They are at it Again!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2010 1:10 PM GMT
    Senate Republican holds up jobless benefits
    Buzz up!339 votes Send
    By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer – Fri Mar 26, 3:00 am ET

    WASHINGTON – As Congress raced to leave Washington for its Easter recess, a Republican senator blocked a stopgap bill to extend jobless benefits, saying its $9 billion cost should not be added to the national debt.

    As a result, some people who have been out of work for more than six months will at least temporarily lose benefits. Newly jobless people won't be eligible to sign up for generous health insurance subsidies.

    At the center of the battle is Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who's insisting that the measure be "paid for" so as not to add to the nation's $12.7 trillion debt.

    "What we are doing is stealing future opportunity from our children," Coburn said Thursday.

    Republicans offered legislation to finance the monthlong extension of jobless benefits by rescinding unspent money from last year's economic stimulus bill. The effort was killed on a party-line vote.

    Democrats repeatedly sought speedy Senate approval of a House-passed measure that would extend jobless benefits through May 5, but Coburn objected. Republicans said Senate negotiations produced a compromise that didn't pass muster in the House.

    Jim Manley, a spokesman for Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the Senate would attempt to retroactively bestow the jobless benefits when it returns from its spring recess April 12.

    The practical effect of the lapse in benefits would be limited if they are awarded retroactively. But labor advocates say it produces bureacratic nightmares for state labor departments and that trying to restore the lapsed benefits is easier said than done.

    Reid had the option of keeping the Senate in session to force a vote to try to break through the GOP blocking tactics but instead will revisit the issue in 2 1/2 weeks.

    The clash comes less than a month after Republicans abandoned a similar battle that led to an interruption in unemployment benefits eligibility for some people and a two-day furlough for about 2,000 Transportation Department employees.

    A stopgap law enacted early this month extends though April 5 unemployment insurance for people who have been out of a job for more than six months, provides health insurance subsidies for the jobless and protects doctors from a sharp cut in Medicare payments.

    But another short-term extension of the jobless benefits is needed while House and Senate Democrats work through negotiations on a long-term measure that would provide them through the end of the year. Those talks have slowed, prompting Democrats to move to extend benefits for an additional month.

    Last month, Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., blocked a similar extension of jobless benefits, but Republicans ended up on the losing end of a public relations battle and Bunning backed away.

    The House passed the stopgap bill last week by a voice vote.

    Democratic leaders say that jobless benefits are an emergency and don't need to conform to the new pay-as-you-go budget law, which requires new benefit programs to be offset with spending cuts or tax increases so they don't increase the deficit.

    "We really believe that the unemployment situation is an emergency economic situation. Republicans do not accept that," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the majority whip. "They want to cut off unemployment benefits or pay for it with stimulus funds that are creating jobs."

    My take:

    Don't idiots get it! If they cut off unemployement then these people will be on the welfare rolls or worse resort to breaking the law to feed their families.
    We all pay into the unemployment fund through our payroll deductions.
    This is crazy!
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Mar 26, 2010 3:27 PM GMT
    It's NOT crazy! It's being done to make a point so that Americans, most of whom are not really paying attention, will be enlightened as to how our government is on a non-stop spending spree with no end in sight. It simply cannot go on forever. Where do you suggest they draw the line?

    There are millions of homeless across the U.S. -- should we get them all apartments? 62% of teenagers under 16 still don't own their own iPod -- free iPods for those poor have nots? 1 million welfare moms just had a 3rd, 4th, or 5th baby...should we increase their benefits? Reality is, it simply cannot go on forever. Yes, people are suffering, but it is going to get a lot worse for more people if the government doesn't stop the insanity of spending money we do not have.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2010 3:51 PM GMT
    I guess since JOB CREATION is the last priority, we should just continue to extend unemployment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2010 4:02 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidIt's NOT crazy! It's being done to make a point so that Americans, most of whom are not really paying attention, will be enlightened as to how our government is on a non-stop spending spree with no end in sight. It simply cannot go on forever. Where do you suggest they draw the line?

    There are millions of homeless across the U.S. -- should we get them all apartments? 62% of teenagers under 16 still don't own their own iPod -- free iPods for those poor have nots? 1 million welfare moms just had a 3rd, 4th, or 5th baby...should we increase their benefits? Reality is, it simply cannot go on forever. Yes, people are suffering, but it is going to get a lot worse for more people if the government doesn't stop the insanity of spending money we do not have.



