Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Bunning blocks unemployment benefits


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

yeah. adults should not be funny.

 

They should be boring, droll, stuffy...

 

pompous, narrow-minded, sad, glib,

 

judgemental, angry, pouty, self-righteous,

 

communist/progressive/socialist, gruff...

 

and apparently,

 

poof jellybeans out of their nose.

 

(to the tune of "Puff the Magic Dragon")

 

"Heck, poofin jellybeans,

out of his nose,

just would not see "free to disagree",

without his being a run in some hose,

 

Defending the guilty,

Dems in Senate, and the House,

and most of all, giving great big smoochies....

to the obaMao commie in the house ...

 

Oh, poof those jellybeans,

and pretend you can get your way...

and control dissent, to your erroneous posts,

like you do most any dayeeeeeee!

 

America looks to justice, freedom, and resolve,

Not defending the indefensable,

the guilty actions to absolve...

 

Just make them proud of their government,

it should not be so tough.

and all the little progressive hecksters,

should stop defending their stupid stuff !

 

That's 23 seconds. Try it. It isn't easy being a comedian, ya know. @@

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ps I've never met Bob. Last time Cal and I talked it was about the Browns and tomatoes.

 

WSS

 

 

We may have inadvertently met in berea about a year ago, at the Berea fairgrounds. Their was a man who looked identical to you. you dont own an M1 do you?

 

Hey Cal, are you going to grow potatoes this year? I need to find a good place where I can order some seed potatoes. It seems that the locals dont sell them around here. Last year I purchased about 10lbs of them at a small mom and pop hardware store in Reynoldsburg.

 

We will start planting our seeds in trays this weekend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We may have inadvertently met in berea about a year ago, at the Berea fairgrounds. Their was a man who looked identical to you. you dont own an M1 do you?

 

Not me. Unless you mean a Hammond M 1 organ I used to have.

 

I do have a Browning .9 and an Iver Johnson .22 pistol.

Never been to a gun show.

 

WSS

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The boomers pulling their money out of the system is one of those macro things that no one talks about, but is a real concern. I don't think it's going to lead to these nightmare scenarios you envision, but it will put downward pressure on the market for years.

 

Oh I'm not really predicting armageddon but if it's on the way I'd guess the stage will be set better in a couple decades than now.

 

As for war, the two we're in right now aren't enough for you?

 

Chump change histrically.

Nam, Korea, WW2, WW1 and on back.

Seems the world is due for a bench clearing brawl.

 

As for Medicare and Social Security, they have to be reformed with a combination of benefit cuts and higher taxes. The longer we put it off, the harder it is to fix.

 

Just like Nixon going to China, you guys are gonna have to break rank and do it.

You've already painted the republicans as hating the poor. Good luck slashing grandmas retirement and medicine. ;)

 

Hell, you know what my senior year public policy thesis was on? The urgency of entitlement reform. That was 95-96.

 

Heh. In high school I thought the SDS wasn't crazy.

 

Too bad Obama gets tasked with fixing big problems rather than handy out candy like giant tax cuts and free prescription drug benefits. One is a lot easier than the other.

 

But c'mon, can you imagine the rhetoric had the Dems put up the "free medicine for mom" bill and Bush vetoed it???

 

And it seems the tax cuts spurred the recovery.

And we know the hike will slow it down.

But marginal rates aren't that high historically, I realize.

And interest rates havent got much room to play with.

 

WSS

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, you're making my head explode with your false equivalency stuff again.

 

We lived under paygo rules for the entire decade of the 90s, and then it was lifted ...when? And for what purpose?

 

If you want to propose tax cuts, you should pay for them. If you want to propose a new entitlement program, you should pay for it. The Bush White House and the Republican Congress did not pay for either program. They handed out free shit, and put it on the nation's credit card.

 

Meanwhile, the Democrats are proposing a new health care plan that's entirely paid for.

 

Who's being more fiscally responsible with their proposals? (Cue Jeopardy theme.)

 

Take a look at the Post story today on the CBO scoring the Obama budget higher than the White House does. See what the CBO says is causing the problems.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here, I'll post it for you:

 

"Obama is convening a special commission to bring deficits down to 3 percent of the economy, but the CBO report shows that Obama could accomplish that goal simply by letting the Bush tax cuts expire and paying for changes to the alternative minimum tax.

