home

Republicans To Unemployed: "Tough Sh*t"

Via Atrios, the Republican Party:

As Democratic senators asked again and again for unanimous consent for a vote on a 30-day extension [of unemployment insurance benefits] Thursday night, [Sen. Jim] Bunning [R-KY] refused to go along. And when Sen. Jeff Merkely (D-Ore.) begged him to drop his objection, Politico reports, Bunning replied: "Tough sh[*]t."

< 6 Hours That Shook The Health Debate World? | Pelosi Reminds Obama That He Used To Support The Public Option >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Frum huffpo (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by CST on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:42:43 AM EST
    a longer article

    Key excerpt:

    "And at one point during the debate, which dragged on till nearly midnight, Bunning complained of missing a basketball game.

    "I have missed the Kentucky-South Carolina game that started at 9:00," he said,
    "and it's the only redeeming chance we had to beat South Carolina since they're the only team that has beat Kentucky this year.

    The unemployment rate in Kentucky is 10.7 percent."

    Priorities.

    Did he stay? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:43:41 AM EST
    Stay for what? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:44:48 AM EST
    Stay to kick unemployed (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:46:27 AM EST
    Americans in the nuts?  Yeah he stayed to do that, with expressed regret that he couldn't have done it at a more convenient time for him.

    Parent
    How did he kick the unemployed (none / 0) (#7)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:49:17 AM EST
    in the nutz?

    Parent
    If you missed that one honey (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:50:04 AM EST
    there is no hope for you

    Parent
    Did you read BTD's post at all? n/t (none / 0) (#9)
    by CST on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:50:48 AM EST
    Yep (none / 0) (#10)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:52:28 AM EST
    I sure did.  I have to ask, should there be a limit on unemployment?  If not why don't the dems with their majority, just remove all time limits to unemployment?  

    Parent
    WileE Coyote to unemployed (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:55:38 AM EST
    "Tough sh*t."

    Parent
    Should there (none / 0) (#13)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:56:30 AM EST
    be any limits to unemployment?  

    Parent
    I'll answer that question with other questions (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by CST on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:03:09 AM EST
    Do you think there should be any economic intervention by the government due to the the fact that we are in the worst economic climate since the great depression?

    Do you think the economy will be helped by ending these benefits?

    Do you think people will be helped by ending these benefits?

    Do you think ANYTHING will be gained by ending these benefits?

    To answer your question with an actual answer - different times/circumstances should have different limits.  I do not think there should be limits to unemployment benefits until the unemployment rate drops significantly and there is actually work for people to go back to.

    Parent

    I will try to answer these (none / 0) (#30)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:21:45 AM EST
    probably not to your satisfaction.

    The gov't actions helped get us into this mess..think Fannie Mae, freddi mac.

    Not right now, but in the long term yes.  

    Yes, the people who are currently paying into unemployment insurance.  Their rates are not going to go up.

    Sure, proof that relying too much on the largess of gov't leave you beholding to people who could really deep down give a rats rear end about you, just the next election cycle.  

    If the recovery is a recovery with higher permanent unemployment?  What kind o limits do you want?


    Parent

    "The government's actions" (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 11:10:52 AM EST
    ie, the actions of govt - corporate collusion

    Whats the big objection on the right to dropping the  baldfaced lie that wants people to believe that there's a "government" over here and business over there, just minding it's own business and not asking for any favors?

    When you start raising objections about the military industrial complex's lip lock on the govt teet, I'll  start taking (some) wingers a little more seriously.

    Parent

    "government largess" lol (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 11:16:35 AM EST
    at this point that Pox News crap is beyond laughable.

    What you're really talking about is "largess" toward people who cant hire lobbying firms.

    Parent

    To: ECoyote (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by christinep on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 03:14:15 PM EST
    Fascinating libertarian-speak. At least, that is the way your rationale reads to me. But, getting away from theory and your personal feelings about the role of government in general, what would you have the unemployed do in terms of food, shelter, and all the other economic pressures? For example: Lets add a "moral" component, and posit that a middle-aged father of two or three young children with either an unemployed or underemployed spouse (who stays home to take care of the children to save money otherwise given to childcare services) has lost his jobe many months ago in a merger/or company closing/or jobs being sent outside the country situation: the man searches every day, comes home and looks at his youngsters each night and is brokenhearted by night--add your own facts (because you can read or hear about it every day)--What is your advice to him as you sit across from him in home or your office? What do you say face-to-face?

