The GOP are the Scrooge of our times. What a bunch of A--holes.

And the Dimocrats still want to waste the rest of the stimulis,why not use that?

Actually Scrooge had lots of money because he WORKED HARD and SAVED.

America is BROKE.

If you want to give your OWN money to the unemployed please go ahead.

Right Andy- the GOP just flipped the bird to millions of struggling unemployed people. I wonder if the (unemployed) Republican voters are happy now!

Instead of another idiotic partisan food fight, we should be asking just what "less effective stimulus funding" is Boustamy referring to? Repubs are not wrong to seek ways to fund extension of UI without adding to debt. Is Boustamy BSing? or is there really some unspent stimulus money available? and what service has to get cut or who has to get fired in order to use it? congress is always hiding behind rhetoric and avoiding facts, and I'm tired of it.

Tax Cuts =/= Spending. False equivalence is false.

Why must liberals always equate keeping your money with the government "spending" money on you. They are not the same.

I think the thing most liberals here are overlooking is that the GOP is not against extending these benefits, it says so right in the article. They want to know where it will be funded, that seems responsible to me. Instead of allowing it to be debated, the Dem's tried to fast track it. What is the problem with discussing where the money will come from? All rhetoric aside, what is wrong with paying for it out of money left in the stimulus package?

How about some honest answers to an honest question? Why shouldn't they be allowed to debate where it will be funded? What is wrong with using unspent stimulus money to fund this?

Hey , If the Republicans can employ them, YeA!!! But then, they encouraged the exportation of our manufacturing jobs for how many years??? Encouraged illegal alien employment for how many years (wink , wink, Alan Simpson) If the Republicans can correct that trend, more power to them. They will deserve to be re-elected. Those that believe they will......probably believe in the tooth fairy as well.

If I understand the floor vote correctly, the action was a simple increase in the national debt and did not allow discussion. Was this simply a political move to make those who voted against a bill look bad?

The republicans remain the same team that will be the majority in January - not adding expenditures when we do not have the funds.

This past election was about discontinuing adding to the debt - and about jobs. Jobs come from support of the average business - the backbone of the economy. Increasing the debt makes every day operation of businesses difficult.

ChiCity, that's my point exactly. Let's hear the GOP proposal for funding the UI extension. If there's really unspent stimulus money available, is this money already obligated? If so, who or what has to get cut in order to divert it to UI? Honest answers are all I seek. Hey congress, how about putting all the facts on the table for a change?

Whats so bad about a request to use some of the money from the "shovel ready" stimulus that is still sitting 2 years after it was voted on to pay for these unemployment benefits? Some GOP members said no because they are tired of seeing us add to the deficit when we could instead have it paid for properly. Is that such a bad thing? The Democrats fast tracked it so it would fail. That was their whole reason for fast tracking it in the first place. They knew it would fail if it needed 2/3rds majority to pass. If they had allowed discussion about it, they could have passed it with a simple majority. I'm shocked the liberals on here can't see this FACT. Even the GOP opposed to the bill were opposed not because they didn't want to help people out. They were opposed because they want to help people out. They want to stop burying you and me under a 13+ trillion mound of debt.

Voting to borrow money to pay for this is as stupid as having 100K in the bank, and taking out a loan to buy a 2K mattress for your bed. Pay that mattress over 30 years and you spent 4K, while instead you could have spent that 2K and still have 98K in the bank.

Yes, not the greatest example, but hopefully people can understand the point I'm trying to make. Obviously if you can make more interest with the 2K than you pay for borrowing 2K, then get the loan. But it is quite obvious that isn't what is happening with our government. We borrowed the 2K already, and now are taking out a 2nd 2K loan to pay for it without having spent the first 2K yet.

It is purely semantics to say that $70 billion is unfunded. This is money that hasn't been collected. Does it lower our budget by that much to remain balanced? Yes. Is that the same thing as taking $70 billion away? No. They are different.

Madison,

You are correct in that Scrooge did indeed worked hard and saved his money. And, America is broke.

You do realize, of course, that until the three Christmas Ghosts visited him, Scrooge lived only to make more money. He was all alone---existing; not enjoying or even caring about the simple pleasures of life. Nor, was he concerned about how his actions affected the lives of his fellow Man. Is this the kind of life you would want for your children? Is this the kind of life you would wish upon every American? Do you deny that there are millions of your fellow Americans desperately struggling just to stay alive? It doesn't matter whose fault it is, they need help now. How can our government turn its back on them?

I just love these Republican's on Newsvine who talk about how American is broke so unemployments benefits should not be extended.

I'll tell you what is disgusting is the fact that these selfish people want their tax cuts for the rich which will cost us and cost us for years yet they would deny people who are out of work because their own party allowed Wall Street to bring this economy down. You Repubs recently voted down Wall Street reform. They're all insane.

They care about the rich and only the rich. Period.

I agree with the Republicans on this one. They said they are find with extending the unemployment benefits - they just want to do it by using unspent funds that were allocated to last years stimulus bill - that sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

As to the people bashing republicans about wanting to keep the Bush tax cuts in place - I think that's a separate issue. Personally, I'd let all of those tax cuts expire. People talk about the 700 billion to the upper 2% over 10 years, but there is also 3.3 trillion for the rest of the taxpayers...that's 4 Trillion in more debt...we need to put an end to this deficit spending insanity.

I'm so glad somebody is finally putting a foot down.

If Pelosi and the House were so concerned they would not have thrown this on the suspension Calendar for a 3 month Extension the way they did forcing a 2/3's vote with no discussion. They would have brought it up correctly and taken discussion on how to pay for it.

They want to play games with those poor folk out of work and yet everyone is blaming the Republicans.

Pay for the benefits out of the stimulus money and approve them for longer than 3 months. Everyone knows that there are too may people out of work and not enough jobs for all.

R: "I guess Democrat's have limited vocabulary and are not very good with simple math like addition and subtraction nor can they balance a checkbook a more advaced concept." Perhaps you should spell advanced correctly, when attacking other peoples vocabulary.

So you conservatives are saying, let the unemployed starve and lose their houses while we talk about what to do and hold hearings and do investigations... The reason it was brought to a vote is that it is an immediate concern.

Whatever happened to the America that looked out for the common good? The America that used to help each other? Our conscience? Have we really become that shallow and ruthless?!

Nonsense Drowning? We have $2.25 Billion allocated to start a train to nowhere in California's Central Valley that you can have for unemployment. It will be a miracle if it goes anywhere in 20 years and only Mexico will get the stimulus when all the workers send their money home. Bullet trains to nowhere? That's nonsense!

I would gladly commit giving a few dollars from my paycheck each pay period to a government plan that helped the truly unemployed workers during this economic, job-loss struggle this nation is facing, but, IF and only IF, the government gets their act together and assists the business and manufacturing sector in fostering growth and rejuvenation of our economic base.

Our older un-employed workers are truly hit hard because of the 'invisible' age discrimination factor that no one dares to mention.

I'm truly sorry for all of you that have lost your job through no fault of your own.

lets ask where the money is going to come from for the tax break to the rich. 100 billion per year, compared to giving out of work american's 300 buck at the cost of 2.5 billion. i really hope all those out of work people that voter republican's are going to have a very merry xmas broke. oh by the way the bank that republican's support are coming to take your house. good luck at the soup kitchen, oh wait, that is social spending that are being cut by the republican's. you are truly on your own in your car if you have one. also try not to fall sick, because i am sure you don't have insurance(repealed by the republican's) vote the greedy republican's, you still have two years of this mess.

Great posts LOL. Common sense is what's needed.

First, Newsvine, Madison from New York and StormerF should have their comments restored. Their remarks are not deragatory in the least and were only collapsed becasue they agree with the Republicans.

Second, this vote was scheduled on a fast track by the Dems to ensure there was no debate and it failed in an effort to make the GOP look bad. I find if funny that those of you on here that are criticizing the GOP make no reference to that but only say they are greeding and denying benefits. You need to read the article that clearly states the GOP would extend the unemployment benefits by cutting spending elsewhere or using unallocated stimulous money.

Third, you cannot compare tax cuts to spending. Tax cuts ensure Americans have more of THEIR OWN MONEY TO SPEND. It is not the governments. It is our money! Tax cuts never cost a thing because it is our money. Spending is what costs us and has put us into the finacial whole we are in.

Being homeless is not as bad as you think. You just have to adjust. You asked for it.

"So you conservatives are saying, let the unemployed starve and lose their houses while we talk about what to do and hold hearings and do investigations... The reason it was brought to a vote is that is an immediate concern.

Whatever happened to the America that looked out for the common god? The America that used to help each other?"

The article clearly states that the GOP representatives are in favor of providing or extending benefits; however, they aim to do so by using unused funds from the stimulus. Therefore, Conservatives are not saying we should let the unemployed starve and lose their homes. However, how many of those people who lost their homes did so because they purchased a home they could not afford?

If Americans want to help the less fortunate, they will do so through means of donations, community coming togethers, fundraising...you know, charity. Americans and people worldwide have engaged in acts of charity for centuries and will continue to do so. Why should the government or anyone else for the matter steal the money earned by hard working individuals to give to people who have less? What gives someone (ie: Congress) the right to determine "this person makes too much or is too rich so they must give more?"

I understand that many of the unemployed are actively seeking jobs and are eager to return to work. However, there are also far too many who are content to sit back and collect a check at the expense of others.

stormerF

And the Dimocrats still want to waste the rest of the stimulis,why not use that?

since you call it waste, you're not entitled to an answer. If you want to pay for it put an end to tax breaks for people who have been voting themselves other people's money since Reagan. You can't govern and you are wild spendthrifts yet you create the worst debt. you're fine ones to talk about waste.

Most people who got in over their heads with mortgages they could not afford did so because the unregulated (a conservative mantra) financial market invented the sub-prime mortgage scam in the first place and selling the "American Dream".

You don't think it had anything to do with stated income loans? Or people biting off more than they could chew? Those who took loans they never had any interest in taking are culpable as well.

Dee...don't forget that Scrooge exploited his workers by overworking them and underpaying them to the point where they were so poor they could barely afford to live, feed themselves or care for their families. This is EXACTLY what the GOP wants. They are so extraordinarily GREEDY and MONEY HUNGRY that they will do whatever and walk over/abuse/exploit whoever it takes to get there, regardless of the consequences.

GOP FASCIST/CAPITALISTS = FILTHY, GREEDY, HEARTLESS, SOUL-LESS BASTARDS.

I wonder if someone can get passed security at the Capitol Building with a flame thrower and quote "Say hello to my little friend".

I WILL TELL YOU WHERE THE MONEY COULD HAVE COME FROM to pay the extended unemployment benefits. From the 44% of my 403b Retirement Plan that AIG stole from me so they could give themselves big bonuses, and pay for their luxury retreats! And then they, the AIG's and other big companies run by REPUBLICAN CEOs stuck their HAND OUT for the BIG BAIL OUT! THE REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS ARE HEARTLESS SOUL-LESS THIEVES!

What did Sharron Angle say about our 2nd Amendment Rights?

Typical Republican SOP--The Great Spirit spits on these forked-tongue white devils and their unholy Corporate Masters.

A majority of Americans voted on 11/2/10 to replace the big spenders.

It's appropriate for Congress (in this case, Republicans) to find funding for this extension instead of approving fast-tracked deficit spending.

If they start caving in to a spending agenda, they will be out on their butts just as surely as the last bunch were tossed.

It's time for the spend-happy DEMS to compromise. No is always the appropriate answer to deficit spending.

What many on here seem to be missing is that the republicans have stiffed the general public again...but as usual they watch out for the wealthy and their lobbyist. Granted, neither party has shown any common sense in many years...for the republicans to do this however at this time of the year seems a bit much. Did they fight agains bailing out the banks...not really have they made sure the wealthy continue to get more tax breaks than the general public...you bet. Lies and all combined by both parties show that neither is going to get anything done as usual,,,except accept more money from lobbyist.

Evidently the Democrats are not listening to the will of Americans either. The Democrats blocked the passage of this bill by refusing to use stimulus money to pay for it. This was all a Democratic pollitical stunt to make the Republicans look bad as they know the liberal press will blame republicans. The house democrats knew the Senate was not going to take this up a separate bill anyway, and I am sure wanted it not to pass for their poilitical gain. It will be included in larger legislation later.

Democracts are playing politics again with our lives, they want to add to the $41,000 of debt that each resident's of this country share of the national debt is. Compromise does not exist when Marxist left is in charge, why not use the unspent money from the stimulus to fund the extension. Is the research on the cocaine use by monkey's more (funded by your stimulus dollars) more important than our unemployed. Shame on the Marixist left and the Democrat party

the GOP has never cared about the middle class or any workers why start now

chicity

I assume the funding will come from the same place it came from when we bailed out the banks, insurance companies, wall street and funded the Iraq war. And don’t forget bush made the first stimulus. When the republicans/tea party finish there will be no middle class.

GOPers...let me see if I've got this right: The House GOP want to argue about which pocket the money comes out of; and they kill a bill denying a couple of million unemployed Americans benefits that everyone here on Newsvine would want !! WOW, that is disgusting!!

Jessie-Az: Tax cuts == spending.

If you take a pay CUT, or have a tax INCREASE, you still have less money in the end, right?

Where do you people live? The President doesnt want to extend tax cuts for anyone who makes more than $250,000 a year. if you guys think someone who makes $251,000 A YEAR IS RICH YOU ARE AS STUPID AS THE DAY IS LONG.

Stupid Republicans, how dare they expect people to get a job!

Republican Red Herring. They are not interested in funding the UI benefits. That is politispeak for "If you tie it to the extension of the tax cuts, we're sure we can find a way to get the money to the poor suckers out there before Christmas."

Alan - You are so right! I'd love to hear some of these peoples definitions of rich. Here in NY if a family makes $250k a year, you are getting by. If you make $250k in NY you will pay around $75k in taxes. I'd like to know how much the people calling 250k families rich pay in taxes.

Republicans @!$%# America again.

Alan & Vinnie: Hate to interrupt your spew with facts. The average wage in the USA.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html Your not super rich. But you are well to do.

Celebrate!!!

But by all means hit SS retirees and other lower average middle class, to give you a tax break. It's a Republican tradition.

Scar - So someone pays in $75k in taxes and someone else who lives in another state pays in $30k in taxes and both make the same salary. You think raising the taxes on both people is the right thing to do? Even though the cost of living for the person paying $75k is much higher?

Just wondering. Btw, I'm not a Republican...

Well, Vinnie you do have a point. That's why various private corporations and even government entities, give a higher rate of pay for NY and Alaska to name a couple. Would I be against a higher rate in extremely high cost existence areas?? Of course not. But don't compare Alabama to NY. In Alabama 251,000 per year IS VERY WELL TO DO. In some states 40,000 is upper middle class.

the sad part is that "trickle down" works both ways. More people losing their homes... Less property taxes taken in (and it is a heck of alot - my street alone 7 homes out of 18). No home no need for ALLSTATE homeowners, no need for yard care equipment and care, no A.C unit or roof, no need for electric bills, internet etc....... that means that all of you who are only thinking about yourselves will be in the same boat at this rate.

