Bunning blocks unemployment benefits

[Pumpkin Eater]

T, Heck is right here 100%. At least in the statement below.

 

Yes, let's cut unemployment benefits for people in recession. That way, according to Senator Kyl, they'll want to go out and apply for all those jobs that don't exist.

 

Why is that wrong? So you are telling me if you lost your job, and your benefits ran out you'd be hitting Subway in the morning and Telemarketing at night? Come on T. So you'll work 80 hours a week to make sure ends meet?

 

Yeah, I love getting $275 a week, using all my savings to pay the bills, sending out resumes for any and every job I can think of without getting a single call back. It's euphoria.

 

Being self-employed is a choice you made and you should have known the drawbacks when you made that choice. I have paid taxes into the system for unemployment insurance for 9 years without using a benefit before recently losing my job.

 

This asshole didn't hesitate to pass a multi-billion dollar defense budget but now when it comes to helping Americans he starts asking questions?

[Pumpkin Eater]

I watched Olbermann's show too Heck.

You guys really are off the deep end over Bunning.

But:

Kyl is probgably right.

I don't know a lot of folks on unemployment that really bust ass to get a job until the benefits start to run out.

 

And really Heck, why would you?

 

You get hosed out of a good paying job so the unemployment is likely close to or more than the available jobs are paying?

One would be a fool to not take that benefit.

 

Good for the economy? Probably not. Understandable? Sure.

 

WSS

 

wow, I don't think so. I'm disappointed in you. I could make $275 a week at McDonalds, but even they aren't calling back.

[Mr. T]

Have you ever thought that just maybe since the majority of the people are not excepting the change that Obama and the rest of the progressives want to give us is because everyone is sitting to comfortable even with making less money via unemployment that they are rejecting this monster health care bill and the expansion of a larger government.

 

Well just maybe if we put the squeeze on them they will except whatever is offered when everything else runs out.

 

 

Im not saying this is the case but its worth discussing. Who knows? How did Stalin force people to submit.

[heckofajobbrownie]

No, that didn't occur to me. Because I'm not insane.

[calfoxwc]

But I think you are a liar Heck, just like your stained poster of the wall hero, obaMao.

 

I enjoy reading Sev's stuff, he's sincere.

 

You, imho, are just a fraud, a political hack who would be happy

 

to get promoted like a good little communist, that is how you "talk".

 

And all you do here, I think, is play word games, and you are not sincere at anything.

 

Maybe my opinion about you is wrong. But you fail to cease reinforcing my opinion of you,

 

in most of your posts, with the exception of a few.

[heckofajobbrownie]

So let me ask again, if you think the vast majority of unemployed are doing their best to find work why wouldn't you want to make coverage open ended?

 

And why am I not surprised you dodged the question concerning whether you'd take a shit job rather than accept unemployment.

 

WSS

 

First, I would make it largely open-ended in times like these. I think we're going to need to. But you're fishing for something that's not there. If people are really looking for work and there's work available, they're going to find it before the time limit kicks in. Time limits aren't there for the people who look for work. They're there for the people who don't.

 

This is why we extend UI benefits in times of high unemployment using emergency spending bills rather than with permanent changes to the law. You want to keep the flexibility to adjust in times of high unemployment, but keep people from taking advantage of the system in better economic times, even if it's just a minority who does so. Isn't that what you want?

 

Second, I don't mind if some people forgo a "shit job" and try and wait for a better opportunity. They should make the decision that's best for them. Are you suggesting we should force them to take the shit job, one that, say, doesn't pay their bills or give them benefits?

 

One of these days you're going to start worrying about the things that really affect the budget, and stop focusing of the "illiterate welfare criminals" and the people who use unemployment insurance to their advantage. You'll always be able to find people who game the system - with any policy, or in any private industry. You do your best to minimize it with common sense laws.

 

But you can spend your whole life in that sand, and I feel like you spend far too much time in it as well.

 

 

 

[Mr. T]

Heck is showing his true colors.

 

Why would anyone be shocked in what he types.

