Single Senator holds up jobless benefits extension.

[Soliloquy]

Thousands upon thousands of unemployed people will not be receiving unemployment benefits and health insurance benefits this coming Monday. And it's all because of soon-to-retire republican senator Jim Bunning.

Democratic and Republican leaders had agreed to pass a one-month extension through a process known as unanimous consent, in which no formal vote was required. But Bunning's objection means the bill can't go forward. The extension had been passed by the House and was ready to be signed into law.

Bunning says he's objecting because he doesn't want to increase the federal Deficit

Bunning, who is retiring from the Senate this year, said the bill's sponsors had not identified a way to pay for it or offset it with spending cuts elsewhere.

"If we can't find $10 billion somewhere for a bill that everybody in this body supports, we will never pay for anything," Bunning said Friday.

It's a fair enough point to make, but this is really not the kind of bill to hold up in order to make a political point.

friggin' jerk...

 

[WolfOfOdin]

In before" If they just got a job they wouldn't be in this position".

Seriously though....that's low, even for a retiring senator. You shouldn't decide to fuck over a ton of people just to make a point and hem-and-haw like an aging ass.

 

[AshburnerX]

What an asshole. He certainly won't be working in this town ever again!

Wait a minute...

 

[Rob King]

"If we can't find $10 billion somewhere for a bill that everybody in this body supports, we will never pay for anything," Bunning said Friday.

Perhaps a good place to start is his salary ...

 

[Dusty668]

Hey it's only $32,894.74 per tax payer if all 304 million of US citizens pay, for this one thing, alone. Not like it's real money.

 

[SpecialKO]

Hey it's only $32,894.74 per tax payer if all 304 million of US citizens pay, for this one thing, alone. Not like it's real money.

Something about your maths doesn't seem entirely right.

 

[Soliloquy]

Hey it's only $32,894.74 per tax payer if all 304 million of US citizens pay, for this one thing, alone. Not like it's real money.

I think you mean $32.89 per taxpayer. But... close enough.

That said, I do agree that our government hasn't exactly been fiscally responsible, and I'm a bit worried about what that could mean for the future. But I don't think that leaving that many americans without a source of income is the best way to fix that. Like, at all.

 

[@Li3n]

Good for him, i mean who cares if there's rioting in the streets and people dying of starvation as long as our grand-kids won't have any debts...

 

[Covar]

Good way to make a point. I'm sorry but holding up a Bill that is unimportant and people really don't care about makes no point at all. Holding up a Bill that is important to a lot of people to get passed, people will get what you're saying real quick.

 

[Chibibar]

Good way to make a point. I'm sorry but holding up a Bill that is unimportant and people really don't care about makes no point at all. Holding up a Bill that is important to a lot of people to get passed, people will get what you're saying real quick.

Yea, but this guy is hurting the general American pocketbook (directly for many) which is not a good political move but since he is retiring, he doesn't care.

I mean 10 billion? don't built a fighter or two and it is paid!

 

[Espy]

Well, it's a rough bill to hold up, but I agree that his point needs to be made. Our government is spending like a drunken asshole right now and no one seems to give a damn. That's as big or BIGGER of an issue than people needing unemployment benefits.

 

[SpecialKO]

I'm sorry but holding up a Bill that is unimportant and people really don't care about makes no point at all.

Besides not spending the money for that bill which no one cares about and no one would miss if they didn't pass it... :hmmm:

 

[Krisken]

Well, it's a rough bill to hold up, but I agree that his point needs to be made. Our government is spending like a drunken asshole right now and no one seems to give a damn. That's as big or BIGGER of an issue than people needing unemployment benefits.

It's bullshit political posturing. He's doing it because it's politically popular with his party base to be obstructionist. If it wasn't this, it would be foreign aid, or healthcare, or infrastructure, etc, etc.

Spending like drunken assholes "right now" is just a way to blame the current congress for what has been happening for 30+ years. They've been spending like that since the Reagan administration.

 

[Espy]

Sorry, I agree with you and should have said that instead of "right now", I guess anytime anyone tries to draw attention to one of our nations biggest problems I don't automatically see it as a bad thing. I know there are those (in both parties) who feel we can spend forever with no worry of the consequences but I just don't see that as a valid way of running our government.

