Republicans kill Senate jobless aid measure

[Ryan in Maine]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_congress_spending

  By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer   – 23 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Republicans on Thursday defeated Democrats' showcase election-year jobs bill, including an extension of weekly unemployment benefits for millions of people out of work more than six months.

The 57-41 vote fell three votes short of the 60 required to crack a GOP filibuster, delivering a major blow to President Barack Obama and Democrats facing big losses of House and Senate seats in the fall election.

The rejected bill would have provided $16 billion in new aid to states, preserving the jobs of thousands of state and local government workers and providing what White House officials called an insurance policy against a double-dip recession. It included dozens of tax breaks sought by business lobbyists and tax increases on domestically produced oil and on investment fund managers.

And it goes downhill from there!

How can anyone possibly claim that it would be paid for? ha ha

[vaskidmark]

what White House officials called an insurance policy against a double-dip recession.

As opposed to a "double-digit" recession?

Or has the repornalist (new word for a reporter/journalist) got in mind that the recession will be drawing down more than one economy?  [Is that even possible??

Are there no more ptoofreaders that actually follow a stylebook? 

stay safe.

[White Horseradish]

Are there no more ptoofreaders that actually follow a stylebook? 

I tot I taw a putty tat!

[TechMan]

Double-Dip Recession

[lupinus]

Much as I can understand the suck involved of one's benefits running out, it need's to happen eventually.

We simply can't afford it. And for every honest person out there who is honestly looking for work and just can't find a job, there's plenty who are content to suckle the government teet for as long as humanly possible. Sadly, I fear, it's mostly the honest ones who just can't find a job who will go hungry. Most of the teet suckers will likely just find themselves a different teet to suck dry.

[Stetson]

My wife is an accountant but could not find a job, looked for a solid year.

So, we paid $400 for her to go to school to be a CNA.  Shes in the clinicals part now and will be done next Wednesday.

She already getting offers from places where in the town where shes in school.  Too bad its 2.5 hrs from here

If you cant find a job doing what you want, then find out whats needed and do that.

[roo_ster]

My wife is an accountant but could not find a job, looked for a solid year.

So, we paid $400 for her to go to school to be a CNA.  Shes in the clinicals part now and will be done next Wednesday.

She already getting offers from places where in the town where shes in school.  Too bad its 2.5 hrs from here

If you cant find a job doing what you want, then find out whats needed and do that.

Yep, last May my wife completed her RN cert DCCC.

[Tallpine]

Where was all this staunch resolve and fiscal conservatism when they bailed out the bankers and crammed socialized medicine down our throats?

 

[HankB]

Where was all this staunch resolve and fiscal conservatism when they bailed out the bankers and crammed socialized medicine down our throats?

IMHO, it was the GOP's lack of fiscal responsibility that cost them the House and Senate after 6 years of Bush.

Maybe after being spanked at the polls, some (NOT all!!!    ) of them are starting to get a clue.

[Jim147]

How many of you read the story about the Republicans putting the unemployment extension in a stand alone bill right after they voted this one down, but the democrats wouldn't let them do that?

Since all the headlines are a "Republicans kill unemployment benefits for millions" why wouldn't the media want to put that out for the people to see?

jim

[MechAg94]

Where was all this staunch resolve and fiscal conservatism when they bailed out the bankers and crammed socialized medicine down our throats?

 

I keep hearing people say the TARP bailout has been paid back and it not a negative on the budget.  Obama's "stimulus" bill made up for it. 

Also, I don't believe any Republicans voted for the socialized medicine stuff. 

[Tallpine]

How many of you read the story about the Republicans putting the unemployment extension in a stand alone bill right after they voted this one down, but the democrats wouldn't let them do that?

jim

I didn't, but that explains everything  

[Balog]

I keep hearing people say the TARP bailout has been paid back and it not a negative on the budget.  Obama's "stimulus" bill made up for it. 

Accounting smoke and mirrors. There's been a thread about it on here already.

[AZRedhawk44]

How many of you read the story about the Republicans putting the unemployment extension in a stand alone bill right after they voted this one down, but the democrats wouldn't let them do that?

That's dumb.

We have too much welfare right now.  Voting down welfare is good.  Adding the same welfare you just voted down, into a separate bill, is dumb.

I disapprove of increases in government welfare.  In good times, or hard times.

[SteveT]

This is an interesting point.   How many posters on here are just against unemployment insurance period.  No if, ands or buts.

[Monkeyleg]

I've said here a zillion times that I've been paying unemployment taxes since 1987, but because I own my business I can never collect a dime.

Based on that, I oppose unemployment insurance. However, if people want to vote themselves another tax to give their money to people who've lost a job, then I'll reconsider. But only if everyone pays for those out of work, not just employers.

