Evil Repubs: "We must pay for unemployment benefits" Democrats: "No"

[traveler52]

Republicans: PayGo!

Democrats: Fuck you!

Repuglicant's - EAT SHIT, FUCK OFF, DIE!!

DEMS. - FOUGHT FOR UNEMPLOYMENT, REPUGS SAID NO.

 

[boedicca]

You are neglecting the fact that the Dems are sitting on $400B of unspent stimulus funds. If they really cared about extending benefits for the unemployed, they could use some of the unspent stimulus pork.

The fact that they haven't says a lot about who they really are serving.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We're selling our federal oil to companies like BP for 12 to 16 cents on the dollar while other countries in comparable situations are getting 40 to 70 cents on the dollar. Even our states like Alaska are getting 50 cents on the dollar for their oil. I fail to see the good in that.

Because BP is willing to donate to Obama.

 

[daveman]

The Republicans only got fiscal responsibility religion when they were no longer the majority and no longer could dictate where the money was spent. Now that the Democrats can do what the Republicans could do for a decade, suddenly the Republicans are born again deficit hawks.

I say pay for the the UE extension, and a few other things, by doubling the royalties on oil drilling on federal lands and waters.

Brilliant. Pay for unemployment benefits by creating more unemployed.

Then why don't we just give our oil away, to create jobs? Not to mention all our other resources...

Okay. It'd do a lot more for the nation than taxing the shit out of everything, which does nothing but raise prices for the consumer, until the consumer won't pay any more and the business folds.

 

[daveman]

Republicans: PayGo!

Democrats: Fuck you!

Repuglicant's - EAT SHIT, FUCK OFF, DIE!!

DEMS. - FOUGHT FOR UNEMPLOYMENT, REPUGS SAID NO.

You serve your masters well, and you will be rewarded.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

The same thing can be said of the democrats. Two years ago, 0bama was a deficit hawk, until he came into office and spent twice as much as the tax income in a single year.

Royalties are contracts. The constitution forbids your idea.

Royalties are also set by auction. Even if it did pass constitutional muster, it would permanently depress the money the government could get out of any future auctions.

That is nonsensical. Period. The idea that we are permanently locked into the royalty rates we currently charge for is breathtakingly stupid.

The royalty rates are set in a contract established at the time of the auction of rights. The constitution forbids legislative interference in contract, which is what you are proposing.

If it did pass muster, which is doubtful, there is the issue of the oil companies have been the victim of a bait and switch maneuver. Any future contracts will have the fact they have been burnt priced in. This kind of thing is what so impoverishes South American and Africa. A company makes a deal, the government reneges on the deal, so the next deal that gets made has to recognize that one of the parties has a history of fraud and double dealing. Present gains never recoup future losses by the governments who do this.


What you are proposing isn't just a crime, it is stupid.

 

[boedicca]

Contracts don't matter to our Gangster Government.

Just ask the GM bondholders.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The same thing can be said of the democrats. Two years ago, 0bama was a deficit hawk, until he came into office and spent twice as much as the tax income in a single year.

Royalties are contracts. The constitution forbids your idea.

Royalties are also set by auction. Even if it did pass constitutional muster, it would permanently depress the money the government could get out of any future auctions.

That is nonsensical. Period. The idea that we are permanently locked into the royalty rates we currently charge for is breathtakingly stupid.

The royalty rates are set in a contract established at the time of the auction of rights. The constitution forbids legislative interference in contract, which is what you are proposing.

If it did pass muster, which is doubtful, there is the issue of the oil companies have been the victim of a bait and switch maneuver. Any future contracts will have the fact they have been burnt priced in. This kind of thing is what so impoverishes South American and Africa. A company makes a deal, the government reneges on the deal, so the next deal that gets made has to recognize that one of the parties has a history of fraud and double dealing. Present gains never recoup future losses by the governments who do this.


What you are proposing isn't just a crime, it is stupid.

Why are the oil companies willing to pay other countries 2 3 4 or 5 times as much as they pay us? In royalties.

Why do some of our states get several times as much as the federal government gets, in royalties?

Why do you want to give away our oil, which, btw, we eventually buy back, RETAIL, in the open market?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Brilliant. Pay for unemployment benefits by creating more unemployed.

Then why don't we just give our oil away, to create jobs? Not to mention all our other resources...

Okay. It'd do a lot more for the nation than taxing the shit out of everything, which does nothing but raise prices for the consumer, until the consumer won't pay any more and the business folds.

Okay, so you're retarded. You have my sympathies.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

That is nonsensical. Period. The idea that we are permanently locked into the royalty rates we currently charge for is breathtakingly stupid.

The royalty rates are set in a contract established at the time of the auction of rights. The constitution forbids legislative interference in contract, which is what you are proposing.

If it did pass muster, which is doubtful, there is the issue of the oil companies have been the victim of a bait and switch maneuver. Any future contracts will have the fact they have been burnt priced in. This kind of thing is what so impoverishes South American and Africa. A company makes a deal, the government reneges on the deal, so the next deal that gets made has to recognize that one of the parties has a history of fraud and double dealing. Present gains never recoup future losses by the governments who do this.


What you are proposing isn't just a crime, it is stupid.

Why are the oil companies willing to pay other countries 2 3 4 or 5 times as much as they pay us? In royalties.

Why do some of our states get several times as much as the federal government gets, in royalties?

Why do you want to give away our oil, which, btw, we eventually buy back, RETAIL, in the open market?

What I said was that the companies have a contract.

You can argue the contract is bad, but it is there.

It was common for the forst service back in the day here in Oregon to spend $2000 per acre preparing woodlands for sale, and then leasing them for $500 per acre.

