Obama Tells Dems He'll Oppose Tax Cut Deal Without Unemployment Benefits, Other Relie

[Flaylo]

Obama Tells Dems He'll Oppose Tax Cut Deal Without Unemployment Benefits, Other Relief


My CINC putting his foot down and making the Repugs work and fulfill their end of the bargain to take care of all Americans and not just the wealthy, this is why I voted for him.

 

[The Rabbi]

Obama Tells Dems He'll Oppose Tax Cut Deal Without Unemployment Benefits, Other Relief


My CINC putting his foot down and making the Repugs work and fulfill their end of the bargain to take care of all Americans and not just the wealthy, this is why I voted for him.

So much for bipartisanship and working with the other side.
Not that anyone realistically expected this poseur of a president to do otherwise. He is politically inept, economically illiterate, and socially flawed.

Extending unemployment benefits beyond the already 99 weeks is not "taking care" of anyone. It is making a permanent entitlement not to work. With 9.8% unemployment, unprecedented at this stage of any recovery, one would think Obama would be looking for a game changer rather than more of the same.

 

[DaGoose]

Obama Tells Dems He'll Oppose Tax Cut Deal Without Unemployment Benefits, Other Relief


My CINC putting his foot down and making the Repugs work and fulfill their end of the bargain to take care of all Americans and not just the wealthy, this is why I voted for him.

So much for bipartisanship and working with the other side.
Not that anyone realistically expected this poseur of a president to do otherwise. He is politically inept, economically illiterate, and socially flawed.

Extending unemployment benefits beyond the already 99 weeks is not "taking care" of anyone. It is making a permanent entitlement not to work. With 9.8% unemployment, unprecedented at this stage of any recovery, one would think Obama would be looking for a game changer rather than more of the same.

Actually studies show you're incorrect. Unemployment benefits do far more good than not.

Five myths about unemployment

 

[The Rabbi]

Obama Tells Dems He'll Oppose Tax Cut Deal Without Unemployment Benefits, Other Relief


My CINC putting his foot down and making the Repugs work and fulfill their end of the bargain to take care of all Americans and not just the wealthy, this is why I voted for him.

So much for bipartisanship and working with the other side.
Not that anyone realistically expected this poseur of a president to do otherwise. He is politically inept, economically illiterate, and socially flawed.

Extending unemployment benefits beyond the already 99 weeks is not "taking care" of anyone. It is making a permanent entitlement not to work. With 9.8% unemployment, unprecedented at this stage of any recovery, one would think Obama would be looking for a game changer rather than more of the same.

Actually studies show you're incorrect. Unemployment benefits do far more good than not.

Five myths about unemployment

Will you stop repeating talking points by the MSM? Can you think for yourself?
If unemployment was so great why don't we just put everyone on unemployment?

 

[Rozman]

It's a known fact that there are people who refuse to even look for work because there is no reason to if they can just stay home and receive their checks.How long is temporary anyway these days? 99 weeks isn't enough time to find some kind of employment? People on this board are proud that these people are going to be "taken care of" yet again.

This liberal mentality kills me.Nancy Pelosi has said that paying unemployment benefits do more to get the economy moving then anything else.If that were true then the economy should be booming now having paid a ton of money to the unemployed these past two years.

Now in today's paper I read that this President wants to give tax breaks to people who don't pay taxes?

Is he out of his mind?

The White House is hoping to add breaks for college students and companies that hire the unemployed. They also want to give lower- and middle-class wage earners a tax break, even if they don't make enough to pay taxes to the government.




Senate GOP blocks Dems' bid to ax tax cuts for the rich; showdown could lead to compromise

 

[Dr Grump]

i've know people get unemployemtn benefits over the years. not one of them was happy about it..

You cons crack me up. You think Unemployed = lazy...BS

 

[The Rabbi]

i've know people get unemployemtn benefits over the years. not one of them was happy about it..

You cons crack me up. You think Unemployed = lazy...BS

Aww those poor unemployed people, sitting year after year living off the dole. We ought to feel bad for them as we give them money month after month. I guess money isn't enough anymore. They need a hug too.