 

Other policy changes, such as Obama's signature health-care initiative and a plan to dramatically expand the federal student loan program, would have significant effects on the budget, Elmendorf wrote, but they generally would be paid for and therefore would not drive deficits higher."

 

It also points out that the other big contributor to the budget gap is Obama's tax cuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, you're making my head explode with your false equivalency stuff again.

 

We lived under paygo rules for the entire decade of the 90s, and then it was lifted ...when? And for what purpose?

 

 

Don't know Heck.

It seems to me that whenever there's a spending limit there's a bi partisan vote to blow it off.

 

Don't you notice that?

 

And are you on record calling for the end of prescription assistance for poor old people?

 

 

 

If you want to propose tax cuts, you should pay for them. If you want to propose a new entitlement program, you should pay for it. The Bush White House and the Republican Congress did not pay for either program. They handed out free shit, and put it on the nation's credit card.

 

And now we'll pay the Visa off with the Matercard and up the ante.

 

Meanwhile, the Democrats are proposing a new health care plan that's entirely paid for.

 

Like I say, we'll see.

It might be the first program in history do come in at budget.

But go for it Dems. Reap the glory or eat the consequences.

 

Who's being more fiscally responsible with their proposals? (Cue Jeopardy theme.)

 

Take a look at the Post story today on the CBO scoring the Obama budget higher than the White House does. See what the CBO says is causing the problems.

 

Hey the tax cuts are coming to an end. Can't be stopped so why should I worry?

 

I do wonder, if just repealing them would magically end this downturn, why Obama the deficit hawk didn't just do it?

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, you're making my head explode with your false equivalency stuff again.

 

We lived under paygo rules for the entire decade of the 90s, and then it was lifted ...when? And for what purpose?

We had a our good ole boy Newt in charge then.

 

If you want to propose tax cuts, you should pay for them. If you want to propose a new entitlement program, you should pay for it. The Bush White House and the Republican Congress did not pay for either program. They handed out free shit, and put it on the nation's credit card.

 

False Statement Bush and a Democratic congress in his last 2 years did not pay for anything. The democratic Congress held Military Funding bills hostage while loading these bills with all kinds of pork and "W" would have to sign it just so our fighting men and women would be taken care of properly.

 

Meanwhile, the Democrats are proposing a new health care plan that's entirely paid for.

At who's expense is this FREE Entitlement going to be charged to.

Sounds like another Bold face Lie!

 

Who's being more fiscally responsible with their proposals? (Cue Jeopardy theme.)

 

Take a look at the Post story today on the CBO scoring the Obama budget higher than the White House does. See what the CBO says is causing the problems.

 

Obama Budget Would Create Highest-ever Deficit

 

Your False statements are very dangerous. :o

 

The Obama budget takes the publicly held debt to 73% and the gross debt to 103% of GDP by 2015, over this precipice. The president's economists peg long-run ...

 

You need to read this... When Deficits Become Dangerous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heck won't read it.

 

No more than he will admit he watched the communist talking

 

adamantly about taking over insurance companies and all of

 

America's farms.

 

We are in very, very serious trouble in our country.

 

Communists and socialists in our gov are in the process of seeing

 

how far they can be successful, how quickly.

 

I'm not saying that that's what the completed jigsaw puzzle is a picture of..

 

but I'm saying that enough pieces have been set in place, to make a very good

 

appraisal of what the rest of the picture is.

 

Heck keeps glossing over everything, ignoring everything to the contrary of his

 

denials. Makes folks wonder who's side he's on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, that wasn't a very good effort. I don't even know what to reply to. Just more shrugging of the shoulders. You can do better.

 

As for proposing new entitlements like the prescription drug add-on to Medicare, my position is that if you want to do something like this you should create a mechanism to pay for it. I don't know why that's so hard to understand. I would even suspect it's something you agree with. Except that you can't because it would mean taking the "liberal" side, even though it's the fiscally conservative - or fiscally responsible - side. And you can't do that because it means making a distinction between two unlike things, and then saying one is better than the other, and that things should be different, and that someone should make them different, and this is all anathema to you. It would mean you have to think harder and give a shit, and you won't do that.

 

As for the thing you claim to not understand, the paygo rules were allowed to expire in 2002 prior to passing the Bush tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefits, which violated paygo rules to the tune of a few hundred billion dollars.