 

[Krisken]

Sorry, I agree with you and should have said that instead of "right now", I guess anytime anyone tries to draw attention to one of our nations biggest problems I don't automatically see it as a bad thing. I know there are those (in both parties) who feel we can spend forever with no worry of the consequences but I just don't see that as a valid way of running our government.

And I absolutely agree with that.

I get frustrated seeing these fellas who are happy to spend away a fortune on blowing people up but feel building roads and improving our infrastructure and the health of citizens is wasting money.

Some fun things about Jim Bunning-
Voted against restoring public access to past U.S. Presidents
Time Magazine called him one of the top 5 worst senators in 2006
Was the only Senator to not show up to the Health Reform Bill vote on Christmas Eve, 2009
The Jim Bunning foundation, a non-profit organization, has given less than 25% of it's proceeds to charity.

 

[Fun Size]

Some fun things about Jim Bunning-
Voted against restoring public access to past U.S. Presidents
Time Magazine called him one of the top 5 worst senators in 2006
Was the only Senator to not show up to the Health Reform Bill vote on Christmas Eve, 2009
The Jim Bunning foundation, a non-profit organization, has given less than 25% of it's proceeds to charity.

Actually, he's the perfect scapepgoat for this. If he didn't, someone else would have had to. It's not like he's got anything to lose out of it.

(Assuming none of the people going off unemployment have his address, that is.)

 

[Chibibar]

Some fun things about Jim Bunning-
Voted against restoring public access to past U.S. Presidents
Time Magazine called him one of the top 5 worst senators in 2006
Was the only Senator to not show up to the Health Reform Bill vote on Christmas Eve, 2009
The Jim Bunning foundation, a non-profit organization, has given less than 25% of it's proceeds to charity.

Actually, he's the perfect scapepgoat for this. If he didn't, someone else would have had to. It's not like he's got anything to lose out of it.

(Assuming none of the people going off unemployment have his address, that is.)[/QUOTE]

yea... that is a lot of people.

 

[ThatGrinningIdiot!]

Well, it's a rough bill to hold up, but I agree that his point needs to be made. Our government is spending like a drunken asshole right now and no one seems to give a damn. That's as big or BIGGER of an issue than people needing unemployment benefits.

Why don't you took a look at your military budget hmm?

 

[Espy]

Well, it's a rough bill to hold up, but I agree that his point needs to be made. Our government is spending like a drunken asshole right now and no one seems to give a damn. That's as big or BIGGER of an issue than people needing unemployment benefits.

Why don't you took a look at your military budget hmm?[/QUOTE]

I don't have a military budget.


But seriously I know what you are saying and to your snarky assumption that I am somehow totally cool with cutting employment benefits as well as SUPERGUNGHOAMERICANKILLKILLKILLSPENSPEND military guy:

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

SUPERGUNGHOAMERICANKILLKILLKILLSPENSPEND

I believe we've just found Darkangel's new name.

 

[Espy]

:laugh:

 

[Krisken]

I just want to clarify that I wasn't trying to say Espy was for blowing people up. I know it was probably a given, but ya never know.

 

[Espy]

Well maybe I am. :angry: :aaahhh:

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

That's what Krisken said:

I know it was probably a given,

 

[strawman]

Democratic and Republican leaders had agreed to pass a one-month extension through a process known as unanimous consent, in which no formal vote was required. But Bunning's objection means the bill can't go forward. The extension had been passed by the House and was ready to be signed into law.

Aw, poor congress. Because they sat on their cash filled hands until it was too late to extend the unemployment through a normal process they are complaining about one guy saying, "Hey, guys, if it wasn't important enough to start on this last fall, then what do you think you guys can accomplish in the one month you're extending it?"

What a complete bunch of morons. It's convenient to have a scapegoat once you realize that you dropped the ball, and try to ramrod a bandaid through that isn't going to last long enough on the wound to take proper action.

I hope this so-called health-care legislation they've been pouring their hearts into that the American Public does not want (as currently written) which they appear to be losing a grip on was worth losing focus of this issue (and oh so many others).

