• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate OKs jobless aid after Sen. Bunning relents

danarhea said:
Senator Jim Bunning has finally caved, but before people start portraying him as a senile, heartless bastard, they should know what he was asking for. Simply put, he wanted the Democrats to fund the measure, so that it would not add to the already ballooning deficit.

Yes, Jim Bunning is a senile old bastard, but he seems to be a fiscally responsible bastard, who I agree with on this issue. We expected the Democrats to try and wear him down, but what the hell is wrong with Republicans, who turned on him and hung him out to dry? All he was asking for was for Congress to FUND THE BILL, and NOT ADD TO THE DEFICIT.

GOP <> fiscal Conervatism

GOP = RINO

We need a new party, folks. The Republicrats are out of control.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

No, Republican does not necessarily mean conservative. In fact, conservatives are much like whooping cranes in Washington.

I don't think he is senile, but he had the cojones to stand up and take an unpopular stand he must have known would be misconstrued as showing no compassion for the poor and downtrodden. We need more people who are willing to stand up and say, "Hey, didn't we just pass a pay as you go? Are we going to ignore it already? Let's pay for this measure!"

Somewhere, someone has to stand up and say, enough is enough. We can't continue to fund the government by printing more money or borrowing it.

Sure, extending unemployment benefits was the right thing to do. Paying the rent is the right thing to do, too, but the tenant can't continue to put it on the MasterCard.
 
Deuce said:
When was the last time a Republican/Conservative reduced the deficit?
Click to expand...

Richard Nixon did so in 1969. He was the last conservative president. Since then all Republican presidents have been fascists, not conservatives. They've gone so far to the right, they make arch conservative Dick Nixon look like a liberal. The Democrats today are the conservative party, the Greens are the liberals, and the Republicans are the fascists. The Republican Party is 100 percent owned by the corporations and does not represent the interests of the American people one iota.

The Republican Party started two unnecessary wars that had nothing to do with defending the country, which have massively run up the deficits. Now they're complaining about deficit spending in the mess they created.

The way to get the budget back in balance is to pull out of both wars!

The next step, which would not have anything to do with balancing the budget, but which would be the right thing to do, would be to arrest George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice and put them on trial for crimes against humanity. They deserve to spend the rest of their lives in prison for betraying their country.

And shame on the evil people who supported them. Anyone who votes Republican betrays their country every bit as much as if they supported Al Quaida. The Republican Party is a fascist party and is the enemy of the United States. It's unAmerican to vote Republican.

Obama is far, far too conservative. He won't have George W. Bush arrested for treason even though it's obvious he should. Justice would be if George W. Bush spent the rest of his life in a small cell wearing an orange prison jumpsuit and eating bologna sandwiches and if the Republican Party were abandoned by the American people and died, if all Americans finally had affordable health care. And, yes, if our budget were finally in balance, and never again unbalanced by the Fascist Republican Party.
 
danarhea said:
From your own link:
Click to expand...

Yes, I saw that, hence my question at the end of the reply. However, there was this from the paragraph which followed:

The estimated costs of P.L. 108-1 are somewhat different when estimated using more current economic and technical assumptions. Using updated assumptions, CBO estimates that outlays stemming from the new law in fiscal year 2003 will rise to $7.6 billion, that the five-year net total will be $6.8 billion, and that the net budgetary impact for the 2003-2013 period will be $6.3 billion. Outlays in 2003 will be higher than under the March 2002 baseline assumptions largely because CBO's current estimates for unemployment compensation reflect a higher average benefit received by unemployed individuals. Also, as a result of a less favorable outlook for balances in the federal unemployment trust fund, no future transfers to the state accounts are expected in the next several years, even without the enactment of P.L. 108-1. Consequently, we now expect this legislation to have a much smaller effect on state unemployment taxes over the 2003-2013 period than under the March 2002 assumptions.​

If you look at the table below that, the revenue shown, does not offset even close to the entire cost, $1.2 million. Unless I added it up wrong.

I just don't see that this was paid for. But then maybe I'm still not getting it.
 
This is how I see this one:

1. Debt spending to boost the economy during crisis:
- good use of debt spending, a good investment

2. Finding fat to trim off the too-large government to avoid or to reduce the amount of debt needed to fund arguably critical job spending, especially in this time of high debt and spending:
- good. And good use of leverage to get two things "good" done at once

3. The political risk of obstructing *for even very good reasons* a jobs bill at this time?
- Too high for conservatives to back him.

