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

[DukeOfYork 28]

He could have funded it with stimulus but didnt because he wants to demonize repubs.

What, political motivation from the President? Never!

Ah yes, the socialist. Was just waiting from you to swing that tired old bat.

How is he not a socialist?

That bat isn't nearly as tired as the "Blame Bush" bat you libs still continue to swing and miss with.

I would start by cutting all Federal retirement benefits for employees. Fire more than 75% of the federal workforce, and then slash congress' salary by 70%.

Amen! Get rid of their retirement and limit their terms. Two for a congressman and one for a senator. That way they can spend their time working and not fundraising.

I just read this report:

http://www.aolnews.com/house-money/article/the-other-congressional-spending-how-the-house-spent-1-billion-on-itself/19522761

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

As I said, erroneous. The government should NEVER run a deficit.

I've played simcity enough to know that some years you MUST run a deficit....like you know when you bulldoze a church and that annoying tornado comes.

That being said, in order to run a budget deficit in the game, you must have had surplus years as well.

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

No, because I don't believe Obama has the ability to push forward plans that are fiscally responsible and reasonable. He's a socialist, so it's not in his nature.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Fixxored

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No, because I don't believe Obama has the ability to push forward plans that are fiscally responsible and reasonable. He's a socialist, so it's not in his nature.

Out of curiosity, are you the USC?

[Texanadian 10]

The unemployment program should be eliminated. The best program would be to have a very simple form to fill out when hired. The form would ask what percentage of your income you want deducted from your pay. Tax free of course the savings would be astronomical.

The same thing could be accomplished by simply eliminating the early withdrawal penalty on 401K's and IRA's.

But even using Lingus' system, the benefit to people who've been working continuously for a long period (20+ years) would be astronomical.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

The same thing could be accomplished by simply eliminating the early withdrawal penalty on 401K's and IRA's.

But even using Lingus' system, the benefit to people who've been working continuously for a long period (20+ years) would be astronomical.

Good point! I never thought of the fact that it would create an automatic reason to find employment faster. To think of all that unemployment investing would be there for us at retirement.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Col. Lingus

[evli1966 88]

sooooo

is this bill Constitional?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:2:./temp/~c111xZz6gT::

• Section 4001 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note), as amended by section 4, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

• `(h) Procedures- Any State with an agreement under this Act shall implement reasonable procedures to--

• • `(1) ensure that benefits under this Act are not provided to any person who appears on any current list of known or suspected terrorists provided to the State by any government agency; Uhm on a list but not found guilty of? maybe I misunderstand this.

• • `(2) ensure that benefits under this Act are not provided to any individual convicted of a sex offense against a minor (as such terms are defined in section 111 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911)); and Yes a horrible offense to harm a child and this is what you all see at first glance but it does not exclude as I show below.

• • `(3) ensure that the State is enforcing requirements under subsection of this section to bar unauthorized aliens from receiving emergency unemployment compensation under this Act. How will this be enforced if other Illegal Immigrant laws are not enforced.

• Please reference this for provision 2 to see what I mean in regards to sex offenders. I understand we think these guys are horrible and should be shunned but be honest with yourself; A lot of these SO have families as well and have a harder time finding work then someone with out a felony...Oh btw it is based on an offense so it could be a misdomeanor.

http://michiganmessenger.com/39511/unemployment-benefits-and-sex-offender-laws

• As they stand today HR5618, HR5297 and HR5072 excludes anyone who has been convicted of a sex offense against a minor. It doesn’t matter if it was a misdemeanor or a felony, it doesn’t matter if their state requires them to register or not and it doesn’t matter if they did their required time on the registry and have since been released of the stigma Sex Offender…
  These three bills will include any 16 year old boyfriend or girlfriend who had consensual sex with a 15 year old boyfriend or girlfriend?
  Or any 17 year old boyfriend or girlfriend who had consensual sex with a 16 year old boyfriend or girlfriend?
  Or any 18 year old boyfriend or girlfriend who had consensual sex with a 17 year old boyfriend or girlfriend?
  It all depends on that state’s age of consent. It doesn’t matter if today they are married and they have children together, you will now be refusing to allow them to have a home to raise their family in.
  Please let the reasonable point out how they agree or disagree.
  It is provisiosn and amendments to bills that make them trash.
  

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

sooooo

is this bill Constitional?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:2:./temp/~c111xZz6gT::

• Section 4001 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note), as amended by section 4, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

• `(h) Procedures- Any State with an agreement under this Act shall implement reasonable procedures to--

• • `(1) ensure that benefits under this Act are not provided to any person who appears on any current list of known or suspected terrorists provided to the State by any government agency;
    
    • • `(2) ensure that benefits under this Act are not provided to any individual convicted of a sex offense against a minor (as such terms are defined in section 111 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911)); and
        
        • • `(3) ensure that the State is enforcing requirements under subsection (F.) of this section to bar unauthorized aliens from receiving emergency unemployment compensation under this Act.
            

It's a sign of our times. Short of such provisions, you'd have the following headlines running on Fixed News...

Congress supports child raping, illegal alien terrorists

As well, I don't think the concerns you raise in regards to (2) are actually valid. The SORNA definitions are pretty clear and would appear to cover the real scum only.

