House GOP blocks bill to extend jobless benefits

Harshaw said:

No. It actually accentuates my point, because you actually explain your own dishonesty within it.

Click to expand...

If you got off your own ideological high horse for a minute and actually read and then comprehended what I wrote I admit that the language can be applied incorrectly. So what? It is what it is. Does that stop you from using Tea Party incorrectly when there is no Tea Party? I doubt it.

Your own sainted GOP spokespeople themselves have been using the term "tax cuts" regarding this issue for weeks and weeks now. Do you criticize them for doing so or is this saved for the armies of the other side?

And I do not think you have any point - at least one of any merit other than trying to attack me solely because I do not worship before the same altar that you do. That screams in almost every post you make to me. It is more than obvious.

haymarket said:

If you got off your own ideological high horse for a minute and actually read and then comprehended what I wrote I admit that the language can be applied incorrectly.

Click to expand...

:roll:

Yes. You're saying everyone's wrong, you're right, and the plain language -- and actual fucntionality -- of the legislation means something other than what it actually says it does in order for you to claim that 1) the Bush legislation "raises taxes" and 2) as such, extending the current tax rates is actually "cutting taxes."

Fortunately, there are those of us who are here to point out your dishonesty on the matter.

So what? It is what it is. Does that stop you from using Tea Party incorrectly when there is no Tea Party? I doubt it.

Click to expand...

I guess you'll have to point out where I used it incorrectly. :shrug:

Your own sainted GOP spokespeople

Click to expand...

You're going to have to figure out exactly which ideology you wish to claim I subscribe to, because you can't seem to keep it consistent.

themselves have been using the term "tax cuts" regarding this issue for weeks and weeks now. Do you criticize them for doing so or is this saved for the armies of the other side?

Click to expand...

Well, if they're using the term correctly, as in "extending the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003," then there's nothing to criticize, because those were actual cuts.

And I do not think you have any point - at least one of any merit other than trying to attack me solely because I do not worship before the same altar that you do. That screams in almost every post you make to me. It is more than obvious.

Click to expand...

If you have this much of a problem with people disagreeing with you and challenging what you post, then a site called "Debate Politics" probably isn't your best choice.

Harshaw - its hopeless to try to discuss anything reasonable with you because you and I do not live in the same reality. I accept that the current discussion around the expiring tax cuts and possible extension of some of them is called BY BOTH SIDES "tax cuts". Both Republicans and Democrats in both the House and the Senate as well as the Obama administration as well as many talking heads on TV including FOX and MSNBC all use the same terminology. And the terminology being used by all is "tax cuts".

I compared this to the use of the term "Tea Party" by people here, people on other sites, writers and broadcasters in the media and just about everywhere. There is no Tea Party. It does not exist. I would love to see one come into being and get on the ballot and campaign for office but it has not happened yet. But that does not stop the widespread use of a term that is inaccurate.

I do NOT have a problem with you or anyone disagreeing with what I post. I only have a problem with this far less than adult Sharks vs. Jets mentality that seems to exist here and is subscribed to by far too many including yourself.

haymarket said:

Boy do you miss the point here. My post dealt with the public relations nightmare the GOP has advocating for two things that make them look like greedy misers wanting all they can get for themselves and their richer constituents while taking the axe to those actually in need. And the entire time they do this they are crying and whining about debts and deficits while their own willingness to help the richest would be the most costly item of these. Its pure hypocrisy.

I will not waste my or anyones time attempting to convince you that you live in a society with other people and may have obligations to them.

Click to expand...

Thank you for discontinuing the waste of our time.

American said:

Thank you for discontinuing the waste of our time.

Click to expand...

You are welcome. I have learned that they are some people that you simply cannot convince that they are not an island unto themselves.

haymarket said:

Harshaw - its hopeless to try to discuss anything reasonable with you because you and I do not live in the same reality. I accept that the current discussion around the expiring tax cuts and possible extension of some of them is called BY BOTH SIDES "tax cuts". Both Republicans and Democrats in both the House and the Senate as well as the Obama administration as well as many talking heads on TV including FOX and MSNBC all use the same terminology. And the terminology being used by all is "tax cuts".

