Awww unemployment checks are the answers.

[jack sommerset]

Barry's right arm continues to wow us.

Pelosi: Unemployment Checks Fastest Way to Create Jobs

Unemployment benefits are creating jobs faster than practically any other program, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday.

Talking to reporters, the House speaker was defending a jobless benefits extension against those who say it gives recipients little incentive to work. By her reasoning, those checks are helping give somebody a job.

"It injects demand into the economy," Pelosi said, arguing that when families have money to spend it keeps the economy churning. "It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name."

Pelosi said the aid has the "double benefit" of helping those who lost their jobs and acting as a "job creator" on the side.

"It's impossible to think of a situation where we would have a country that would say we're not going to have unemployment benefits," Pelosi said.

Economic Vital Signs Flashing Red as Obama Shifts Political Course Democrats have been trying for more than a month to pass a bill extending jobless benefits to more than 1 million people. Currently, jobless benefits last nearly two years -- up to 26 weeks paid by state treasuries with federal help for up to an additional 73 weeks.

Of course, those workers could be sending a lot more money into the economy if they had jobs since unemployment benefits generally do not cover the entire cost of lost wages.

The counterintuitive statement drew jeers from Republicans, who claim Democrats can't figure out any way to tackle the economic slump that doesn't involve spending massive amounts of taxpayer money.

"No plan to create jobs -- just more stimulus spending," House Republican Leader John Boehner said at a dueling press conference.

Despite the wave of unemployment aid and stimulus spending dating back to the end of the Bush administration, the jobless rate is still hovering close to 10 percent. New figures out Thursday showed new jobless benefits claims rising for the second time in three weeks.

Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., on Thursday called the newest extension plan "fiscal insanity" because it is not paid for and will only create future problems.

"I support, and Republicans have supported, extending unemployment benefits, but we must not do so at a cost to the deficit, to the economy and to future generations. Our inability to get our fiscal house in order isn't just damaging future generations; it is wreaking havoc on jobs today," he said in a statement.

Pelosi criticized Republicans Thursday, saying she's still optimistic the bill will pass though it failed again in the Senate Wednesday night.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Barry's right arm continues to wow us.

Pelosi: Unemployment Checks Fastest Way to Create Jobs

Unemployment benefits are creating jobs faster than practically any other program, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday.

Talking to reporters, the House speaker was defending a jobless benefits extension against those who say it gives recipients little incentive to work. By her reasoning, those checks are helping give somebody a job.

"It injects demand into the economy," Pelosi said, arguing that when families have money to spend it keeps the economy churning. "It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name."

Pelosi said the aid has the "double benefit" of helping those who lost their jobs and acting as a "job creator" on the side.

"It's impossible to think of a situation where we would have a country that would say we're not going to have unemployment benefits," Pelosi said.

Economic Vital Signs Flashing Red as Obama Shifts Political Course Democrats have been trying for more than a month to pass a bill extending jobless benefits to more than 1 million people. Currently, jobless benefits last nearly two years -- up to 26 weeks paid by state treasuries with federal help for up to an additional 73 weeks.

Of course, those workers could be sending a lot more money into the economy if they had jobs since unemployment benefits generally do not cover the entire cost of lost wages.

The counterintuitive statement drew jeers from Republicans, who claim Democrats can't figure out any way to tackle the economic slump that doesn't involve spending massive amounts of taxpayer money.

"No plan to create jobs -- just more stimulus spending," House Republican Leader John Boehner said at a dueling press conference.

Despite the wave of unemployment aid and stimulus spending dating back to the end of the Bush administration, the jobless rate is still hovering close to 10 percent. New figures out Thursday showed new jobless benefits claims rising for the second time in three weeks.

Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., on Thursday called the newest extension plan "fiscal insanity" because it is not paid for and will only create future problems.

"I support, and Republicans have supported, extending unemployment benefits, but we must not do so at a cost to the deficit, to the economy and to future generations. Our inability to get our fiscal house in order isn't just damaging future generations; it is wreaking havoc on jobs today," he said in a statement.

Pelosi criticized Republicans Thursday, saying she's still optimistic the bill will pass though it failed again in the Senate Wednesday night.


so people on unemployment spend their money that flows back into the economy.... what's the issue jack?

[TeyshaBlue]

so people on unemployment spend their money that flows back into the economy.... what's the issue jack?
I know you're asking jack, but to me, it's a self limiting ponzi scheme for starters.

[SnakeBoy]

eSko2ixEB8U

[Spurminator]

Ideally, unemployment checks would cover monthly bills and necessities and therefore wouldn't really inject new money into the economy, except, I suppose, grocery stores.

[CosmicCowboy]

So Nancy Pelosi is advocating trickle down economics? Substitute "tax cuts" for "unemployment checks" and you have a winner.

[jack sommerset]

Unemployment Checks Serve As "Job Creator"

What a dumb fucking cunt

cAhmYKlsWW4

[Veterinarian]

tbh Republicans have a long history of not giving a shit about poor people. Nothing really new to see here in this thread. If they were concerned about slackers they would be complaining about the fact that the unemployment office doesn't do a good enough job of making sure people are actually looking for work.

[EmptyMan]

Doesn't give a shit about poor people...


They may give you other's money or money they can just print out of their asses...but that does not mean they actually give a shit about you.

[CosmicCowboy]

tbh Republicans have a long history of not giving a shit about poor people. Nothing really new to see here in this thread. If they were concerned about slackers they would be complaining about the fact that the unemployment office doesn't do a good enough job of making sure people are actually looking for work.

Actually that pisses me off. They have to "try" 3 times a week. I get the calls every fucking day. Usually it's the wife. "Ju hiring?" no "OK, whatchur name?".

[angrydude]

the problem is nothing is created.

where does the govt get the money for these checks again? oh yea, they borrowed it.

dumbasses

[ChumpDumper]

So Nancy Pelosi is advocating trickle down economics? Substitute "tax cuts" for "unemployment checks" and you have a winner.She's sending unemployment checks to the richest Americans?

How do you cut income tax on someone who has no income?