So it's most likely the voting public that is at fault. If they don't force their representitives to reduce debt and spending, they won't, and shouldn't (arguably) do it.
 
Luna Tick said:
Richard Nixon did so in 1969. He was the last conservative president. Since then all Republican presidents have been fascists, not conservatives. They've gone so far to the right, they make arch conservative Dick Nixon look like a liberal. The Democrats today are the conservative party, the Greens are the liberals, and the Republicans are the fascists. The Republican Party is 100 percent owned by the corporations and does not represent the interests of the American people one iota.

The Republican Party started two unnecessary wars that had nothing to do with defending the country, which have massively run up the deficits. Now they're complaining about deficit spending in the mess they created.

The way to get the budget back in balance is to pull out of both wars!

The next step, which would not have anything to do with balancing the budget, but which would be the right thing to do, would be to arrest George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice and put them on trial for crimes against humanity. They deserve to spend the rest of their lives in prison for betraying their country.

And shame on the evil people who supported them. Anyone who votes Republican betrays their country every bit as much as if they supported Al Quaida. The Republican Party is a fascist party and is the enemy of the United States. It's unAmerican to vote Republican.

Obama is far, far too conservative. He won't have George W. Bush arrested for treason even though it's obvious he should. Justice would be if George W. Bush spent the rest of his life in a small cell wearing an orange prison jumpsuit and eating bologna sandwiches and if the Republican Party were abandoned by the American people and died, if all Americans finally had affordable health care. And, yes, if our budget were finally in balance, and never again unbalanced by the Fascist Republican Party.
Click to expand...

What a load of garbage... I don't even know where to start, so I'll just throw out this little tidbit for you.

Obama's Stimulus Bill cost almost as much as all war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The wars have cost $944 billion dollars in total since 9/11. Obama's stimulus is costing us $787 billion.

The war costs are tiny when compared to the drunken binge Obama's been on.
 
What's this?

You mean President Obama made it a point to make a big political deal through huge rhetoric about the irresponsibility of congress and needing Paygo and the media and democrats rejoice and then when someone actually wants us to actually go by that very principle he's a senile crotchety old man.

Who'd have thought. I thought all of Obama's rhetoric that he used and the media and liberals slurped up ALWAYS turned out to be truthful

:roll:
 
Gill said:
What a load of garbage... I don't even know where to start, so I'll just throw out this little tidbit for you.

Obama's Stimulus Bill cost almost as much as all war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The wars have cost $944 billion dollars in total since 9/11. Obama's stimulus is costing us $787 billion.

The war costs are tiny when compared to the drunken binge Obama's been on.
Click to expand...

Yep, this doesn't mean the wars are fiscally responsible at all. But its completely disgusting partisan politics to rail and rail and rail against the Wars and Bush's deficits and say nothing about the Stimulus or Obama.

Obama's deficit in his first year was twice that of the largest one Bush ever ran. Obama's first year deficit is larger than the next four largest of Bush's, COMBINED. Obama's first year and projected second year deficits are larger than ALL EIGHT YEARS of George Bush.

To rail against Bush's deficits, and to imply that somehow stopping the wars is going to fix it all financially without even muttering a word about Stimulus and Obama's spending, is pure hyper partisanship without an OUNCE of objective critiquing of the situation.
 
ptif219 said:
Are unemployment payments paid directly to the people?
Click to expand...

The real question is whether or not it is a permanent law or an appropriation.

Does the extension have an expiration date? Yes, therefore it is not direct spending.
 
drz-400 said:
The real question is whether or not it is a permanent law or an appropriation.

Does the extension have an expiration date? Yes, therefore it is not direct spending.
Click to expand...

Nice spin but the democrats want pay go then want to manipulate what it covers. More BS from Obama that means nothing.
 
Gill said:
What a load of garbage... I don't even know where to start, so I'll just throw out this little tidbit for you.

Obama's Stimulus Bill cost almost as much as all war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The wars have cost $944 billion dollars in total since 9/11. Obama's stimulus is costing us $787 billion.

