1
This compromise sucks.

The Democrats won...again.

2
The Republicans got the Democrats to 'compromise,' i.e., do te right thing.

In return, the Democrats got the Republicans to go along with extending UE benefits for another year!

That's a win for our side?

3 Republicans said they would probably agree to extend jobless aid for the long-term unemployed.

So the first order of business is more spending? That's not an auspicious beginning.

4
The Democrats want to do Two bad things.

The Republicans make a deal with them to reduce it down to only One bad thing.

Win!

5 2 Things I'm getting tired of: The theory that modifying the Tax Rate affects tax receipts in any significant way (It doesn't) and the lack of Conservatives/Republicans who will say so (with a voice louder than that of a Blog, anyway).

Also, Mark Davis (WBAP in Dallas) has been having an off couple of weeks- normally he's good and solid, but today he said "Unemployment is not 'Welfare.'"  I nearly ran off the road...

6 Soothsayer @4 - Be more honest, here:

Democrats want to do 2 bad things.

Republicans - WHO DON"T HOLD POWER FOR ANOTHER MONTH - convince them only to do one bad thing.

Yeah, I'd say that's a win.

Remember, the House Dems still have power to force through virtually anything they want, and with enough pork thrown their way, I'm certain there are at least 2 Republican's who will at least vote for cloture.

7 I can't believe that I live in a country that pays illegals to work and citizens not to work!  America, what a country!

8 This is NOT a win for conservatives. The extension of unemployment not only is more spending, which keeping the present tax rates is NOT, but it also extends the actual unemployment and even more spending.

Mitch the Bitch sold us out again. He would lose nothing by delaying this vote until the next congress and making it retroactive to Jan 1.

9 So in theory, aren't the Democrats still abiding by Paygo? How are they planning on paying for this unemployment extension?

10

I swear, the people in government are running the it like the guys in GoodFellas ran that bar: In the front door and straight out the back, who cares, it's all profit, then when you can't borrow another dollar or buy anything on credit, you light a match.

11
The Republicans should've held fast. Period.

12 So in theory, aren't the Democrats still abiding by Paygo?

History has shown that "paygo" only applies to Republicans wanting a tax cut.

And contrary to the MFM a real tax cut may cost initially (< 1 yr) but it will result in increased income after that.

13 But remember, this is NOT a tax cut.

14

The extension of unemployment not only is more spending, which keeping the present tax rates is NOT, but it also extends the actual unemployment and even more spending.

But keeping someone on unemployment actually saves two jobs.

15 Posted by: Vic at December 06, 2010 12:26 PM (e4sSD)

The problem is that he can't reliably delay this vote.  McCain, Brown, Kirk, Graham, Snowe, Collins.  I'm sure I'm forgetting several.  Are you sure they could be counted on not to vote for cloture?  If the Republicans are completely intractible on this one, the House might just shove its own version through (no extension of Tax Cuts + extending unemployment) and the "compassionate" Republicans would probably bail and vote for cloture ("However much we want to see the tax cuts for all Americans extended, we cannot hold hostage those looking to us for help and support...":  Tell me you can't hear Snowe and Collins saying that).

16 And contrary to the MFM a real tax cut may cost initially (< 1 yr) but it will result in increased income after that.

Posted by: Vic at December 06, 2010 12:29 PM (e4sSD)

Not raising taxes isn't a tax cut though anyway.

The notion of "temporary" tax cuts is profoundly silly.

17

Cutting taxes + spending more--its how you go broke!!

 

18 The Democrats still hold super majorities. If the Republicans can manage to keep them from doing anything it is a win.

19 This is NOT a win for conservatives. The extension of unemployment not only is more spending, which keeping the present tax rates is NOT, but it also extends the actual unemployment and even more spending.

Mitch the Bitch sold us out again. He would lose nothing by delaying this vote until the next congress and making it retroactive to Jan 1.

Posted by: Vic

 

 

We're back to an essential debate. If Reid was unable to muster sufficient numbers to invoke cloture, the people who feel that this was bad and should have been withstood are right. If Reid is able to herd his cats, and corral one or more of the RINOs and soon to be former Senators (what I like to refer to as 'Zombie-elect'), then we get burned twice.

That list of Republican Senators who missed votes was troubling. Bunning, Vonivitch, Gregg at least are coasting. Add in the Maine sisters, and you have Mr. Toad's wild ride.

20 Posted by: Vic at December 06, 2010 12:29 PM (e4sSD)

And the problem is that is EXACTLY what happens: pass tax cuts and receipts drop (normally) for that first year: the future gains are then explained as the "ingenuity and industriousness of the American People" as though there is no correlation between the two.

Then, Tax rate hikes provide a temporary (1 year or less) boost to receipts, and the future declines in receipts are decried as "the rich" "hoarding" their money.

21 We'll see, if this actually comes up for a vote and passes, and if Osama Obama signs the bill.

So far, what has happened is what always happens in D.C.: Senators are shooting off their mouths about this and that, then retiring to the plushy offices knock back a drink or ten and say to themselves "oh, what a good boy am I!"

