jump to last post 1-16 of 16 discussions (141 posts)

Why won't Odumbo Fund Unemployment Benefits?

  1. MikeNV profile image82
    MikeNVposted 7 years ago

    "The $34 billion needed to extend benefits would be borrowed, adding to the nation's mounting debt. Republicans have tapped into the public's anger and concern over the national debt, saying they would support extending jobless benefits only if the bill was paid for."

    "Everyone agrees on extending the additional unemployment insurance, but the Democrat way is to insist we add it to the national debt at the same time, while blocking Republican efforts to pass the same extension without the debt," said Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky."

    Yes the Republicans are using this to play politics and Americans are suffering.  At the same time it would be extremely easy for Odumbo to get the Republicans to follow along... if he would just fund the Bill.

    Obama is continually writing checks with a checkbook that has a negative balance... and who is going to pay for it?

    So his only "play" is to continually lie to the public, blame the Republicans for everything bad... that he is making worse, and pretend like he's doing something.

    Obama = FAIL

    1. profile image0
      Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      ______________________________
      American sends billions of dollars to help other countries but refuses to help it's own citizens.

      Help reinstate unemployment http://j.mp/bIuaeo

    2. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Are you kidding.  Republicans want to cut taxes on the wealthy which also adds to the deficit and they still don't want to pay for it. 

      You get a bigger return on extending unemployment then it does with  cutting taxes for the rich.  What don't you understand?

      No jobs, no money, no spending, no export, no output.

      1. JON EWALL profile image70
        JON EWALLposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        sandra rinck

        Wake up to the fact that Republicans are powerless to do anything, Get over the propaganda fed by Barak Obama and company.
        FUZZY MATH ????
        Here is the score card
        Bush and a Republican Congress 2000 to 2006   unemployment 4.6%
        Bush and a Democrat controlled Congress 2007 to 2008
        unemployment went from 4.6% to 6.5%
        Obama and a *super majority Democrat Congress 2009,2010
        unemployment now 9.5% plus in many areas of the country
        *Super majority =  result minority has 0 power to make legislation or approve legislation

        Obama appeared on (7/19/10 )  in the rose garden, told the public more half truths about the bill to extend unemployment benefits, closed the speech and walked off the dais without giving answers to questions from the media. wonder why ?

        President Barak Obama again brought up how and what he inherited from the previous administration. Some how he forgets that the Democrat party was in control (he was a member of the Senate too ) of the economy for Bush’s last 2 years ( not 4 years ). Obama spoke of the Bush tax cuts that are due to expire this year saying that the Republicans want to extend them. That’s another fallacy by this president, the minority Republicans have 0 control over the tax cuts hence to keep them or let them expire is totally the responsibility of President Barak Obama and the majority ( can pass all legislation without the need for a Republican vote ) Democrat Congress.
        Note, if Obama allows the Bush tax cuts to expire he will break another campaign promise not to raise taxes on the middle class. It’s a pity that our president can’t stand on his own record of arrogance, inexperience and ineptness.
        2/13/10 2:04 PM EST ( NOTE THE DATE )
        President Barack Obama is hailing pay-as-you-go budget legislation he SIGNED Friday night as one in a series of crucial steps needed to snap Washington out of a destructive pattern of overspending.
        “Now, Congress will have to pay for what it spends, just like everybody else,” Obama said in his radio and Internet address released Saturday
        morning. “After a decade of profligacy, the American people are tired of politicians who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk when it comes to fiscal responsibility. It’s easy to get up in front of the cameras and rant against exploding deficits. What’s hard is actually getting deficits under control. But that’s what WE MUST DO
        Let’s not forget that the Democrats took majority control of Congress in 2007 with Obama in the senate. In 2008 the Democrat Congress passed the bank bail out bill with Obama’s yes vote. 4 years and the nation is still waiting for the jobs, it is apparent that government wasteful spending don‘t produce jobs
        President Obama‘s stimulus bill started out at $727 billion and today it‘s up to $825 billion ( all borrowed money .) Today only $425billion has been spent  on saving public government jobs. Unemployment is 9.5%.
        One must wonder why so little of the stimulus money has been spent. Why isn’t the money being used to help the unemployed using the surplus stimulus money. The democrats and president Obama wants the extension of unemployment benefits to pass, but refuse to offset costs ( $33 billion) by using unspent stimulus funds.. They say one thing and hide doing just the opposite by borrowing more money, further enlarging the national debt.  Wake up America before we will go like Greece.
        Guaranteed that the mainstream is not reporting.