I think if you look at the actual contracts you are comparing apples and oranges anyway.

 

[Old Rocks]

I propose that we do make the unemployment compesation deficit neutral. In the time of 'Nam, Johnson instituted a wartime surcharge on income tax. That is a precident. Given that the wage earners are out of work because of the actions of the people that have the highest incomes, figure out a surcharge that would cover the unemployment compensation and put it into effect.

None of those affected will be making any appearances at the local food bank, while all too many that used to give to those banks, are now needing their assistance.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yep, I was working for the Forest Service when we were subsidizing the timber companies. Bad then, bad now to be doing the same for the oil corperation.

You are correct, the contracts are in place. However, we should review all of our laws concerning resources on public land. For all too long we have given them away.

 

[daveman]

Then why don't we just give our oil away, to create jobs? Not to mention all our other resources...

Okay. It'd do a lot more for the nation than taxing the shit out of everything, which does nothing but raise prices for the consumer, until the consumer won't pay any more and the business folds.

Okay, so you're retarded. You have my sympathies.

Coming from you, that's absolutely meaningless.

Meanwhile, let's hear more about your fascinating theory that says taking more money from companies will make them hire more people and not raise prices!

 

[daveman]

Yep, I was working for the Forest Service when we were subsidizing the timber companies. Bad then, bad now to be doing the same for the oil corperation.

How about for Chrysler, GM, and unions?

 

[jeffrockit]

The same thing can be said of the democrats. Two years ago, 0bama was a deficit hawk, until he came into office and spent twice as much as the tax income in a single year.

Royalties are contracts. The constitution forbids your idea.

Royalties are also set by auction. Even if it did pass constitutional muster, it would permanently depress the money the government could get out of any future auctions.

Republicans let PAYGO expire because they couldn't do their tax cuts and Medicare part D, aka budget busters, under PAYGO rules. The deficits created by both of those, plus the ongoing cost of the Iraq war, comprise a major portion of what is called Obama's deficit.

Realizing that much of the deficit was their, the current problem is, Obama keeps ADDING to the it. If he were truly about "Change", he would have worked toward reducing it not increasing it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I propose that we do make the unemployment compesation deficit neutral. In the time of 'Nam, Johnson instituted a wartime surcharge on income tax. That is a precident. Given that the wage earners are out of work because of the actions of the people that have the highest incomes, figure out a surcharge that would cover the unemployment compensation and put it into effect.

None of those affected will be making any appearances at the local food bank, while all too many that used to give to those banks, are now needing their assistance.

Unemployment is deficit neutral, everyone who works pays into it, and collects when they need it, for a set period of time. That is why it is called unemployment insurance. It only becomes deficit negative when we extend it beyond the point where it is paid for.

 

[oreo]

Republicans want to pay for unemployment extension without adding to the national debt and Democrats say screw you....

I guess we know who is really responsible for our debt growing to the size it is.... What's wrong with Democrats? And why can't the US government live by a budget like Obama is telling the US citizens to live by.... Once again more hypocrisy....

Democrats, are you not embarrassed by your leaders yet????? The same thing that is happening to Illinois is happening to the Federal Government and most of you Democrats either don't give a shit or are just to stupid to understand. Sad....


Dems refuse compromise to extend unemployment benefits | Washington Examiner

What this means is that DEMOCRATS don't want to cut spending elsewhere -to pay for unemployment benefits. This shouldn't surprise anyone.

This administration has assigned themselves a no limit credit card--with our kids and grandkids names all over it for re-payment.

Cutting government spending--no matter how wasteful many of these programs are--is just not going to happen with democrats in full control of all houses of government.--like 2 million taxpayer dollars going to one college to "study" the sexual habits of freshman females---

 

[editec]

What whall we cut to pay for it?

I notice how carefully you people have avoided my suggestion that we cut military spending in Asian land wars.

So what that tells me is most of you want to bankrupt the nation, but want to do it so that some elements of society get paid, but other don't.

Hypocrites you partisans... all of yas.

 

[VaYank5150]

Republicans want to pay for unemployment extension without adding to the national debt and Democrats say screw you....

I guess we know who is really responsible for our debt growing to the size it is.... What's wrong with Democrats? And why can't the US government live by a budget like Obama is telling the US citizens to live by.... Once again more hypocrisy....

Democrats, are you not embarrassed by your leaders yet????? The same thing that is happening to Illinois is happening to the Federal Government and most of you Democrats either don't give a shit or are just to stupid to understand. Sad....


Dems refuse compromise to extend unemployment benefits | Washington Examiner

When is the GOP going to start paying for our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan? And since WHEN did the GOP start caring about paying for things?

 

[editec]

Republicans want to pay for unemployment extension without adding to the national debt and Democrats say screw you....

I guess we know who is really responsible for our debt growing to the size it is.... What's wrong with Democrats? And why can't the US government live by a budget like Obama is telling the US citizens to live by.... Once again more hypocrisy....

Democrats, are you not embarrassed by your leaders yet????? The same thing that is happening to Illinois is happening to the Federal Government and most of you Democrats either don't give a shit or are just to stupid to understand. Sad....


Dems refuse compromise to extend unemployment benefits | Washington Examiner

When is the GOP going to start paying for our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan? And since WHEN did the GOP start caring about paying for things?

The GOP doesn't pay.

The CURRENT REGIME in congress makes those decisions.

Tell me VA Yank, who controls congress right now?

More importantly what POTUS has authority to draw down the troops with or WITHOUT input from Congress?

Sorry, so[port but you cannot JUST blame this on the GOP.

The DEMS own this deficit no less than the Reps, own it.

They both set this nation up to FAIL.

They've been doing that good cop/bad cop game my entire freaking life.