I compared this to the use of the term "Tea Party" by people here, people on other sites, writers and broadcasters in the media and just about everywhere. There is no Tea Party. It does not exist. I would love to see one come into being and get on the ballot and campaign for office but it has not happened yet. But that does not stop the widespread use of a term that is inaccurate.

I do NOT have a problem with you or anyone disagreeing with what I post. I only have a problem with this far less than adult Sharks vs. Jets mentality that seems to exist here and is subscribed to by far too many including yourself.

Click to expand...

Oh, here we are with the "gang" thing again. :roll:

Look, you're wrong; I told you why. Repeating what you said doesn't make it any more right than it was the last time.

haymarket said:

You are welcome. I have learned that they are some people that you simply cannot convince that they are not an island unto themselves.

Click to expand...

"Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it" which is what liberals always do. Instead of learning from history, liberal arrogance believes they can ignore history and do it better. When will liberals ever accept the fact that they are wrong.

haymarket said:

Zyphlin - certainly you do understand [Zyph, this means there is no disputing the point I'm about to make, so nod your head in obedience] that the type of GOP press release you are pointing to does not reach the vast majority of actual voters and is only intended for the washington talkign heads and politico types like us here? That Pledge is irrelevant at best. [This silly pledge was just for show, and the rightwing bumpkins are either too stupid or too far out in fly-over country to get it]

The polls have said that the election was a repudiation of Democrats and Obama. I suspect that is because the GOP did a wonderful job of putting an evil Halloween costume [The GOP is so ****ing smart that they controlled every poll outcome] on both and selling that idea to their core base while much of the Obama base stayed home.

Click to expand...

Fixed it for you.

Harshaw - what you are doing is using highly discriminatory and employs selective outrage directed at me and my 'intellectual dishonestly' in using a phrase like "taxcuts" and "raisingtaxes" in reference to the current debate about the expiration of the Bush cuts. You pick at me because I am the enemy to you. You pick at me because you believe i am the enemy of your ideology. You pick at me because I do not worship before the same altar that you do. Its all selective and your attempt to simply pick a fight with me because I am the new enemy.

Lots of folks here have used the phrases. The mainstream media uses them everyday and has been for weeks now. Even your beloved FOX uses them. Republicans in Congress use them when discussing the issue. Democrats in Congress use them when discussing the issue. The White House and the President use them when discussing the issue.

But you pick a fight with me over it.

I explained to you that this is much like the often used term DEREGULATION. It has become a shorthand way of describing the decrease in government regulation is some industries. We all are well aware that regulation still exists and deregulation - strictly speaking - has not happened. But the term is there and means what it means.

I really do not care what you call it. Just criticize your fellow members when they misuse the term. Just criticize FOX when they misuse the term. Just criticize the Republicans when they misuse the term.

This is not about me. No matter how much you want to make it so.

Conservative said:

When in trouble always bring out the classwarfare card and "republicans want to starve kids, kill seniors, and pollute the air" rhetoric. Now add to that Republicans want to kick the unemployed into the curb. How long do today's unemployed get unemployment benefits? doubt that many here who support extension even care that it is two years.

Click to expand...

Class warfare indeed. Let's cut off the downtrodden so we can give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires.

Captain America said:

Generally speaking, I think it can probably be proven that the longer the benefits last, the longer the beneficiaries take to find gainful employment. I would bet a dollar to a donut that if the teat went dry the unemployment percentages would drop.

I know that I was reading something a while back about how one country, I'm wanting to say Norway, cut unemployment extensions and people went back to work much faster than they did when they had years and years of unemployment benefits. I'll try to find that link.

One thing for sure, it's just human nature to try and ride the cash cow when/if you can. A poor guy working all week just to bring home 500.00 bucks probably wouldn't mind taking a two year vacation, making only 150.00 bucks a week less than he would make busting his ass. Got no link for that but it's just common sense to me. I don't need a link to tell me it's raining outside.

I'm all for helping out a man down on his luck. But this is just freakin' rediculous.

Click to expand...