        1. Elpaso profile image59
          Elpasoposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I find one thing disturbing about your comment.  What makes President Barack Obama Arrogant? What is the action by the president that prompted you to say that?

          1. Flightkeeper profile image74
            Flightkeeperposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            lol lol

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image65
          Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Are Republicans jealous of the size of Obama's "package?"

  2. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago

    Yes.
    It seems pretty obvious that Obama wants us to fail,  as long as his pockets are lined, he don't care.

    1. starme77 profile image79
      starme77posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      dunno about that , he did bust a ton of crappy doctors and on like 215 million worth of medicare fraud - I don't always agree with him - most of the time i don't - but that was one hell of an awesome - money saving bust smile

      1. TMMason profile image69
        TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Doesn't justify the cost of the health care bill. We could have addressed medicaid and medicare fraud without all the rest of the junk.

        That is what "targeted reforms" were all about.

      2. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        He "busted" who?
        Is he now an FBI agent or something? roll
        And I wouldn't trust him to "bust" anyone, he's so corrupt himself.

        1. starme77 profile image79
          starme77posted 7 years agoin reply to this

          oh no, he got em  well, maybe not him personally - but he did start this and I think its fair to give credit where credit is due - even if most everything else he dose sucks  -

          http://www.gossipjackal.com/health/2010 … s-history/

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image65
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Yes he do!

    3. profile image0
      Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The President does not hold all the power. It must go through Senate..and it's the republicans blocking it.

  3. Ralph Deeds profile image65
    Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago

    http://edsteinink.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Stei100715.gif

  4. rebekahELLE profile image89
    rebekahELLEposted 7 years ago

    it sounds like your story is a little skewed. it's not Obama.
    it has to get through the senate first. they're waiting on Byrd's replacement who will be sworn in tomorrow.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6 … liticsNews

    the republicans want to extend Bush's tax cuts to those who make over 250,000 a year. yeah, that will help all of those unemployed people.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image61
      Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah it would.

      Its funny that when business knows its not going to be kicked in the ass with higher taxes it tends to hire people.

      That is the greatest unemployment benefit of all.

      A job, imagine that..

      1. rebekahELLE profile image89
        rebekahELLEposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        yep, for every job there are at least 5 other applicants.
        they can continue to search without benefits while their bills go unpaid.

        they need to feed their families.

        http://edsteinink.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Stei100715.gif nice one Ralph.

      2. Randy Godwin profile image95
        Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Trickle down economics?  So why did it not work under Reagan and the bushes?   Oh yeah, it didn't kick in until Clinton took office!  Yeah, right!

        It didn't take Dubya long at all to get rid of the surplus Clinton left.  Over 90% of it went to the extremely wealthy.  How did that turn out?  How did our economy do under those presidents using the "give more money to the rich and the little guys will do well" theory? 

        The royalty in the Old World never let their cash trickle down to the peasants and neither will the rich in America.  Now they just invest it in other countries.  Isn't that one of the reasons our forefathers came to America?  To not be under the thumbs of rich men who controlled everything? 

        I think the figures are, less than 10% of the population controls over 90% of the wealth. And it gets worse every year. So what happens when a few people have all of the cash?  Royalty again?  What will you be, Jim?  A prince or a frog?

        1. Jim Hunter profile image61
          Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          It did work under Reagan.

          Where were you.

          There never was a surplus.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image95
            Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I was there, Jim!  Trickle down economics did not work!  Prince or frog?  Where did the money Dubya gave to the rich come from?  The Congressional Budget Office reported that it was a "budget surplus" in 2000.  Argue with them, if you like!


            If it worked so well for Reagan, then why didn't it do so for the Bushes?

            1. Jim Hunter profile image61
              Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              I was there too, It worked great for Reagan and Bush #1.

              Clinton also enjoyed the success that Reagan provided for him.

              I don't have to argue with anyone to know there was never a surplus.

