HuffPo : Sen. Bunning Gives the Finger to America

[Bruno]

ht tp://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-scher/sen-jim-bunning-literally_b_481216.html


The exploitation of the Senate rules to obstruct the majority will has reach it's inevitable but inane endpoint.

Sen. Jim Bunning has single-handedly forced the furlough of 2,000 transportation workers and cut off hundreds of thousands unemployed Americans from critical assistance -- benefits that stimulate the overall economy for everyone.

That's what happens when the congressional minority filibusters at a "record-setting pace" to make it impossible to govern. People lose jobs.

The White House is seeking to step up the pressure on Bunning.. CQ Politics reports that "Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Congress must stop playing 'political games' and pointed the finger at Sen. Jim Bunning , R-Ky. ... [His office] released a state-by-state list of federal lands construction projects that are affected -- a list designed to catch lawmakers' attention. The projects span 17 states, as well as Washington, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands."

What's the response from Senate Republicans today? Are they pressuring Bunning to stop? Apparently not. According to CQ Politics, they're trying to shift blame to House Democrats for not immediately passing the Senate jobs bill, which has nothing to do with the damage Bunning's filibuster has already caused.

What was Sen. Bunning's response to this today? To flash his middle finger to an ABC reporter asking him questions.

Seriously.

What can you do to help jack up the pressure?

Campaign for America's Future is calling on the Senate Republican leadership to rein in their reckless filibusterer. We've created a Twitter-based petition at http://act.ly/1qo that allows Twitter users to tell the Senate Republican leadership directly: "stop holding unemployed Americans hostage to your obstruction agenda."

The cruel and callous obstructionist tactics must end if we are to put America back to work and start governing our country like adults.

Originally posted at OurFuture.org

UPDATE: Now Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, minutes ago on the floor, is making it clear that they side against extending aid to the jobless: "It could be argued it [unemployment insurance] is a disincentive for work because people are being paid even though they are not working." More here.

[RM918]

This is an unfortunate too little, too late scenario. If only he were so dedicated to fiscal responsibility when the laws were passed in the first place. If you're going to end welfare, your stance against it needs to be consistent and you can't do it in one fell swoop. Everyone just sees him as some crazy old man preventing them from getting their handouts. Until that attitude is changed, he's just hurting the cause.

[lester1/2jr]

bunning said he wanted the bil to go foerward but he wanted somethign cut to pay for it. if it's so important cut something sheesh

[Bruno]

Top of Drudge now

[AuH20]

PAY-GO! Let's have the discussion America!

[dannno]

if it's so important cut something sheesh

Seriously, if it's THAT important, then out of the trillions of dollars spent each year you'd think they could find something.. but no, they are too damn busy blaming Bunning.

If it was my unemployment benefits being cut off, I'd be upset at the rest of the Senate, not Bunning. RM918 does have some sense in their post, but given that Bunning gave the ultimatum between cutting benefits and cutting something, ANYTHING else, Bunning wins.

[CUnknown]

Yeah, this is not the way to balance the budget. Making unemployed people pay for the free-spending ways of Congress is cruel. I'll be happy to see Bunning go.

[specsaregood]

Yeah, this is not the way to balance the budget. Making unemployed people pay for the free-spending ways of Congress is cruel. I'll be happy to see Bunning go.

This has NOTHING to do with balancing the budget. This has EVERYTHING to do with forcing the senate to follow their own law they just passed 2 weeks ago. So you don't think the Senate should have to follow their own laws? Hell they got enough positive press over it, time to pay the piper.

[AuH20]

common sense from the San Francisco Chronicle:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/01/EDEV1C930S.DTL


A month ago, Democrats were suggesting the Repubs were phony tightwads for not joining them in support of paygo. It turns out, paygo is the phony. Two weeks after it became law, the Senate passed a $15 billion jobs bill exempt from paygo. Now Bunning is not budging. As spokesman Mike Reynard put it, "If everyone's serious about paygo, let's act like it."

I used to like the concept, and remember arguing with Brian Riedl of the libertarian-leaning Heritage Foundation. But he was right. As he said Monday, "Paygo exists as a talking point in order to create the illusion of fiscal responsibility while they're ignoring it. It's designed for TV ads."

And: "The offsets are out there. Congress just has to make a difficult decision for once."

[mczerone]

In the midst of a great budget crisis D.C. is expanding unfunded liabilities by making more promises?

If I'd been collecting unemployment for 6 mos, and my cut off date was coming up, I'd certainly take that as a deadline to find other income. That people were unable to do so doesn't in any way mean that the unemployment payments should be extended.

If D.C. really cared, they'd end the minimum wage so that these people without incomes could do marginal jobs while looking for something better. But they don't care about the poor, they only care about the Labor Unions. And supporting those that have been laid off due to managed trade agreements and unnatural production schedules is priority number one, lest the proles catch on to who put them out of a job.

[j6p]

Jim bunning is no friend of liberty. Too bad he didnt do this when Bush was in office passing bills for the Iraq war. He voted for the Iraq war and funding. This why it's making him look bad. Rand will do a much better job.

[specsaregood]

Jim bunning is no friend of liberty. Too bad he didnt do this when Bush was in office passing bills for the Iraq war. He voted for the Iraq war and funding. This why it's making him look bad. Rand will do a much better job.

Yes he should have, BUT that is irrelevant to the point he is making.
Was PAYGO in effect at the time? It is now, passed 2 weeks ago. He is objecting solely on the grounds of the NEW paygo law. Since that law did not exist at the time of all those votes he successfully avoids the hipocrit charge.

