Jim Bunning and his little shi* slider

[Alaska Darin]

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?

No John, he's taking a stand against a government that doesn't even pay for the things it actually taxes DIRECTLY for. The Democrats thought this was so bad they passed a rule against new costs that didn't have direct spending or taxation offsets. Of course, they put in a provision for "emergencies", which is yet another government "Get out of Jail Free" card because virtually everything is an emergency once Washington gets their hands on it.

 

At some point everyone needs to realize that the government is putting Americans on the hook for a whole bunch of things we can't afford, so when the things we really do pay for (like FUTA) come up, there's not enough money to fund them. That's not likely to change as long as we spend time demonizing individual politicians while giving a very broken system a pass.

 

That makes us lemmings.

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.

All you do is write your opinion, right?

it all adds up.

 

 

jw

It sure does.

[RkFast]

I find it a bit troubling that a sports reporter employed by the AP can be so ignorant about what being a professional athlete really entails.

 

Thats a pretty bad job out of you, john.

 

All he did was "throw a baseball"?

 

Really, john?

[WisconsinBillzFan]

No John, he's taking a stand against a government that doesn't even pay for the things it actually taxes DIRECTLY for. The Democrats thought this was so bad they passed a rule against new costs that didn't have direct spending or taxation offsets. Of course, they put in a provision for "emergencies", which is yet another government "Get out of Jail Free" card because virtually everything is an emergency once Washington gets their hands on it.

 

At some point everyone needs to realize that the government is putting Americans on the hook for a whole bunch of things we can't afford, so when the things we really do pay for (like FUTA) come up, there's not enough money to fund them. That's not likely to change as long as we spend time demonizing individual politicians while giving a very broken system a pass.

 

+1. Unfortunately far-left liberals can understand this simple truth!

[KD in CA]

so let me get this straight: employees pay into a fund that provides them unemployment insurance

 

Actually, your understanding is a little crooked.

 

Employees pay into the fund at a rate designed to provide benefits to the unemployed for a specific period of time; 26 weeks in most states. If the program was supposed to pay benefits for a longer period of time, than the tax should have been higher. Bunning is questioning an extension of benefits beyond what the program was designed to pay, hence, benefits for which the fund doesn't have the resources to pay and therefore need to be funded from other sources, just like any other government expenditure. And God forbid a Senator ask how the country intends to pay for an unfunded expenditure.

[jjamie12]

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!!

This whole post shows just a startling lack of knowledge about, well... everything you're making a point about (Except maybe the whole 'cashing in on his name' thing. I don't know).

 

You, apparently, don't understand 1- How unemployment insurance works; 2- What the contents of THIS particular bill are, and by extension, its implications; and 3- What PAY-GO is (actually, I, apparently, don't know what it is, either because it obviously doesn't mean jack)

 

How is it that you've formed such a 'locked-in' opinion on something when you clearly don't understand many of the issues central to forming that opinion?

[Doc]

Many politicans in Washington have millions of dollars and make rules that don't affect them personally, john. Hell the biggest farce regarding this health care bill (that will end-up destroying the country) is that while the Dems are telling you that it's SO great for America, they've deemed that it shouldn't apply to them. If anything, that should tell you what a **** sandwich it is. Nevermind the payoffs made to special interests/states/congress peoples' relatives to make it go down easier.

 

The point was to show America the hypocrisy of the Democrats with the "Pay Go" policy that they themselves created just months ago, and are now scrapping. Much like how Obama, Pelosi, and Reid (aka the unholy trinity) howled over reconciliation being used during the Dubya years justifying them doing it now, even though previously Senators from both parties voted together.

 

But my question is, if they somehow manage to get health care destruction passed, where will ex-Canadian officials go for their heart surgery?

[IDBillzFan]

No John, he's taking a stand against a government that doesn't even pay for the things it actually taxes DIRECTLY for. The Democrats thought this was so bad they passed a rule against new costs that didn't have direct spending or taxation offsets. Of course, they put in a provision for "emergencies", which is yet another government "Get out of Jail Free" card because virtually everything is an emergency once Washington gets their hands on it.

 

At some point everyone needs to realize that the government is putting Americans on the hook for a whole bunch of things we can't afford, so when the things we really do pay for (like FUTA) come up, there's not enough money to fund them. That's not likely to change as long as we spend time demonizing individual politicians while giving a very broken system a pass.

