3rdnlng Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 Has this guy lost his mind? Would you finance a car with no idea how you were going to pay for it?
KD in CA Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 Would you finance a car with no idea how you were going to pay for it? Why can't the government just pay for it?
IDBillzFan Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 Would you finance a car with no idea how you were going to pay for it? Yes, he would. Just print more money. But dammit, if we don't extend more benefits to the unemployed, they may have to get creative. And we can't have that.
3rdnlng Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 Why can't the government just pay for it? I agree that they should pay for it as long as the money comes from the rich. They should also pay my mortgage, grocery bill and healthcare. I also need assistance to pay my electric and gas bill. Glory be, I never thought I'd see the day that we would vote in the Messiah and live in Utopia forever!
3rdnlng Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 No more than you. You can't lose what you really didn't have in the first place. (speaking of Hedd, of course)
Magox Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 Although his point is valid, this is pure politics that is sure to backfire. Bad judgement on his part.
Keukasmallies Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 Good on yer' Jim Bunning! Takes a lot of nerve to actually do what you took an oath to do--follow the policies and agreements of the Senate about not supporting un-funded bills. What a radical idea! In the short run, don't sweat the impact of Bunning's action; Harry and Nancy will make some deals and all will be resolved.
PastaJoe Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 Bunning voted for the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy without demanding offsetting budget cuts, and voted for funding the Iraq occupation without asking how it's going to be paid for. But now he sticks it to the unemployed and the furloughed constructions workers to score political points with conservatives. Hipocrisy. I wonder how the Senate pension he's going to collect is being paid for.
Dante Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 Has this guy lost his mind? I guess in a enviorment where everyone one else is insane, the sane guy seems like the one who is nuts.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 he voted for funding the Iraq occupation without asking how it's going to be paid for BINGO Paulie Wallnuts!!! Where was his outrage then?
Dante Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 Bunning voted for the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy without demanding offsetting budget cuts, and voted for funding the Iraq occupation without asking how it's going to be paid for. But now he sticks it to the unemployed and the furloughed constructions workers to score political points with conservatives. Hipocrisy. I wonder how the Senate pension he's going to collect is being paid for. He would be exactly right. Who do you think pays most of the taxes already? Who would you classify as rich? Would it be thetop ten incomes in the country? They pay over 71% of the total federal tax. Ok maybe the "rich" aren't in top ten percentile but in the top 5%. Well, they pay over 61%. Certainly the top 1% would be considered rich right? They pay 41% of the TOTAL federal income. So cry me a river about tax cuts for the rich. They should get a cut. It would be the fair thing to do. But heaven forbid we put money back in the hands of people that actually could create new jobs by maybe spending some of that tax money on creating new business ventures.
John Adams Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 BINGO Paulie Wallnuts!!! Where was his outrage then? There's been plenty of outrage over Iraq and Afghanistan spending. Bush started this !@#$ing mess. Obama is keeping it going. Bring them all home now. Why? It makes no difference whether we stay or go.
IDBillzFan Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 But now he sticks it to the unemployed and the furloughed constructions workers to score political points with conservatives. I thought we passed a $800+ billion stimulus to keep the unemployment rate of going above 8%. Maybe if that $800+ billion was spent properly, we wouldn't see this many people needing extended benefits. How about we take the leftover money from the stimulus bill and use it for helping the unemployed that never got help they were promised in the first place? No. Wait. Biden said the second part of the stimulus bill was the part that was going to save or create jobs. That's right. No. Wait. Stimulus already saved or created 2,000,000 jobs. No. Wait. Make that 1.5 million. No. Wait. Make that 650,000. No. Wait. Ahhh, phkuit. Just print some more money and we'll let the next guy worry about it. Where was his outrage then? The latest liberal talking point. As if the answer to that question makes everything right again.
VABills Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 There's been plenty of outrage over Iraq and Afghanistan spending. Bush started this !@#$ing mess. Obama is keeping it going. Bring them all home now. Why? It makes no difference whether we stay or go. Hey if we pull all our troops out, we can then force them out of the military and have even more unemployed.
erynthered Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 Hey if we pull all our troops out, we can then force them out of the military and have even more unemployed. Then we'd have more terrorists.
WisconsinBillzFan Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 The unemployed? More like the lazy. If we had 99 more Bunnings in the Senate we wouldn't be where we are today.
VABills Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 Then we'd have more terrorists. Yweah I forgot, the libs like to call our troops terrorist and our enemies are miss guided people who have a right to blow us up because we don't say sorry enough and pay reparations.
Recommended Posts