Republican Jim Bunning stops some overspending

KingCondanomation

KingCondanomation

New member
Great news.
"On the floor of the Senate, Republican Jim Bunning of Kentucky just defended the position he's taken that has delayed an extension of jobless benefits for the nation's unemployed and has forced the furlough of about 2,000 federal workers.

Saying that he has blocked votes on the legislation to underscore his opposition to the ongoing growth in federal debt, Bunning read a letter from "Robert in Louisville," who told the senator that even though he hasn't been working regularly in the past two years he supports what Bunning is doing.

"This country is sooner or later going to implode because of the massive amount of debt run up over the past 40 or 50 years," Robert wrote, according to Bunning.

"Why now?" Bunning said he's been asked, regarding his objection to the legislation. "Why not now?" "
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/03/bunning_defends_his_position.html

Excellent, unemployment benefits are already too high and have been extended already in the past. And as a bonus, we will finally see some federal government workers let go, just like state and city governments have done.
Less government and less spending - it's what worked so well in the 90's.
:)
 
I'm not going to argue with anyone that the gov't overspends, and that cost-cutting has to be a priority going forward.

However, is this really the place to start? This is a token opposition, and unemployment benefits are the only thing keeping a lot of people afloat right now (and just barely). Cutting them off will only cause suffering, and compound the existing problems (which are exacerbated by things like foreclosures).

It's your typical pennywise, pound foolish thing in this instance.
 
I'd be fine with Bunning's move if (1) this was simply Bunning doing what he has always done regarding this sort of thing (it isn't) and (2) if this were to actually have the effect that he is seeking (it isn't). This is Bunning giving the finger to anyone and everyone on his way out the door.

Here's a chart of the impact of Bunning's idiocy:

20100301_BUNNING_map.wide_photo.prod_affiliate.91.jpg



Notice that "federal workers" are being furloughed; rather, construction workers on federal projects are being furloughed.
 
Going to agree with Onceler and most democrats on this one. Poor choice of places in which to dig in and do battle.
 
Onceler said:
I'm not going to argue with anyone that the gov't overspends, and that cost-cutting has to be a priority going forward.

However, is this really the place to start?
Click to expand...
Well this is a good question and he answered it with what I thought was a very good point:
""Why now?" Bunning said he's been asked, regarding his objection to the legislation. "Why not now?" "
And you know he's right, you have to start somewhere, ANY spending some people will always complain about being cut, there's never really a great place to start.

Onceler said:
This is a token opposition, and unemployment benefits are the only thing keeping a lot of people afloat right now (and just barely). Cutting them off will only cause suffering, and compound the existing problems (which are exacerbated by things like foreclosures).
It's your typical pennywise, pound foolish thing in this instance.
Click to expand...
Not sure if you realize but this sounds almost exactly like what I remember hearing in the 90's with those who opposed welfare reform. That it was the only thing they had, cause suffering, etc... And we all know how that turned out.
Yes some people will have to lose their home, but try and think of the people out there who NEVER had a home and are paying taxes to support house life support for those who do. It's not the end of the world, most will join the underemployed section where they take a job that pays less than what their ideal job is until things recover.
It's what I would do, my Dad did it when I was young, we had to move several times.
 
He must be a chair of some committee to enable him to d this. The opportunity doesn't come around every day, so he's right to make a stand now. :good4u:
 
""Why now?" Bunning said he's been asked, regarding his objection to the legislation. "Why not now?" "

That's completely lame. He is grandstanding, and that is all.

I can't imagine how I would feel about reading this kind of comment if I was on the last legs of my unemployment benefits, in an area with little or no hiring. It's vicious, and it isn't the same thing as arguments for welfare.

For the most part, these are hard-working people, caught in circumstances that are out of their control. They are people who would greatly prefer to work for their check, but just need more time. That's it.

There are loads of good places to cut spending. This isn't one.
 
Southern Man said:
He must be a chair of some committee to enable him to d this. The opportunity doesn't come around every day, so he's right to make a stand now. :good4u:
Click to expand...


His power comes not from being on committee. Any single senator could have done it. The bill was poised to pass by unanimous consent, meaning all 100 senators agree to pass the bill and to forego lots of formalities otherwise requires. Bunning objected and withheld his consent meaning that notwithstanding that 99 other senators are in favor of the bill, all the formalities must be followed. In the end, Bunning's move merely delays passage by a few weeks and in the meantime there are all sorts of nasty consequences.

It's Bunning giving the finger, nothing more.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I'd be fine with Bunning's move if (1) this was simply Bunning doing what he has always done regarding this sort of thing (it isn't) and (2) if this were to actually have the effect that he is seeking (it isn't). This is Bunning giving the finger to anyone and everyone on his way out the door.

