Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

For weeks, Senate Republicans have filibustered an extension of unemployment benefits on the grounds that Democrats aren't willing to cut spending or raise taxes to pay for them. At the same time, the Bush tax cuts are set to expire, and Republicans want them to be renewed. For two days, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl has raised eyebrows by insisting that emergency aid to unemployed people -- what he called a "necessary evil" -- be paid for through either tax hikes or spending cuts, while the tax cuts (which mostly benefit wealthy people) not be offset in any way. Yesterday claimed that this view is shared by "most of the people in my party."

He was correct.

"That's been the majority Republican view for some time," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told TPMDC this afternoon after the weekly GOP press conference. "That there's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject."

The CBO and other budget experts strongly disagree. And Democrats want to preserve the Bush tax cuts for people making less than $200,000-$250,000 a year -- but only for them. Allowing them to expire for wealthier people would raise hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years, which could allow them to offset the spending Republicans currently decry.

However, the GOP's top budget guy, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), disagrees. He said Kyl's prescription -- offset spending with tax increases or program cuts, but treat tax cuts differently -- is exactly right. "It makes a lot of sense, because, you know, when you're raising taxes you're taking money out of peoples' pockets," said Gregg when asked by TPMDC. "When you're spending money, you're spending money that is -- it's not the same thing because it's growing the government. So I tend to think that tax cuts should not have to be offset."

The expert view is that giving unemployed people money to spend stimulates the economy much more than does preserving tax cuts for the rich. But this view is not shared by the chairman of the Republican Senate re-election committee.

"I think the urgency of deficit neutral extension of unemployment insurance has increased because of the size of the deficit and the size of the debt," Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), another member of the GOP leadership team, told TPMDC yesterday. "I'm aware in the past some extensions have not been paid for, but if there's one thing that I'm hearing from my constituents it's that deficit spending has to stop, and I think this is a good place to do it."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010 ... hp?ref=fpb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Reoublicans never had a problem with big government and big spending until a black Democrat beat them. Sad isn't it?

If someone wanted to actually get serious about deficit reduction, they'd come out for letting the Bush tax cuts expire AND reduce spending. I think we all know that's not going to happen because that sort of mentality doesn't win a lot of votes.

repeatedly extending unemployment benefits has been so good at stimulating the economy I don't know why we don't keep on doing it

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:If someone wanted to actually get serious about deficit reduction, they'd come out for letting the Bush tax cuts expire AND reduce spending. I think we all know that's not going to happen because that sort of mentality doesn't win a lot of votes.

At least you have it half right.

Get a job Travis.

catamount man wrote:Reoublicans never had a problem with big government and big spending until a black Democrat beat them. Sad isn't it?

True statement - but
This is common on both sides...

Just put Barney Frank in charge of fixing the banks and the economy, then all these problems would go away...

This just goes to show you what happens when one party gets too much power. They get power-drunk and abandon their pricinples, and then once they lose it they cry and whine about the other party being evil. Republicans in the early 90s advocated small government and balanced budgets, and with a Republican congress and a Democrat in the White House it worked. Bush Jr. gets in and has control of Congress, spending increases and there are tax cuts, deficits start coming back and increasing. Suddenly Obama and the Dems are in power again, and boom...Republicans whine about big government and massive spending.

I hate our country's political system.

Just remember folks, the American workers and producers of wealth are not undertaxed, and lower marginal tax rate have been shown time and again to increase revenues to the federal govt. There is now, and has been for a generation, out of control spending, entitlement attitudes, govt waste/fraud, and bloated inefficient and ineffective bureaucracies.

Rasing taxes on the producers of the nation- those who may actually hire the precious unemployed (btw how can anybody be unemployed? There are plenty of jobs, perhaps not the job somebody wants but there are plenty of jobs if somebody is willing to work)- is never the answer. Responsible budgeting, responsible spending, and quality control on the part of congress is the answer.

As for you Travis.... remember this as it relates to the two political parties and the poor. The Donks want the poor to vote and not work and the Conks want the poor to work and not vote.

Tax cuts for the rich isn't "giving" anybody anything. It is allowing people to keep their own money.

Unemployment benefits represent forceably taking money from some in order to give it to others.

It is amazing, to me, that this country has evolved into one in which people view individuals being able to keep more of what they earned "giving" something to them while it views reducing the amount of what is given to someone as who didn't earn it as "taking" something from him

We truely live in a sick culture. We really do.