    Nicely said! Couldn't agree more.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Mar 26, 2010 4:17 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidIt's NOT crazy! It's being done to make a point so that Americans, most of whom are not really paying attention, will be enlightened as to how our government is on a non-stop spending spree with no end in sight. It simply cannot go on forever. Where do you suggest they draw the line?

    There are millions of homeless across the U.S. -- should we get them all apartments? 62% of teenagers under 16 still don't own their own iPod -- free iPods for those poor have nots? 1 million welfare moms just had a 3rd, 4th, or 5th baby...should we increase their benefits? Reality is, it simply cannot go on forever. Yes, people are suffering, but it is going to get a lot worse for more people if the government doesn't stop the insanity of spending money we do not have.


    There's a difference between balancing a budget and selectively cutting funding for programs that have an insignificant amount of contribution to that debt, especially when the spending helps keep people afloat so that they can continue to live until they get another job (again, these people aren't not working because they want to; they lost their jobs) and help reduce the deficit through their taxes.

    Second, comparing ipods to unemployment benefits is ludicrous, and I am not even going to say more about that except that claim is truly moronic. And guess what, if a welfare mother has another child, yes, she should get more money. Why? Because it's not the child's fault! How dare you turn this into the mothers. Most social programs are geared towards those who are dependent on others or take care of others who have no means to create a livelihood for themselves. This also neglects the fact that a healthier, educated, and robust population produces a more efficient economy so even though it seems like spending money now, it actually raises profits later.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2010 4:20 PM GMT
    If you have a truly sunny disposition, you'll understand that it's better to let people go hungry, get sick, and have no shelter.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2010 10:25 PM GMT
    calibro saidAnd guess what, if a welfare mother has another child, yes, she should get more money. Why? Because it's not the child's fault! How dare you turn this into the mothers. Most social programs are geared towards those who are dependent on others or take care of others who have no means to create a livelihood for themselves.


    Then maybe those mothers shouldn't be having kids... ever think of that? Also, social programs we can't afford will only reduce the number of available jobs and further impede our recovery.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Mar 26, 2010 10:36 PM GMT
    What a Ding-dong freakin' hypocrite this guy is

    NOW he gets the spirit that things need to be paid for
    after ALL those years where he rubber stamped every ear mark and every unpaid for mandate that Bush put past him

    I'd almost have to applaud the irony of it all if I didn't know that the ONLY reason that he was doing this was to score some political points
    This guy doesn't have a fiscally sane bone in his body

    and what does he hold up funds for????

    Jobless benefits
    The same people he and his party screwed out of a job

    He's screwing again

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2010 10:40 PM GMT
    Fearthefall said
    calibro saidAnd guess what, if a welfare mother has another child, yes, she should get more money. Why? Because it's not the child's fault! How dare you turn this into the mothers. Most social programs are geared towards those who are dependent on others or take care of others who have no means to create a livelihood for themselves.


    Then maybe those mothers shouldn't be having kids... ever think of that? Also, social programs we can't afford will only reduce the number of available jobs and further impede our recovery.


    Thats the problem we have down here, want a pay rise have another baby and also collect a 5 grand baby bonus too. One mother 5 children 5 diffrent fathers. Sexuality may not be a choice for most of us, but having children is.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Mar 28, 2010 3:16 AM GMT
    Fearthefall said
    calibro saidAnd guess what, if a welfare mother has another child, yes, she should get more money. Why? Because it's not the child's fault! How dare you turn this into the mothers. Most social programs are geared towards those who are dependent on others or take care of others who have no means to create a livelihood for themselves.


    Then maybe those mothers shouldn't be having kids... ever think of that? Also, social programs we can't afford will only reduce the number of available jobs and further impede our recovery.


    That doesn't address the issue of what to with child whose parents don't have the means to care for him/her.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Mar 28, 2010 3:17 AM GMT
    Pattison said
    Fearthefall said
    calibro saidAnd guess what, if a welfare mother has another child, yes, she should get more money. Why? Because it's not the child's fault! How dare you turn this into the mothers. Most social programs are geared towards those who are dependent on others or take care of others who have no means to create a livelihood for themselves.


    Then maybe those mothers shouldn't be having kids... ever think of that? Also, social programs we can't afford will only reduce the number of available jobs and further impede our recovery.


    Thats the problem we have down here, want a pay rise have another baby and also collect a 5 grand baby bonus too. One mother 5 children 5 diffrent fathers. Sexuality may not be a choice for most of us, but having children is.


    And being born to a family without the means to take care of you is not a choice either; babies don't choose to be in those situations.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2010 3:20 AM GMT
    calibro said
    And being born to a family without the means to take care of you is not a choice either; babies don't choose to be in those situations.