 

Oh yeah, and we also didn't attempt to pay for the war in Iraq, or the one in Afghanistan. But at least those you could make the case that financing them with some deficit spending is a good idea.

 

But yes, now we have to listen to all of the people who said nothing for these decisions - and even supported them - go ballistic now as we try to right the economy. Yes, lets take them seriously.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, that wasn't a very good effort. I don't even know what to reply to. Just more shrugging of the shoulders. You can do better.

 

As for proposing new entitlements like the prescription drug add-on to Medicare, my position is that if you want to do something like this you should create a mechanism to pay for it. I don't know why that's so hard to understand.

 

 

It isn't.

It's pretty much what Bunning said and I doubt you could tell my why life saving drugs for the elderly aren't as important as 6 more weeks on the sofa (Or 3 more days actually) for the unemployed.

And you asked me iuf I wanted to hold out on the UI.

Well, here's a shrug.

So you wanna repeal grandmas meds?

 

Just say yes and we'll move on.

 

I'll catch the rest tomorrow.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we not tell an entitlement program from a 30-day extension of unemployment benefits that doubles as stimulus funding in recession? Aren't they two different things altogether, with vastly different impacts on the budget? Did we not just go through this?

 

Come on, man. Don't make me tune out. This is stuff that requires some basic distinctions.

 

It's okay to admit the Bush administration wasn't very good on budgetary matters, even if it means siding with me. It's hardly a revolutionary idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush wasn't very good at budgets...

 

and ObaMAO IS? ROF,LMAO !

 

I don't think you ever tuned IN, Heck.

 

You're just playing tag with your partisan game,

 

and you never admit you're "it".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we not tell an entitlement program from a 30-day extension of unemployment benefits that doubles as stimulus funding in recession? Aren't they two different things altogether, with vastly different impacts on the budget? Did we not just go through this?

 

Come on, man. Don't make me tune out. This is stuff that requires some basic distinctions.

 

It's okay to admit the Bush administration wasn't very good on budgetary matters, even if it means siding with me. It's hardly a revolutionary idea.

 

 

The Bush obsession isn't really part of this.

You really can't even make a weak case for "Steve as Bush Acolyte."

 

It's the simple reality that no matter who sets what spending limits they disappear as soon as they kick in.

Myabe you're too young to remember the wailing that Newt Gingrich would "shut the government down."

Also no entitlement has ever worked out as cheaply as planned.

Three real change of an entitlement is just about impossible when it's actually showtime.

Speaking of wailing, do you remember who put out the idea of privatizing a little part of SS?

 

 

Just wait until those phantom Medicare cuts come due.

The Republicans will demagogue the issue and the Democrats will happily accept the excuse to let it alone.

 

But you guys are free to lead the fight to slash SS and Medicare.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But paygo rules were in place for over a decade. And in that time we had a shrinking deficit, then a balanced budget, and then a surplus. Republicans have this crazy idea called "starve the beast" when you cut taxes and create such deficits that no new spending is possible. But experience shows that doesn't work, and has never worked. The cutting part never takes place. And what's their answer to that? Cut taxes more, of course.

 

What has worked in the past is forcing people to pay for the new programs they propose. That way people see the benefits and the costs. Fast forward to 2002, and you've got a bunch of people who want to sell the benefits without the costs because it's easier, and you're back to huge deficits.

 

So those limits didn't "suddenly disappear", as you note. They worked, and then they were removed and then they didn't. And now we want to go back to those rules. That's a good thing. Isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But paygo rules were in place for over a decade. And in that time we had a shrinking deficit, then a balanced budget, and then a surplus. Republicans have this crazy idea called "starve the beast" when you cut taxes and create such deficits that no new spending is possible. But experience shows that doesn't work, and has never worked. The cutting part never takes place. And what's their answer to that? Cut taxes more, of course.

 

What has worked in the past is forcing people to pay for the new programs they propose. That way people see the benefits and the costs. Fast forward to 2002, and you've got a bunch of people who want to sell the benefits without the costs because it's easier, and you're back to huge deficits.

 

So those limits didn't "suddenly disappear", as you note. They worked, and then they were removed and then they didn't. And now we want to go back to those rules. That's a good thing. Isn't it?

 

 

What seems to have worked in the past is

A economic bubbles

B split power in Washington.

