Lone senator blocks unemployment benefit extensions

[jiminnm]

Hate to break it to you, but you have to be a citizen to vote, so that disqualifies illegals.

No, you just have to be registered. If one can register to vote, one votes. There are many way to register without demonstrating citizenship or even legal residence [[especially if you live somewhere that allows same day registration and voting, when the flimsiest proofs of residence are accepted).

[RaumVogel]

Quote: "YOUR AN IDIOT!"

It's you're an idiot.. Man that's one of my pet peeves..

And hopefully you save up enough to buy a keyboard with a spacebar.

Just more proof that I was educated in Detroit! I love grammar nazi's like you,you know everybody on this forum is against you're views,so you are going to point out my grammatical errors?

Go listen to you're buddy,Rush Limbaugh,he'll make you feel better.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "forum is against you're views,"

I give up, you win..

[Hermod]

Show me a sports franchise that received a bailout. Convince me that a banker/executive who pushes paper from one table to the next has as much talent as a professional athlete. Show me where these corporate fat-cats are forced out of their "career" at the age of 30-35 due to aging and physical ability. And yet the upper tier of corporate executives make hundreds of millions more than the upper tier athletes will ever realize. All the while, two of the major sporting leagues are subjected to SALARY CAPS. {Funny metaphor here: Baseball, which has no salary cap - gives the fans [read: citizens] the same thing over and over - Yankee championships. Seems fair to the other teams and fans, eh?}

Ticket takers.......... are you referring to the fans? Wouldn't the fans be the proverbial equivilent of the citizens to the corporations? You should be thinking of the pine riders, assistant coaches, water boys and janitors if you would like to maintain your strawman comparison.

Not sure if you were trying to discount the original idea or what, but ....... thanks....... I guess.

OK, look at it this way. In 1950, the two top salaried baseball players were Ted Williams $125K and Joe Dimaggio $100K. I think that Feller and Musial made about $85K. Compare that salary to any of the menial workers at the ball park [[ticket takers, ushers, ground crew). Now compare the high salaried guys in baseball today with the menial workers.

This applies across all fields of work. The guys at the top are getting more relative to the guys at the bottom. .

[RaumVogel]

Quote: "forum is against you're views,"

I give up, you win..

I'm sorry that I didn't check this site: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/misspelling before posting. I'm sure everybody will now think that YOUR views are superior.

/Thanks for acknowledging that I "won".

[EMG]

Ben Shapiro sums up this whole situation very nicely.

http://townhall.com/columnists/BenSh...to_my_property


Wednesday, March 03, 2010

You Have No Right to My Property
by Ben Shapiro


Sen. Jim Bunning [[R-Ky.) is the most unpopular man in the Senate, according to his colleagues. "Today we have a clear-cut example to show the American people just what's wrong with Washington, D.C.," said Sen. Patty Murray [[D-Wash). "He's hurting the American people," spat Sen. Susan Collins [[R-Maine).

What is Bunning doing that deserves such reproof? He has the audacity to stall a 30-day extension of unemployment and COBRA health care benefits on the grounds that the extension would add $10 billion to the federal deficit, which is already expected to hit $1.6 trillion this year. Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid [[D-Nev.) wants to pass that extension unanimously in order to expedite the process; Bunning has refused, correctly pointing out that the Democrats passed a "pay as you go" policy that was supposed to make spending deficit neutral, and that now they're tossing that policy out the window for political convenience. Bunning has even suggested a way to make the extension deficit neutral: Take money out of the unspent chunk of the Obama stimulus package and use it to fund the extension. Democrats have refused.

Here's the truth: Bunning is a hero and his senatorial critics are villains. That goes for Republicans as well as Democrats. Bunning's opponents are liars and hypocrites of the highest order. The Democrats have no intention of lowering the deficit or abiding by "pay-go," and this only proves it. President Obama set up a joke commission supposedly designed to restore fiscal responsibility [[he appointed noted spendthrift and Service Employees International Union President Andy Stern), but at the same time, Obama's mouthpiece, Robert Gibbs, is informing the American public that "This is an emergency situation. Hundreds of thousands have been left in the lurch … I don't know how you negotiate the irrational."

The Democrats and Republicans who oppose Bunning want fiscal responsibility, unless it actually requires them to act fiscally responsible. Unless it's an "emergency." Here's the question: If we can't trust legislators to be fiscally responsible during economic emergencies, how can we trust them to be fiscally responsible during economic swells?
But there's something even more insidious going on here than simple political gamesmanship. Too many Americans now believe that the checks they receive every month from the unemployment office -- like the checks they get from the welfare office, from Medicare, from Social Security -- are inalienable rights. They are not.