Hey WHERE ARE THEY hiding the homeless? I know my city picks them up and offers them jail or a bus ticket out. Where is the coverage by the media?
We saw 24/7 of the haitians needing tents during their catastrophe but not a peep at the tent cities of AMERICA.

God bl... um GOD HELP AMERICA

To further prove prove my point Vinnie. Here's a link to a Red county in Alabama. Note their average wages.http://www.city-data.com/county/Butler_County-AL.html

That's right, slightly over $30,000. A Red county in a Red state.

A complete list of the representatives who denied unemployment benefits during the holidays follows:

If you don’t call these buffoons and get them to vote yes you are an idiot. We will have a second recession in no time if this stops during the holidays for 2 million more American. This will lead to a depression for sure.

You can thank the Republicans for the economic DEPRESSION coming. You voted these idiots in now pay the price!

Aderholt, Akin, Alexander, Austria, Bachmann, Bachus, Bartlett, Barton (TX), Berry, Biggert, Bilirakis, Bishop (UT), Blackburn, Blunt, Boehner, Bonner, Bono Mack, Boustany, Boyd, Brady (TX), Bright, Broun (GA), Buchanan, Burgess, Burton (IN), Buyer

Calvert, Camp, Campbell, Cantor, Cao, Capito, Carter, Cassidy, Chaffetz, Coffman (CO), Cole, Conaway, Cooper, Crenshaw, Culberson, Davis (TN), Djou, Dreier

Emerson, Flake, Fleming, Forbes, Fortenberry, Foxx, Franks (AZ), Frelinghuysen, Garrett (NJ), Gingrey (GA), Gohmert, Goodlatte, Granger, Graves (GA), Graves (MO), Griffith, Guthrie

Hall (TX), Harper, Hastings (WA), Hensarling, Herger, Hill, Hoekstra, Hunter, Inglis, Issa, Jenkins, Johnson, Sam, Jordan (OH), King (IA), King (NY), Kingston, Kline (MN)

Lamborn, Lance, Latham, Latta, Lee (NY), Lewis (CA), Lucas, Luetkemeyer, Lummis, Lungren, Daniel E.

Mack, Marchant, McCarthy (CA), McCaul, McClintock, McHenry, McKeon, McMorris Rodgers, Mica, Miller (FL), Miller (MI), Miller, Gary, Minnick, Myrick

Neugebauer, Nunes, Nye, Olson, Paul, Paulsen, Pence, Peterson, Petri, Pitts, Poe (TX), Price (GA), Putnam

Rehberg, Roe (TN), Rogers (AL), Rogers (KY), Rogers (MI), Rohrabacher, Rooney, Roskam, Royce, Ryan (WI), Scalise, Schmidt, Schock, Sensenbrenner, Sessions, Shadegg, Shimkus, Shuler, Shuster, Simpson, Smith (NE), Smith (TX), Stearns, Stutzman, Sullivan

Taylor, Thompson (PA), Thornberry, Tiahrt, Tiberi, Upton, Walden, Wamp, Whitfield, Wilson (SC), Wittman, Wolf, Young (AK), Young (FL)

I just have a few questions. How many weeks should you be allowed to draw unemployment? I mean if 99 weeks is not enough.....150, 200....what's the f'n number that should be sufficient?

Today I was at a Hobby Lobby. On the door was a hiring sign for $11 an hour plus benefits. I said to my wife, since all these unemployed are looking for work, why are businesses having to advertise? Maybe because these people that are drawing are not seriously looking for work???? I have a friend who has been on unemployment for almost two years now, posting on his facebook page about the concrete jobs he is doing. Yea, how many more are doing the same?

"Republicans opposing the legislation said the measure should be paid for by cutting unspent money from last year's economic stimulus bill."

It was the Democrats that passed the "PayGo" legislation requiring any new spending to be offset, but the Democrats have tried hundreds of times to pass new spending without any offsetting of costs. There are hundreds of $Billion unspent in the failed 'Stimulus" bill that could fund this extension, so why not use it instead of trying to score cheap points.

Deck the halls with tax cut folly, Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha Ha-ha-ha-haaaaa!

Screw the jobless, say you're sorry, Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha Ha-ha-ha-haaaaa!

The super-rich are super-needy, Ha-ha-ha Ha-ha-ha Ha-ha-haaaaa!

Flip my burger or you're greedy, Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha Ha-ha-ha-haaaaa!

.

Extensions aren't much motivation, Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha Ha-ha-ha-haaaaa!

Top dogs need their long vacations, Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha Ha-ha-ha-haaaaa!

Can't take money from the top two, Ha-ha-ha Ha-ha-ha Ha-ha-haaaaa!

Getting screwed, we're getting used to, Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha Ha-ha-ha-haaaaa!

.

It's fine to spend 700 billion, Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha Ha-ha-ha-haaaaa!

Our gift to those who make a million, Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha Ha-ha-ha-haaaaa!

We must be lazy, or not looking, Ha-ha-ha Ha-ha-ha Ha-ha-haaaaa!

Soon outdoors we'll all be cooking, Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha Ha-ha-ha-haaaaa!

.

They don't care, and it's no wonder, Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha Ha-ha-ha-haaaaa!

To the GOP, you're just a number, Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha Ha-ha-ha-haaaaa!

They must give UI extensions, Ha-ha-ha Ha-ha-ha Ha-ha-haaaaa!

Or we'll remember next election, Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha Ha-ha-ha-HAAAAAA!

.

(c) 2010 Problem solver

Vinnie and all~ so I would have to say to those who live in NY and THINK their 250k is not enough ... During the union busting days we told them don't like a right to work state? MOVE. As we tell airport fliers who are not happy with the conditions of scans and cost to our rights? DON'T FLY. Whining about it is not a cure, Delaware has no taxes at all - according to the repubs you could have a new job within a couple of weeks with NO problem. 250k is wealthy anyway you look at it.

RickGaffron: Funny that you would mention concrete jobs . Since your buddies amnesty plan and lax enforcement has illegals doing that job in many states. Yea, the look the other way began with Reagan & Simpson decades ago. Those jobs used to belong to high school graduates that didn't want to proceed to college. And the impact on local lawn maintenance operations in the black community???

But hey we shipped the manufacturing to China.

Pushed local labor under the table to illegals.

And wonder why we have less money going to SS, Medicare, and why there's such a high unemployment rate??

Please check me out here, but I believe that the 'Stimulus" money is merely "authorized". In other words, those dollars don't add to the deficit until they are ACTUALLY spent. So using those funds is still creating debt. Some posters here also need to completely read and COMPREHEND the numbers posted above for the costs of extending the tax cuts. The amounts are for a 10 year period. Not per year. But none the less "Pay-Go" does not appear to be working. Both sides of the isle have said they intend to reign in spending. They just haven't decided which decade in the future they will ACTUALLY start doing it. Too much gamesmanship being played by both parties here. Is it too much to ask politicians to act like responsible adults and play nice? Apparently it is. But never fear America...help is on the way...Sarah is coming in 2012 to save you all...lmao!!!! If all of this craziness wasn't seriously hurting our country it would be hilarious.

Donna.. Could you explain your comment that...

Delaware has no taxes at all

because I looked at the State of Delaware website and it sure looks like they have a personal income tax, business tax and other taxes as well. Could you explain, because if they really don't have any taxes, I may want to move there.

Thanks!

First of all Scar, I have no buddies in Government, I voted against every incumbent and sitting judge. I myself think they are all criminals and the best use of stimulus money would be erecting gallows outside the halls of Congress.

Business sure has used illegal labor. Solution jail the employers who knowingly hire them. Consumers are just as guilty, as they choose cheap prices. The days of Mom and Pop stores is over due to greed on all sides. Business for profit and consumers need for cheap @!$%# they truly do not need. I think both parties are guilty on this issue.

My point was I know people drawing and working under the table. Might that also be effecting SS and Medicare? Might Congresses inextinguishable thirst for more and more tax dollars might also have an effect? If business is such an easy thing to succeed at, why are all the unemployed not starting their own companies? Then they can pay top dollar, only hire legal Americans and not ship the jobs out of the country for a larger profit margin.

Maybe there is greed at all ends of the scale.

Right on!!!Merry Christmas let's say 30,000,000 people and their families!!!

We are rich (Republicans) and you are poor (the unemployed people) and since there are no jobs available,f@ck you all!!!No more unemployment for you!!!No matter how long you busted your butt for America before you ever lost your jobs!!!WOW!!!This is so dicguisting!!!Can We get any lower???

While it is not funny at all, couldn't we all see this coming? The Congress has had this same conversation two times before this year and are in the same damn place as the last two times. The Reps want to know how it will be paid for, the Dems don't care. You would think that they would have been working on this long before now since they all knew that the extension was going to end and they all did not a damn thing about it.

What most of you do not realize is that a lot of this is all talk. You think that this will extend benefits for those whose benefits have run out. That did not happen last time and will not happen this time. What happens is that the extension lets you access more of the UIB balance that you have if and a very big if it is, you have not used up all of the monies supposedly put into your UIB account. Many people have used it up and this extension, like the last one, just gives false hope. I had many people tell me they did not need to pursue Welfare benefits because the extension was going to kick in. To their surprise, they did not qualify since they had nothing left in their account. This happened over and over and over. The numbers are all false- , yes some may get more UIB but many have exhausted all they money they will get and this is nothing but false hope for thousands- perhaps millions.

I think the thing most liberals here are overlooking is that the GOP is not against extending these benefits, it says so right in the article. They want to know where it will be funded, that seems responsible to me. Instead of allowing it to be debated, the Dem's tried to fast track it. What is the problem with discussing where the money will come from? All rhetoric aside, what is wrong with paying for it out of money left in the stimulus package?

How about some honest answers to an honest question? Why shouldn't they be allowed to debate where it will be funded? What is wrong with using unspent stimulus money to fund this?

ChiCity......
Let me ask YOU an honest question: Where is the money coming from for the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy?? How will that be funded?? If you can answer that one, I am sure you will find the solution for your question as well.

To Congressmen Boehner and all other GOPers who refused to extend UI benefits because they didn't know how to pay for it:

Here's how: Reduce the top-two-percent tax cuts by $12.5B, which still leaves 55/56ths of your $700B monstrous giveaway untouched!

Oh, sorry, I forgot - you and your rich cronies need ALL 56/56ths of it.

How can ANY of you suggest that the money come from ANYWHERE else with a straight face? Seriously? You can justify that?

Denying $12.5B in UI extensions to those of us who desperately need it, while refusing to budge on $700B in tax cuts for the wealthy is reprehensible, unconscionable, and disgustingly un-American.

Can you settle for $687.5 billion, and maybe have one less martini at lunch?

STOP PLAYING POLITICS WITH OUR LIVES! The job crisis is REAL, it's not a joke, it's not a political game, and it's not getting any better.

EXTEND THE UI BENEFITS!

To the rest of you holier-than-thou, not-yet-unemployed people:

Do you even think about what you're saying?

Why does every not-unemployed person assume that all unemployed people should be manual laborers, simply ignoring their wealth of experience, (expensive) education, and professional knowledge? Should our collective brains become a puddle of goo so we can mow your lawn for you for five bucks or flip your McBurger for $7.25 an hour? Should we be prostitutes and gigolos, too? No! I'll be damned if I go back to the job and wage I had as a 16-year-old in the 1970s. I didn't get a degree and amass 30-plus years of professional experience to go that far backwards. Those of you who suggest otherwise are out of your minds. Get real. They aren't hiring people like me for jobs like that anyway.

Let's try some common sense for a change, shall we?

I was laid off in February from an amazing job as an editorial manager and writer for a brain fitness company. I'm highly educated, I've got great reference letters, and an impressive résumé. I've been searching desperately for full-time writing, editing or managing work since the day I lost my job, and I've had no success. I'm required to search for full-time work in my usual occupation as a condition of receiving UI benefits, so don't tell me I should be looking for temporary or contract work. And yes, I've expanded my search to cover anything remotely connected to anything I've ever done, including travel agent, ad copywriter, and much more. With the new online, faceless, nameless world of job ads, applications, and emails, I'm lucky if I even get a "we received your application" note. Forget about a phone call, a meeting or an interview. I use employment agencies, creative agencies, online sites, résumé sites, and more. Even craigslist, for what that's worth. Doesn't matter. I'm either overqualified, too old (only 47), or have made too much in the past (since when is $45,000 "too much?") to be offered a job for $10/hour. I can't make ends meet writing articles for 3 cents a word (if that), and last I checked, unpaid internships (which are usually illegal anyway) are all unpaid. But I still search, every day, seven days a week, and I know something will turn up eventually. I may be discouraged, but I'm not giving up.

Do you expect me and my fellow unemployed citizens to PERMANENTLY accept jobs that are low-paying, low-quality, low-everything? Is that your solution? Should we all live on the street - YOUR street - because we want to do work in the field we're trained, educated, and knowledgeable in, rather than accept a menial position that requires NO skill, NO education, has NO future or advancement opportunity, and pays at most about 1/3 of what we made previously?

It's really easy to talk big when you have a job, isn't it?

There are no jobs magically being created somewhere. There are no employers begging for workers, at least not in southern California. No, moving isn't an option. It's not free to move, my wife still has a job (should we both be unemployed?), and our rent is thankfully fairly low. How would we get an apartment in a different state with no job and no income? We're not moving somewhere else to put us in a worse position than we're in now! It's as if some of you who aren't unemployed believe in the Move-And-Find-A-Job Fairy - you just snap your fingers and *poof!* - you're in a new state with a new home and new job, and everything's just peachy keen!

Life doesn't work like that. What if every unemployed person just moved to another state to find a job, because "that's where the jobs are?" The jobs are few and far between everywhere, and chasing one's tail around the country is about as inefficient and unproductive as it gets.

The only winners would be moving companies.

I'll stay here, keep searching, and eventually, I'll be a productive member of society once again with a job that's important, challenging, and rewarding.

No, I'm not "too good" to do anything, but I won't be used or taken advantage of either. I have more to offer than spatula or mopping skills, and I shouldn't have to settle for a job that will keep me at poverty level just because I got unlucky and got laid off from a good job. I deserve the opportunity to find a REAL job that matches my skills and experience and pays a fair wage. To steal that opportunity from me because YOU think I'm lazy, or I'm unwilling or unable to take a manual labor job, or because it's taking so damn long to find work because good jobs are so scarce, or because YOU think I think I'm "too good" to flip burgers is impatient, short-sighted, and destructive to society. The job market sucks, and it's going to take time to recover. That's why UI extensions and middle-class tax cuts are necessary!

Will America thrive and prosper and grow by putting our best and brightest - but unluckiest - to work mopping floors, washing windows, or cleaning stables? Even if the local McDonald's is hiring, it's ludicrous to think that every educated, qualified professional should flip burgers for minimum wage instead of seeking actual employment that pays a wage one can live on. That's not how the economy grows, and it's a waste of talent and brainpower. Taking a crappy job is not going to fix either my world or the economy in general. There aren't enough burger joints in the world anyway to employ all the "lazy, unmotivated, entitled hobos" - er, I mean unemployed, no matter what the Tea Party & GOP might want you to believe.