The only ones who say that not soaking the rich will cost us eleventy-seven bazillion squillion dollars a year are Democrats and the Mohammedan Mouthpiece. What keeping the current tax rates in place -- not "ending the tax cuts" -- means to me is that the fatcats shouldn't be allowed to steal more money from us than they steal now, and shouldn't be allowed to spend money they don't have.

Continuing unemployment benefits? Fine. Cut the Traitor-in-Chief's HealthScare plan, put a sock in Moo-chelle's "initiatives" and wipe out pork. When waste goes, we can afford it. For a while. If Congress simultaneously clears away the governmental obstacles to private job growth.

22
meanwhile...

that shithead Ben Bernanke admitted that the bleak scenario unemployment might continue for the next 4 to 5 years.

23 I think some of you guys have wildly inflated expectations of what can be done now while the GOP is in the minority and even next year with just the House.

No matter how you slice it, extending unemployment benefits was going to happen. It's politically untenable to cut people off in an environment of nearly 10% unemployment (officially. reality is much higher) 3 weeks before Christmas.

If there's another round of unemployment extensions next year, then with the House in GOP hands it damn well better be paid for. Right now, there's simply no way to force that.

We get something from Democrats they swore up and down they would never do for something we were going to do anyway. All while still in the minority.

That's a win anyway you look at it.

24

And those who bitched about DeMint's comment about having Rubios instead of RINO's should be able to see why. We already saw it with Obamacare. When you have to depend upon the greed and stupidity of your opponent to stave off disaster, then you have a problem

 

 

25

That list of Republican Senators who missed votes was troubling. Bunning, Vonivitch, Gregg at least are coasting. Add in the Maine sisters, and you have Mr. Toad's wild ride.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 06, 2010 12:33 PM (R2fpr)

Yeah so tell me again how we are "bad purity Republicans".

26 By the way, Osama Obama is speaking right now. So far I've learned two things:

1. He doesn't understand real life. He's clinging to the long-discredited notion that government creates jobs and economic growth;

2. He's an incompetent, ignorant asshole.

27

That list of Republican Senators who missed votes was troubling. Bunning, Vonivitch, Gregg at least are coasting. Add in the Maine sisters, and you have Mr. Toad's wild ride.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 06, 2010 12:33 PM (R2fpr)

Yeah so tell me again how we are "bad purity Republicans".

Posted by: Vic

Easy. 'Cause there's no such thing as a 'good' purity Republican. Remember the old saying: A man's Castle is is home.

Har.

28 With control of the House next year we have complete control of the budget. That is AS LONG AS THE REPUBLICANS HAVE BALLS AND USE THEM!

Fuck politics of spending for reelection. There will be NO REELECTION if they continue mad spending. 

29
Please translate 'politically untenable' into actual consequences.

30 that shithead Ben Bernanke admitted that the bleak scenario unemployment might continue for the next 4 to 5 years.

Posted by: Soothsayer, TIME's Man of the Year at December 06, 2010 12:35 PM (uFokq)

It seems just yesterday Obama was promising that if we passed porkulus we'd see unemployment peak at under 8% and go down.

Good thing we elected Mr Competence as president!

31 letting people keep their own money does not 'cost' anything

Thanks for that Drew.  The incessant yapping from the MFM about "paying for" tax cuts is the single most annoying thing they do.  The cutting is all about not paying for things and most especially not paying the government to do intrusive and unwanted things to us.

32 I read taxes as texas and was v v confused

33 seeing the tears emanating from the lefty websites is sweet

34
If we keep compromising with the Democrats because we're worried about losing the PR war...

well, we're fucked.

35 As of Nov 2010:

The federal government currently funds the emergency and extended benefits that keep the unemployed receiving checks should recipients not find jobs by the time the 26 weeks of initial state-paid assistance runs out. The supplemental programs may reach up to 99 weeks in some states.

About 5.01 million Americans received emergency and extended benefits as of the week ended Oct. 16, according to Labor Department data. Another 4.34 million were getting the initial state-funded relief in the week ended Oct. 23.



So, back of the envelope calculation.  Say 8 million people on extended benefits next year that wouldn't be if the Republicans had held the line, for 10 months each at $1000 per month, which is $80 billion extra spending in 2011.

Halve that number or double it as the spirit moves you, but it still doesn't look like win.

36 1. He doesn't understand real life. He's clinging to the long-discredited notion that government creates jobs and economic growth;

Hey, if we just had the government hire all the unemployed people to pick up trash we'd solve the problem wingnut.

37 It's time for the Repubs to go full Christie on the Tax and Spend donks and go along to get along Rinos.

38 By the way, Osama Obama is speaking right now. So far I've learned two things:

1. He doesn't understand real life. He's clinging to the long-discredited notion that government creates jobs and economic growth;

2. He's an incompetent, ignorant asshole.

Posted by: MrScribbler© at December 06, 2010 12:39 PM (Ulu3i)

Just now you learned this?

39 I'd be willing to pay more taxes to extend unemployment benefits, but only if the entire over-employed  Obama Administration resigned.

40 With control of the House next year we have complete control of the budget.
Posted by: Vic at December 06, 2010 12:40 PM (e4sSD)

That is 100% true. Well, except for the Senate which has to pass it as well and the President who has to sign it.