[Aratus]

the middle digit flipped to the ABC cub reporter and or otherwise... what
would the D.C media say if senator bunning runs for governor in 2011???
i sorta sense he is actually playing up to people high up in the hills with this...

[charrob]

If I'd been collecting unemployment for 6 mos, and my cut off date was coming up, I'd certainly take that as a deadline to find other income. That people were unable to do so doesn't in any way mean that the unemployment payments should be extended.

That's extremely harsh.

[devil21]

So Congress' solution is to scrap the $10B bill and vote on a $150B "jobs" (stimulus) bill on Friday, that includes the same extended UE benefits, retroactively even, and a whole mess of other wasteful garbage spending.

Gotta love these jokers.

[Bruno]

That's extremely harsh.

How long do we keep extending the deadlines? In Drug War terms, aren't we "sending the wrong message" to people that we will just keep extending the deadlines, borrowing against our future to keep paying out unemployment? At the rate we have lost jobs, it may take a decade for them to return.

Where do we draw the already-extended line?

[charrob]

How long do we keep extending the deadlines? In Drug War terms, aren't we "sending the wrong message" to people that we will just keep extending the deadlines, borrowing against our future to keep paying out unemployment? At the rate we have lost jobs, it may take a decade for them to return.

Where do we draw the already-extended line?

tent cities in America: http://www.youtube.com/watch#playnext=1&playnext_from=TL&videos=gxGNRfZKkm4&v=HVwG01-bogE

I don't know except that, thanks to the taxpayer, there's an awful lot of Goldman Sachs employees who have money they don't deserve and money they will never use.

[Bruno]

tent cities in America: http://www.youtube.com/watch#playnext=1&playnext_from=TL&videos=gxGNRfZKkm4&v=HVwG01-bogE

I don't know except that, thanks to the taxpayer, there's an awful lot of Goldman Sachs employees who have money they don't deserve and money they will never use.

I don't watch Oprah, and I didn't support funneling money to GS either

[charrob]

I don't watch Oprah, and I didn't support funneling money to GS either

there's a ton of non-Oprah tent-city videos on youtube...i just picked one and it happened to be her.

what is GS?

in any case, the alternative is to watch people starve. -guess you're okay with that... :rolleyes:

[Bruno]

there's a ton of non-Oprah tent-city videos on youtube...i just picked one and it happened to be her.

what is GS?

in any case, the alternative is to watch people starve. -guess you're okay with that... :rolleyes:

Goldman Sachs.

I know what tent cities look like, I can drive by our river downtown and see them without searching on youtube.

No, I don't want people to starve. :rolleyes: I want them to rely more on themselves, their families, their churches, their community, and less on our tax dollars (or more correctly, the tax dollars of my son who hasn't even started working yet).

I was unemployed in 2007, too. I took a job I didn't really want, making 1/4 the pay I was used to. I made changes to my budget and lifestyle, and kept looking. thankfully I found something better. Sometimes you have to change careers, work three part-time jobs at little pay, change your family budget, or even more to a different part of the country where better opportunities exist.

Continually extending unemployment benefits helps and hinders at the same time.

[charrob]

Goldman Sachs.

I know what tent cities look like, I can drive by our river downtown and see them without searching on youtube.

No, I don't want people to starve. :rolleyes: I want them to rely more on themselves, their families, their churches, their community, and less on our tax dollars (or more correctly, the tax dollars of my son who hasn't even started working yet).

I was unemployed in 2007, too. I took a job I didn't really want, making 1/4 the pay I was used to. I made changes to my budget and lifestyle, and kept looking. thankfully I found something better. Sometimes you have to change careers, work three part-time jobs at little pay, change your family budget, or even more to a different part of the country where better opportunities exist.

Continually extending unemployment benefits helps and hinders at the same time.

I know; I'd rather see people rely more on themselves, their families, their churches and their community too-- my worry is that some people are unable to get support from these mechanisms and have tried unsuccessfully to find work.

My anger is for the politicians that have supported NAFTA, WTO and who rail against tariffs, which might be the only way to get good jobs back into our country.

I started work in the 1970's and right out of high school got good union wages at a local factory job. I worked there till I saved enough $ for college. But today things are different: these union jobs have left the country. Kids today graduate from high school and they're never going to save enough to go to college by working at McDonalds.

Our country has totally screwed the lower class and the fact that we've now got boatloads of illegal Mexicans and their anchor babies in this country that these people have to compete with has only made their situations worse.

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't want to see anybody go hungry.

[Bruno]

I know; I'd rather see people rely more on themselves, their families, their churches and their community too-- my worry is that some people are unable to get support from these mechanisms and have tried unsuccessfully to find work.

My anger is for the politicians that have supported NAFTA, WTO and who rail against tariffs, which might be the only way to get good jobs back into our country.

I started work in the 1970's and right out of high school got good union wages at a local factory job. I worked there till I saved enough $ for college. But today things are different: these union jobs have left the country. Kids today graduate from high school and they're never going to save enough to go to college by working at McDonalds.

Our country has totally screwed the lower class and the fact that we've now got boatloads of illegal Mexicans and their anchor babies in this country that these people have to compete with has only made their situations worse.

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't want to see anybody go hungry.

I can related to your anger at the politicians that have supporting programs that got us into this mess. There are a slew of them, including government-backed student loans that help colleges to increase their tuition making that higher education even more expensive.