 

So Heck when did you join sides with ruthless bastards? and where are the jobs that your Messiah Obama continues to tell us he has created with all of the trillions of dollars that he has spent? He Lies!

 

Get over it Heck, your messiah is a puppet of Mr. George Soros the same man who is on the verge of cashing in on the fall of the euro.

 

 

Man who broke the Bank of England, George Soros

 

 

[calfoxwc]

Oh, I'd bet Heck would lick Soros' toes.

 

I think he's like that.

[Westside Steve]

benefits?

 

One of these days you're going to start worrying about the things that really affect the budget, and stop focusing of the "illiterate welfare criminals" and the people who use unemployment insurance to their advantage.

 

 

And since we both agreed on just that point (that it's really not a big drain on the hard economics) I'll assume you make that statement in jest.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not trying to be an ignorant prick.

 

Though unlike you I don't see illiterate welfare crimiminals as a positive social force.

 

 

 

You'll always be able to find people who game the system - with any policy, or in any private industry. You do your best to minimize it with common sense laws.

 

You do?

 

But you can spend your whole life in that sand, and I feel like you spend far too much time in it as well.

 

Only in your intentionally mischaracterized world, Pollyanna.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Steve, I do work 13-14 hours a day. I can't spend all my time answer your points. I'll get to them when I can and if I care.

 

Trust me, it's not because they're devastating. It's just more of your obsession with exceptions to the rule.

 

 

Not wasting valueable work time to bicker with me is perfectly understandable Heck.

 

Luckily you have time to squeeze in a little unsolicited race baiting.

That must take less time.

 

WSS

[calfoxwc]

Some of the people around obaMao DO want a different economic system Heck.

 

They have SAID SO.

 

Do we really have to post the videos of them SAYING IT so you can ignore them?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, you're in a grumpy mood already? You just woke up!

 

The point being every time we discuss any issue you instantly go to the threat that some people might try to game the system. This is always your biggest concern. It's never the problem that's being addressed. You prefer to live in the world where everyone is a scam artist.

 

Like in this case, even when you agree with the idea of extending unemployment benefits, you're focusing on the idea that not 100% of people on unemployment are actively looking for work.

 

Do you want to change the law in any way? No, doesn't seem like it. You'd just like us to acknowledge that lazy people exist.

 

Um, okay.

[Westside Steve]

Steve, you're in a grumpy mood already? You just woke up!

 

I've been up since 6 AM dog.

 

The point being every time we discuss any issue you instantly go to the threat that some people might try to game the system. This is always your biggest concern. It's never the problem that's being addressed. You prefer to live in the world where everyone is a scam artist.

 

No Heck.

Human nature.

Not even evil.

People tend to put stuff off until the last minute.

 

Yeah I know, everybody but Demmocrats....

 

Like in this case, even when you agree with the idea of extending unemployment benefits, you're focusing on the idea that not 100% of people on unemployment are actively looking for work.

 

I'd say very few until it's getting close to the end.

Unless something really cool comes up.

 

Do you want to change the law in any way?

 

Didn't they just do that? And Bunning slowed it down for a couple days? But hell everybody deserves a little break.

 

 

No, doesn't seem like it. You'd just like us to acknowledge that lazy people exist.

 

Um, okay.

 

I'm not even calling them lazy. Just stating a fact.

You're just hard wired to oppose it.

 

WSS

[calfoxwc]

Heck, you seem to live in a world where there are no scam artists,

 

just bought and paid for votes for the Democratic party, and it doesn't

 

matter how they get bought and paid for.

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

No, they didn't just change the law. We just went over this!

 

They simply extended the benefits another 30 days. Which we both agree should be done. But you want me to acknowledge that not all people are actively seeking employment to the best of their abilities, which is self-evident and I've already done it, but you'd like me to stop opposing that idea that I didn't oppose.

 

Let's do this all day.

[Westside Steve]

No, they didn't just change the law. We just went over this!

 

They simply extended the benefits another 30 days. Which we both agree should be done. But you want me to acknowledge that almost no

people are actively seeking employment to the best of their abilities, which is self-evident and I've already done it, but you'd like me to stop opposing that idea that I didn't oppose.

