Two Key Senators Lend Backing To Filibuster Reform Effort
Could the Jim Bunning hold on jobless aid — one of the most glaring examples of Senate procedural obstructionism this year — provide a boost to efforts to reform the filibuster?
In the halls of the Capitol just now, two key Senators voiced strong support for fixing the filibuster, suggesting that the Bunning mess could end up giving this fledgling movement more momentum.
The two Senators — Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders — also expressed support for the filibuster reform proposal recently unveiled by Senator Tom Harkin.
“We [should] consider certainly some level of filibuster reform,” Senator Brown told a handful of reporters outside a presser about Bunning. “Maybe getting rid of the motion to proceed, which is one more complicating slowdown step.”
When I asked if he would support the Harkin effort, Brown said: “Yes, probably. It’s clear to me it’s not working. We need to make some changes — maybe comprehensive changes in the rules.”
Separately, Sanders told me in the Senate hallway that he’s “absolutely on board” with filibuster reform. “We’ve gotta reform it,” Sanders said. “The present situation leads to dysfunctionality.”
“I may well support the Harkin effort,” Sanders added. “But if not that, some other effort.”
No question — such efforts face a steep uphill climb, to put it mildly. But among Senate Dems in the Capitol, there’s a palpable sense that the Bunning showdown — initiated by a single Senator, easy to grasp, impacting thousands — has moved the debate into new territory. There seems to be a real sense among Dems here that the present system is simply no longer tenable.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Tena, why would you insult Bulgarian shoe salesmen?
sdjeff:
Fine, let’s cut $10 bil from the defense budget, or tax the 10 million richest Americans an extra $1000. They’ll never miss it.
Are you one of those 10 million richest?
paygo – Want people to put our comments side by side and judge them based on civility? I didn’t get personal – and you certainly did.
If all you got is calling me stupid and crusty, that just about says it all. Not one of you has one damned idea what you are talking about. Not one of you.
This is ridiculious how can we justify saving the banks and not the American people. Even though the economist are stating the economy is turning around millions are still seeking jobs that aren’t there and companies are still downsizing to make a profit. Our congress is quick to rescue big business, but not the people who voted them in office. If they fail to pass the extension, many more business will fill the pinch of the economy and many more families will face homelessness. Go figure the greatest country in the world and we won’t support our own people. So, I say if we really look at this the very same people fighting economic stimilus, bank reform and health care are the same people who has reduced this nation to a third world nation. They lifted regulations, allowed offshoring of jobs and look at us now!!! Go figure only in American can we justify such illogical actions and blame it on an administration that is trying to right the wrongs of the past. We people need to wake up!! People in this country need help!!! They are not looking for a handout!!! Try to survive on unemployment with a family of four… Hard to do!!
Lone Deranger Bunning. Classic, Liam.
As for this:
and the Obama administration sends Joe Biden out to make comments that Bunning is personally responsible for shutting off the spicket of services for millions of Americans.
You’re all up in arms about the hypocrisy of Dems while complete ignoring the hypocrisy of Republicans. In other words, you are not serious.
“I really see this as having political consequences only in Kentucky.”
I don’t think so – he’s losing Texas 27,400 jobs and that got reported.
I like The Lone Deranger
Could also be The Loan Deranger? hehe
Obama letter to GOP on health care:
http://bit.ly/ateAeq
NYT says Bunning’s impact the biggest in N.Y. Can’t find the link… But his actions are being felt all around the country.
Ethan | March 2nd, 2010 at 01:18 pm
PAYGO!
You missed my post, or just ignored it:
unemployment and certain other federal benefits are EXEMPT from pay-go. What did Rush forget to mention that?
–
I don’t listen to Rush how about providing a link to back up your assertion. Then answer why is having to pay for something before you can enact it into law a bad thing?