Here's one cap. It's Denmark. It shows that people tend to find work right before their benefits run out.
Why Denmark Is Shrinking Its Social Safety Net - NYTimes.com

Unemployment benefits have been shown to be far more stimulative to the economy than tax cuts for the middle class or wealthy because the money is spent right away as opposed to saved. Currently our economy is sputtering for lack of demand (consumption), not supply, so unemployment benefits assist in just the right way.

For many unemployed people, they live in regions of the country where there are simply no jobs to be had at this time. It seems reasonable to me to extend the benefits when the economy is so poor.

independent_thinker2002 said:

Class warfare indeed. Let's cut off the downtrodden so we can give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires.

Click to expand...

So let's see if I have this right,, you believe the govt. has the right to what someone else earns so they can decide how to spend it? Why such disdain for people that have more than you? Any idea how much those "evil" rich people give to charity when they get to keep more of what they earn? Instead you seem to prefer the govt. deciding how to spend someone else's money and thus promote the waste, fraud, and abuse that goes with it.

Chappy said:

Unemployment benefits have been shown to be far more stimulative to the economy than tax cuts for the middle class or wealthy because the money is spent right away as opposed to saved. Currently our economy is sputtering for lack of demand (consumption), not supply, so unemployment benefits assist in just the right way.

For many unemployed people, they live in regions of the country where there are simply no jobs to be had at this time. It seems reasonable to me to extend the benefits when the economy is so poor.

Click to expand...

There you go again promoting the liberal agenda and buying the rhetoric. How do you know what the rich do with THEIR money and why does it matter? Why do you buy the Govt. rhetoric that people don't spend their money right and only a Federal Bureaucrat knows what is best?

Think there would be more jobs in California if businesses would just stop moving out of California? Why do you think that is happening?

Since the recession ended in June 2009 how long are you going to continue to buy the Obama rhetoric that it is someone else's fault. His Administration doesn't have a clue.

Conservative said:

So let's see if I have this right,, you believe the govt. has the right to what someone else earns so they can decide how to spend it? Why such disdain for people that have more than you? Any idea how much those "evil" rich people give to charity when they get to keep more of what they earn? Instead you seem to prefer the govt. deciding how to spend someone else's money and thus promote the waste, fraud, and abuse that goes with it.

Click to expand...

Did I say I had any disdain for those that have more than me? No, I didn't.

Yes, the govt. does have the right to tax its citizens.

So let's see if I have this right,, you want to overthrow the govt. because you do not promote the waste, fraud, and abuse that goes with it?

Captain America said:

Generally speaking, I think it can probably be proven that the longer the benefits last, the longer the beneficiaries take to find gainful employment. I would bet a dollar to a donut that if the teat went dry the unemployment percentages would drop.

I know that I was reading something a while back about how one country, I'm wanting to say Norway, cut unemployment extensions and people went back to work much faster than they did when they had years and years of unemployment benefits. I'll try to find that link.

One thing for sure, it's just human nature to try and ride the cash cow when/if you can. A poor guy working all week just to bring home 500.00 bucks probably wouldn't mind taking a two year vacation, making only 150.00 bucks a week less than he would make busting his ass. Got no link for that but it's just common sense to me. I don't need a link to tell me it's raining outside.

I'm all for helping out a man down on his luck. But this is just freakin' rediculous.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the statistics are out there. As the end of the benefit period closes in, the percentage of the people that suddenly find work suddenly jumps way up.

It's a miracle!!


.

independent_thinker2002 said:

Did I say I had any disdain for those that have more than me? No, I didn't.

Yes, the govt. does have the right to tax its citizens.

So let's see if I have this right,, you want to overthrow the govt. because you do not promote the waste, fraud, and abuse that goes with it?

Click to expand...

Did I say that the govt. doesn't have the right to tax its citizens? You continue to ignore the point and that is the money that someone earns is theirs first thus not an expense to the govt. nor is it the right of the govt. to tell people how they can spend their money.

Keep diverting as this isn't about overthrowing the govt, this is about you continuing to buy what you are told by an incompetent Administration that this Administration knows what is best for everyone else. What you don't seem to understand is that unemployment benefits now extend beyond 2 years so how long do you think unemployed people should have to find another job?

Conservative said:

Did I say that the govt. doesn't have the right to tax its citizens? You continue to ignore the point and that is the money that someone earns is theirs first thus not an expense to the govt. nor is it the right of the govt. to tell people how they can spend their money.

