He voted for 2 wars how many years ago? When the polls showed his constituents thought they were warranted and now he is voting against spending because his constituents are against the governments ridiculous spending. Since when did representing the voice of those who vote for you become a bad thing? Not everyone pretends to be smarter than everybody, thats what Pelosi, Obama, Biden, Reid do and they are in the hot seat right now.

majorspark wrote: 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.

You need someone with credibility on the subject to propose it, not someone who is nitpicking something small that helps people who himself has voted for numerous things in the past that have lead to tremendous increases to the deficit. If he really, really wants to do something about the debt, think about long-term meaningful reform, instead of stopping a temporary extension of unemployment benefits during one of the worst recessions in our history. He's just way off on this.

As soon as a time machine is invented I am sure he will go back and change his vote, until then he can only vote for what is here and now.

I'm sure you've never uttered the phrase "flip-flopper" in reference to John Kerry...you seem like someone who wouldn't do that.

Anyway, even if he wasn't a hypocrite on the topic of deficit spending (which he is), he would still be wrong to go after this bill, and I think that's the bigger issue.

derek bomar wrote:

majorspark wrote: 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.

You need someone with credibility on the subject to propose it, not someone who is nitpicking something small that helps people who himself has voted for numerous things in the past that have lead to tremendous increases to the deficit. If he really, really wants to do something about the debt, think about long-term meaningful reform, instead of stopping a temporary extension of unemployment benefits during one of the worst recessions in our history. He's just way off on this.

You have a point here. But who in the federal government really has any credibility on the matter. The few that are there that make any real proposals on the debt issue have their bills killed in committee.

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

Bunning by the way is not proposing that unemployment benefits are not extended, just that they are payed with unspent stimulus funds. He is not just objecting. What is wrong with that?

derek bomar wrote: I'm sure you've never uttered the phrase "flip-flopper" in reference to John Kerry...you seem like someone who wouldn't do that.

Anyway, even if he wasn't a hypocrite on the topic of deficit spending (which he is), he would still be wrong to go after this bill, and I think that's the bigger issue.

Flip-flopper is too simple of a term for me to ever use. We are supposed to have a representative government, it is one thing to "flip flop" for your party agenda....another to "flip-flop" for the people you represent.

majorspark wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

majorspark wrote: 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.

You need someone with credibility on the subject to propose it, not someone who is nitpicking something small that helps people who himself has voted for numerous things in the past that have lead to tremendous increases to the deficit. If he really, really wants to do something about the debt, think about long-term meaningful reform, instead of stopping a temporary extension of unemployment benefits during one of the worst recessions in our history. He's just way off on this.

You have a point here. But who in the federal government really has any credibility on the matter. The few that are there that make any real proposals on the debt issue have their bills killed in committee.

Bunning by the way is not proposing that unemployment benefits are not extended, just that they are payed with unspent stimulus funds. What is wrong with that?

Did he propose that on the floor? As far as I am concerned, I have no problem with that proposal if he in fact made it during his fake filibuster (which, btw, why don't we actually make people filibuster any more?)

bases_loaded wrote: As soon as a time machine is invented I am sure he will go back and change his vote, until then he can only vote for what is here and now.

Democrat and Liberals on the FH always refer to the past past when it comes to the here and now situation or issues, difficult for them to stay focus because of the past 15 months of failures they never talk about.

Bottom line here is that the Obama Administration does not have the ability with their present agenda to create public sector type jobs, to get people off unemployment, to develop long term employment and get the American economy moving.

Right or wrong on this particular issue....Bunning is, and always has been, a walking penis.

derek bomar wrote: Did he propose that on the floor? As far as I am concerned, I have no problem with that proposal if he in fact made it during his fake filibuster (which, btw, why don't we actually make people filibuster any more?)

I posted this earlier in the thread. And yes I agree that the Senate should go back to the filibuster as it was intended in the old days.

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/pol...3cong.html

What Bunning and his collegues need to roundtable....what can be done to stimulate the private sector in America. Until that problem is resolved, none of the others will be resolved.

For the 83% that are working...who gives a shit? For the 17% that can't get work, they are watching as the walls close in all around them.