              Accounting tricks and outdated economic theories can't create actual wealth.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image95
                Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                No deficits under those guys?  Prince or frog?

                1. Jim Hunter profile image61
                  Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I'll let you decide.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image95
                    Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    No, the decision will be made by those with all of the money!  Frogs do not do well around snakes! Better get a princess to give you a smack!  LOL!

      3. bsscorpio8 profile image61
        bsscorpio8posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I like you.

  5. mega1 profile image79
    mega1posted 7 years ago

    as usual, the OP, wants to stir up opinion without any factual support for his allegations - constant ridiculousness in political and religious forums here!  No one can or should want to even try to discuss this stuff with you guys!  You are really pretty subversive - wondering who pays you to come on HP and post these ridiculous threads?  Surely you are getting something for your efforts?

  6. kmackey32 profile image64
    kmackey32posted 7 years ago

    Honestly I know 2 people who are currently on unemployment and have been for 2 years, they say why would they bother getn a job when unemployment keeps getting extended, sad and not right.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      No, it isn't right. They may be violating the law which requires them to certify every two weeks that they are available and seeking work. I spend a lot of time assisting applicants for unemployment benefits, and my impression is that your friends are exceptions not the rule. Nearly all of the people I've encountered would greatly prefer finding a job to remaining on unemployment benefits.

    2. profile image0
      Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      OK well, that's 2 people. How many are unemployed?

  7. MikeNV profile image82
    MikeNVposted 7 years ago

    The point is that Obama refuses to FUND the Bill.

    So FUND it and pass it and help people.

    Continually writing checks from a bank account that has a negative balance is a disaster.

    So again... quit blaming the Republicans for the hold up... they said they would PASS the bill... if he will just fund it.

    That's it.

    How long can this country survive if every solution out of Team Obama is to open up the Check Book and write another check with nothing to back it up?

    Anyone?  Why won't Obama fund it?

    1. PrettyPanther profile image83
      PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      How do you propose he fund it?  Would love to hear your ideas.

      1. Sab Oh profile image54
        Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        A 1% cut across the entire bloated budget would more than cover it. Then there's the 'stimulus' fund...

  8. jiberish profile image72
    jiberishposted 7 years ago

    There will always be some who take advantage of a situation, but this is strange times especially when  2 million people will get their unemployment cut in the face of no jobs.

    The Dems passed legislation to pay as they go for bills they pass, but they do not want to pay for extending unemployment, even thought it could be funded with some of the Stimulus money.  The Rep's are accused of not caring for these people, but what they are trying to do is to pass a stand alone bill to extend unemployment, with no more pork, funded from the stimulus.  It's sad that politics are playing with people's lives.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The cost of another extension of unemployment benefits will be more than paid for by allowing the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire on schedule.

      1. Flightkeeper profile image74
        Flightkeeperposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        lol lol lol I almost peed after reading that!

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
          Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Go right ahead! It's a matter of priorities. The GOP wants to help the rich avoid taxes, and the Dems are more concerned about helping the unemployed.

          1. Flightkeeper profile image74
            Flightkeeperposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            by helping current jobholders and jobcreators become unemployed lol

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
              Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              ?? Very astute analysis. As the election approaches, the Dems want more people unemployed!

              1. Jim Hunter profile image61
                Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                I kind of wish that is what they wanted.

                They have a unique ability to screw things up.

                If they wanted unemployment the reverse would happen.

              2. Flightkeeper profile image74
                Flightkeeperposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                What can I say, I took the easy opportunity for sarcasm. big_smile

          2. Jim Hunter profile image61
            Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            No they're not.

            They are more interested in seeming like they are helping the unemployed.

            With Democrats its all about the appearance of helping so they can claim moral superiority.

            In the end it is always about politics.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
              Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Extending unemployment benefit eligibility is "seeming like they are helping the unemployed." You wouldn't say that if you were unemployed. Moreover, it's looking like the size of the government stimulus was insufficient to do the job. More and more it's looking like we are in for a double dip recession.

              1. Jim Hunter profile image61
                Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Makes perfect sense to me.

                Borrow 787 Billion and when the attempt fails just blame it on the fact it wasn't enough borrowed money.

