Why won't Odumbo Fund Unemployment Benefits?
"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______________________________
American sends billions of dollars to help other countries but refuses to help it's own citizens.
Help reinstate unemployment http://j.mp/bIuaeoAre 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.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.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?
Are Republicans jealous of the size of Obama's "package?"
- Brenda Durhamposted 14 years ago
0Yes.
It seems pretty obvious that Obama wants us to fail, as long as his pockets are lined, he don't care.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
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.He "busted" who?
Is he now an FBI agent or something?
And I wouldn't trust him to "bust" anyone, he's so corrupt himself.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/
The President does not hold all the power. It must go through Senate..and it's the republicans blocking it.
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.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..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.
nice one Ralph.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?It did work under Reagan.
Where were you.
There never was a surplus.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?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.No deficits under those guys? Prince or frog?
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!
I don't have all the money but nobody decides for me.
I don't allow that to happen.
I think thats how people let the boot heel of government remain on their throats.
To quote someone "I am the decider"So you decide your own food prices and how much you will pay for gas or medicine? Or how much in taxes you pay?
You are definitely frog material! I hope you don't croak! LOL!
Do you not decide what you pay for groceries?
I have competition between stores where I live and I CHOOSE which one I shop at.
Same with gas and medicine.
Taxes are a little more difficult but I find a way to do it my way.But you still do not get to decide how much your groceries cost! You just decide where you get them for the best price. Big difference! The same for gas and medicine. This is merely an option for the best place to get ripped off!
Yes I get to decide how much my groceries cost.
I compare prices and go to the store I choose.
Deregulation in the electric industry has allowed me to choose what I pay for electricity.
Choices, we all got them.As I said, you decide where to shop, not the price. But believe what you will. I sell food, you buy food. Between the $20.00 a lb. you pay for a beef tenderloin and the $1.00 a lb. I sell it for, someone is making quite a few bucks. You "decide" who it is!
Thats the choice.
You have the choice to sell cattle at more than 1.00 a pound.
Those who buy the beef have a choice as to what they will pay.
The market has determined the cost of cattle at 1.00 a pound but you are not obligated to sell it for that.
Your choice.The market makes your decisions for you. Whether you can afford to eat, or not! The markets are corrupt and not many farmers raise free range cattle around here anymore because of the markets.
Grass fed cattle bring more at the market but most of the beef cattle are raised mired belly deep in their own manure in feed lots, similar to the living conditions of the chickens and pigs you eat.
It costs more to raise healthy livestock in outdoor free range environments. Because of your satisfaction with "the market" there will soon be no more of us. Good choice!
The problem with this is that what they call deregulation actually means that the energy provider just goes wholesale and your 'deregulated' suplier buys it from them and sell it to you for a profit - you end up paying more not less.
It is similar in your High Street, all those 'competing' shops are owned by all the same people through teir operating companies being owned by bigger corporations.
The so-called price competition of the so-called free market is pure illusion - along with your so-called freedom as an individual.I disagree. Someone may be able to terminate my existence or perhaps even change my location.
They will never force me to do something without my consent as the individual.
It is groups that have no freedom!
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?
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.
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.
OK well, that's 2 people. How many are unemployed?
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?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.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.
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.
by helping current jobholders and jobcreators become unemployed
?? Very astute analysis. As the election approaches, the Dems want more people unemployed!
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.What can I say, I took the easy opportunity for sarcasm.
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.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.
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.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.
$787 Billion is an inadequate stimulus program? That's crazy.
Whats even crazier is the assertion the GOP made Obama settle on 787 Billion.
This is bizarro world.They started spending that $787 billion on government programs. You know where they generated like 20 jobs for $10 million. Yeah, that's real stimulation.
Which jobs are those? Are those jobs, jobs that can grow as in employ others as well?
Most of the jobs created were with the census bureau, no that will not create more jobs.
But in a few months it will create a larger unemployment figure.You hit it on the nail. Also you gotta ask, it if it cost $10 million to generate 20 jobs, do you really think giving that money to that particular company is viable?
If Obama did it it must be a great idea.
He's like the, uh messiah or something.
No really, I read it somewhere.You think only 20 people conducted the census? 20 people.
ROTFYou think 20 people should cost $10 million? Seriously? And I'm not laughing because I'm just incredulous.
And you don't get it. I know that there were much more than 20 people right here in my very small town who worked to conduct the census. Of course there wasn't only 20 people.