Our politicians and our press have become too loose with "rights talk." Everything is now a "right." The "right" to work. The "right" to health care. The "right" to a own a home. Each and every one of these "rights" is actually a restriction on liberty.

Our Constitution provides for liberty because it focuses on true rights -- negative rights. Negative rights are rights created by restraining others from treating you in a certain way. The right to free speech exists because we restrict the government from encroaching upon free speech. The right to bear arms exists because we restrict the government from taking away guns [[or should, in any case). The right to life exists because we restrict citizens from murder.

Positive rights are something else entirely: They are rights created by forcing others to engage in certain behavior. The right to work, for example, requires someone else to give you a job. The right to health care requires someone else to provide health care for you. These are not true rights, but tyrannical impositions, taking from Party A and giving to Party B.

No country that focuses more on positive rights than negative rights can remain truly free for long. Negative rights provide a space in which individuals can pursue happiness; positive rights impose crushing burdens on some for the benefit of others.

Sen. Bunning is standing up for negative rights -- the same underlying rights that provide the framework for our system of government. His opponents are standing up for positive rights, suggesting that some of us, the employed, owe something to the unemployed -- or worse, that future generations owe something to today's unemployed.

Everyone sympathizes with the unemployed, of course. But many of those who are living off the unemployment program affected by Bunning's stand have been on the unemployment lines for over a year at this point -- at minimum, everyone affected has been on unemployment for at least six months. We simply cannot keep extending unemployment benefits indefinitely by calling on imaginary "rights" derived from depriving others. That is not only a betrayal of those who must pay, but a betrayal of our founding principles.


Amen, Ben! It's high time more people called things for what they are.

[Stosh]

Ben Shapiro sums up this whole situation very nicely.

http://townhall.com/columnists/BenSh...to_my_property

<snip>

Amen, Ben! It's high time more people called things for what they are.

I would, but then again I would be banned for calling you a ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~. Thanks for playing.

[RaumVogel]

Sstashmoo

and EMG: The government should cut back on un-employment AFTER they create REAL jobs,not just ones on paper.Meanwhile perhaps you would like to let us all know where the two of you work,I'm sure there are plenty of people who would love to submit applications to your companies due to the fact that they are hiring so many people.

[firstandten]

Another view of Senator Bunning from Paul Krugman

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/op...rugman.html?em


So the Bunning blockade is over. For days, Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky exploited Senate rules to block a one-month extension of unemployment benefits. In the end, he gave in, although not soon enough to prevent an interruption of payments to around 100,000 workers.

.But while the blockade is over, its lessons remain. Some of those lessons involve the spectacular dysfunctionality of the Senate. What I want to focus on right now, however, is the incredible gap that has opened up between the parties. Today, Democrats and Republicans live in different universes, both intellectually and morally.




Take the question of helping the unemployed in the middle of a deep slump. What Democrats believe is what textbook economics says: that when the economy is deeply depressed, extending unemployment benefits not only helps those in need, it also reduces unemployment. That’s because the economy’s problem right now is lack of sufficient demand, and cash-strapped unemployed workers are likely to spend their benefits. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office says that aid to the unemployed is one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus, as measured by jobs created per dollar of outlay.

But that’s not how Republicans see it. Here’s what Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, had to say when defending Mr. Bunning’s position [[although not joining his blockade): unemployment relief “doesn’t create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.�
In Mr. Kyl’s view, then, what we really need to worry about right now — with more than five unemployed workers for every job opening, and long-term unemployment at its highest level since the Great Depression — is whether we’re reducing the incentive of the unemployed to find jobs. To me, that’s a bizarre point of view — but then, I don’t live in Mr. Kyl’s universe.

And the difference between the two universes isn’t just intellectual, it’s also moral.
Bill Clinton famously told a suffering constituent, “I feel your pain.� But the thing is, he did and does — while many other politicians clearly don’t. Or perhaps it would be fairer to say that the parties feel the pain of different people.
During the debate over unemployment benefits, Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat of Oregon, made a plea for action on behalf of those in need. In response, Mr. Bunning blurted out an expletive. That was undignified — but not that different, in substance, from the position of leading Republicans.
Consider, in particular, the position that Mr. Kyl has taken on a proposed bill that would extend unemployment benefits and health insurance subsidies for the jobless for the rest of the year. Republicans will block that bill, said Mr. Kyl, unless they get a “path forward fairly soon� on the estate tax.

