Of course they did. Let the poor stay poor, and let the lower working class join them.

Quote :

WASHINGTON—House Republicans Thursday torpedoed a bill to extend benefits for the long-term unemployed, pressing their demand that the $12 billion cost of continuing the program be offset rather than adding to the deficit.

In a defeat for Democrats trying to keep the program from expiring Nov. 30, the House rejected a bill to continue the program for three more months.

Lawmakers in both parties expect a compromise eventually to be reached—but not until December, after the current program expires. Without an extension, 800,000 unemployed workers will lose their benefits by Nov. 30 and two million by the end of December. A similar lapse in benefits occurred last summer as Congress struggled to break another impasse.

The unemployment aid is just one of many issues before the lame duck Congress that are confounding President Barack Obama and congressional leaders. Others include the fate of the Bush-era tax cuts that are due to expire Dec. 31 and a funding mechanism to keep the government running after a stop-gap appropriations bill expires Dec. 3. With consensus on the tax cuts eluding his own party, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) on Thursday set the stage for confrontations on the issue after Thanksgiving.

He said the Senate would hold up-or-down votes on two leading alternatives: the Democrats' proposal to extend tax cuts only for families earning less than $250,000 a year, and Republicans' plan to make tax cuts permanent for all taxpayers, including wealthier ones. Neither is seen having the votes to pass.

The House is also moving toward a vote in early December on extending the tax cuts only for the middle class, according to House Democratic aides.

On Thursday, the Senate approved a measure to avoid cuts in Medicare payments to physicians, postponing the cuts until the end of the year. The House is expected to approve the measure Nov. 29, when it returns after a week-long Thanksgiving recess. The cuts to doctor payments are scheduled to go into effect Nov. 30. A one-month delay would give lawmakers more time to craft a long-term extension.

Congress has to replace or extend the stopgap spending bill, known as a continuing resolution, because Congress failed to enact any of the government's 12 regular appropriations bills before the fiscal year began Oct. 1.

Democrats and some Republicans on the appropriations committees have been preparing to wrap the 12 bills into a $1.108 trillion omnibus bill to fund government operations for the rest of the fiscal year.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell had said he could support a bill at that funding level. But in remarks on the Senate floor Thursday, Mr. McConnell said he would not support such a bill, saying voters had spoken against such measures in the midterm elections two weeks ago.

"Americans don't want Congress passing massive, trillion-dollar bills that have been thrown together behind closed doors,'' he said. Mr. McConnell's decision means that Congress will have to craft another short-term spending measure to extend government funding.

Agreement also eluded the two parties on a plan for extended unemployment benefits. The program provides aid for up to 99 weeks to many workers who are laid off, by adding to the maximum of 26 weeks of benefits offered through most state programs. Members of both parties say they want to extend the benefits, and a majority backed the legislation in the 258-154 vote Thursday, which included 143 Republicans voting against it and 21 in favor. The bill failed after Democratic leaders had brought it to the floor under fast-track procedures that require a two-thirds majority for passage.

Democrats could still bring the bill to the House floor under regular and more time-consuming debate rules that would allow the bill to pass with a simple majority. But it still would face obstacles in the Senate, where Republicans are poised to block the bill if it does not include offsetting spending cuts.

Democrats were not surprised by the outcome but saw political advantage in staging the vote in order to portray Republicans as responsible for the impending benefit lapse.

"The message to four million Americans will be the Republican Party doesn't care whether you have a Christmas or a way to fund your mortgage or a way to put food on the table for the next three months," said Rep. Jim McDermott (D., Wash.).

Republicans said they didn't oppose extending the benefits, but that they wanted to heed the midterm-election outcry against deficit spending.

"What we heard earlier this month is that people want us to provide help to those in need but not add to the mountain of debt," said Rep. Charles W. Boustany Jr. (R., La.).

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704104104575622821979663194.html

The poor would've still been poor regardless or whether or not unemployment was extended. We don't need less incentive to work. Of course, since this is still a Crat congress, this is on them.

Republican motto: "You're not rich? Fuck you."

JM130ELM wrote:

Republican motto: "You're not rich? Fuck you."

How do you figure? This is a Democratic congress until January. (And a lame duck one at that, thus they didn't have to make any compromises.) So apparently, this is the Democratic motto since this is their doing.

Unemployment, I swear some would make it indefinite if they had their way. :biggrin:

Yep, I knew they were going to do that. That's fucking horrible. I don't know who taught these motherfuckers economics, but unemployment benefits is not giving away money. These people aren't going to put their money in some tax shelter. They're going to buy food with it. Buy gas. Pay the light bill. Pay the rent. Pay the phone bill. They are putting it RIGHT BACK INTO THE FUCKING ECONOMY. But they don't understand that. And besides, it's not free. It's money that you had put into the pot when you were working. How are you saying it's an incentive not to work when there are no fucking jobs out there?!?! Blaming Obama for the high unemployment (which is bullshit) so if you there aren't any jobs, why the hell would you think people are lazy? (sighs). I'm getting upset just typing this.