 

Let's do this all day.

 

They didn't skirt the pay go rule?

 

Good.

So you're now a Bunning supporter and Kyl fan.

 

Welcome. Don't be shy about helping yourself to punch and cookies.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

No, they didn't. Paygo doesn't affect emergency spending bills. And the Republicans tried to kill Paygo anyway. Because they're so serious about spending restraint. And you don't want to pay for the UI extension now anyway. You want to pay for it later. That way the extension creates demand, which is what the economy needs right now.

 

So no, clearly not a Bunning fan, or a Kyl fan. Bunning is clueless. Kyle is making small points and missing the larger issue, and so are you.

[Mr. T]

From the horses mouth and not Hecks dilutional opinion.

 

By Jim Bunning

 

I have been serving the citizens of Kentucky for nearly 24 years in Washington. During that time I have been a member of both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. I have taken thousands of votes in relation to spending the taxpayers' money. I will be the first one to admit that I have cast some bad votes during my tenure, and I wish I could have some of them back. For too long, both Republicans and Democrats have treated the taxpayers' money as a slush fund that does not ever end. At some point, the madness has to stop.

 

Over a month ago, Democrats passed and President Obama signed into law the "Pay-Go" legislation. It calls on Congress to pay for bills by not adding to our debt. It sounds like a common sense tool that would rein in government spending. Unfortunately, Pay-Go is a paper tiger. It has no teeth. I did not vote for the Democrats' Pay-Go legislation because I knew it was just a political dog-and-pony show to get some good press after some political setbacks. Since the Pay-Go rule was enacted, the national debt has gone up $244,992,297,448.11 (as of Wednesday, that is).

 

 

Pay Go Hype Here

 

If you read the whole article, you will see that Bunning voted it down because the Democrats were already going to go against the paygo law and pass more spending without having a way to pay for it.

 

Later he gets shanghi'd by Reid and the rest of them when they do come to an agreement.

 

Why now?

 

Last week, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., asked to pass a 30-day extensions bill for unemployment insurance and other federal programs. Earlier in February, those extensions were included in a broader bipartisan bill that was paid for but did not meet Sen. Reid's approval, and he nixed the deal. When I saw the Democrats in Congress were going to vote on the extensions bill without paying for it and not following their own Pay-Go rules, I said enough is enough.

 

Many people asked me, "Why now?" My answer is, "Why not now?" Why can't a non-controversial measure in the Senate that would help those in need be paid for? If the Senate cannot find $10 billion to pay for a measure we all support, we will never pay for anything.

 

America is under a mountain of debt. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said in a hearing last month that the United States' debt is unsustainable. We are on the verge of a tipping point where America's debt will bring down our economy, and more people will join the unemployment lines. That is why I used my right as a United States Senator and objected.

 

 

[b]Only in Washington[/b]

 

After four legislative days of impasse, I reached a supposed deal with Majority Leader Reid to have an up-or-down vote on a pay-for amendment that would fully fund the legislation and not add to the debt. Only minutes before the vote, Democrats used a parliamentary maneuver to set aside my amendment and not vote on the actual substance of it. Only in Washington could this happen. The Democrats did not want to vote on my amendment because they knew they were in the wrong and ignored their own rules. Hypocrisy again rules the day in Washington.

 

I have 40 grandchildren, and I want them to grow up in a country where they have all of the same opportunities I had as a child. I fear that they will not have those opportunities if Washington continues on its course of spending without paying for it. We are at over $12 trillion in debt. I know many Americans sit around their kitchen table and make the tough decisions. It is time for the politicians in Washington to do the same.

 

So in reality Bunning is a man that shows he has integrity and the liberals try to persecute him for it. What a Joke!

[heckofajobbrownie]

What it shows is that Bunning doesn't even have a basic understanding of economics.

[Westside Steve]

And the Republicans tried to kill Paygo anyway. Because they're so serious about spending restraint.

 

 

So which position are you against again?