Hey, here's a newsflash: No one is responsible to pay your bills except you. Now get off your fat lazy ass and go get a job.

 

[DaGoose]

So much for bipartisanship and working with the other side.
Not that anyone realistically expected this poseur of a president to do otherwise. He is politically inept, economically illiterate, and socially flawed.

Extending unemployment benefits beyond the already 99 weeks is not "taking care" of anyone. It is making a permanent entitlement not to work. With 9.8% unemployment, unprecedented at this stage of any recovery, one would think Obama would be looking for a game changer rather than more of the same.

Actually studies show you're incorrect. Unemployment benefits do far more good than not.

Five myths about unemployment

Will you stop repeating talking points by the MSM? Can you think for yourself?
If unemployment was so great why don't we just put everyone on unemployment?

All I did was disagree and post a link to back it up and. First, nobody said unemployment was good. It's just not stopping people from looking for a job like you say it does.

It's a known fact that there are people who refuse to even look for work because there is no reason to if they can just stay home and receive their checks.How long is temporary anyway these days? 99 weeks isn't enough time to find some kind of employment? People on this board are proud that these people are going to be "taken care of" yet again.

This liberal mentality kills me.Nancy Pelosi has said that paying unemployment benefits do more to get the economy moving then anything else.If that were true then the economy should be booming now having paid a ton of money to the unemployed these past two years.

Now in today's paper I read that this President wants to give tax breaks to people who don't pay taxes?

Is he out of his mind?

The White House is hoping to add breaks for college students and companies that hire the unemployed. They also want to give lower- and middle-class wage earners a tax break, even if they don't make enough to pay taxes to the government.




Senate GOP blocks Dems' bid to ax tax cuts for the rich; showdown could lead to compromise

So we should just completely do away with unemployment insurance?

 

[The Rabbi]

Now in today's paper I read that this President wants to give tax breaks to people who don't pay taxes?

Is he out of his mind?

The White House is hoping to add breaks for college students and companies that hire the unemployed. They also want to give lower- and middle-class wage earners a tax break, even if they don't make enough to pay taxes to the government.




Senate GOP blocks Dems' bid to ax tax cuts for the rich; showdown could lead to compromise

Remember the bUsh tax cuts? Little known was the Dems lobbied to put in a tax credit if people didnt make any money and paid no taxes. So many people ended up just getting a check from the government, never having paid taxes for the whole year.
This is Democratic Socialism at work. It does nothing to spur the economy and adds to the deficit. But it does get Democrats re-elected, which is its real purpose.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually studies show you're incorrect. Unemployment benefits do far more good than not.

Five myths about unemployment

Will you stop repeating talking points by the MSM? Can you think for yourself?
If unemployment was so great why don't we just put everyone on unemployment?

All I did was disagree and post a link to back it up and. First, nobody said unemployment was good. It's just not stopping people from looking for a job like you say it does.

[

All you did was post some sound bite that has been floating arounf the media for days, adding a link that repeats that same sound bite.
That is not debate. That is not anything but flacking.
Of course it discourages people from taking a job. Why should they when they get gov't checks for sitting on their ass?

 

[editec]

How much will it cost the government to extend unemployment benefits?

How much tax revenue will be as a result of the Bush II tax cuts for billionaires being extended?

Do any of us know?

I don't.

But what I do know is that in both cases, the government will have to BORROW MONEY to pay for BOTH plans.

And one plan, the Republican, will cost some amount.

And the other plan, the Democratic, will cost some amount.

Perhaps it would aid us in evaluating these two plans (that might become part of one compromise) to actually KNOW how much each will cost.

Or are we entirely happy just spewing insults at each other and do we feel that have no need to fully understand what we are talking really about?

 

[DaGoose]

Will you stop repeating talking points by the MSM? Can you think for yourself?
If unemployment was so great why don't we just put everyone on unemployment?

All I did was disagree and post a link to back it up and. First, nobody said unemployment was good. It's just not stopping people from looking for a job like you say it does.

[

All you did was post some sound bite that has been floating arounf the media for days, adding a link that repeats that same sound bite.
That is not debate. That is not anything but flacking.
Of course it discourages people from taking a job. Why should they when they get gov't checks for sitting on their ass?