I don't want to see people go hungry either. One local school here has 48% of students on government-reduced or free lunch programs already. Odds are that we are subsidizing a good portion of those kids (and their parents) to get cell phones and other non-necessities since the gold ol'government is now taking care of their food costs. It encourages a lack of responsibility from generation to generation. And I know some kids get their only source of nutrition from the school lunch program, because they either have crappy parents or simply parents with very low incomes that deserve it. (my brothers and I got free lunches and government cheeses, so I can relate to both sides of the issue).

[Chester Copperpot]

amazingly I actually got thru to BUnnings office.. (for the last day the line has been off the hook it seems).. Even the regional offices are either, busy, dont answer, or respond with full voice mail.

A lady actually answered on my last attempt at the DC office and I let her know I support the Senator's stand against the wasteful govt spending and that alot of other people are behind him..

Im sure theyve been getting inundated with quite the opposite response

[SelfTaught]

in any case, the alternative is to watch people starve. -guess you're okay with that... :rolleyes:

Liberal!!!!

[Fox McCloud]

My anger is for the politicians that have supported NAFTA, WTO and who rail against tariffs, which might be the only way to get good jobs back into our country.

I started work in the 1970's and right out of high school got good union wages at a local factory job. I worked there till I saved enough $ for college. But today things are different: these union jobs have left the country. Kids today graduate from high school and they're never going to save enough to go to college by working at McDonalds.

Whoah, whoah, whoah.

It's fine to rail against NAFTA and the WTO because they're managed trade agreements, but it's a bad idea to rail against tariffs and free trade (which is what I suspect you're doing).

Free trade is a net benefit to society that increase our standard of living and productivity overall--it doesn't set us back.

better to specialize in the one thing that you're good at than work on everything under the sun in the name of "economic diversity", as it yields more wealth for society at large.

As for union jobs? Thankfully the amount of people who are members of a union have dropped drastically over the years (from 30% down to, IIRC, 10%)--while a union can serve a legitimate function, the vast majority do not; the seek to raise wages to unrealistic (ie: non-market) levels, which, in turn, causes unemployment for other workers in the US.

one of the reasons college is so expensive is thanks to a plethora of education regulations, the fact that student loans are backed by the government, and all the public student aid out there. Combined with inflation, this pushes the cost of education skyward each year. It's not a market problem; it's a government problem.

[dean.engelhardt]

BTW, What constitutional authority does congress have to put the American people $10B more in debt to pay for a third year of unemployment benefits? If our federal government had a surplus to afford it, it would be a different story.

Considering there are babies born today >$180,000 in debt, thanks to our government, is it really a bad thing that we can only get 2 years worth of unemployment? There's alot of better places to cut spending, but there can be no sacred cows with the debt we have.

We keep exempting everything from budget cuts and our debt keeps skyrocketing. The debt will eventually be liquidated along with the value of our U.S. dollar. Then the ideal of providing 3 years of unemployment benefits won't seem so lofty.

[Aratus]

there is a 3:03 p.m story whereby mitch mcConnell seyz the bill
senator bunning is filibustering on is about to pass real soon, now...

[mczerone]

I know; I'd rather see people rely more on themselves, their families, their churches and their community too-- my worry is that some people are unable to get support from these mechanisms and have tried unsuccessfully to find work.

My anger is for the politicians that have supported NAFTA, WTO and who rail against tariffs, which might be the only way to get good jobs back into our country.

I started work in the 1970's and right out of high school got good union wages at a local factory job. I worked there till I saved enough $ for college. But today things are different: these union jobs have left the country. Kids today graduate from high school and they're never going to save enough to go to college by working at McDonalds.

Our country has totally screwed the lower class and the fact that we've now got boatloads of illegal Mexicans and their anchor babies in this country that these people have to compete with has only made their situations worse.

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't want to see anybody go hungry.

So lets extend your tax burden to keep bureaucrats employed, deny your efforts to support charities of your choice, and make even more people dependent on self-serving politicos.

Tariffs don't help.

Your take on immigration is overly stereotyped, and misleading.

I had a suggestion about what the answer is, but you said it was harsh and dismissed it. I don't want people to go hungry either, but by socializing the losses, we'll all be forced to go hungry together (save the enlightened D.C. redistributionists, who always take their cut first).

[SelfTaught]

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't want to see anybody go hungry.

You're looking at it from one side of the equation. You may not want to see anybody go hungry but I don't want to see government stealing money from one person and giving it to another.

[charrob]

So lets extend your tax burden to keep bureaucrats employed, deny your efforts to support charities of your choice, and make even more people dependent on self-serving politicos.

Tariffs don't help.

Your take on immigration is overly stereotyped, and misleading.

I had a suggestion about what the answer is, but you said it was harsh and dismissed it. I don't want people to go hungry either, but by socializing the losses, we'll all be forced to go hungry together (save the enlightened D.C. redistributionists, who always take their cut first).

Tariffs _DO_ help. You're a conservative: listen to Pat Buchanan or Lou Dobbs when it comes to tariffs if you don't believe me. BTW: many of the Founders believed in Tariffs.

My take on immigration is _NOT_ stereotyped. Even sales people at a local home depot have, as their first language, spanish because most customers in that store are spanish. You "say" you worry about taxes??? Do you have any idea how much of your taxes is going to these people??? I've got a real fast solution to helping our debt: bring the troops home and have them round up all these people and their anchor babies and escort them back to their home countries.

I read your "suggestion", and I don't buy it: your suggestion is to get rid of the minimum wage?!!? You call that a suggestion? So to compete with China, lets lower our living standards to be like theirs? Brilliant Einstein.