So maybe not 100% true, more like 33% true.

41
It seems just yesterday Obama was promising that if we passed porkulus we'd see unemployment peak at under 8% and go down.

Did you hear that RUMP SWAB Matt Lauer making this case as if he was the White House Press Secretary?

Sickening. And they complain about Fox...

42 Posted by: Tami who is apparently on Ace's ass about This or That. at December 06, 2010 12:43 PM

Better I should have said I was reminded of two things....

I've known them since the Mohammedan Mouthpiece first opened his unsavory yap about running for president.

43

Well yes, Obama is a complete asshole and an ignorant tool.

But as for the Dem lefties screaming and wailing about extending "tax cuts for the rich"?  Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

44

According to Pelosi, extending unemployment benefits stimulates job creation and doesn't increase the deficit.  Extending the Bush tax cuts does the opposite.

On what planet, Madame Speaker?  On what planet?

45
So maybe not 100% true, more like 33% true.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 06, 2010 12:45 PM (HicGG)

Its true that the House can't act alone, but they do have more power in this area then the Senate or Presidency.

Consider, for example, if they send partial spending bills to the Senate one at a time as they've said they will do.

The Democrats will then have to sign off on spending the Republicans want, like say Veterans Affairs or the Treasury, before the Republicans send them a budget for HUD or Obamacare.

If they play their cards right, the Republican House can force a budget showdown on their terms.

46 24 I think some of you guys have wildly inflated expectations of what can be done now while the GOP is in the minority and even next year with just the House.

Fair point Drew, but if this continues through the 112th Congress, when cons remain in the minority--ie, more spending by way of compromise--the country may not make it to the 113th.  We're just running out of time, the spending cuts have to start now, or our guys have to go down demanding them.  How I'm looking at it.

47 So maybe not 100% true, more like 33% true.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 06, 2010 12:45 PM (HicGG)

NOT true 100%, providing they have balls. Split the budget up by department, cut where it needs it (which is most) pass those smaller budgets in the House and give them a choice. Pass it or get nothing.

Takes balls but they do have 100% control.

48 Posted by: Soothsayer, TIME's Man of the Year at December 06, 2010 12:41 PM (uFokq)

You do realize that given the levels of unemployment in this country at the moment that just about every Congressional District and certainly every state has large numbers of people who will be impacted by this benefits extension, right?

It's simply impossible for Congressmen and Senators to ignore the pressure they get from voters back home, local media and their supporters. When given the choice between pleasing their voters back home and commenters on blogs, they are going to go with the voters back home.

49 Posted by: DrewM. at December 06, 2010 12:45 PM (HicGG)

Well, 55% true:  The Budget can't be filibustered, IIRC, and it will look very bad if the Democrat Senators can't find something very, very compelling to cry about if they vote against it.  So, with 47 in the Senate, and a majority in the House, I'm expecting that any budget House Republicans pass will probably get through the Senate.

It then just depends on President BOHICA...

50 LOL, 3 posts at 12:50 saying almost same thing. Still 100% true.

51 only if the entire over-employed  Obama Administration resigned. Posted by: Fritz at December 06, 2010 12:43 PM

You've hit on the biggest potential money-saving move of all!

What the Dems (including the shitweasel in the White House choose not to understand is the "right to work." It doesn't mean everyone has the "right" to a job...it means everyone should have the right to apply for a job, and be hired if found qualified.

Apply that standard and the unemployment rate in certain areas of D.C. would skyrocket.

52
If tough choices were made two years ago, we would've been in a real recovery by now.

Ronald Reagan inherited a shitty economy with high inflation. He and Paul Volker  brought inflation under control but it caused a nasty little recession. Things sucked in 1981 and 1982.

But it needed to be done. And Reagan did it.

53 If it has to just be an extension, make it two years.  Then we can beat the Democrats about the head and shoulders with it next election as well.

54
Republicans won, partly, because in October they got smart and started saying they are the Party of the Paycheck, the Democrats are the Party of Food Stamps.

Republicans need to define themselves and always show the people how they are different from the Democrats. That's how you lead. That's how you win.

55 Drew:  24 I think some of you guys have wildly inflated expectations of what can be done now while the GOP is in the minority and even next year with just the House.

Ha! I guess I'd have to agree.  But why not insist on cuts elsewhere to pay for the extension of benefits?  Benefits v NPR; or, Benefits v. European bailout.  Or pay for them out of unspent porkulus?

56 Leftards freaking is just the cherry on top.

57

oopsy

Drew: When given the choice between pleasing their voters back home and commenters on blogs, they are going to go with the voters back home.

Me:  Ha! I guess I'd have to agree.  But why not insist on cuts elsewhere to pay for the extension of benefits?  Benefits v NPR; or, Benefits v. European bailout.  Or pay for them out of unspent porkulus?

58

I would have like to have seen the Republicans force spending offsets if they were going to vote for the unemployment extension but despite appearances, they aren't in charge of either house of Congress just yet.

< Drew, they could have still insisted on this by way of the filibuster.

 

59 Posted by: Vic at December 06, 2010 12:50 PM (e4sSD)

So by your definition "100% control" means "Willing to play chicken to the end".