[Trainwreck2100]

kinda ironic that the jobs unemployment creates probably pays less than unemployment

[spursncowboys]

tbh Republicans have a long history of not giving a shit about poor people. Nothing really new to see here in this thread. If they were concerned about slackers they would be complaining about the fact that the unemployment office doesn't do a good enough job of making sure people are actually looking for work.


I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

-bf

[CosmicCowboy]

She's sending unemployment checks to the richest Americans?

How do you cut income tax on someone who has no income?

I really thought you were smarter/more knowledgeable than that.

Supply side economic theory (also known as trickle down) advocates cutting taxes on individuals and business with the theory being that they would spend that money not sent to the government and stimulate the economy and create jobs.

This theory is routinely lampooned by liberals.

I'm saying that substitute "tax cuts" with "unemployment benefits" and thats exactly what Pelosi said yesterday.

Are you saying that you agree with her 100% and fully support her statement?

[spursncowboys]

I really thought you were smarter/more knowledgeable than that.



:lol Really??................................Seriously?

[spursncowboys]

Chumpdumper Theory: If a liberal says it- it's golden.

[George Gervin's Afro]

If I hear something bad about democrats I automatically believe it.

[johnsmith]

If someone makes a joke about someone else, I'll tweek it a bit and make almost the exact same joke

[Wild Cobra]

so people on unemployment spend their money that flows back into the economy.... what's the issue jack?
Hmmm....

If that helps the economy by putting money in it, then why don't tax breaks do the same thing?

Think Ms. Pelosi can answer that one?

[Wild Cobra]

So Nancy Pelosi is advocating trickle down economics? Substitute "tax cuts" for "unemployment checks" and you have a winner.No kidding. I thought the democrats said it doesn't work...

[Wild Cobra]

tbh Republicans have a long history of not giving a shit about poor people.
Bullshit. That's a lie you liberals propagate.

Nothing really new to see here in this thread. If they were concerned about slackers they would be complaining about the fact that the unemployment office doesn't do a good enough job of making sure people are actually looking for work.

LOL...

You say they don't care... If they tried to implement checks, they would be said not to care, or be racist, or something. You liberals complain about republicans no matter what they do.

[RandomGuy]

So Nancy Pelosi is advocating trickle down economics? Substitute "tax cuts" for "unemployment checks" and you have a winner.

Um, nooooo. It is pretty much the opposite of "trickle down" economics. It is an attempt to drive aggregate demand, not aggregate supply.

Respectfully:

You might want to read up a bit on the terms.

[RandomGuy]

[Republicans not giving a shit about poor people] a lie you liberals propagate.

Republicans that I see on message boards don't tend to say things that contradict that statement.

"fuck the poor" seems to be a fair restatement of many of the sentiments.

"the poor are poor because of their bad decisions"

"why are you going to pick my pocket to pay some lazy shit not to work?"

Do these statements sound empathetic to you? Do you disagree with them?

[TeyshaBlue]

Republicans that I see on message boards don't tend to say things that contradict that statement.

"fuck the poor" seems to be a fair restatement of many of the sentiments.

"the poor are poor because of their bad decisions"

"why are you going to pick my pocket to pay some lazy shit not to work?"

Do these statements sound empathetic to you? Do you disagree with them?

These statements of extreme narrative sound like the extremely simplistic bumper-sticker populism that this particular, albeit somewhat disenfranchised Republican, disagrees with. That being said, these statements, posited as black and white with no acknowledgement of grey, is not an entirely accurate snapshot of what I think is a typical Republican's mindset. I could be wrong. There might be a decimal I misplaced somewhere.:lol

[George Gervin's Afro]

I really like to follow GGA around because he kicks my ass all of the time

[TeyshaBlue]

I really like to follow GGA around because he licks my ass all of the time.

Hey, that's fun!:lol

[101A]

Republicans that I see on message boards don't tend to say things that contradict that statement.

"fuck the poor" seems to be a fair restatement of many of the sentiments.

"the poor are poor because of their bad decisions"

"why are you going to pick my pocket to pay some lazy shit not to work?"

Do these statements sound empathetic to you? Do you disagree with them?

How about this?

I (many of us conservatives) care a great deal about all people, as, no doubt, do liberals.

However, I also recognize the truism that is: "You get what you pay for."

If you pay for unemployment, you will get unemployment.

If you pay for unwed mothers having children, you will get more of that (look at the growth of illegitimate births post-"great society".)

In exact same vein - if you make weapons development and sales extremely profitable, you will get unending wars, or at least war-footing.

Whatever our government pays for, we all get, in droves.

It is ultimately why the cliche that is "limited" government is absolutely essential. Anything else is too much of an influence on the economy/priorities of society, and, ultimately, will be a net-detriment, and not benefit.

Individuals making self-interested, self-beneficial choices, strictly controlled by a government with a broad view of what each person's rights to be protected from others (and the government itself) is the only solution to sustainable economic growth. Maximizing growth would then minimize the amount of "safety netting" that would have to be utilized, preferably through private charity.

Oh well, it's far too late for that. Might as well extend them forever, what's another trillion or two; our fate is sealed.

[boutons_deux]

"typical Republican's mindset"

the elected officials, esp the old southern/western white Senators with their state unemployment above 10% who still vote down unemployment extensions, are much further to the right than the "typical" Repug, it seems.

The legislators and Repug candidates seem to be extreme right for a reason, because the tea baggers, racists, NRA gunnuts, "Christian" theocrats, Fox Repug Propaganda channel, hate media etc, force them to the extreme right.

I keep seeing articles that Eisenhower and Reagan would not be voted for by the majority of today's radicalized, pissed off, anti-American Repugs.

Repugs are have been for a long time the party of the "haves", "conserving" and increasing their wealth and privileges while beating down the have-nots, which today are the unemployed, blacks, Hispanics, all trying to "progress" their own conditions.

[Wild Cobra]

Republicans that I see on message boards don't tend to say things that contradict that statement.

"fuck the poor" seems to be a fair restatement of many of the sentiments.

"the poor are poor because of their bad decisions"

"why are you going to pick my pocket to pay some lazy shit not to work?"

Do these statements sound empathetic to you? Do you disagree with them?
I agree these things are said, but it doesn't represent a majority thought. Statements like that come from understandable anger. Why should the government have the right to steal from those who produce and give to those who don't try?