                How much of that 787 Billion has been spent to date?

                We definitely have double dips.

                Obama and Biden is the name.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
                  Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  No, the problem is that GOP opposition forced Obama and the Dems in congress to compromise on an inadequate stimulus program. And the European debt hawks (Germany) aren't helping, either.

                  1. Flightkeeper profile image74
                    Flightkeeperposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    $787 Billion is an inadequate stimulus program?  That's crazy.

            2. profile image0
              Texasbetaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Really? Exactly how? The Democrats are pushing and putting their votes to extend unemployment, while the Republicans are threatening filibuster to stop it. Do you even pay attention at all? This is ridiculous.

              1. Jim Hunter profile image61
                Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Uh huh.

                Thank God someone is looking out for the tax payer.

                Do you even watch cartoons?

              2. profile image0
                sandra rinckposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                They don't want people to collect unemployment because they think that they are lazy.  They wont vote for more job creation through the Clean Energy Bill.

                They really don't know what they are talking about. Flightkeeper and Jim Hunter seem to think that only 20 people got jobs that cost 10 million dollars and when they don't have jobs anymore that unemployment will mysteriously rise.

                And since there are no jobs for the unemployed, they wont vote to create jobs and don't want to pay taxes... then Obama is evil.  It is absolutely ridiculous.

                1. Jim Hunter profile image61
                  Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I think you have summed up our position nicely.

                  Well, not really.

                  Actually you are not even close.

                  But you do have an interesting style.

  9. Randy Godwin profile image95
    Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago

    Bleeding-heart republicans?  Whodathunkit!  LOL!

    1. Arthur Fontes profile image84
      Arthur Fontesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Wouldn't it be easy enough to take the money out of the remaining stimulus money?

      That way the extension would be funded and this would fly through Congress?

      If I am not mistaken that is what all this propaganda on both sides is about?

      Just fund the extension and stop posing for PR maneuvers!  Both sides

      1. Randy Godwin profile image95
        Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Yep, Arthur!  Both sides against the other, the American way!  Sad!

      2. TMMason profile image69
        TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        That is what the republicans have been saying, Aurther...  the Pres has the money and this is all a show.

        But it makes too much sense for some appearently.

        And yes I know it is both sides... Progressives live in all parties.

      3. Ralph Deeds profile image65
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        It would easier to pay for the unemployment benefit extension by allowing the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire as scheduled.

        1. Arthur Fontes profile image84
          Arthur Fontesposted 7 years agoin reply to this



          No it would be a lot easier to use money from the stimulus package to extend benefits.  Putting money in peoples hands will stimulate the economy,thus them calling it Stimulus money.

          Now the tax breaks,  I am counting on some of those rich tax breakers to come to Nantucket or the Vineyard this summer and spend some money buying cars from me.

          I want the rich to have spending money too.

          My friends lay down asphalt and build pools and decks and redo roofs and add additions to houses.  This money is then spent on their families to also Stimulate the economy. 

          If these rich yuppies do not come to the Cape and the Islands with cash flowing out of their pockets. 

          Everybody loses

        2. Sab Oh profile image54
          Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          "It would easier to pay for the unemployment benefit extension by allowing the Bush tax cuts expire as scheduled."


          And then after you've created more unemployment how do you plan to fund the next round of lifetime unemployment benefits?

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
            Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Your pronouncements on this topic might be more convincing if you actually knew something about economics. Everyone has a right to an opinion.

            1. Sab Oh profile image54
              Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Oh yes, only YOU (and oddly enough those who agree with you) could possibly know anything about economics...  roll

              A lot of territorialism 'round these parts

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
                Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                It's not about what I know about economics but rather what mainstream economists know and are saying. More and more are expressing concern that we are headed for a double dip. (Not an ice cream cone.)

                1. Sab Oh profile image54
                  Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  What a surprise. We are also headed for a single dip obama administration.

  10. profile image0
    kimberlyslyricsposted 7 years ago

    I feel dumb who's Odumbo? roll

    Hi Randy, still sneaking around I see.  lol

    Hope you are well

    cheers

    1. SomewayOuttaHere profile image60
      SomewayOuttaHereposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      American politics - b. obama - pres of the US

  11. Ralph Deeds profile image65
    Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago

    Auto industry payback may surprise U.S. taxpayers

    WASHINGTON -- Saving Detroit's auto industry may be a better deal for U.S. taxpayers than anyone expected.