Here's a chart of the impact of Bunning's idiocy:

20100301_BUNNING_map.wide_photo.prod_affiliate.91.jpg



Notice that "federal workers" are being furloughed; rather, construction workers on federal projects are being furloughed.
Click to expand...

Wow I would have never imagined that those in more populous states would lose more government jobs!
What a dumb graph designed to shock those who don't think.

Insurance is a cushion designed to soften a fall, not be a hammock. I have lost my job and the first time was in the worst high tech downturn when I had the least experience, I found a job like most did. Others moved on to other kinds of jobs.
This is just life, I'm sorry but the debt is too high and you cannot just keep putting off the problem for the next generation.
 
NigelTufnel said:
His power comes not from being on committee. Any single senator could have done it. The bill was poised to pass by unanimous consent, meaning all 100 senators agree to pass the bill and to forego lots of formalities otherwise requires. Bunning objected and withheld his consent meaning that notwithstanding that 99 other senators are in favor of the bill, all the formalities must be followed. In the end, Bunning's move merely delays passage by a few weeks and in the meantime there are all sorts of nasty consequences.

It's Bunning giving the finger, nothing more.
Click to expand...

A unanimous vote means that everyone is hunky dorey with it and singing Kumbayah. Obviously they ain't and I'm surprised that more aren't giving Reid the finger as well. :)
 
KingCondanomation said:
Wow I would have never imagined that those in more populous states would lose more government jobs!
What a dumb graph designed to shock those who don't think.
Click to expand...

Apparently, you cannot seem to understand a simple graphic. The shading on the states represent people whose unemployment benefits have run out due to Bunning's move. It does not reflect the loss of government jobs.

KingCondanomation said:
Insurance is a cushion designed to soften a fall, not be a hammock. I have lost my job and the first time was in the worst high tech downturn when I had the least experience, I found a job like most did. Others moved on to other kinds of jobs.
This is just life, I'm sorry but the debt is too high and you cannot just keep putting off the problem for the next generation.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, but Bunning's move will not stop anything from happening. It merely delays it for a while with all sorts of bad consequences for no real purpose. Additionally, this is a prolonged recession and finding new job isn't exactly easy. Moreover, unemployment insurance is shown to have very positive effects on economic recovery because the recipients spend it all.
 
Southern Man said:
A unanimous vote means that everyone is hunky dorey with it and singing Kumbayah. Obviously they ain't and I'm surprised that more aren't giving Reid the finger as well. :)
Click to expand...


99 senators are in favor of it. It will pass easily. Bunning is just being a dick. That's all there is to it.
 
Good, there are jobs out there but why take one that only pays what your unemployment is good for? Who wouldn't rather sit on their ass than work at KFC for the same wage. The country needs to realize we overspent and people were over paid and the new economy people are going to have to work for less. Unending unemployment just delays what has to happen and makes it harder to deal with when we have to pay it back.
 
it could just as easily be said that 1.2 million people lost their unemployment benefits because the democrats tried to create jobs and failed.
 
How does unemployment insurance technically work? Don't we pay taxes that go into an unemployment fund and that money is suppose to be there for us but politicians dip into that fund to use it for spending elsewhere?
 
Bunning doesn't give a crap, he's one of the ones that are, (How did Onceler insist I should say it?.. oh yeah!), "retiring" after this term.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Apparently, you cannot seem to understand a simple graphic. The shading on the states represent people whose unemployment benefits have run out due to Bunning's move. It does not reflect the loss of government jobs.
Click to expand...
Don't be a dick, you know what I meant, yes there are going to be more people with unemployment insurance running out in more populous states. Duh

NigelTufnel said:
That's all well and good, but Bunning's move will not stop anything from happening. It merely delays it for a while with all sorts of bad consequences for no real purpose. Additionally, this is a prolonged recession and finding new job isn't exactly easy. Moreover, unemployment insurance is shown to have very positive effects on economic recovery because the recipients spend it all.
Click to expand...
Sure there is a purpose, the more spending you delay, the more time you take up from Congress, then when the election comes and Repubs wipe out your high-spending asses they will have that much less spending to cut.
And if people take up jobs, lesser jobs, they will still be consuming and they will be doing it without adding to the debt which so discourages foreign investment that is progressively becoming your last lifeline to funding all the spending you are doing to begin with...

Have you ever lost your job? I mean honestly you sound more worried than the people it actually happens to.
 
Onceler said:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the stimulus did create jobs.
Click to expand...

LOL, I mean honestly Onceler I like you more than most on this site but you simply can't believe this nonsense. Keynesian economics is doing now what it always does, delay recovery and drag out recessions. I predicted this over 1 1/2 years ago here when they first started these bailouts and Keynesian nonsense and it's going exactly as I predicted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top