Ok but the Democratic Senate and Obama can do the same exact thing. So they all have "100% control" by your lights.

Look, I love the idea of cutting the spending bills into smaller pieces. I even wadded through a Boehner speech to AEI to post about it. It's a great plan but it's not "100% control" with a Democratic Senate and Obama in the White House.

We need to have some realistic plans about what's possible for the next two years. I'm not saying preemptively surrender. We need to keep pressure on the GOP but when they get to the point where they've gotten as much as possible, we should recognize that and not push to destructive ends (like the Gingrich led shutdowns were). Cutting the spending bills up is a good start to avoiding that. We can't do that today though.

Taking this deal, now, is also a good plan.

Look at what Obama could do...he could say,, 'fuck it, I''m not signing an across the board extension'. There would be huge pressure on the Republicans next year to pass something for just $250K and below. And you know what? They'd cave. Obama might pay a price or might not but he could 'have balls' and stick it out to the end and he might win.

Right now, he's willing to surrender for something that was going to pass anyway. Take the win and move on.

60 It's simply impossible for Congressmen and Senators to ignore the pressure they get from voters back home, local media and their supporters. When given the choice between pleasing their voters back home and commenters on blogs, they are going to go with the voters back home.

Posted by: DrewM

 

Imposible? No. They already demonstrated this with Obamacare. Highly difficult? Yes.

 

And the choice you presented was a false one. They were confronted with a choice of exercising measures that would improve the economy (refrain from raising tax rates in an already crappy economy, and refrain from extending unemployment benefits which may be artifically distorting the wage sector) or presenting a mix where one measure is prudent and other pandering. The same Congress that failed to compose a budget went for the mix. It's interesting to note that even three months ago, these paragons of virtue hated ALL of the tax cuts. If circumstances were any different, they would be 'clinging to not one, but two stupid measures.

61

Republicans have been open to an extension of unemployment, but they have wanted Democrats to cover the cost with cuts elsewhere. Sen. Orrin Hatch said on CNN that the GOP is ready to budge on that as well, but may not be willing to extend ObamaÂ’s Make Work Pay tax credit.

“Let’s take care of the unemployment compensation, even if it isn’t backed up by real finances, we’ve got to do it,” he said “

12/5




Ladies and gentlemen, the party of fiscal conservatism....

62 You know... on unemployment, I had an idea.  It would only work at the State level, I think, but that should be enough:

For the Record, I think paying someone not to work (at all, and yes, I've been unemployed) is really dumb.  If you're not budgeting properly and setting up an emergency fund that should last you 3 - 6 months, that's your problem, not mine.  No, you don't really need that HDTV package with 4000 channels.  Or your Cellphone with 1000 minutes plus unlimited data.

That said, since we won't return to the sanity of not paying people not to work, and considering that a lot of people will turn down job offers received because they don't pay as much as their previous employment, I had an idea.

Each unemployment case (that is, THIS time that you're unemployed) gets a case number (pretty sure that happens anyway).  Any time you fill out an application or send in a resume, you provide your case number and the prospective employer is required to enter it into the State's system (just a secure website where they enter your Case Number and the "job seeking activity" you performed).  The "job seeking activity" box will have three choices: "Applied," "Interviewed," "Job Offered." 

This removes the requirement of the job-seeker to verify they've been looking for work by automatically updating their account whenever "job seeking activity" is encountered (if they don't meet their minimum for the week, no benefit check that week).  However, once an employer enters "Job Offered" as the activity, benefits will pay out that week, but not again for that case.  So if you're offered a job and you refuse it, you're now off the dole. 

Obviously, it wouldn't be a perfect system, but I think it would go a long way to getting rid of those people who think that downgrading their job is unnecessary, just because the State is being required to pay out their benefits indefinately.

63
In other words, ladies and gentleviruses...

This Is Not The Hill We Want To Die On_^©

64

The Republicans got the Democrats to 'compromise,' i.e., do te right thing.

In return, the Democrats got the Republicans to go along with extending UE benefits for another year!

That's a win for our side?

Two words: Lame Ducks.

I will expect better from the GOP once the newbies are actually *seated* in the House and Senate.

65

we should recognize that and not push to destructive ends (like the Gingrich led shutdowns were).

 

My understanding was that the shutdown was not truly Gingrich led. It was an engineered crisis, ginned up in the hiopes that Gingrich would act a certain way and take the blame. It was a gambit, which succeeeded.

 

Your example is still important, because we need to be mindful that President Pokemon is certainly not above such things, and he has a media that would love to play that broken record.

 

66 I can't really be too upset about the unemployment thing.  The "tax cuts for the wealthy" will pay for the unemployment benefits quickly, and the left isn't being handed any ammunition--not that they won't freak out anywhat.

WE WIN WHEN OBAMA FAILS.

67
Ladies and gentlemen, the party of fiscal conservatism....


...Because We Must Do Something wins the day, yet again, over Reason & Logic.

68 Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 06, 2010 12:50 PM (8y9MW)

Actually, it's the opposite.

You're right that the Budget Resolution isn't subject to a filibuster but your wrong about the consequences. That means the majority, in the this case the Democrats, can stick together and shut out the minority.