And, quite frankly, there are a TON of people who are living on unemployment who are NOT trying to find a new job because unemployment is enough to pay their basic costs.

Yes, there are many, many more people who actually need it, and hate being on the dole, but I know a lot of tech workers that are still essentially earning enough to pay for their housing and food, and will continue to do so on the taxpayer dime until they stop getting extensions.

But you KNOW what the REALLY interesting thing is? Unanimous consent merely means that the bill is passed WITHOUT TAKING A REAL VOTE. As long as no one objects, the issue is passed and they move on.

All the objection does is REQUIRE that the present assembly take a real vote, senator by senator.

If there's SO much support for this issue, then guess what? IT'LL PASS without unanimous consent!

So what are the Democrats REALLY complaining about?

They either

1) Don't want to go on record as having voted FOR this measure (unanimous consent doesn't take a vote record, so the senators can pretend in the upcoming election that they were fiscally responsible)

or

2) They don't want to go into the office and do their job (You have to be present to vote, but if you are not present unanimous consent can occur without you).

They are blaming this one person for ASKING that a REAL VOTE be taken to pass the measure.

That's it! That's all he's doing!

And you are all jumping down his throat, as if he's the one stealing food and shelter from the children?

LEARN YOUR STUPID POLITICAL SYSTEM.

/rant

Sorry. I'm not attacking anyone on particular. It's just unbelievable that so many people are buying this malarky without critical thinking.

 

[Krisken]

Or, you know, they feel this guy is an asshole for saying this.

\"We weren't going to stand around for three and a half hours debating the issue,\" he said. \"But I want to assure the people who have watched this thing until a quarter of 12, I have missed the Kentucky-South Carolina game that started at 9 o'clock. It is the only redeeming chance we had to beat South Carolina, since they are the only team that has beat Kentucky this year.\"

Boo-fucking-hoo. From what I read even the top Republicans didn't want to fund this guy he was such a pain in the ass.

 

[Chibibar]

Stienman, I totally know what you are saying, but also, it just take a bit longer to get anything done right now in congress. Sure right now no one wants to take responsibility so this method is "faster" without taking a vote. If they have to take a vote, then each senator will really have to consider or might even have to "vote" against their personal agenda since people in their own state can use the money. It is a political killer if you take the wrong step (pissing off the public in their pocket book)

 

[strawman]

it just take a bit longer to get anything done right now in congress.

All they need to do is say, "Oh, no unanimous consent. Let's just vote on it..." and go down the list of senators. IF it's taking a bit longer, it's the fault of the senate.

But again, the reason they want to do it quickly now is because they already decided that it wasn't important enough to start talking about it 6 months ago.

This didn't sneak up on them. It's not like an earthquake suddenly happened and "OH NO, UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS ARE ENDING NEXT MONTH AND THERE'S NO POSSIBLE WAY WE COULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT IT OR DONE ANYTHING ABOUT IT!"

So now they are trying the quick and easy fix to cover up their incompetence, and someone is calling them on it, saying, "In this time of economic upheaval we can't take shortcuts on expensive legislation. If it passes with a real vote, fine, but I do not agree that it should be passed without debate and without each senator declaring their explicit support for it." Now the senator involved may be an idiot, or he may merely be the scape goat so none of the other republicans need to put their job on the line in the upcoming election. Since only one objection is required, it makes sense to choose the least likely to mbe impacted senator to object, and the both the democrats and republicans do this particular political dance all the time. Unanimous consent is a daily procedure, and it's generally nothing special when someone objects.

The democrats are trying to deflect blame - this is also not unusual, both parties engage in this type of propaganda.

But when it happens we should all call them on it, and point out that they wouldn't be here if they didn't choose to put any given issue off until the 11th hour.

 

[Chibibar]

You got a point Yea the government mess this one up royally. It is interesting how the government actually view their constituent huh? I mean unemployment paycheck is a double edge sword, but there are many legit people who just can't find jobs out there with their skillset or even alternative jobs (for whatever reasons) and of course there are people who manage to survive just fine with the government help (the other side of the blade) While the government may not think this is a "hot issue" it is hitting a lot closer to home than healthcare. To some people, this is another month of survival in this economic downturn.