To all those who think it's so damn easy to find a job, or think any unemployed person should take ANY job that's offered:

QUIT YOUR JOB AND GIVE IT A TRY!

Now, shut up and get back to work. And be damn glad you have work to go back to.

To the employed, the unemployed, and "others":

From outsourcing to tax cuts, we're going nowhere as a country until the economy is back, and without UI extensions, we're headed downhill at a rolling snowball's pace.

The GOP "plan" is a disaster; not one that's waiting to happen, but one that's clearly underway. Their $700 billion "gifts-for-the-rich" scam will destroy what little recovery we've made in this country; they're widening the divide between those who have and those who desperately want to have. This is class warfare. Make that class nuclear warfare. Don't believe it? Then justify NOT spending 1/56th - less than 1.8% - of the GOP's top-bracket tax cut for millionaires (read: FREE MONEY) on a short-term UI extension to help out millions of unemployed, desperate Americans who are in dire straits due to NO FAULT OF OUR OWN instead of handing it to the richest people in our country to add to the top of their pile! Money-bundle Jenga, anyone?

A few people are likely taking advantage of the extensions, but the vast majority of us are not. We're NOT leeches, we're NOT lazy, we're NOT "too good," and we're NOT unmotivated! We NEED these extensions, we DESERVE these extensions, and we desperately WANT good jobs and fair wages!

And that's the name of that tune.

Rick Gaffron- don't judge eveybody's corn by your half acre- or the people you know. Not everyone is getting 99 weeks of UI. Most state benefits run out at 26 and the extensions allow them additional weeks. It's only about 350 a week. Ever try housing and feeding four kids and a wife on that? It is minimal but it keeps their rent and mortgages paid and allows them to try to find jobs. What if all the unemployed people lost their homes or were evicted? What do you think that would do to the housing market or the homeless programs? Are you ready for that consequence? You do recall that gas is three dollars or more a gallon- right? If you are going to a job interview you need to get there. Not everyone has access to public transportation. The UI helps pay for job search too. I know of alot of people out of work; all of them REPORT their small part time temp jobs as required and the UI amount is reduced. Maybe you should find better people with whom to associate.

As far as jobs coming from these tax breaks for the wealthier earners, think about this: The breaks have been in place for 9 years. SO WHERE ARE ALL THOSE JOBS HEY? Every study and report demonstrates the businessowners are sitting on the money, not creating jobs. Unless they are starting a fertilizer factory, what they are "producing" is not an in demand marketable commodity. Any cattle farmer can produce a better quality and being a farm girl myself, I know manure when I smell it. Most of us do these days. Not passing this bill is just that. The Republicans can hide all they want behind the rationale of it being funded- so introduce an idea to do so;something with a more concrete or longer term funding rather then piece meal. Ahh far too easy. If they are going to criticize, what is THEIR plan?? They have none. Ponder this- How about leaving Iraq NOW;that can pay for ALOT of needs domestically. When we do go it will look like taking a pencil out of a cup of sand; no one will be able to tell that we were ever there- except for the families of the nearly 5000 who have been killed. Perhaps Congress can cut out funding those ridiculous embassies we are building that the insurgents can use as a vantage point as they shoot at what "advisers" are still left there or stop starting projects like schools or hospitals that we cannot or do not finish and just leave because the contract was over. Or cut out those "private" contractors who get 150K a year to do what 30K a year soldiers were doing better for far less...How about using THOSE savings to fund the UI here hey?

If the Democrats think for ONE second there is any chance of cooperation, they need to take their heads from that dark recess in which they have placed it since the election and push through what ever legislation they can because come Jan 3rd this country will head into the "Land of OZ" and unless they plan to stand in line with the Scarecrow and ask the Wizard if he has 2 brains in that bag, they need to find a game plan that works. Whatever is in order, the next few weeks should see those fence-sitting- patty-cake-playing-now-unemployed members of the House and Senate finally realize that had they been better at producing and promoting their message they would not be unemployed themselves. They need to get these pieces of critical legislation passed.- like the tax cuts, teh START treaty and a real JOBS bill. After January 3rd, they won't be in Kansas anymore.

Let's see...just to check the MATH...

The debt that 13,000,000,000,000 that everyone likes to talk about is about $42,000 per person in the US...yes..that's counting all 330,000,000 of us. But spending 12,000,000,000 amounts to a lousy $36 per person...more debt...

Let's keep it simple...BFDeal! Let's talk about something that matters...keeping children in homes with heat during the winter..and food on the table and let's invest in some jobs....

RickGaffron

I have a friend who has been on unemployment for almost two years now, posting on his facebook page about the concrete jobs he is doing.

=====================================

Rick,

If he is doing what you say, he's comitting fraud. If you haven't reported him, then you are legally comitting a crime also. Knowing someone is comitting a crime and not stopping it is ethically, and legally, wrong. Quit your whining.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

R-738279 Comment collapsed by the community

\ oh yes and have no backbone….

Obviously you have never been in the military. People like my dad, my brother, myself and countless other millions have served to protect your rights, including the one that allows you to act/seak like an imbecile. However, you are abusing it.............Instead of knocking the men and women who have served maybe you should be thanking them for what they have given you tho you don't seem to have a clue as to what that is.

Donna - How much of that $250k do you think someone should have to pay in taxes? 30%, 40%, 50%? Please let me know what your opinion of a fair amount of tax is. And remember, property tax is not included in the $75k from before.

Take it out of the stimulus money and give it to those who need it. Seems pretty simple to me. But yet Democrats are more than willing to politicize this move as Republicans who are out of touch and just don't care. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It is very simple. If you are in favor of something , you vote for it. If you are against it , you block it. It is not rocket science.

It's a little more complicated then that because of the language and rules on the money but both could do it if they stopped playing " Mom he touched me" "No you did it first"... Makes you want to put them in a time out-in Siberia. They make things that are not complicated, complicated unnecessarily. Find a good idea and someone will come up with 50K reasons for why it can't work rather then the ONE that will. And it is NOT going to get better folks.

If they really care , all they have to do is vote for it. Is this too complicated??

I hardly think profanity is necessary. It cheapens your opinion and makes people think you are a moron. Next!

Problem Solver: Bless you for the time and effort it took to lay out that truth about the situation some of us who are older, longer-time receivers of unemployment are living.

I spent 15 years at home raising great kids, which the Repubs say they like to see, before my ex-husband dumped me. Due to that 15-year gap in my personal earnings history, I have less accrued unemployment insurance contributions and less Social Security / Disability contributions to my credit. My ex made hundreds of thousands per year and can afford to retire early. I have worked and made my own way for the last 20 years, but never managed a salary greater than $45K.

Now, at 57, I am unemployed for nearly a year, my benefits are about to expire at the end of the month. I put out resumes, answer ads, but rarely hear a peep from the employer, no feedback or even acknowledgement. I am required to document and prove my effort to find a job, so I would love to know where these mythical, do-nothing, goldbricker unemployed live so I can maybe move there. I live with a roommate because neither of us could afford an apartment on our own.

Something the selfish smart-asses who still have jobs need to think about. There's more than one way to 'fund' assistance, either by finding existing funds to compensate the spending or by taking the full-cost accounting view and giving value to future fiscal consequences, avoided costs of NOT supplying the assistance. The holiday season is coming, which US retailers count on to boost spending and their profits and all of the "downline" benefits that come from an active economy.

If we unemployed do not get an extension of benefits, we will not have discretionary income to spend on Christmas. The economy will be further slowed and damaged, possibly causing stores to bankruptcies as well as those who manufacture the goods those retailers sold. Not only will many of us cost you who have jobs more tax money in emergency housing assistance when we can no longer afford a place to live other than a tent city, but we will require tax-funded emergency food assistance to keep us from starving and tax-subsidized emergency medical care at your county hospitals.

But in addition, any opportunity we might have had of boosting the economy with our meager scraps of Christmas spending will be gone and YOUR job might go right along with it. Almost everyone in this country is merely one or two paychecks away from being right where I am.

This crap you feed yourselves about how even a significant number of the unemployed are willingly and happily so is just your deluded attempt at making yourself feel better about your un-Christian selfishness; it's denial and rationalization, and deep down you know it.

Think about us each time you see 'A Christmas Carol', and listen closely as the Ghost of Christmas Present reveals the two scrawny children beneath his robe and names them. "Their names are Ignorance and Want, and upon their brow is written the word DOOM." Being Christian, helping others and sharing generously doesn't only boost our own selves spirituality, but it keeps a sputtering economy from sputtering worse or going into seizure completely.

I say EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY ... all TAX PAID SALARIES to the GOPers/a.k.a the COLLECTIVE party of NO should be garnished - retroactively for the past 2 yrs, as they've done NOTHING to earn them (except sit on their BIG double-wide asses, and refused to do the job they were ELECTED to do to help this country) which is FRAUD.

These UNEARNED TAX-PAID SALARIES garnished from the GOPers would pay a big chunk of the UI extension to help the people that the Republican FAILED policies and agendas have caused to be unemployed, and should remain in effect UNTIL THEY UNDERSTAND THAT "WE THE PEOPLE" ARE PAYING THEIR NICE COMFORTABLE SALARIES, and WILL NOT be played with anymore.

The repubs campaigned on them being the "ONLY PARTY" who could create millions of jobs and solve theses complex economic problems, knowing full well they had NO IDEAS OR INTENTIONS OF WORKING TO FIX THIS COUNTRY.

Now, to throw salt on the jagged wounds, they are cutting off the "life-lines" of millions of families, at the worst possible times.

If the American people are out of work and bankrupt... the Repubs need to know what it feels like too. It works everytime. By cutting the Republican's UNEARNED SALARIES, and getting rid of all of their UNEARNED PERKS, I'll bet they'll get their sorry BIG double-wide asses back to work.

To the voters: We had them removed from ANY kind of power, but these snake oil salesmen/women (who seemed functionally insane) sold you a BOLD-FACED LYING bill of goods - to which they could not, or had any intention of even attempting to deliver. All they cared about was getting back into power, and you got exactly what you asked for.

Republicans to Americans: There really are suckers born every minute,(and we can't believe how easy it was to fool you all AGAIN!)

Definition of INSANITY: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein

That's MY opinion!

This is so horrible for unemployed Americans, who through no fault of their own, lost their jobs in this freaking economy--gee, thanks so very much, REPUGS---way to go!

Did those of you voting for these cretins really expect anything different or is it that you just don't care?

And, a HO, HO, HO to a most hateful bunch.......no more words

Vote the traitorous, cowardly, and lying, racist GOP, out!

Hmmm.... we easily spend about 12 billion a month for both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We don't think twice about writing a blank check for nothing in return, with no plan to pay that back.

But yet whine when a subject of extending unemployment for 3 months at 12.5 billion comes up.

Who do you think will help this economy? Millions on unemployment or rich companies making a killing making bullets and bombs? Tough choice eh?

I think it is funny that the GOP comments are not eligible for a reply. Are they all scared? It is bad enough they don't use their real names, just like the anonomous donors who bought them their reelection. Vote the GOP, out!

THESE ARE AMERICANS THAT NEED THESE BENEFITS THEY PAY INTO!...Especially the fighting men & women of our American armed forces who,when discharge into this hypocrite greed,hatred for fellow man & women in our country,that can't find a job or are going to school.Need this benefit to survive...DAM WHAT ARE WE TRULY COMING TO PEOPLE!!....I hope every vanishing gop tea-bag con-serv-ah-nothins lose their riches & feel the suffering of the single mom with children that are crying right now for something to eat, Need clothes on their backs,warmth of a roof over their heads,struggling men who lost their jobs in all brackets of the job market....Who are crying in the inside....holding on to prayer to try to feed their children..the senior down the street that need this benefit to pay for their meds...Their heat will be shut off & they will freeze to death....our moms & dads they could be ..us...we our one country...this AMERICA I DON'T KNOW ANY MORE.....I am afraid of these rich HATE-MONGERS...WHO LOVE THE GREED..the green backs they are..the gop carefore...as a baby nursing...but can't nurse because mom could not buy formula for this american baby....we should be destroyed from our greed...who is not greedy here on these posts?..these vines?..Including myself at times?...we have come to a low point in our history....and now i will try to help someone out there in this land..YES I AM SAD TODAY!!....WE ARE GREED..WE LOVE GREED...WE WILL DIE FROM GREED.....

How can the REPUBLICANS block anything??? The DEMOCRATS still have MAJORITIES in BOTH Houses.

The current House has 435 members, there are 255 DEMOCRATS and only 178 REPUBLICANS.....

Republicans don't want to add to the deficit. They want these extensions funded. I get that. But to pay for these extensions out of unspent stimulus money makes no sense. Isn't the stimulus $ borrowed $ (we certainly didn't have this cash just lying around). So, using borrowed money to pay for these extensions is just adding to the deficit.

Using UNSPENT and uncommitted dollars makes more sense that adding mmore money we don't have allocated to the deficiet. Simply this; The Democrats, with Obama's blessing, passed an enormus "Stimulus" that has failed miserably. Not all that allocated money was dispersed, and as yet, Pelosi, Reid, and Obama haven't blessed their supporters with the earmarks that would swallow it up. To use these fund's, instead of creating a larger problem than currently is killing our Economy, and adding less new funding to solve the problem only makes it less destructive. To claim the Republicans won't pass it is a blatant lie, of the finest LIBERAL kind. Fast tracking during the Lame Duck without offering ANY compromise by the Left and Democrats just tells me that when Obama and the LEFT say they are open to compromise for the A$$ whipping in the Election is just their way of saying we WON'T compromise. To prove they (The LEFT) indeed want to compromise, this would be a very good way of putting our Money where their Mouths are. Caught in lies again, Dems, and there isn't any backing out now.

Oh, BTW, this entire MESS was grown from the seeds of NAFTA, Bill Clinton signed it 11 MONTHS after taking office, and his utterly FAILED " Every American is ENTITLED to own a home" speech in 1997, starting the false growth of housing, forcing Banks to lend to VERY high risk borrowers, and exporting America's Industry out of our country to Asian Nations that have been too lazy to grow their own economy over the last, in most cases, 4,000-5,000 years. They had the rescources and minds to do it, but dictatorships like the Left kept them down, now, to "level the playing field" and the famous "for the children" Clinton Mantra have destroyed all the effort of 300 years, 300, effort by Americans that built this Nation out of wilderness. Sorry, Socialists, I and most Americans aren't buying your Railroad job this time.

And, as ALL administrations have done since the 1960's, antone NOT getting an unemployment check, are not counted as unemployed. Therefore, this failure by the Democrats will be turned by their Spin factories to indicate that there were LESS unemployed in their final days as the majority. Again the Left lies and twists the truth.

Next up: Sen. ROCKEFELLER (D) VA. states that Fox news and MSNBC should be shut down, freedom of speech and press only for the Leftist controlled Media that favors our views and hides the truth, at any cost. Wonderful people, those Democrats. Wonderful Communist's, progressives, Socialists killing America at every turn.

Ike0716, you might want to get a non-revisionist copy of Bill Clinton's declaring an "Entitlement" and forcing Lenders to lower rates and reduce safe lending rules or be Investigated for, basically, "Redlining" loans to the population that wouldn't get off their A$$ES to earn the home they wanted. Plain and simple, Clinton was, and still does as his understudy does, and that is pander to the LAZY who feel they are "Entitled" for whatever reason. And, before you start shouting they didn't have the opportunity, they do, it's called the Civil Rights Amendment. But, for the LEFT, thats not good enough, the "Opportunity" has to be handed out on Silver platters with Gold trim. Here is another clue for you: ALL business Employing more than a specified number of people are REQUIRED to have a percentage-based mix of Races and Genders, directed by the Federal Government. HOWEVER, the MINORITY owned Businesses ARE NOT required to comply by the same formula, and those extremely few that do, do so voluntarily. Hiring is NOT based on experience or ability, but on Race and Gender. AND, now the 9th Circus court of Idiots in San Francisco has declared that ILLEGAL ALIENS are allowed the same tuition as Californis Residents, those pesky real AMERICANS that earned the right to education, by obeying the Law, can't have a lower tuition rate. Thank you Communist Democrats and Liberals, you Ba$tards!!!!!

Republicans don't want to increase the national debt? Reagan and the two Bushes account for $9.2 trillion of our current national debt: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Republicans will hate this, but this really is the larger picture. Why are we having high rates of unemployment? The recession. What and who created the recession? Wall Street giants, and the people that deregulated Wall Street to stimulate the excessive greedy speculation and white collar crime were REPUBLICANS.

In 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was passed by a Republican controlled congress that repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 - with its regulations against Wall Street giants forming. No random accident that we were confronting one of our largest white collar crime waves in our history in 2007 involving Wall Street giants. The same Republican controlled congress passed the Modernization of Commodities and Futures Act in 2000. It was a gargantuan loophole for derivatives white collar crime and the Enron electricity scandal in California. Any random accident that the mastermind behind both bills was Republican Senate Banking Committee Chairman Phil Gramm, an ex Enron lobbyist? Nope.

Then you have George W Bush joining Democrat presidents in encouraging low income customers owning their own homes. New forms of housing market speculation developed along with this push for low income housing. Alan Greenspan at the Fed sat by and watched as most economists predicted the housing bubble bursting reciting his mantra "the market takes care of itself."

No it doesn't!!! That's the same thing as asking a bunch of white collar criminals to regulate themselves. This is the same philosophy as Harding, Coolidge and Hoover in the 1920s - three Republican presidents in a row that believed in the laisez faire economic philosphy of leaving the market alone. In short, non regulation. Wall Street giants formed, reckless and greedy speculation increased and finally white collar crime started the Great Depression (stock market crash of 1929).

And unbelievably current Republicans are still dogmatically clinging to economic concepts that go back over 80 years. They have no remorse for what they did. They are in denial they did anything at all. And if you vote them into a majority of both houses of congress again, they will do the same thing all over again - collapse the economy by deregulating Wall Street.

Don't forget the unemployed during the Great Depression and those homeless camps they used to call "Hoovervilles."

The new tea republicans are going to hurt alot of Americans this Christmas. Thanks for your voting choice America!

Republicans are not listening to the will of Americans !

That is EXACTLY how I feel about the Democrats.

Someone posted that 73% of Americans agree with extending unemployment. I find that very hard to believe.

How long have people been receiving benefits at this point? Normally it is 6 months of money within a 12 month period.

Maybe it's only true in big cities, but people who I know that are "unemployed" have managed to find temporary jobs and contract work that pay more than unemployment.

We can not continue to fund unemployment. We have no money. Something has to give.

(c) 2010 Problem solver

While this is proper notice, if I were you, I wouldn't worry about anyone infringing on your work.

Blue Star, it is incorrect to call it a tax cut, it is continuing the current tax rate. Most people say, this is how much I make, so this is how much I can spend... The Democrats say, this is how much we need, now where do we find that money? I answered your question, failing to hike a current tax rate is not the same thing as it not being funded. Now how about you answer my question.

JoJo, that first "bailout" you refer to TARP, in retrospect has been a huge success. That is why Obama does nothing to dispel the rumor that it was his policy. He takes credit for it in interviews. It has almost been entirely paid back, with interest.

At the end of the day, this was a political play by the Democrats to make the republicans look bad. They are using the unemployed to gain political currency. They new that fast tracking it wouldn't work, so instead of making a genuine effort to get it passed through normal legislation open to debate, they sold out the unemployed. Point at the republicans all you want, but this was a democratic failure.

I'm glad to see Congress acting responsibly for a change. If you extend benefits you just get the same welfare bunch sitting on their butts.

Below is part of the letter I just sent to my Congressman and Senators. They are voting on taxes NOW. If you want them to know YOUR opinion, write to them NOW.

-----------------------------

Dear Congressman or Senators:

The Bush tax cuts DID ZERO to create jobs. The unemployment rate steadily increased during his administration, from the low of 4% to almost double, 7.6% on the day Bush Jr. left office.

Do not compromise. If the Republicans want to give a tax break to wealthy people, it needs to be tied to jobs for Americans in the United States. I have no problem with that kind of tax incentive.

The situation is that lowering the estate tax WILL NOT CREATE JOBS.

I do agree with the Republicans that business needs to feel more secure in order to start hiring again.

YOU AND YOUR DEMOCRATIC BUDDIES caused this insecurity when you passed national health care. Business wondered what would be next and business owners dug in their heels.

YOU AND YOUR DEMOCRATIC BUDDIES caused the rest of the nation to vote the Republicans into office.

...

I want unemployed Americans to get training in another job because their jobs are gone. Maybe extend unemployment PROVIDED they start a training program.

signed, an independent voter

Karen, for the most part, I really like your letter. I have always said that giving tax breaks to companies based on their hiring and wages per employee (what percentage the wages are in comparison to profits) would create much more tax revenue because it creates more and higher paid employees. (This is called "trickle down" by the way. Reagan had it right, and Clinton reaped the benefits from it.)

But, I have one question for you, and anyone else who thinks it is necessary, how is estate tax fair? Estate tax is the most unfair tax there is. Why not instead eliminate the $250,000/$500,000 exemption on capital gains tax? Any money or inheritance that someone gets has ALREADY BEEN TAXED, how, in any way, is it fair to tax it again???? This has never made any sense to me. If you sell a house and make a profit, you don't have to pay taxes on the first $250,000 profit ($500,000 for married) - what is that all about? It is earned money, why isn't it taxed? Yet, if your parents worked hard all their life and saved a lot of money, WHICH THEY PAID TAX ON WHEN THEY EARNED IT, they die and leave it to you and you have to pay taxes on it AGAIN? What? I just do not get how this makes any sense! I mean I can see having to pay taxes on proceeds from a house or property sold (minus the amount that it was purchased for of course), not anything that has already been taxed.

Karen, unfortunately most of the unemployed I've met are not interested in training programs. As they like to say, just show me the money.

"For each dollar spent on UI there is found an increase in economic activity of two dollars" (http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/eta20101615fs.htm) the holidays season in particular, I may add. Recipients of UI spend the money, they can not save it. Consumption is what fuels our Capitalistic economy. With more sales this season many businesses will thrive, generating employment. Wrong timing for saying NO!

Well Santiman, I guess we should just all become welfare recipients and the economy would really boom.

Well 'tinman1967', that's "the tail wagging the dog". If we all would become "welfare recipients" then the issue in discussion would not be about "Unemployment Insurance". Go read the report first and let's discuss the reality of being involuntarily unemployed.

Santiman, I think what this fails to address is limits on UI. I to agree that they should be extended, paid out of the stimulus. However, there must be limits to how long people can draw UI. It can't be a never ending cycle.

Karen, unfortunately most of the unemployed I've met are not interested in training programs. As they like to say, just show me the money.

They can not get a job which means their type of job is extinct or they need additional training. The part of my letter that I did not include is how I was unemployed at the end of 2002 and it was not until 2005 that I was employed at the same salary level as 2002. I HAVE A MASTERS DEGREE.

My state passed a law which essentially negated my experience over formal education so in 2004, I got that education, and have been employed since. In fact, I was laid off at the end of July and withn 3 weeks had temporary jobs that paid my bills BECAUSE OF MY TRAINING. I am still temporarily employed while looking for a job at my salary level. They are out there but it takes time, especially since there are so many people who are unemployed.

Re: estate taxes. Since I have to leave for work in a minute, suffice it to say they are fair. WHY? MOST of the huge estates were created with the assistance of our own government. The Astors and Vanderbilts were assisted in their business endeavors and the trade off was estate taxes. Because most of us were not alive back then, we don't know this.

That is why estate taxes are fair. Our own government helped create them with the anticipation of tax revenue in exchange. That sounds fair to me.

Karen, there are a handfull of estates at best that fall into this category. Those people have died several times over, and been taxed several times over.

What about someone who dies with assets worth, say $5 million?

Karen, Regardless of where people make their money, they still pay taxes on it. And ChiCity is right, these estates you talk about have been taxed over and over and over with each inheritance. Still not seeing where that is fair.

Estate tax is just like this - I have the money (taxed income) to buy a new vehicle. In 5 years I sell said vehicle. The government wants to tax me on the income that I make off the sale of the vehicle. I was already taxed on that income once, why should I have to pay taxes on it again?

Also, for those of you out there that think tax cuts are going to cost the country money by raising the deficit - if someone doesn't come up to me on the street and hand me a $100 dollar bill - how is that costing me money? The spending is what is going to cost money.

Thats like my mom used to say - "I saved money by buying something that was on sale." No - you just spent less.

Exactly NV - PLUS you paid for the car and with cars you don't make a profit. Yet, if you sell your house and are married, your first $500,000 profit is exempt from capital gains tax - and this is money that has NOT been taxed - it is PROFIT. That is messed up!!

Karen, Regardless of where people make their money, they still pay taxes on it. And ChiCity is right, these estates you talk about have been taxed over and over and over with each inheritance. Still not seeing where that is fair.

A lot of people think this and I do not agree. Taxed over and over? Are you kidding? Why do you think that wealthy people hire tax advisors?

They put their ESTATES into TRUSTS (NON-TAXABLE). I think the term is living trust. Once they die, the beneficiaries take control of the trust AND DO NOT PAY TAX. There are all kinds of loopholes in the tax law that ESTATES ARE NOT TAXED the way you believe they are.

Re: capital gains. Considering that BUSINESS costs can be deducted from income prior to the income being taxed, if they make capital gains, they can pay the tax. Capital gains tax is a business expense as far as I am concerned. Look at the big picture instead of whining that the feds take too much money.

Hey - so many of you want to extend unemployment benefits and agree with national health care. Where in the world will we get the money if not tax?

I am talking about capital gains tax as specifically applies to selling a home (as I said).

And by being taxed over and over it means: grandpa Vanderbilt dies, son inherits fortune and pays estate tax, then becomes a grandpa; new grandpa Vanderbilt dies, his son inherits SAME fortune and pays estate tax... and so on.

The bottom line is, if my parents die and leave me $100,000, I should not have to pay estate taxes on it because it is money that has already been taxed. And the BULK of people who are forced to pay estate tax fall in to this category!

Karen, when someone dies, the estate must be reconciled with the IRS. My grandmother died a few years ago. Yes, we hired an estate planner to save as much as we could, but were still taxed through the roof.

She was a school teacher from Alabama. Involved in the civil rights movement, and college educated (which is impressive for someone born around 1910). Her family had a small local bank, that was one of few to survive the great depression. The bank was sold to a large bank out of Georgia. She took stock options. Over time, that stock split, and split, and split... In the end, she had roughly 150,000 shares of stock. Still, she lived a very simple life, donated generously to her church, paid for me and my siblings to go to college. In the end, when she died, her estate was valued around $5 million. Despite the best planning (my dad handled it and is a Harvard MBA so knew what he was doing) including an estate planner, the government got over half. When I sold some of my shares to fund a business I started, I paid gains going back to the original basis points.

Not everyone is some billionaire inheriting money from old government deals. This is a more representative story of the people strongly opposed to a 60% inheritance tax.

Karen I like the way you think on the unemployment benefits, but not the taxes. I still want to come out and have you show me around Hollywood!

Hollywood? If you are talking to me, my name should show where I'm from (Chicago). That's my point, I am not rich. At least not close by the standards of this city. I'm not complaining about my life, but rich? No.

is your name Karen?

http://www.estateplanningorganizer.com/living_trust.html

The above link is only ONE way to avoid estate taxes so I am done discussing the issue. I want the estate tax cuts to expire as planned.

Penguin - The best things to see in Hollywood are: Groman's Chinese Theater (Cher put her hand and foot print in the cement yesterday or will do so very soon), the Walk of Fame, Kodak Theater (where they have the Oscars), Universal City, Santa Monica Pier, Venice Beach....

That's fine. You obviously don't understand the way it works. For any money to be drawn, taxes must be paid.

Scar-414733

Hey , If the Republicans can employ them, YeA!!! But then, they encouraged the exportation of our manufacturing jobs for how many years??? Encouraged illegal alien employment for how many years (wink , wink, Alan Simpson) If the Republicans can correct that trend, more power to them. They will deserve to be re-elected. Those that believe they will......probably believe in the tooth fairy as well.

Wow are you ever blaming the wrong side Scar. Exportation of jobs? Who was it that pushed hard for and signed NAFTA and the WTO Free Trade Agreements? Was Clinton a republican?

Encouraged illegal aliens? Pretty sure it was republicans in the state of Arizona that enacted a law to start reversing this and the Obama administration was the one that said NO.

Once again the Democrats are trying to pass more job killing legislation. As if the Healthcare bill wasn't enough to make it unafforable for small businesses to hire, you want to increase the amount they pay toward the unemployment insurance too? Who do you think funds this?

These idiot democrats are flabbergasted by unemployment not getting better??? Pelosi and her ilk are so out of touch with anything that resembles solutions it's mind boggling.

Chicago

Please spare me your rhetoric. You reply to posts not even directed at you so why in the world would anyone believe you know what you are talking about?

The bottom line is, if my parents die and leave me $100,000, I should not have to pay estate taxes on it because it is money that has already been taxed. And the BULK of people who are forced to pay estate tax fall in to this category!

You are wrong. An estate of $100,00 IS EXEMPT FROM ESTATE TAXES.

My father passed away PRIOR to the Bush tax cuts on estates. My brother and I worked with the attorney to probate the will.

PRIOR to the Bush tax cuts, estates of certain sizes WERE EXEMPT from estate tax. The limit was sufficient that ALMOST ALL ESTATES were exempt.

My father's estate was exempt at the time and I know that MOST OF YOUR ESTATES would be exempt too WITHOUT REINSTATING THE BUSH TAX CUTS.