The myths I linked are not soundbites. They're facts. And anyone who has collected knows that you cannot survive on unemployment. But it may keep one from losing their house or help the emergency fund go a little further. So, IMO, your contention that they are just "sitting on their asses" is wrong. This recession has been especially bad.

How much will it cost the government to extend unemployment benefits?

How much tax revenue will be as a result of the Bush II tax cuts for billionaires being extended?

Do any of us know?

I don't.

But what I do know is that in both cases, the government will have to BORROW MONEY to pay for BOTH plans.

And one plan, the Republican, will cost some amount.

And the other plan, the Democratic, will cost some amount.

Perhaps it would aid us in evaluating these two plans (that might become part of one compromise) to actually KNOW how much each will cost.

Or are we entirely happy just spewing insults at each other and do we feel that have no need to fully understand what we are talking really about?

I agree that it would be nice to know the costs. But that doesn't reduce or eliminate the need for unemployment.

Now those Bush tax cuts for the billionaires on the other hand......

 

[RetiredGySgt]

All I did was disagree and post a link to back it up and. First, nobody said unemployment was good. It's just not stopping people from looking for a job like you say it does.

[

All you did was post some sound bite that has been floating arounf the media for days, adding a link that repeats that same sound bite.
That is not debate. That is not anything but flacking.
Of course it discourages people from taking a job. Why should they when they get gov't checks for sitting on their ass?

The myths I linked are not soundbites. They're facts. And anyone who has collected knows that you cannot survive on unemployment. But it may keep one from losing their house or help the emergency fund go a little further. So, IMO, your contention that they are just "sitting on their asses" is wrong. This recession has been especially bad.

How much will it cost the government to extend unemployment benefits?

How much tax revenue will be as a result of the Bush II tax cuts for billionaires being extended?

Do any of us know?

I don't.

But what I do know is that in both cases, the government will have to BORROW MONEY to pay for BOTH plans.

And one plan, the Republican, will cost some amount.

And the other plan, the Democratic, will cost some amount.

Perhaps it would aid us in evaluating these two plans (that might become part of one compromise) to actually KNOW how much each will cost.

Or are we entirely happy just spewing insults at each other and do we feel that have no need to fully understand what we are talking really about?

I agree that it would be nice to know the costs. But that doesn't reduce or eliminate the need for unemployment.

Now those Bush tax cuts for the billionaires on the other hand......

You HONESTLY think 99 weeks is not enough? I think it is way to much. Unemployment is to help for a SHORT time to get you back in the job market, not to pay you to do nothing for 2 years.

 

[The Rabbi]

How much will it cost the government to extend unemployment benefits?

How much tax revenue will be as a result of the Bush II tax cuts for billionaires being extended?

Do any of us know?

I don't.

But what I do know is that in both cases, the government will have to BORROW MONEY to pay for BOTH plans.

And one plan, the Republican, will cost some amount.

And the other plan, the Democratic, will cost some amount.

Perhaps it would aid us in evaluating these two plans (that might become part of one compromise) to actually KNOW how much each will cost.

Or are we entirely happy just spewing insults at each other and do we feel that have no need to fully understand what we are talking really about?

Which plan will actually channel productive resources into the economy so it will start to grow?
Which plan pays to keep valuable resources (labor) off the market?
That's pretty much all you need to ask here.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Obama Tells Dems He'll Oppose Tax Cut Deal Without Unemployment Benefits, Other Relief


My CINC putting his foot down and making the Repugs work and fulfill their end of the bargain to take care of all Americans and not just the wealthy, this is why I voted for him.

So much for bipartisanship and working with the other side.
Not that anyone realistically expected this poseur of a president to do otherwise. He is politically inept, economically illiterate, and socially flawed.

Extending unemployment benefits beyond the already 99 weeks is not "taking care" of anyone. It is making a permanent entitlement not to work. With 9.8% unemployment, unprecedented at this stage of any recovery, one would think Obama would be looking for a game changer rather than more of the same.