    Which is why we need to educate would-be mothers about the responsibilities and costs of motherhood. For those unfortunate children, there are programs which do provide for some of their care, however, you can't expect the system to fully take care of everyone, that's unrealistic.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Mar 28, 2010 3:24 AM GMT
    Fearthefall said
    calibro said
    And being born to a family without the means to take care of you is not a choice either; babies don't choose to be in those situations.


    Which is why we need to educate would-be mothers about the responsibilities and costs of motherhood. For those unfortunate children, there are programs which do provide for some of their care, however, you can't expect the system to fully take care of everyone, that's unrealistic.


    Actually, for the amount the money the US has that is wastes, yes, we can afford to if we stopped fighting two dead-end wars and could even help pay-off the deficit at the same time. And stop twisting the numbers. Far from everyone is on welfare and from from all those who are on it are having five babies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2010 3:51 AM GMT
    The brain dead Republicans just don't seem to understand that the money paid out in unemployment benefits is immediately spent by the recipients for the necessities of life they need to survive and provide for their families until they can get another job.
    That money is pumped into the economy, which helps to keep the recovery from the Bush recession going.

    If the Republicans really cared about the American people and about continuing to get the economy full recovered, they'd stop blocking unemployment benefits extensions, and work with the Democrats to find other ways to trim spending.
    But, as President Obama has said, defecit reduction should wait until next year - after the threat of a double dip recession has passed.

    The reality is that Coburn is just another Party First Republican, pulling a political stunt.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2010 3:57 AM GMT
    I so wish I could tar, feather and flay some of these assholes!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2010 4:06 AM GMT
    Well the pattern is clear: it's OK to give billions to big business & banking, but no money to ordinary citizens. I understand this Republican model quite easily; I wonder why it is not understood here?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2010 3:48 PM GMT
    Since when did Americans loosing their unemployment benefits is parallel to one being on welfare? Did you not read the article? The two are not the same. My point was and is if the benefits are cut like the nimrod is trying to do buy stalling it.
    These American will be forced to go welfare to feed there families to pay their rent. I find it funny that you guys are stating that these women should not have these babies they are not creating these babies by themselves, this is not mass immaculate conception. Blaming the victim syndrome.
    That's just crazy!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2010 3:55 PM GMT
    Politicians really are funny about how they want to stop mounting debt. They pick issues and embellish their importance in the need to curb spending, while a) being hypocrites and effectively punishing the poor and b) overlooking behemoths like foreign policy and corruption that drains billions from the public coffers.

    This isn't a partisan issue, either, which is something people need to pull out of their collective asses, but an institutional problem repeated over and over by anyone in the seat.
  • Celticmusl

    Posts: 4330

    Mar 29, 2010 3:57 PM GMT
    Hasn't any of these republicans ever taken an Economics class? The U.S. is a "class system". Over the years in the U.S. there is about a 5% chance that you will be able to elevate your status out of your class. If you were born middle class, you're likely to stay that way. If you were born into poverty, you learn to live in poverty.

    I'm sure with the lack of jobs over the last few years there will be even more people living in poverty, but no one wants to live in poverty.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Mar 29, 2010 4:06 PM GMT
    Since the republicans were subordinated with health care, I think there won't be too much joint work in the next few months. The Repubs may feel that they have a "right" not to do anything since they lost health care. Of course after being encouraged to participate before, they did nothing.. so I guess the outcome is the same regardless.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2010 4:09 PM GMT
    In the past several years only 1.3 percent of those borned into poverty were able to rise above it whereas the poverty rate among seniors have been on a steady incline. I'm quite sure those figures are quite high for those who for the first time in their lives are having to deal with living below not even at the poverty level. I find it troubling for those who don't even know what the face of poverty looks like to make assumptions.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Mar 29, 2010 4:30 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidIt's NOT crazy! It's being done to make a point so that Americans, most of whom are not really paying attention, will be enlightened as to how our government is on a non-stop spending spree with no end in sight. It simply cannot go on forever. Where do you suggest they draw the line?

    Back at Bush's first election. Then we wouldn't have to spend so much money fixing his fuck-ups!

    There are millions of homeless across the U.S. -- should we get them all apartments? 62% of teenagers under 16 still don't own their own iPod -- free iPods for those poor have nots? 1 million welfare moms just had a 3rd, 4th, or 5th baby...should we increase their benefits? Reality is, it simply cannot go on forever. Yes, people are suffering, but it is going to get a lot worse for more people if the government doesn't stop the insanity of spending money we do not have.

    Wow. IPODS versus food and shelter. WOW...