 

WSS

[Mr. T]

What it shows is that Bunning doesn't even have a basic understanding of economics.

 

What a clueless statement you make.

 

Where does the national debt stand today? Lets go back to the article......that is if you will read it.

 

 

America is under a mountain of debt. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said in a hearing last month that the United States' debt is unsustainable. We are on the verge of a tipping point where America's debt will bring down our economy, and more people will join the unemployment lines. That is why I used my right as a United States Senator and objected.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I try not to engage you because you're a crazy person who believes in every paranoid conspiracy theory short of faking the moon landings, but there's a difference between structural debt and short-term debt. We need to address our long-term debt, but in the short term we need to run significant deficits in order to stabilize the economy and create demand.

 

Emergency extensions of unemployment insurance are not major contributors to the long term debt, and they're not structural. And they're needed right now. We can cancel the extensions when the economy recovers to solid footing. That may be a while.

 

Paying for them now by cutting an equivalent amount of spending somewhere else, as Bunning wanted to do, doesn't make any sense. It would simply negate most or all of the stimulative effects of the additional spending.

 

Plus, we want to scuttle the economy, enforce a barter system, house the interlopers in camps, and force you to accept our New World Order.

 

This has been Sane People Talking To Terrified Crazy People. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

[Mr. T]

Well if you insist on the crazy jesture i must blame that on the wolf pack that raised me.

 

If you are going to be serious about cutting the debt you have to start somewhere, and who knows what the thinking of Bunning's was at the current time. Maybe he thought that he would be able to bring to light the fact that the democrats dont have any intrest in cutting costs and made his stand on unemployment benefits knowing that it would grab national media attention. The only thing we can go by for his motives on voting no is by what he explained in the article that I presented to you.

 

 

So my question to you, the man in the straight jacket (Heck) is do you feel that harry Reid and the rest of his cronies are serious to live up to the laws that they pass? (in reference to "Pay-Go").

 

And you already know the answer to that, we have just disclosed that they dont. here

 

So how will you explain to us without the name calling that Harry Reid and his partners in crime have come up with a way to pay for the unemployment benefit extension.

 

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

For the explanation for paygo rules and why they don't apply to emergency spending provisions, see above.

 

For the explanation of why we shouldn't pay for unemployment insurance extensions right now, see directly above.

[calfoxwc]

Heck, Steve keeps getting the best of you, I have more than once, and T just did.

 

You sound like Bill Clinton in a drunken stupor.

 

"welllll, you suck and eh...um... youuuuuurrrrre wrrrong, becuz

 

I uh...know what the difinishun of "is" ...izzzzz.

 

ha ha. (hiccup)"

 

Dang, Heck, you are the biggest, phoniest crybaby on the board.

[Mr. T]

The pack of wolves are waiting on Hecks reponse to the question.

 

Heck cannot give an honest reply.

 

waiting until the cows come in.

[Westside Steve]

I hope this will make sense.

 

As I see it the growing deficit and reckless spending is going to cause a bigger problem for the US than we expect.

Many who usually vote Republican were displeased with the spending over the last decade and now it's getting worse by leaps and bounds.

 

I also fully understand the desire to push that off a few years down the road.

It's a lot like those credit based furniture stores that sell a houseful of shit that you don't have to pay for until a later date.

That date does arrive though, and then you're stuck paying for a bunch of ratty old furniture beyond the time it falls apart.

 

Many of us know someone on UI and figure what the hell. Somebody works hard year after year and loses a job might as well take what's offered.

 

So sure, Heck, I get it. Just as you get it that the bill will come due.

But like the average guy if the wolf isn't scratching at the door we tend to procrastinate.

Not to mention that tens of trillions of dollars are just too surreal for most to comprehen.

 

I think the Obama team keeps afloat by promising more and more free shit to people who are too willing to overlook the cost.

 

As for you, I think you're bright enough to understand that, and you\d probably agree if it weren't so important to you to bicker.

 

I don't have kids but I'll be sorely disappointed to see my hard earned retirement savings squandered.

 

Hopefully you'll respond with something other than tjhe usual "you hate poor people" routine.