I have no idea where you get the patience.

[Magox]

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

Well, first there is no more money in the fund, it ran out quite some time ago, hence the "extension" (which is code word for lets borrow more). Second, there wasn't a single day that anyone went without unemployment benefits because of this "stand", so enough of the liberal bull **** that people suffered because of this decision. Third, the whole point was so that there would be a debate of the recent Democrats decision to reinstate PAYGO, was this all an exercise on their behalf to appear "that we care about deficits", or did they really actually intend to Pay as you go?

 

I think now, thanks to Bunning, we know the answer to that. Also, there is a debate to be had regarding when is enough, enough? There are other drawbacks to extending the jobless benefits program other than the obvious Deficit concerns. There is a strong argument that many people who are on these benefits have less motivation to go out and find a job than those who aren't receiving these benefits. I have a friend of mine out in California who isn't even looking for a job now, and he's been receiving benefits for over a year now. He tells me "well, the job market sucks now anyway, it will probably get better so I'm just gonna keep getting these checks until they are about to run out", of course I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of it. If he's doing it, then I know there are many others that are doing the same.

 

So the debate that needs to be had is when is enough, enough? Considering that not one person missed any benefits, more good than bad came out of it.

 

One more thing I might add, Harry Reid nixed the bipartisan bill that Grassley and Baucus crafted, and it included the Jobless benefits extension in the program. Not only did he nix the BIpartisan bill, in the first day I might add, he didn't even allow it up for a vote.

[Delete This Account]

and yet, as some have pointed out, Bunning's big stand comes not against the large Wall Street bailouts, but against the actual worker. makes sense to me.

 

jw

[IDBillzFan]

and yet, as some have pointed out, Bunning's big stand comes not against the large Wall Street bailouts, but against the actual worker. makes sense to me.

 

jw

Two pages of people clearly explaining why your DailyKos-like talking point misses the REAL problem, and this is what you come up with? Gee, you couldn't work in a little demonizing of health insurance companies while you were at? A Sarah Palin joke? A cry for cap-n-trade? A shout out to Al Gore's now-crumbling global warming hoax? A Glenn Beck stab?

 

Not sure why, but I expected more discussion from you and less Connerhea.

[Delete This Account]

My God, I agree with you.Next I will find up is down, the sun raises in the West.

scary, indeed. i'll do my best to make sure this won't be a trend.

 

jw

[Delete This Account]

Two pages of people clearly explaining why your DailyKos-like talking point misses the REAL problem,, and this is what you come up with? Gee, you couldn't work in a little demonizing of health insurance companies while you were at? A Sarah Palin joke? A cry for cap-n-trade? A shout out to Al Gore's now-crumbling global warming hoax? A Glenn Beck stab?

 

Not sure why, but I expected more discussion from you and less Connerhea.

i find it humorous that people think i'm following talking points or following this debate like some political junkie.

these are my impressions and my opinions and my observations. i am not politically connected or member of some party or group/movement.

i think the polarity of this debate and the rigid black-and-white nature of it in this country and others creates a mood of utter intolerance that i find vexing.

 

jw

 

ADD: i will not apologize for my opinions or get dragged into the marginalizing name-calling that takes place on this particular board.

[jjamie12]

i find it humorous that people think i'm following talking points or following this debate like some political junkie.

these are my impressions and my opinions and my observations. i am not politically connected or member of some party or group/movement.

i think the polarity of this debate and the rigid black-and-white nature of it in this country and others creates a mood of utter intolerance that i find vexing.

 

jw

 

ADD: i will not apologize for my opinions or get dragged into the marginalizing name-calling that takes place on this particular board.

Put another way: I will NOT try to learn anything. My opinion (uninformed as it is) will continue to be that which it has always been, no matter what new information might come to me. Na-na-nuh-boo-boo.

 

Change a few of the words around up-thread, and you will sound exactly like the ultra-right religious crew.

[Alaska Darin]

and yet, as some have pointed out, Bunning's big stand comes not against the large Wall Street bailouts, but against the actual worker. makes sense to me.

 

jw

How 'bout because Paygo wasn't signed the law until the middle of February of 2010? Nah, it couldn't be that simple. It's because Jim Bunning loves banks and hates working people. We can also ignore that Bunning was the ONLY Senator to vote against Bernanke to lead the Fed, with his main point being about the BANKING BAILOUTS. Bunning Grilling Bernanke

 

Our government has ALWAYS been in the pockets of those with the most money. Doesn't matter which party or what issue we're talking about. It's not likely to change as long as people whine EVERY TIME a politician stands up and tries to make the others play by the rules.

