pBills Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 I love how that's the conclusion you're jumping to. You should contact Live Nation because there has to be a way to make money off your level of stupidity. Conclusion... No. Actually it was over the news on the radio here in DC. Suck a big one D-bag.
pBills Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 I think it's kind of cool he's doing this. Once again it shows that the Republicans have balls and the Democrats have vagina's. And at the same time, people are going home with no pay for their families. Way to make a stand that F's over people.
Alaska Darin Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 Conclusion... No. Actually it was over the news on the radio here in DC. Suck a big one D-bag. I know it's tough for you but try not to let the talking box think for you. Maybe at some point your own synapses will fire. Thanks for yet another homosexual insult. You're almost completely out of the closet at this point. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
pBills Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 “I hope Senate Democrats tonight vote for their own pay-fors and show Americans that they are committed to fiscal discipline,” Bunning said. “I will be watching them closely and checking off the hypocrites one by one.” Where has he been for the last nine years? Now he stands up and says he's against something. HAHAHA!! Talk about a hypocrite.
Magox Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 And at the same time, people are going home with no pay for their families. Way to make a stand that F's over people. No, that's not true. Up to now, not one single person has gone home with "no pay for their families" because of this stand, well not one person that isn't a liberal politician that is. Also, don't you find it to be hypocritical that not even one month has passed since the Democrats have passed the Pay-go legislation and are already reneging on their promise?
Alaska Darin Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 No, that's not true. Up to now, not one single person has gone home with "no pay for their families" because of this stand, well not one person that isn't a liberal politician that is. Also, don't you find it to be hypocritical that not even one month has passed since the Democrats have passed the Pay-go legislation and are already reneging on their promise? Paygo is only important when you're grandstanding on the ridiculously transparent platform of fiscal responsibility. It's not important at all when you're appealing to people's emotions in the short term. What a joke.
KD in CA Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 And at the same time, people are going home with no pay for their families. Way to make a stand that F's over people. "Going home" from where? The corner bar? These people are not earning this money vagina-boy. Frankly, it's an embarrassment that so few would question a financial giveaway that has exceeded the duration for which it was intended.
keepthefaith Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 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. PJ, Bush cut taxes for nearly all Americans. Here are the numbers: The Bush tax cut created a new lowest rate, 10% for the first several thousand dollars earned. It also established a slow schedule of incremental tax cuts that would eventually double the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, adjust brackets so that middle-income couples owed the same tax as comparable singles and cut the top four tax rates (28% to 25%; 31% to 28%; 36% to 33%; and 39.6% to 35%). If the Bush cuts are allowed to expire, we're all getting a tax increase. As for the vote, good for Bunning. 99 weeks of unemployment is ridiculous, particularly when studies show that job hunting activity is significantly higher in the last 30 days of benefits. Lengthy unemployment benefits + Medicaid + food stamps + subsidized housing = disincentive to look for work and substantially increased defecits and higher taxes. Voters would be more likely to support lengthy unemployment benefits if the Government funded it through other spending cuts.
drnykterstein Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 And at the same time, people are going home with no pay for their families. Way to make a stand that F's over people. I would hope that the votes ultimately decide how the public feels about this. But if the Republicans have proven anything it's that nobody in this country studies history. So this act will be forgotten long before it comes time for the public to make a judgment on it.
