• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP senator's filibuster goes on and on

ricksfolly

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
232
Location
Grand Junction, CO 81506
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Dems failed to get the 60 votes, so the bill to extend unemployment insurance checks to millions of workers is still being held up by Rep filibuster. Bad move so close to elections.

ricksfolly
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Dems failed to get the 60 votes, so the bill to extend unemployment insurance checks to millions of workers is still being held up by Rep filibuster. Bad move so close to elections.

ricksfolly
Thank god. Two years of unemployment benefits was not enough?
 

ricksfolly

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
232
Location
Grand Junction, CO 81506
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Thank god. Two years of unemployment benefits was not enough?
Unemployment checks are mostly used to buy things. With no more checks, the loss of millions of dollars spent in thousands of stores would halt any kind of recovery, just when we're starting to go around to the corner. It's not a matter of increasing the deficit, it's drawing it from the already approved $500 billion Tarp.

ricksfolly
 

Erod

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,356
Reaction score
8,095
Location
North Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Unemployment checks are mostly used to buy things. With no more checks, the loss of millions of dollars spent in thousands of stores would halt any kind of recovery, just when we're starting to go around to the corner. It's not a matter of increasing the deficit, it's drawing it from the already approved $500 billion Tarp.

ricksfolly
So my paying for other people's groceries while they sit on their couch is what is keeping the economy going?

Where do you think this money is coming from?
 

jking948

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
71
Reaction score
13
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I'm sorry but Unemployment checks, the so called jobs bill, more welfare for random stuff, etc. None of this will solve the jobless rate. Guess what, at every point during our history people have not had jobs. If we want jobs that were removed to be restored we should add a finite amount of jobs to research and do whatever we can to fix the economy in order for companies to start hiring workers. This way jobs are naturally recovered and we do not risk inflation.
 

Civil1z@tion

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
247
Reaction score
105
Location
US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Unemployment checks are mostly used to buy things. With no more checks, the loss of millions of dollars spent in thousands of stores would halt any kind of recovery, just when we're starting to go around to the corner. It's not a matter of increasing the deficit, it's drawing it from the already approved $500 billion Tarp.

ricksfolly
The problem is that while consumption drives the economy, the vast majority of that consumption is done by the upper middle class and the rich. The poor do only a miniscule amount so giving the unemployed money doesn't actually help the economy that much. You talk about millions of dollars (a few billion is more like it, but my point still stands) in a $14 trillion economy. That's less than a drop in the bucket for the economy.
 

Civil1z@tion

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
247
Reaction score
105
Location
US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Oh and one other thing. Studies done on decreasing unemployment benefits demonstrate that doing so increases the rate of finding jobs and does not negatively effect the quality of jobs (the job's wage and duration as well as whether it is temporary or permanent employment is not effected by decreasing benefits). source

Just thought I'd add that little factoid as well.
 

ricksfolly

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
232
Location
Grand Junction, CO 81506
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So my paying for other people's groceries while they sit on their couch is what is keeping the economy going?

Where do you think this money is coming from?
Rather cynical to believe proven workers don't want to work and have stopped looking. As for TARP, check Google

ricksfolly.
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Unemployment checks are mostly used to buy things. With no more checks, the loss of millions of dollars spent in thousands of stores would halt any kind of recovery, just when we're starting to go around to the corner. It's not a matter of increasing the deficit, it's drawing it from the already approved $500 billion Tarp.

ricksfolly
First of all, TARP increased the deficit...

Putting that aside, that $500 billion that it would "draw from" is going to have to come from somewhere, and that takes future economic activity away, or shifts current economic activity to another place.

