Re: 99ers HR 589 Unemployment Legislation Shot Down In Flames (only not really so much, so make sure you read before you panic. The bill is still alive, promise, CiK)

by Kat Sun Feb 27, 2011 8:57 am

"Disingenuous"..."Hypocritical"...describes Rep. Camp's statement.
I, too, wonder what is stopping the House Republican majority from introducing their own paid-for jobs bill/a paid-for unemployment benefits bill. All they do is criticize the Dems efforts to address the problems.
Show me one Republican solution to stimulate this economy, create jobs, address the suffering of the unemployed!
Oh yea...more money in the pockets of the wealthy - that'll do it. Rolling Eyes

by mrgolf Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:11 pm

truth wrote:
What stopped him and the rest of the Republican Representatives from bringing up their own paid-for bill for exhaustees? The Republicans are now are in the clear majority. Their bill could have been out of Committee and passed in a day I would think.

I see your point. That would be nice.

I think maybe a more practical way to do it would be to have Barbara Lee to walk across the aisle and sit down with a Republican Congressperson from a district with high unemployment.

IMO (I'm no expert) she should ask the Republican what it would take to get this bill passed. They should sit down together and rewrite the bill. It is going to take bipartisan support to get this bill passed

by TMKLBMT Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:04 pm

I really think that neither of them want to have to be responsible for passage of an extension- they want to say they want to help- so they can gain those votes for trying. But they don't necessarily want to see it happen- because then opponents can point fingers at them for passing it.

Why wouldn't the Dem's just offer a paid for version if they are so sure Rep. will oppose? Then it would highlight the Republican lies- tons of them are on record saying they would support a paid plan. But you don't see either side offering it. And if the thought is that Dems do not want to tread on paying for it because its always been emergency spending....then think about that- so we can all rot because they have never paid for it before???? That doesn't exactly sound like the Dem's care either does it.

They are all out for their careers. Thats it. And I hate feeling that way- and I didn't used to - and I am not normally a negative person at all- but I just think the whole thing stinks and it is so obvious and its awful enough whats happened....but to drag us all thru the mud of their little games is just heartless and sick.

by truth Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:41 pm

There isn't a bundle of unspent money lying around. The Republicans are having a tough time trimming anywhere near the amount of cuts they promised. Where any spending is cut, there will be people affected, and they will raise a stink.

I think the whole GOP "paid for" demand has always been bogus. It is a smoke screen. This was clearly demonstrated in the lame duck tax "compromise". Tax cuts for the top 3% don't have to be offset. Aid for exhaustees must be offset. That shows me the GOP priorities.

by truth Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:48 pm

mrgolf wrote:
truth wrote:
What stopped him and the rest of the Republican Representatives from bringing up their own paid-for bill for exhaustees? The Republicans are now are in the clear majority. Their bill could have been out of Committee and passed in a day I would think.
I see your point. That would be nice.

I think maybe a more practical way to do it would be to have Barbara Lee to walk across the aisle and sit down with a Republican Congressperson from a district with high unemployment.

IMO (I'm no expert) she should ask the Republican what it would take to get this bill passed. They should sit down together and rewrite the bill. It is going to take bipartisan support to get this bill passed

mrgolf,

I would like to see your Representative, Mrs. Bono-Mack I think, walk across the aisle and tell Rep. Lee how to pay for the bill. What's stopping her?

by mrgolf Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:59 pm

truth wrote:

I think the whole GOP "paid for" demand has always been bogus. It is a smoke screen. This was clearly demonstrated in the lame duck tax "compromise". Tax cuts for the top 3% don't have to be offset. Aid for exhaustees must be offset. That shows me the GOP priorities.

You may be right. Why doesn't Barbara Lee try to find out? I am hoping this is part of her overall strategy to get this bill passes

by mrgolf Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:14 pm

truth wrote:
mrgolf,

I would like to see your Representative, Mrs. Bono-Mack I think, walk across the aisle and tell Rep. Lee how to pay for the bill. What's stopping her?

That would be fantastic if she would. We may have a Mexican stand off here if neither side is willing to budge.

Who do you think should make the first move? Should it be Mary Bono Mack or Barbara Lee, who wrote the biil?

99ers HR 589 Unemployment Legislation Shot Down In Flames (only not really so much, so make sure you read before you panic. The bill is still alive, promise, CiK) - Page 3 Mexican-standoff-photo

99ers HR 589 Unemployment Legislation Shot Down In Flames (only not really so much, so make sure you read before you panic. The bill is still alive, promise, CiK) - Page 3 Mexican-standoff-photo

by truth Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:41 pm

If Mary Bono Mack wants it paid for, she should suggest the funding source.

by elvis44102 Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:52 pm

Having some Republican support will be esential, some good ideas here.....

Noticed one thing with all the talk lately about Unionized federal/state jobs...

Both sides agree many fed/state workers seem to get paid way more than similar private sector jobs.. (there is.was agreement)

The difference: Dems want to bring private sector job pay UP to a Higher level, and you guessed it Repubs want to lower wages of Union workers to the lower level in the private sector.

But can we expect any movement this coming week on this BILL???

by mrgolf Sun Feb 27, 2011 10:17 pm

truth wrote:If Mary Bono Mack wants it paid for, she should suggest the funding source.

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.

by Sponsored content