There is an understandable need for some handouts. The problem is, the government doesn't determine who really needs and who doesn't. It's been too expensive for too long. We need more tax payers, not less. We take away too much from producers, and make life too easy for those who are lazy.

[CosmicCowboy]

Um, nooooo. It is pretty much the opposite of "trickle down" economics. It is an attempt to drive aggregate demand, not aggregate supply.

Respectfully:

You might want to read up a bit on the terms.

I'm a pretty bright, well educated guy and your response makes absolutely no sense. Pelosi's statement was that those dollars injected into the economy stimulated the economy and created jobs because the recipients of the money spent the money.

Is this NOT what she said?

A dollar injected into the economy is a dollar injected into the economy. It doesn't know if it is a conservative dollar or a liberal dollar. It doesn't know if it's part of an unemployment check or a tax refund. It's just a dollar.

The philosophical difference is who does that government allocated dollar reward? Does it reward productive members of society that drive our economy and create jobs (tax cuts on producers) or does it reward unproductive members that create nothing (the perpetual unemployed).

[RandomGuy]

I'm a pretty bright, well educated guy and your response makes absolutely no sense. Pelosi's statement was that those dollars injected into the economy stimulated the economy and created jobs because the recipients of the money spent the money.

Is this NOT what she said?

A dollar injected into the economy is a dollar injected into the economy. It doesn't know if it is a conservative dollar or a liberal dollar. It doesn't know if it's part of an unemployment check or a tax refund. It's just a dollar.

It is a bit more complicated than that.

Basically it boils down to who you give that dollar TO.

Trickle-down (generally a deragatory term for supply-side economics) says that it is best to give the dollar to those who have a lot of money to begin with. They then turn around and invest it in something, and the benefits of that investment "trickle-down" to all levels of income/wealth. The investment of the wealthy increase overall supply of goods/services. Think of a new factory or bakery.

Unemployment payments are an attempt to stimulate demand. The average joe who is unemployed will turn around immediately and spend it on food/rent/mortgage/car payment/etc. This drives demand for goods/services.

In this there is quite the difference as to what those dollars do for the economy.

[RandomGuy]

I agree these things are said, but it doesn't represent a majority thought. Statements like that come from understandable anger. Why should the government have the right to steal from those who produce and give to those who don't try?

There is an understandable need for some handouts. The problem is, the government doesn't determine who really needs and who doesn't. It's been too expensive for too long. We need more tax payers, not less. We take away too much from producers, and make life too easy for those who are lazy.

The government does determine who needs and who doesn't. Most benefits have means tests.

Unemployment actually requires that you have actually worked, and is based on your pre-unemployment salary. It really does function like insurance in many regards.

Personally, I think the time for extended benefits is passing, but still probably somewhat necessary. CC is right in that the payments do tend to contribute to some unemployment, as people might pass up lower-paying jobs, or give up entirely and try to "wait it out".

[CosmicCowboy]

It is a bit more complicated than that.

Basically it boils down to who you give that dollar TO.

Trickle-down (generally a deragatory term for supply-side economics) says that it is best to give the dollar to those who have a lot of money to begin with. They then turn around and invest it in something, and the benefits of that investment "trickle-down" to all levels of income/wealth. The investment of the wealthy increase overall supply of goods/services. Think of a new factory or bakery.

Unemployment payments are an attempt to stimulate demand. The average joe who is unemployed will turn around immediately and spend it on food/rent/mortgage/car payment/etc.

In this there is quite the difference as to what those dollars do for the economy.

Oh really? So he gives those dollars to people that provided him food/rent/mortgage/car payment/etc. (productive members of society) who then turn around and spend or reinvest those dollars.

That dollar has the same economic impact.

What you have done, however, is charge the productive members of society (in higher tax rates) so that the government can pay the unproductive member of society, so he can then turn around and pay the productive members of society, so they can pay higher taxes to support the unproductive members of society.

The unproductive member of society is REWARDED for their lack of achievement and the producers are PUNISHED with higher taxes.

Remember, the unemployment benefits we are talking about not extending are for people that have already been collecting unemployment benefits for TWO YEARS.

[Wild Cobra]

I suppose next, liberals will be telling us dollars given by the government are more valuable than dollars earned.

[Winehole23]

The United States added just 83,000 private-sector jobs in June, a dishearteningly low number that could add to the growing number of economists who warn that the economic recovery has slowed to the point that it cannot generate enough job growth. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/business/economy/03jobs.html?_r=1&src=busln

[Winehole23]

The U.S. jobless rate dropped 0.2 percentage point to 9.5% in June, the lowest level since July, but the government’s broader measure of unemployment only ticked down 0.1 point to 16.5%.

The comprehensive gauge of labor underutilization, known as the “U-6″ ... accounts for people who have stopped looking for work or who can’t find full-time jobs. This month the gap expanded between the official rate and U-6. Mostly that was due to an increase in the number of discouraged workers, considered marginally attached to the labor force. That figure puts a dark cloud on the drop in the national rate. It indicates that many of the people who dropped out of the labor force in June did so because they gave up looking for jobs.


The 9.5% unemployment rate is calculated based on people who are without jobs, who are available to work and who have actively sought work in the prior four weeks. The “actively looking for work” definition is fairly broad, including people who contacted an employer, employment agency, job center or friends; sent out resumes or filled out applications; or answered or placed ads, among other things. The rate is calculated by dividing that number by the total number of people in the labor force.
The U-6 figure includes everyone in the official rate plus “marginally attached workers” — those who are neither working nor looking for work, but say they want a job and have looked for work recently; and people who are employed part-time for economic reasons, meaning they want full-time work but took a part-time schedule instead because that’s all they could find.


Both the headline and U-6 rates are based on the number of people in the labor force. When the unemployed drop out of the labor force completely the jobless rate declines. That problem has been exacerbated in the current recession by the large number of people unemployed for a long period of time. About 6.8 million people have been out of a job for more than 27 weeks. This month, despite a 190,000 increase in the population, the number of people in the labor force dropped by 652,000.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/07/02/broader-unemployment-rate-drops-to-165/

[boutons_deux]

I heard a guy on NPR last night say that every economic recovery since the mid-70s has had a pause like the one we're seeing now.

