It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senate takes a two week vacation without passing unemployment extension

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
For the love of all that is right and wrong in our country, they fund their pet projects first and hold out funding money for the people! Over a million people will spend this wonderful independence day questioning just how free they really are. They will ask why the government of the people, by the people, and for the people does nothing to help the people. Empty promises left unfulfilled and Republicans that only recently started to give a hoot about balancing a budget. They have all their priorities in the wrong places.

In a vote last night, before the Senate takes a two week fourth of July vacation on the tax payers dime, the Senate once again shows their true disdain for the American public.



Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) argued tonight that his party has "offered ways of paying for these programs, and we’ve been eager to approve them. But we can’t support job-killing taxes and adding tens of billions to the already unsustainable national debt."

"So the only reason the unemployment extension hasn’t passed is because Democrats simply refuse to pass a bill that doesn’t add to the debt. That’s it. That’s the only difference between what they’ve offered and what we’ve offered."

Source


And before anyone lays in with "Get a job!" to those unemployed, I would right now take my grill to some public corner and buy some hot dogs and burgers and start cooking meals to make a dollar on my own. However, our system does not allow that and I would be arrested for trying. The system is broken and there is no freedom...just the illusion of freedom.




posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


ExPostFacto, a permit to grill hot dogs is $30. I'll loan it to you. The first Health inspection is free, and as long as you are a "mobile" vendor, you don't need sinks and sanitary equipment. The illegal Mexicans can figure out how to get Merchant's licenses and Health Inspections, and they don't even speak the language!


Now, I totally agree with you on the worthless Representatives we have elected. Democrats and Republicans must both go!

SACK THE INCUMBENT- SACK THE INCUMBENT - SACK THE INCUMBENT

The mantra of the true Tea Party! Don't believe what you see on TV. The Tea Party is not what you see on Fox or CNN. It is a grassroots movement intent on totally replacing the government.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Federal funding of unemployment is unconstitutional.

Funny how you whine about people questioning their freedom while waiting for a GOVERNMENT check.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Sir, if you attempted to grill hot dogs for cash I would be obligated to report you to the FDA, EPA, FTC, CDC, and The State Department of Health.

Clearly you are a menace to society and are probably selling dog meat while urinating in the koolaid container.

I need federal power to protect me from evil doing savages like yourself.

Oh, and you better register your "business" with the IRS as well.

Heaven forbid you don't pay sales taxes earned.

I'll sick them on you too, criminal.



[edit on 1-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by brainwrek
 


I beg to differ...but I get where you are coming from. We really cannot argue only about unemployment benefits being unconstitutional when half our government is unconstitutional. I would rather they start cutting unconstitutional items overseas before they cut services at home. Instead they fund their projects first, and disregard the needs of the people they represent.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Any and all cuts to unconstitutional expenditures should be viewed as a good thing.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Yea it is quite humorous that NOW the republicans CARE ABOUT THE BUDGET


Bunch of jokers the Republicans are.

When it comes to spending money, Republicans have shown NO CARE OR CONCERN IN THE WORLD UNTIL IT WAS INTENDED TO GO TOWARDS HELPING THE HARD WORKING TAX PAYING AMERICAN WORKERS!!!!

NOW all of a sudden we need to STOP SPENDING??!!

Bunch of ANTI-AMERICAN, ANTI-MIDDLE-CLASS, JOKERS the republicans are!!!!



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ExRepublican
 


Happen to have a number as to how many of the unemployed actually pay taxes?

As in not receiving a refund of their withholdings?



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 07:01 PM
link   
This isn't a right or left issue. Unemployment is a sad reality, but waiting for your government check is even sadder reality. Free men/women have been Pavlov'd into accepting and relying on the government teet.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Either way you look at it, it isn't pretty.

1. Continue the unemployment funds and you have: workers that become too dependent on it and give up looking for any kind of work, and additional state/national debt in a country that is for all intents and purposes, "bankrupt".

2. Take it away, and you have hundreds and thousands fighting for jobs at McDonald's and Walmart, and the ones that do not get the funds will turn to other, illegal means so they can eat and have shelter.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   
I say try the hot dog stand thing. Next thing you know, you got 2 stands. Then 6. Then 20 ...

And then one day, you're on the cover of Time magazine ... and you're the freaking Starbucks of hotdogs.

That's literally how it happens.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by brainwrek
 


Yes, I have that number, it happens to right around 100%. Maybe you have an accountant or lawyer take care of all your bills for you. The reality is that when we pay for anything, its all taxed. Ever look at one of your utility bills?