    A Free Press analysis suggests that taxpayers could get back about $74 billion of the $86 billion the government made available in 2008 and 2009 to save General Motors, Chrysler and Ally Financial, the former GMAC.

    So far, the industry has paid the government $18.3 billion in debt, interest and dividends, and the prospects for payback have improved thanks to a rebound in vehicle sales and profits at the three companies. That includes the $1.5 billion Chrysler Financial has paid off and a $5-billion aid plan for suppliers that turned a profit.

    Although no independent analysis has found that the government could break even, GM, Chrysler and Ally have promised to try to pay back the U.S. Treasury entirely.

    The reduced losses still would leave the auto industry efforts more costly than the rescues of Wall Street and the banking industry, which are turning a profit for the U.S. Treasury.

    But even with a slower recovery, a successful GM stock sale and profits at Chrysler and Ally could help lift public anger at the industry and the Obama administration's rescues.

    "The prospects have modestly exceeded expectations," said David Sowerby, chief market analyst at Loomis Sayles & Co. "The outcome, due to the health of the patient, has made the doctor look better."

    Complete article here:

    http://www.freep.com/article/20100720/B … tes_1130am

  12. Ralph Deeds profile image65
    Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago

    Here's what Nouriel Roubini, the NYU economics professor who called the meltdown months in advance had to say today. Alarming.

    RGE's Q3 2010 Global Economic Outlook Update

    The second half of our “Year of Two Halves” is already here: Signals of a global macroeconomic slowdown have become more widespread. In our Q3 2010 Global Economic Outlook Update, we examine trends in economic statistics, financial policy and politics, with chapters for specific countries and regions and a macro forecast table outlining our GDP and CPI projections. We maintain a central scenario that entails a sluggish (U-shaped) recovery in much of the advanced world with possible risks of L-shaped recoveries in Japan and the eurozone. We are still in a multi-speed recovery that makes macroeconomic policy coordination challenging. The recovery continues to be stronger in the emerging world, although these markets will still be affected negatively by the slowdown and the structural adjustments that take place in the advanced economies.

  13. Flightkeeper profile image74
    Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

    Yeah, there were quite a large number of voters who were dumb enough to fall for that line.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image61
      Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I keep waiting for him to walk on water but I don't think he can even raise his poll numbers.

      He is not a very good deity.

      "The end is near"

      Thank God er, God yeah thats it.

      1. Flightkeeper profile image74
        Flightkeeperposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Well some say that he let that pipe keep gushing oil for 80 days in an attempt to calm the waters and walk on it.

        1. Jim Hunter profile image61
          Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Calm or thicken?

          1. bsscorpio8 profile image61
            bsscorpio8posted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Thicken. So he can Sliiiiiide!!!!

        2. bsscorpio8 profile image61
          bsscorpio8posted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I like you too!!!

          1. Flightkeeper profile image74
            Flightkeeperposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks bsscorpio, welcome back!

  14. profile image0
    Texasbetaposted 7 years ago

    This post might be one of the most ignorant I have seen lately. Do you even pay attention to the news or read a paper? Mitch McConnell was one of the very people threatening filibuster to stop extending the unemployment benefits. Do you even have a clue how this works? We don't live in a monarchy. Congress had to approve the extension. What a joke you are.

  15. Flightkeeper profile image74
    Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

    And oh yeah, let's not forget that healthcare bomb that he now truthfully calls a tax is coming due within the next few months. Merry F Chrismas!

    1. Jim Hunter profile image61
      Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      But its freeeeeeeeee.

      Freeeee I tells ya.

  16. Jane@CM profile image59
    Jane@CMposted 7 years ago

    What type of jobs is the Green Energy Bill going to provide?  Is it going to provide jobs to people who are unemployed with no college degree?

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, both. Think along the lines of factory jobs like Ford and entry level sales and construction and advertising.  Right now, it seems like you have to have a college degree to get a job because jobs are scarce.  We have to give it a chance.  It is better than nothing and continued unemployment.

 
working