There's ways to save money without hurting the most vulnerable of Americans: Number 1: get rid of the illegal immigrants and their anchor babies. Number 2: get rid of The Federal Reserve. Number 3: get rid of The Department of Education. Number 4: get rid of The Department of Homeland Security. I'd stop ___ALL___ aid to foreign countries. Any couple who accept government handouts and have at least one child when they receive those handouts must get fixed so they don't have anymore children. No more federal money going to aids babies in hospitals that are going to die anyway.

[Bruno]

Tariffs _DO_ help. You're a conservative: listen to Pat Buchanan or Lou Dobbs when it comes to tariffs if you don't believe me. BTW: many of the Founders believed in Tariffs.

My take on immigration is _NOT_ stereotyped. Even sales people at a local home depot have, as their first language, spanish because most customers in that store are spanish. You "say" you worry about taxes??? Do you have any idea how much of your taxes is going to these people??? I've got a real fast solution to helping our debt: bring the troops home and have them round up all these people and their anchor babies and escort them back to their home countries.

I read your "suggestion", and I don't buy it: your suggestion is to get rid of the minimum wage?!!? You call that a suggestion? So to compete with China, lets lower our living standards to be like theirs? Brilliant Einstein.

There's ways to save money without hurting the most vulnerable of Americans: Number 1: get rid of the illegal immigrants and their anchor babies. Number 2: get rid of The Federal Reserve. Number 3: get rid of The Department of Education. Number 4: get rid of The Department of Homeland Security. I'd stop ___ALL___ aid to foreign countries. Any couple who accept government handouts and have at least one child when they receive those handouts must get fixed so they don't have anymore children. No more federal money going to aids babies in hospitals that are going to die anyway.

And you said mczerone's comment was harsh? alrighty then

[Fox McCloud]

Tariffs _DO_ help. You're a conservative: listen to Pat Buchanan or Lou Dobbs when it comes to tariffs if you don't believe me. BTW: many of the Founders believed in Tariffs.


No, they do not; they end up hurting us more than helping. They end up costing the consumer more out of pocket for goods and services--it's basically a type of subsidy that's applied to in-country businesses. You should try researching free trade some time at www.mises.org.

[nobody's_hero]

I'm tired of the majority whining because they thought they could do whatever they want by having 51 seats in the Senate. The Democrats honestly think that we live in a democracy, where 51% can strip the other 49% of their rights (don't get me wrong, the Republicans do it as well).

The problem is that the magic number isn't 51 Senate seats. It isn't 61 to beat a fillibuster.

It's 66.67(%) of both houses, and 3/4 of the states, because they're really supposed to make an amendment to pass this unconstitutional nonsense.

[devil21]

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't want to see anybody go hungry.

If there's one thing I doubt we'll ever see, it's anybody truly going "hungry". Let's keep in mind that our version of "hunger" is laughable compared to people in Africa or even China. Have you checked the waist sizes of the average American lately? Even the poorest people are quite well fed in this country thanks to soup kitchens, churches, and just plain charitable actions of others.

Here's what I'd like to see. Go ahead and extend food stamps but make the money good only for healthy products like vegetables and milk, not chips and soda. Go back to the days of the card that could ONLY be used on "approved" items. No more blank checks to buy whatever you want or just take ATM cash. Extend unemployment pay but start REDUCING the amount every "pay day" so there's no incentive to sit around collecting the check endlessly. No free health coverage ever. I'm self employed and no one is helping me pay my health care costs because I don't qualify for them. If my business dries up then I am SOL. How is that fair? Anybody collecting these benefits should be forced to work for the locality they live in, doing things like picking up trash, planting trees, washing police cars and ambulances or something else to repay these benefits in the form of their labor. Watch them start taking any job they can find to avoid this sort of work.

The bottom line is that most of the these people collecting into their second year of UE benefits have long since gotten back what they put into that system. They are now leeches. I think it's safe to assume that the jobs aren't "coming back" so we are on a trend of just giving people money to do NOTHING. Where's the incentive to kick start that American Ingenuity, that helped build this country, when people don't even have to get off the couch? Gotta be hard to pull yourself away from the free chips and free cable tv. It's a very bad road we are heading down and I give Bunning praise for being that one Senator that said "Enough!" Sadly, the rest of Congress villifies him and is going to pass the bill regardless, just with a whole lot more "Free Stuff" for the lazy masses.

[charrob]

No, they do not; they end up hurting us more than helping. They end up costing the consumer more out of pocket for goods and services--it's basically a type of subsidy that's applied to in-country businesses. You should try researching free trade some time at www.mises.org.

Here's a video on Free Trade with Pat Buchanan in it. imho this is what has hurt our country and destroyed our good jobs that once provided a 'living wage'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch#playnext=1&playnext_from=TL&videos=814GdI03raI&v=HWArvnH1GUA

[charrob]

And you said mczerone's comment was harsh? alrighty then

point taken. i've been accused of being a 'tax and spend' liberal, and this was stated to make a point that there are things that the U.S. taxpayer is paying for that seems "out of bounds" for everybody.

since no jobs are being created, it's almost like a death sentence to cut a person's unemployment benefits until this country can start creating jobs again. if i had to choose between starving a human being who lost his job or not having my federal tax money go to extend the life of an aids baby who is born and will die in a hospital ward, i would choose to help the guy who can't find a job until jobs start getting created again.

i'm not saying the baby should be in any pain: give it morphine or whatever of course; however these babies are born hooked to tubes and life support and they suffer horribly until they die in that same ward, despite extension of their life. it's cruel to extend their life artificially like that imho. and to do it with federal tax dollars just seems wrong.