We'll see if this is a short pause, or (long) plateau (disaster), or another dip (bigger disaster).

In any case, the economy needs to add 100K jobs/month just to keep up with population growth, never mind the job growth needed to re-employ 7+ million jobs lost in the Banksters' Great Depression.

There is a difference in giving a dollar to a wealthy person who doesn't need it or spend it but goes gambling with it in the Wall St casino, and a dollar to an unemployed person who will almost certainly spend it on food, utlility bills, transport.

[Wild Cobra]

There is a difference in giving a dollar to a wealthy person who doesn't need it or spend it but goes gambling with it in the Wall St casino, and a dollar to an unemployed person who will almost certainly spend it on food, utlility bills, transport.
That's all fine if you do this with your own money. Just don't do it with mine.

[Winehole23]

There is a difference in giving a dollar to a wealthy person who doesn't need it or spend it but goes gambling with it in the Wall St casino......or who otherwise saves it "unproductively" for the future.

...and a dollar to an unemployed person who will almost certainly spend it on food, utlility bills, transport. CC's "dollar doesn't know what it's doing" analysis cracked me up. The volume of dollars thrown at the problem isn't really so important as the velocity of the money.

[ChumpDumper]

I really thought you were smarter/more knowledgeable than that.

Supply side economic theory (also known as trickle down) advocates cutting taxes on individuals and business with the theory being that they would spend that money not sent to the government and stimulate the economy and create jobs.Rich individuals. Not the unemployed.


This theory is routinely lampooned by liberals.And GHW Bush.


I'm saying that substitute "tax cuts" with "unemployment benefits" and thats exactly what Pelosi said yesterday.Again, how do you give an income tax break to someone with no income?


Are you saying that you agree with her 100% and fully support her statement?No. Unemployment payments are basically stimulative since they are spent almost immediately, but they would do more to maintain employment in certain sectors of the economy than result in new hires.

[johnsmith]

HAHAHAAAAHAHAHA!!!!! Yeah man, you've really "kicked my ass". How very boutons like of you.....HAHAHAHA

[spursncowboys]

No. Unemployment payments are basically stimulative since they are spent almost immediately, but they would do more to maintain employment in certain sectors of the economy than result in new hires.

:lol what sectors?

[Nbadan]

producers are making money hands over fists, an average 300-400 times what the average consumer makes...meanwhile consumers salaries are struggling to keep up with the rate of inflation...none of what wing-nuts are arguing for are supported by the facts, but that wont stop them from making these statements because ingrained into their ideology is a very transparent hate for people of less privilege than themselves....they have no empathy for the little guy, only for their own pocketbooks...

[boutons_deux]

"they have no empathy for the little guy, only for their own pocketbooks"

that's the beauty of capitalism and corporatism, people and country are always front-and-center

[ChumpDumper]

:lol what sectors?You don't know the basics upon which people spend money?

Good for you.

[Nbadan]

Study after study has shown that unemployment benefits are one of the most effective and efficient ways for government to stimulate an economy...but we also have to stimulate job growth or we will drown from debt just the same...

[Nbadan]

"they have no empathy for the little guy, only for their own pocketbooks"

that's the beauty of capitalism and corporatism, people and country are always front-and-center

..the Nazi used nationalism to confer blind allegiance to their party ideology...nazi-ism started as a fringe, secret society in Germany, raging right-wing nationalist who advocated the advancement of the Aryan race above all others..

[Nbadan]

Sharron Angle, the new wing-nut spokesperson..

wSpW4n7Zjlw

[Veterinarian]

Actually that pisses me off. They have to "try" 3 times a week. I get the calls every fucking day. Usually it's the wife. "Ju hiring?" no "OK, whatchur name?".

Those fuckers should go to jail.



Bullshit. That's a lie you liberals propagate.

LOL...

You say they don't care... If they tried to implement checks, they would be said not to care, or be racist, or something. You liberals complain about republicans no matter what they do.

Stop being a faked out douche. You remember this thread don't you: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157217 I'm not a liberal.

[Wild Cobra]

You remember this thread don't you: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157217 I'm not a liberal.
So you aren't a libtard. You still have many liberal qualities.

[Veterinarian]

Tbh people who are gaming the system and getting unemployment without looking for work should be thrown in jail. Its laughable that whoever set up this unemployment system did it that way. I mean right now you can sit and apply for jobs on the computer, or just email your resume out to people on Craigslist in like 15 minutes a week and collect hundreds of dollars a month. That's what Republicans should be mad about (that's what I'm mad about).

That doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people on unemployment who got laid off and are looking for work. People with families. Myopic people like Jack Sommerset just pretend those people don't exist.

[Ignignokt]

so people on unemployment spend their money that flows back into the economy.... what's the issue jack?

It also inflates the money supply and weakens the value of our currency since wealth was created artificially.

You are truly dumber than you think everyone else is.

[boutons_deux]

"inflates the money supply and weakens the value of our currency"

B U L L F U C K I N G S H I T

Greenspan fucked up the economy by pumping in money by the $Ts at low interest rates. Combined with low reserve requirement, banks multiplied that money supply. Combined with dubya's $800B in estate tax cuts which went looking for high returns, we had a housing/commoditiy bubble (food, oil) that vastly enriched the super wealthy while sucking $Ts out of pension plans and housing values.

Now that it takes a few 10s of $Bs to ease the pain of long-term unemployed, not all of whom are low-end hourlies, almost none of whom are gaming the system, you bitch "money supply!!". GFY and fuck your VRWC talking points.

[George Gervin's Afro]

It also inflates the money supply and weakens the value of our currency since wealth was created artificially.

You are truly dumber than you think everyone else is.

so that money pumped back into the economy is a bad thng. Let's end unemployment insurance now for everyone!!!


no money being pumped back into the economy is a good thing..oh wait if they didn't have the money then they would b even beigger burdens on the fed.....so I guess, according to your logic, them being bigger burdens on the fed is better than unemployment insurance.... amazing!

