US senator single-handedly freezes unemployment payment

Originally posted by Maxmars
I know we are out of money, and I know that we will not be covered; but I resent the characterization that this is some kind of charitable handout when I have paid into it all my working life.

Quite true! I see deductions right in my paycheck, and look, this money is real. I get that much less.

reply to post by dariousg


Your point is valid in some respects, though as I have said above, why do the people of the USA (or any other country for that matter) have ti bite the bullet when the government of the USA (or any other) is financially involved in matters outside of the realm of the general public.

We all pay taxes for many reasons.. we all end up supporting things we disagree with yet are forced, by law, to pay taxes.

Why is it that over a million people should face hunger and homelessness in the 'land of the free' where dreams are supposed to come true.. where people fought for their independence...

Where is this independence when you have a government that cuts off your hand so it can feed itself in order to maintain issues far away from home...

like these two prime issues right here;
US opens new Iraq embassy

In recent weeks U.S. diplomats have gradually moved into the $592 million newly-built compound, the world's largest U.S. embassy building

and/or

the three trillion dollar war

The Bush Administration was wrong about the benefits of the war and it was wrong about the costs of the war. The president and his advisers expected a quick, inexpensive conflict. Instead, we have a war that is costing more than anyone could have imagined.

The cost of direct US military operations - not even including long-term costs such as taking care of wounded veterans - already exceeds the cost of the 12-year war in Vietnam and is more than double the cost of the Korean War.

And, even in the best case scenario, these costs are projected to be almost ten times the cost of the first Gulf War, almost a third more than the cost of the Vietnam War, and twice that of the First World War. The only war in our history which cost more was the Second World War, when 16.3 million U.S. troops fought in a campaign lasting four years, at a total cost (in 2007 dollars, after adjusting for inflation) of about $5 trillion (that's $5 million million, or £2.5 million million). With virtually the entire armed forces committed to fighting the Germans and Japanese, the cost per troop (in today's dollars) was less than $100,000 in 2007 dollars. By contrast, the Iraq war is costing upward of $400,000 per troop.

And these are old stories.. It seems we have forgotten these reports, forgotten the amounts involved in something that millions of people around the globe marched in protest against.. a costly war.

Somebody needs to get their priorities straight (not meaning you) in order for the USA, the UK and Greece (possibly many others too) to actually balance the books and have a sense of responsibility.

It is our responsibilty to put food on the table. If we can afford it, create work for ourselves and others or to be employed by others.

The governments were quick to bail out the banks with tax payers money to the sum of ...
1.5 trillion (UK)
upwards of 400 billion (USA)

The following information may be the most important we have ever published. One of our Intel sources, highly placed in banking circles, tells us that on 1/1/10 all banks that have received TARP funds have been informed by the Federal Reserve that they must further restrict any commercial lending. Loans have to be 75% collateralized, 50% of which has to be in cash, which is a compensating balance.

The Fed has to do one of two things: They either have to pull $1.5 trillion out of the system by June, which would collapse the economy, or face hyperinflation. This is why the Fed has instructed banks to inform them when and how much of the TARP funds they can return. At best they can expect $300 to $400 billion plus the $200 billion the Fed already has in hand.

We believe the Fed will opt for letting the system run into hyperinflation. All signs tell us they cannot risk allowing the undertow of deflation to take over the economy. The system cannot stand such a withdrawal of funds. They also must depend on assistance from Congress in supplying a second stimulus plan. That would probably be $400 to $800 billion. A lack of such funding would send the economy and the stock market into a tailspin. Even with such funding the economy cannot expect any growth to speak of and at best a sideways movement for perhaps a year.

We have been told that the FDIC not only is $8.2 billion in the hole, but they have secretly borrowed an additional $80 billion from the Treasury. We have also been told that the FDIC is lying about the banks in trouble. The number in eminent danger are not 552, but a massive 2,035. The cost of bailing these banks out would be $800 billion to $1 trillion. That means 2,500 could be closed in 2010. Now get this, the FDIC is going to be collapsed before the end of 2010, which means no more deposit insurance. This follows the 9/18/09 end of government guarantees on money market funds. Both will force deposits into US government bonds and agency bonds in an attempt to save the system.