[The Patriot]

I know; I'd rather see people rely more on themselves, their families, their churches and their community too-- my worry is that some people are unable to get support from these mechanisms and have tried unsuccessfully to find work.

My anger is for the politicians that have supported NAFTA, WTO and who rail against tariffs, which might be the only way to get good jobs back into our country.

I started work in the 1970's and right out of high school got good union wages at a local factory job. I worked there till I saved enough $ for college. But today things are different: these union jobs have left the country. Kids today graduate from high school and they're never going to save enough to go to college by working at McDonalds.

Our country has totally screwed the lower class and the fact that we've now got boatloads of illegal Mexicans and their anchor babies in this country that these people have to compete with has only made their situations worse.

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't want to see anybody go hungry.
Tariffs result in higher prices, that negatively effects the middle and working class. Higher prices on goods also hurts small businesses who have to spend more capital on high priced goods and less money on job growth, or wage raises or business expansion. Higher prices result in more debt and less savings. Tariffs also result in capital being misallocated to inefficient businesses by propping them up with taxpayer money. It also stifles foreign investment. Instead of foreign capital being invested in America, it is given to the federal government in taxes. It also prohibits American companies with a comparative advantage(Medical Technology, Civilian Aircraft) from growing and competing for foreign consumers.

The way to bring more business to America is to eliminate the capital gains tax and the corporate tax. With a little fiscal discipline, and some cuts to discretionary spending(not entitlements or defense), we could afford eliminating entirely corporate taxes or capital gains. We need to encouraged corporations to set up here and invest here.

[The Patriot]

point taken. i've been accused of being a 'tax and spend' liberal, and this was stated to make a point that there are things that the U.S. taxpayer is paying for that seems "out of bounds" for everybody.

since no jobs are being created, it's almost like a death sentence to cut a person's unemployment benefits until this country can start creating jobs again. if i had to choose between starving a human being who lost his job or not having my federal tax money go to extend the life of an aids baby who is born and will die in a hospital ward, i would choose to help the guy who can't find a job until jobs start getting created again.

i'm not saying the baby should be in any pain: give it morphine or whatever of course; however these babies are born hooked to tubes and life support and they suffer horribly until they die in that same ward, despite extension of their life. it's cruel to extend their life artificially like that imho. and to do it with federal tax dollars just seems wrong.
You realize that tariffs during a recession spur a depression?(see Smoot-Hawley Tariff)

[mczerone]

Tariffs _DO_ help. You're a conservative: listen to Pat Buchanan or Lou Dobbs when it comes to tariffs if you don't believe me. BTW: many of the Founders believed in Tariffs.

My take on immigration is _NOT_ stereotyped. Even sales people at a local home depot have, as their first language, spanish because most customers in that store are spanish. You "say" you worry about taxes??? Do you have any idea how much of your taxes is going to these people??? I've got a real fast solution to helping our debt: bring the troops home and have them round up all these people and their anchor babies and escort them back to their home countries.

I read your "suggestion", and I don't buy it: your suggestion is to get rid of the minimum wage?!!? You call that a suggestion? So to compete with China, lets lower our living standards to be like theirs? Brilliant Einstein.

There's ways to save money without hurting the most vulnerable of Americans: Number 1: get rid of the illegal immigrants and their anchor babies. Number 2: get rid of The Federal Reserve. Number 3: get rid of The Department of Education. Number 4: get rid of The Department of Homeland Security. I'd stop ___ALL___ aid to foreign countries. Any couple who accept government handouts and have at least one child when they receive those handouts must get fixed so they don't have anymore children. No more federal money going to aids babies in hospitals that are going to die anyway.

Wow. So much win, I don't know where to start. In fact, I don't think I'll do anything but let your ignorant post speak for itself.

[rockandrollsouls]

bunning said he wanted the bil to go foerward but he wanted somethign cut to pay for it. if it's so important cut something sheesh

Yea, I think it's best to phase it out gradually...I know Ron said he'd take that approach. But it is too little too late, now.

As for the tariffs argument, I tend to think they are better than taxes, but there can't be both. There should be a small tariff on imports...enough to fund a Constitutionally small government; nothing else. That's my opinion, though.

[charrob]

If there's one thing I doubt we'll ever see, it's anybody truly going "hungry". Let's keep in mind that our version of "hunger" is laughable compared to people in Africa or even China. Have you checked the waist sizes of the average American lately? Even the poorest people are quite well fed in this country thanks to soup kitchens, churches, and just plain charitable actions of others.

-i guess i was talking about the people living in tent cities who are basically going through garbage dumpsters because they have no other food. they are eating rotting food, contaminated food, ...just a bad situation overall.


Here's what I'd like to see. Go ahead and extend food stamps but make the money good only for healthy products like vegetables and milk, not chips and soda. Go back to the days of the card that could ONLY be used on "approved" items. No more blank checks to buy whatever you want or just take ATM cash. Extend unemployment pay but start REDUCING the amount every "pay day" so there's no incentive to sit around collecting the check endlessly. No free health coverage ever. I'm self employed and no one is helping me pay my health care costs because I don't qualify for them. If my business dries up then I am SOL. How is that fair? Anybody collecting these benefits should be forced to work for the locality they live in, doing things like picking up trash, planting trees, washing police cars and ambulances or something else to repay these benefits in the form of their labor. Watch them start taking any job they can find to avoid this sort of work.

-these are great ideas...i totally agree!


Where's the incentive to kick start that American Ingenuity, that helped build this country, when people don't even have to get off the couch?