[jack sommerset]

You are truly dumber than you think everyone else is.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I hate Obama because he's a liar. But I like other candidates who have lied in the past. I would vote for other liars because I hate Obama.. but I hate liars..

[jack sommerset]

I never said that. Why do you make up things? More proof you are one dumbfuck. You must really hate yourself.

[boutons_deux]

The Repugs game has been very clear to me and anybody who asks seriously WTF the Repugs are up to.

In complete bad faith and pettiness, putting Americans' pain behind the scumbag Repugs' political strategy, the Repugs intend to fuck up Magic Negro to the max, are fucking over unemployed citizens, and blocking stimulus spending, while taking credit for whatever stimulus spending falls in their districts, while spreading hate and polarization at every opportunity.

No matter how much pain the country is in, the Repugs aren't ever gonna put their complete shittiness aside and try to help.

Repugs will never Stand United, but prefer to Divide Americans and Fall.

[CosmicCowboy]

The Repugs game has been very clear to me and anybody who asks seriously WTF the Repugs are up to.

In complete bad faith and pettiness, putting Americans' pain behind the scumbag Repugs' political strategy, the Repugs intend to fuck up Magic Negro to the max, are fucking over unemployed citizens, and blocking stimulus spending, while taking credit for whatever stimulus spending falls in their districts, while spreading hate and polarization at every opportunity.

No matter how much pain the country is in, the Repugs aren't ever gonna put their complete shittiness aside and try to help.

Repugs will never Stand United, but prefer to Divide Americans and Fall.

Republicans would have voted for the unemployment extensions last week if the democrats would have agreed to use the money already appropriated for the stimulus bill to pay for them.

You apparently "forgot" to mention that.

The republicans aren't the only one playing politics with this issue.

[boutons_deux]

"Deficits don't matter" unless Repugs can fuck up Magic Negro by turning into deficit hawks after the Repugs run $2T in deficits in bogus, botched wars of choice.

The stimulus was always too small, given the depth of the crisis, as many serious observers warned.

Why rob the stimulus to extend unemployment? You didn't address that bogus Repug point.

[TeyshaBlue]

Study after study has shown that unemployment benefits are one of the most effective and efficient ways for government to stimulate an economy...but we also have to stimulate job growth or we will drown from debt just the same...

Study after study? Really? If you say so....

[CosmicCowboy]

"Deficits don't matter" unless Repugs can fuck up Magic Negro by turning into deficit hawks after the Repugs run $2T in deficits in bogus, botched wars of choice.

The stimulus was always too small, given the depth of the crisis, as many serious observers warned.

Why rob the stimulus to extend unemployment? You didn't address that bogus Repug point.

You didn't address the point that unemployments benefits could have been extended last week if the Democrats hadn't played politics with the issue.

Trying to twist this into an issue about Republicans hating on the unemployed is laughable. Typical Boutons, but still laughable.

[spursncowboys]

Study after study? Really? If you say so....
ie Paul Krugman

[George Gervin's Afro]

You didn't address the point that unemployments benefits could have been extended last week if the Democrats hadn't played politics with the issue.

Trying to twist this into an issue about Republicans hating on the unemployed is laughable. Typical Boutons, but still laughable.

democrats playing politics intrying to pass the extension? what exactly did the dems do?

[CosmicCowboy]

democrats playing politics intrying to pass the extension? what exactly did the dems do?

The issue was never about passing the extension but rather how to pay for it. Republicans wanted to use 33 Billion (not spent yet) from the stimulus bill already passed and Democrats wanted to add another 33 billion of new debt.

If the US is going to reduce it's deficit like Obama promised at the G20 then you have to start somewhere.

[boutons_deux]

"Republicans hating on the unemployed"

I didn't say the Repugs "hated" the unemployed.

The Repugs just don't give a shit about how much pain their fellow citizens suffer, compared to the overriding priority of what the Repugs can do for the Repugs, rather than what the Repugs can do to help Their Fellow Americans in times of great pain and distress. And They Lie about being concerned about deficit when they didn't give a shit about Repugs running up huge deficits 2001-2008.

THOSE REPUG deficits, the tax cuts and wars, are much worse and much longer term than anything deficit the Dems have added trying to get the economy moving again.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The issue was never about passing the extension but rather how to pay for it. Republicans wanted to use 33 Billion (not spent yet) from the stimulus bill already passed and Democrats wanted to add another 33 billion of new debt.

so the GOP was playing politics. why did the GOP pick unemployment insurance issue to take the stand? Seems to me the wrong issue to to make a point considering this affects people today.. there are many other spending issues to take this stand but without this extension many people will suffer... that's ok because the GOP wants score political points and I understand that.

[CosmicCowboy]

so the GOP was playing politics. why did the GOP pick unemployment insurance issue to take the stand? Seems to me the wrong issue to to make a point considering this affects people today.. there are many other spending issues to take this stand but without this extension many people will suffer... that's ok because the GOP wants score political points and I understand that.

You fucking idiot.

They are ALL playing politics. Democrats AND Republicans. They are fucking politicians.

You stupid fuckers that are trying to twist this into "Republicans want people to suffer" need to take that weak ass game somewhere else.

[ChumpDumper]

You fucking idiot.

They are ALL playing politics. Democrats AND Republicans. They are fucking politicians.

You stupid fuckers that are trying to twist this into "Republicans want people to suffer" need to take that weak ass game somewhere else.He just said they wanted to score political points.

Which is what you said.

People may indeed suffer as a result, but that's true of both sides as well.

Unclench.

[boutons_deux]

WTF have Repugs done for America in the last 10 years? not a fucking thing.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You fucking idiot.

They are ALL playing politics. Democrats AND Republicans. They are fucking politicians.

You stupid fuckers that are trying to twist this into "Republicans want people to suffer" need to take that weak ass game somewhere else.

lighten up francis.. the GOP picked this issue to make a political point.. and you claimed it was the dems. Unlike jacksommerset I wasn't born after 01/20/2009 so I understand both parties play politics and try and score points at the cost of the other guys...

[CosmicCowboy]

President Obama just agreed at the G20 to reduce our projected 1.3 trillion deficit in 2010 to half that amount by 2013. Thats a reduction of 650 Billion a year by 2013.

