Senate OKs jobless aid after Sen. Bunning relents

danarhea · Mar 2, 2010

WASHINGTON – The Senate has passed stopgap legislation to extend help for the jobless and keep federal highway dollars flowing. The 78-19 vote came after a GOP senator who was single-handedly holding up the legislation finally relented under withering assaults by Democrats and dwindling support within his own party.

Kentucky Republican Jim Bunning had been holding up action for days but conceded after pressure intensified with Monday's cutoff of road funding and longer and more generous unemployment benefits and health insurance subsidies for the jobless. Bunning was seeking to force Democrats to finance the $10 billion measure so that it wouldn't add to the deficit.

Senator Jim Bunning has finally caved, but before people start portraying him as a senile, heartless bastard, they should know what he was asking for. Simply put, he wanted the Democrats to fund the measure, so that it would not add to the already ballooning deficit.

Yes, Jim Bunning is a senile old bastard, but he seems to be a fiscally responsible bastard, who I agree with on this issue. We expected the Democrats to try and wear him down, but what the hell is wrong with Republicans, who turned on him and hung him out to dry? All he was asking for was for Congress to FUND THE BILL, and NOT ADD TO THE DEFICIT.

GOP <> fiscal Conervatism

GOP = RINO

We need a new party, folks. The Republicrats are out of control.

Article is here.

DarkWizard12 · Mar 2, 2010

danarhea said:
Senator Jim Bunning has finally caved, but before people start portraying him as a senile, heartless bastard, they should know what he was asking for. Simply put, he wanted the Democrats to fund the measure, so that it would not add to the already ballooning deficit.

Yes, Jim Bunning is a senile old bastard, but he seems to be a fiscally responsible bastard, who I agree with on this issue. We expected the Democrats to try and wear him down, but what the hell is wrong with Republicans, who turned on him and hung him out to dry? All he was asking for was for Congress to FUND THE BILL, and NOT ADD TO THE DEFICIT.

GOP <> fiscal Conervatism

GOP = RINO

We need a new party, folks. The Republicrats are out of control.

Article is here.

He was almost our Mr. Smith.....

Deuce · Mar 2, 2010

Bunning Touts Extended Benefits For Kentucky's Unemployed

Washington, DC
Friday, February 14, 2003

U.S. Senator Jim Bunning today announced that legislation to extend temporary unemployment benefits for an additional five months has passed the United States Congress. The legislation, which was unanimously approved yesterday by the Senate and by a vote of 416-4 today in the House, would also provide a temporary 13-week extension of unemployment benefits for all individuals who exhaust their traditional benefits before June 1, 2003. “The 108th Congress is off to a solid start,” said Bunning. “This is hopeful news for our most needy families in Kentucky. By approving this legislation we will help those folks who are currently without work continue to make ends meet until they can find new employment.” Passage of this legislation means that there will be no lapse in assistance for the nearly 10,000 Kentuckians who have filed claims so far for extended benefits. The last extension expired on December 28, 2002. President Bush is expected to sign the bill tomorrow, which means the next payment to states can still be made on Friday, January 10, as originally scheduled.

Didn't complain about the deficit back then...

danarhea · Mar 2, 2010

Deuce said:
Didn't complain about the deficit back then...

Because, back then, it was funded, and not added to the deficit. It wasn't this time, which was all the difference in the world, and Bunning himself said that was all he was looking for: For it to be funded, and not added to the deficit.

Gina · Mar 2, 2010

danarhea said:
Because, back then, it was funded, and not added to the deficit. It wasn't this time, which was all the difference in the world, and Bunning himself said that was all he was looking for: For it to be funded, and not added to the deficit.

I could only find that it was an "emergency" bill like this one.

As requested by your staff, CBO has prepared an estimate of the costs of implementing S. 23 (Public Law 108-1), which was cleared by the Congress on January 8, 2003, and signed by the President the same day. This law extends for five months the program of emergency unemployment compensation established by P.L. 107-147

.

