Are Republicans mean?

Senator Bunning is not "Republicans"

I think that Sen. Bunning honestly believes that this legislation is bad for the overall health of the country. I disagree but I don't think he is doing it because his heart is two sizes too small.

It strikes me that Bunning, who is not running for another term, is being more than a bit callous here. And for that he is being chastised by Dems and a number of Repubs.
But his point is interesting. Congress talks the talk about not increasing spending unless there is a decrease somewhere else. No one has proposed any such cut, though. He suggests using money already appropriated in the stimulus legislation. But he can't get any traction with that either.

One has to figure out the cantankerous Senator's ulterior motives. But to be blunt and actually answer your thread's title question? Yes! A resounding yes. Republicans are mean. If they don't personally profit (literally and/or politically) from a particular legislation then they tend not to give it much thought.

Okay that's my kneejerkish reaction but in most stereotypes there is a kernel of truth.

I agree - I know some one personally that has been taking advantage of this extended unemployment - working under the table while collecting and actually stated that he plans on taking the summer off so he doesn't have to pay for child care over the summer while the kids are out of school - he is not trying to find a job as you are supposed to while being on unemployment.

On the same hand, I know some one else who is actively looking for employment, but having difficulty securing a job.

I'd imagine the Senator is concerned there are many people in situation 1 - not motivated to look because hell I can stay home and collect, why work.

Does anybody give a damn what he says his reason is? That fact is notably absent from this thread. Bunning says that wants to pass the bill, but only with some source for the $10 billion. Bunning suggested using some unspent money from the TARP bailout to finance the bill, but Senator Reid objected.

Do you really prefer congressmen who will pass anything they can use to get re-elected and simply foist finding the money to pay for it off on a future Congress?

Well why the heck should we care why? He is just mean that is why.

I don't find Republicans to be "mean", as much as they are "realistic". It is not mean to ask "where will we get the money for this?" It's easy to be idealistic, but one cannot govern by emotions any more than our household budgets can work on emotion. Our federal government was meant to do a few things well... not be a nanny state providing everything to everyone. Doing so - in the name of compassion - has nearly bankrupted our nation.

"Any government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have." So sayeth Thomas Jefferson. As a political independent, I happen to agree.

I agree Brandon.

I want this paid for; I'd rather see it come with an increase in taxes rather than a re-appropriation the also unfunded TARP bill.

I don't agree that that's the Senator's real motive. I bet even if the money fell from the sky just to pay this particular program then he'd still balk. He's got some kind of FU agenda against someone ranking in the Senate so he's throwing his little tantrum behind the guise of being a responsible spending politician. Perhaps someone stopped one of his pet big budgeted pork projects for his state.

Another reason I invite everyone to join my efforts to RE-ELECT NOBODY!

I'm not at all concerned with his 'real' motive.

I'm interested in results, I could care less what drove someone to produce those results.

told ya - told ya it didn't matter why.

Gasp! Maporsche, did you REALLY suggest a tax increase vs a spending decrease or re-appropriation of TARP money?

I've been a pretty strong advocate for both. Were are not going to get out of debt by spending decreases alone. Your thread on the topic demonstrated that no one had enough ideas to do that.

Re: politicians motivations and their irrelevance. I don't see too many democrats willing to let healthcare die because Senator Nelsons motivation to vote for the bill was millions of dollars through the Cornhusker Kickback.

Yeah, for the most part they are pissed at him for this publicity stunt*.


*Paying for what we spend is good, but he's voted for this kind of thing without it many times. His sudden principles are, in my opinion, about putting himself in the spotlight on his way out of public service.

I bet he'll write a book sometime soon....

Bunning relents

Then why doesnt Harry Reid bypass Jim Bunning and bring the bill to the floor for a vote?
Cant he find 51 people that support the bill?
Or is this a photo-op for him also to show how "uincaring" the repubs are?

It's been described as some kind of parliamentary procedure that no one can maneuver around until he either leaves the room or stopped objecting to the bill's progress.