Capital gains - I have already stated my opinion on capital gains. The reason we have time rules for ownership of property to avoid capital gains is to prevent investors from using tax breaks for investment properties so that they can not flip the properties. If they are buying and selling properties to make money, that is income and should be taxed.

I would prefer a personal guided tour of Southern California. Would you show them to me?

I have one piece of advice - talk to a tax professional BEFORE anyone dies so that you too can avoid estate taxes.

Penguin - I have a boyfriend. He would not appreciate it. If I am ever available I'll take you up on it.

I think you mean someone else.

Problem Solver: Great job on the lyrics ;-)

Any unemployed individual who voted for the Party of No or a Bagger, better not be complaining on this seed.

The Party of No hates all Americans, notwithstanding the richest 2% and "Human" Corporations.

LIES, LIES, LIES.....Even the PMSNBC headline is a boldface LIE.

The bill was brought to the floor under the rules of suspension, requiring a two-thirds majority to pass, but fell 17 votes short with a final tally of 258-154.

Eleven Democrats voted against the measure, while 21 Republicans voted in favor of the extension. Twenty-two members of the House, including 7 Democrats, did not vote at all.

Even if the House were to pass a bill to extend the jobless benefits, the Senate would also have to take action before Nov. 30 to keep the relief from lapsing. With the Senate currently focusing on a food safety bill and displaying little urgency to pass the benefits, the chances of the unemployed losing their benefits later this month due to Congress’ inaction now appear increasingly likely.

For the rest of the truth:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/11/house-votes-against-jobless-benefits-extension.html

The gop did not mind leaving the cost of the wars out of the budget (did not pay for them), still paying for Cheney's secret service ( he's rich enough to pay for his own). Paying the cost of Bush's book tour. The politicians get paid even when they are not their. One last not who collasped the economy so the unemployed are still unemployed? Oh I forgot the democrates had a micro majority Bush's last 2 years and he wore out 3 veto pen's. Gop the w----------- of the military indusrial complex.

tinman1967 "Well Santiman, I guess we should just all become welfare recipients and the economy would really boom."

I know someone that recently used up his full 99 weeks of Unemployment Benefits, and then he found a real job 3 weeks later.

What was the old saying about "Necessity is the mother of invention"?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Studies show that the unemployed can't find a job while on Unemployment Insurance, but usually find one within about a month after the freebies stop.

@ROY WILSON

Sorry, Roy, but you can't have it both ways. In other posts on other vines you have often made much of the fact that the figures provided by the government do not reflect the true extent of the unemployment problem in that those who have exhausted their benefits are no longer shown in the tally. i.e. rather than the 9 1/2% currently stated in the "official" figures, the actual percentage is probably closer to 21% or thereabouts. So... which is it?

wizard-2245918 "@ROY WILSON Sorry, Roy, but you can't have it both ways."

Oops. Drat, you caught me. lol

Not really, because I was talking about people who actually NEED a job. These people will find a job when the freebies run out. The government estimates unemployment based on surveys of people, not those who ran out of Unemployment benefits.

My estimate of the REAL Unemployment Rate is based on logic, which follows;

What is the REAL Unemployment Rate?

The way that government calculates the Unemployment Rate is misleading, because it doesn't include people who want to work, but have given up trying for now until the jobs picture improves. So how do we calculate the REAL Unemployment Rate? Here's a clue;

In 2007 (the year the recession started), the average figures were as follows;

Total Labor Force = 153,124,000

Total Employed = 146,047,000

Total Unemployed = 7,077,000

Unemployment Rate = 4.6%

Economists estimate that the Total Labor Force increases by 125,000 each month due to normal population growth, which means that the REAL Total Labor Force is 153,124,000 PLUS 125,000 x 36 months = 157,600,000. Since the current Total Employed is now 138,687,143, the estimated REAL employment picture is as follows;

Total Labor Force = 157,600,000

Total Employed = 138,687,143

Total Unemployed = 18,913,000

Unemployment Rate = 12.0%

PS - One of the reasons that economists predict that unemployment will remain high is that, as more jobs become available, more of those 4.5 million who gave up looking will re-enter the workforce job hunt, so even if total employment increases significantly, the "Rate" will stay high. Of course, this doesn't take into account the number of people who are working part-time but would work full time if possible. This is "Underemployment", which is another issue entirely, and taking this into consideration would drive the Unemployment Rate even higher.

I hope I've clarified my position.

Karen in Los Angeles

One of the reasons that Ling-Term Capital Gains are taxed at a lower rate is that, because of inflation, taxing them at normal rates would discourage long-term investments.

For example, if you invested $100,000 in a long term investment and it increased in value over 20 years to $150,000, purely as a result of inflation, would it be fair to tax that $50,000 'gain' at normal tax rates, when the reality is that the real purchasing value of the assets is unchanged? Nobody in their right mind would invest long term if they lose purchasing power to taxes as a result of inflation. The slightly lower Capital Gains Tax Rate is set to compensate for this fact of life.

Roy W - thank for the information. Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate. Fine.

I still do not see an issue with capital gains tax. It's part of the cost of doing business and everyone needs to stop whining.

If people don't want to pay capital gains tax, get a 9-5 job (but in CA, we work 9-6) and pay income tax instead.

I am SOOOOOOOO OVER the whinining about capital gains tax.

Someone explained my idea better yesterday (some economic advisor person who worked for Pres. Clinton).... wealthy people and investors use MORE NATURAL RESOURCES AND RESOURCES that are owned by the public. They should pay tax to help maintain these public resources.

Karen in Los Angeles

I have no problem with requiring people to pay their fair share of taxes - including on capital gains. It's figuring out what's 'fair' that is the problem.

My personal view is that economic policies that benefit the nation as a whole are best for the people, because it's better to divide a larger pie than a smaller one.

I do, however, feel that Wall Street greed and corruption needs to be punished severely. We need fair rules and regulations that make for a level playing field. Unfortunately, the recent Financial Reforms did not accomplish this.

Karen in Los Angeles "wealthy people and investors use MORE NATURAL RESOURCES AND RESOURCES that are owned by the public."

Agreed. And they should pay a fair price for using those resources. Perhaps there should be a higher price set for using natural resources, but then, who sets the price, and who gets the difference between the 'market price' and the 'fair price', and what do they do with the money they collect. Unfortunately, it's politicians that would make that decision.

PS - I worked 8 - 6, or?, because salaried people don't get to watch the clock.

If I was looking for a job, I'd really shoot for working for the Federal Government, because they make twice what private sector does. Here's an interesting link;

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm

Andy & Smitty,

Dont blame the Republicans. What's wrong with taking the money from the unspent stimulus? If the Democrats and White House would agree to do that the benefits would be extended.

See my later post... and then come back and ask me this again.

I will hire them for 310 per week. Tell them to give me a call. You will always have the haves and the have nots in this country. Everyone can't be rich. We do all have freedom though and that you cannot put a value on.

"The fact is, we can both provide this help and pay for it by cutting less effective stimulus spending," said Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La. "That's what we should be debating today."

Mr. Boustany, you should be debating why it is OK to say yes to borrowing $700B from China for tax cuts for the rich and why is it OK to say no to helping the unemployed with $12.5B.

akgirl,

you are 100% on the nose. I wonder if the debt ceiling is coming up soon. I hope they say no to that as well and all of the congress and senate does not get paid as a result. I wouldn't want to see the anarchy that causes for the country, however would love to see them go without pay and tell me how they like it. I fear it will only get worse once the house goes to republican control after January 1.

Smitty,

You didnt answer the question. Why not use unused stimulus money?

I find it funny "we" (government) can't afford tax cuts for the rich but can afford it for the middle class which is A LOT more costly than the tax cut for the rich. Food for thought.

I agree with the Republicans, why not pay for it? Seems to be pretty cut and dry case.

You didnt answer the question. Why not use unused stimulus money?

cause there is none. Just because it has not been spent yet doesn't mean it hasn't been allocated to some project.

A lot of the stimulus was spent on construction. If those projects are still ongoing, they won't have spent all the funds yet (it takes time to build a bridge, road, etc.).

There is not "unspent" stimulus money, stop with this nonsense talking point.

There is a ton of stimulus money not yet committed to anything. I simple google search will show as much. This is a way to use the unemployed as political currency to make republicans look bad. They don't want to use the stimulus money because then they would have to come up with other ways to fund future jobs, instead of just drawing from their slush fund.

A small % was spent on construction. Get your facts straight and yes there is a few hundred billion not spent or committed. Your nonsense is to spend this country into oblivion. Move to France you socialist

Ol' Smithy: I don't know what your definition of "rich" is, but you bet. More money for people who earn it. That's the GOP way.

ChiCity you hit the nail on the head.

Downing,

You are wrong. There is unused stimulus money. Look it up.

I would gladly commit giving a few dollars from my paycheck each pay period to a government plan that helped the truly unemployed workers during this economic, job-loss struggle this nation is facing, but, IF and only IF, the government gets their act together and assists the business and manufacturing sector in fostering growth and rejuvenation of our economic base.

Our older un-employed workers are truly hit hard because of the 'invisible' age discrimination factor that no one dares to mention.

I'm truly sorry for all of you that have lost your job -through no fault of your own.

Where is the money going to come from for the extension of the Bush tax cuts?

Republicans have yet to tell us.

This does not seem like your listening to the will of the people.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/129251-poll-majority-of-voters-support-another-extension-of-unemployment-benefits

73% of Americans think that extending unemployment benefits is a good idea.

Oh wait, that's 2 things Republicans aren't listening to Americans, that same 73% want the START treaty ratified too.

Republicans are not listening to the will of Americans !

Republicans do not need this vote to try and make them look bad. They look bad already. They voted against the stimulus, 1/3 of which was tax cuts, and campaigned on the "failed stimulus", a lie if you believe most independent economists. It didn't get the unemployment rate to 8% as predicted, but certainly with the evil TARP kept this country out of another Republican depression. In short, dems saved your republican asses by not allowing the economy to collapse altogether.

Pat in SoCal....."but certainly with the evil TARP kept this country out of another Republican depression"

You do realize TARP was lobbied for and signed into law by Bush. TARP has mostly been repaid and is estimated that is will cost tax payers about $50Billion. Now, Obama's stimulous, known as the American Economic Recovery and Reinvestement Act, spent $760 Billion dollars and will not be repaid.

I love how Obama has convinced people he passed TARP, or at least has done nothing to refute it and gladly takes credit for it. Also, when Bush passed TARP, it was largely unpopular. Worked out well, let's see how this other stimulus package goes into the history books... The jury is still out.

Not true Chicity, the Republican's cleverly linked Obama to TARP and want to saddle him with the blame.

The final answer - the money for any tax cuts doesn't have to come from anywhere. It is merely not the Government's to spend.

Get people working, then Government income will go up.

I trust those recently elected to work towards that - WHEN THEY START IN JANUARY. This vote was vintage Pelosi, more of the same old, same old.

"Leadership"...sigh.

The simple answer here is Congress only gets $300 a month to live on and has to pay for their own Health Care. Then you would finally see these folks that were elected actually do something besides flinging this dumb Rhetric.

Money for Tax cuts do need to come from somewhere... The Congress should pay for it from their salaries. That's the only solution. Wall Street needs to be taxed 8-%, that ends all this corruption. Those are the answers.

Rob...

This vote was VINTAGE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF NO!

Pull your head out Rob.

Rob-LV - You're right on. No one has to find a way to pay for tax cuts. Tax cuts don't COST the gov't money. Tax cuts are an indication that Americans expect the gov't to operate within a budget. It's amazing how the basic principles of economics are lost on so many people.

Those concerned about the deficit (of which I am one) need to insist that gov't reduce spending to a level commensurate with current tax rates, which are already too high. Wasteful gov't spending should be the target.

The Republicans have appropriately said no to spending without first designating the funding source. Use the remaining stimulus money, as that was another ruse of a plan anyway (as evidenced by the current state of the economy).

As a strong believer in freedom of speech, I really wish you would stop censoring comments. ninety percent of personal attacks get posted anyway, how do you decide which ones are over the line and who are you to make that decision? I Don't care how disgusting or out of line a comment is, it should be posted. This only exposes the commenter for the type person he or she is anyway making THEM look bad. What is this, grade school??

The members asked NV to moderate this blog.

The tax cuts being paid for is an economical way of saying that there has to be an equivalent cut in expenditures to compensate for the loss in income. The tax cuts were approved when there was this huge surplus from the Clinton era. I remember so many Repubs saying "This is the peoples' money. We should return it to them." Well, the money has been returned and now more money is being given away under the cut that is not part of any surplus.

Just because it has not been spent yet doesn't mean it hasn't been allocated to some project.

Don't you mean allocated to some pork?

The Bush Tax cuts took money out of the economy and gave it to the top 2% of wage earners. The top tax rate went from 39% to 36% and that 3% loss is the problem in this country. The Bush Tax Cuts were temporary and they should be allowed to expire as planned for all tax payers. The top 2% says the Bush Tax Cuts are needed to create jobs. Well they have had eight years to prove that point but where are the jobs. The were created all right. In China, India and Mexico. Anywhere they could exploit cheap labor to make inferior products and charge top dollar for them. Did consumers get any price breaks. No! What happened is CEO's and shareholders shared the increased revenue among themselves while their former employees were kicked to the curb. So I think we need to let the Tax Cuts expire and put a tariff on all goods imported into this country from China, India, and Mexico and use those funds to fix our ailing country.

And there you have it Vinnie. Everyone bitching and moaning about the Republicans asking that unspent stimulus money be used. Well, have you looked at what is in the stimulus? I mean, really looked at all of the absolutely ridiculous crap that is in there.

You say that the Republicans don't care, but did they vote yes to the bill that included funding for the study of monkeys using cocaine? Yes - that is they type of crap that was in the stimulus bill.

BarMagg....Really ??...Try this on for size...maybe this is where the problem really is:

" The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners -- households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 -- paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1

I'm for giving the unemployed "9 months to 1 year of Unemployment Pay". After this, these people become complacent and stop looking. Many of the unemployed also get food stamps and money from other welfare programs.

Then they sit at home and "posts on the Internet" all day, become depressed and do nothing except complain about how bad things are and how they got screwed. I read and see their posts at this site and know that they are on some sort of welfare. If they are reading this, you know who you are. Put simply, they refuse to work.

I have a friend whose daughters husband is a "Staunch Republican". Hes been getting unemployment pay for almost 2 years. He's also figured out how to get food stamps, and housing assistance. Last year he was offered a very good paying job which would have required relocation and he refused to move his family. My friend went through the roof.

Their are plenty of good paying jobs in this country. All you have to do is stay positive, use your intellect and you will find a job.

After 9 months to 1 year, let each state start removing the unemployed from the "Unemployment Payroll".

Complacent? Stop looking? Again a heart of stone lays down the typical Repub screed. Try being a family who once had a 160K earning base, but had one job cut short by injury and one off-shored to Singapore (thanks, Citi). Then have the Citi job's 401K be devalued from over 200K to less than 12K. Oh, and then make these people 60 when it happened, 63 today. How many jobs are available? None. We squeak by on my disability payments and had to move from my beloved hometown of Santa Monica to the beauty of Georgia to make it work. We have no retirement save for Social Security now because we felt the best thing to do was invest it in paying everything off and buying a home where we can age in place. And this is still not enough, eh?

