out by the segregationist in the south. It was for the common good that this was done and I hope you are not arguing against the civil war.
The arguments you use against federal power have been used throughout history to keep minorities and workers from sharing in the American Dream. In terms of housing discrimination you argued "you can't force people to live together if they don't want to. It takes time." When bussing was used to integrate the schools the same states right argument appeared. "We don't like being forced to go to school with them. Let us have our own schools." These wwere the excuses used to keep "coloreds" in their place. What if the Federal government had not stepped in to ensure that civil rights legislation was carried out by the states or left it up to local authorities? The fact is that if the Federal government had not stepped in we would not be where we are today. States rights arguments have always been used to deny rights to minorities and workers.
If changes are not enacted by the government how can we solve the many pressing problems we face today,like global warming,dwindling oil supplies and natural resources,research and development of medicines and new technology(that businesses refuse because there are no immediate profits)These questions and more cannot be solved by local or community committees alone. We do have fundamental differences and they are borne out everyday,from your refusal of the public option in healthcare to your callous denial of (now overturned)the extension of unemployment benefits. We no longer live in an agrarian society of small isolated communities of the 18th and early 19th century. The thing is to make government work in the interest of the people,not just the powerful,connected and wealthy.
And, it isn't the GOP that "grew a set". Every single Republican senator supported this bill except Bunning. He's not an anti-spending hero. He's a heartless obstructionist. Make a note of it.
Are unemployment benefits are outrageous?
I think Dave forgot about the little thing we're experiencing called a "recession".
When we are at 'full' employment, then you might have a point. When there are jobs that go begging for someone to fill them then it's true that it's a problem for some people to dishonestly collect unemployment instead of taking one of those jobs.
But when we have unemployment running at close to double digits, that's not the case. If person A gets a job, then person B doesn't get that job, and person B stays on unemployment. If person A doesn't get that job (because of whatever reason, including that they didn't try for it, or that they thought they were too good to flip burgers, or just that they were one of many people who applied for that one position!) and person B does get that job, we still have 1 person getting unemployment benefits!
You act like there are all these jobs out there which are just going unfilled because 75% of those on unemployment insurance are lazy, and there's no evidence that this is the case.
Like I said, your scenario falls apart once you use a little common sense. Too bad you failed to do that before you embarrassed yourself in public.
Just sayin'.
Just sayin'.
Do you really expect anyone here to listen to you say, "well, in MY town, I know I see help wanted signs ALLLL the time..." and think that's a real valuable piece of evidence?
Just sayin'.
"This is hopeful news for our most needy families in Kentucky. By approving this legislation we will help those folks who are currently without work continue to make ends meet until they can find new employment." Passage of this legislation means that there will be no lapse in assistance for the nearly 10,000 Kentuckians who have filed claims so far for extended benefits.
I can't believe you guys are arguing against unemployment insurance benefits(you pay into them)it's a safety net instituted because of the recognition that under capitalism it is impossible and undesireable to have "full" employment. it was a means to keep part of the work force alive and available to work. it was a recognition that workers through no fault of their own would experience hardships created by the ebb and flow of the markets. You guys want to return to the days before this was fought for and established? We've pretty much done away with the 8 hr. day and 40 hr. week.,2 week paid vacations and sick pay,. No overtime or benefits and you call this progress? Well for the capitalist it certainly is. Left up to the titans of industry child labor laws would be abolished as would the right of workers to organize and fight in their own interest. A total utopia for the capitalist,and what do we the workers get for it..."Another day older and deeper in debt."
Remeber this or any other economic meltdown was not caused by those on so-called mainstreet,but by Wall St. greed. It clear what side of the street you so-called cons stand on.
It's totally inadequate evidence to debunk my argument that at times of double digit unemployment, there are multiple people applying for every job and so any job filled by Person A means Person B doesn't get the job, and so is still on unemployment. There are no jobs that go begging for someone to fill them for any lengthy time at all during times like these, so his argument is entirely bogus.
Further, the amount of people going for one job is also irrelevant, except to show that unemployment is high, which we already know. However, it would be less if people would take these jobs.
Further, do you admire someone for sacrificing pride and glamour so that they can individually provide for their family? Or do you look down on people who take such jobs as unwise or some other negative view?
Please, answer honestly. Or, alternatively, better explain what you mean by your first paragraph?
Your second paragraph misses this: for every job that is taken through one of these is one more employed. And, his argument is that these jobs apparently do stay open for some time, or he wouldn't notice them. (Unless, of course, people are just quitting or being fired left and right, and its doubtful people are quitting that much now).
I already explained to you why it doesn't. Go back and reread my post as many times as is necessary for it to get through your thick skull.
You always know your points have prevailed when you get called names from DellDolly.
However, when YOU venture into unfounded personal attacks, then we call can tell that your personal animus has taken over. When you have no facts that will support your argument, it's what you resort to.
Listen to you how insane and nasty YOU'VE become. You accept as evidence someone saying they see "work signs" in their neighborhood therefore 75% of those not working are lazy. You go ahead and run with that skooter, thinking and rational people know better.
