Senator Jim Bunning is blocking the extension of unemployment benefits for people, stating that the Congress has no means to pay for them.

Now, question, is this the right thing to do, or is he a big jerk?


My view is a jerk. While, you can argue that the Congress cannot pay for it, at the very least put forth an option where maybe the state and local governments can pay the federal government back at a later date to extend the benefits or something like that.

In times like this, well qualified people are unemployed, so saying only lazy people get unemployment makes little sense.

Jerk.

There are places to be fiscally responsible...and this is not one of them. He's being an ass.

He is making a political point at a time when that should be the furthest thing from your mine.

Save your energy for the health care debate, etc.

A little of both, perhaps. If we never get to "but we just can't afford it" in this country, we are lost.

How many extensions should people get?

Unemployment extensions will get passed one way or another.

He has a good point- why can't the $10 Billion (or whatever it was) be cut from some other area of the budget? How long, or how many times will the Congress spend money they don't have? If anything it gives them time to debate the issue and cut some other area instead of just blindly passing it.

I think he is being a fiscally responsible jerk.

I can get that, but instead of just saying, "I object." put forth some ideas. For example, say, "In the coming months we will have to vote to issue x amount of dollars, why don't we agree to take x amount now to pay for this and agree that the program in the few months will have that much less?"

If he did that, I think he would have a valid point. But, just saying no, without any real solutions makes no sense.

Also, how long does it take, it is usually, on average I have read, for people 6 months to find a job. There are some pretty smart people out there looking and do sadly rely on the funds, and could be really hurt by the cut. It makes no sense to have those people suffer so 1 Senator can make a political point without offering real solutions.

It is this kind of stuff that pisses me off the most about DC.

If he had any actual ideas...ok, throw them out there and come up with a solution. Simply saying "I Object" over and over again without any actual solutions to help these people makes it seem like a pretty callous way to score political points.

At least he is taking a stand ("I object") rather then just voting "Present".

How about if the author of the bill comes up with a way to pay for it?? Why is it Bunnings...or any other Senator or Representative...responsibility to come up with a plan to pay for this??

Now that would really be a way for the author of the bill to score some political points with both sides of the aisle.

Even if suggestions were offered regarding cutting $10 billion from other areas of the budget we still couldn't afford it.

We should cut the $10 billion even if the extensions are not passed.

Fix the current unemployment system. I vote for drug testing. If you are going to use my tax money you better be playing by the rules.

Obama and the democrats have hailed their new pay-go rule now want to violate it. Bunning is putting their feet to the fire.

Bunning has made a proposal. NYT article.

Senator Bunning, who is insisting on a point of parliamentary procedure to block the legislation, offered to lift his objection if an agreement was made to use unspent economic stimulus money to cover the $10 billion cost of the unemployment aid, which would go to those who have already exhausted their benefits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/us/politics/03cong.html

Makes sense to me. Either way the benefits will be paid.

Bunning voted against pay-go

derek bomar wrote: Bunning voted against pay-go

and this matters why, exactly??

wkfan wrote:

derek bomar wrote: Bunning voted against pay-go

and this matters why, exactly??

because he's trying to do pay-go for something small. He voted for the Bush tax cuts and two wars that were on the credit card...if you really need me to explain why this makes him a hypocrite I will, but let me preface with a "c'mon man"...

derek bomar wrote: Bunning voted against pay-go

He voted no because the same bill also increased the debt limit to 14.3 trillion. Now he is holding their feet to the fire.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/obama-praises-paygo-passage-within-debt-limit-increase-bill-.html

cbus4life wrote: If he had any actual ideas...ok, throw them out there and come up with a solution. Simply saying "I Object" over and over again without any actual solutions to help these people makes it seem like a pretty callous way to score political points.

Objecting to a proposed plan is only allowed if you have a better plan? What if there is no plan that magically creates money out of thin air?

majorspark wrote:

derek bomar wrote: Bunning voted against pay-go

He voted no because the same bill also increased the debt limit to 14.3 trillion. Now he is holding their feet to the fire.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/obama-praises-paygo-passage-within-debt-limit-increase-bill-.html

bunning voted for things that lead to a need to increase the debt ceiling to that level (two wars and tax cuts)

derek bomar wrote:

wkfan wrote:

derek bomar wrote: Bunning voted against pay-go

and this matters why, exactly??

because he's trying to do pay-go for something small. He voted for the Bush tax cuts and two wars that were on the credit card...if you really need me to explain why this makes him a hypocrite I will, but let me preface with a "c'mon man"...

Ya know....several years ago, the 'hypocrit' argument would have held water. Today, each and every person in Wahington is a hypocrit, so it is a level playing field in that regard.