    Parent
    Not to speak for Wile... (none / 0) (#73)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 07:24:24 AM EST
    And I personally do not oppose the extension, especially in light of all the assistance we dole out to those who require no assistance...cough, Lloyd Blankfein, cough.

    What I'd tell that father is what Joe Strummer told me..."I don't believe in lying back, saying how bad your luck is."  I'd rob a bank, shoplift...whatever it took to feed those kids.  And as long as no violence is involved, in this rigged economy of grift, its hard to even call such actions immoral.  

    Or better yet sell some drugs to dodge the morality questions of Robin Hood-esque thievery alltogether.

    Parent

    Social Unrest (none / 0) (#74)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 07:40:58 AM EST
    That seems to be a consequence that the "let them eat cake" people fail to factor in. Read your local police blotter. Crime is up. People will find a way to survive. If we continue to dump a million or so into poverty each month, how long will it be before we have a major social backlash?

    There are expectations. We've all grown up with the American dream embedded in our brains. Go to school, get a job, settle down, and if you play by the rules life will be ok. Now the rules no longer apply. The scales are tipping back to the days of the robber barons. Until something is done to balance the scales again, we're in for a turbulent future.

    Parent

    Well said... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 08:01:25 AM EST
    the "let them eat cake" crowd should realize FDR was their best freakin' friend who mighta saved the family fortune and their very lives...take a little less, pass out some scraps, and you won't have to worry as much about somebody coming to jack your sh*t all savage like, while your jacking others sh*t in a "civilized" manner.

    I mean its not like the unemployed are asking for what Goldman Sachs asked for...just enogh to pay the rent and keep the kids fed.  Should be a no-brainer just to maintain order, if not for humanitarian reasons.

    Parent

    you're right (none / 0) (#45)
    by CST on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:22:22 PM EST
    I don't agree.

    Parent
    Fannie and Freddie... (none / 0) (#51)
    by TomStewart on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:45:55 PM EST
    were part of the problem, but not what caused the near total collapse. The runaway greed, the need/desire for new and untested investment vehicles and, yes, government looking the other way (Bush yanking money out of SEC enforcement didn't help) is what caused this mess. It was a slow motion, long distance train wreck that could have been headed off if there there would have been more who cared about the public welfare rather than their own back accounts. Instead of applying the brakes to this runaway, we elected to play triage in the wreckage, but only by helping slap the train back together instead of those lying bleeding on the ground.

     Blaming Freddie/Fannie is certainly easy, and popular with a lot of groups who would love a little company in the public dock, but it's misleading.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:00:25 AM EST
    People want jobs so there should be a limit to UI.

    Of course you meant a limit to UI. And in better times, of course.

    But NOW? TODAY? Absolutely not.

    In case you have not noticed, the economy is in pretty bad shape right now.

    And even putting aside the compassion part of the equation, it is GOOD for the economy, as in stimulative good, to put money in the hands of people who will spend it for the basic needs of life, like food, shelter, clothes, etc.

    Here's a question though, do you think Bunning wants to raise taxes to pay for this extension? Me neither.

    Parent

    UI (none / 0) (#21)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:05:10 AM EST
    is paid by the employees and the employers, not by taxes.  

    What is the difference between being unemployed today rather than being unemployed in better economic times for the country?  Seems to me being unemployed at any time is bad.  
    So what kind of time limits would you have during unemployment during good economic times?

    Don't worry I won't say
    BTD to unemployed at certain times:
    "Tough Sh*t"

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:07:31 AM EST
    What's the difference between now and good economic times? Why nothing at all.

    Hello, Herbert Hoover.

    Parent

    um (none / 0) (#23)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:10:03 AM EST
    So what kind of time limits would you have during unemployment during good economic times?

    Parent
    Not having thought it through (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:11:29 AM EST
    I will give a from the hip answer - 18 months.

    Parent
    What's the difference? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by TomStewart on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:04:10 PM EST
    Let me tell you, as one who is now unemployed. I've been looking, making phone calls, filling out applications, even taking employers' quizes and personality tests (!) for three months, well over a hundred contacts, and I've gotten three callbacks and two interviews. Before this turndown/recession/slowdown I'd been unemployed at the most a couple weeks. Frankly I've never been on a interview before where I didn't get the job, usually at the interview. Now, one of the interviews I went on the employer decided not to fill the position after all, the other they hired from within, and eliminated that person's job.