Sounds pretty Deficit Hawkish to me. Does his Democratic Congress not support him?

Are you guys really so stupid as to think there won't be pain EVERYWHERE to do this?

[ChumpDumper]

President Obama just agreed at the G20 to reduce our projected 1.3 trillion deficit in 2010 to half that amount by 2013. Thats a reduction of 650 Billion a year by 2013.

Sounds pretty Deficit Hawkish to me. Does his Democratic Congress not support him?You tell me. Does it?


Are you guys really so stupid as to think there won't be pain EVERYWHERE to do this?No, we are not stupid.

[George Gervin's Afro]

President Obama just agreed at the G20 to reduce our projected 1.3 trillion deficit in 2010 to half that amount by 2013. Thats a reduction of 650 Billion a year by 2013.

Sounds pretty Deficit Hawkish to me. Does his Democratic Congress not support him?

Are you guys really so stupid as to think there won't be pain EVERYWHERE to do this?

why now with unemployment insurance? Why not wait until the next budget is being debated and attack the dems then?




I'll answer the question for you.. the 2010 fall elections. The GOP has to look like they are standing up to Obama and the dems spending..

[spursncowboys]

what budget? there has to be a budget present for there to be a next budget.

[CosmicCowboy]

what budget? there has to be a budget present for there to be a next budget.

Exactly. This Democratically led Congress/Senate won't create or vote on a budget.

[CosmicCowboy]

House Democrats ‘Deem’ Faux $1.1 Trillion Budget ‘as Passed’
by Connie Hair
07/02/2010


Last night, as part of a procedural vote on the emergency war supplemental bill, House Democrats attached a document that "deemed as passed" a non-existent $1.12 trillion budget. The execution of the "deeming" document allows Democrats to start spending money for Fiscal Year 2011 without the pesky constraints of a budget.

The procedural vote passed 215-210 with no Republicans voting in favor and 38 Democrats crossing the aisle to vote against deeming the faux budget resolution passed.

Never before -- since the creation of the Congressional budget process -- has the House failed to pass a budget, failed to propose a budget then deemed the non-existent budget as passed as a means to avoid a direct, recorded vote on a budget, but still allow Congress to spend taxpayer money.



House Budget Committee Ranking Member Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) warned this was the green light for Democrats to continue their out-of-control spending virtually unchecked.

"Facing a record deficit and a tidal wave of debt, House Democrats decided it was politically inconvenient to put forward a budget and account for their fiscal recklessness. With no priorities and no restraints, the spending, taxing, and borrowing will continue unchecked for the coming fiscal year," Ryan said. "The so-called ‘budget enforcement resolution’ enforces no budget, but instead provides a green light for the Appropriators to continue spending, exacerbating our looming fiscal crisis."

As we reported on HUMAN EVENTS, CBO issued a dire warning about the long term outlook for the budget.

"Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office rang the latest fiscal alarm with the release of The Long-Term Budget Outlook," Ryan said. "Today, Congress again hit snooze. To avert a fiscal and economic calamity, Washington needs to wake up."

Key points from the House Republican Budget staff on the House Democrats’ deeming resolution:

- This is not a budget. The measure fails to meet the most basic, commonly understood objectives of any budget. It does not set congressional priorities; it does not align overall spending, tax, deficit, and debt levels; and it does nothing to address the runaway spending of Federal entitlement programs.
- It is not a ‘congressional budget resolution.’ The measure does not satisfy even the most basic criteria of a budget resolution as set forth in the Congressional Budget Act.
- It creates a deception of spending ‘restraint.’ While claiming restraint in discretionary spending, the resolution increases non-emergency spending by $30 billion over 2010, and includes a number of gimmicks that give a green light to higher spending.
- It continues relying on the flawed and over-sold pay-as-you-go [pay-go] procedure. Pay-go – which Democrats have used mainly to raise taxes, and have ignored when it was inconvenient – does nothing to reduce deficits or restrain spending growth in existing law.
- Outsourcing fiscal responsibilities. The measure is another hand-off by the Democratic Majority of Congress’s power of the purse – this time relying on the Fiscal Commission created by the President to do Congress’s job.

[ChumpDumper]

Why do you not link anything?

[CosmicCowboy]

Why do you not link anything?

:lol

lazy

Here's the link I clipped. Fact is, they "deemed" a budget passed that they never wrote or voted on.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37893

[ChumpDumper]

I agree that's stupid.

Is there a Republican budget proposal out there outlining their plan for deficit reduction? I'd like to see it.

[CosmicCowboy]

I agree that's stupid.

Is there a Republican budget proposal out there outlining their plan for deficit reduction? I'd like to see it.

Not that I know of. As far as I know they have talked general numbers but not specific budget numbers.

[ChumpDumper]

Not that I know of. As far as I know they have talked general numbers but not specific budget numbers.Seems like they are missing an opportunity.

[TeyshaBlue]

Here's a little more in depth look at the event, with a focus on the actual procedure.

http://www.congressmatters.com/storyonly/2010/7/3/2373/-What-happened-on-the-war-supplemental

This isn't unusual, sadly. I also understand the "taxation without representation" pall this casts, although I don't think it quite meets the criteria for that.

[TeyshaBlue]

Seems like they are missing an opportunity.

Nothing new there.

[CosmicCowboy]

Seems like they are missing an opportunity.

Look, we are both pretty politically astute, we are just approaching the issue from opposite sides of the political spectrum. The simple fact is we aren't going to significantly cut deficits without cutting entitlements on existing programs. Neither Republicans or Democrats have the political will to articulate this position.

[Winehole23]

Look, we are both pretty politically astute, we are just approaching the issue from opposite sides of the political spectrum. What makes you think so?

(If I had to guess, I'd say CD probably comes from the same side of the political spectrum as you.)

[CosmicCowboy]

Heres the best summary of the Republican "budget plan" I could find...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123854083982575457.html

By PAUL D. RYAN

Today, the House of Representatives will consider two budget plans that represent dramatically different visions for our nation's future.