This coming from an idiot who supports a party that has said its sole intention is to remove Obama from office in 2012 without expressing any true intention of helping the American people as well as drafting a plan to block every bill proposed by Democrats, don't even talk that bipartisanship talk.



There is absolutely no support for the idea that people receiving unemployment benefits don't want to work, thats typical Republitard political claptrap than cannot be proven, yet is frequently spewed. If unemployment was shrinking and these people still didn't have a job you might be able to make such an argument but with it rising its even more retarded to make the argument that these people are lazy.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

double post, please delete

 

[Bass v 2.0]

How much will it cost the government to extend unemployment benefits?

How much tax revenue will be as a result of the Bush II tax cuts for billionaires being extended?

Do any of us know?

I don't.

But what I do know is that in both cases, the government will have to BORROW MONEY to pay for BOTH plans.

And one plan, the Republican, will cost some amount.

And the other plan, the Democratic, will cost some amount.

Perhaps it would aid us in evaluating these two plans (that might become part of one compromise) to actually KNOW how much each will cost.

Or are we entirely happy just spewing insults at each other and do we feel that have no need to fully understand what we are talking really about?

Which plan will actually channel productive resources into the economy so it will start to grow?
Which plan pays to keep valuable resources (labor) off the market?
That's pretty much all you need to ask here.

Which plan is actually helping people and preventing potentially more spending and which plan would be padding the pockets of those who are *NOT* in financial dire straits?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

All you did was post some sound bite that has been floating arounf the media for days, adding a link that repeats that same sound bite.
That is not debate. That is not anything but flacking.
Of course it discourages people from taking a job. Why should they when they get gov't checks for sitting on their ass?

The myths I linked are not soundbites. They're facts. And anyone who has collected knows that you cannot survive on unemployment. But it may keep one from losing their house or help the emergency fund go a little further. So, IMO, your contention that they are just "sitting on their asses" is wrong. This recession has been especially bad.

How much will it cost the government to extend unemployment benefits?

How much tax revenue will be as a result of the Bush II tax cuts for billionaires being extended?

Do any of us know?

I don't.

But what I do know is that in both cases, the government will have to BORROW MONEY to pay for BOTH plans.

And one plan, the Republican, will cost some amount.

And the other plan, the Democratic, will cost some amount.

Perhaps it would aid us in evaluating these two plans (that might become part of one compromise) to actually KNOW how much each will cost.

Or are we entirely happy just spewing insults at each other and do we feel that have no need to fully understand what we are talking really about?

I agree that it would be nice to know the costs. But that doesn't reduce or eliminate the need for unemployment.

Now those Bush tax cuts for the billionaires on the other hand......

You HONESTLY think 99 weeks is not enough? I think it is way to much. Unemployment is to help for a SHORT time to get you back in the job market, not to pay you to do nothing for 2 years.

With unemployment rising not falling how can anyone support your retarded argument that 99 weeks is too much time?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

With unemployment rising how can anyone continue to support the 2 year failure that is Obamanomics?

Dems: they so loved the unemployed, they want every American to become one.

Two words: We Won. So you Keynesian fuckheads and Obama Fluffers get to the back of the bus

 

[editec]

How much will it cost the government to extend unemployment benefits?

How much tax revenue will be as a result of the Bush II tax cuts for billionaires being extended?

Do any of us know?

I don't.

But what I do know is that in both cases, the government will have to BORROW MONEY to pay for BOTH plans.

And one plan, the Republican, will cost some amount.

And the other plan, the Democratic, will cost some amount.

Perhaps it would aid us in evaluating these two plans (that might become part of one compromise) to actually KNOW how much each will cost.

Or are we entirely happy just spewing insults at each other and do we feel that have no need to fully understand what we are talking really about?

Which plan will actually channel productive resources into the economy so it will start to grow?
Which plan pays to keep valuable resources (labor) off the market?
That's pretty much all you need to ask here.

So, in your opinion, Rab, one doesn't need to KNOW what a policy will cost to decide its efficacy?

That tired old cost/return ratio business is entirely a waste of our time?

Interesting POV coming from somebody who touts his business acumen.

Please remind me...how did you get so rich again?

Were you in the inheritance business or did you stumble onto a gold mine?