Ultimately, paying people not to work will mean that many people will not work, or even attempt to find work.
 

ricksfolly

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
232
Location
Grand Junction, CO 81506
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm sorry but Unemployment checks, the so called jobs bill, more welfare for random stuff, etc. None of this will solve the jobless rate. Guess what, at every point during our history people have not had jobs. If we want jobs that were removed to be restored we should add a finite amount of jobs to research and do whatever we can to fix the economy in order for companies to start hiring workers. This way jobs are naturally recovered and we do not risk inflation.
I agree in principal, but not in practice. With no unemployment checks, who knows how many more foreclosures and family breakups there will be. It's not about long range effects, it never is, nobody can predict the future.

ricksfolly
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I agree in principal, but not in practice. With no unemployment checks, who knows how many more foreclosures and family breakups there will be. It's not about long range effects, it never is, nobody can predict the future.

ricksfolly
When did it become the government's role in society to prevent foreclosures and family breakups?
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Dems failed to get the 60 votes, so the bill to extend unemployment insurance checks to millions of workers is still being held up by Rep filibuster. Bad move so close to elections.

ricksfolly
The real point of your post, though, is that in the USA the loophole of the filibuster - which halts almost ALL activity in DC based on the childish whims of a few - is still legal.

At any time throughout our nation's history Congress could have ended the filibuster ability - altered how it function or completely got rid of it. But since it's so beneficial to one party or the other - it's still very much in tact.

Funny thing is that the last filibuster waged by the GOP was ended with a vote of cloture - however - this one's not? Who's votes are the missing? Drag them back from Key West and shove them into the roster.
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The real point of your post, though, is that in the USA the loophole of the filibuster - which halts almost ALL activity in DC based on the childish whims of a few - is still legal.

At any time throughout our nation's history Congress could have ended the filibuster ability - altered how it function or completely got rid of it. But since it's so beneficial to one party or the other - it's still very much in tact.

Funny thing is that the last filibuster waged by the GOP was ended with a vote of cloture - however - this one's not? Who's votes are the missing? Drag them back from Key West and shove them into the roster.
The vote would not have been called if all they needed was for someone to fly back to DC and vote. It would have been postponed for a day or two to allow that person to get back. What is missing from the cloture vote is the support of all the Democrats.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
The vote would not have been called if all they needed was for someone to fly back to DC and vote. It would have been postponed for a day or two to allow that person to get back. What is missing from the cloture vote is the support of all the Democrats.
Oh - so I guess they can't complain, can they? *sigh*

I just wish we had one mature person - just one - in all of DC
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Oh - so I guess they can't complain, can they? *sigh*

I just wish we had one mature person - just one - in all of DC
We are the ones that elect them... the fault is with the voters.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
We are the ones that elect them... the fault is with the voters.
Nope - see - I didn't vote for any of these suckers.
My Green Party, Libertarian Party and other such people didn't make the cut :(

It's not my fault :D
 

Civil1z@tion

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
247
Reaction score
105
Location
US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The real point of your post, though, is that in the USA the loophole of the filibuster - which halts almost ALL activity in DC based on the childish whims of a few - is still legal.
Halting Congress's law making is bad? Have you seen most of the laws these guys have passed? Better that anything slows down that process then to see Congress be able to pass any crap they want.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Halting Congress's law making is bad? Have you seen most of the laws these guys have passed? Better that anything slows down that process then to see Congress be able to pass any crap they want.
So it's mature and reasonable to just talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk especially when half the jibber they talk about isn't even related to politics at all - like - the phone book?

How is abusing power mature, right or responsible? If they spent that filibuster time actually being ACTIVE then maybe we'd be in a completely different boat right now.
 

Goyboy

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
142
Reaction score
34
Location
Classified. I don't want the Alien Task Force to
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Unless I am mistaken, the filibuster is the result of there being no way to pay for the extension of unemployment benefits.

The politicians supporting the filibuster want to extend unemployment benefits, but not add to the national debt in the process. In short, the filibuster proponents want the PAYGO rule to be enforced.

I'm not saying that I am in favor of the filibuster. In this case, I would side with the politicians who want unemployment benefits to be exempt from the PAYGO rule . . . meaning that I am siding with the Democrats on this one.
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So it's mature and reasonable to just talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk especially when half the jibber they talk about isn't even related to politics at all - like - the phone book?

How is abusing power mature, right or responsible? If they spent that filibuster time actually being ACTIVE then maybe we'd be in a completely different boat right now.
The way a filibuster works is they have to stand on the floor speaking the entire time so that no one else can take the floor. Now unless there was just a hold put on the legislation (which is a lot more typical these days) they would basically have to stand up there and talk, or they would lose the floor, and the vote could be called.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Was the vote 59 Dems against 41 Reps? If not, then it's pretty ridiculous to say that this is being held up by the Republicans.
Republicans and a dozen Democratic defectors in the Senate on Wednesday dealt a defeat to President Obama, just days after he pressed Congress to renew pieces of last year's economic legislation.