But to Bunning's defense, he had an incredible herky-jerky motion on the mound, but his curve ball was unhittable.

Jim Bunning has relented under pressure from both sides. Extension will be passed tonight. No time to provide link. Its on every major news outlet. So, regarding this poll and his constituents from both parties. I guess he was previously being a jerk.

Stimulate the private sector? Try not penalizing them with proposed health care bills and lower the taxes on them. Get rid of unions and it will allow big companies to work cheaper and they won't move their companies out of the states eliminating jobs.

There are just to many instances to single one out. USPS is looking to cut back to 5 day deliveries. I have NO problem with this. However, if you research the US Postmaster General you'd find that his compensation package last year totaled 5.5 Million Dollars? That is so indicitive of the volume of our problems in government.

derek bomar wrote:

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.

Not end of story. Bunning was right and the proof is in how Congress avoided addressing the point he brought up. His point had nothing to do with balancing the budget, but with following the rules that Congress and Obama just established a week ago that they now want to ignore. That is hypocrisy.

BCBulldog wrote: Not end of story. Bunning was right and the proof is in how Congress avoided addressing the point he brought up. His point had nothing to do with balancing the budget, but with following the rules that Congress and Obama just established a week ago that they now want to ignore. That is hypocrisy.

You are correct. The current hypocrits here are those that voted for the pay go legislation which they combined with a bill that increases the debt limit. They want the appearance of being budget hawks, yet the first bill that comes down the pike they piss all over their own rules.

If congress can't even find a way to pay for a 10 billion unemployment package, it just demonstrates how screwed we are. If Obama does not want to join in on the hypocracy he should veto this bill and tell congress to get a unemployment benefits bill to his desk that is paid for.

Watch Obama in his own words after signing pay go legislation. If he signs this without it being "paid as you go". It will again prove his words are worth less than a steaming pile of excrement.

Bunning made a worthwhile point poorly, IMO.

queencitybuckeye wrote: Bunning made a worthwhile point poorly, IMO.

How would you prefer he do it? On a bill that nobody will pay attention to? Wait a few months to complain about it after Congress has ignored it several times?

No way, you see a direct violation of a brand new rule, you call it out. Bunning is being lambasted by the left, some Rs and the media, but he is 100% correct to do this the way and the time he did it. The more that comes out, the more this is clear.

We can now officially state that Obama and the rest of the left were flat out lying with the pay-go nonsense. They have no intention of ever implementing it and no intention of paying for any of their trillions of dollars of spending, except for a tax hike on the middle class in 2018.

This country won't get its fiscal house in order until we have a majority of Jim Bunnings in the House and Senate who are willing to stand up to the left and the whining media. Complain about Bunning all you want Obama and company, but know from your grave you selfishly handed your kids and grandkids massive debt that will greatly affect their standard of living.

JoeA1010 wrote: We can now officially state that Obama and the rest of the left were flat out lying with the pay-go nonsense. They have no intention of ever implementing it and no intention of paying for any of their trillions of dollars of spending, except for a tax hike on the middle class in 2018.

This country won't get its fiscal house in order until we have a majority of Jim Bunnings in the House and Senate who are willing to stand up to the left and the whining media. Complain about Bunning all you want Obama and company, but know from your grave you selfishly handed your kids and grandkids massive debt that will greatly affect their standard of living.

You really don't want that

derek bomar wrote:
You really don't want that

Taking the personality out of it, do we want $10 billion in spending to require $10 billion (more would be better - say $12 billion) in cuts elsewhere? You're damn right we want that. We need it, and we need it yesterday.

Is Bunning the ex-basketball player? Or baseball player?

cbus4life wrote: Is Bunning the ex-basketball player? Or baseball player?

He was a pitcher in the major league.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

derek bomar wrote:
You really don't want that

Taking the personality out of it, do we want $10 billion in spending to require $10 billion (more would be better - say $12 billion) in cuts elsewhere? You're damn right we want that. We need it, and we need it yesterday.

that isn't the point - you don't want a bunch of Jim Bunnings in congress...dude's not a good Senator.

Yes, I do want that. It is YOU who don't want it because he will end the gravy-train of a massive federal government taking from those according to ability, and giving to those who are determined by politicians to be of need.