You are being ridiculous.
I have no idea where she got that.
Now that's funny.Again, did she say that 20 people were conducting the census?
I don't think you quite understand whats going on.
Oh yeah, never mind.
And so you are saying that those people who took up the opportunity for work conducting the census, who wont have jobs should also not be able to collect unemployment?
Or are you just saying that because the Democrats want to extend unemployment, then it is bad because it is Obama?
You could support the Green Energy bill to create more jobs but let me guess... Because it is Obama's proposal it is bad right?
What has the Republican party done in the last year and a half? Nothing. They want everything but don't want to pay for anything.I never said any of that.
Interesting debate style.
Make things up and argue about what you made up.
WhoopI think that was a whole stream of consciousness thing going and I got caught in a spurt.
Right.
I didn't say any of what you said I said.
Now I'm dizzy.
Do you sometimes go by Lovemychris?
That's what I gather from reports in the past couple of days on our softening economy. Apparently some indicators that had been going up for several months are turning down.
Ralph, have you thought that it might not be the size of the stimulus but what things the government are spending on that makes the stimulus ineffective?
You don't think size counts? Ha!
Actually I agree that the projects are important and even more so the timing. In Michigan some of the infrastructure projects (road, bridge repair) are just starting to kick in. Unemployment compensation extensions are one of the fastest to kick in. Almost immediately.You're a guy so here's the newsflash. Size doesn't count if it continues to be soft. Wait let me rephrase that. Size doesn't count if the economy continues to be soft.
Unemployment compensation doesn't help the economy in the long run. The government is just pissing money away.Ha! Not enough Viagra in the stimulus? The GOP didn't think Obama's package needed to be any bigger or needs any Viagra.
Well the GOP is asking Obama to do something that he can't or doesn't know how to do. Manage the economy.
Because the republicans wont let him. That is the plan. I have heard over and over again. So congratulations. You wont let him do his job but you love to blame him for it.
The GOP has been stymieing Obama's efforts to manage the economy.
So apx. 5.8 million people are collecting unemployment. The money that they are collecting is going to pay their utility bills, their food, and whatever else. This is money that continues to flow into the economy who supports those who still have jobs who are also hanging on by a thread.
Take that money away as well and what do you get? More unemployment. But the Republicans are blocking the extension of unemployment based on their belief that unemployment will rise.
OMFG, What don't you understand about your own party. You want support the rep. to block the extension of unemployment benefits so they can say, see we told you that unemployment would go up.
Don't you see how sick that is?Where is the government going to get that money? By borrowing. You think that money once spent is going to generate jobs? How? Unemployment compensation is not growth, it doesn't put more money into the pot and it doesn't encourage companies to hire precisely because things are stagnant. There is nothing that the government is doing right now that makes the companies want to hire more people. So yes, unemployment will continue to go up regardless. And now we even have more debt. How are they going to pay for that debt? With taxes.
Hellooooo! Vicious cycle.You have to pay taxes. No one likes it. If you don't want to borrow, then support the Green Energy Bill to create new jobs, lot's of new jobs. Get people working, get the taxes rolling in to pay down the deficit.
Either way you look at it, you have to pay taxes. You pay taxes on oil, but are worried about paying taxes on co2 emission that with conversion to green energy would significantly reduce over the years and with that, less taxes on it as well.
It is sustainable energy that will need jobs to build, sell, install, sustain, maintain, office administrators etc... that is a lot of jobs that will not be lost because of things like BP.
It is a good plan, maybe not flawless and things will undoubtedly have to be worked out as they come up but you have to give it a chance.Of course you have to pay taxes, but does it make sense to increase the taxes you pay when the economy is so bad?
The Green Energy Bills is toilet paper. Tell me how it's going to generate jobs. I'd really like to know.
And that sustainable energy stuff? You still have to create the supporting system around it and to maintain it. What are you going to use in the meantime?When your taxes go up, it isn't because of Obama but because Bush's tax cuts will expire.
"The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts added about $1.7 trillion to deficits between 2001 and 2008. Because they (were) financed by borrowing — which increases the national debt — this figure includes the extra interest costs resulting from that additional debt. This figure also includes the cost of 'patching' the Alternative Minimum Tax to keep the tax from hitting millions of upper-middle-class households, a problem the tax cuts helped cause. Over the next decade (2009-2018), making the tax cuts permanent would cost $4.4 trillion, assuming that the tax cuts remain deficit-financed."