GOP and Donks both love the Rich, but love the Poor votes.

blueballs wrote:Just remember folks, the American workers and producers of wealth are not undertaxed, and lower marginal tax rate have been shown time and again to increase revenues to the federal govt. There is now, and has been for a generation, out of control spending, entitlement attitudes, govt waste/fraud, and bloated inefficient and ineffective bureaucracies.

Rasing taxes on the producers of the nation- those who may actually hire the precious unemployed (btw how can anybody be unemployed? There are plenty of jobs, perhaps not the job somebody wants but there are plenty of jobs if somebody is willing to work)- is never the answer. Responsible budgeting, responsible spending, and quality control on the part of congress is the answer.

As for you Travis.... remember this as it relates to the two political parties and the poor. The Donks want the poor to vote and not work and the Conks want the poor to work and not vote.

Bingo. You have people on up to 99 weeks of unemployment who aren't going to take the lower paying jobs that are out there that don't pay near what they were making before that after taxes don't pay any more or not much more than unemployment whose avg check is $320 a week ($295 + $25 add on). Its cost the govt $145 billion annual rate the last quarter to pay unemployment bennies. Never in any past recessions has unemployment been extended this long. People can't stay on them forever. 99 weeks is more than enough.

BDKJMU wrote:

blueballs wrote:Just remember folks, the American workers and producers of wealth are not undertaxed, and lower marginal tax rate have been shown time and again to increase revenues to the federal govt. There is now, and has been for a generation, out of control spending, entitlement attitudes, govt waste/fraud, and bloated inefficient and ineffective bureaucracies.

Rasing taxes on the producers of the nation- those who may actually hire the precious unemployed (btw how can anybody be unemployed? There are plenty of jobs, perhaps not the job somebody wants but there are plenty of jobs if somebody is willing to work)- is never the answer. Responsible budgeting, responsible spending, and quality control on the part of congress is the answer.

As for you Travis.... remember this as it relates to the two political parties and the poor. The Donks want the poor to vote and not work and the Conks want the poor to work and not vote.

Bingo. You have people on up to 99 weeks of unemployment who aren't going to take lower paying jobs that after taxes don't pay any more or not much more than unemployment who avg check is $320 a week ($295 + $25 add on). Its cost the govt $145 billion annual rate the last quarter to pay unemployment bennies. People can't stay on them forever. 99 weeks is more than enough.

This $$ goes back into the economy when recipients pay bills. It also gets taxed at the federal level. Take it away, and people lose apartments and go into foreclosure on their homes. Most of these people had no freaking idea they would lose a job when they bought their homes, so one can't really blame them for "being stupid." People going homeless at some point become an even bigger drain on the system. Sure, I'd like to have a job already. Given equivalent pay, I'd MUCH rather be in the office. But one can't really take less $$ unless one is willing to risk bankruptcy.

Ninety-nine weeks is more than enough? Tell that to the companies who place statements in their job notices that essentially say "Don't even bother to apply if you're unemployed." CBS-13 has exposed that abhorrent practice twice in the last year.

THIS Republican says keep the unemployment benefits flowing until jobs start appearing. The costs on the back side of stopping them are WAY too high.

SuperHornet wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
Bingo. You have people on up to 99 weeks of unemployment who aren't going to take lower paying jobs that after taxes don't pay any more or not much more than unemployment who avg check is $320 a week ($295 + $25 add on). Its cost the govt $145 billion annual rate the last quarter to pay unemployment bennies. People can't stay on them forever. 99 weeks is more than enough.

This $$ goes back into the economy when recipients pay bills. It also gets taxed at the federal level. Take it away, and people lose apartments and go into foreclosure on their homes. Most of these people had no freaking idea they would lose a job when they bought their homes, so one can't really blame them for "being stupid." People going homeless at some point become an even bigger drain on the system. Sure, I'd like to have a job already. Given equivalent pay, I'd MUCH rather be in the office. But one can't really take less $$ unless one is willing to risk bankruptcy.

Ninety-nine weeks is more than enough? Tell that to the companies who place statements in their job notices that essentially say "Don't even bother to apply if you're unemployed." CBS-13 has exposed that abhorrent practice twice in the last year.

THIS Republican says keep the unemployment benefits flowing until jobs start appearing. The costs on the back side of stopping them are WAY too high.