I've been through Republican forced recessions before. At the time, I was working on the Apollo Project and Manned Orbital Lab. At then end of my unemployment, I was shovelling popcorn into bags at a drive-in and managing a pizza delivery place and still couldn't pay a $210 a month mortgage. I gave the house, the kid, the dog and the furnishings to my ex, took $2500 and bought an old Porsche and travelled, becoming the aging hippie I am today. The difference is that disabilities and age prevent us from getting jobs now. No one wants an overly-educated person saying "hi, welcome to whatever mart".

And for a good ending to the story: true love. It does happen, and it will keep all this horror in perspective. And, remember, it is not something a Republican will have for another human being; all they have is their love of Mamon.

@MBA - you wrote

"The debt that 13,000,000,000,000 that everyone likes to talk about is about $42,000 per person in the US...yes..that's counting all 330,000,000 of us. But spending 12,000,000,000 amounts to a lousy $36 per person...more debt...Let's keep it simple...BFDeal! Let's talk about something that matters...keeping children in homes with heat during the winter..and food on the table and let's invest in some jobs.... "

First off let me say that in an ideal world we should do whatever we can to help our fellow man, woman and child when in need. BUT WE DON'T LIVE IN AN IDEAL WORLD. As an MBA student you should realize this. The problem here isn't how much more it will cost each of us to repay, it's how much more are we going to burden our economy and our future before SOMEONE says "enough already!" I will say this is a VERY petty time to make a stand. But make no mistake, this (according to your math) is only an extra $36 per person. But what about the next bill, and the one after that, and the hundred after that? Next thing you know your $42,036 stake in the national debt has balooned to $100,000. And as an MBA student, you should realize that no one can effectivly run any business, organization, or government with this kind of rampant deficit spending.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't help those in need. I am saying that we need to think with our heads instead of our hearts when it comes to spending BILLIONS of dollars this country technically DOESN'T HAVE. Do you even comprehend the value of 1 BILLION anymore, let alone 12 BILLION? This number should scare the crap out of you! Change that to 13 TRILLION and you should be down right terrified.

Stop complaining and go out and find a job. They do exist.

I will repeat it in case you didn't read it:

"For each dollar spent on UI there is found an increase in economic activity of two dollars" (http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/eta20101615fs.htm) the holidays season in particular, I may add. Recipients of UI spend the money, they can't save it. Consumption is what fuels our Capitalistic economy. With more sales this season many businesses will thrive, generating employment. Wrong timing for saying NO!

Getting two dollars back for each dollar spent sounds like a good deal to me!

Mike in Del-ray....

I really do not care how much you pay in taxes. I pay taxes too and on a lot less income than you are showing in your example. I should feel bad for you because you have to pay a higher percentage than I pay? I am sorry but that is not going to happen. The upper 2% are in control of the jobs situation in this country. They control the people who made the very laws that have been responsible for the off shoring of living wage jobs. Those jobs supported families who in turn supported the people in the top 2% of earners. That was not good enough for those at the top so they decided to move manufacturing offshore in pursuit of more profit. They threw their former employees to the curb and now they cry foul. The Bush Tax Cuts were temporary in nature and only benefited those in the top 2%. They are due to expire in 2010 and should be allowed to reset to their former values. Proper planning on the part of those who benefited from those tax cuts should avoid any hardship on their part. If you don't want to pay the taxes then there is a lot of room down in the lower income brackets and you should fit in nicely. The choice is yours .....IMHO

Senator Kyl of arizona was going to sign on for the Start Treaty if the gave 9 billion dollars a year more to the military industrial complex. I keep forgetting that money that goes there is Free.

maybe you could buy it i have worked for over 40 years and have not taken anything for granted enough with the smart mouth crap

Hang in there, Brosol. Sorry to hear of your difficulties.

thanks for the encouragement hope they can get this thing turned around

Brosol, I am so sorry for the hardships you are dealing with, I wish you the best.

stormer, You are obviously uneducated on the job situation out there or extremely selfish. There is only one job available for every five unemployed.

With you on this all the way, brosol --- I've been out since June 09 as well, AND have the wonderful fortune of being 60 years old on top of it. Hurts even more that my company had to close due to the Madoff debacle!

The NY admin market is really scary right now -- up to 500 resumes received for each employer job posting on Craigslist or Monster. And companies have figured out that they can get a less experienced younger worker and pay half of what I need to survive! They don't seem to notice -- or care -- that this worker is also less capable!

I'll tell you to keep your chin up and understand totally how difficult that can be! So sorry.

@ stormer

99% of the jobs are thru the internet. Hardly any at all are in the paper and when they are they say to apply online.

I myself use the internet to apply, my local paper (Indiana)has only a half page on sundays and most are pay to apply jobs(fake) or work at home (fake jobs) then you the few nurse jobs and administrative jobs...we all don't qualify for those. Unemployment rate is still high, there 5-1 applicant to job ratio is not near that by me its gotta be 5 times that is not more. The last job i applied at in person there were more than that within the 1/2 hr i was there and they were taking applications for a full week.

Selection is getting smaller and smaller now with winter coming.

thanks GOP.. I will now have to apply for welfare until they extend it (hopefully) or i can get hired. My family thanks you. FYI when you pay into SS you pay into UI, so all you that claim people don't pay into it, your wrong, go look it up and learn before talking down to others in need.

Sally, that is hardly worthy of suspension. I know this is MSNBC, but I have read a lot of "personal attacks" on those making valid points in favor of blocking this fast tracked bill. I hope you are equitable in your suspensions.

Sally, that is hardly worthy of suspension. I know this is MSNBC, but I have read a lot of "personal attacks" on those making valid points in favor of blocking this fast tracked bill. I hope you are equitable in your suspensions.

Brosol - sorry to hear about your personal situation. Based on what I read, both parties are in agreement that the unemployment insurance should be funded - it's just a question of whether or not we do it by issuing new debt. Personally, I think all of us are going to pay a heavy price in the coming years if we continue to pay via new debt. So, I'm in agreement with the Republicans on this issue - and hopefully the Democrats will agree to us the unallocated stimulus money to pay for unemployment extensions.

the problem here is that if you give someone unemployed any money, it is used immediately to pay bill, if you give a rich person, it goes to their boat or investment, which doesn't create demand. the modern day slavery the republican's are trying to get the middle class into, would not work. unemployed people keep fighting, hang in there and keep writing your reps. the republican's would not succeed in taking this country back to slavery.

How about it Ron-1861300,

Are you for borrowing 3.7 trillion more dollars for tax cuts??? New Debt???There"s plenty of borrowed money, but its just a game for Republicans like the last time..

So if you take the unused stimulus money that would be used for projects later to create some jobs, wouldn't that make the stimulus less effective when most economist already said the stimulus wasn't enough to begin with? Then would the repulicans, who already took credit for jobs with stimulus money, holler even more that the stimulus was a waste?

Isn't the reason for allowing the tax cuts for the middle class due to the recession and poor economy? Even Republicans want to extend the cuts for the middle class the argument is for the top 2%. So why are you making arguments that the republicans aren't making?

By giving the extentions, you are giving money to people who will put it right back into the economy. Buying a yacht, expensive jewlery isn't helping our economy. Spending at local grocery stores, targets, payless. That is helping the economy

Sally...I don't know if msnbc has the luxury of suspending their so few visitors, especially for something like what storm said. I thought it was a legitimate question, if that is worthy of suspension, then you are saying that internet and computers are rights. I mean we have public libraries folks. Sally, I'd like to know who your manager/boss is so I can send a letter of inquery on why it was just for you to suspend that guy.

I do not see the comments of storm as a personal attack.....a question was asked. Some may see the question as "insensitive", but I find it very hard to see anything that could be construed as personal......no name calling, no reference to any mental deficiency. Apparently, the personal feelings of MSNBC must now be considered.

52 weeks, 72 weeks, 99 weeks. I'm sorry but all of those time frames are long enough to find some type of employment. I was let go in May 2009. I was out of work for 2 weeks before I found a new job. In fact, that job pays me more than the old one. Not only that, after I took a job, I had several other offers as well.

No one is saying the benefits should not be extended, the Republicans want them paid for as do the American people.

GOOD FOR YOU STLMike, you got lucky. Not everyone is as lucky as you. In fact, since you were the one who got the job, there were at least 4 others equally as qualified who DID NOT GET THE JOB. Each job in America today has an average of 5 qualified potential employees, and up to 500 applicants or more. You beat the odds. You were lucky. That doesn't make you superior to brosol. Your comments only make you look arrogant.

ids_Nick, you say you are a Blue Collar worker and you support the Republicans. What is wrong with you man? The Republicans don't care about you! They use people like you to make sure they can help the RICH PEOPLE get richer. Don't you realize that? REPUBLICANS ARE THE PARTY OF THE RICH, which is why when it comes to legislation that would help the middle-class, like unemployment extension, REPUBLICANS ARE THE PARTY OF NO!

HEY EVERYBODY,THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THE REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION. They vote against it almost every time it comes up!

brosol, hang in there! In this thread/vine, except for a couple individuals (above) and those who seem more concerned about stormerf being suspended than you losing your house, the other GOOD PEOPLE on this vine all supported you and wish you the best. So do I. HANG IN THERE!

Hate to say it, but I'm going to have to agree with some on here that I never agree with and say (with all due respect) Sally you do seem to be a bit quick on the trigger. I know you're new, so maybe that's just it. A couple of the comments you suspended people for were personal attacks (calling another specific Newsviner an idiot, etc), but (as much as I disagree with Storm on absoultely every postion he takes) what he said didn't qualify as a personal attack IMHO and suspending for a "Granade troll"? That's a new one on me?

Just a little constructive criticism.

STLMike @ 3.20

52 weeks, 72 weeks, 99 weeks. I'm sorry but all of those time frames are long enough to find some type of employment. I was let go in May 2009. I was out of work for 2 weeks before I found a new job. In fact, that job pays me more than the old one. Not only that, after I took a job, I had several other offers as well.

My son, who has been a machinist for 20+ years and has an area wide reputation as being one of the best, is seldom unemployed for more than a couple of days. He gets the job, when the 10 or so other machinists don't. The other 10 or machinists can't even get a job flipping hamburgers, so count yourself lucky, REAL lucky. If there are no jobs available, how can you be expected to get a job??

No one is saying the benefits should not be extended, the Republicans want them paid for as do the American people.

They didn't care for all of their tax cuts to be paid for from 2000 to 2008, what has made them change their tune now - oh, that's right: "Our job is to make sure Obama is a one term President" (Mitch McConnell, pick a date).

Brosol et al, sorry to hear about your situation, but consider this: if you lose your house you, like so many others, won't be tied to a location where there is no work. You'll be able to move. One of the problems with the Dems trying to prop up home prices and foreclosures is people are stuck with homes they can't sell and therefore can't move to better locations for work. Lower prices and more homes for sale create a more fluid housing market and bring more people into the market at the same time.

The late, great comedian Sam Kinison had a great bit about not being able to grow food in the desert and the best thing to be done for the starving desert dwellers was to buy them Samsonite and get them to move, not give them food forever and ever. Giving people more unemployment only delays the inevitable. Move. Get a job. You'll feel better about yourself, and I will too, because I'm tired of paying for it.

I do not see the comments of storm as a personal attack.....a question was asked.

It was heartless and a totally unnecessary in-your-face question to pose, given the situation. Slinging BS one-liners while hiding behind a computer screen is commonplace on the Vine, but that was just nastiness. The majority of their comments are useless and troll-like. One brief look at the rest of stormerF's comments on this story alone clearly show he/she was deserving of it.

Unless calling someone a "bedwetter" is now a compliment.

Alot of people have adopted hate rhetoric regarding unemployment issues, and are not in the same market or position others may be in and really have no room to judge. They may think they are above tragedy's reach, but one change in their luck will prove that they are not.

Brosol, I want you to keep your house, and find a job that pays enough to meet your commitments. Why? My country, community, family and I suffer when you cannot. I realize people relate only to where they live. Example, joblessness varies by region,city,and the state where you live. My state is experiencing historically high unemployment. No hamburger flipping, cleaning or Hobby Lobby jobs. We have a large number of homes, commercial real estate and high rise buildings empty. I want you to have that extension of unemployment benefits and if paying for them is such a concern I've a few suggestions. Start by cutting the Defense Dept. Budget, eliminate the OCC, increase the power of the FBI and IRS to do what the SEC has failed to do. Further, institute a flat tax rate for all including business while eliminating any and all tax deductions. All I ask is that you pay attention to your elected representatives votes. Did they represent you or did they represent the hand you can't see in their pocket? Do their votes represent that they understand your plight or reflect a genuine disconnect. Importantly, did they vote for party ideology or you first and foremost. If they said "no," just to say "no," you know what to do in the next election. Vote them out.

Same here and I wish you luck. A cancer survivor, over 50 with some small accomodations needed on the job, it seems that I can pretty much forget it in the current job market. I have been smart: small town, as little debt as possible, drive rusty old cars and ALMOST own my home.

Laid-off due to a non-budget cut and non-department closure in June of 2009, I have kept busy with various intermittent jobs and filled the gaps with "UI". The ONLY employers that are going to touch us older/sick ones are government. Those jobs are almost non-existant in such a small town.

No house payments makes it easier, but you still have to gas the car, light the lights and feed yourself. Once past the point where the resources to be productive are gone, do we become nothing more than burdens to the nation, problems to be contained?

Keep people in their homes and keep them with their working infrastructure intact because once that is gone, making them productive again will be VERY VERY expensive.

Most of all, get them something to do rather than call them lazy. If you have ever had to deal with "UI" you know that ANY living wage job is better than a life of paperwork/hours on the phone/bad answers and frustrations.

Those that got into other jobs quickly, great luck! Hope it holds and please wish the rest of us such wonderful luck!

UncleVern

"The other 10 or machinists can't even get a job flipping hamburgers, so count yourself lucky, REAL lucky"

Can't, or won't? Not nitpicking, just wondering. I know the food places in my neighborhood are practically BEGGING people to come work for them, yet I still have panhandlers at the end of my street 7 days a week.

we need a maid can you clean?

I feel your pain brother. I too have lost my vehicle and all my savings to this mess we're in. I'm a 99'er and still can't find work and it sure as hell ain't because I'm not looking! Out of work at 56 and looks like the streets will be my next move. By the way, I have worked all my life like a dog, so you guys and you know who you are, don't give me any of your BS. What goes around comes around.