 

[Soliloquy]

it just take a bit longer to get anything done right now in congress.

All they need to do is say, "Oh, no unanimous consent. Let's just vote on it..." and go down the list of senators. IF it's taking a bit longer, it's the fault of the senate.

But again, the reason they want to do it quickly now is because they already decided that it wasn't important enough to start talking about it 6 months ago.

This didn't sneak up on them. It's not like an earthquake suddenly happened and "OH NO, UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS ARE ENDING NEXT MONTH AND THERE'S NO POSSIBLE WAY WE COULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT IT OR DONE ANYTHING ABOUT IT!"

So now they are trying the quick and easy fix to cover up their incompetence, and someone is calling them on it, saying, "In this time of economic upheaval we can't take shortcuts on expensive legislation. If it passes with a real vote, fine, but I do not agree that it should be passed without debate and without each senator declaring their explicit support for it." Now the senator involved may be an idiot, or he may merely be the scape goat so none of the other republicans need to put their job on the line in the upcoming election. Since only one objection is required, it makes sense to choose the least likely to mbe impacted senator to object, and the both the democrats and republicans do this particular political dance all the time. Unanimous consent is a daily procedure, and it's generally nothing special when someone objects.

The democrats are trying to deflect blame - this is also not unusual, both parties engage in this type of propaganda.

But when it happens we should all call them on it, and point out that they wouldn't be here if they didn't choose to put any given issue off until the 11th hour.[/QUOTE]

You raise a valid point, sir. Putting the bill off until now was a dumb move.

Isn't it great? We get to be mad at everyone!

:dance::bounce::rockon::whoo:arty::clap:

 

[Chibibar]

You know, after looking more into this. I wonder WHY this guy didn't block, voice, raise hell for the OTHER multi billion dollar stuff? this is 10 billion, which is kinda small compare to all the other stuff that the government are shelling out.

Since this guy wants to "find the money", maybe cut out all Federal aid to Kentucky (his state) to fund this.

 

[fade]

Stienman, I think you're imposing "Democrat" on the objectors here. I think the whole point of his objection was that everyone wants it to pass.

Also, I constantly object to people who use the argument, "there are abusers, therefore it's bad". Abuse does not a bad thing make. It's a little like saying that people still kill people so therefore laws against murder are bad.

 

[DarkAudit]

He fucked Philadelphia over in '64, and now he's going out by doing it to the rest of us.

Bunning and Short was a recipe for disaster then, and it is now (minus the Short).

 

[Chibibar]

He fucked Philadelphia over in '64, and now he's going out by doing it to the rest of us.

Bunning and Short was a recipe for disaster then, and it is now (minus the Short).

But it is interesting that the senates are not taking this to vote to get out of the way. Which got me thinking about how government politic is more of a game to them than what the people want. (at least that is how I feel)

1. Senates are not voting cause some believe this should not extend, but like any politician, they worry this will kill their career. I mean you are literally chopping off the hand that feeds you by pissing them off. Bunning has no worry on this since he is retiring.

2. The Democrat is letting this one ride a bit longer to make the Republican look bad. I think this is not a good thing to do since it is bad enough that people can't find jobs and need help badly.

3. While some people believe that people are taking advantage of the system (not working and collect enough to live and get by) other people really really can use this benefit to survive and possibly not lose their home/car/or increase debt. Sure there are some people out there really tank and taken advantage of the system, but majority of the people are trying to survive day to day.

I just find it interesting that this particular issue Bunning decides to "stand his ground" what happen to all the billions (more than 10 billions) of spending and bail out that he could have voice over that?

 

[Soliloquy]

I just find it interesting that this particular issue Bunning decides to "stand his ground" what happen to all the billions (more than 10 billions) of spending and bail out that he could have voice over that?

I wouldn't be surprised if he did raise his voice over that, but nobody paid attention because those issues actually went to vote.

Because this is an odd situation where one guy can somehow hold up the rest of congress, him speaking out is actually gaining our attention.