S. 23, an act to provide for a five-month extension of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 . . .

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Perhaps I'm not looking at it properly?

Deuce · Mar 2, 2010

danarhea said:
Because, back then, it was funded, and not added to the deficit. It wasn't this time, which was all the difference in the world, and Bunning himself said that was all he was looking for: For it to be funded, and not added to the deficit.

How exactly can you claim it didn't add to the deficit back then?

danarhea · Mar 2, 2010

Gina said:
I could only find that it was an "emergency" bill like this one.

As requested by your staff, CBO has prepared an estimate of the costs of implementing S. 23 (Public Law 108-1), which was cleared by the Congress on January 8, 2003, and signed by the President the same day. This law extends for five months the program of emergency unemployment compensation established by P.L. 107-147
.

S. 23, an act to provide for a five-month extension of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 . . .

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Perhaps I'm not looking at it properly?

From your own link:

Using the assumptions underlying CBO's March 2002 baseline, we estimate that P.L. 108-1 would increase outlays by $7.3 billion in fiscal year 2003, and have a net budgetary impact of $6.6 billion over the 2003-2007 period. Over the 2003-2012 period, the net budgetary impact would fall to $2.5 billion. The 10-year costs are less than the outlay effect in 2003 because future transfers to the state unemployment accounts from the federal unemployment trust fund would be reduced by the additional spending on benefits. As a result, CBO assumes that the states would levy higher unemployment insurance taxes than they would have under prior law (i.e., with higher federal-to-state transfers). Those taxes are recorded as revenues on the federal budget. In addition, transfers in 2009 and 2010 that CBO had assumed that states would use to boost benefits now would not occur, and outlays in those years would therefore be lower.

washunut · Mar 2, 2010

Deuce said:
Didn't complain about the deficit back then...

Can someone in this forum that things have changed in the last two years. This debt issue is finally starting to be understood by the public.

I have no problem who start acting fiscally responsible. The test would be if he acts the same way for spending he is in favor of.

Chappy · Mar 2, 2010

DarkWizard12 said:
He was almost our Mr. Smith.....

Funny, I don't remember Mr. Smith being delusional …

“Is (Bunning), as he ages, just becoming a more concentrated version of himself: more arrogant, more prickly? Certainly that would be a normal occurrence. Or is his increasing belligerence an indication of something worse? Has Senator Bunning drifted into territory that indicates a serious health concern?” — editorial, The Louisville Courier-Journal, October 14, 2004¹

Councilman · Mar 3, 2010

Being consistent and denouncing all increased spending is going to be hard but it will be even harder to do the right thing which will noy come from the Senate, House of, White House until they all learn from history whic clearly tells us if you want to get out of a hole first thing you have to do you quit digging.

Until the Liberal/Communists learn that they have to reduce spending and cut taxes the hole is only going to get deeper. It is stupid to think as Biden does, because there is no way you can spend your way out of debt. It has never happen in the history of man.

Gill · Mar 3, 2010

Chappy said:
Funny, I don't remember Mr. Smith being delusional …

“Is (Bunning), as he ages, just becoming a more concentrated version of himself: more arrogant, more prickly? Certainly that would be a normal occurrence. Or is his increasing belligerence an indication of something worse? Has Senator Bunning drifted into territory that indicates a serious health concern?” — editorial, The Louisville Courier-Journal, October 14, 2004¹

That's a joke. The "Cowardly" Journal, as it's affectionately known around here, has NEVER had a kind word to say about Bunning or any other Republican.

Their attempt to smear Bunning obviously did not work. Thankfully, most of the people in the Commonwealth have common sense and don't agree with the C-J.

liblady · Mar 3, 2010

danarhea said:
Because, back then, it was funded, and not added to the deficit. It wasn't this time, which was all the difference in the world, and Bunning himself said that was all he was looking for: For it to be funded, and not added to the deficit.

how do you know it was funded?

ptif219 · Mar 3, 2010

Democrats just passed pay go. if this is not paid for they are breaking their own rule.