    Where there used to be me and a couple others making it through the screening process, now there are dozens. Where people would get a dozen resumes, they now get hundreds. I've had HR people tell me how overwhelmed they are with people calling, faxing and emailing all day for the one job that might be available. Unemployment is depressing, and leads at times to utter desperation. I've seen it. I have friends and family, and I know they are here for me, but if they weren't, I wouldn't know what to do.

    So yeah, it's different this time. It's worse, take it from me, I'm there, it not pretty and it's not fun. The government is helping me while my fulltime job is looking for a fulltime job. I don't like it, and I don't really feel good about it, but here it is.
    The Republicans want to take away what is probably a lifeline for people and families? Sure, why not. And why we're it, they probably don't need those foodstamps either.

    The republicans want to save time and money? get people back to work and stop playing politics with peoples lives.

    Parent

    Thank you TomStewart (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by christinep on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 03:20:58 PM EST
    For the very human face. I hope your fortune changes for the better very soon.

    Parent
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#69)
    by TomStewart on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:36:04 PM EST
    In an unusual display in the normally sleepy chamber, Bunning - without the support of GOP leadership - has blocked efforts to quickly approve a series of extensions to measures that would otherwise expire Sunday. Included, of course, is the unemployment insurance extension as well as an extension for COBRA coverage, but in addition, are extensions of the highway trust fund, satellite television and other expenditures.

    Bunning was the loan objector. And he did so because these "temporary" extensions have been rolling now month after month with no effort to pay for them.

    Moreover, Democrats are designating the extensions as "emergency" spending so that they can avoid complying with the very "PAYGO" requirements for which they profess to love so much.

    Bunning, though, is objecting, as is the privilege of any senator. He says he'll allow the bill to go through tonight if money from the stimulus is used to pay for the bill, rather than passing it unfunded. "What I have proposed is a pay-for. My gosh, we've got over $400 billion in unspent stimulus money."



    Parent
    So should you... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by TomStewart on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 03:04:06 PM EST
    Bunning is an unserious partisan:

    <<Unsurprisingly, Bunning couldn't care less about any of it: "I have missed the Kentucky-South Carolina game that started at 9:00 and it's the only redeeming chance we had to beat South Carolina since they're the only team that has beat Kentucky this year," he said on the Senate floor.<p> At one point in the discussion, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), asked Bunning to drop his objection. Bunning, according to Politico, had a two word answer for his colleague: "Tough sh*t."

    Under normal circumstances Bunning's obstruction would be a minor headache. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could force a vote to end the debate and the extensions would pass within a couple days. But February 28 is fast approaching, and most Senators are already back in their home states, meaning the benefits will likely not be renewed until the middle of next week.

    Bunning's objections led to a series of unusually angry exchanges on the Senate floor late into the evening last night--and Senate Democrats have been blasting Bunning for depriving his own constituents of needed assistance. But so far, to no avail.

    Republicans, for their part, may not have given Bunning their blessing, but they're not doing anything to stop him, and instead are blaming Democrats for not scheduling a vote earlier. >>

    So, he complains about missing a basketball game, say we should use the 'stimulus' (because that wouldn't increase the deficit?) and the rest of the Republicans could have stopped him, or at least talked a bit of sense into him, but chose not to. Bunning is grandstanding, doing what the Republicans have been doing the last year, playing political games and using the unemployed to do so to score his points, while complaining about missing a game. He should be ashamed of himself.

    Parent

    The Wildcats are ranked #2. (none / 0) (#62)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 03:22:31 PM EST
    Their first game with NC is their only loss this season. What else does a red-blooded Kentuckian have to live for?

    Parent
    Tired of hypocrites (none / 0) (#72)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 06:12:08 AM EST
    I could accept Bunning's stand if it was pure hypocrisy. It amazes me that so many Republicans have suddenly found their fiscal conservative conscience. Where was it when the rubber stamped the looting of our treasury for eight years?

    Tax cuts at a time of war were unheard of and irresponsible at the very least. (A true fiscal conservative should have been calling for a war tax).

    Supplimental funding of the wars so that they could bypass the budget and throw the debt on the next administration is not exactly fiscally responsible either.

    If Bunning had stood up then and demanded accountability then, I might listen to him. As it is now, him and his "born again" fiscal conservatives should just sit down and shut up. They haven't a leg to stand on.