After coming out on the losing end of a 52-45 test vote, Obama's Democratic allies have been forced back to the drawing board in their efforts to extend unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless and provide $24 billion in aid to cash-strapped state governments.

Democrats seeking to reduce the measure's deficit impact are looking at rolling back last year's $25 a week increase in unemployment checks and giving doctors just a short reprieve from scheduled cuts in their Medicare payments.
Oh noes evil Democrats hate poor people!

Unemployment bill dealt Senate defeat | D.C. Now | Los Angeles Times
 

jking948

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
71
Reaction score
13
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I agree in principal, but not in practice. With no unemployment checks, who knows how many more foreclosures and family breakups there will be. It's not about long range effects, it never is, nobody can predict the future.

ricksfolly
I can't envision the working man paying money so the unemployed man doesn't have to obtain a job(as evidenced by Civil1z@tion) as a good thing. Furthermore Civil1z@tion pointed out that when unemployment benefits decrease there are an increasing amount of people with jobs. Sounds like a win-win in my opinion, we spend less and save more in order to have more people working which further stimulates the economy.

The issue about not thinking about long-range effects it that we get into crashes(job and market) like we have experienced recently. Do I believe all political moves should be prospectively thought? No, as evidenced by my last statement. Do I believe as many political moves as possible should be prospectively though? Very much so.

The problem with thinking retrospectively is that you never view the market for what it is at this very moment and what it will turn out to become, however you only view it from what it once was, leaving way to many economic matters.
 

Goyboy

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
142
Reaction score
34
Location
Classified. I don't want the Alien Task Force to
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
1) The working man doesn't pay money so the unemployed man doesn't have to obtain a job. Taxes collected from employers are used to pay the the unemployment insurance collected by the unemployed.

2) I don't know what the rules are in other states, but in Oklahoma a person collecting unemployment money from the state is a person who has to prove that she/he is actively seeking employment. Otherwise the person can be denied the unemployment money.
 

jking948

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
71
Reaction score
13
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The working man doesn't pay money so the unemployed man doesn't have to obtain a job. Taxes collected from employers are used to pay the the unemployment insurance collected by the unemployed.
Last I checked an employer is a working man. Unless in your mind business-owners are not working-men?

I don't know what the rules are in other states, but in Oklahoma a person collecting unemployment money from the state is a person who has to prove that she/he is actively seeking employment. Otherwise the person can be denied the unemployment money.
The rule is similar in Ohio however there are ways around the system. For example if you are looking for a job but wont take one that offers less than a certain salary you will still receive the benefits. This means that people who are pompus and believe they deserve to make no less then 6 figures, all the while they are looking for jobs, maybe they don't deserve that money, guess who doesn't find a job?

Moreover... This study proves your entire point wrong, it is from the NY Times, cites Paul Krugeman and has its own report inside Do Jobless Benefits Discourage People From Finding Jobs? - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com It states that people who receive unemployment benefits are less likely to suddenly look for a job and that unemployment benefits lead to less employment.

Lastly letting people know they are unemployed and that they need to take government handouts in order to make their day-to-day functions go smoothly probably isn't psychologically helpful. That is assuming they are looking for jobs. This will lead to self-defeating behavior(family breakdowns, bad habits, addictions, etc.) and is overall not a good habit to get our country used too.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
The way a filibuster works is they have to stand on the floor speaking the entire time so that no one else can take the floor. Now unless there was just a hold put on the legislation (which is a lot more typical these days) they would basically have to stand up there and talk, or they would lose the floor, and the vote could be called.
Exactly.
I've always considered it to be quite immature and quite undemocratic.
if it proceeds past all the bells and whistles and is standing ready for a vote - they should just vote rather than using stall tactics to get what they want.
If discussion, debate, pressure, research and all those measures that they put everything through FAIL then it purely makes sense to let things pass forward - since voting is the basis of our government's function.

My name is Aunt Spiker and I approve of this message.
 
Top Bottom