Tena you get personaly nasty with all that are not a crusty old kool-aid drinking fool. You generalize your nastiness, I called you out for it hag!
btw Clinton and the republican congress/senate brought us a surplus, but we still had a huge debt and now it has been trillion dollar downed and more to come. Does it not bother any of you fools the amount of debt the US Government is incurring and wanting to incur more?
guess not as long as you get your so freebies while stealing from the producers.
October 30, 2007
The Democratic Congress’s 2008 Budget: A Tax and Spending Spree
by Brian M. Riedl
Backgrounder #2081
In January, a Democratic congressional majority was sworn in that was elected in part by promising fiscal responsibility. The Democrats specifically pledged to limit spending increases and employ pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting to keep the budget deficit in check.
As their first year moves toward a close, it has become clear that the members of this majority have failed to live up to their promises. In just 10 months, Congress has passed legislation that would increase federal spending by a combined $454 billion over 10 years and raise taxes and fees by $98 billion over 10 years and has passed a budget resolution that would bring the tax increase to a projected $2.7 trillion.[1]
Despite the Democrats’ PAYGO pledge of no new deficit spending, legislation enacted thus far has increased spending much faster than taxes, resulting in an additional $356 billion in deficit spending. Only their budget blueprint, which assumes repeal of nearly all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, would pay for all of their new spending.
Tax Increases
Democrats Pledge to Restrain Spending
Critics Say Party’s Goals Are Too Lofty
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), left, and Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.), incoming chairmen of the Senate and House budget committees, say they would like to see better accounting of military spending and want to reduce the federal deficit. (By Dennis Cook — Associated Press)
TOOLBOX
Resize Print E-mail
COMMENT
0 Comments
COMMENTS ARE CLOSED
Your browser’s settings may be preventing you from commenting on and viewing comments about this item. See instructions for fixing the problem.
Discussion Policy CLOSEComments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain “signatures” by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who’s Blogging» Links to this article
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Determined to banish their old tax-and-spend image, Democrats want to shrink the federal deficit, preserve tax cuts for the middle class and challenge the president to raise money for the Iraq war when they take control of Congress next week. But it won’t be easy.
The incoming Democratic chairmen of the House and Senate Budget committees said they plan to honor a campaign promise to devote billions of additional dollars a year to homeland security and education. And they reiterated a commitment not to cut off funding for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“Are you one of those 10 million richest?”
Hell no! But I wouldn’t complain about the measly level of taxes I’d have to pay if I was. I don’t even complain now….hell, my kids have a free education, I have police and fire protection, clean(er) air, clean(er) water, national security, parks, roads….social security and medicare to look forward to…that’s the price I pay for living in the (supposed) best country on earth. And for the super rich, they should pay a higher percentage because of the extra protection they receive, after all, they have more to lose. Even the GOP’s favorite economist Adam Smith said so, as I just read yesterday.
DEMOCRATS’ PROMISES: TRANSPARENCY IN SPENDING TAXPAYER DOLLARS
DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #65: “Get Rid of All” Earmarks
Promise: “Breaking with many Democrats, Ms. Pelosi also spoke out against earmarking billions of dollars for home-state projects, a practice she calls a ‘monster’ that hurts Congress. ‘I’d get rid of all of them,’ she says. ‘None of them is worth the skepticism, the cynicism the public has . . . and the fiscal irresponsibility of it.’” – “Pelosi Promises Fiscal Restraint If Democrats Win,” Wall Street Journal, July 13, 2006
Broken Promise: “Ranking Democrats vowed in December to put a moratorium on earmarks; instead, a record number infect legislation pending in Congress, with 32,000 requests this year, compared with about 13,000 in 2006 …. Ideally, congressional Democrats would keep their pledge to ban earmarks altogether.” – “Earmark Chicanery,” Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA) Editorial, June 20, 2007