The Republicans borrowed the money from China and gave extensive cut to the already wealthy people. Bush's own father disagreed with this as a good plan. And the idea has been proven to be a failure over and over again.
As for the Green Energy, someone has to make the machines that make the solar or wind or water etc...these would be factory jobs, factory jobs are the kinds of jobs that supported ( I want to say majority) of the people who lost their jobs.
You also need engineers, testers, marketers, sales people, construction works etc... the list goes on an on and the number of jobs it could create if the entire US got on the same page with clean energy job creation and sustainability.
And in the meantime, we use what we have until we can be free of it. This isn't something that will happen over night but it will create an industry that will grow but if you don't go for it, then it wont happen.
People want jobs that they know they will be able to have for a long time. And it will take a while.When your taxes goes up, it goes up because Bush's tax cuts expiring and because of the additional taxes that Obama is will make us pay for his new world order programs.
Whatever deficits Bush incurred, Obama has tripled and further increased the national debt.
You forget that oil is a much cheaper source of energy than sustainable energy. Right now energy from alternative sources whether they be wind, solar, water, whatever is going to be much more expensive. In addition, the current form of sustainable energy has no way to collect and transport it efficiently so it is not a reliable energy source. We have a long way to get to the point where sustainable sources of energy is going to be a viable alternative to oil. Are you seriously thinking that we should keep our economy on hold until it catches up?
Seriously?All you are caring about is your pocket book, thinking Obama is some sort of end times prophecy and out to take over the world.
News flash, you have to start creating the things we need for the sustainable energy sources, you have to actually work to make it happen so all you have is.
Oil is cheaper, which is a total lie. Oil nickels and dimes you whether it is in the grocery store, gas in your car, cigarettes you smoke, McDonalds you eat, electricity that you pay, the shipping of the tvs we use, the products we buy etc...
http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html
Bush increased the deficit 10 fold. Democrats have a history of reducing the deficit and republicans are notorious for increasing it.
Play the blame game if you want but people like you are holding everyone back. You wont let people have the jobs they need, you wont let us help the earth, you wont let the gov. help the unemployed, you cannot think passed your stupid religions and conspiracy theories and instant gratification or the convenience of having whatever you want right now.
Stop holding the people back.Okay, you're doing that stream of consciousness thing again aren't you? Yeah, it is an interesting debate style.
Oil is cheaper, the actual nickel and diming is done by the state governments and Newsflash! you're going to have that too with sustainable energy.
It's interesting that your chart doesn't include Obama, because if it did it would be off the charts. By the way, most of those increases were incurred under a democratic majority congress. You know, the ones who are in charge of the money?
Yeah, people like me are so powerful, and yet, we're not the ones in Washington DC making your life miserable. I know you will have to do it with clean energy. That's the point. But if you do it for clean energy then you also get the jobs, better planet, better health.
I know the chart didn't include Obama, but I was pointing out how tax cuts don't work and none of the money that was borrowed went to help anyone but the rich.
So you will do it for oil which then the money goes to different countries, it destroys the Earth, it fluctuates in prices, the has an impact on our health, whenever the price of oil goes up, the price of everything else goes up with it.
But you will do it for oil but you wont do it for clean energy which will give people jobs, reduce the amount of taxes that we pay on in as the years go by, that will help reduce the adverse effects that carbon has on the environment which does effect our health, that will in time, produce a more stable economy that will eventually allow people to save more money to do do other things with.
We can work on exports. We can build the best equipment, we can bring the jobs back, we can sell to other countries, we can get the debt paid down. We wont be sending so much money to other countries but it will be right here.
And the people in DC are not making me miserable, you and people like you are making most people miserable by blocking progress and stirring up crap, getting people fired, telling people like you a bunch of lies and causing you to be paranoid and thinking the end is near.
If it does happen its because people like you keep blocking progress.The chart doesn't show you that tax cuts don't work because it's not able to do that.
So you seriously want all of us to go into debt and remain out of work until clean energy becomes a viable alternative to oil. You have drunk deeply of the Kool Aid.
I would like for oil to be produced more cheaply than in other places but it is highly regulated and it's people like you who are so against oil that prevent us from tapping into our own resources and make it so expensive to produce it. And by the way, producing and refining oil creates thousands of jobs right now. We don't have to wait another 100 years until clean fuels catch up.
