Quote:WASHINGTON — Republicans in the House Thursday blocked a bill that would have extended jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed beyond the holiday season.
An extension of jobless benefits enacted this summer expires Dec. 1, and unless they are renewed, two million people will lose benefits averaging $310 a week nationwide by the end of December.
...
Democrats brought the measure to the floor under fast-track rules that required a two-thirds vote to pass, so the measure fell despite winning a 258-154 majority. Republicans blasted the move since it denied them an opportunity to try to offset its cost.
"The fact is, we can both provide this help and pay for it by cutting less effective stimulus spending," said Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La. "That's what we should be debating today."
...
Republicans didn't pay any political price for stalling efforts earlier this year to extend jobless benefits that provide critical help to the unemployed — including a seven-week stretch over the summer when jobless benefits were a piece of a failed Democratic tax and jobs bill.
But allowing benefits to expire in the holiday season may draw negative attention to Republicans, especially when measured against their insistence that tax cuts for upper-income taxpayers not be allowed to expire.
"We have never cut off benefits for out-of-work Americans where the unemployment rates have been this high," said Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. "Without this extension, temporary federal extended benefits will shut down ... denying benefits to two million of our fellow citizens over the holiday season."
More
emphasis added
No kidding! The Republicans are taking a very politically polarizing position with this, imo.
@JPB,
Another reason why I don't identify myself as a republican; no heart, no brains. It also helps republicans who are out of work.
@JPB,
JPB wrote:
WASHINGTON — Republicans in the House Thursday blocked a bill that would have extended jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed beyond the holiday season.
That's a good and smart move - enough of the free hand-outs - bail-out loans that must be paid back would be better
@JPB,
It should be noted that the Repubs seem to be willing to approve this IF a source for the estimated $12.5Bn cost is identified.
Is that an unacceptable request?
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:
It should be noted that the Repubs seem to be willing to approve this IF a source for the estimated $12.5Bn cost is identified.
Is that an unacceptable request?
Absolutely. The entire point of Stimulus spending is for it NOT to be paid for.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: recommending or focusing on Austerity measures right now is the height of foolishness, and nothing more than a political ploy on the part of the Republican party. Our long-term debts and deficits are not nearly as important as keeping our economy afloat.
If the Dems were to recommend 12.5 billion in cuts to, say, the defense industry; or the ending of tax loopholes and subsidies for oil companies to raise that money; would the Republicans go after it? Of course not.
When it comes to the upcoming 'tax cuts for the rich' argument that we are about to be subjected to, let me know when a
single Republican demands that these tax cuts for the rich be 'paid for' in some way. Maybe then I could be convinced that the party is not absolutely hypocritical on this matter.
Cycloptichorn
@realjohnboy,
I imagine they'll do just that in January and make it retroactive back to Dec 1.
Lines in the sand... politics as usual.
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclo, The republicans have nothing to offer but negativity. They've put themselves into a corner, and they still don't understand it! It's really funny if one spends the time to think about it - but Americans have difficulty with such simple concepts.
They still can't figure out how cutting taxes are going to create jobs, but they continue to parrot that refrain as if it's a holiday song.
Republicans have a full time job countering democrat negativity.
@H2O MAN,
Your useless comments have convinced me to scroll through your bull ****.
@cicerone imposter,
cicigirl can't accept the truth and has her panties in a wad.
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:
JPB wrote:WASHINGTON — Republicans in the House Thursday blocked a bill that would have extended jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed beyond the holiday season.
That's a good and smart move - enough of the free hand-outs - bail-out loans that must be paid back would be better
I have wondered about continuing unemployment benefits as Obama has done, how can that be viewed as being a stimulant to the economy? After all, it is not an incentive to get a job, if unemployment benefits continue. There would be greater tendency to wait around for a job that fits ones fancy a bit more, instead of taking whats available.
I am sure that the right feels that these guys are traitors to their class.
Thursday, Nov 18, 2010 17:30 ET
"Patriotic millionaires" call for their tax cuts to expire
More than 40 of the nation's top taxpayers ask Obama to raise their taxes
By Joe Conason
Dozens of America's wealthiest taxpayers -- including hedge fund legend Michael Steinhardt, super trial lawyer Guy Saperstein, and Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry's fame -- have appealed to President Obama not to renew the Bush tax cuts for anyone earning more than $1 million a year. Calling themselves "Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength," the 40-plus signers today launched a website and a campaign that they hope will draw support from others who agree that fiscal responsibility should begin with those who can best afford it -- as their letter to Obama explains:
We are writing to urge you to stand firm against those who would put politics ahead of their country.
For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled.
We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more.
We have done very well over the last several years. Now, during our nation's moment of need, we are eager to do our fair share. We don't need more tax cuts, and we understand that cutting our taxes will increase the deficit and the debt burden carried by other taxpayers. The country needs to meet its financial obligations in a just and responsible way.
Letting tax cuts for incomes over $1,000,000 expire, is an important step in that direction.
The Patriotic Millionaires campaign, pulled together quickly by the Agenda Project in New York City, just happens to appear on the same day as a new study from the Center for Responsive Politics revealing that half of the members of the House and the Senate are millionaires. That contrasts sharply with the general population, of whom fewer than 1 percent can claim millionaire status.
Not surprisingly, some of the super-rich declined to join the Patriotic Millionaires when the Agenda Project reached out to them. At least two airily dismissed the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and above -- which will cost well over $700 billion over the coming decade -- as "small potatoes." And a Manhattan hedge fund billionaire said he believes the cuts should be extended and added that "the moneys should be used to pay down debt" -- which sounds like the magical Republican plan to simultaneously cut taxes, wage war and drastically reduce the deficit. The same investor also complained that "anyone who has money is made to feel that they're bad."
Bad? Only if they'd rather force Grandma to eat cat food than pay their fair share.
@Advocate,
Advocate, This only reinforces what Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have said; raise their taxes, because they know the other 98% of Americans can't.
And yet, conservatives continue to advocate for more tax cuts for the wealthy.
What's wrong with those people? Are their brains fried? Can't they see that the increasing federal deficit will harm our country?
What is more frustrating is that Obama is supporting the tax cuts for the rich to get tax cuts for the middle class.
There's no cure for stupid!
@cicerone imposter,
Since nobody needs more than maybe 250 grand per year, why don't we just tax everything over 250 grand at 100% ? Problem solved!
@okie,
Do you just get dumber as a natural consequence of being a "conservative?"
So, extending jobless benefits is a disincentive to finding a job? What sort of reasoning is that? How blind to reality must one be to say something so out of whack?
The point is that there are no jobs.
The other point in that unemployment benefits extract a terrible toll on the individual, taking away the last shred of privacy the beneficiary might want to preserve.
@plainoldme,
What sort of reasoning is it to pay people to stay home and not seek gainful employment?
@H2O MAN,
Who pays people to NOT seek employment?
One of the requirements to get unemployment benefits is you must be seeking gainful employment.
@parados,
H2O Man ought to change his nom d'email to PARANOID man. His rap is the same old baseless hatred that the right has spouted for years and the predecessors of the right spouted for centuries.
The 'working poor,' now about 40 - 60% of the work force, wears their fingers to bone in ways H2O man never has.
Here's a graphic that illustrates the difference between the two tax plans:
Why exactly do people whose income is more than 1 million per year
need a tax cut of 86 grand?
Cycloptichorn