People who profess what you an kydem advocate deserve every bit of ridicule and scorn, and outside of your narrow Faux world you got nothing but your fears and selfishness.
I'm going to be in Kentucky next week. Am I going to have trouble getting a hamburger?
If all we have in this country are McDonalds jobs, there will be hamburgers plenty, before no one can afford them.
More stats direct from The Institute of Kydem09's Butt.
Why do you hate your fellow Americans who are searching for a job so much?
Really? So we are supposed to believe an anecdote that goes against national statistics?
Hey, I know you don't believe objects float to the sky when I drop them, but it happens all the time. You don't want to believe it because it doesn't fit into your "gravity" mentality. But I'm telling you the truth.
That's the issue here. Not near enough jobs for all the people who want one.
A statistic *you totally made up!* Are you for real?
So much for 8hrs. work,8hr.s recreation,and 8hrs. rest. 40 work week no more and overtime is being manipulated out of existence as is sick pay. Those things make us lazy. The fact of the matter is that workers productivity has advanced but the compensation he receives has continually diminished. Workers today work harder,produce more,with less security and benefits. Some deal. That progress? Well to the capitalist it certainly is. Now these clowns want to call workers lazy,and advocate against them at every chance,our pound of flesh is not enough for them and we are no need to them unless we're starving and poor and open to used in any capacity they see fit.
The last Great Depression saw the lazy workers standing in soup lines and poverty is on the rise today. The fact of the matter is working flipping burgers won't pay the bills even if their was enough of those jobs. The last depression was resolved by employing those "lazy" people in the armed services to fight WWII., that killed off millions of them...oh the good ole' days.
When the unemployment rate is as high as it is, then there are multiple people applying for every job. If that 'lazy' person gets motivated and applies for a job and gets it, then someone else who was always motivated to look for work doesn't get a job, and we still have someone getting unemployemnt benefits!
This still isn't rocket science.
This is what I'am talking about when I say another con calling himself rational but spouting the SOS.
Why do you assume people aren't taking those jobs? Where is your proof they are not? Unemployment stands at 10% and higher insome areas and among certain demographics,are you alleging this is because too many burger king or Taco Bell jobs are going unfilled?
Unemployment is not for an excessive amount of time. There are no jobs. Do you think you are going to help people by forcing them to lose their houses and beg on the streets?
Is this yet another statistic you are making up? You make a lot of assumptions here.
No, but the rest of your argument is made up. It assumes that there are multiple jobs out there for people to work at, and it assumes that someone could work all those hours. Since minimum wage in KY is $7.25 an hour, you would only gross $15,000 (at most). You would probably only net $10,000. That means you would have to work 80 hours a week to make the same you do on unemployment. You are hardly better off working 80 hours a week, especially if you have a family and need to look for a job in your area.
But again, that assumes there are even two jobs out there--something contradicted by real statistics instead of the ones you make up.
Bush tax cuts for the rich, were they handouts?
Nope, just 75% of them. From earlier:
So yes, lazy fits for about 75% of them
So I guess you're right, you didn't call them slobs, just lazy.
The word "believe" sums up the whole fault with your argument. You simply want to believe there are jobs available, so you make up statistics that contradict real statistics, and rely on anecdotal evidence. That's not a very sound argument.
I don't know who you are addressing. I didn't even follow the anecdote about the teeth. I do know according to multiple studies, the US lags behind the rest of the industrial world in health care. I used studies to found my opinion--not one anecdote.
Again, you simply make up statistics and rely on an anecdote. That is the weakest way to argument, because anyone can produce an anecdote; we don't even know if we can check on it.
As for my "made up" statistics, I never presented the 25%/50%/25% numbers as actual statistics. I stated that this was I believed. If you don't agree, fine.
Because, as should have been and probably was explained, that anecdote is backed up by multiple studies! You don't see a difference between using an anecdote to reinforce a point and one that goes against statistics and can't be backed up?
>>I stated that this was I believed. If you don't agree, fine.
What kind of a response is that? Since you are presenting an argument, isn't it up to you to try to convince me? You seriously don't think you can just make up stats like that, and when someone objects, throw up your hands and say "Well, fine!"
And this "opinion" of yours is proven to be unsupported by the facts, so sure, you can "believe" it if you want, but it's not reality.
People are without jobs and collecting unemployment because there are too many people looking for jobs compared to how many jobs are available.
I've explained this to you countless times. If you still don't understand that your opinion is totally invalid and unsupportable, then it's your ignorance that's to blame.
I am still considered unemployed even though I'm working full-time.
Did you get this statistic from The Institute of Kydem09's Butt?
There are times when deficit spending is absolutely required and undeniably the right thing to do.
This is one of those times. To prevent another Great Depression, we needed the deficit spending. And to help reinvigorate our economy, we need unemployment insurance extensions now without cutting other spending.
Without this deficit spending, our economy will be hurt much more than the damage to our economy from deficit spending.