^^^^And you say you're cool as an ice cube. xD

Only once in awhile? IDK girl, you're looking kind of blushed. Might wanna lower that core temperature before you start soaking the floor.

Maybe someone here will surprise me and tell us that despite being an 18 or 19 year old college student, they’re supporting themselves. Holding down as many jobs as it takes to pay all their own bills, tuition, food, rent, etc.

alan smithee wrote:

Maybe someone here will surprise me and tell us that despite being an 18 or 19 year old college student, they’re supporting themselves. Holding down as many jobs as it takes to pay all their own bills, tuition, food, rent, etc.

Yo sound like yo fishing for a legal roomie.

I still say some want unemployment to be indefinite. Once you go on, you never have to go off. Of course, agree or disagree with this decision, it was a Democratic decision. So at the end of the day, if you don't like this, blame the people YOU elected, not the Republicans.

Maybe someone will surprise me here and not use smokescreen tactics to avoid discussion......Nah, smokescreen's are so much more fun.

What you think was a smoke screen was really an attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt and not just assume you were a naïve teenager who needs someone else to feed, cloth and house them, i.e., they don’t have a clue about surviving on your own in the real world. From your witty deflection, I guess the answer is, yes. You are. You think a couple of hundred dollars a week is incentive for everyone not to want to get a job? Even in states such as Massachusetts where the maximum weekly benefit can be $600-$900, you really believe that everyone eligible to collect those amounts would rather get that money for doing nothing than have a job that pays them the salary that was many times those payments? Extending benefits doesn’t just enable the lazy minority. It helps the vast majority of people who would much rather have a job that pays way more than what most are eligible to collect on unemployment to try and keep their family’s (not the Willowism families) heads above water. By all means, cut that thread of a life line. And then smile about it.

Quote :

So at the end of the day, if you don't like this, blame the people YOU elected, not the Republicans.

Funny thing is, you assume from my limited remarks here that I voted for the Democrats. I can promise you that nobody I voted for is responsible for any of this mess. There's an expression that when you assume, you make an "ass" of "u" and...well, of u anyway.

What's this? Republicans accepting that the poor should become poorer simply because they can't find a job? Thanks, guys! How are you helping unemployed workers if you're just going to stomp them further through the ground?

I guess that's 12 billion that they could use to buy guns instead.

alan smithee wrote:

What you think was a smoke screen was really an attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt and not just assume you were a naïve teenager who needs someone else to feed, cloth and house them, i.e., they don’t have a clue about surviving on your own in the real world. From your witty deflection, I guess the answer is, yes. You are. You think a couple of hundred dollars a week is incentive for everyone not to want to get a job? Even in states such as Massachusetts where the maximum weekly benefit can be $600-$900, you really believe that everyone eligible to collect those amounts would rather get that money for doing nothing than have a job that pays them the salary that was many times those payments? Extending benefits doesn’t just enable the lazy minority. It helps the vast majority of people who would much rather have a job that pays way more than what most are eligible to collect on unemployment to try and keep their family’s (not the Willowism families) heads above water. By all means, cut that thread of a life line. And then smile about it.



Funny thing is, you assume from my limited remarks here that I voted for the Democrats. I can promise you that nobody I voted for is responsible for any of this mess. There's an expression that when you assume, you make an "ass" of "u" and...well, of u anyway.

No, what I call smokescreen is the illusion that bias makes you smarter. I know that the government stipends don't mean jack. My beef is higher than what you seem to think it is.

Let me ask how long you think unemployment should be extended to? Indefinitely? You seem to be the one making lots of assumptions about what I believe. Your entire first post seems to be saying that if I am not married with kids, I MUST be fitting YOUR definition.(And you mask this fact by claiming like you gave me the "benefit of the doubt" as if you honestly did that.) Don't stereotype. I am not naively believing that government benefits actually mean squat; it's quite the opposite actually.

Well, that was directed less at you and more at certain "others" here who I am certain are proud Democrats. (Namely those outright blaming Republicans for this when they are not in charge) By YOU, I was speaking generally.

Bias in general. I know this cause I have two eyes and I understand basic math.

I didn't refuse; I remarked that nobody here really backs their claims up. For example Robbie called the Pope a liar and said that he needs to STFU. Why is it I am the only one singled out for "not backing up my views"?

I am less calling you a liar and more saying that I don't believe your explanation. You may very well believe it.

Back what up? That I believe something? I claimed that I did not feel a certain way you said I did, what exactly am I supposed to do to back up something about "me"? I gotta prove that I feel a certain way now? I never said that unemployment didn't help; I was merely refuting your assumption that I considered it livable income. (You seem to be set on vilifying me either way. If I believe it's a lot, I'm a naive kid. If I believe it's not a lot, then you say it is. ) I suppose now you want me to offer proof that I believe it?

And no, it wasn't directed at you.

Quote :

You seem to be set on vilifying me either way.

Nah. Maybe depreciate or disparage but I would never vilify you!

alan smithee wrote:

Nah. Maybe depreciate or disparage but I would never vilify you!

Sometimes distinctions really change a statement, and sometimes they don't.