You'll have competing budget plans, one from the GOP House and the other from the Dem Senate. That gives the Democrats more power...the same 100% control (with ability to play chicken to the end) the House GOP will have.

69 Obviously, it wouldn't be a perfect system, but I think it would go a long way to getting rid of those people who think that downgrading their job is unnecessary, just because the State is being required to pay out their benefits indefinately.

Posted by: AllenG

 

Employers already have to deal with federal law that requires them to give an application to anyone who wanders onto the property, even if they are jerks. Making them have to log this crap simply means more ticket punching by people who want to be seen as looking for employment, but who don't even bother to fully complete the forms. Today, the employers may be called and asked if Mr. Smith came in and applied for work.

70 Posted by: Blue Hen is a left(hand)ist at December 06, 2010 01:04 PM (R2fpr)

Which is why the piece-meal budgetary process is so important in 2011.  I don't actually normally support such a thing- spending bills do not a budget make.  However, in this case, it's a canny political move which may help in getting the point across that it's not Republicans who are obstructing, but the Democrats.  If an actual bill has been advanced to the Senate from the house, and the Senate fails to act on it, that's going to be blamed on the Senate.  If Republican Senators are out there every day calling for an "up or down" vote on such a measure, it will be harder (albeit not impossible) for the Media to play the Republicans as big obstructionists who want to shut down Government.

71 Posted by: DrewM. at December 06, 2010 01:07 PM (HicGG)

You may have competing plans, but you can't have competing bills.  Budgets have to start in the House.

72 Ok but the Democratic Senate and Obama can do the same exact thing. So they all have "100% control" by your lights.

Not true. They get smaller money or zero money. That is not control.

If we get vastly reduced budgets we win. If we shut down an entire department we win. Especially if we do the EPA first.

I don't consider that chicken. All it takes is balls and ignoring the MFM.

73

Well, if they extend unemployment, maybe B'gal and I can have a Christmas this year.

It sucks, and I would much rather be working, but the specialized experience I have in the manufacturing arena isn't in demand right now, since we've stupidly outsourced that to the ChiComs.

There's just no reason not to extend UE bennies with the UE rate as astronomically high as it is. If the Republicans were at all serious about paying for them, we'd hear some suggestions for offsetting that expenditure, like taking the money from foreign aid or leftover Porkulus funds. There is a way to do it, hell if they could cram DeathCare down our throats, they could do this the right way.

All in all, we're going to have to wait until the next Congress convenes and does a few actionable things to reign in this bloated behemoth of a government before we see anything that approaches an economic recovery.

74
We're compromising with a party who will, one week, try to raise taxes to supposedly lower the deficit, and then the next week will try to ram through the DREAM Act that subsidizes millions more illegals.

Now tell me again which party should be getting pressured/lambasted back home in their constituencies?

75 Posted by: Blue Hen is a left(hand)ist at December 06, 2010 01:07 PM (R2fpr)

Like I said, not perfect.  Also, I would say that the new legislation ('cause that's what it would take) could say that an uncompleted application would not have to be reported- just like today when they can say "Yeah, sure, he came it, but he didn't fill out the application."

People are always going to game the system, and there's only so much you can do about that.  This was a specific solution to one specific problem.

76 Posted by: Soothsayer, TIME's Man of the Year at December 06, 2010 01:03 PM (uFokq)

You complain that squishes don't want to stand on principle and die on this hill or another. I'd point out dying on every hill is a pretty piss poor strategy.

77

MSNBC: HereÂ’s our back-of-envelope math arriving at the $1 trillion approximation: If the price tag of extending the Bush tax cuts over 10 years is nearly $4 trillion, then doing it for two years is some $800 billion. And extending the jobless benefits and targeted tax cuts raises that price tag even higher.

Yes, the cost of the entire Bush tax cuts is 4 trillion going forward. But only a portion of those were even under discussion for a hike, and that's more like 1.2 trillion over 10 years. So no, the package really isn't anywhere near the total "cost" of the failed stimulus handout package, you lying douchenozzles.

78 Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 06, 2010 01:09 PM (8y9MW)

Yes, they start in the House but the Senate is then free to rewrite it. It has to be sorted out in conference (which will come back now that there's a split in control of the Houses). The Senate conferees will simply insist on their plan, the House on theirs and...everyone gets a veto.

79 I want to remind all of you that I paid "Unemployment Insurance" out of my paycheck for 25 freaking years before I lost my job because the government tanked the housing market. Despite what many of my liberal friends say, I should not be forced to go work in fields because the government tanked the housing market. I am an architect and design buildings for a living, and the unemployment rate is in the neighborhood of 70% in some areas. If you don't mind, could you please extend my benefits for a few more months while I find a freaking job? And if you don't agree with me, you're a racist, homophobe, architectophobe.

80 Posted by: Vic at December 06, 2010 01:11 PM (e4sSD)

But you're ignoring that the Democrats in the Senate have the same power to insist that money be added on to a spending bill that House GOP has to cut it.

81

Yes, the cost of the entire Bush tax cuts is 4 trillion going forward

Can we please stop ceding this ground to the left? These estimates are rarely correct and 4 Trillion is absurd.