-well, if people lose a skilled job that they worked at their whole lives because of "free" trade, then they need to build another skill to support themselves and their family. -this seems like it would require going back to school-- which costs money, which they don't have.

Until we can change the "Free" trade in this country and make it "Fair" trade, the living standards of the middle class will continually decline in our country. And that is sad.

[charrob]

video on Free Trade with Pat Buchanan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch#playnext=1&playnext_from=TL&videos=814GdI03raI&v=HWArvnH1GUA

[charrob]

We need to encouraged corporations to set up here and invest here.

you make good points. But how can we encourage corporations to set up here and invest when the playing field is so uneven?

China pegs their currency to the dollar which basically is a tariff. And as Pat Buchanan explains in http://www.youtube.com/watch#playnext=1&playnext_from=TL&videos=814GdI03raI&v=HWArvnH1GUA Europe effectively has a smoot-hawley tariff against us. For an even playing field we'd have to pollute the air like the Chinese: do we really want this in our country?

The trade deficit is so unbalanced it's unnatural, and makes it obvious that our corporations cannot compete by leaving things as they are. And doing so, just prolongs imo our spiral downward as a nation.

[purplechoe]

http://phresh.gr/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/obama-finger.jpg

[carlangaslangas]

By extending unemployment benefits you also delay wages from coming down which they need to in order to compete with other countries. Unemployment benefits distort the free market. And there's a reason they are limited to 6 months. Because people abuse them.

But in any case that was not Bunning's point, he just wanted the benefits to be paid for. Rand Paul agreed with him and so do I: Take the money from the stimulus package that has been already voted for!

[The Patriot]

you make good points. But how can we encourage corporations to set up here and invest when the playing field is so uneven?

China pegs their currency to the dollar which basically is a tariff. And as Pat Buchanan explains in http://www.youtube.com/watch#playnext=1&playnext_from=TL&videos=814GdI03raI&v=HWArvnH1GUA Europe effectively has a smoot-hawley tariff against us. For an even playing field we'd have to pollute the air like the Chinese: do we really want this in our country?

The trade deficit is so unbalanced it's unnatural, and makes it obvious that our corporations cannot compete by leaving things as they are. And doing so, just prolongs imo our spiral downward as a nation.
Corporations don't set up shop here because we have the highest corporate tax rate in the other than Japan at 35%. China has a lower corporate tax rate at 25%. They set up shop elsewhere because America provides a tax burdensome environment. The way to bring corporations to America would be to eliminate the corporate tax and the capital gains tax. If we made it most profitable to come to America, they would come here.

However there are examples of foreign companies setting up in America right now due to capital attained through open markets. Toyota and BMW are setting up shop in southern states like Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina because of low taxes and right to work laws. Government Motors is losing money because of high state and federal taxes, unionization, and burdensome regulation(emissions standards to name one).

If companies pollute the water or the air, individuals can levy law suits if sickness occurs, campaigns can be led to boycott their goods till they have environmentally friendly products. The culture is radically different in America, morally speaking, Americans wouldn't buy from companies that deliberately pollute, I doubt CEOs would want to anyways because it losses them credibility and profits.

You are just making factually inaccurate statements, the European Union has an average 4% tariff on industrial imports. Up until the financial crisis in 2007, america and Germany exported more than China. Essentially, the Binge on cheap credit created by Western Central Banks and the debt explosion is what resulted in America and Germany losing their top spots and world exporters.
http://europa.eu/pol/comm/index_en.htm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126272143898416853.html

There is no such thing as a trade deficit. Nations don't trade(though our government does own GM), corporations and individuals trade.

Tariff rate increases will have a negative effect on the economy. As I said before, tariffs result in higher prices, that negatively effects the middle and working class. Higher prices on goods also hurts small businesses who have to spend more capital on high priced goods and less money on job growth, or wage raises or business expansion. Higher prices result in more debt and less savings. Tariffs also result in capital being misallocated to inefficient businesses by propping them up with taxpayer money.

[charrob]

The way to bring corporations to America would be to eliminate the corporate tax and the capital gains tax. If we made it most profitable to come to America, they would come here.

I’m more concerned with seeing American corporations created and succeed and am not as much concerned with foreign corporations settling here.

That being said, isn’t it true that whether you eliminate the corporate tax or charge a tariff, either way, it’s going to hit the tax-paying consumer?


If companies pollute the water or the air, individuals can levy law suits if sickness occurs, campaigns can be led to boycott their goods till they have environmentally friendly products. The culture is radically different in America, morally speaking, Americans wouldn't buy from companies that deliberately pollute,

I don’t know…Americans don’t seem to have any problems buying from chinese companies that pollute. And you are suggesting that our country lower its clean air standards to be that of China in order to compete. So, as a country, we keep spiralling downward. It's just my opinion but I'd rather see tariffs on imports from countries that violate clean air agreements. in other words, if these countries want to sell their goods here, make them lift theirselves up to our standards rather than allowing our country to digress to theirs.


You are just making factually inaccurate statements, the European Union has an average 4% tariff on industrial imports. Up until the financial crisis in 2007, america and Germany exported more than China.

We import a _lot_ more from China than we export to China -- it's extremely unbalanced and unfair.

Here's a ranking of countries by how much they export. The EU is currently 1st, then China, Germany and the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports

And here, by imports:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_imports

It looks like the US currently imports about 400+ Billion more than it exports. I think this had been up to about 700 Billion a couple years ago. The US may have been a bigger exporter than China a few years ago. The US is a much bigger economy. The problem is that the US imports much more than it exports.