C "projected" surpluses.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and Steve - you know why they "put out" Bush idea to privatize a part of Social Security? Because they didn't want to pay for that either. If the problem is that the SS has a long-term solvency problem, his plan made that problem worse. In other words, it was bad policy.

 

I happen to think that a private account add-on to SS isn't the worst idea, and there are some other good ideas like starting people with a retirement account at birth. But guess what? It costs a lot of money to make those transitions. And if you don't supply it, you've made the problem you were trying to solve worse.

 

In fact, when Bush was sitting on surplus money, Paul O'Neill came to him and said "You could do this plan, and here's what it's going to cost to implement it." Basically, take the surplus money we have now and you can use it for your plan. And what did Bush do? Blow that money - and then some - on tax cuts, then ask for the plan anyway, but without any dedicated funding mechanism.

 

Free candy for all. The type of thing you usually rail about. Except not here.

 

So yeah, you should kill that plan, which is why the more people learned about it the less popular it became. Just as the Republicans should kill this health bill if they think it'll be the disaster they talk about. I just don't agree that it will be. I think, for all its warts, it will be a sizable improvement over what we have now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are experts who say it will be, Heck.

 

Non-partisan experts.

 

There is reason to believe that it's going to be a disaster.

 

Even blue dog Dems are not going to vote for it for one reason, or another.

 

How can you possibly blame that on Republicans, when Dems USED to have

 

a filibuster proof majority, and STILL wouldn't go for it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're going to put 30 million more Americans into private health insurance plans, and make that insurance better, more secure, and more affordable than it was before, then pay for the plan and lower the deficit in the long run.

 

Some disaster.

 

 

 

I believe that I saw this same joke on jokeoftheday.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty much what Bunning said and I doubt you could tell my why life saving drugs for the elderly aren't as important as 6 more weeks on the sofa (Or 3 more days actually) for the unemployed.

 

Let's get this over with because it keeps coming up. We need to get beyond your obsession with your mythical freeloading majority. It clouds your judgment and leads you to make rotten conclusions, based almost entirely on gruff, or out of spite.

 

The economy is still losing jobs every month. You've got unemployment at 9.7%. That translates to about 15 million Americans who are unemployed, and it's higher than that if you count the people who have given up looking for work. To put it another way, try and imagine every single person in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago unemployed. That's about what we're looking at today.

 

In other words, even if every single person were to live up to Steve's code on conduct for how the unemployed should behave there are still no jobs for them for them to do. They don't exist. It's just math.

 

Do you understand that part? It doesn't seem that you do. According to you, they all could be working if they tried hard enough, or were willing to take a job at Subway.

 

So yes, they could all get off the couch and get a job. At the mythical employer in your head. But in reality, 15 million Americans can't find work because there are no jobs for them to do, and you probably eliminate another 20,000 jobs next month.

 

Got to zoom in, brother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There he goes again, twisting what Steve says, then

 

claims a superior posture on the argument as HE frames it.

 

More dishonest crap, more attempted manipulation...

 

blech.

 

I wish Steve would argue with somebody intelligent enough to stay on topic....@@

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's get this over with because it keeps coming up. We need to get beyond your obsession with your mythical freeloading majority. It clouds your judgment and leads you to make rotten conclusions, based almost entirely on gruff, or out of spite.

 

The economy is still losing jobs every month. You've got unemployment at 9.7%. That translates to about 15 million Americans who are unemployed, and it's higher than that if you count the people who have given up looking for work. To put it another way, try and imagine every single person in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago unemployed. That's about what we're looking at today.

 

In other words, even if every single person were to live up to Steve's code on conduct for how the unemployed should behave there are still no jobs for them for them to do. They don't exist. It's just math.

 

Do you understand that part? It doesn't seem that you do. According to you, they all could be working if they tried hard enough, or were willing to take a job at Subway.

 

So yes, they could all get off the couch and get a job. At the mythical employer in your head. But in reality, 15 million Americans can't find work because there are no jobs for them to do, and you probably eliminate another 20,000 jobs next month.

 

Got to zoom in, brother.

 

I guess what it boils down to is human nature.

There are two parts to this.

First I say that if you want to crucify Bunning for asking that a popular giveaway be halted because it isn't paid for that's one thing.