82 Posted by: BackwardsBoy at December 06, 2010 01:11 PM (b6qrg)

Explain to me why someone in, say, Maine should have to pay for someone in, say, Michigan not to work.

Please don't take offense, I'm not trying in any way to malign your specific situation (since I know nothing of it), but in general?  Why is Charity now the purview of the Government?

Unemployment benefits are already at 99 Weeks.  For those counting, there are only 52 weeks in a year.  I'm really sorry you're having a hard time finding work, but I'd say that, 99 weeks out, some very drastic measures are called for (not that you're not doing that, but most people I've personally spoken to who have been unemployed for more than the 25 weeks that Texas normally gives are not).

If all computer programming was suddenly outsourced to India, that would really suck for me- I'd have to find something else to do (and fast) to make sure income came in.  I don't know, now, what that would be, but I do know I wouldn't be comfortable knowing that people in Washington were having to pay a higher tax burden because of me.  Heck, I wouldn't be happy knowing that people here in Dallas/Fort Worth would be paying a higher tax burden because of me.

83 Posted by: Mallamutt at December 06, 2010 01:21 PM (OWjjx)

What Mallamutt said.  If the 30's taught us anything, it's that raising taxes during a recession is ruinous.  I wouldn't even want to do it for a few months.

84

 These estimates are rarely correct and 4 Trillion is absurd.

Feh. It's a forecast. Could come in higher or lower. I agree probably lower.

But use whatever number you want, MSNBC is full of shit. The only taxes the Donks were talking about raising were the top brackets, and that "cost" is forecast to be 1.2 trillion, not 4. The balance of their 4 trillion number is the middle-class cuts which nobody advocated raising.

85 Hey, backwards Boy: I lost my house due to foreclosure through no fault of my own. I used to make $60,000 a year, and now I make $400 a week unemployment. It doesn't matter if I feel good about my situation or not, I'm in survival mode. I live in Denton Texas and am willing to work right now. You got something for me?

86 Posted by: Mallamutt at December 06, 2010 01:25 PM (OWjjx)

But dude...we'll have control of the House! Competing centers of power as designed by the founders will have been repealed!

Worrying about a Democratic Senate and President is for suckers and squishes! Which one are you?

87 For the record: The Bush tax cuts don't cost the Federal Government anything. Why blame citizens for costing the Federal Government money wen it is their money to begin with. If the government is getting less money in, it should quit spending so fucking much. There are a few thousand IRS agents that can be eliminated.

88

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 06, 2010 01:18 PM (8y9MW)

Thank you for your understanding of my situation. I did say it sucked. I've never gone this long without a job in my life.

As I understand it, UE bennies are the sole realm of the state government. My benefits (when I had them) came from the state government, who only extended them when Washington gave them the specific funding to do so. I'm not happy that others are paying a higher tax to provide me with bennies (again, when I had them as I'm no longer eligible). I'm also not happy with a lot of things that I had no control over, like the housing market tanking thanks to the CRA or the implementation of NAFTA. I didn't vote for any of that.

You'd think that our representatives would understand basic economics, but they clearly don't. That's part of the reason we're in this situation. If we had elected officials who had a clue, the EPA would be a mere shell of it's current overbearing self and we'd be enjoying a robust economy right now.

Again, I'm not at all happy about the current situation, mine personally nor the country's in general. What we need is a return to the free-market principle that recognizes that government is a leech upon the productive sectors of the economy and elected officials that will reduce the role of intrusion in the marketplace at every opportunity.

89 But you're ignoring that the Democrats in the Senate have the same power to insist that money be added on to a spending bill that House GOP has to cut it.

But you are ignoring the fact that it doesn't matter as long as the House doesn't cave in.

90 Posted by: DrewM. at December 06, 2010 01:35 PM (HicGG)

A little uncalled for, Drew.  So far, the only arguments I've seen are rational arguments which have not (until your oh-so-sardonic preemption) turned to the personal.

You believe (and Mallamutt agrees with you, and I at least partially agree with you) that this was the best deal we could be sure of.

The other side believes that a sufficiently bold House could have forced a confrontation, and that they could play their political cards such that they'd win that confrontation.

I don't know that they're right, but there is at least merit in their arguments.  For you to claim the victim label for yourself, when I haven't seen anyone label anyone on the blog a "sucker" or a "squish" is disingenuous and demeaning.  Even though its not aimed at me, I find it low and uncalled for.

Now, I'm pretty sure you were trying to be funny, so you may think of this as an over-reaction.  However, as we've all seen on this blog, that kind of stuff can devolve very, very quickly, and I don't think its a rabbit hole we want to go down, this early in the week.

91

You got something for me?

I wish. I'm also in survival mode, having stripped everything down to the bare essentials. No more eating out, movies, new clothes, DVD's or anything like that. In fact, I need new tires, the tread is separated on one of them, but I don't drive anywhere unless I absolutely have to, so there's that.

My last job paid me over 50K annually. Of course, I was putting in over 60 hours a week, but I'd sure like to have that job back, if the company was still in business, that is.