Ok, the 1st $2400 in unemployment bennies (on top of other deductions & exemptions) is not taxable. After that it's taxable income.

Again, you missed the point. There are PLENTY of low paying jobs out there that pay about the same as unemployment. Yet you have millions of people collecting unemployment, sitting on their arses at homes checking a box every week or 2 saying yeah I'm looking for work. I don't blame them. I would sit at home on unemployment as long as I could at $300 something a week vs getting a job that paid $300, $400, even $500 a week.

Most people on unemployment in the years they were working have only paid enough unemployment taxes (them and their employers) to cover a few weeks or months of unemployment. Why after the standard 26 weeks people should have to do some type of work for their unemployment bennies.

Unfortunately, we have gone beyond the point where we can have the lifestyles we are accustomed to in the US without paying through the nose for them. Complaining that we would not be in the red if we did not spend oceans of money on social programs or the military does not solve the problem. The fact is that now, the note is owned by governments other than our own.

The first time someone explained 'the debt' to me when I was a kid, it was described as not being as bad as owing another person money, because we essentially owed it to ourselves. Part of the boom of the economy back just a few years ago was because there were other governments (mostly China) that were willing to purchase our greed, because they have a lot more foresight than we do. Coupled by the fact that China is not encumbered by populist or progressive pressure inside its own borders, you have a situation where a country can alter its own fiscal policy almost on a whim, buying the debt of a country that is chained to a stuck spending throttle.

There are only a couple options in the US (if you take away lower spending, because that is a pie in the sky option and will not happen) is more and higher taxes, OR a greatly lessened standard of living. We will most likely see a policticized and highly toxic combination of the two.

Enjoy.

The problem with your argument, JMU, is that you're assuming the availability of jobs. Particularly in Cali, that's not necessarily the case. Sure, eighteen months ago, one could make the decision to pass up a lesser paying job in hopes of getting a better one. That no longer applies. Jobs of ANY sort are NOT available, and what few jobs are available either explicitly exclude the unemployed from applying or merely tell them that they're not good enough to be considered, regardless of experience. That's the situation I've seen, both for what I've been trained in and for what I'm trying to get into. In addition, many employers don't even bother to call or write to reject. And that includes ubiquitous employers like pizza joints and grocery stores. A guy just can't get in the door. THAT's the problem.

Just saying: "Go get a job" is WAY too simplistic nowadays. As much as I as a conservative hate to admit it, unemployment benefits extended ad infinitum are a freaking NECESSITY. Not everyone on extended unemployment is trying to jerk the system.

SuperHornet wrote:The problem with your argument, JMU, is that you're assuming the availability of jobs. Particularly in Cali, that's not necessarily the case. Sure, eighteen months ago, one could make the decision to pass up a lesser paying job in hopes of getting a better one. That no longer applies. Jobs of ANY sort are NOT available, and what few jobs are available either explicitly exclude the unemployed from applying or merely tell them that they're not good enough to be considered, regardless of experience. That's the situation I've seen, both for what I've been trained in and for what I'm trying to get into. In addition, many employers don't even bother to call or write to reject. And that includes ubiquitous employers like pizza joints and grocery stores. A guy just can't get in the door. THAT's the problem.

Just saying: "Go get a job" is WAY too simplistic nowadays. As much as I as a conservative hate to admit it, unemployment benefits extended ad infinitum are a freaking NECESSITY. Not everyone on extended unemployment is trying to jerk the system.

But a lot of people are trying to jerk the system.

And your biggest problem is you are in the complete mess that is the socialist republic of California. You would have much better luck in many other states. You might want to try your luck in another state.

CID1990 wrote:Unfortunately, we have gone beyond the point where we can have the lifestyles we are accustomed to in the US without paying through the nose for them. Complaining that we would not be in the red if we did not spend oceans of money on social programs or the military does not solve the problem. The fact is that now, the note is owned by governments other than our own.

The first time someone explained 'the debt' to me when I was a kid, it was described as not being as bad as owing another person money, because we essentially owed it to ourselves. Part of the boom of the economy back just a few years ago was because there were other governments (mostly China) that were willing to purchase our greed, because they have a lot more foresight than we do. Coupled by the fact that China is not encumbered by populist or progressive pressure inside its own borders, you have a situation where a country can alter its own fiscal policy almost on a whim, buying the debt of a country that is chained to a stuck spending throttle.

