Reply With Quote
"Lib " seems to be anyone who holds a view divergent to that held by WC.
Don't you think this all-or-nothing approach to defecit reduction that you're suggesting is unrealistic? Isn't it a bit ridiculous to be opposed to following paygo principles on a $15 billion bill simply because it doesn't cover a $1 trillion dollar plus defecit?
"Lib " seems to be anyone who holds a view divergent to that held by WC.
The right thing to do becomes the craven, cynical political thing to do so it actually gets done.
It is ridiculous to make a big deal out of $15 billion when the deficit is over $1 trillion and nothing is going to be done about it.
Something will be done, as it is not sustainable.
Yep. Spending will be cut. Taxes will go up. People will . Spending will go up. Taxes will go down. At best, there will be some movement around this new, higher level.
I completely agree. Someone I know doesn't have a license because it was taken away, and now she has to pay 2.5k to get it back. She is just driving around with no license and has no real plan to try and get it back. I told her she needs to do this because it is stupid to put herself (and daughter) into this predicament. She said that she doesn't have 2.5k. I looked at what she spends money on, and found that she could save about 150 a month on the low end, or 275 with some pain in her lifestyle, and make the payments in installments. She has no way of getting her DL back right away, but making progress toward it is good and she will get there eventually. Nope. She doesn't have the money to do it right now.
... So it won't get done.
What's ridiculous is to be opposed to something consistent with a goal you support simply because that one thing won't achieve your entire goal.
I fully support the rearrangement of deckchairs on the anic. It's definitely going to help!
I'm glad to hear you support Bunning's stand.
FEDERAL SPENDING GET US OUT OF A RECESSION/DEPRESSION situation
this guy is head.
I'm glad to see you don't understand sarcasm.
Evidently you don't either.
A lib is a liberal re . Many liberals fall into this category in my opinion.
As for addressing the PayGo, I didn't see your reference. I will look again.
OK, So I take it you agree with my assessment?
Um, read the thread. I believe it is quite obvious, though it pains me to say that someone who uses petty name calling (utterly ridiculous name calling at that) agrees with me.
When has that approach actually worked?
These people have already gotten almost 100 weeks of unemployment benefits! At this point, it's not unemployment, it's welfare. And many of these people don't even want to find a job - they're sitting on their fat, lazy behinds and taking the taxpayer's money.
There are plenty of ways for them to find the money if they really want to pass this legislation - the dems just have a violent aversion to cutting ANY spending, unless it's the military.
I say - good for Bunning - we need more like him. They have to start somewhere - the problem is they always want to start "tomorrow".
The great depression.
The Japanese depression of the 90's.
The Brazilian depression of the 80' and 90's.
Now you tell me what other approach has actually been used and worked to get out of a recession/depression?
Why don't you report them if you know there's a fraud going on?
Both parties have an aversion to cutting spending. And I don't see why the military should be off the table. After all, cutting is cutting is cutting.
Cutting spending now would be a bad idea. You want to reactivate the economy, and have money flowing. Now, I completely agree there should be cuts once the economy recovers, and the savings should be used to pay off debt. This last part is what politicians normally skip and where the problem really is.
"These people have already gotten almost 100 weeks of unemployment benefits! At this point, it's not unemployment, it's welfare. And many of these people don't even want to find a job - they're sitting on their fat, lazy behinds and taking the taxpayer's money."
Spoken like a love-filled, compassionate, Jesus-is-my-Savior Bible-thumping "Christian"
Some projections put unemployment at 10% through end of 2011.
What would Jesus do?
Hand out jobs like loaves and fishes?
Turn all the water into wine to ease the pain?
Last edited by boutons_deux; 03-02-2010 at 09:52 PM.
no surprise with skanks. shes a new sucking for a defense contractor.
Bunning Enthusiastically Backed Extending Unemployment Benefits That Weren’t Paid For In 2003
In recent days, Sen. Jim Bunning has been obstructing the passage of a bill that would extend unemployment benefits for nearly a million Americans, claiming that they aren’t “paid for.”
But in 2003, Bunning not only voted for an unemployment extension but also put out a glowing press release lauding the extension of unemployment benefits as “hopeful news for our most needy families in Kentucky“:
U.S. Senator Jim Bunning today announced that legislation to extend temporary unemployment benefits for an additional five months has passed the United States Congress. The legislation, which was unanimously approved yesterday by the Senate and by a vote of 416-4 today in the House, would also provide a temporary 13-week extension of unemployment benefits for all individuals who exhaust their traditional benefits before June 1, 2003. “The 108th Congress is off to a solid start,” said Bunning.“This is hopeful news for our most needy families in Kentucky. By approving this legislation we will help those folks who are currently without work continue to make ends meet until they can find new employment.” Passage of this legislation means that there will be no lapse in assistance for the nearly 10,000 Kentuckians who have filed claims so far for extended benefits. The last extension expired on December 28, 2002. President Bush is expected to sign the bill tomorrow, which means the next payment to states can still be made on Friday, January 10, as originally scheduled.The CBO estimates that at the time, the budgetary cost of the unemployment benefit increase was $6.6 billion between 2003 and 2007. The Labor Department estimates that 4,300 Kentuckians will lose their unemployment benefits during the week of March 13 without an extension. If Bunning’s stance today is truly principled, then why didn’t he stand up to fight the unpaid-for benefits in 2003, under the Republican President Bush?
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/02/...ployment-2003/
Geez - I don't even know you, and you don't know me. Ever thought of anger management? I feel sorry for those people who resort to vulgar language because they're not intelligent enough to get their point across any other way.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