 

Jim Bunning is the devil. The other people who wanted to borrow some more money we don't have are all just swell.

[Magox]

i find it humorous that people think i'm following talking points or following this debate like some political junkie.

these are my impressions and my opinions and my observations. i am not politically connected or member of some party or group/movement.

i think the polarity of this debate and the rigid black-and-white nature of it in this country and others creates a mood of utter intolerance that i find vexing.

 

jw

 

ADD: i will not apologize for my opinions or get dragged into the marginalizing name-calling that takes place on this particular board.

You definitely share the idealogy of a left leaning party. The fact that you spout opinions that are factually incorrect, such as the unemployment benefits argument and that Bunning in your view is on the side of the banks, or at least that was the suggestion you were implying shows your bias.

 

I was going to mention the fact that Bunning was one of the few senators that stood his ground against the bank bailouts, but AD beat me to it. Who did the bank bailouts benefit more? Did Mainstreet benefit? How many net jobs have been created since the bailout? How much did Wall Street Benefit over the last year?

 

But, please by all means, keep sharing with us your ill-informed opinions regarding American politics.

[Delete This Account]

Put another way: I will NOT try to learn anything. My opinion (uninformed as it is) will continue to be that which it has always been, no matter what new information might come to me. Na-na-nuh-boo-boo.

 

Change a few of the words around up-thread, and you will sound exactly like the ultra-right religious crew.

once again, there are those who attempt to push a label on me. good for you, as that is your perogative.

my philosophies and leanings are my own and developed over a lifetime of experience. my influences include the likes of authors Hunter S. Thompson, Charles Bukowski and Graham Greene, who's wonderful novel, "Monsignor Quixote," well portrays the divide between religious dogma and socialism, and the vague and nobel gray areas in between them. and that, perhaps, is what i continue to strive for an seek, the counterpoint to zealotry, a healthy skepticism of those in power and a well-defined leaning toward the common man/woman.

 

some of those here mistake my criticism of Bunning for something else, i believe.

 

jw

[KD in CA]

some of those here mistake my criticism of Bunning for something else, i believe.

 

jw

 

I don't understand the criticism of Bunning period. Criticized for asking how the Senate intends to pay for providing benefits beyond those they owe people? I thought debate and discussion were good things? Not to mention showing even the slightly amount of fiscal responsibility.

[Delete This Account]

I don't understand the criticism of Bunning period. Criticized for asking how the Senate intends to pay for providing benefits beyond those they owe people? I thought debate and discussion were good things? Not to mention showing even the slightly amount of fiscal responsibility.

i have difficulty dealing with the phrase "fiscal responsibility," given all the money that has been doled out over this past decade (and i include the past two years in that) to causes and concerns that have nothing to do in helping those that need help the most.

to me, this was not a time to take a stand on the backs of the less fortunate. that moment passed a long time ago. and we're all paying for it in my opinion.

 

jw

[Alaska Darin]

i have difficulty dealing with the phrase "fiscal responsibility," given all the money that has been doled out over this past decade (and i include the past two years in that) to causes and concerns that have nothing to do in helping those that need help the most.

Your math is a little short. It's more like the past 40 years.

to me, this was not a time to take a stand on the backs of the less fortunate. that moment passed a long time ago. and we're all paying for it in my opinion.

 

jw

I can't think of a better time because otherwise people don't pay attention. The problem is people have had the opposite reaction that they should have. The next time you think Washington is !@#$ing the little guy over, realize that your ambivalence is a big reason.

[Delete This Account]

Your math is a little short. It's more like the past 40 years.

 

I can't think of a better time because otherwise people don't pay attention. The problem is people have had the opposite reaction that they should have. The next time you think Washington is !@#$ing the little guy over, realize that your ambivalence is a big reason.

it's not Bunning's message, it's how it comes across: a former athlete in a suit standing in the privileged Capitol Hill bubble of unreality, pitchforking the unemployed. all that was missing was him saying, "Let them eat cake."

this has nothing to do with ambivalence or fiscal responsibility. this instead had the appearance of (intended motive or not, i don't know) of political grandstanding in my opinion.

 

jw