Fat chance you're going to get the debt paid down with Obama and a democratic controlled congress.
I don't think the end is near. I think Obama and the dems are doing such a fantastically bad job that they'll have to wrench that gave from Madame Facelift's graspy hands, when the republicans become the majority.
As for blocking progress, if there are entrepreneurs out there who think they have a better idea and can produce energy more efficiently with clean fuels, then they can convince venture capitalists to fund them and they can reap the benefit. Nobody is stopping them and far be it for me to stop us from having a clean, viable alternative. However, it's not happening soon enough and you're looking to blame someone and you blame conservatives for asking questions and for looking at other solutions. That Conservatives are able to do those things means that Obama and the Dems are big massive losers. And you can't blame anybody but them."And you can't blame anybody but them."
Oh but they will.
Its your fault, its my fault, its Bush's fault.
Oil will always be our fuel and thank God it is.
Burn *uther *ucker burn! Your gods slogan right? Good for you.?
Strangest response yet.
There must be a prize for that.
You finally figured it out. Congratulation. No doubt that regardless of your revelation you will still support more tax cuts over extending unemployment.
Is something wrong with your reading comprehension?
Meh. It's not worth it.
You're really on to something here...I just saw this on huffington post. When people resort to violence; it's because they really don't have any legitimate arguments left.
A republican sicko put out a contract on Alan Greyson because the coword ran out of outrageous lies to counter Greysons' statement concerning the republicans' vote to cut off unemployment benifits for many Americans.
"Republican lawmakers are "taking food out of the mouths of children" and "trying to revive the America of desperate straits and cheap labor" by blocking the passage of legislation that would extend unemployment benefits."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/2 … 52244.html
We are never going to be off of oil its ridiculous to even think we would.
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.
Uh huh.
Thank God someone is looking out for the tax payer.
Do you even watch cartoons?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.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.
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 sidesYep, Arthur! Both sides against the other, the American way! Sad!
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.It would easier to pay for the unemployment benefit extension by allowing the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire as scheduled.
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"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?Your pronouncements on this topic might be more convincing if you actually knew something about economics. Everyone has a right to an opinion.
Oh yes, only YOU (and oddly enough those who agree with you) could possibly know anything about economics...
A lot of territorialism 'round these partsIt'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.)
- kimberlyslyricsposted 14 years ago0
I feel dumb who's Odumbo?
Hi Randy, still sneaking around I see.
Hope you are well
cheersAmerican politics - b. obama - pres of the US
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_1130amHere'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.Yeah, there were quite a large number of voters who were dumb enough to fall for that line.
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.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.
- Texasbetaposted 14 years ago0
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.
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!
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?
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.
Related Discussions
- 23
And you say Obama is destryoing America??
by Leslie McCowen 14 years ago
by Joan McCarterThu Jun 24, 2010 at 02:00:04 PM PDT"This morning Steve Benen speculated that Republicans were blocking the tax extenders/jobs/unemployment insurance bill in order to wreck the economy to try to boost their chances at the ballot box in November.In a conference call with...
- 54
What can anyone do when they run out of unemployment benefits?
by Eugene Hardy 12 years ago
Specifically, you have run out of benefits and you still can not find a job?
- 9
Did President Obama compromise too much in extending the Bush tax cuts to all, w
by ExpandYourMind 13 years ago
Did President Obama compromise too much in extending the Bush tax cuts to all, while continuing...unemployment benefits. Is there a better solution to satisfy all parties?
- 243
Three years of unemployment benefits?
by Jim Hunter 13 years ago
Thats ridiculous, if you can't find a job in your area in three years then move to where the jobs are. Unemployment is beginning to be a career for some people.
- 14
Who's Waging Class Warfare, President Obama or the Republicans?
by Ralph Deeds 13 years ago
Republicans Call Obama's Tax Plan "Class Warfare"http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/us/po … rfare.htmlCOMMENT No. 516Ralph DeedsBirmingham, MichiganSeptember 18th, 20115:10 pmThe Republicans in Michigan have quietly and successfully waged their version of class warfare under...
- 9
Do you think Congress should pass the bill extending unemployment for workers wh
by ExpandYourMind 14 years ago
Do you think Congress should pass the bill extending unemployment for workers who have been...unemployed for over 6 months -- and why or why not.?