Seems to me you feel that way about other popular programs.

 

Two is the idea that we differ on our perception of human nature.

That is, IMO, the fact that most everyone I know tends to procrastinate.

And.........

 

Ya see a lot of those out of work are middle agers who were shitcanned as their salaries grew over the years.

Company can get three 25 year olds for the same dough.

So since the old guy probably won't find another job at that salary I wouldn't expect him to take a job that pays the same or less than UI.

 

And as for me (and I bet you too) I consider myself to be among the best at what I do. So if I lost every gig (and if I had UI which I don't) my back will have to be against the wall before I consider a service job.

 

I'd bet you would do the same.

Answer me, Heck, if you got canned and could get a management job at Taco Bell for the same money as UI do you snap it up and keep looking or just search for a job you feel you deserve?

Simple as that.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already answered that. No, I wouldn't, not right away at least. But I don't see why this is a problem. People should make whatever decision is best for them. If they can hold out and find a higher-paying job, good for them. If they have to take work that pays less and has less benefits - and that's what a lot of people end up having to do - that's the harsh reality of the economy we're living in. I don't think the government should try and make what's becoming a very insecure world even more insecure because of our never-ending preoccupation with punishing the undeserving among us.

 

As for the Bunning stuff, we went over that too. He was wrong on two levels - three, really. We can go over them again later if you wish. Got to feed the baby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already answered that. No, I wouldn't, not right away at least. But I don't see why this is a problem. People should make whatever decision is best for them. If they can hold out and find a higher-paying job, good for them. If they have to take work that pays less and has less benefits - and that's what a lot of people end up having to do - that's the harsh reality of the economy we're living in. I don't think the government should try and make what's becoming a very insecure world even more insecure because of our never-ending preoccupation with punishing the undeserving among us.

 

As for the Bunning stuff, we went over that too. He was wrong on two levels - three, really. We can go over them again later if you wish. Got to feed the baby.

 

 

See again you want to mischaracterize me as some ogre who hates the poor.

(well more than I actually do ;) )

I'm saying it's just human nature, whether it's you me Cal Kos Sev or the crackhead down the street.

 

There are a lot of "safety nets" that if eliminated would probably make for a stronger society down the road.

I have enough socialist in me to not demand they be tossed over.

 

Also:

Whaaaa? The little fuc*er isn't feeding himself yet?????

:P

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this is what I think you don't get. I understand your basic idea, and even agree with it. You don't want to create dependency.

 

But you're still missing the point - there are no jobs for these people to do. They don't exist. If you cut them off unemployment, the vast majority of them won't have any income whatsoever. And it's not like the job picture is about to suddenly rebound. It's going to be like this for a while. That's because - yes, Virginia - this is the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

 

Say you get your wish and you cut these people off. Then what happens? Forget about their personal lives for a second. Think of how that affects the economy from a macro level. That's $10 billion you and Jim Bunning just took out of the economy over the next 30 days. Consumers have less money to spend. Less money to make housing payments. Less money to spend at the local store. Those business all suffer from lost income. The economy drags even more.

 

This is why we don't have a "one size fits all" unemployment insurance policy. We extend it in tough times to provide not only assistance to Americans out of work, but also to provide assistance to the economy to help it recover. In better times when job are available to those who want them, we hold true to the time limits.

 

Instead of these larger considerations, you and Jim Bunning were concentrating on your mission of trying to ferret out dependency, insisting that these people could work if they tried, even though it's clear the jobs just aren't there. It doesn't make any sense.

 

And even if you give him the benefit of the doubt that he was for the benefits as long as you could pay for them, doing it that way would subtract the entire stimulative benefit of the additional 30 days of unemployment insurance.

 

Some things make sense to borrow money to pay for. Unemployment insurance in a recession is one of those things.

 

Trust me, Bunning is really not the guy you want to go to the mat for. He's a cranky old man that nobody - not even the Republicans - want around anymore.

 

PS - The only program that Bunning suggested that we cut is a program Obama has tried to cut twice, and it would only make up 1/5 of the cost. He couldn't name anything else he wanted to cut.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of "safety nets" that if eliminated would probably make for a stronger society down the road.

WSS

 

And in the case of health care, I would argue the exact opposite. Providing health care for all Americans would vastly improve the security and welfare of the American people, and make for a stronger, more equitable society down the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...