Republicans kill extension of unemployment benefits!

Once again, Republicans have killed the extension of a moderate bill to extend unemployment benefits to Americans. As a result, as of this week many Americans will loose those benefits.

http://washingtonindependent.com/77777/bunning-halts-unemployment-extension-again

The bill paid for these benefits throught the use of unspent stimulus funds. It is funny that this congressman objects to spending 10 billion to extend unemployment benefits. But he voted for a 7 trillion unfunded extension of Medicare benefits (largely to the big pharma and health insurance industries).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There was allot of PORK in that bill as well. Perhaps that is why they didn't like it, not enough PORK in it for them!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I support no benefits for anyone. I don't want my tax dollars used for someone who won't work. That bill was a joke--full of pork. It gave them subsidies to pay for their health insurance premiums through COBRA. There was pork for roads etc. We don't need more welfare or roads programs. We need jobs. Good for the Reps.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If there is an lot of pork in the bill, why wouldn't Senator Bunning use that as the reason for his rejection of the bill?

 

Because his buddies didn't get what they wanted, all for one and one for all!

 

Then I think the Republicans should take that as an official position, a party plank - they are against unemployment benefits, Social Security, welfare, etc.

 

From what I read he does not want the bill adding to the deficit. I don't care enough about this to research it.

 

That is a fair position. However, if that is his objection I think he is obligated to suggest how it should be funded and he makes no such suggestion. If his objection is to extending unemployment benefits, then he should simply go on the record as opposing the spending.

 

Good point. Here's a little scenerio. The last three people I talked to about their unemployment situations were all frauds/defrauding the government. One was a chick at the mall who said she was getting benefits but working at a bar for about $300 cash/night. The other was a guy who was a laid off plumber who was doing side jobs for about $250 cash/day. The third was a guy who was on union welfare benefits and doing handyman jobs on the side for "a couple hundred" per day. Fck these people. I don't like this. That is MY tax money going to these frauds. If people fail to plan they plan to fail. I don't feel sorry for any of these people and if I knew the names of the frauds I would turn them in.

 

Right fuck the infrastructure its not like its something important or useful like trying to tell woman what they can do with their bodies.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes, unemployment benefits are for "People who won't work". I think you should have chosen Marie Antoinette as your username Sandy.

 

Agreed, frauds should be turned in.

 

"The plural of anecdotes is not data". A few anecdotes about people who are milking the system means nothing. It in no way indicates that such fraud is widespread. The same goes for anecdotes about welfare programs. Please provide objective evidence that a significant percentage of those who collect unemployment are doing so fraudulently.

 

I never said that. It is not a priority now. Jobs are.

If you don't think welfare fraud is widespread then you need to do lots of homework. It is costing us billions.

 

It's probably not hard to come by, and at the end of the day it boils down to a cost-benefit analysis.

People will game the system, no matter what system there is.

Enforcing rules takes manpower, and that costs money.

So the question: at what point is it cheaper to neglect the cheaters than it is to hire more enforcers?

 

Seriously?

You don't think that it's up to the people who want to pass the bill to find a way to pay for it?

Suppose you want a new TV, but you can't afford it. So you pull out your charge card, but your friend says "Well, you shouldn't buy the TV since you can't afford it---buying the TV only increases your debt, and joe...you're fucking broke." Then you reply "Well, why don't you tell me how I can afford it."

On the one hand, if Republicans spend money they've abandoned their core values as a party. On the other, if they try and re-establish their fiscal conservatism,``they are against unemployment benefits, Social Security, welfare, etc.''


====Added

Didn't you even read the article:

 

fix, updating, and maintaining the infrastructure will create jobs.

 

What is your definition of a significant percentage?

As far as it (evidence of widespread fraud) not being hard to come by, I'm not the one claiming that it is widespread, so I'm not going to look. Those who make the claim should provide the evidence. Anecdotes are worthless.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go to work.

 

Good.

It was unfunded. If it was so goddamned important, then the Dems et al could have coughed up the money to fund it.

If we continue operating this way, then NOTHING will ever be funded in the Congress because every other fucking issue will be deemed "too important" to worry about such pesky things as FUNDING.

Do you know WHY it was left unfunded? Because to fund it would mean cutting the pork projects that every other member wants. So, why NOT just continue to add to the national debt in the guise of "helping" people. Simple solution: cut the pork from the funded portion of the budget and free that money.

This guy did 100% the right thing.

~String

 

Ah, yeah

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What do you think they should do play a game of a million guesses? That is real bright! If they dislike the current proposal, then make a counter proposal. Especially since as you point out they claim to be in favor of extending the benefits. If they object to extending unemployment benefits for any other reason then they should say so. If they don't think the nation can afford 10 billion dollars for extended benefits, then they should say so.

Comparing a state to an individual is just plain wrong on a number of fronts. Joe in your expample cannot legally print money or create money. Your comparison/example just does not hold water.

That is their problem isn't it? In this instance, Republicans did not have any problem voting in a 8 trillion dollar unfunded giveaway to the health insurance and drug industries but seem to have a huge problem with a 10 billion extension of unemployment benefits.

Oh yes indeed I read the entire article before posting. As your posts seemed to imply, just because one states a position or claims to have a position does not mean that claim is sincere. If it was a sincere claim, I would expect the party making the objection to make a counter offer and not just say NO. It is like trying to have your cake and eat it too. It is fundamentally dishonest.