These are the trade deficits with China in particular (about 200+ Billion) which account for a large fraction of our overall trade deficit:
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2009


There is no such thing as a trade deficit. Nations don't trade(though our government does own GM), corporations and individuals trade.

i disagree, but that's just my opinion. -because this alludes to the "global" economy which is nothing more than a "world" government. -where borders mean nothing. -where our constitutional republic is eviscerated.

i want to live in a country with clean air and high living standards. i don't want to see our working class digress to living in poverty like the Chinese. Which is why it angered me when 'mczerone' suggested getting rid of the minimum wage because that means World government wins-- make our working class live in poverty to compete with the chinese who live in poverty. That angers me to no end.

Ask yourself this: why was our standard of living the dream of the world in the 1950's and 1960's? -where a one income family was all that was needed for support? Where people could live in a single family home with alittle bit of ground in a nice neighborhood on one income? What has happened to that country? -to those jobs that provided a "living wage" giving us our high living standards? -that was a time of strong unions, reasonable trade, and high living standards.


Tariff rate increases will have a negative effect on the economy. As I said before, tariffs result in higher prices, that negatively effects the middle and working class. Higher prices on goods also hurts small businesses who have to spend more capital on high priced goods and less money on job growth, or wage raises or business expansion. Higher prices result in more debt and less savings. Tariffs also result in capital being misallocated to inefficient businesses by propping them up with taxpayer money.

ok, John Smith owns a business that makes widgets. He used to buy a part for his widget from China because they were cheaper; however, because of a new tariff on imports placed upon that part, he now buys a part made in the U.S.A. He now has to sell his widget for a higher price.

Mary Consumer walks into John Smith's business to buy one of his widgets. She has to pay more money for that widget. However, because tariffs are now placed on Chinese imports, Mary Consumer works in a new U.S. factory making good wages instead of working at McDonalds in the old U.S.A. where all manufacturing had left the shores. So when Mary pays alittle more for John Smith's widget, she hardly notices.

I agree with you about "inefficient" business in the U.S., however, the playing field seems so uneven between the U.S. and foreign countries, even if our businesses are more efficient than the businesses in China, they still can't compete.

[NYgs23]

"Sen. Jim Bunning has single-handedly...cut off hundreds of thousands unemployed Americans from critical assistance -- benefits that stimulate the overall economy for everyone."

Personally, I'd rather they "stimulate" my personal economy by giving all the money to me.

"...the congressional minority filibusters at a "record-setting pace" to make it impossible to govern."

Like that's a bad thing.

[Krugerrand]

However there are examples of foreign companies setting up in America right now due to capital attained through open markets. Toyota and BMW are setting up shop in southern states like Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina because of low taxes and right to work laws. Government Motors is losing money because of high state and federal taxes, unionization, and burdensome regulation(emissions standards to name one).

My understanding is that the US is unique in that it allows foreign manufacturers to build their cars with imported parts. Thus, they can "overcharge" themselves for the imported parts. Esseentially, Toyota USA loses money to the expense of Toyota Japan ... which means Toyota USA pays less tax on profits.

While I can see the dangers of protectionism ... I also see the dangers of allowing other countries to subsidize the demise of our industry.

[Trigonx]

http://phresh.gr/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/obama-finger.jpg

is he telling me to go F myself????? lol

[The Patriot]

I’m more concerned with seeing American corporations created and succeed and am not as much concerned with foreign corporations settling here.

That being said, isn’t it true that whether you eliminate the corporate tax or charge a tariff, either way, it’s going to hit the tax-paying consumer?



I don’t know…Americans don’t seem to have any problems buying from chinese companies that pollute. And you are suggesting that our country lower its clean air standards to be that of China in order to compete. So, as a country, we keep spiralling downward. It's just my opinion but I'd rather see tariffs on imports from countries that violate clean air agreements. in other words, if these countries want to sell their goods here, make them lift theirselves up to our standards rather than allowing our country to digress to theirs.



We import a _lot_ more from China than we export to China -- it's extremely unbalanced and unfair.

Here's a ranking of countries by how much they export. The EU is currently 1st, then China, Germany and the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports

And here, by imports:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_imports

It looks like the US currently imports about 400+ Billion more than it exports. I think this had been up to about 700 Billion a couple years ago. The US may have been a bigger exporter than China a few years ago. The US is a much bigger economy. The problem is that the US imports much more than it exports.

These are the trade deficits with China in particular (about 200+ Billion) which account for a large fraction of our overall trade deficit:
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2009



i disagree, but that's just my opinion. -because this alludes to the "global" economy which is nothing more than a "world" government. -where borders mean nothing. -where our constitutional republic is eviscerated.

i want to live in a country with clean air and high living standards. i don't want to see our working class digress to living in poverty like the Chinese. Which is why it angered me when 'mczerone' suggested getting rid of the minimum wage because that means World government wins-- make our working class live in poverty to compete with the chinese who live in poverty. That angers me to no end.

Ask yourself this: why was our standard of living the dream of the world in the 1950's and 1960's? -where a one income family was all that was needed for support? Where people could live in a single family home with alittle bit of ground in a nice neighborhood on one income? What has happened to that country? -to those jobs that provided a "living wage" giving us our high living standards? -that was a time of strong unions, reasonable trade, and high living standards.



ok, John Smith owns a business that makes widgets. He used to buy a part for his widget from China because they were cheaper; however, because of a new tariff on imports placed upon that part, he now buys a part made in the U.S.A. He now has to sell his widget for a higher price.