Now, the House has already passed a bill that, by exempting the assets of couples up to $7 million, would leave 99.75 percent of estates tax-free. But that doesn’t seem to be enough for Mr. Kyl; he’s willing to hold up desperately needed aid to the unemployed on behalf of the remaining 0.25 percent. That’s a very clear statement of priorities.
So, as I said, the parties now live in different universes, both intellectually and morally. We can ask how that happened; there, too, the parties live in different worlds. Republicans would say that it’s because Democrats have moved sharply left: a Republican National Committee fund-raising plan acquired by Politico suggests motivating donors by promising to “save the country from trending toward socialism.� I’d say that it’s because Republicans have moved hard to the right, furiously rejecting ideas they used to support. Indeed, the Obama health care plan strongly resembles past G.O.P. plans. But again, I don’t live in their universe.
More important, however, what are the implications of this total divergence in views?

The answer, of course, is that bipartisanship is now a foolish dream. How can the parties agree on policy when they have utterly different visions of how the economy works, when one party feels for the unemployed, while the other weeps over affluent victims of the “death tax�?
Which brings us to the central political issue right now: health care reform. If Congress enacts reform in the next few weeks — and the odds are growing that it will — it will do so without any Republican votes. Some people will decry this, insisting that President Obama should have tried harder to gain bipartisan support. But that isn’t going to happen, on health care or anything else, for years to come.
Someday, somehow, we as a nation will once again find ourselves living on the same planet. But for now, we aren’t. And that’s just the way it is.

[RaumVogel]

Yes,this is the way it is,and the leader of the nation needs to get on with the business of governing without worry about the cry-baby republicans who would rather let the entire country ascend into complete chaos,then actually compromise with the other party.If Obama and the dems have screwed us that bad,then they will be voted out of office in 2012.Until then,we need to get past health care and worry ABOUT BEING ABLE TO FEED OURSELVES.

[EastSider]

Another view of Senator Bunning from Paul Krugman

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/op...rugman.html?em


That’s because the economy’s problem right now is lack of sufficient demand...

The economy's problem right now is a huge fucking pile of debt and mistaken investment that has to be cleared before we can move forward. There's no demand because people are focused more on paying off credit cards and existing debt before buying more crap to have around the house.

[maxx]

oladub:The unemployment remained at 17% after eight years of Roosevelt's meddling. That's what you want?

maxx: FDR 's policies brought unemployment down from 25%. His mistake was listening to the conservatives around 1937.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200812030014
"Columnists Mona Charen and George Will continued a trend among conservative media of responding to comparisons between the current economic situation and that of the 1930s and between Barack Obama and FDR by attacking the New Deal. In separate columns, both Charen and Will cherry-picked unemployment figures to assert that the New Deal did not reduce unemployment. But historians and progressive economists have noted that unemployment fell every year of the New Deal except during the 1937-38 recession; further, Nobel-laureate Paul Krugman has said it was a reversal of New Deal policies, not a continuance of them, that contributed to rising unemployment in 1937 and 1938..."

[oladub]

oladub:The unemployment remained at 17% after eight years of Roosevelt's meddling. That's what you want?

maxx: FDR 's policies brought unemployment down from 25%. His mistake was listening to the conservatives around 1937.

No, it isn't That is one of the reasons I didn't vote for Senator Obama or McCain. That is also why I put the sarcasm icon on my post. It wasn't just 1937. Every year of his administration through 1937 had at least 17% unemployment so the liberals must have been providing him with bad advice too. Considering that Roosevelt devalued the dollar by 42% and considerably raised taxes to pay for some of his programs, one would expect a better result than 17% unemployment after 7 years of economic elixirs. Burning crops and dumping milk while the unemployed stood in soup lines summed it up.

Eastsider was on the mark writing, "The economy's problem right now is a huge fucking pile of debt and mistaken investment that has to be cleared before we can move forward. There's no demand because people are focused more on paying off credit cards and existing debt before buying more crap to have around the house."

The Bush/Obama depression isn't going to end either until the debt left over from the bubble is liquidated. So far, throwing $14T at the banks [[Mother Jones figure) hasn't done much for the unemployed. Each $1T spent costs the average American family $6,000 in the long run. All of this just increases debt and re-pumps the bubble. Not learning from repeated mistakes is a sign of .....?

[RaumVogel]

The economy's problem right now is a huge fucking pile of debt and mistaken investment that has to be cleared before we can move forward. There's no demand because people are focused more on paying off credit cards and existing debt before buying more crap to have around the house.

The time to pay down the debt was during the reagan/bush years...that never happened.

[Papasito]

The time to pay down the debt was during the reagan/bush years...that never happened.

yeah... because they didnt pay down the debt in the 80's, its ok to triple the debt now, right?

[Detroitej72]

The time to pay down the debt was during the reagan/bush years...that never happened.

Clinton took care of that mess, unfortunately he was followed by G.W. Bush who continued the conservative trend of running up a huge deficit for others to deal with.