Broken Promise: “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slipped in a $25 million provision for San Francisco’s waterfront on a $15 billion federal water bill at the last minute. It’s pork barrel spending, yes, but more than that. Republicans are crying foul because the federal cash for port improvements and the bill’s provision for Pier 35 cruise ship dockage all benefit a toney area of San Francisco — one where Pelosi’s husband just happens to own real estate about a mile away.” – Investor’s Business Daily, May 9, 2007
Broken Promise: “In the bill funding EPA and Forest Service projects, Speaker Pelosi obtained $700,000 for a grant for San Francisco for use in the Lower Mission District. . .” – “House panel approves ‘earmarks’ for lawmakers’ home districts, Associated Press, June 22, 2007
Broken Promise: “This year, the House approved a $504 billion defense authorization bill. Among the requesters, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has one earmark in the bill, for $10 million for Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, as part of the military construction portion of the defense budget.” – “$8B of Pork: Dems Take 60 Percent,” The Hill, May 22, 2007
DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #66: Subject Earmarks to Public Scrutiny
Promise: “Put an end to secret earmarks…” – Letter to Majority Leader Boehner (R-OH) from Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Democratic Caucus Chairman James Clyburn (D-SC), and Democratic Caucus Vice-Chairman John Larson (D-CT), February 9, 2006
Promise: “Pelosi and Reid are making the loudest calls for an end to basically anonymous earmarks that, late in the process, are quietly attached to legitimate legislation and then approved by legislators who are unaware of the earmarks and their intent.” – “Democrats Must Make Good on their Vows to Ensure Transparency in Earmarks,” Columbus Dispatch Editorial, November 20, 2006
Promise: “We will bring transparency and openness to the budget process and to the use of earmarks, and we will give the American people the leadership they deserve.” – Speaker-Elect Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Press Release, December 12, 2006
Broken Promise: “When Democrats took control of Congress four months back, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., bragged it would take her party less than 100 hours to curb wasteful pork spending by requiring members to attach their names to their ‘earmarks,’ exposing such waste to the harsh light of public scrutiny. She failed to mention this ‘reform’ would remain in effect for little more than 100 days.” – “Democratic Earmark Reforms Lasted 100 Days,” Las Vegas Review Journal Editorial, June 5, 2007
Broken Promise: “The new game that House Appropriations Chairman David Obey intends to play with budget earmarks this year is worse than the usual hide-and-seek. He is taking the whole thing underground, as though he is to be trusted as a one-man auditor for congressional pork. If this is to be the new ethic that Democrats promised, voters might want their ballots back.” – “Pet Projects Pushed Out of Public Eye,” St. Petersburg Times Editorial, June 5, 2007
DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #67: Ensure Members Have No Financial Interest in Earmarks They Sponsor
Promise: “Another key Democratic reform requires House members seeking earmarks to certify that neither they nor their spouses have any financial interest in the project.” – “In the Democratic Congress, Pork Still Gets Served,” Washington Post, May 24, 2007
Broken Promise: “[Pelosi] requested $25 million for a project to improve the waterfront in her home district of San Francisco. Her request did not note that her family owns interests in four buildings near the proposed Pier 35 project.” – “In the Democratic Congress, Pork Still Gets Served,” Washington Post, May 24, 2007
DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #68: Allow Lawmakers to Challenge Individual Earmarks
Promise: “I think, first of all, with any bill, any provision, whether it is an earmark or not, there should be transparency. So that’s what we have said – and I hope you would agree – that before Members vote on a bill there should be appropriate time for people to be able to read it, that it would be a matter of public record, and if there is an earmark that can stand the scrutiny, then that transparency will give the opportunity for it to be there.” – Then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Press Conference, March 16, 2006
Broken Promise: “Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contract in legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order by House Appropriations Committee Chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them. – “House Democrats Sidestep Their Own Rule to Shield Lawmakers’ Pet Projects From Scrutiny,” Associated Press, June 3, 2007
DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #69: Pass an Earmark-Free Continuing Resolution
Promise: “‘This is an earmark-free bill,’ says Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D) of Illinois, who chairs the Democratic Caucus.” – “The House and Senate Struck a Deal on Spending Bills Wednesday in a First Test of Reining in Deficits,” The Christian Science Monitor, February 2, 2007
Broken Promise: Emanuel and other Democratic leaders brought a massive spending bill (“continuing resolution”) to the floor during the opening weeks of the 110th Congress, and claimed it was earmark-free — but the bill actually contained hundreds of millions of dollars worth of hidden earmarks. “. . .[The Democrats’] claim of ‘earmark’ purity doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. …The ‘no earmarks’ loophole was big enough to allow a convoy of earmarks into the final bill, including $185 million for agriculture research projects and $50 million to build an experimental rain forest in Iowa.” – “Democrats’ No Earmark Pledge ‘Doesn’t Stand Up to Scrutiny,’” Opinion Journal’s Political Diary, February 2, 2007
DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #70: Apply Earmark Reforms to Earmarks in Tax and Authorizing Bills
Promise: “You can’t just have earmarks viewed on the appropriations bill unless you take up earmarks in tax bills and earmarks in authorization bills… But if you are going to have earmarks and you are going to have transparency, you have to do it in the appropriations bill and in the tax bill and in the authorization bill. I would put it in writing.” – Then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Press Conference, September 7, 2006
Broken Promise: “Republican leaders noted the deal only covers appropriations bills and pledged to continue to fight for more transparency in the authorization process. Minority Whip Blunt said there was absolutely no reason not to extend the proposal to authorization and tax bills.” – “House Dems, GOP Still Struggling to Cement Earmark Deal,” CongressDaily PM, June 14, 2007
DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #71: Hold Members Accountable
Promise: “[W]e will help bring back fiscal responsibility by holding members accountable for their earmarks …” – Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Press Release, January 3, 2007
Broken Promise: “[W]e were unable to vet properly and certify properly the 32,000 requests. But we had to move ahead with the appropriations bill.” – Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Interview on CNN’s American Morning, June 13, 2007. Instead of holding members accountable for their earmarks, House Democratic leaders attempted to move appropriations bills that included slush funds for secret earmarks – earmarks that would be “airdropped” into House-Senate appropriations conference reports at the last minute, eliminating virtually all member accountability for those earmarks.
DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #72: Provide Notice of Earmark Requests
Promise: “A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who requests a congressional earmark, a limited tax benefit, or a limited tariff benefit in any bill or joint resolution (or an accompanying report) or in any conference report on a bill or joint resolution (or an accompanying joint statement of managers) shall provide a written statement to the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee of jurisdiction…” – Democrats’ House Rules Package, Clause 17 of Rule 23
Broken Promise: “Murtha addressed the letter only to Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), not Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), the panel’s ranking member. Hoekstra has said he was not given a copy – an apparent violation of House rules. All earmarks must be disclosed in writing to both the chairman and ranking member.” – “Murtha Sent Earmark Letter Five Weeks After Deadline,” The Hill, May 22, 2007
DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #73: Outlaw Use of Earmarks to Buy Votes
Promise: “The package produced by Obey, Barney Frank (D-MA), David Price (D-NC), and Tom Allen (D-ME)…is designed to…outlaw the use of earmarks to buy votes…” – Press Release from the Kansas Democratic Party, January 10, 2006
Broken Promise: On NBC’s Meet the Press, host Tim Russert asked several questions of Ways & Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) on Democratic leaders buying votes to win passage of their “slow-bleed” scheme:
RUSSERT: “But in that bill was $20 billion of so-called pork, money for cricket infestation, tours of the Capitol, security at the National Convention, peanut crops. Why would the Democrats put that kind of money in such a serious bill?”