Keep diverting as this isn't about overthrowing the govt, this is about you continuing to buy what you are told by an incompetent Administration that this Administration knows what is best for everyone else. What you don't seem to understand is that unemployment benefits now extend beyond 2 years so how long do you think unemployed people should have to find another job?

Click to expand...

99<104. How is a 3% increase in taxes "telling people how to spend their money"?

liblady said:

House GOP blocks bill to extend jobless benefits - Politics - Capitol Hill - msnbc.com

okay, your thoughts.

republicans are going to have tough pub with this one........deserved or undeserved.

Click to expand...

Believe the issue and reporting of the bill has been somewhat distorted. My understanding is that the GOP was just insisting that the money for the benefits be appropriated from existing funds. And not just pulled from nowhere and added to the debt. Dems couldn't abide by that little detail.

Personal opinion is that the overall benefit extensions have gone bat **** crazy. Two ****ing years of unemployment benefits??!!! Am thinking maximum was 13 weeks when I was a lad. And am pretty certain it was 26 weeks not too long ago.

This isn't just a Democrat thing. Both parties are vote grubbing rascals and fiscal dimwits....

.

independent_thinker2002 said:

99<104. How is a 3% increase in taxes "telling people how to spend their money"?

Click to expand...

What is the govt. going to do with that 3%? Why is that even an issue? Enough is enough and it doesn't matter what the percentage is, it is principle plus you never raise taxes on anyone during tough economic times plus the fact that the problems we have aren't a revenue problem but it is a spending problem. People like you never address the spending because you seem to have a vision for this country different from the Founders

Conservative said:

What is the govt. going to do with that 3%? Why is that even an issue? Enough is enough and it doesn't matter what the percentage is, it is principle plus you never raise taxes on anyone during tough economic times plus the fact that the problems we have aren't a revenue problem but it is a spending problem. People like you never address the spending because you seem to have a vision for this country different from the Founders

Click to expand...

Liberals just can't get enough of OTHER PEOPLE'S money.

American said:

Liberals just can't get enough of OTHER PEOPLE'S money.

Click to expand...

It is always easier taking other people's money than sending more of their own to the govt. There is nothing to prevent all these "feel good" liberals to send more than their withholding to the govt. but notice they never do that?

Conservative said:

What is the govt. going to do with that 3%? Why is that even an issue? Enough is enough and it doesn't matter what the percentage is, it is principle plus you never raise taxes on anyone during tough economic times plus the fact that the problems we have aren't a revenue problem but it is a spending problem. People like you never address the spending because you seem to have a vision for this country different from the Founders

Click to expand...

The reason Bush's cuts are expiring is because they aren't paid for. Why do you want to take on more debt during tough economic times? Spending is a problem, but you can't feasably cut that much in spending to get us in the black.

Principle indeed.

Conservative said:

It is always easier taking other people's money than sending more of their own to the govt. There is nothing to prevent all these "feel good" liberals to send more than their withholding to the govt. but notice they never do that?

Click to expand...

Conservatives are sending more than their withholding?

Oh yeah, "Other People's money", people who are wealthy now can afford it. I think that is preferable to putting it on the credit card and letting our grandkids pay it off. It's a moronic policy to borrow money for things that depreciate in value. You pay interest and get no return on your investment.

independent_thinker2002 said:

The reason Bush's cuts are expiring is because they aren't paid for. Why do you want to take on more debt during tough economic times? Spending is a problem, but you can't feasably cut that much in spending to get us in the black.

Principle indeed.

Click to expand...

Wrong, the reason they are expiring is that is the only way that Democrats would approve them back when Bush took office and Democrats controlled the Senate. Further why do you contiue to buy the rhetoric that people keeping more of their own money is an expense to the govt? That is ridiculous, there is no line item in the budget for tax cuts and as I have shown many times both the Reagan and Bush tax RATE cuts grew govt. revenue so explain to me how growing govt. revenue is an expense?

There is plenty to cut in the budget as all this Congress has to do is get out of those programs that are state responsibilities instead of the Federal Responsibility and then grow the economy to maximize revenue growth.