[RileyCA]

We have too much welfare right now.  Voting down welfare is good.  Adding the same welfare you just voted down, into a separate bill, is dumb.

I disapprove of increases in government welfare.  In good times, or hard times.

First, unemployment insurance benefits are not welfare.  The premiums are prepaid (with payroll taxes) like any other insurance policy.  Second, this economy is the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930's, a very long time ago.  Millions of Americans are unable to find work, any kind of work.  These same Americans are hardworking, honest family men under normal circumstances.  They have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own.  The foundations of this country are not rooted in 'balancing' some fictional budget that has been busted time and time again by Republicans with their wars, their expansion of government, and 'bailouts' to their billionaire buddies.  This country was founded on the egelatarian principal that all men are created equal (whether they're wealthy or not) and their labor is to be respected and the fruits thereof protected by a government of, by and for the people.  The people doesn't include corporations, (despite the recent radical ruling by the SC).   This government has taken way too much money from the people and has a legal, moral, and ethical obligation to return (some) of that money.

[MicroBalrog]

The people doesn't include corporations, (despite the recent radical ruling by the SC

Please explain.

Do you think that the government should be able to confiscate the property of corporations without trial because they are 'not people'?

Corporations are the representatives of their members, or their stockholders. To confiscate their property is the same as to steal the property of a stockholder. To invade upon their business communications is the same as to intrude upon the privacy of their stockholder. I fail to see how this is unfair.

The foundations of this country are not rooted in 'balancing' some fictional budget that has been busted time and time again by Republicans with their wars, their expansion of government, and 'bailouts' to their billionaire buddies.  

It's not clear to me why 'the Republicans' being bad in the past means to say that the Dems are allowed to be bad in the present.

This country was founded on the egelatarian principal that all men are created equal (whether they're wealthy or not) and their labor is to be respected and the fruits thereof protected by a government of, by and for the people.

1. A 'government of, by, and for the people' is nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or any other founding documents.

2. It is an egalitarian principle. A principal is a sort of school official.

[Monkeyleg]

My company is a corporation, so I'm a corporation. I pay the unemployment premiums even though I have no employees, and I can never collect.

I'm not alone in that situation at all.

How is that not "welfare"?

[RileyCA]

Corporations are not people and do not have the same rights as people.  Corporations are a creation of government.  It is government who charters and authorizes and is empowered to regulate corporations.  When corporate entities cease to serve the people of the representative government that created them, those same people have the right, and the duty, to dissolve that corporation.  If that corporation has commited crimes, (as did BP for example), the people, through government have the power and duty to dissolve that corporation, seize its assets and recompense the victims.

That's all I'm sayin'

[RileyCA]

My company is a corporation, so I'm a corporation. I pay the unemployment premiums even though I have no employees, and I can never collect.

A corporation is a seperate entity.  You are not the corporation nor is the corporation you in the 'eyes of the law'.  I can't believe you pay unemployment premiums with no payroll.  UI is generally bases on payroll as a percentage thereof.  What state are you in?

[Balog]

Riley! So good to see you again. Striking on the weekend when the mods are least likely to be around to ban you (again) eh? Very clever. Well, it was nice to see you again. Try to get some more Unibomber-esque rants in before the banschwerk descends yet again, I find them terribly amusing in a pathetic way.

[MicroBalrog]

Corporations are not people and do not have the same rights as people.  Corporations are a creation of government.  It is government who charters and authorizes and is empowered to regulate corporations.  When corporate entities cease to serve the people of the representative government that created them, those same people have the right, and the duty, to dissolve that corporation.  If that corporation has commited crimes, (as did BP for example), the people, through government have the power and duty to dissolve that corporation, seize its assets and recompense the victims.

That's all I'm sayin'

So what you're saying is, the government may choose to dissolve a corporation and confiscate all its property, and the people who own its stock should have no protection whatever from this because 'corporations' have no rights?

Or should there be an adversarial process? Like, you know, a trial?

[Hutch]

If there was all that "unemployment insurance" money lying around, I'd be less averse to extending benefits.  All the benefits extension represents is a transfer of wealth not yet created by generations to come to unemployed VOTERS now.  Kinda like all that Social Security Trust Fund bullpoop you read so much about in the papers.  Or not.  That money (unemployment insurance premiums) has long since gone down the rathole.

[MechAg94]

I think even the majority of Republicans are not going to want to be labeled as killing unemployment benefits completely right before an election.  Offering to pass them separately lets them vote no without having to be labeled as "killing benefits for poor unfortunate unemployed people".  I think that is or was obvious to most of you.

That said, I'm glad they seem to be standing together on a lot of what the Democrats are doing, even if it doesn't matter sometimes.