    Parent

    Let me try to answer (none / 0) (#38)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:51:57 AM EST
    as if you're actually curious instead of just a troll- in good economic times with low unemployment its easier to find a job as their aren't 25 or so applicants per opening.

    Parent
    To "progressives" (none / 0) (#54)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:58:03 PM EST
    a troll is someone who does not march in lockstep with them.

    Parent
    A troll (none / 0) (#57)
    by TomStewart on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:07:28 PM EST
    is someone who asks an 'are you kidding me' question, gets an answer, and then says, 'well yeah, but besides that, answer my question!'. I don't think you're a troll, but you can be a bit, obtuse, at times. No disrespect intended.

    Parent
    Well, I for one, (none / 0) (#63)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:23:16 PM EST
    have no interest in reading the conservative view among the comments here.  I can always go over to other blogs for that.....

    I am interested in the views of other progressives.

    This is TalkLeft, you know....  

    Parent

    Like Jeralyn often says, (none / 0) (#65)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:29:44 PM EST
    feel free not to read any comments you'd like. TL is not an echo chamber...

    Parent
    Except there are a lot more (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:41:21 PM EST
    of you conservatives here now--and it is getting harder to view the progressive views amidst the sloganeering...

    Parent
    TL is like the beach. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 12:48:31 AM EST
    Commenters come in and go out like the tide.

    You'll get by.

    Parent

    Are you advocating raising (none / 0) (#26)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:12:26 AM EST
    UI rates on employees and employers to pay for increased UI?  

    Parent
    oops (none / 0) (#27)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:14:14 AM EST
    UI?

    Alot of people say higher unemployment will be permanent after the recovery.  If Unemployment is permanently 10% should there be any limits to UI?

    Parent

    Mind if I save this? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:57:31 AM EST
    Save it for what? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:01:07 AM EST
    To prove your callousness? No need for that.

    Parent
    Explain what money is, Wile (none / 0) (#32)
    by Dadler on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:32:36 AM EST
    Give me your definition.  Since it is entirely a human creation whose worth is determined by nothing more than human thoughts, I'm curious as to your apprarent theory that it is actually more like the swallows of Capistrano, whom we can only hope and wish return each year.  

    Parent
    I'm going to go out on a limb here (none / 0) (#34)
    by Kent Allard on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:37:28 AM EST
    and support Mr. Coyote, after all, it was only Dick Cheney who introduced the ridiculous notion that "Deficits don't matter":

    O'Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush's economic team in December 2002, raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from "the corporate crowd," a key constituency.

    O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.

    Deficits don't matter

    Parent

    They really don't anymore (none / 0) (#68)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:45:23 PM EST
    They used to roost at the Mission....then the parking lot of the strip center....Now, not so much....

    Parent
    Because removing all time limits (none / 0) (#37)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:48:52 AM EST
    entirely would essentially shift unemployment from a supplement, to an entitlement.

    Parent
    If the Republicans manage not to take (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:10:15 AM EST
    the House next year, it will be because of shenanigans like this.

    As an independant voter (none / 0) (#42)
    by cawaltz on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 11:30:54 AM EST
    and one of the people both sides wish to capture, I agree. I'm apalled.

    Parent
    Watching C-Span, GOP rallying around Bunning (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by magster on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:14:19 AM EST
    This is a political gift.  Tune in to see how the Dem Senators blow it.

    If I were Harry Reid, (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:15:48 AM EST
    I would threaten to go nuclear over this. They should already have a letter with 51 Senators promising to.

    Parent
    Would IMO be a real good time (none / 0) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:22:43 AM EST
    for Obama to hold a press conference on unemployment and highlight Republican obstruction that will cause real suffering to our fellow citizens. Can't think of better use for the bully pulpit.

    Parent
    That would backfire (none / 0) (#33)
    by BTAL on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:36:41 AM EST
    as he just praised the Senate for their bipartisan Jobs bill that is now being blown-up in the House by the CBC and other dems.

    Parent
    Senate just adjourned for the weekend (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by magster on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:42:47 AM EST
    leaving Bunning's hold in place and the Paterson story dominating the news.

    Way to take a stand, Senate Dems!!

    Parent

    Morons (none / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:43:34 AM EST
    Shoulda made him (none / 0) (#64)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:28:18 PM EST
    go all night.  The longest actual filibuster by a lone Senator was something like 25 hours by Strom Thurman opposing civil rights....

    They could have tag-teamed Bunning with a group of about 5 Senators....Break this filibuster and maybe it would slow down other attempts....