Mary Consumer walks into John Smith's business to buy one of his widgets. She has to pay more money for that widget. However, because tariffs are now placed on Chinese imports, Mary Consumer works in a new U.S. factory making good wages instead of working at McDonalds in the old U.S.A. where all manufacturing had left the shores. So when Mary pays alittle more for John Smith's widget, she hardly notices.

I agree with you about "inefficient" business in the U.S., however, the playing field seems so uneven between the U.S. and foreign countries, even if our businesses are more efficient than the businesses in China, they still can't compete.

I am just concerned with economic growth, I don't care where it comes from. As I said before, free trade allowed for companies like Toyota an BMW who make a better vehicle to attain new capital and invest that new capital in southern states which have lower corporate taxes and right to work laws.

We should stop beating around the bush and eliminate tariffs and corporate taxes. allow for maximum capital and maximum capital investment along with lower prices for the consumer. Low prices mean more savings and less debt. Lower prices mean more money can be spent to buy fuel , food, consumer goods, pay bills etc.

Americans won't buy goods if it excessively damages there environment. America isn't China. And as I said before, if they oppose excessive pollution and it causes health damage, individuals can group together and file a class action law suit for damages. They can start a campaign to boycott environmentally damaging goods.

As I said before, there is no such thing as a trade deficit. Countries don't trade, they are only impediments to trade if they chose to be so. Government doesn't own corporations(well generally speaking, they do own GM and are levying a smear campaign against Toyota). Individuals and corporations trade. There is no deficit that has to be paid down as opposed to a budget deficit or national debt. I don't have to pay taxes for this "trade deficit".

The EU isn't a country, but whatever, as I said before, the EU has not enacted Smoot-Hawley style tariffs on American made goods, they have an average industrial tariff rate of 4%. That is very low, and is one of the reasons BMW and Mercedes Benz are setting up plants in places like Alabama and South Carolina.

Well, we don't have a Constitutional Republic right now. We have a Corporatist Empire. However, the kind of sovereignty I support is political. I don't believe in economic nationalism, meaning high taxes and subsidies. On a smaller level I believe wealth is owned by the individual and corporations and national governments violate that sovereignty when they redistribute wealth.

All the advocates for global government support Minimum wage. I will give Gordon Brown and Al Gore as examples, they both support global government and minimum wage. This is because they are heavily pro union. They want non union workers and "unskilled" workers priced out so union members are hired. Instead of hiring tow workers for $6.50, a union member has to be hired at $14.00 because of minimum wage laws. Minimum wage creates unemployment, that is an undisputable fact. Less people are being employed because of minimum wage laws. Minimum wage is also a good tool to mask inflation. Minimum wage masks to a certain degree rising prices due to our inflationary fiat monetary policy controlled by the Federal Reserve. Minimum wage also results in higher prices for the consumer, business owners will pass off the wage increases to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Peter Schiff does a good article on this, I will link it below. And the fact of the matter is, the standard of living is getting lower and the minimum wage keeps going up.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/schiff/schiff34.1.html

Heavy Unionization results in unemployment. Look at unemployment. Just look at Michigan, it has the highest unemployment rates in the nation, it is in a severe budget crisis and business is being killed by burdensome regulation and high state taxes. Unemployment is 14.6%( probably in the low 20s when you consider people who are underemployed or have given up). Right to work states like Texas, Virginia, and North Dakota have unemployment rates respectively of 8.3%, 6.9%, and 4.4%. I think that pretty much disspells the myth that high taxes, regulation and unionization lead to prosperity.

The reason things were better in the 50s and 60s as opposed to now is because the dollar at that point hadn't lost so much of it's value next to gold and we hadn't entirely abandoned to Gold standard so we had somewhat sound money. Food Prices, utilities, Gas Prices, cars etc were much cheaper. So in basic terms, your dollar went further. Remember how your Grandparents would say, "I remember when a gallon of gas was a nickel", or something along those lines? Well, we can thank the Federal Reserve for debasing our currency, thus resulting in higher prices, less savings, and more debt for the American consumer.

John smith sells widgets. With tariffs, now John has less capital. He has to make up for shortfalls with higher prices, wage cuts, or lay offs in a time of recession. If there is free trade and parts of widgets are cheaper, he can pass lower prices to the consumer, expand his business, or give his current workers raises.

Mary isn't going to make much money making parts of widgets. Making those kind of goods is generally relegated to poorer and developing nations and doesn't pay much money. With tariffs, you are preventing Mary from getting a job at John Smith's store or a store like that. You are preventing Mary from getting a job in medical technology or the civilian aircraft industry because you are preventing our industries which have a comparative advantage from expanding markets and attaining more capital thus expanding and creating more jobs. You are also making industries with a comparative advantage like the ones I mentioned above spend more capital on small parts because you put a tariff on them. That is less money going into expansion and production. Higher prices leads to less savings, less savings for Mary means more debt. I would rather we have robust small businesses and industries with comparative advantages like those I mentioned above than factories making parts of widgets.

[Krugerrand]

I am just concerned with economic growth, I don't care where it comes from. As I said before, free trade allowed for companies like Toyota an BMW who make a better vehicle to attain new capital and invest that new capital in southern states which have lower corporate taxes and right to work laws.

A VAT system that supported them while punishing the US competition did not hurt either. That's not free trade. Sheltering their profits for in foreign countries for cars assembled in the US did not hurt either. That's not free trade.

So-called "Free Trade" is adding to the hurt of US industry. I'm all for true free trade. I'm also for making sure that where "unFair Trade" is hurting our industry we protect that imbalance.