Gotta do better than that, derek.

wkfan wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

wkfan wrote:

derek bomar wrote: Bunning voted against pay-go

and this matters why, exactly??

because he's trying to do pay-go for something small. He voted for the Bush tax cuts and two wars that were on the credit card...if you really need me to explain why this makes him a hypocrite I will, but let me preface with a "c'mon man"...

Ya know....several years ago, the 'hypocrit' argument would have held water. Today, each and every person in Wahington is a hypocrit, so it is a level playing field in that regard.

Gotta do better than that, derek.

Really? I Have to do better than pointing out the obvious? GTFOOH

derek bomar wrote:

wkfan wrote:

derek bomar wrote: Bunning voted against pay-go

and this matters why, exactly??

because he's trying to do pay-go for something small. He voted for the Bush tax cuts and two wars that were on the credit card...if you really need me to explain why this makes him a hypocrite I will, but let me preface with a "c'mon man"...

I'm sorry, but I didn't see the clause in the 'pay-go' legislation that said it's ok to ignore the rule if it is for something small.

It doesn't make him a hypocrite - you can't hold him to any 'pay-go' rules when they didn't exist.

I will concede that he is being opportunistic by pointing out that the Dems are ignoring their own rule on a stage where it gets the most attention, but who on either side of the aisle hasn't done that at one point or another?

derek bomar wrote:

majorspark wrote:

derek bomar wrote: Bunning voted against pay-go

He voted no because the same bill also increased the debt limit to 14.3 trillion. Now he is holding their feet to the fire.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/obama-praises-paygo-passage-within-debt-limit-increase-bill-.html

bunning voted for things that lead to a need to increase the debt ceiling to that level (two wars and tax cuts)

Assuming those votes were irresponsible on his part, should he continue to be irresponsible?

If I run up my credit card debt to the point I can't pay for food, should I open up another account because I made some bad decisions in the past and in order not to appear hypocritical keep spending money I don't have? Or do I begin to make sacrifices?

You will be hard pressed to find any congressman could not be called hypocritcal. Sometimes it is for true other times it is appearant based on what all is in a bill.

BCBulldog wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

wkfan wrote:

derek bomar wrote: Bunning voted against pay-go

and this matters why, exactly??

because he's trying to do pay-go for something small. He voted for the Bush tax cuts and two wars that were on the credit card...if you really need me to explain why this makes him a hypocrite I will, but let me preface with a "c'mon man"...

I'm sorry, but I didn't see the clause in the 'pay-go' legislation that said it's ok to ignore the rule if it is for something small.

It doesn't make him a hypocrite - you can't hold him to any 'pay-go' rules when they didn't exist.

I will concede that he is being opportunistic by pointing out that the Dems are ignoring their own rule on a stage where it gets the most attention, but who on either side of the aisle hasn't done that at one point or another?

the guy is being a d-bag any way you slice it - if he really cared about a balanced budget he wouldn't have voted for two wars and a tax cut and put them on the credit card. end of story.

majorspark wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

majorspark wrote:

derek bomar wrote: Bunning voted against pay-go

He voted no because the same bill also increased the debt limit to 14.3 trillion. Now he is holding their feet to the fire.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/obama-praises-paygo-passage-within-debt-limit-increase-bill-.html

bunning voted for things that lead to a need to increase the debt ceiling to that level (two wars and tax cuts)

Assuming those votes were irresponsible on his part, should he continue to be irresponsible? no, but I'd argue it's more irresponsible to kick people off of unemployment during the current economic climate than it is to vote for the extenion

If I run up my credit card debt to the point I can't pay for food, should I open up another account because I made some bad decisions in the past and in order not to appear hypocritical keep spending money I don't have? Or do I begin to make sacrifices?

if he wanted to make sacrifices, he could offer a way to cut something else instead of saying "I object"

You will be hard pressed to find any congressman could not be called hypocritcal. Sometimes it is for true other times it is appearant based on what all is in a bill.
so because congressman by and large are hypocrites, it's ok in this case because he's got a point right now (from your pov)?

look, i'm not against paying for things as you go, I'd like for congress to start doing that, as would I think the majority of the country. But he doesn't really care about that, and he's picked a horrible place to make his point. This guy needs kicked in the junk.

Trust me Bunning will be made to drop this. Unemployment benefits are going to be paid. Congress will pay for them in violation of pay go. And debt will increase. This is politics in Washington. This is why the debt problem will never be delt with until it can not be avoided any longer. Who will step forward and be the first to recieve less from the federal trough. Any congressman who proposes it will be tarred and feathered. Just like Bunning.