Mike, I truely hope your next move is not the street you do deserve better. I agree based on some of the postings there are those who just don't get it. Joblessness obviously is relative only to where people live. Again, there are NO JOBS in MANY AREAS of this nation. Highly educated, skilled and experienced workers are currently unemployed for more than nine months. You and many others are not the box sleepers who during the best of times didnt' want to work. You like so many worked hard and did everything possible to keep your job. For anyone to think or suggest you'd prefer your current plight shows pure ignorance. I don't know of anyone who would prefer to live like that after working so darn hard for so long. Did you buy a house, car and make all those payments only to have them repossessed? Did you go into debt getting a higher education only to end up on the street? Doubtful! No...you are like so many Americans who despite working hard have been hit by this economic downturn. I doubt your a freeloader or looking for a handout but rather only hoping for a little help to get by. Hoping your tax dollars from the past will come back so that you can hang on while you look for a job. I feel for you I know far too many people who are in the same shoes. I also live where those very conditions exist and they shouldn't not in America. So for those who think anyone who collects UI are looking for a handout do this...get off your bottom and go to the areas with double digit unemployment. You shouldn't have a problem find them you can take your pick. Make sure you take a pad of paper and pencil with and try to find any "help wanted," signs in any businesses left. When your done count how many you noted and then take note of how many people are unemployed. Next look around and take note of all the empty homes, businesses and stores because that is the consequence of this blasted economy. I support an extension of UI for those unemployed. I will not hesitate to pink slip any of my elected officials who play poltical party games at the expense of Americans. I expect nothing less but rather more from them especially now.

Feronia @ #3.25,

If you are going to use ONE sentence of my comments, you will, indeed, distort my comment..........as you have done. My next sentence (which you cleverly omitted said "Some may seem this question as "insensitive" ................

The point is simple, even if this remark was judged COMPLETELY insensitive and unnecessary.......it still does not meet the criterion of a personal attack.

Please do not try to intentionally distort my comments. Read the whole thing !

We really need to cut the Republicans some slack here... If they authorized help to the American public like this, they might not be able to afford the massive tax cuts for their rich and famous friends. That could be awful! Who would buy their next election for them?

So what that the people getting the unemployment funds would waste it on things like groceries, gas, rent... Maybe even some luxurious presents for their kids on Christmas. Just think of the poor hedge-fund manager who wouldn't be able to buy his new vacation villa in Spain without having to cash in a bond or two. What about him? I mean, he IS the voice of "small business" in Republican U.S.A......

John, nice job on the expert sarcasm !

Bravo! Well said.

No mention of the 14 Billion allocated to more nuclear spending that we don't need, without a way to pay for it. That's enough to fund the extension with a little left over. Instead we are going to add to our ability to blow the world up more times than we can now. Never understood why we must have that capability when no one will notice after the first time we blow it up.

Jackie-2405008. I was wondering if anyone were thinking on the same line. All those Republicans and conservatives got what they wanted. I guess they thought that since they voted them in, that the republicans would make it right for them. I say if you are not in the 2% that the republicans are more concern with, YOU GOT WHAT YOU WANTED. As much as they want to talk bad about President Obama, its going to come out that he did a lot of good things for the American people, but the Republicans don't want him to get any lead way. I guess we don't have Republicans and Conservatives collecting unempolyment.

Funny the states with huge amounts of unemployed persons were the rust belt states, CA and FLA. All of those states voted in republicans. Go figure..republicans hate giving out unemployment benefits (which is declared an insurance at emergency times) always did..but love giving tax breaks to their donators business or the wealthy.

Americans will never learn..the president only signs the laws..he doesn't make them!!!

John: Maybe the hedge fund manager you are referring to doesn't want to give away his money that he earned... I know that might be a tough pill to swallow.

After all though, it is his money, right?

From what I read, the Republicans are also in favor of extending unemployment insurance...they just want to pay for it using allocated, but unspent stimulus funds instead of issuing new debt. What's wrong with that approach?

By the way, I'm not defending general Republican economics...I think there is a lot of room for improvement (by both parties), and I disagree with a number of their positions such as I'd let all of the Bush tax cuts expire - we can't afford another 4 Trillion in debt. I'd also do massive cuts to defense spending and I'd kill the tax breaks for oil companies.

Ron the economy is still just as bad as last year and year before that and not much to look forward to yet.

In this case unemployment is a emergency need for americans..no need to take it from other funds..if another country had a mother nature disaster no doubt we will send them billions as help (where that $$$ come from)..don't you think we should help here in the USA first, without a decision where it comes from the money. Plus unemployment money does go right back into the economy no lost there but a gain.

smallgov, the hedge fund manager earned that money ripping the middle class off. plus he doesn't pay income tax, but dividend tax. this society is a share responsibility. i know you guys want to take it back to the good old western days of everyman for himself. we are past that and it doesn't work.

as selfish as you, i am pretty sure you enjoy all the services the govt provides you. the road you drive your car on, the police and fire dept that protect you. the FDA that inspects your meals on and on and on.

Are you implying - and careful here, I think you are - that every hedge fund manager made their money ripping off the middle class?

It doesn't matter how you answer. I am telling you that is not true - and I can tell by the way you wrote that comment you have a negative impression of everyone who works in that capacity.

Regardless of how he earned it. your comment "After all though, it is his money, right?" is a load of crap. His money is after taxes not before. He doesn't get to keep every $ he earns. He gets to keep a % of it. That is the law AMERICAN law we live under. The same law we lived under Bush, Bush Sr. Clinton, Reagon, Carter, etc. All of a sudden, tea-baggers believe you should be able to keep every dollar you earn. If that was the case why do republicans hold GOVERNMENT OFFICE and take a salary from taxpayers. Lord knows, their corporate masters pay them enough

Ron - How about Congress PROVES that it can actually cut the budget and drastically reduce spending before we give them more money to blow on pet projects?

Regardless of how he earned it. your comment "After all though, it is his money, right?" is a load of crap. His money is after taxes not before.

I'm actually speechless to this!

Regardless of how he earned it. your comment "After all though, it is his money, right?" is a load of crap. His money is after taxes not before.

100% correct.

Typical. "It's not his money just because he earned it! It's everyone's!"

Get a job.

So he shouldn't have to pay taxes like the rest of us do? Rather odd position to take, don't you think? It's his money after he pays his taxes.

I cant get a Job, the republicans gaves their rich buddies tax breaks to ship tens of millions of jobs overseas and both parties have allowed illegal workers to take 10m more.

I live in phoenix, AZ and was laid off in Feb of this year. For the first time in my life (I am 44) I had to file a claim for unemployment. I drive a truck and have looked for work everyday but each opening gets 100 applicants and I rarely get a call for an interview. They rather hire illegals at half the pay rate they would normally pay. I am currently taking some classes in hopes of expanding my job search but for now, I still could use the help.

As for the hedge fund manager, I can care less how much money he makes. I dont feel I am in titled to it. I wish my life circumstances when I was younger allowed me to get an education so i could be one but at the same time I dont believe rich people should be getting breaks when so much is wrong with the economy and many americans need help.

Born-In-The-USA: Rustbelt states are these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_Belt

Yea, you won't find CA or FL there. You'll be glad to know the rich in both states are doing quite well. Both have enacted numerous measures so the very rich get a break on property taxes compared to the working joe.

I've been saying all along that these dam republicans dont give a @!$%# about everyday working class people. now ignorant people voted them in office and this is what they do. like the lady just said they r just getting started. people need to wake up and stop letting the republicans fool them.

Small Gov: you and the others who think like you are in for a rude awakening. Infrastructure in this country has been neglected for years because peope like you are demanding tax cuts that make it impossible for government to spend enough to maintain what's in existence and making government understaff and under-equip police and fire services.

People around here are already charged for the cost of the ambulance that carries them to the hospital for treatment of the injuries they suffered in an auto accident that was not their fault, but I guess you think that's ok.

The Constitution describes government responsibilities as including "promote the general welfare", which means services used in common such as roads, bridges, sewer lines, street lights, police and fire, and gas and electric lines. It is proven that the cheapest way to pay for those things is the common, shared shouldering of that expense through taxes. Remember the guy who lost his house to a fire because he didn't pay a mandatory $75 dollar subscription fee? (maybe he refused, maybe he forgot) Well, get ready because your insistence on lower taxes will come back to bite us in the ass (God let it happen only to people like Small Gov). Because if they'd assigned a 3 mil tax to cover that fire service, I bet that it would have cost the guy less than the $75 assigned subscription fee.

So, the next time an interstate bridge collapses for lack of proper inspection and maintenance and people die, or the next time a gas line blows up a neighborhood and people die, or other, similar disasters occur because you don't want to pay a few extra dollars on taxes, I hope it's you or yours instead of me and mine.

I WILL pay taxes for good roads, reliable and fairly paid teachers, police, fire and ambulance services. If you won't, then get the hell off MY roads, get your kids out of MY public schools, hire YOUR OWN independent police-security and fire staff and keep yourself and your kids out of MY public parks, pools and playgrounds! Oh, and haul your own g-dam garbage to landfill in your private car. I'm sure it will smell really nice after doing that a few times!

Don't worry, with no credible GOP candidate for the 2012 presidential election we get to keep Obama for 6 more productive years. It should be a great show.

James, I don't think the GOP wants to win because they don't know how to fix this mess. No one on the hill seems to have a clue to mainstreets pain. Oh I almsot forgot BlackHillsLaura YES! RIGHT ON YOU ARE 100% CORRECT. YOU SHOULD CONSIDER RUNNING FOR OFFICE I'D BE THE FIRST TO SUPPORT AND HELP YOU GET ELECTED. Some think that smaller gov will solve all the problems but never consider the consequences. For those who want smaller gov then let's put everything on the chopping block not just what you think should get elminiated. Smaller government means NO FDIC, FAA, CDC, SEC, reduced DOD, PATENT Office, ATF, TSA, HHS next comes the real nitty gritty. You want to KEEP YOUR MONEY so that means no FEDERAL FUNDS FOR YOUR STATE, COUNTY, COMMUNITY affecting all those very public services you obviously have taken for granted. If you expect the government to protect you from harm well that requires shared responsibility or should I say YOUR MONENY from taxes. If you expect your government to make sure your business, family, neighborhood receives federal help after a natural disaster sorry, no can do, you kept all your money so you pay for it. If your town looks like a ghost town and your home value continues to plummet because no one can buy one let alone keep one sorry can't help. No agencies exist to help rather why not buy all those empty properties and go and find someone to buy them from you. uh...Small detail you forgot most have no money too bad. So I guess you'll just have to look at all those dark windows as you continue to lose the value in your investment while you keep ALL YOUR MONEY. REMEMBER THE PHRASE WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND! Those I know who desire smaller government seem to have one thing consistently in common they are not team players rather only out for themself. I now often have the pleasure to remind them look your getting what you want was it worth it? Oh...for those who want smaller government keep your money because eventually it will run out and then what?

Laura - while that was certainly an interesting and well written rant, I hope you realize that about 90% of the items you listed have nothing to do with Federal taxes - they are taxed pedominately at the local or State level.

The only roads and bridges that would be maintained by the Federal government would be those of the Interstate system, although they may also provide funds to the State to assist with road projects.

Unless you are referring to the FBI or State police, most police departments are local (cities/towns and/or counties) along with fire departments and garbage collection.

Unless you are talking about a National or State Park most parks are local as well.

The point is, lumping everything together is nonsensical. What we pay in taxes to the Federal government has nothing at all to do with most of the things you seem to be concerned about.

Mary - smaller government does NOT mean NO FAA, CDC, etc. What it DOES mean is that most of those agencies just need to be reduced to sustainable levels and possibly a few that are mostly useless (such as Dept of Ed) need to be closed.

I don't see why this is so difficult to understand. If we authorize the government to spend $100, it should not spend $500.

Repubs are hell bent on keeping people stupid and misinformed, so
they can rape and plunder with even more ease. That is why they want
to cut or eliminate public education.

Misinformed HUH I'm well aware of Pelosi and Reid's ram roding the Dem's vote, MAJORITY vote placing another $ 1.7 Trillion Dollar debt for Obamacare through the House an Senate. As well as manipulating back door deals to get it accomplished at any cost. I voted anti incumbent and will for a long time to come. As far as republicans they still have a long way to slash to catch up the costs of Obamacare, and the Dem's past to years of non thrift and spend.

2010 Stupidest Politician Quote of the Year ........... In remarks at the 2010 Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.” << you mean the smoke screen

Was that when the American taxpayer was supposed to take their blind folds off or were we supposed to swallow a pill, after the smoke cleared ?

Because of that attitude and blatant demeaning ideology it'll be an even longer time before I vote for any Dem again. ' ~ VIVA the Party of Non Incumbents ~ '

Two Cents worth is worth a nickel Please provide proof about your statements.

Alex

were you living in a shell when the Health reform bill act was passed ? and Hows QUEEN Pelosi's own site for the quote '

http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1576

I did not see any $ 1.7 Trillion Dollar debt on that page.

the Democrats pass a bill showing fiscal responsibility...we're still looking for it ?

The bill would have passed if the Democrats didn't rush it to the floor. This was done intentionally by the Dems. Politicians playing political games instead of helping the citizens, nothing new here, it doesn't matter who has the majority. Nothing will ever change until people actually open their eyes and see what games politicians play with their lives. People are too blinded by who is in what party to see the trees through the forest.

If the repugs were in favor of extending those benefits, here they had an opportunity to vote for it.

If you are in favor of something , you do not look for all kinds of excuses to vote against it , It is very simple.

If you are in favor of something , you vote for it, not against it.

That was not the only item in the bill.

Senate Democrats say they have no plans to bring the measure up as a stand-alone bill

The article doesn't say what other kind of spending was included in the bill, they only mention the benefit extension. Remove the pork and it would have passed as well.

Excuses, excuses,excuses, excuses.

jim-1455434: apparently you aren't old enough and/or didn't study enough recent American history or you just refuse to stop parroting outworn old sound bites from Faux News, but look it up... The last time the federal government's size was reduced and enough fiscal responsibility was shown to not only balance the budget but accomplish a surplus in excess of 30 BILLION dollars was under Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

90% of the current federal deficit was accumulated by a Republican-majority Congress under a Republican president, but apparently they were coated in Teflon. The sudden Republican concern about finding a way to pay for federal programs and tax cuts or benefits is hypocritical and reminds me of a drunk getting up and remorsefully trying to rouse the dead person he just ran over in the road.

Yes vinne; we all know how republicans work to do things for the unemployed or the the poor. The real work they do may starve them for the rich and get them out of the way.

Politics is an ugly game, but PLEASE people it's time to start thinking with your heads instead of your hearts. This goes for BOTH sides of the political fence.

Democrats - Yes, we should help our fellow man in their time of need. BUT excessive subsidation of benefits BREEDS ABUSE and LAZINESS. Also, this marching cry of "tax cuts for the rich" is really getting old. Do even a tenth of you know what that means and who that affects? Anyone who works for a small business knows exactly what it means. If you want to kill small business in America, keep flying the silly "repeal tax cuts for the rich" flag.

Republicans - You need to realize that the world does not revolve around pure capitalism. Stop taking the payola from the special interests and look at the state of this union. There has to be a way that you can work with the Democrats to help things without acting like a bunch of spoiled children.