RANGEL: “Because they needed the votes. That bill, we lost so many Democrats, one, because people thought we went too far and others because we didn’t go far enough. And so a lot of things had to go into a bill that certainly those of us who respect great legislation did not want in there.” – NBC’s Meet the Press, April 1, 2007
DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #74: Scrutinize Every Spending Request
Promise: “[Democrats] are committed to auditing the books and subjecting every facet of federal spending to tough budget discipline and accountability, forcing the new Congress to choose a new direction and the right priorities for all Americans.” – Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) “A New Direction for America,” Page 25
Broken Promise: Instead of spending time during the opening months of the 110th Congress subjecting appropriations bills to unprecedented scrutiny, Democratic appropriators spent four months attempting to pass a supplemental appropriations bill they knew would be vetoed. Then when it came time to move forward with the 12 standard appropriations bills, Democrats created slush funds for secret earmarks, claiming they didn’t have the time to review every earmark request. “Obey has defended his policy as a practical necessity. He said his staff cannot address each of the more than 30,000 earmark requests members have already filed in time to finish work by the Fourth of July recess.” – “Dems, GOP Near Deal to End Spending Fight,” The Politico, June 13, 2007
DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #75: Require Members to Disclose Earmark Requests
Promise: “Upon taking control of Congress in November’s midterm elections, Democrats vowed…to require lawmakers to disclose their requests and to certify that money they are requesting does not benefit them.” – “In the Democratic Congress, Pork Still Gets Served,” Washington Post, May 24, 2007
Broken Promise: The new majority has made no move to require their members to disclose their earmark requests. And while Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) called on some members to make public all their requests, he pointedly refused to call on Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to do so, and she has not. As the Washington Post reported: “The new majority is already skirting its own reforms.” – “In the Democratic Congress, Pork Still Gets Served,” Washington Post, May 24, 2007
The White House disclosed the other day that the fiscal 2009 budget deficit clocked in at $1.4 trillion, amid the usual promises to do something about it. Yet even as budget director Peter Orszag was speaking, House Democrats were moving on a dozen spending bills for fiscal 2010 that total 12.1% in more domestic discretionary increases.
Yes, 12.1%.
Remember, inflation is running close to zero, or 0.8%. The good news, if we can call it that, is that Senate Democrats only want to increase nondefense appropriations by 8% for 2010. Because these funding increases become part of the permanent baseline for future appropriations, the 2010 House budget bills would permanently raise annual outlays for discretionary programs by about $75 billion a year from now until, well, forever.
These spending hikes do not include the so-called mandatory spending programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which exploded by 9.8% and 24.7%, respectively, in the just-ended 2009 fiscal year. All of this largesse is also on top of the stimulus funding that agencies received in 2009. The budget for the Environmental Protection Agency rose 126%, the Department of Education budget 209% and energy programs 146%.
House Republicans on the Budget Committee added up the 2009 appropriations, the stimulus funding and 2010 budgets and found that federal agencies will, on average, receive a 57% increase in appropriated funds from 2008-2010. By contrast, real family incomes fell by 3.6% last year. There’s no recession in Washington.
More broadly, the White House and the 111th Congress have already enacted or proposed $3.4 trillion of new spending through 2019 for things like the health-care plan, cap and tax, and the children’s health bill passed earlier this year. Very little of this has been financed with offsetting spending cuts elsewhere in the budget.
Throughout the era of Republican rule in Washington, we scored GOP lawmakers for their overspending and earmarks—and so did Nancy Pelosi and other Congressional Democrats. So how do their records compare? From 2001-2008 the average annual increase in appropriations bills came in at 6.4%—or about double the rate of inflation. In this Congress spending is now growing six times faster than inflation.
And here is the kicker. Mr. Obama’s 10-year budget forecast predicts that the budget deficit will fall in future years in part because federal spending on discretionary programs will grow at less than the rate of inflation. But spending is already up nearly 8% (including defense) in the first year alone.
For a laugh-out-loud moment on all of this, we recommend yesterday’s performance by New York Senator Chuck Schumer on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Mr. Schumer declared that “Barack Obama and we Democrats—this is counterintuitive but true—are really trying to get a handle on balancing the budget and we’re making real efforts to do it.” Counterintiutive? He said this four days after Senate Democrats lost a vote to add $250 billion to the deficit for doctor payments without any compensating spending cuts.