Erod · Mar 3, 2010

So basically we borrowed more money from China to continue paying jobless benefits.

What would we do without the Chinese?

Kushinator · Mar 3, 2010

Erod said:
So basically we borrowed more money from China to continue paying jobless benefits.

What would we do without the Chinese?

The better question is: what would they do without US (pun intended)? If we didn't buy all their low skilled labor intensive products, they would not be holding such an amount of dollars in which they are compelled to purchase treasuries.

Kushinator · Mar 3, 2010

danarhea said:
Because, back then, it was funded, and not added to the deficit. It wasn't this time, which was all the difference in the world, and Bunning himself said that was all he was looking for: For it to be funded, and not added to the deficit.

Deficit spending is very important during periods of high unemployment.

ptif219 · Mar 3, 2010

Goldenboy219 said:
Deficit spending is very important during periods of high unemployment.

Democrats just passed pay go. This must be done following their new rules of pay go. That is what Bunning is saying.

Kushinator · Mar 3, 2010

ptif219 said:
Democrats just passed pay go. This must be done following their new rules of pay go. That is what Bunning is saying.

I'm really not interested in the partisan bickering. Care to address my comment?

ptif219 · Mar 3, 2010

Goldenboy219 said:
I'm really not interested in the partisan bickering. Care to address my comment?

I did Democrats passed pay go now they must follow it.

Deuce · Mar 3, 2010

Councilman said:
Being consistent and denouncing all increased spending is going to be hard but it will be even harder to do the right thing which will noy come from the Senate, House of, White House until they all learn from history whic clearly tells us if you want to get out of a hole first thing you have to do you quit digging.

Until the Liberal/Communists learn that they have to reduce spending and cut taxes the hole is only going to get deeper. It is stupid to think as Biden does, because there is no way you can spend your way out of debt. It has never happen in the history of man.

When was the last time a Republican/Conservative reduced the deficit?

Gill · Mar 3, 2010

Deuce said:
When was the last time a Republican/Conservative reduced the deficit?

Bunning was trying to, but as usual when a Republican attempts it, the Dems shouted him down and accused him of being mean to poor out-of-work citizens.

Kushinator · Mar 3, 2010

Gill said:
Bunning was trying to, but as usual when a Republican attempts it, the Dems shouted him down and accused him of being mean to poor out-of-work citizens.

Question: Is this aid direct or indirect spending?

Erod · Mar 3, 2010

Goldenboy219 said:
I'm really not interested in the partisan bickering. Care to address my comment?

Paygo is paygo. Did they mean it, or not?

Erod · Mar 3, 2010

Gill said:
Bunning was trying to, but as usual when a Republican attempts it, the Dems shouted him down and accused him of being mean to poor out-of-work citizens.

Many of which are riding that gravy train as long as they possibly can. THOSE are the ones who'd benefits are being extended, not the recently laid off that are actually searching.

Kushinator · Mar 3, 2010

Erod said:
Paygo is paygo. Did they mean it, or not?

Correct me if i am wrong, but i thought paygo only applied to direct spending.

Senate OKs jobless aid after Sen. Bunning relents

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

DarkWizard12

Sir Poop A lot

Deuce

Outer space potato man

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Gina

Deuce

Outer space potato man

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

washunut

Chappy

User

Councilman

Gill

liblady

pirate lover

ptif219

Erod

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

ptif219

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

ptif219

Deuce

Outer space potato man

Gill

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

Erod

Erod

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

Senate OKs jobless aid after Sen. Bunning relents

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Sir Poop A lot

Outer space potato man

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Outer space potato man

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

User

pirate lover

I'm not-low all the time

I'm not-low all the time

I'm not-low all the time

Outer space potato man

I'm not-low all the time

I'm not-low all the time

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency