A cruel Christmas gift: Jobless benefits cut

[zappasguitar]

LOL, Rose is a Socialist! We have so many partisan hack Socialists on this site.

It seems Rose's point was both Republicans and Democrats contributed to the benefits being cut. I'm surmising here she would say you would expect that from the Republicans but not from the Democrats so why did the Democrats go along? Can you answer that Zap? Can Desh?

In her OP she stated:

The cruel cutoff of income for the long-term jobless and their families exemplifies the contempt of the Obama administration and the entire political establishment for the working class. The move threatens millions of unemployed workers and their families with poverty.

Read more @: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/12/28/pers-d28.html

Later she responded:

"with the approval of the White House and congressional Democrats."

Meanwhile, she won't refer by name to Republicans in Congress who FORCED these cuts through using the threat of a Government shutdown.

I am merely wondering why she hasn't been 100% honest.

 

[The Dude]

It took way to long to cut!
They will get payola to add back.

 

[cawacko]

In her OP she stated:



Later she responded:



Meanwhile, she won't refer by name to Republicans in Congress who FORCED these cuts through using the threat of a Government shutdown.

I am merely wondering why she hasn't been 100% honest.

Well Obama is President and he is a Democrat. The Democrats do control the Senate so they would have some power in negotiations.

And again I'm going to surmise as a Socialist she probably wants to see the Democrats move to the left and hates to see them give in to the Republicans on this issue.

 

[I'm Watermark]

Well Obama is President and he is a Democrat. The Democrats do control the Senate so they would have some power in negotiations.

And again I'm going to surmise as a Socialist she probably wants to see the Democrats move to the left and hates to see them give in to the Republicans on this issue.

Yes, exactly. Thank you. The point of making this thread was to highlight to Democratic Party's complicity in these cuts. I'm not taking guilt from Repuglicans, or saying the Democrats ordinarily push such cuts. But I'm trying to make clear that signing them into effect is ethically unacceptable.

 

[maineman]

Well Obama is President and he is a Democrat. The Democrats do control the Senate so they would have some power in negotiations.

And again I'm going to surmise as a Socialist she probably wants to see the Democrats move to the left and hates to see them give in to the Republicans on this issue.

just as a point of clarification, no party with less than 60 votes there EVER "controls" the Senate.

 

[Celticguy]

And how many democrats voted for this legislation to allow Obama to happily sign it into law ?
Spare me...

 

[maineman]

spare you what? the truth about the rules of the Senate?

 

[Auster]

Rose is a he. Yea? I remember him getting upset about a certain gaybasher. . .

 

[Robo]

Extending unemployment benefits just begets more extensions of unemployment benefits because it incentivizes a reliance on government socialist programs. Why the fuck should Americans work for a living when government will extort the people who will work and hand out the loot to people that won’t look for work as long as the government checks keep coming.

Ending the unemployment extended benefits will do more for Americans getting jobs, because now they have to go to work.

Mexicans sneak across our border and have a job within hours or days while lazy ass American Democrats suck on the government tit.

The federal government involvement in unemployment benefits has no Constitutional legitimacy, read amendment 10, y’all morons and crooks!!!

GO GET A FUCKING JOB Y’ALL LEFTIST FREELOADERS!!!!

 

[Minister of Truth]

Oh, Nos! Rose won't side with Team Jackass! Republican plant!!

 

[zappasguitar]

Well Obama is President and he is a Democrat. The Democrats do control the Senate so they would have some power in negotiations.

And again I'm going to surmise as a Socialist she probably wants to see the Democrats move to the left and hates to see them give in to the Republicans on this issue.

Democrats can only do so much while greedy Conservatives, unconcerned with the plight of the unemployed, hold unemployment benefits hostage and threaten even deeper cuts unless Democrats capitulate and give in to their demands..

 

[cawacko]

Democrats can only do so much while greedy Conservatives, unconcerned with the plight of the unemployed, hold unemployment benefits hostage and threaten even deeper cuts unless Democrats capitulate and give in to their demands..

That is definitely one way to spin it to make yourself feel better about their performance.

 

[Celticguy]

spare you what? the truth about the rules of the Senate?

no, meaningless tangents intending to make republicans seem like meanies.
nice whiff on failing to mention BO.

 

[Celticguy]

Democrats can only do so much while greedy Conservatives, unconcerned with the plight of the unemployed, hold unemployment benefits hostage and threaten even deeper cuts unless Democrats capitulate and give in to their demands..

BO has made no bones about refusing to negotiate things. Oh, and there are no cuts, lets beclear about this point. Only dialing back increases.

 

[I'm Watermark]

BO has made no bones about refusing to negotiate things. Oh, and there are no cuts, lets beclear about this point. Only dialing back increases.

That's a way to put it. Give me $X up until today, then continuing tomorrow is an "increase", I guess. But it's still just mantaining what we had before.

 

[Celticguy]

That's a way to put it. Give me $X up until today, then continuing tomorrow is an "increase", I guess. But it's still just mantaining what we had before.

Like the so called Bushtax cuts that just got extendedandextended but never "paid for" ? But this wasnt pitched as a cutas vetern COLA benefits (among many others over the last few years) were.

 

[Truth Detector]

With all the good economic news, I would think there would be little need to extend long term unemployment benefits. Does anyone have the slightest clue how many times these benefits have been extended?

Yep, gotta love this great economic expansion based on the buffoonery of class envy rhetoric this administration and dimwit of a President loves to engage in.

So why don't Democrats just make unemployment benefits a permanent entitlement instead of continually extending it?

 

[Truth Detector]

Like the so called Bushtax cuts that just got extendedandextended but never "paid for" ? But this wasnt pitched as a cutas vetern COLA benefits (among many others over the last few years) were.

I'm constantly amused by the argument that tax cuts need to be paid for. How does one "pay" for tax cuts?

It is a painfully dumb argument that requires the presumption that what citizens earn belongs to Government and that to be "entitled" to keep more of what WE earn, someone must "pay" for it.

But it is also an economically clueless argument in that it ignores the fact that when Americans can keep more of what they earn, the economic benefits equate to higher revenue for the Government in the long run.

 

[Robo]

I'm constantly amused by the argument that tax cuts need to be paid for. How does one "pay" for tax cuts?

It is a painfully dumb argument that requires the presumption that what citizens earn belongs to Government and that to be "entitled" to keep more of what WE earn, someone must "pay" for it.

Actually I find the idea that government should pay for tax cuts a perfectly sane and logical argument. Paying for a tax cut would be the government actually eliminating a part or all of some unconstitutional socialist program or dialing back it’s spending on a bloated Military Industrial Complex or both thereby eliminating or somewhat curtailing the government’s endless lust for the extorted loot required to pay for that shit and thereby moving government toward a balancing of it’s ungodly budget rather than the continuation of ungodly deficits and debt.

But it is also an economically clueless argument in that it ignores the fact that when Americans can keep more of what they earn, the economic benefits equate to higher revenue for the Government in the long run.

Not at all “economically clueless” when considering the less government taxes and SPENDS is the greater amount of money left in the public’s pockets thereby generating economy twice better than simply providing tax cuts and thereby even greater tax revenue.

I know it scares the neo-cons and RINO’s half to death to even think about cutting back the Military Industrial Complex, the world police force and nation building operations and especially the fucking insane Drug War, but just think how much smaller we could make government if those bastards would just trade some of that loot to the fucking neo-commie Democrats for some reductions in their communist socialist programs.

Oh! That’s right, I keep forgetting that the neo-con RINO’s and the neo-commie leftist bastards have no use for limited government and every use for BIG fucking government, huh???

 

[evince]

of by and for

what did the founders mean when they said that?