Democrats must figure that they can get away with this sort of rap because no one will call them on the reality of what they’re spending. And they’re probably right about a press corps that has ignored the spending boom since Democrats took over Congress in 2006. Meanwhile, the spending machine rolls on, all but guaranteeing monumental future tax increases.
From 2001-2008 the average annual increase in appropriations bills came in at 6.4%—or about double the rate of inflation. In this Congress spending is now growing six times faster than inflation
Home » News » PoliticsFriday, February 5, 2010
Dems finagle $1.9T rise in debt capRate this story
/critic/1/1/79/409013/vote/?r=/news/2010/feb/05/democrats-finagle-19-trillion-rise-in-debt-cap//critic/1/2/79/409013/vote/?r=/news/2010/feb/05/democrats-finagle-19-trillion-rise-in-debt-cap//critic/1/3/79/409013/vote/?r=/news/2010/feb/05/democrats-finagle-19-trillion-rise-in-debt-cap//critic/1/4/79/409013/vote/?r=/news/2010/feb/05/democrats-finagle-19-trillion-rise-in-debt-cap//critic/1/5/79/409013/vote/?r=/news/2010/feb/05/democrats-finagle-19-trillion-rise-in-debt-cap/Average 0.00
after 0 votes
Login or register to rate this story
‘Pay-go’ budget rules needed to win enough votes in House
Omfg. Paygo, you idiot, GO AWAY.
Then answer why is having to pay for something before you can enact it into law a bad thing?
I’d ask the same of you, idiot. It is a Democratic law that was opposed. by. every. single. one. of. you. disgusting. Republican. Liars.
NOW. GO – AWAY.
Hey Ethan you go away, I’m not a republician I am an independant so thanks for showing me to never again vote for the dems!
As far as idiot looks like those who voted for the dems are the idiots, you hate it when the truth about your paygo party comes to light! how sweet it is!
pss why do we need a jobs bill? What happened to the stimulus bill? remember this???
“For every day we wait or point fingers or drag our feet, more Americans will lose their jobs,” Obama said at a speech in Fairfax, Virginia. on Jan. 8. At that time the unemployment rate was 7.2 percent. Obama also claimed that the country would face double-digit unemployment without the stimulus package while the Congressional Budget Office forecast was slightly lower: 9 percent unemployment by 2010.
To boost support for his stimulus, Obama’s economic team released a report that estimated unemployment wouldn’t rise above 8 percent with a stimulus package, according to Associated Press. Even without a stimulus, Obama’s team echoed the CBO claim that the economy would shed 3-4 million more jobs, reaching 9 percent unemployment by 2010.
Obama got his massive spending bill passed with a helping hand from the news media, but unemployment kept rising rapidly.
It soared to 8.9 percent in April – nearly a percentage point higher than Obama’s team projected. Bloomberg also reported May 31 that the rate was likely to surpass 9 percent in May 2009 for the first time in 25 years. Official May unemployment figures will be released this Friday, June 5, and are expected to hit 9.2 percent.
so tell me oh great elite mind Ethan $787 billion one year later and we need another jobs bill? Now it’s the evil repugs fault that the $787 billion did not do what Obama and his band of theives said it would.
Do you know see how any level headed American thinks this is outragous?
Of course you don’t you have to actually be level headed to use reason and logic.
So what’s next when this jobs bill doesn’t work? Spend two trillion for more jobs?
Paygo, fine, troll, you’re a disgusting “independent” (aka Republican) liar. I could care less.
“aka Republican” in this case, I meant. Not all indies are Republicans. But then again, they’re not all liars either.
so Ethan you can’t tell me why 787billion last year was a must to save jobs and now we need another 15billion or more.
No wonder you think I’m disgusting I ask the hard questions that make you get all we weeded up and start slinging mud like a little spoiled 3 year old.
Prove me wrong big boy with little mind tell me why 787billion was approved and unemployment has gone over 8% and we need another jobs bill. come on you can do it!
also while you are at it show the lies you are claiming.