We will first consider President Barack Obama's plan. To be clear, this is no ordinary budget. In a nutshell, the president and Democratic leaders in Congress are attempting to bring about the third and final great wave of progressivism, building on top of the New Deal and the Great Society. So America is placed in a special moment in our history -- brought about by the deep recession, Mr. Obama's ambitious agenda, and the pending fiscal tidal-wave of red ink brought forward by the looming insolvency of our entitlement programs. If this agenda comes to pass, it will mark this period in history as the moment America turned European.

House Republicans will offer an alternative plan. This too is no ordinary budget. As the opposition party, we believe this moment must be met by offering the American people a different way forward -- one based on our belief that America is an exceptional nation, and we want to keep it that way. Our budget applies our country's enduring first principles to the problems of our day. Rather than attempting to equalize the results of peoples' lives and micromanaging their affairs, we seek to preserve our system of protecting our natural rights and equalizing opportunity for all. The plan works to accomplish four main goals: 1) fulfill the mission of health and retirement security; 2) control our nation's debts; 3) put the economy on a path of growth and leadership in the global economy; and 4) preserve the American legacy of leaving the next generation better off.

Under the president's plan, spending will top $4 trillion this year alone, and consume 28.5% of our nation's economy. His plan would mean a $1 trillion increase to the already unsustainable spending growth of our nation's entitlement programs -- including a "down payment" toward government-controlled health care and education; a $1.5 trillion tax increase to further shackle the small businesses and investors we rely on to create jobs; a massive increase in energy costs for families via cap and trade. Moreover, the Obama plan would result in an exploding deficit, a doubling of the nation's debt in five years, and an increase of that debt to more than 82% of our nation's GDP by the last year of the budget. This approach will ultimately debase our currency and reduce the living standards of the American people.


Instead of doubling the debt in five years, and tripling it in 10, the Republican budget curbs the explosion in spending called for by the president and his party. Our plan halts the borrow-and-spend philosophy that brought about today's economic problems, and puts a stop to heaping ever-growing debt on future generations -- and it does so by controlling spending, not by raising taxes. The greatest difference lies in the size of government our budgets achieve over time (see nearby chart).

While our approach ensures a sturdy safety net for those facing chronic or temporary difficulties, it understands that the reliability of this protection and the other functions of government depend on a vibrant, free and growing private sector to generate the resources necessary for it.

Here's an outline of what we propose:

- Deficits/Debt. The Republican budget achieves lower deficits than the Democratic plan in every year, and by 2019 yields half the deficit proposed by the president. By doing so, we control government debt: Under our plan, debt held by the public is $3.6 trillion less during the budget period.

- Spending. Our budget gives priority to national defense and veterans' health care. We freeze all other discretionary spending for five years, allowing it to grow modestly after that. We also place all spending under a statutory spending cap backed up by tough budget enforcement.

- Energy. Our budget lays a firm foundation to position the U.S. to meet three important strategic energy goals: reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, deploying more clean and renewable energy sources free of greenhouse gas, and supporting economic growth. We do these things by rejecting the president's cap-and-trade scheme, by opening exploration on our nation's oil and gas fields, and by investing the proceeds in a new clean energy trust fund, infrastructure and further deficit reduction.

- Entitlements. Our budget also takes steps toward fulfilling the mission of health and retirement security, in part by making these programs fiscally sustainable. The budget moves toward making quality health care affordable and accessible to all Americans by strengthening the relationship between patients and their doctors, not the dictates of government bureaucrats. We preserve the existing Medicare program for all those 55 or older; and then, to make the program sustainable and dependable, those 54 and younger will enter a Medicare program reformed to work like the health plan members of Congress and federal employees now enjoy. Starting in 2021, seniors would receive a premium support payment equal to 100% of the Medicare benefit on average. This would be income related, so low-income seniors receive extra support, and high-income seniors receive support relative to their incomes -- along the same lines as the president's Medicare Part D proposal.

We strengthen the Medicaid safety net by converting the federal share of Medicaid payments into an allotment tailored for each state's low-income population. This will enhance state flexibility and sensitivity to spending growth.

In one of the most valued government programs -- Social Security -- our budget begins to develop a bipartisan solution to the program's pending bankruptcy by incorporating some of the reforms advocated by the president's budget director. Specifically, we provide for a trigger that would make small adjustments in the benefits for higher-income beneficiaries if the Social Security Administration determines the Social Security Trust Fund cannot meet its obligations. This is a modest but serious proposal which would not affect those in or near retirement, but is aimed at helping develop a consensus, across party lines, toward saving this important retirement program. We also assure that benefits for lower-income recipients are large enough to keep them out of poverty.

- Tax Reform. Our budget does not raise taxes, and makes permanent the 2001 and 2003 tax laws. In fact, we cut taxes and reform the tax system. Individuals can choose to pay their federal taxes under the existing code, or move to a highly simplified system that fits on a post card, with few deductions and two rates. Specifically, couples pay 10% on their first $100,000 in income (singles on $50,000) and 25% above that. Capital gains and dividends are taxed at 15%, and the death tax is repealed. The proposal includes generous standard and personal exemptions such that a family of four earning $39,000 would not pay tax on that amount. In an effort to revive peoples' lost savings, and to create an incentive for risk-taking and investment, the budget repeals the capital gains tax through 2010 for all taxpayers.

On the business side, the budget permanently cuts the uncompetitive corporate income tax rate -- currently the second highest in the industrialized world -- to 25%. This puts American companies in a better position to lead in the global economy, promotes jobs here at home, and strengthens worker paychecks.

We hope the administration and Democratic leaders in Congress do not distort and preach fear about our Republican plan. Some may be tempted to appeal to the darker emotions of envy and insecurity that surely run high in times like these. Yet we know Americans are stronger, smarter and prouder than this ploy assumes.

In the recent past, the Republican Party failed to offer the nation an inspiring vision and a concrete plan to tackle our problems with innovative and principled solutions. We do not intend to repeat that mistake. America is not the greatest nation on earth by chance. We earned this greatness by rewarding individual achievement, by advancing and protecting natural rights, and by embracing freedom. We intend to continue this uniquely American tradition.

Mr. Ryan, from Wisconsin, is the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee.