There are only a couple options in the US (if you take away lower spending, because that is a pie in the sky option and will not happen) is more and higher taxes, OR a greatly lessened standard of living. We will most likely see a policticized and highly toxic combination of the two.

Enjoy.

Call me nieve, but I still believe that the American electorate can elect politicians who will if not put the breaks on the runaway spending train, can at least slow it down. There will be in the coming decades, as they say n Europe, austerity measures.

I agree on the 2nd point about the lower standard of living and increased taxes, although the electorate will only tolerate taxes going but so high.

There will be a painful generation of readjustment in this country, starting soon.

blueballs wrote:Just remember folks, the American workers and producers of wealth are not undertaxed, and lower marginal tax rate have been shown time and again to increase revenues to the federal govt.

According to what and whom? "Producers" have experienced low marginal taxes for 30 years and the wealth gap is increasing. And you can make an equal argument that they have benefited every bit as much from government largesse as workers.

When have lower top marginal tax rates been proven to increase revenues without the benefit of increased government spending?

CID1990 wrote:Unfortunately, we have gone beyond the point where we can have the lifestyles we are accustomed to in the US without paying through the nose for them. Complaining that we would not be in the red if we did not spend oceans of money on social programs or the military does not solve the problem. The fact is that now, the note is owned by governments other than our own.

The first time someone explained 'the debt' to me when I was a kid, it was described as not being as bad as owing another person money, because we essentially owed it to ourselves. Part of the boom of the economy back just a few years ago was because there were other governments (mostly China) that were willing to purchase our greed, because they have a lot more foresight than we do. Coupled by the fact that China is not encumbered by populist or progressive pressure inside its own borders, you have a situation where a country can alter its own fiscal policy almost on a whim, buying the debt of a country that is chained to a stuck spending throttle.

There are only a couple options in the US (if you take away lower spending, because that is a pie in the sky option and will not happen) is more and higher taxes, OR a greatly lessened standard of living. We will most likely see a policticized and highly toxic combination of the two.

Enjoy.

Good post. Are you still keeping my seat warm at the compound?

BDKJMU wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:The problem with your argument, JMU, is that you're assuming the availability of jobs. Particularly in Cali, that's not necessarily the case. Sure, eighteen months ago, one could make the decision to pass up a lesser paying job in hopes of getting a better one. That no longer applies. Jobs of ANY sort are NOT available, and what few jobs are available either explicitly exclude the unemployed from applying or merely tell them that they're not good enough to be considered, regardless of experience. That's the situation I've seen, both for what I've been trained in and for what I'm trying to get into. In addition, many employers don't even bother to call or write to reject. And that includes ubiquitous employers like pizza joints and grocery stores. A guy just can't get in the door. THAT's the problem.

Just saying: "Go get a job" is WAY too simplistic nowadays. As much as I as a conservative hate to admit it, unemployment benefits extended ad infinitum are a freaking NECESSITY. Not everyone on extended unemployment is trying to jerk the system.

But a lot of people are trying to jerk the system.

And your biggest problem is you are in the complete mess that is the socialist republic of California. You would have much better luck in many other states. You might want to try your luck in another state.

I would consider that if a job were available that would allow me to adequately house myself and my cats and pay bills PLUS pay my moving costs. Unfortunately, I can't even afford a trip to SD or LA to see friends. I had to call off a trip to test for a job in Barstow. Previously, I wouldn't have made payment of moving costs a requirement, but now I have no choice....

kalm wrote: When have lower top marginal tax rates been proven to increase revenues without the benefit of increased government spending?

During the Harding Administration. The top marginal tax rates went from 73% under Wilson to 25% under Harding while government spending was cut by over half.

We need another Warren Harding.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote: When have lower top marginal tax rates been proven to increase revenues without the benefit of increased government spending?

During the Harding Administration. The top marginal tax rates went from 73% under Wilson to 25% under Harding while government spending was cut by over half.

We need another Warren Harding.

What happened later that decade.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: During the Harding Administration. The top marginal tax rates went from 73% under Wilson to 25% under Harding while government spending was cut by over half.

We need another Warren Harding.

What happened later that decade.

The Federal Reserve caused a run on the banks which caused a stock market crash which created a depression that FDR turned into a Great Depression.
What happened before Harding took office?