The war costs are tiny when compared to the drunken binge Obama's been on.
Click to expand...

Have a link to the warfare costs? I remember reading something about how a lot of the spending was totally off the books on some emergency spending clause. I'm wondering how they calculate all of that.
 
Zyphlin said:
Yep, this doesn't mean the wars are fiscally responsible at all. But its completely disgusting partisan politics to rail and rail and rail against the Wars and Bush's deficits and say nothing about the Stimulus or Obama.
Click to expand...

Right on. It is a combination of wars and the stealfromus packages that have us with our national MasterCard overextended, no question about it.

Zyphlin said:
Obama's deficit in his first year was twice that of the largest one Bush ever ran. Obama's first year deficit is larger than the next four largest of Bush's, COMBINED. Obama's first year and projected second year deficits are larger than ALL EIGHT YEARS of George Bush.
Click to expand...

However, 700 billion of that deficit was signed into law by Bush in the form of TARP funds.

The current deficit is the Bush/Obama/ Congress deficit, not owned by any one person.

Zyphlin said:
To rail against Bush's deficits, and to imply that somehow stopping the wars is going to fix it all financially without even muttering a word about Stimulus and Obama's spending, is pure hyper partisanship without an OUNCE of objective critiquing of the situation.
Click to expand...

True. Now, just imagine where we might be without having fought a war on credit and without having tried to spend our way to prosperity. Imagine where we might be if our government had not only refrained from the above, but had regulated such as AIG, Fannie May and Freddy Mac, thus preventing the current recession. Just imagine the US, in short, with a functional federal government.
 
Erod said:
Many of which are riding that gravy train as long as they possibly can. THOSE are the ones who'd benefits are being extended, not the recently laid off that are actually searching.
Click to expand...

Really?

The extension means if an individual was about to exhaust their state benefits and about to exhaust a tier of emergency unemployment compensation, they are eligible to apply to move up to the next tier. However, if an individual is about to exhaust their final tier or extended benefits, this will not help them.

“This does not add more weeks of benefits, it just extends the deadline in which people can qualify for either Emergency Unemployment Compensation or extended benefits,” says Judy Conti of NELP in Washington.
Click to expand...

Calculated Risk: Unemployment Benefits: One Month Extension of Final Date
 
Luna Tick said:
Richard Nixon did so in 1969. He was the last conservative president. Since then all Republican presidents have been fascists, not conservatives. They've gone so far to the right, they make arch conservative Dick Nixon look like a liberal. The Democrats today are the conservative party, the Greens are the liberals, and the Republicans are the fascists. The Republican Party is 100 percent owned by the corporations and does not represent the interests of the American people one iota.

The Republican Party started two unnecessary wars that had nothing to do with defending the country, which have massively run up the deficits. Now they're complaining about deficit spending in the mess they created.

The way to get the budget back in balance is to pull out of both wars!

The next step, which would not have anything to do with balancing the budget, but which would be the right thing to do, would be to arrest George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice and put them on trial for crimes against humanity. They deserve to spend the rest of their lives in prison for betraying their country.

And shame on the evil people who supported them. Anyone who votes Republican betrays their country every bit as much as if they supported Al Quaida. The Republican Party is a fascist party and is the enemy of the United States. It's unAmerican to vote Republican.

Obama is far, far too conservative. He won't have George W. Bush arrested for treason even though it's obvious he should. Justice would be if George W. Bush spent the rest of his life in a small cell wearing an orange prison jumpsuit and eating bologna sandwiches and if the Republican Party were abandoned by the American people and died, if all Americans finally had affordable health care. And, yes, if our budget were finally in balance, and never again unbalanced by the Fascist Republican Party.
Click to expand...

Putting your rants of Fascism aside, let's look at the spending part of it, since it is pretty much the topic of this thread, and what Senator Bunning was addressing:

1) Sure, absolutely, Bush spent like a drunken sailor.

2) Obama has passed out, and is somehow still drinking.

3) But, to put it all on Bush, without addressing Obama's reckless spending, is dishonest. It takes two to tango, and Democrats and Republicans are perfect dance partners. They win top honors at the bar they have been dancing in, but damn it, someone needs to CUT THEM OFF, and KICK THEM OUT. They are out of control. No more Kool-Aid schnapps for them. They have had enough. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom