Kentucky wants the US to go to hell
 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/....html?hpt=Sbin

I find it outrageous that a single member of Congress can prevent badly needed legislation from passing. I assume Bunning would be all in favor for rejecting all federal monies that go to the state of Kentucky in order to help to balance the budget.

As the article goes on to say, where was Bunning when Congress voted to engage in two astronomically expensive wars? Where was he when Congress voted in more welfare to the rich with tax cuts for those in the upper income tiers?

Bunning is retiring after his current term in Congress. His final actions will leave a black mark on his reputation and on the state he represents. The motto of the state of Kentucky is "A house divided cannot stand." Maybe Senator Bunning needs to get back to his roots.

This story shows exactly why all members of congress suck.

First, while I do have disagreements about Senator Jim Bunning's actions, I do believe his actions were based on moral ground and not political bullshit. He may have voted for the Bush wars but views change, especially when you are not worried about being reelected.

Our deficit is a huge problem and I would agree with Bunning if it wasn't directly about keeping jobs. In fact, I think the Democrats are the most to blame for this because they seemed to simply accept this a "political victory" over Republicans. From every news source I've seen, the Democrats did not push that hard for this bill to be passed, as in actual sacrifice, but I could be wrong about that.

What a bastard! how fucking dare he ask the people who want to spend money to figure out where they are getting it from. let's lynch the asshole.

If he voted to spend money once, he is morally obligated to vote yes to all money spending in the future. Duh.

Ironically, he voted against the rule that he's now grandstanding for.

That's not ironic at all, that's politics. They're all a bunch of whores. I just find it humorous that the outrage here is that he chose to block an expenditure until someone decided where the money was coming from. Our government shouldn't be spending a single penny unless they know where it is coming from.

Shelby was doing the same thing to 80 Obama nominees. Shelby was doing this, in part, so that an FBI crime lab would be built in Alabama. When ABC News and other news bureaus reported what Shelby was doing, suddenly Shelby relented. He could not defend his overt acts of obstructing government for a political agenda.

If Bunning was being honest, where was he when all the bills were being created? Where was he was the Medicaid bill protection big Pharma's 40% higher profits? Where was he when Cheney said "Deficits don't matter"? Why was he so quiet then? That's politics. Promote a political agenda even at the expense of America. A characteristic of extremists - not of moderates.

Who was doing that?

Perhaps those that presented this bill should have thought about where the money was coming from beforehand. I don't like that this is the bill he decided to make a stand on, but wasn't there some direction from the president about pay as you go or some such?

There was direction. In order to not have a "pay as you go" bill, or aka an emergency bill, all members of congress have to agree to it. All of them did but Bunning.

Including the Bushwars, defense, veterans' benefits, Medicare, Social Security, highways - not a single penny!

Damn straight. You don't seem to realize that I don't hold dems or reps to different standards. You have to know where money is coming from before you can spend it. It seems reasonable to me.

What if it's an urgent emergency, and there will be devastating consequences if action is not taken right away?

If they have enough time to get together and decide how much money should be spent on something those really smart, ethical people we elect should also be able to figure out where it is coming from.

Which is why that question should have been asked here in 2003 when Clinton's surplus was quickly worthlessly converted into a massive deficit. A debt masked by creating something America once no longer needed - the 30 year government bond. Created so that America could be a massive debtor nation even to China. Where were these responsible people when they were that controlled both branches of government?

We must now pay for the bills created when lying was routine. Lying as in "Mission Accomplished". A $2billion war that would be paid for by Iraqi oil - has become closer to $1000billion - and now must be paid for.

Where was Bunning when it came time to be a responsible America? Instead he was promoting the Saddam myth – promoting a political agenda that would only harm America. Somebody today has to pay for those lies.

Deja Vue Nam was defined here six years ago. Predicted back then. We are now reliving the same history lesson. Nixon did same lying in 1968 and 1970. Those outstanding bills caused major economic malaise in 1975 and 1979.

Bunning is doing more than “just” stopping unemployment benefits. Due to other provisions of the bill, he is stopping highway repair and construction, making our roads that much less safe to travel. Two thousand highway workers have been laid off today.

He is responsible for the amount Medicare pays to doctors dropping by 21%. Let me tell you, it has been hard enough to find a doctor willing to take Medicare/Medicaid insurance. A drop of 21% in payments will make it impossible.

He is ending loans to small business. With the economy in the state it is in, small businesses need to be encouraged. With the loan programs now expired, it will be more difficult for small businesses to find money.

Bunning flipped off reporters who wanted to talk to him today. What an asshole!

Sorry Tommy - no diversion - not every single subject that comes up can or should be blamed on W. nor have a lesson learned from Viet Nam. Stay on topic or just copy & paste your drivel in a thread of your own.

Here I'll make it easy for you . . .
85%of all problems/WMD/liar/neocon/extremist/Mission Accomplished/deficits don't matter....

Just copy and paste that and save us all some time repeatedly rereading the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

Another reason I think all these various issues should not be lumped into one bill. It'll also keep pork and frivolous spending more in check and increase transparency.

As you know - I am right there with you and I agree.
Still gotta pay for it somehow... MAybe we should force banks to loan them some? Hell we own a couple now don't we?

Agreed.

Thanks, Classic. Its always nice to find some common ground. ;)

Oh, and those furloughed highway workers? They'll most likely get back pay when the program is revived. Now who's wasting money?

1) Identify a need
2) Find way to fix need
3) Find way to pay for fix
4) Put plan into action

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

You are absolutely right, Lookout. I'm sure Congress will soon pass legislation to that effect... Right. :right:

Meanwhile, Bunning has bowed to BI-partisan pressure and will allow a vote on the measure this evening. At least his grandstanding proved that the rest of the Senate is able to agree on something.

Attitudes like that are part of the problem. The process is so consistently done incorrectly some people think it is ok. I don't know Bunning and I doubt his motivation is altruistic and I'm sure he is worthy of scorn for a number of reasons but actually trying to ensure things are done in the right order shouldn't be one of them.

My understanding is the unemployment payments would be coming from stimulus money. How does giving unemployed people more money stimulate them to find a job, or create jobs. It's just more of the same old same old. Spend money we don't have, raise taxes to get the money, high taxes cause job losses, spend more money we don't have. This guy is retiring, We should encourage the rest of them to do the same.

Another one who doesnt understand that the recovery act or "stimulus money" was not just about jobs.

One third of the funds was in the form of middle class and business tax cuts, one third in the form of extended social services to those in need (UI extension, COBRA increase, and extension, SNAP, etc) and one third in grants/contracts for projects to create jobs.

The need for UI extensions was greater than anticipated which resulted in the current funding issue, which was why the intent was to pass a temporary 30 day extension,so those receiving UI wont lose those benefits until it could be addressed longer term through reallocation of recovery act funds for fy 10 or included in the jobs bill currently under consideration in the Senate.

As to the notion that "high taxes causes job loss", the 01 and 03 tax cuts that cost over $1trillion did not produce jobs, as promised. "Trickle down" economics has never worked.

Should be interesting and see where the pork is buried in the bill.

If they don't have money, they can't buy things like (for example)food and clothing. If they can't by food and clothing, food and clothing stores go out of busines or lay off employees, and those people can't buy... etc. Providing unemployment benefits keeps money moving through the economy.

I know! let's just print more money. That way it can keep it moving through the economy![rhodesiaisreadywhenyouare]

Bunning's self-congratulatory pat on the back?

This is a guy who voted for two huge tax cuts that were not paid for (at a cost of over $1trillion)....the huge Medicare RX reform bill that was not paid for (at a cost of $400 billion)....Iraq war funding for six years that was not paid for (at a cost of approx. $750 billion) just to name a few of his contributions to the deficits/debt.

Oh..and his remark that the earlier, larger UI extension bill that Reid blocked was paid for is not quite accurate.

Even if you think the government needs a plan to get its house in order, why on earth is Bunning making a stand on this issue? It's political poison--even the Republican base knows people who are out of work. It's terrible economic policy--suddenly cutting off the taps would have nasty knock-on effects on the economy. And while it's a lot of money, it's one of the few government programs that pretty much unequivocally improve the net welfare of the American people. If Bunning wants to hold up something, how about finding some useless.

I find Bunning a hypocrit of the first degree. Since he is not up for election, he can do almost anything he wants to. Show up naked for Senate sessions or wander around with a lantern looking for an honest Republican.

It he had done this and put his own re-election on the line, he would get a kind of grudging admiration for me. But when he was still a viable Senator instead of a lame duck, we never heard a whisper from him about fixing the deposit. And if Democrats are the party of tax and spend, Republicans have shown themselves to be the party of spend and spend. :headshake

:lol:

As he said, and I agree, but only TO A POINT
Oh and he wouldn't have gotten all the attention this has.

They can find it, but not in a unanimous consent "extend what we've got until we can write something better" debate.

Of course, when they do try to do the real bill, rather than a temporary extension, I'm sure the Republicans will filibuster it.