C. Sex Offenses Generally

The general definition of sex offenses for which registration is required under the SORNA standards appears in section 111(5)(A). The clauses in the definition cover the following categories of offenses:

• SEXUAL ACT AND SEXUAL CONTACT OFFENSES (§ 111(5)(A)(i)): The first clause in the definition covers “a criminal offense that has an element involving a sexual act or sexual contact with another.” (“Criminal offense” in the relevant sense refers to offenses under any body of criminal law, including state, local, tribal, foreign, military, and other offenses, as provided in section 111(6).) The offenses covered by this clause should be understood to include all sexual offenses whose elements involve: (i) any type or degree of genital, oral, or ####### penetration, or (ii) any sexual touching of or contact with a person’s body, either directly or through the clothing. Cf. 18 U.S.C. 2246(2)-(3) (federal law definitions of sexual act and sexual contact).
  
• SPECIFIED OFFENSES AGAINST MINORS (§ 111(5)(A)(ii)): The second clause in the definition covers “a criminal offense that is a specified offense against a minor.” The statute provides a detailed definition of “specified offense against a minor” in section 111(7), which is discussed separately below.
  
• SPECIFIED FEDERAL OFFENSES (§ 111(5)(A)(iii)): The third clause covers most sexual offenses under federal law. The clause identifies chapters and offense provisions in the federal criminal code by citation.
  
• SPECIFIED MILITARY OFFENSES (§ 111(5)(A)(iv)): The fourth clause covers sex offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as specified by the Secretary of Defense.
  
• ATTEMPTS AND CONSPIRACIES (§ 111(5)(A)(v)): The final clause in the definition covers attempts and conspiracies to commit offenses that are otherwise covered by the definition of “sex offenses.” This includes both offenses prosecuted under general attempt or conspiracy provisions, where the object offense falls under the SORNA “sex offense” definition, and particular offenses that are defined as, or in substance amount to, attempts or conspiracies to commit offenses that are otherwise covered. For example, in the latter category, a jurisdiction may define an offense of “assault with intent to commit rape.” Whether or not the word “attempt” is used in the definition of the offense, this is in substance an offense that covers certain attempts to commit rapes and hence is covered under the final clause of the SORNA definition.

SORNA § 111(5)© qualifies the foregoing definition of “sex offense” to exclude “[a]n offense involving consensual sexual conduct . . . if the victim was an adult, unless the adult was under the custodial authority of the offender at the time of the offense, or if the victim was at least 13 years old and the offender was not more than 4 years older than the victim.” The general exclusion with respect to consensual sexual offenses involving adult victims means, for example, that a jurisdiction does not have to require registration based on prostitution offenses that consist

of the offender paying or receiving payment from an adult for a sexual act between them (unless the victim is under the custodial authority of the offender). The exclusion for certain cases involving child victims based on victim age and age difference means that a jurisdiction may not have to require registration in some cases based on convictions under provisions that prohibit sexual acts or contact (even if consensual) with underage persons. For example, under the laws of some jurisdictions, an 18-year-old may be criminally liable for engaging in consensual sex with a 15-year-old. The jurisdiction would not have to require registration in such a case to comply with the SORNA standards, since the victim was at least 13 and the offender was not more than four years older.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[evli1966 88]

The provisions use the SORNA to describe what a Sex Offense against a minor is and the provsins state any sex offense against a minor excludes that person.

Please do not think I am defending any criminal acts of a SO; because I am not.

These people work in the work force and many have been doing so very many years paying taxes and supporting their own families.

How can this provision hold water in a supreme court if challenged; a person paying into the system after paying his/her debt to society.

There are no adjustments to stop someone to paying into the system

The provision does nothing to help protect children

What is to stop them from excluding someone for less horrible crimes?

[DukeOfYork 28]

Out of curiosity, are you the USC?

I'm the USC. Does it matter?

Are you laughing because what I said is true or do you honestly believe Obama is not a socialist in his ideals?

Edited July 22, 2010 by DukeOfYork

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm the USC. Does it matter?

No. Just confirming - it's not an opinion you really hear from UK people.

Our politicians (even the conservative ones) are to the left of the Democrats and even they are not really "Socialist". Hearing people talk about the Obama administration and the Democrats as being "far left" or "socialist" makes me laugh - because its only true if your political spectrum is very narrow.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

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.

Thought I would save you the time, the Republicans have been filibustering all over the place. The tag of the "Party of No" is seemingly justified. That 112 sticks out like a sore thumb and shows the Republicans are more interested in getting back into power (By blocking legislation which in turns puts the Democrats/Obama in a bad light because they can't get anything through) rather than helping the American people. It's a great plan be it for selfish reasons on their part.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

No. Just confirming - it's not an opinion you really hear from UK people.

Our politicians (even the conservative ones) are to the left of the Democrats and even they are not really "Socialist". Hearing people talk about the Obama administration and the Democrats as being "far left" or "socialist" makes me laugh - because its only true if your political spectrum is very narrow.

Indeed it makes me laugh hearing stuff like this from some Americans, Obama is no where near being a Socialist, like you said either their political spectrum is very narrow or they are much further to the right than they realise.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

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.

The tax cuts pay for themselves in increased output in the economy. It is really the only thing that could keep this "recovery" moving. If the dems allow the tax cuts to expire and impose this huge tax hike on everyone the "recovery" will fail and we will then go into a depression. It seems that the dems only worry about "paying" for something only when it is a tax cut. I suppose that is because it is the one thing that gets into their pockets (government) rather than just running up debt.