[Winehole23]

From a year ago. GOP bigwigs ran from it like the plague. Putting Ryan's roadmap forward as a GOP-sanctioned and approved plan is a bit misleading CC.

[DarrinS]

Anyone ever received an unemployment check in their life?

I guess I've just been very lucky.

[CosmicCowboy]

From a year ago. GOP bigwigs ran from it like the plague. Putting Ryan's roadmap forward as a GOP-sanctioned and approved plan is a bit misleading CC.

Yeah, like I said in a previous post, neither party has the political spine to officially propose cutting existing entitlement programs.

[boutons_deux]

"cutting existing entitlement programs."

the Repug wars, Repug tax cuts for the superwealthy, reduction in tax receipts at all levels due to the Banksters' Great Depression are much bigger, and longer lasting hits on the deficit than entitlement progams.

Stick Movement Conservative/Repug talking point up your ass.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Anyone ever received an unemployment check in their life?

I guess I've just been very lucky.

I did about 22 yrs ago.

[CosmicCowboy]

"cutting existing entitlement programs."

the Repug wars, Repug tax cuts for the superwealthy, reduction in tax receipts at all levels due to the Banksters' Great Depression are much bigger, and longer lasting hits on the deficit than entitlement progams.

Stick Movement Conservative/Repug talking point up your ass.

:lmao

Shit, you are the poster child for "talking points"...

OK, DON'T cut my Social Security then...

[Nbadan]

Yeah, like I said in a previous post, neither party has the political spine to officially propose cutting existing entitlement programs.

...neither political party has the spine to pull the spending on two needless wars of aggression either despite public opinion...

[DarkReign]

Anyone ever received an unemployment check in their life?

I guess I've just been very lucky.

No, but the bolded part is very true, nonetheless.

[DarkReign]

...neither political party has the spine to pull the spending on two needless wars of aggression either despite public opinion...

....or any other government program that buys votes, either directly or indirectly.

The wars buy votes just the same as welfare and SS.

There are Americans walking, talking and voting who want blood in ample quantities because of 9/11. The particulars about whether we're fighting the good fight or not are immaterial to them.

You also have a military industrial complex supremely interested in the ongoing conflicts to be "ongoing". They are billion dollar industries with massive political clout and campaign contributions.

That is reality.

[Thompson]

tbh Republicans have a long history of not giving a shit about poor people. Nothing really new to see here in this thread.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1
'It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.'


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/11/bush.taxes/
'President and Mrs. George W. Bush reported taxable income of $719, 274 for the tax year 2007 and paid $221,635 in federal income taxes, the White House said Friday.'

'They contributed a total of $165,660 to churches and charitable organizations.'

'The Cheneys donated $166,547 to charity last year, the White House said, bringing their total charitable contributions during his vice presidency to just under $8 million.'


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/25/obama-tax-returns-low-on-_n_93353.html
'Up until recent years when their income increased sharply from book revenues and a Senate salary, Obama's family donated a relatively minor amount of its earnings to charity. From 2000 through 2004, the senator and his wife never gave more than $3,500 a year in charitable donations -- about 1 percent of their annual earnings.'


Liberals are typically much more generous with other peoples' money.

[Wild Cobra]

Thompson...

You forget...

Democrats give away thousands of times more than conservatives. They just do it with other peoples money, through taxation.

[TeyshaBlue]

I did about 22 yrs ago.

Yeah, me too about 8 years ago. Not all it's cracked up to be.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yeah, me too about 8 years ago. Not all it's cracked up to be.

That's why it's hard for me to buy the conservative argument that people enjoy milking unemployment. I'm not sure who likes living off 1/4 of what you were making previously especially if you have a family to supprt..

[boutons_deux]

"buy the conservative argument that people enjoy milking unemployment"

the only people who buy that are the assholes in the Repug/Movement Conservative choir

[Wild Cobra]

That's why it's hard for me to buy the conservative argument that people enjoy milking unemployment. I'm not sure who likes living off 1/4 of what you were making previously especially if you have a family to supprt..
Most things you buy on credit allow you to buy insurance that is relatively cheap, that makes your payments if you should become unemployed. That $400+ check weekly can keep many people in a work free vacation. Not really at risk of losing things. No incentive to look for work.

[TeyshaBlue]

That's why it's hard for me to buy the conservative argument that people enjoy milking unemployment. I'm not sure who likes living off 1/4 of what you were making previously especially if you have a family to supprt..

Yeah, I've never bought into that argument. I mean, I guess you can, but it aint much of a livin'. That being said, my wife is still unemployed. She has taken some part time jobs, including a census job. Her UI pays the differential between what her job pays and what her UI payment would be if she's not earning much. This action also automatically extends her UI benefits, so in a sense, we are kinda milking the system since she's yet to find another full time position in her field.

[TeyshaBlue]

Most things you buy on credit allow you to buy insurance that is relatively cheap, that makes your payments if you should become unemployed. That $400+ check weekly can keep many people in a work free vacation. Not really at risk of losing things. No incentive to look for work.

That's a very narrow, and somewhat unquantifiable, scenario. I'm sure there are some that are doing that very thing. Many? Pretty relative.

[Wild Cobra]

That's a very narrow, and somewhat unquantifiable, scenario. I'm sure there are some that are doing that very thing. Many? Pretty relative.
I don't know. I just know ever time I have bought something with payments, the insurance was available. I bought the insurance once, when I bought a car. When I lost my job, by the time I found work again, my car was paid for.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yeah, I've never bought into that argument. I mean, I guess you can, but it aint much of a livin'. That being said, my wife is still unemployed. She has taken some part time jobs, including a census job. Her UI pays the differential between what her job pays and what her UI payment would be if she's not earning much. This action also automatically extends her UI benefits, so in a sense, we are kinda milking the system since she's yet to find another full time position in her field.

oh the horrah!

[boutons_deux]

unemployed people can't make their cc payments, probably had all cc's cancelled, debt collectors after them, but WC says they can (ab)use welfare payments just to pay insurance for their NEW credit purchases? GMAFB

[TeyshaBlue]

oh the horrah!

Yeah, I know. If she starts having babies, I'm gonna shoot her.:lol