Where and when will it all end? And how?

Seems to be some very nervous people out there..

Edit to add this bit of info

Afghan conflict in numbers

£12bn

Overall cost of Afghan campaign since 2001. Could have paid for 60,000 teachers, 77,000 nurses or 23 hospitals

400%

Increase in MoD spending on Afghanistan, 2006/07 to 2009/10

30,000

Estimate of the number of Afghan civilians killed as a result of the conflict

189

UK service personnel killed in Afghanistan since 2001. The latest death was confirmed yesterday

150%

Increase in Afghan opium production, 2001-07

£100

Average weekly war pension entitlement of widow/widower

4m

Bullets fired by UK forces in Helmand, Aug 2006-Sept 2007.

www.independent.co.uk...



[edit on 2-3-2010 by Extralien]

Even more reason why the wars need to stop. This country has reached the point to where we need to stop funding and fighting the world and focus on America and it's people.

Sorry, end of rant. Carry on...

[edit on 2-3-2010 by LuckyStrike]

reply to post by LuckyStrike


Sadly, the wars are the domain of the transnational banking cartel and their military industrial complex.

It will not be up to us when or if they end. Unless we start protesting of course, because even career politicians can be frightened...

and in the end - we outnumber them greatly.

But this is OT so forgive me.

I for one am glad that he did it, not because I am heartless or I want people to starve, but because this country is almost bankrupt. This senator did this not to actually stop benefits but to prove a point about the healthcare bill.

The country can not continue to spend money that it does not have, or we may all end up going hungry. It is now time for our leaders to make hard decisions and he seems willing to do it.

However, I do feel he took his stand in the wrong way, they should be cancelling welfare, social security, and medicad. You know, all of the socialist ideals.

BTW-Social Security and medicad are now the two largest budget items in the US budget, and they are both bankrupt. God help us all when those freaking morons in washington pass this health care crap they want so bad.

reply to post by LuckyStrike


The defense budget is smaller than either Medicad, or Social Security. Maybe those are the things we need to stop

reply to post by buddhasystem


KNOW WHAT YOU ARE PAYING BEFORE COMMENTING. PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS DO NOT PAY INTO UNEMPLOYMENT. EMPLOYERS DO. AND THE AMOUNT THEY PAY IS BASED ON THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT THEY HAVE LAID OFF OVER A PERIOD OF TIME.

While my heart aches for those that are currently losing their benefits due to the musings of one lone senator, I frankly think this is what this country needs right now.

First, keep in mind that Senator Bunning is not fighting the extension because he doesn't want it, but rather because Congress has not found a way to pay for it.

Two entirely different things. Bunning is simply asking for Obama to hold true to the law that he supported and signed, "pay-as-you-go". Period.

Having said that, and reading through everyone's replies, there seems to be a general consensus, at least among ATS members, that the US spends way too much money on wars and military and not nearly enough on its own citizens.

Now, so long as everyone that is supposed to continues to receive their checks, in full amount and on time, nobody will wake-up to the fact that we are wasting trillions of taxpayers dollars. Rather, so long as they get theirs, they will not fight to correct an obviously broken system.

Perhaps if millions of Americans do lose their benefits, food stamps, etc., then perhaps people will find a reason to actually be upset. At least then the hypocrisy of the federal government's spending will be at the forefront of the battle to reign in what has quickly become a dysfunctional administration.

This is certainly a backwards approach and it saddens me to think that we are unable to actually get off our tails and do something to fix our country. A country that more than 67% of Americans think is broken.

But I will say this, if there is one thing that is capable of waking up the masses, it will be their inability to pick up their check and continue to eat McDonald's and watch American Idol.

Somebody should freeze jim bunnings salary!!! Thats adding to the deflict too! Our tax dollars pay for his beer.

reply to post by deltaalphanovember


but isnt road tax meant to pay for road maintenance?

reply to post by butcherguy

Paygo right after all the bailouts....figures....bankers get rich...people that pay the taxes get paygo. Are they trying to cheese people off?