    Parent

    And cameras (none / 0) (#66)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:30:07 PM EST
    Have C-Span telecast the rantings of Bunning....

    It could have been a real nice play by the Democrats--if only they would play hardball the way Republicans do....

    Parent

    Bunning needs (none / 0) (#1)
    by BTAL on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:42:40 AM EST
    to be kicked in the nutz.

    - speaking from a conservative prospective.

    Dems can win on jobs (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:48:54 AM EST
    If only they want to win and want people to have jobs.  I wouldn't campaign on something like that right now and then eff everyone over after the election.  You could end up with your head on a spike.

    I bet... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:55:32 AM EST
    if Goldman Sachs called for more handouts, Bunning wouldn't be worried about a b-ball game, only about getting them a check...and tickets to said game.

    If I was a less righteous man I'd say lets go loot Bunning's house, show 'em what dog eat dog really looks like up close and personal...but then we'd be just like him, a common thief.  

    Goldman Sachs? (none / 0) (#46)
    by republicratitarian on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:52:07 PM EST
    You bet... (none / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:14:38 PM EST
    instead of unemployment checks and extension worries they got lump sums and all kinds of charity and goodwill.  Mi treasury es su treasury.

    And Bunning is worried about some broke d*ck getting over not looking for a job hard enough.  Don't get me wrong, there are cats out there who don't really start looking till the checks run out, but that doesn't mean the extension or the program itself isn't worthwhile or necessary.  Especially considering who has been getting massive helping hands and why.

    Parent

    The union boys at (none / 0) (#48)
    by republicratitarian on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:24:21 PM EST
    GM and Chrysler don't have to worry about unemployment bennies either. In the grand scheme of things, extending unemployment is a drop in the bucket compared to everything else. I just wasn't sure what Goldman Sachs had to do with it since the banks and car manufacturers and whoever else are still employed because of our tax dollars. That was a Dem and Rep thing wasn't it?
    Sorry if I didn't get your point.

    Parent
    Alot of those (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by cawaltz on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 11:27:21 PM EST
    "union boys" got laid off or are commuting to other states to work. So did you have a point or were you expecting us to extol about how absolutely e-vil it was that the car companies got one tenth what the banking industries did and were required in the process to STILL make concessions and go through a modified bankrupcy(because God forbid the average contract worker that didn't make six figures at Goldman or AIG not make concessions, keeping contracts intact and escaping bankruptcy are only options for those making 6 figures).

    Nice try though.

    Parent

    No worries man... (none / 0) (#52)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:46:09 PM EST
    I'm basically saying at least the Dems are semi-consistent in this regard, the government shouldn't forget bones for the broke d*cks while we're rigging this thing for the fatcats...the Repubs just wanna rig the thing and call it a free market when it's broke d*ck bone time.

    Parent
    Could extending unemployment (none / 0) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:02:37 AM EST
    benefits for say a year be passed through reconciliation? If so, why not bundle it with the fixes to the health insurance legislation and let those Senators, who dare, vote against it.

    It could (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:04:04 AM EST
    but not in time to halt the expiration on Sunday.

    Parent
    I'm also sure Bunning (none / 0) (#20)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:04:05 AM EST
    eagerly signed off on every appropriation earmarked for the military and its attendant industries and called himself a good American patriot for doing so.

    Motivation? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Pianobuff on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 11:15:36 AM EST
    Are there any explanations for what is driving his objection?

    "intergenerational theft" (none / 0) (#43)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:14:23 PM EST
    or so he says. He is a reborn deficit hawk unless defense spending is at risk.

    Parent
    that's nice (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by CST on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:21:47 PM EST
    pretend to care about the younger generation.

    But he manages to forget that young people are also the most likely to be unemployed.

    So he is taking from the young... for the young...

    that's rich.

    He must be concerned about my grandkids.  How sweet.

    Parent

    What do you mean (none / 0) (#50)
    by DaveCal on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:44:32 PM EST
    "he's taking from the young"?

    Parent
    Is it really (none / 0) (#49)
    by AlkalineDave on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:33:03 PM EST
    fair to attribute this to the whole party.  According to huffpo, no republicans supported Senator Bunning on this one.

    Shhhh. Got to rally the base... (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:55:19 PM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#55)
    by AlkalineDave on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:59:55 PM EST
    like the ludicrous coffee party idea I saw on huffpo.  Lame.