Here are 2 video clips demonstrating the GOP’s problems – Alan Grayson attacking the party for its failure to extend unemployment insurance and David Gregory on Meet the Press questioning their ties to the Tea Party and lack of policy ideas.
Firebrand and outspoken representative Alan Grayson, (D – FL) nails the GOP on their opposition to extending unemployment insurance in this brief statement on the House floor.
Meanwhile David Gregory on Meet the Press does a great job of nailing Senator Cornyn on the Tea Party and the GOP’s lack of any policy ideas.
What a lie, and I’m not surprised you are spreading it.
The GOP had no issues with expanding unemployment benefits. (A position I disagree with, 99 weeks is enough) The only question was how to pay for it. The (D)s wanted to keep piling onto debt.
That’s all.
Yeah, Dems really just want to pile on the debt. Why?
I’m pretty fed up with the party of George W. Bush and Karl “deficits don’t matter” Rove talking about debt.
The GOP wanted to hijack ARRA money, already being used to create jobs, to spend on unemployment. The employed workers of America are currently paying for unemployment benefits, and when there is more than one job for every five applicants we can worry more about debt. Until then we should worry about keeping food on the table of Americans unable to find jobs.
Yeah and I’m pretty fed up with the party that supported slavery talking about civil rights. Just because a party had a particular position at one point, does not make they are forever forbidden from changing course. And it’s worth noting, a very substantial portion of the original Tea Party people were as upset if not more so with Republicans like Bush who helped spend us into trouble as they were Democrats.
As a fiscal conservative, I’ll support anyone who commits to sound economic policies and better spending controls whether the be R, D or other.
Answer me this – when the Democrats pass the statutory PAYGO and President Obama signed it into law back in February, were their fingers crossed? Did they intend to not actually follow the law they passed from the start or did they just decide to urinate on it later?
Also, please tell me why they refused to pay for it with the unspent, idle cash from the stimulus?
Locke, if it were true that the original tea parties were as upset or more with Bush and the Republicans, why was Paul Ryan allowed even near the original tea party in Madison? Was it his vote for TARP or his vote for Medicare part D?
Its not like it was way in the past that deficits didnt matter for the republican party, it was a mere two years ago.
The Republicans did this and that argument is getting old. The past really doesn’t matter if the message is right currently. If Jeffrey Dahmer was still alive and said killing and eating people is bad, according to your logic, his statement would be wrong.
And by the way, Democrats have had control of Congress since 2007. So no, it wasn’t a mere two years ago.
Alan Grayson??? Hahahahaha!!! The man is a tad bit…kooky!!!
Jim, I’m tired of liberals, especially the President, telling lies.
Rpublicans were never blocking anything on this issue, the issue for debate was how to pay for it.
This bill could have been done long ago if the (D)s would have simply allowed this to be paid for in the present instead of adding to our debt.
The message might be right, its just insincere ciming from the republicans. Excellent analogy though, the repubs complaining about the deficit is like dahmer telling people murder is wrong.
But you also have to look at it this way – Democrats are using the Republicans spending as an excuse to spend themselves or as the basis of their arguments as you have so aptly demonstrated. That would be like you killing someone and say it’s okay because Dahmer did it. No, it’s still wrong. So really, if your only argument is the Republicans did it, then it’s intellectualy lazy and insincere. It makes you seem like you favor adding to the debt when you could easily pay for this.
And Alan Grayson is a hack. He couldn’t come up with an argument that uses facts and figures if held at gunpoint. All he can do is sling mud and furl his eyebrow.
The problem squidknuckle is many of us complained loudly about the spening under the prior administration, that is never mentioned.
Additionally it never occurs to leftist ranters like Jim here that perhaps they have learned from their errors and now wish to change their overspending ways.
The Jims of the world never are willing to admit that the current administration is out debting everything that came before by a factor of 4. They also wish to ignore that the (D)s have been in control fospending since 2007. Yet of course none of our contries problems are due to any of that… (Sarcasm off)
The current deficit is a response to the situation created by the previous President. When we fix it, we will spend less money, as the previous Democratic President did. Until then, we have to spend more than we take in, much as your party did, to right your party’s wrongs. We wouldn’t have to bring up your party’s wrongs, but for some reason your party keeps complaining about our party as creating debt, when your party did the same thing. But in a recession the government needs to spend, in the economy your President had until he killed it the government didn’t need to spend more.
Why waste so many words. Just say exactly what you mean much more succinctly:
“nana-nana-boo-boo. You did it first.”
keep drinking that kool-aid Jim.
I’m curious have (D)s every been at fault for anything in your eyes?
Oh, for the record, squidknuckle is the second coolest name I have seen.
Mr. Pelican Pants is still my favorite.
Good effort though.
Right, I didn’t agree with most of the prior administration either nor am I trying to defend them. I’m just trying to point out that the basis of many of the left’s argument points to the evils of the past administration(as demonstrated here by Jim and PP) even though the current doing the exact same thing. It’s almost recursive in nature. They literally cannot defend NOT paying for unemployment benefits.
And thanks for the compliment.
I would say that there is no defense for not extending unemployment benefits. It costs I believe .003 of the budget and is the best stimulus they can do at the moment.
If it’s only .003 of the budget, why couldn’t Obama and Democrats find .003 of other funds in the federal budget to divert to the more important cause of unemployment benefits? If my food budget runs out for the month I divert $ I was going to use to see a movie for the good of putting food on the table. You’re telling me the wise Obama couldn’t find .003?!?!?!
Tell me proud progressive, how long should unemployment benefits be extended?
They were at 99 weeks, almost 2 full years.
According to you how far out should they be extended?
That is very simple. Until they get jobs!
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/20-11
So now we have Republican senators who share the blame for an economic collapse, drawing healthy salaries and generous health care and pension benefits, telling the unemployed workers who were victims of their incompetence, that they can’t get $300 a week in benefits. This is Washington at its best.
“Until they get jobs” — so do you support an absolute zero unemployment rate? You would also allow some people to permanently collect unemployment? Because whether you like economic truth or not, if you create a benefit you create an incentive to receive that benefit. I think there are some, certainly not all, that wouldn’t mind receiving a lifetime unemployment check.
So for an unlimited time?
Did it ever occur to you that some people will just choose not to work and keep those “benefits” for as long as you wish to borrow more money to pay them?
I can see why you are “proud”. You are quite easy with other people’s money.
When there are enough jobs for everyone that wants one, we can quit extending the length of unemployment benefits. When people that could be working are not, it limits growth. Right now we don’t have that problem, as there are many more people looking for work than there are jobs available. A single manufacturing opening in my city recently received nearly 100 applicants in two days.
And squidknuckle, they are not doing the same thing, they are expanding defecit spending by a factor of 4.
Borrowing 4 times as much is simply not the “same thing”.
I stand corrected.
Nobody’s really touched my questions, so I’ll try again:
When the Democrats passed PAYGO and President Obama signed it in February, did they actually do so in good faith and intend to follow it but simply found it difficult? Or is it a matter of being more politically expedient to break the law they themselves passed in order to stick it to the other side?
And again please tell me why they refused to pay for it with the unspent, idle cash from the stimulus?
PAYGO was a joke Locke. The first thing they have done with every bill since was to exempt it.