You should see the number of shops I've worked at that are no longer in business. Manufacturing was very volatile for a long time in its' death throes. Most of the places I worked for the past decade are no longer.

92 duh. they did say it was like negotiating with terrorists.

93 At first I was mildly pleased with the Republicans on this, then I had lunch with some current (me being former) small business owners.  They are not pleased with the deal,  If the taxes on small businesses will be renegotiated again in just two years then the "uncertainty" bomb is still ticking and they are not interested in hiring.

94 My daughter has been laid off twice. She has a job now. She doesn't make shit but she has a job.

She is a clerk at a dry cleaners making minimum wage. You CAN find a job if you have to. When the economy turns around I am sure she will move up.

In fact she did turn down a job paying $10/hr but it would have required her to work shift work and she didn't want to do that.

95 Posted by: BackwardsBoy at December 06, 2010 01:37 PM (b6qrg)

I agree, which was why I was careful to make sure you understood that my general statements did not mean anything in your particular case.  I'm glad you understood that, it's too early in the week for a fight...

I'd even go further, lots of things are really dumb- here's one that may start an argument (distinct from a fight in that no one's feelings are as likely to get hurt): I think Teaching Certificates are a farce.    Yes, I know what teachers have to go through to get them; that just makes the farce worse.  I'd much rather be taught math by a mathematician than I would be someone who managed to make it through four (or five) years of college and then pass a test.  I'd rather be taught science by the same type of people.  With our current teacher certification structure, that's incredibly unlikely.

96 First comment said it all.   Republicans were played ... again.   They better wise up or they'll gone.

97 Posted by: Vic at December 06, 2010 01:42 PM (e4sSD)

Vic, the GOP can refuse to cave in all day long but the Democrats can as well.

Yes, the GOP has 100% control over what they pass in the House but that simply doesn't translate into 100% over the final outcome.

What we have is 3 separate and opposing parties who have absolute veto power if they stick to their guns. In that case, no one party has any more power than another to force a deal.

You also ignore an important 4th party...the public. They aren't going to be as gung-ho for going to the mattresses all the time, every time as the conservative base is going to be.

The GOP can stick to it's guns but not on every issue and not in the face of public opinion which at some point will want to see a reasonable deal cut.

98

Here is how old Keynes shot himself in the foot, and then became an Anti-Keynesian: HM Govt were considering soup and bread lines, "doling out relief." Keynes' one unassailable principle was that it would be much more efficient for the Govt to have people do some kind of work for pay, rather than hand it out.

Everyone collecting unemployment benefits over 60 days should have to show up somewhere, for some amount of time, every working day, and do something, even if it's reading job reports and filling out forms--and some of those schedules should not have weekends off. I'd consider some night-shift time in there too. I was over 15 years into my career before I could usually know my work schedule and usually have a standard big-city work week. That's how I knew it would be all right to start a family (oyez "things were different then"--I also had a year's wages in the bank and owned the house. Can't sell it now, but I still believe it).  

Ninety-nine weeks of sitting in your credit-castle watching TV and worrying makes a EuroSlacker out of anybody. Most jobs don't last 99 weeks. In 99 weeks you could get an associate (or masters) degree, read half the Great Books, or transcribe the Manhattan telephone directory.

99 Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 06, 2010 01:43 PM (8y9MW)

It wasn't personal. I was very careful not to direct it to anyone in particular. I simply took the argument several people here have been making an mocked it (the argument, not the people). I didn't misstate their position, I simply pointed out the flaw in it.

100 Posted by: comatus at December 06, 2010 01:53 PM (hrwMe)

Or, how about we keep the Government out of the Charity business all together, and let people, Churches, and other charitable organizations handle it?  How's that sound?

101 Drew @104,

I know it wasn't personal.  I also know what you were trying to do.  I think it fell a little flat.

Also, it is, at least slightly, misrepresenting their case: to whit, the House has a great deal of power in budget making (it does) and that done the way currently proposed (pushing single item bills) would probably work (remains to be tried, let alone seen).

I don't know that they're right, but I do know that their position is well considered and you taking it to its most absurd position neither helped make your point, nor in any real way detracted from theirs.

They disagree with you.  I think, as a thought experiment and fantasy, their plan sounds awesome.  I do think they're missing the reality part (as you do) that says that such a tactic is a gamble on something on which we don't want to gamble.

So, think of my prior comment more in the nature of a friendly caution: that way lies danger, and walking toward it- even in fun or the name of pointing out the fallacies of someone's argument- can blow up more easily than you seemed to be considering.

102

There is one reason for UC benefits at this time. It is to keep the mob from storming the Bastille. There was a chart here a few months ago showing the return of jobs in every recession since 1948. It showed jobs returning to near pre-recession levels generally within 18 months. This is what the Dems were counting on with this recession. The graph showed that this recession the jobs were down at least twice as long as any previous recession and in fact had not yet started back up. Of course we are a few months further down the the line and still no uptake. It is easy to say take a lesser job, but the fact remains you are competing with far more people for that lesser job. My cousin got hired at a place he used to work at after a year and a half out of work. The owner of the shop had a stack of applications about an inch thick on his desk for one job. He told my cousin he got the job because he remembered his work. This is the reality today. Employers won't hire unless they have work to be done, and you better have an in if you want that job. Let's let the new congress get in office, there's little they can do now. 