Magox Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 The point we've been making http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...ton_104600.html In January, the Senate joined the House in passing "pay-as-you-go" rules to require Congress to pay for new discretionary spending. On Feb. 12, President Obama signed the bill. "Now Congress will have to pay for what it spends, just like everybody else," Obama crowed. Less than a month later, Obama and fellow Democrats are busily demonizing a lone senator for pushing Washington to spend responsibly. It seems this administration is all for fiscal restraint -- as long as you don't mean it. The story began last week when Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., blocked Senate passage of a bill to extend one month unemployment and COBRA health insurance benefits, and other spending, because it did not comply with PAYGO. As the Baseball Hall-of-Famer explained, "When 100 senators are for a bill, and we can't find $10 billion to pay for it, there's something the matter, seriously the matter, with this body." For that, he is Satan. On Sunday, The New York Times ran a story about the Bunning brouhaha without mentioning why Bunning was blocking the bill. A CNN television crawl warned: "Thousands hurt by one senator." Veep Joe Biden lamented the prospect of a single senator filibustering a measure, and wished, as Politico reported, only that the senator would have to explain to the families of the Americans who could lose their benefits "how they're going to get by." It's a heartbreaking scenario -- but it can be avoided if Capitol Hill leaders either find the $10 billion in a government that spends $3.8 trillion annually or the 60 votes needed to bring the bill to the Senate floor. A month ago, Democrats were suggesting the Repubs were phony tightwads for not joining them in support of PAYGO. It turns out, PAYGO is the phony. Two weeks after it became law, the Senate passed a $15 billion jobs bill exempt from PAYGO. Now Bunning is not budging. As spokesman Mike Reynard put it, "If everyone's serious about PAYGO, let's act like it." I used to like the concept, and remember arguing with Brian Riedl of the libertarian- leaning Heritage Foundation. But he was right. As he said Monday, "PAYGO exists as a talking point in order to create the illusion of fiscal responsibility while they're ignoring it. It's designed for TV ads." And: "The offsets are out there. Congress just has to make a difficult decision for once." James Horney, director of federal fiscal policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, has a different take. The PAYGO rules, he noted, exempt emergency spending. "Right now, adding to the deficit in fact helps the economy, it doesn't hurt," Horney noted. The benefits extension "is temporary and deals with a short-term economic problem." To Horney, in exempting the bill to extend jobless benefits, PAYGO is working as it should. Horney added, "I would have more sympathy for (Bunning) and others if they applied the same logic to new tax cuts or to extending expiring tax cuts like the estate tax." Point taken, and it's a good one. But if supporting tax cuts years ago means a lawmaker cannot push for fiscal discipline today, then Washington will never grow up and, as Obama put it, "pay for what it spends."
GG Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 I would hope that the votes ultimately decide how the public feels about this. But if the Republicans have proven anything it's that nobody in this country studies history. So this act will be forgotten long before it comes time for the public to make a judgment on it. You mean like history from two months ago?
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 for all of his grandstanding aka Fillibustering it took him a day or two to flip over and the Bills was Passed!
DC Tom Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 for all of his grandstanding aka Fillibustering it took him a day or two to flip over and the Bills was Passed! Of course. He made his point - namely: got his name in the papers, and an utterly dishonest "fiscal responsibility" bull **** blurb for his next campaign.
IDBillzFan Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 Of course. He made his point - namely: got his name in the papers, and an utterly dishonest "fiscal responsibility" bull **** blurb for his next campaign. Except that he's retiring this year.
DC Tom Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 Except that he's retiring this year. Oh. Well then he's just a ****.
Magox Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 Except that he's retiring this year. Right, there is that.
Adam Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 It's not new you waste of afterbirth....Bunning has a history of mental issues dating back to the 2004 campaign for senate. Try doing background next time you ejaculate on your screen. Actually, the mental issues of our politicans are DIRECTLY traceable to the American people, who they go out of their way to please.
erynthered Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 Jim Bunning's op-ed in the USA today. http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/03/col...k-a-stand-.html
Delete This Account Posted March 6, 2010 Posted March 6, 2010 so let me get this straight: employees pay into a fund that provides them unemployment insurance, and there's someone who says those fund shouldn't be released -- in an economic crisis no less. and this person taking this "moral" stand is a former athlete who got paid lots of money to throw a baseball, before his arm gave out, at which point he could live quite easily on the millions of dollars he was paid and had no need to cash in on unemployment insurance because he, after all, was paid millions. and he's taking this stand against people who paid into a fund and seeking recompense? well, sheesh, i can see the point he's making, given the fact that he used to throw a baseball and cashed in on his name recognition, and now is being paid by the people he's accusing of being lazy. it all adds up. jw ADD: hey bishop!!
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 6, 2010 Posted March 6, 2010 so let me get this straight: employees pay into a fund that provides them unemployment insurance, and there's someone who says those fund shouldn't be released -- in an economic crisis no less. and this person taking this "moral" stand is a former athlete who got paid lots of money to throw a baseball, before his arm gave out, at which point he could live quite easily on the millions of dollars he was paid and had no need to cash in on unemployment insurance because he, after all, was paid millions.and he's taking this stand against people who paid into a fund and seeking recompense? well, sheesh, i can see the point he's making, given the fact that he used to throw a baseball and cashed in on his name recognition, and now is being paid by the people he's accusing of being lazy. it all adds up. jw ADD: hey bishop!! My God, I agree with you.Next I will find up is down, the sun raises in the West.
Recommended Posts