 

WSS

[calfoxwc]

I think, Steve, with all our honesty about our thoughts on what's going on, regardless of our differing opinions,

 

Heck is just a political hack, who is only here, to figure out a way to manipulate public opinion. That is, middle of the road,

 

open minded, more independent public opinion.

 

Political hack. EVEN his SCREEN NAME is just a slap at George Bush. His SCREEN NAME, for cryin out loud.

 

Go do a search on it...

 

Can you imagine if one of us had "obaMao is freeedom's enemy" as a screen name?

 

Or "Obamasays57 states" or "obaMaoIsaCORPSE_Man" ?

 

How sick is it, to have even your -screen name- be a politically idealogical identification of yourself?

 

And he criticizes any of us for being "partisan" ?

 

Isn't that like the old Soviet Union saying that our country is a threat to the freedom

 

of people in the Ukraine?

 

We're seeing in this "president" now. Say one thing, do another. Smoke and mirrors.

 

Intimidate, manipulate, separate, denigrate.

 

Look at how Heck starts personally insulting anyone who really disagrees with him.

 

That is why he really wants to experiment with Steve. Steve is more independent, and apparently

 

is the ideal subject for Heck's focus, politically.

 

With manipulators, there is no place for principles. That's why you see them pitifully contradicting themselves,

 

saying things you KNOW they KNOW aren't true...

 

They know some things they say aren't true. The joke on America is, they just want to manipulate

 

public opinion ***by any means necessary***. If that means, creating a "civilian security force", so be it.

 

If that means controlling them by financial (hmmm), health (uh oh), energy use (oh no), or phoney mass emotional appeals

 

(man made global warming boo hoo bunch of crap)... so be it. By any... means....necessary. That is why they lie, cheat,

 

whatever it takes.

 

You just figure out what to say to get the result you want. You lie out your wazoo.

 

And, I didn't even make this a separate thread. But it could be, eh?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, where I think your wrong is the idea that Obama promises "free shit" to people to stay afloat. You're being overly cynical here, and again I think you're missing where the majority of deficit comes from. It's not from Obama's "reckless spending." Obama's spending is largely concentrated on an effort to turn the economy around, not to give "free shit" to people for political reasons. I think that kind of stuff is not isn't very well thought out or supportable. It gets you too close to the zany wing. You shouldn't be there.

 

As for pushing the costs down the road, I'm specifically talking about stimulus measures, and UI is one of the most effective stimulus measures in the government's arsenal. Set aside the moral or altruistic dimensions for now. The money you give to people who have little through UI goes right back into the economy, and it has a multiplier effect. It's extends the safety net in a really difficult time and it's good economic policy. That's why it's done, not to shower some group with benefits that will pay dividends come election time.

 

And again, if you're concerned with the people who use our political system for individual monetary gain, you're really looking in the wrong place. One of these days, brother, you'll see who owns the halls of Congress. And it's not poor people.

 

As for structural deficits, they needs to be addressed now, and especially after the economy recovers. And any discussion of long-term structural deficits starts with health care, then includes entitlements. Which is why we're reforming health care. You can't address the long term deficits without it.

 

And T, really. You asked me something about Paygo that Steve had already asked me and that I'd already answered. So I pointed you to where I had already answered your question. Then you asked me to answer about how we're going to pay for the unemployment insurance extension, which I'd also answered. So I pointed you to that too. Then you ask me again, complete with a touchdown dance, as if somehow you've stumped me.

 

You're just a fool.

[Chicopee John]

And again, if you're concerned with the people who use our political system for individual monetary gain, you're really looking in the wrong place. One of these days, brother, you'll see who owns the halls of Congress. And it's not poor people.

 

I agree with you, Heck. However, oftentimes, the halls of Congress are owned by very rich folks who pander to poor people and throw them bones so that they vote for them and, thus, maintain the same cycle.

 

This isn't exclusive to one party, necessarily, but the bones might be in different flavors.

 

Congress is a large part of the problem and, unfortunately, seem capable of being only a very small slice of the solution.