We are TRILLIONS of dollars in debt. Sure, when you think in trillions, spending anouther 12 BILLION in assistance sounds like nothing. But can we even comprehend what this number really means? How many people here plan on having a MILLION to retire on? How many people here struggle to have a THOUSAND in the bank, or even a HUNDRED? Think about it in these terms, then think about how even 1 BILLION will affect us in the long run. Yes, we should help out those in need, but we should also TRY to keep the country's deficit spending in check. This just seems like a petty place to make a stand.

Only 3 percent of small businesses will be affected by tax cut expiration.

Nice try BlackHillsLaura !

At age 60, and being a CPA, I know a lot about Clinton's magic "balancing the budget" act. Clinton took money out of Medicare and Social Security, moved it to the General Fund and pronounced..........voila !! ......a balanced budget.

Love your sarcastic attempt, however, maybe you should run for office ....you already have shown the ability to twist the truth !

President Clinton created 23 million new jobs and left a huge budget surplus.

Jim, I believe the GAO confirmed that former President Clinton in fact balanced the budget and created a surplus in SS and Medicare. Social Security funds were estimated to meet BB generation needs well into the future. BlackHillsLaura is factually correct I am a former Financial Analyst whose husband is two years shy of retirement. Fact: When Bush entered office both the SS surplus and balanced budget reversed into the red. The war and souces used to fund it still remain controversial today.

JC(4:26) You suggest reducing not eliminating agencies within the government except the Dept. of Education to reign in the budget. The problem is the level of expectation for government oversight/services from the public. We all can talk cut/reduce/eliminate but the real heart of the issue is what is the trade-off. Everyone has a different idea of which agencies to cut or reduce. The greatest challenge is the consequences for those reductions or cuts. The government agency that you feel is not important may in fact be very important to another region/area of the nation. Our views and opinions tend to be relative and center around where and how we live. What you want to reduce and cut someone else needs and what someone else wants to reduce or cut you need. If people want cuts then everything has to go on the chopping block no exceptions it's fair and equal. If you as others feel certain agencies shouldn't be cut then it remains status quo.

Repubs are hell bent on keeping people stupid and misinformed, so they can rape and plunder with even more ease. That is why they want to cut or eliminate public education.

Mary,

In general I agree with you and support a 10 - 20% cut across the board - no exceptions. However, I believe that certain agencies such as Dept of Ed should be removed altogether because they have failed to meet the goal for which they were created. Since the creation of the Dept of Ed, the education in this country has gone down rather than up. Since it is not meeting its goals, there is no real reason to continue to waste money funding it.

Repugs need an ignorant population to survive and they know it.
Repubs are hell bent on keeping people ignorant and misinformed, so
they can rape and plunder with even more ease. That is why they want
to cut or eliminate public education.

You keep saying the same thing over and over.

I've found that ignorant people usually don't vote, or are democrat because somebody told them to be, or their parents were..

I have found ignorant people vote against their own interests like republicans.

Wierd.. I find just the opposite.. So agree to disagree.

Let's address the elephant in the room... The Dems came 17 votes short of ramming this bill through. 7 democrats voted no, and 11 didn't vote (or other way around, can't remember for sure). Either way, the democrats only had to carry their own party, and didn't. Not to mention the fact that several republicans voted for the bill as well.

Most repugs voted against the bill. This is a fact.

Alex, they said before hand they were going to vote against the fast track, because it wouldn't be open for debate. The dems in power knew the republicans were largely going to vote against it... So, the dems either tried anyways as a political maneuver, or thought they would carry their own party and didn't. Get real.

nice one Jon

Both parties are guilty. The democrats refuse to use stimulus money to pay for it. Don't blame REpublicans foe everything

Yes, lets use the stimulus money, and then everyone can yell about it not being applied to jobs, etc. As pointed out the stimulus has been alloted, but not used. Once it is used, it goes into the National Debt. So, use the stimus and forgo the use of jobs, etc needed; or leave that and go with what we always do. The National Debt is going up anyway.

You are seriously uninformed. You need to study the news of the last 2 years.

Are you saying you haven't gotten a tax break Ruben?

The Bush tax cuts are estimated to cost us 4 Trillion over 10 years...of that 4 Trillion, 3.3 Trillion go to the "non-rich". It's a bit misleading to say the Republicans are only giving tax breaks to the rich.

As for unemployment insurance extensions...what's wrong with paying for it using unspent stimulus money? Why do we have to issue new debt for everything? People are kidding themselves if they think we can continue with the kind of deficit spending we're doing now. The end result is going to be very bad for all of us (and guess what, the poor always take the brunt of any economic downturn).

The Republicans are just saying use stimulus money to pay for this. The democrats are blocking it by refusing to do so and want to get some poilitical points from this thing.

Actually Ron that's 3 trillion over the next 10 years of which 2.3 trillion would be for those making less than 250,000 a year or 98% of the population, the 700 billion would be for the 2% that make more. Sounds kind of like $1 for you and $15 dollars for me. Pretty neat deal.

ruben cannot say that gday67.......because then that would be lying.

The Bush tax cuts were broad-based and covered all levels of income. The same, tired old comments about "tax cuts for the rich", "tax cuts for the wealthy", and "tax cuts for millionaires" is just more DEMOCRATIC TALKING POINTS..........you know, the kind that caused the Democrats to lose OVER 60 SEATS in the House.

The expiration of Bush tax cuts means that taxes for EVERYONE will go up. It also means that certain "phaseout" levels of deductions for the rich will no longer be phased out. The net result is that taxes for "the rich" will not go as high as many think.

This post is a lie!! President Obama has said many times that he wants to extend the tax cuts for people that earn under $200K permanently.

The only issue here is regarding extension of tax cuts is for people making over $200K per year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932010

bush's Recession. How much money did bush cost you??
Wealth effects
The New York City headquarters of Lehman BrothersThere is a direct relationship between declines in wealth, and declines in consumption and business investment, which along with government spending represent the economic engine. Between June 2007 and November 2008, Americans lost an estimated average of more than a quarter of their collective net worth[citation needed]. By early November 2008, a broad U.S. stock index the S&P 500, was down 45% from its 2007 high. Housing prices had dropped 20% from their 2006 peak, with futures markets signaling a 30-35% potential drop. Total home equity in the United States, which was valued at $13 trillion at its peak in 2006, had dropped to $8.8 trillion by mid-2008 and was still falling in late 2008. Total retirement assets, Americans' second-largest household asset, dropped by 22%, from $10.3 trillion in 2006 to $8 trillion in mid-2008. During the same period, savings and investment assets (apart from retirement savings) lost $1.2 trillion and pension assets lost $1.3 trillion. Taken together, these losses total a staggering $8.3 trillion.[142] Since peaking in the second quarter of 2007, household wealth is down $14 trillion.[143]Further, U.S. homeowners had extracted significant equity in their homes in the years leading up to the crisis, which they could no longer do once housing prices collapsed. Free cash used by consumers from home equity extraction doubled from $627 billion in 2001 to $1,428 billion in 2005 as the housing bubble built, a total of nearly $5 trillion over the period.[79][80][81] U.S. home mortgage debt relative to GDP increased from an average of 46% during the 1990s to 73% during 2008, reaching $10.5 trillion.[82]
bush wasted about a trillion dollars on Iraq and got more than 100K human beings KILLED. bush wasted trillions of dollars to make more enemies.
Bush left a huge mess, an economy in a free fall. The worst recession after the great depression.
bush had a 26 percent approval rate for an extremely long time.

Wikipedia, is not a credible source. Next!

"Mans Inhumanity to Man makes Countless Thousands Mourn" Robt. Burns

dunebuggy ! Where have you been ? You got kind of QUIET around election time !! I guess now you have recovered somewhat.

If republicans want to debate cutting the stimulus they could do that any time. The lying motherless scum,don't want extended unemployement and use anything for cover. They are very good at deceiving the people they are supposed to represent.

If Obama does anymore compromise, the people need to stand up and get rid of both parties. Do you hear any of them complain when we send billions to Israel or billions in stealth aircraft. Maybe we should package their butts up and ship them to Israel. We need a government for the people of America. This one is run for banks, wall street and Israel.

Right on, and your real name. A gold star for you.

Please read the article before you post... it details how they were able to block the passage of the bill.

a conservative actually read an article before they start to piss and moan?

Read the article and you will find your answer. The bill was brought up on Fast Track, which requires a two thirds majority. Republicans blocked it, even though it did get a majority of the vote, but still short of two-thirds.

I know how hard we try to explain things to conservatives, but they will say that this article has a "liberal MSNBC" slant. They won't know how to respond until they listen to Beck or Limbaugh. And then they will come back with some more of the same ol crap

THe democrats fast tracked it, resulting in its failure despite a huge majority. because of the 2/3s rule. If they had simply brought a measure to the floor, it would have passed.

Just Nancy trying to make the Republicans look bad.

8 business days is plenty of time to debate this, right ScoMata. No need to fast track it. Congress gets lots done in 8 business days... <roll>

There is nothing to debate if they pay for it with stimulus. They can and have passed such legislation in less than that time.

And if you READ the article and others about this, the measure will be tacked on to other legislation. So quit rolling your eyes, it makes you look stupid.

Nancy didn't have to do anything. The republican party is doing a good enough job making themselves look bad all on their own. Over a third of them rejected this. The tax cuts on the rich could easily pay for a paltry 3 month extension to those benefits, and for many months after.

Nice to see the GOP still knows it's priority. The rich, and those that bought and paid for their election.

The GOP is all about rejecting any bills that aren't paid for, yet the biggest bill of all, the Tax Cuts for the Rich, they will push for with no plan for it whatsoever.

Ok, so why doesn't the GOP propose a similar type of solution to the tax cuts? Better yet, why is every GOP solution to the unemployment issue... raid the stimulus? Forget investing in infrastructure or bringing back manufacturing, tax cuts for small business or continuing education credits. I am all in favor for "pay as you go" but why doesn't the Republican party follow its own advice? That makes them look like hypocrits and stupid. IMO.

It's called filibuster. And it is not a simple majority it has to be a super majority.

check out the terms cloture and super majority. That is why so little has been done and the GOP has been able to try and disguise how little they think of people. Sneaky way to hide their contempt for the poor, middle class, hurting people.

Smitty, you aren't sticking to the issue at hand. The Dems tried to fast track this bill, instead of debating where it would be funded. That is why they were able to block it, the needed 2/3. If they allowed it to be debated on the floor, two things could have happened. 1) It could have been passed by funding it with unused stimulus money. 2) They would be held accountable to where money that we keep on spending will come from.

I know they wanted one of those, it seems the GOP was fine with both. Without going on a tangent of everything else you think is wrong with the GOP, what problem do you have with taking the $12 bil out of that fund? Are you in favor of printing another $600 bil to buy more bonds?

It seems the democrats trick of fast-tracking the vote in the hopes that the republicans would not go on record of having voted against extending unemployment benefits backfired. Had the legislation be allowed a full hearing and debate, perhaps it would have passed and been paid for with stimulus dollars. Just another case of cramming legislation down throats - only this time it was spit back up.

And to compare this to tax cuts is a bit ridiculous. With tax cuts, the government doesn't incur additional outlays. With unemployment extensions, it does.

Why raid the stimulus?

The stimulus money is being spent disproportionally in democrat districts and in places they need to shore up the democrat votes. Some red states are getting 10%,20%, even 30% less stimulus per capita. This is immoral and unjust.

Plain and simple, its a just slush fund for paybacks and bribes related to past and future elections.

Backing off the cronyism would provide enoough money right there.

Read the article or take a government course.

Proof? It's being spent everywhere and unless you want a half-finished road, or half a building or a bridge that falls, ask Tim Pawlenty, he's an expert at watching bridges fall that he turned down money to fix. The Republicans have fought all extensions to unemployment benefits this year for one basic reason, the worse the economy is, the better chance they have in 2012. No other reason, if they were really worried about the debt they might have tried paying for their wars with tax increases on their cronies, which they didn't, the only unpaid for wars in the nation's history, they might have worried about the impact of the Medicare Part D unfounded entitlement on the debt, and they might have realized the damage done by the 2003 tax cuts in particular to the middle-class. They only worry about deficits when the Democrats are in power. Of the entire national debt of the US 3/4's of it is from three presidents, Reagan and the two Bushes. Our tax structure is the most regressive in the industrialized world and it has created the widest gap between rich and poor in the industrialized world. When a hedge fund manager pays taxes at a lower rate than his secretary, we are on our way to oligarchy. If the Bush tax cuts created jobs, why does Bush have a job creation record worse than any other President but Hoover?

Voting America, using the unemployed as political currency through the fast track approach says a lot about the Democratic party.

It sure does. It shows they care for the welfare of all citizens of this country. Every senator and house member should have voted for 100%. It is the GOP holding the unemployed hostage, to protect the rich. Next!

I guess I stated it wrong. I meant to express my disbelief that the dems would require a 2/3 majority vote knowing all the while that the repubs would block it. How could this be allowed by the dems? Are they that ignorant or are they extremely clever?

Again, I thought the dems were still in control.

James, if you say so, it must be right. Trying to pass a fast track bill that you know ahead of time won't get passed is disingeuous and grand standing. If they care as much about the unemployed as you purport, they would have tried to pass it using a method that would have worked. You say the republicans are holding the unemployed hostage for the rich, I say the democrats are using the unemployed as political pawns to try to rebuild their broken party. They have done a wonderful job indoctrinating you though.

Beatle, the dems are still in control. Open it for debate, it gets funded through the stimulus, and all citizens are happy. They played it out like this on purpose, anyone who doesn't see this just doesn't understand how politics works.

This is what you call transparency. Now we know the exact names of the rethugs that voted against the extension of benefits.

Thanks for the democrats for shining the spotlight on those rethugs. We wanted to know.

I agree with you and further they must be Fox News Sheep...Roger Ailes must be laughing at the fools who have voted against thier best interests for some idealogy that hasn't worked lately but is still sponsored by the rich who want toget richer. Governing by slogans and fear...what a way to lead!

Yes - the idea is to allow the tax breaks thereby freeing up capitol to increase production which will in turn cause the hiring of more employees. This is the difference between the liberal and the Conservative. We want to make a way for you to be successful but you just want to hold your hand out and have me give it to you. I'm sorry but that's just wrong. The lie about the top 2% is just that - a lie perpetuated by ignorant people. Let's put this into perspective. I run a struggling small business and guess what? losing that tax break (And a couple of other GWB era small business grants/loans) means a lot of money for me at tax time and can make the difference between me hiring a third employee next year or not. Seriously how can you argue that logic? is it really better to feed a man, or teach him to fish?

Tax cuts for the rich do not create jobs. If that were true they would have created jobs during the 10 years they were in force. They did not.

Millionaires do not create jobs, demand creates job. The economy does not work from the top down, it works from the bottom up. If you put money into the hands of the rich they sock it away off shore and/or build factories in other countries. However, if you put money into the hands of the middle-class and poor, they spend it and that spending creates the demand needed to help the economy recover and grow. One of the best ways to put that money into their hands to spend is unemployment benefits, because it's money that will be spent immediately.

Well said sir!! WELL SAID!