It's true, as I've written countless times, that there are times when deficit spending is not wise. This is not one of those times.
There are times when it's wise to spend money the gov't doesn't have. You're wrong.
They want to cut spending and cut taxes at the same time as if tax cuts aren't spending money we don't have.
They will rail on the Stimulus Bill as being unfunded spending and we should be cutting taxes but won't recognize the fact that 1/3 of the Stimulus Bill were tax cuts.
do you have the stones to tell someone who can't get a job they are lazy? even though they tried everything possible? no, you won't. you don't have the stones, cause you would get punched so fast it would make your head spin.
What is this in response to? I assume you are being facetious?
Grew a set? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! That's got to be the funniest thing I've read in a long, long time. Since when is unemployment benefits outrageous spending? Daily war [un-necessary (Iraq)] costs are much, much more outrageous IMHO.
If Bunning was "fearless" he would have put a hold on out of control spending by dubya long before he considered retiring.
The Congress exempted emergency, limited funding for programs like this. As they should have.
Sometimes, unfunded economic stimulus is wise and called for and necessary.
Try again.
You are right about the unfunded economic stimulus money, sometimes it is necessary. There is stimulus money still unspent for just such a case, almost a trillion dollars was already allocated for such an occasion. Here is a link to stop any arguements that the money can't be used.
On top of that, when your country is running the kind of deficit spending we are runnning, more spending is hardly wise. Especially when the money as already been allocated.
Therein lies the problem and one of the reasons we are in the fiscal mess we are in. No accountability, no worries about how to pay for something, no problem because everything rolls downhill and let those who will sit in these seats 20 years from now worry about it, not our money so it's no big deal.
Too bad too many people supported the war in Iraq and the 2 tax cuts that Bush pushed through.
But there are times when deficit spending is required and appropriate.
This is one of those times, and so Bunning's actions are indefensible.
You act like because we know that sometimes deficit spending is necessary, we don't care about unnecessary deficit spending.
It'd be YOUR side that supported unnecessary deficit spending, remember, and it'd be YOUR side who is against necessary deficit spending now!
It's YOUR side that is on the wrong side here.
i can e-mail you a list of planned war protests if you would be interested in joining us.
And at time unfunded deficit spending is wise and necessary. This is one of those times.
Bottom line, if you can't justify cutting spending in a less crucial area, then don't come and ask for more. Mr. or Mrs. Congressperson, DO YOUR JOB!
Emergency unfunded deficit spending is wise.
It was wise last January with the financial stimulus bill, it was mostly wise WRT to the bank bailout, and it is wise for this emergency funding of unemployment benefits.
Bottom line, it's not always necessary and wise to demand cutting in one area when you're spending in another area.
You can repeat it as often as you like - you'll be wrong every time you do. It's not a rationalization - it's reality. There are times when it's wise to have deficit spending.
Yes, those crazy economists like Paul Krugman who won a Nobel in economics tells us deficit spending is needed, who clearly shows how it helped during the great depression. Likewise, the stimulus package, also deficit spending, also boosted the economy according to economists. What a bunch of empty rhetoric
so your not saying it should continue on the same token.
How long will this crowd take these insults?
These pundits act like people want to be on unemployment. Well, sure there are some that are just on the doll but most are depending on the money to put food on the table and pay basic utilities until they can find a job. Pay for a mortgage or even rent? - riiiiight
It doesn't matter to them as long as the evil black man remains in the White House and he wants to take away their guns and kill babies.
/sarcasm
I think Limbaugh should be removed from the Radio Hall of Fame....
Then they can go into the real world and earn some real money that isn't conveniently printed on the printing press.
Hear hear! I never use money printed on a printing press! That's for whimps. I carry gold in my pocket. In fact, whenever I get my hands on some green bills, I give them away, knowing they are not real money.
The real world is someting that Jose knows nothing about......
tough luck right? oh well too bad so sad right?
Jose, I can't believe that you are so afraid of the word 'Government' that you hold every government worker in contempt.
Your post holds one of the most inane and naive comments I've ever read in my life. I just hope that you don't actually believe what you type. I also hope that the people around you aren't dumb enough to agree with you.
When you lose your COBRA, any medical condition you have at that time becomes a pre-existing condition.
We've had term limits in California for 10+ years, and the state is literally run by a bunch of novices in both parties. In the past there were a number of very savvy politicians in both parties who found ways to logroll, horsetrade, buy votes, trade favors, etc. but they kept the lights on, the salmon running, top universitys, great schools, and enabled the world's 6th largest economy.
Now, the people writing the laws are lobbyists because they're the only people with long term experience. The monied interests need only threaten negative TV spots or yet another initiative to tie up the budget.
Lobbyist already write the laws, and guess what--I'll bet you there's plenty of them on K Street looking out for your boys here at MMFA.
Please don't speak too ill of lobbyists and 'monied interests', they're people too;)
If the bureaucrats are not at their desks, the rest of us will have more freedom. Hopefully if their furloughs last for more than a few days, we will realize that they are unnecessary and their furoughs will become permanent.