103

@105. Perfect, meet Good. "What about all that money I had to pay into Undemployment (waa)?" "You would take the bread from out of their moofs."

Whereas, you can sell show-up-for bennies to beleaguered Dems simply by calling it a New WPA or New CCC. They eat that shit up.

Other'n that, of course, I agree. And another thing: the Okies, the West Virginians, the Year-of-no-Summer New Englanders--all were more than willing to move where there might be work. We don't do that (couple of present company excepted). Unforeseen consequence of all-must-own federal housing policy, or just bullheadedness? "Oh, I don't do shift-work."  Oh-kay. 

104 You also ignore an important 4th party...the public.

If they pick the right department to fight over I think the "public" would be happy to see it shutdown. Sure the MFM will crucify them and blame them just like they did with that big Clinton shutdown lie, but the public is no longer as stupid, or ill informed now as they were then.

Right now the "public" is pissed at the spending. Ma and Pa Kettle are marching in streets Drew. We no longer have the 1980s paradigm in politics

105 Posted by: Vic at December 06, 2010 02:11 PM (e4sSD)

Which department is there majority support (either in the public or both houses of Congress) for shutting down and what is your proof?

If I were dictator for a day, I would shutdown a lot of departments and consign them to the ash bin of history but we don't live in Tom Friedman's dream world. We live in a Republic specifically designed to diffuse power among competing interests.

It's going to be nearly impossible to zero out CPB funding and you think there's the political will to shutter a whole department? Again...show me the evidence for this, not your opinion. Trust me, I'd love to do a post on it.

Think Progress says they identified 111 House GOP members and 27 candidates (not all of whom won)...that's not even remotely close to the necessary numbers. But if you have better numbers, please share.

106 @108 - Fair enough, really. 

I'm not arguing the realities of the situation- I know they'll never change.  But that means the days of the Government giving you a "job" (digging holes and then refilling them) to qualify for unemployment benefits are gone. 

The sad thing is they were always meant to go away.  The whole point of that kind of welfare was to desensitize people to the fact they were begging money from their neighbors.  Prior to that, there was no such thing as "unemployment insurance" except your own bank account.  Now that we've "progressed" to the point that people (far too many) are completely unashamed of taking that level of charity, we'll never go back.

107 No, No, a thousand times NO...letting people keep their own money does not 'cost' anything.

Actually, it does cost something, if you're the type that believes the fruits of a person's labor is, by default, government property...

108 It's going to be nearly impossible to zero out CPB funding and you think there's the political will to shutter a whole department?

The general public would love to shut down the CPB. But no, that doesn't mean that the pols have the "political" will. But, at least in the red zones, the public has the will to kick them out of office.

109 The general public would love to shut down the CPB.
Posted by: Vic at December 06, 2010 02:38 PM (e4sSD)

Again, your evidence for this is what?

110

To be more accurate in these tax-cut stories, scratch the words Wealthy and Rich and insert the words Small Business Owners.

It's in the Meme.

111 I wouldn't necessarily shut down CPB, just tell it to run like any other broadcaster, in the free marketplace like ABC, NBC, etc.

112 Again, your evidence for this is what?

How many people watch it?

113 Besides that, CPB would not be "shutdown". They would get no more tax payer funds. All those liberal inheritance tax avoiding foundations will still finance them.

114 The whole matter of Obummer giving in on the tax cuts is in response to behind-the-scenes pressure from political insiders. He still would like to bleed everybody with  a six-figure income & higher, but he has to pull back 'cause they told him that the label of "tax raiser"  in the current economic situation would kill the Democrats in 2012and reduce him in public memory to Hoover-like odium. So Obummer and his pinko friends will weep like the TV Indian, and extend the Bush-era cuts.

115 Posted by: Vic at December 06, 2010 03:02 PM (e4sSD)

In other words....you have no evidence.

And based on that lack of evidence (actually, there's evidence to the contrary) you are sure the public will be on our side.

I really hate faith based political strategizing.

116 I have just as much evidence as you.

117 Posted by: Vic at December 06, 2010 04:07 PM (e4sSD)

Really?

Here's my evidence that we won't be shutting down any departments anytime soon....Regan ran on it and couldn't do it. Gingrich ran on it and couldn't do and the piece I linked to shows the left is horrified! because less than 1/2 the number of votes needed to do it are there. Less than half in the GOP House.

 And only 12 in the Democratic Senate.

There's no support for it.

As for CPB, again it was talked about back in '94 and went nowhere. Along with defending the NEA.

Also proof of my position...they actually get funded now. When votes are taken, they win.

You can say things have changed but that's not the same as demonstrating they have.

Again, if you have some evidence to support your claim there's significant/majority/anything beyond the conservative base public support for shutting down a whole government department, please share it. Nothing would make me happier than to be able to post it.

118 I'd point out dying on every hill is a pretty piss poor strategy.

Except we have an infinite number of lives to give.  Political capital is a myth, IMO.  At least in the House.

119 our definition of winning is we settle for losing one army instead of keeping both arm