The Senate voted 60 to 40 today to end a Republican filibuster of extended unemployment benefits.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

You oppose unemployment insurance?

Unemployment insurance? Of course not It should be called unemployment savings account funded solely from the employee.When its gone its gone.

[^_^ 5,021]

Unemployment insurance? Of course not It should be called unemployment savings account funded solely from the employee.When its gone its gone.

You don't understand the concept of insurance too well, hillbilly.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Will you still be calling the Republicans the "Party of No" after January when they take control of the House or will you call the Democrats the "Party of No" when they oppose Republican proposals?

The Republicans were the Party of Yes on this issue; they just wanted the benefits to be paid for out of unused stimulus money. Sounds reasonable to me.

But then again, El Buscador thinks it's reasonable to dip further in debt to extend those benefits. I wonder if he lives on a budget?

The Party-of-No got its reputation for saying 'no' to every proposal endorsed by the Obama Administration, including presidential appointments. The Party-of-No's objective is obstructionism. They're more interested in making sure Obama fails so they can blame him then worrying about out-of-work Americans, let alone the economy.

And as far as dipping further into debt - you'd have to have at least a basic understanding of Keynesian Economics to understand the necessity in extending unemployment benefits if we are to prevent further economic despair.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

You don't understand the concept of insurance too well, hillbilly.

What insurance do you get if you fail to pay the premiums? Einstein.

[DukeOfYork 28]

The Party-of-No got its reputation for saying 'no' to every proposal endorsed by the Obama Administration, including presidential appointments. The Party-of-No's objective is obstructionism. They're more interested in making sure Obama fails so they can blame him then worrying about out-of-work Americans, let alone the economy.

And as far as dipping further into debt - you'd have to have at least a basic understanding of Keynesian Economics to understand the necessity in extending unemployment benefits if we are to prevent further economic despair.

So were the Democrats the "Party of No" when Bush was president? Funny, I thought that's what "Opposition Party" meant.

Polls continually show support for the "Party of No's" opposition to Obama's agenda. The Democrats should actually probably pay attention to those polls and oppose Obama as well. The majority of people opposed the health care overhaul, stimulus (more like a pork ridden bill), cap and tax and their opposition to the AZ law whilst ignoring other states' anti-immigration laws.

As for Keynsian Economics, I'm not a fan.

Edited July 21, 2010 by DukeOfYork

[^_^ 5,021]

What insurance do you get if you fail to pay the premiums? Einstein.

Look in your paycheck. Oh wait, you don't have one.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Look in your paycheck. Oh wait, you don't have one.

I couldnt find anywhere in my check where it says unlimited unemployment insurance. Jethro.

[^_^ 5,021]

I couldnt find anywhere in my check where it says unlimited unemployment insurance. Jethro.

That's because it's not unlimited. Try to keep up.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

That's because it's not unlimited. Try to keep up.

Fvckin Republicans! Nuff said!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So were the Democrats the "Party of No" when Bush was president? Funny, I thought that's what "Opposition Party" meant.

Polls continually show support for the "Party of No's" opposition to Obama's agenda. The Democrats should actually probably pay attention to those polls and oppose Obama as well. The majority of people opposed the health care overhaul, stimulus (more like a pork ridden bill), cap and tax and their opposition to the AZ law whilst ignoring other states' anti-immigration laws.

As for Keynsian Economics, I'm not a fan.

You'd have to be specific and demonstrate how many times the Democrats threatened to filibuster when the Republicans had the majority. Without actually citing a source, I can tell you that there is no comparison to the current minority in Congress. Not only that, but many Democrats voted along with the majority of Republicans on key legislation under Bush's presidency.

You say you're not a fan of Keynesian Economics? What economic philosophy are you a fan of?

[Ban Hammer 13,275]

Look in your paycheck. Oh wait, you don't have one.

if your paycheck is electronically deposited, how can you look at it?

[DukeOfYork 28]

Not only that, but many Democrats voted along with the majority of Republicans on key legislation under Bush's presidency.

So Snowe, Collins, Brown and Graham don't count?

I'll have to check on filibusters for you to give you the examples you requested. But you have to know that opposition parties do stand in the way of the agenda of the administration/party in power. It always happens. For you to be upset now is a tad disingenuous.

You say you're not a fan of Keynesian Economics? What economic philosophy are you a fan of?

Common sense. If you have the $, pay for it, if you don't, cut the entitlement. Many European countries have applied Keynesian Economics for decades and look at the state their in. While they're shoring up and introducing austerity measures, Obama is trying to do everything they did (and didn't work).

I honestly think that our increasing debt is a symptom of an overall problem in our society. We encouraged (sometimes forced) banks to lend money to people who couldn't afford to pay their mortgages (thank you Chris Dodd and Barney Frank), we encourage credit card usage, debt, etc at the personal finance level. How is what is going on in government any different?

I have an idea. Stop punishing businesses with ridiculous taxes so they can start hiring again and put people back to work. Then we won't have to "borrow" $30 billion for more unemployment "insurance".

I say "insurance" because whenever the government gets involved, it is insolvent. The government requires private insurance companies to be solvent, yet complain when the raise rates and exclude certain items.

You never answered my question. Do you live on a budget and within your means?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The Republicans were the Party of Yes on this issue; they just wanted the benefits to be paid for...

So, the GOP is then soundly on board and in support of letting the Bush tax cuts expire as scheduled, yes?

[^_^ 5,021]

So, the GOP is then soundly on board and in support of letting the Bush tax cuts expire as scheduled, yes?

Don't be silly. The Founding Fathers and Lord Jesus would all have approved of added debt as long as said debt makes a rich man happy. But the huddled masses and the meek? No, fu## them.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Don't be silly. The Founding Fathers and Lord Jesus would all have approved of added debt as long as said debt makes a rich man happy. But the huddled masses and the meek? No, fu## them.

Exactly. The GOP had no issue passing trillions of dollars of unfunded legislation and still has no issue caling for more of the same. How can anyone take seriously their "concern" not to add 33 billion to the defict (for over 50 billion worth of an immediate economic benefit no less) when they are sitting there campaigning on making permanent the Bush tax cuts without telling anyone how that 700+ billion proposal (with less than the face value in economic benefit) would actually be paid for.