There is money available to continue the unemployment payments. It's called the Stimulus Bill, it was passed 1 year ago and there is still plenty of money that has not been spent yet.

Senator Bunning suggested using the Stimulas money for this, and the Democrats rejected this idea.

Why pass another spending bill, when there is still money available from a previous one? Why would Democrats be opposed to that?

Originally posted by slitterpig
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Paygo right after all the bailouts....figures....bankers get rich...people that pay the taxes get paygo. Are they trying to cheese people off?

Yeah!
His Paygo is just that.... Talk.

They do cheese us off all the time, but that is not what they are trying to do.

Most of the folks in Washington D.C. are just trying to line their pockets!

reply to post by russ212


That is right. Private individuals do not pay into the unemployment system unless they are self employed and set up and account for such purposes.

While I am against increased government spending in all forms (yes, that includes both entitlement spending and military spending), it is important to present the objective facts here.

I am sure that many of you assume that the Senator in question is singlehandedly denying some entitlement that you rightfully feel to be theirs. Were this the case (and assuming that everyone in question has any sort of right or claim to increased unemployment benefits), we would be looking at a clear cut case of abuse of power.

However, what most fail to notice is that Sen. Bunning isn't "filibustering" or even really holding anything up; he's simply requesting a debate. When the Senate wishes to expedite the passage of some agenda item, usually one that is routine and uncontroversial, a Senator can call for passage of said item by unanimous consent instead of by a floor vote preceded by debate. Bunning feels this issue needs to be debated; there is little doubt that the bill would pass if it were voted on normally.

This situation could have already ended, but the likes of Sen. Reid have decided to use this opportunity to make Bunning (and presumably, other Senate Republicans) look heartless. It's political pageantry on both sides; Bunning picked this issue to make a stand, and Senate Democrats have decided to drag this out (to the detriment of those they are so desperate to help, of course) to make Republicans look bad.

Originally posted by LuckyStrike
Even more reason why the wars need to stop. This country has reached the point to where we need to stop funding and fighting the world and focus on America and it's people.
Sorry, end of rant. Carry on...

Rant on to your reps in Congress.

Most of you don't seem to even understand what is going on with this bill and why Bunning voted no. This bill was to extend benefits for those that have been unemployed for 18-24 months, not everyone on unemployment. Also the reason he voted no was because the Democrats promised no new spending bills without a corresponding spending cut or tax increase to pay for it. This is what Obama referred to a 'pay-go'. Remember? No new spending that adds to the deficit. So, Reid chose to try to pass this bill with an unanimous consent provision, meaning one person could block it. Pretty simple, Reid can have this bill passed by putting it through normal channels, but he doesn't want to do that since people will have to vote for a bill that is exactly against the pay-go provisions that he promised and voted for. Bunning is forcing the bill to be amended so it doesn't add to the deficit, or forcing Reid to be accountable for his bills and promises. He just promised only pay-go financing of bills, then tried to immediately go against it.

Originally posted by pumpkinorange

Originally posted by LuckyStrike
Even more reason why the wars need to stop. This country has reached the point to where we need to stop funding and fighting the world and focus on America and it's people.
Sorry, end of rant. Carry on...

Rant on to your reps in Congress.

Been there and done that...and will continue to.

reply to post by Extralien


He wants it paid for. Nothing wrong with expecting the feds to actually watch OUR money before spending it.

Originally posted by lpowell0627
Bunning is simply asking for Obama to hold true to the law that he supported and signed, "pay-as-you-go". Period.

President Obama outlandishly "scored points" with the American public by championing the "pay as you go" rule for congressional spending. But on health care and the legislation at-hand as two examples, he is chastizing those trying to do just this.

Look with your own eyes:
From the White House we have hot air and DECEIT.

"Weekly WH Address: Pay As You Go"


Obama Pitches Play-as-You-Go Plan for Congress"