I know it’s your 3yo tatic to scream liar instead of debating the facts but I will give you the benefit of a 3 year old.
Was there not a 787billion stimulus bill put into law last year to save the unemployeed and economy?????????
I guess you are right it was a big lie but not from me from your lieing leaders.
I’m not responding to you substantively b/c you’re a pathetic troll.
But if you think REALLY REALLY HARD about it, you’ll see why we needed the stimulus and a jobs bill.
sure Ethan, nice cop out especially considering you are the troll. Haven’t been able to answer not one question or refute any facts I have posted with links to back up. All you do is call names and then claim you can’t answer because I’m a troll. LOL at you!
the stimulus was a jobs bill and apparently made things worse so let’s waste a few more billion is Ethan’s and the dems motto!
Who cares is we have to borrow until the end of time from China. Who cares that “China PLA officer urges challenging U.S. dominance”
I mean seriuosly it’s just money we don’t have why would anyone even care unless they are a troll. Right Ethan isn’t that your logic? Do you keep spending a home to get out of debt? Does that work for you?
time to disengage from paygo. His one-sided, non-rational rants are just clogging up the intertubes. Personally, I am still waiting for repiglicans to propose a way to pay for 2 rounds of tax cuts for the rich, 2 wars (one of which was a totally unnecessary war of choice) that were totally mismanaged, medicare part d, and the expansion of the defense department. To complain about extending unemployment benefits and medicare payments that don’t even make .1% of the massive unpaid bills that repiglicans created is beyond hypocrisy…Just sayin’
I just can’t resist, though
“Do you keep spending a home to get out of debt? ”
two words from Macroecon 101…countercyclical spending
Paygo, heard it all before. To say you’re boring is an affront to boring people. You sir, are an idiot.
ha you lose Ethan can’t even keep up with what you deem a troll! You and beyondleft make a nice pair!!
European Welfare State Model under Strain as Labor Tensions Rise
With much of Europe in or just barely out of recession and many millions of Europeans out of work and collecting welfare checks, governments large and small are scrambling to fix gaping budget holes in an effort to stave off financial disaster. In Spain, for example, the government spent twice as much as it took in during 2009, with unemployment benefits constituting the largest single component of government expenditures.
Many other European countries are in a similar bind. Indeed, with millions of long-term unemployed Europeans on track to becoming permanent wards of the state, the European social model is under strain as never before.
In some European countries, there has been tough talk about the need to roll back the much-vaunted welfare state. In Germany, for example, pro-business Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle recently called for a complete overhaul of the German social welfare system and warned that German workers were fast becoming “the nation’s suckers.” Westerwelle also said that increasing benefits to the long-term unemployed would create the kind of decadence that paved the way for the fall of the Roman Empire. “Whoever promises the people effortless prosperity encourages late Roman decadence,” Westerwelle declared. “Everyone who is young and healthy and has no relatives to look after must accept reasonable work, whether that is in the form of community work, a career or training,” he said.
Many other European countries are in a similar bind. Indeed, with millions of long-term unemployed Europeans on track to becoming permanent wards of the state, the
hmm Europe looks like a good home for the trillion dollar borrow and spend dumbos!
–
European social model is under strain as never before.
In some European countries, there has been tough talk about the need to roll back the much-vaunted welfare state
I’m sorry, I take it back. You’re obviously not a troll. Trolls are professionals at cut/paste. You, on the other hand, apparently have a LOT to learn.
Btw, if you are an independent then why are you attacking the Democratic Party and rehashing GOP talking points?
Wouldn’t that make you Dependent on the GOP rather than INDEPENDENT from both parties?
Ethan, Ethan…don’t feed the (not very skilled or bright) troll. It accomplishes nothing but encouraging another stream of meaningless 1’s and 0s from him/her.
Tax the war chests of the senators at a rate of 50% , that’s a good PAYGO scheme! Why do we keep electing these guys to office over and over, time and time again? I have been out of work for 1 year. I am changing how I vote this year. That is how important unemployment is for me and my family.