I'm not trying to be as harsh as you are, yet try the math for yourself. 1.6 million making an average of $300 a week. Take that away from the economy and watch it bleed.

I can understand your argument about constitutional measures. The problem with that argument is, as famously quoted by gw, its just a goddamned piece of paper. Being since we have all the money in the world to finance military sponsored terrorism abroad, which should obviously be unconstitutional since there has never been a declaration of war, don't you think that we could at least throw our own citizens a bone?

This whole situation reminds me of the mega tobacco settlement. These states drafted legislation in order to punish these tobacco companies, they argued about paying future health costs. They also set up funds to prevent underage smoking. Want to know what all that money really went to? Cheap commercials and balancing state budgets, in the sake of not raising corporate taxes. Property taxes, bonding, and levy issues all came up, and were approved instead. Do you think thats constitutional?

Fighting against peasant Iraqi/Afghani folks for massive profit towards the military contractors, while letting our own peasants languish in what they created is rather disengenuous. Any one of our industries could be next. Please, don't be so smug.

Back in the 80's it was the airlines. Then the steel industry. Then the car makers. Then the IT jobs. There's more, please fill me in. Now what we are dealing with is that most people are finding that their skill set is not needed, because its cheaper to outsource.

America used to provide quality products. Its more cost effective(job security) to provide something that will fall apart right away. Is that constitutional? Trust me, its very true.

So, as I was working my butt off, finding my investments tank every day, not being able to do much about it because I'm busy working, then finally needing that money at any cost, how is that constitutional?

You have some pretty convenient answers, as usual, brainwrek, yet you try not to see why this is not a constitutional matter anymore.

Unemployment is a tax that decreases folks wages. An under the table job pays much more just by that virtue. Wages are decreased by overhead. Simple business.

Sorry for the rant, no bad intents, yet I think this will really hurt. The smart thing to do would be to get this back on. I really think that they should start loaning money, but that doesn't seem to be the plan. Not if you can create work and pay it back. Thats just me. Anyways, I hope it turns around. Thanks for the thread and no hard feelings guys.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by brainwrek
 


Yes, I have that number, it happens to right around 100%. Maybe you have an accountant or lawyer take care of all your bills for you. The reality is that when we pay for anything, its all taxed. Ever look at one of your utility bills?

I'm not trying to be as harsh as you are, yet try the math for yourself. 1.6 million making an average of $300 a week. Take that away from the economy and watch it bleed.

I can understand your argument about constitutional measures. The problem with that argument is, as famously quoted by gw, its just a goddamned piece of paper. Being since we have all the money in the world to finance military sponsored terrorism abroad, which should obviously be unconstitutional since there has never been a declaration of war, don't you think that we could at least throw our own citizens a bone?

This whole situation reminds me of the mega tobacco settlement. These states drafted legislation in order to punish these tobacco companies, they argued about paying future health costs. They also set up funds to prevent underage smoking. Want to know what all that money really went to? Cheap commercials and balancing state budgets, in the sake of not raising corporate taxes. Property taxes, bonding, and levy issues all came up, and were approved instead. Do you think thats constitutional?

Fighting against peasant Iraqi/Afghani folks for massive profit towards the military contractors, while letting our own peasants languish in what they created is rather disengenuous. Any one of our industries could be next. Please, don't be so smug.

Back in the 80's it was the airlines. Then the steel industry. Then the car makers. Then the IT jobs. There's more, please fill me in. Now what we are dealing with is that most people are finding that their skill set is not needed, because its cheaper to outsource.

America used to provide quality products. Its more cost effective(job security) to provide something that will fall apart right away. Is that constitutional? Trust me, its very true.

So, as I was working my butt off, finding my investments tank every day, not being able to do much about it because I'm busy working, then finally needing that money at any cost, how is that constitutional?

You have some pretty convenient answers, as usual, brainwrek, yet you try not to see why this is not a constitutional matter anymore.

Unemployment is a tax that decreases folks wages. An under the table job pays much more just by that virtue. Wages are decreased by overhead. Simple business.

Sorry for the rant, no bad intents, yet I think this will really hurt. The smart thing to do would be to get this back on. I really think that they should start loaning money, but that doesn't seem to be the plan. Not if you can create work and pay it back. Thats just me. Anyways, I hope it turns around. Thanks for the thread and no hard feelings guys.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by brainwrek
 


what a clown you are, and I bet you are switting quite secure on your ass while making statements like that huh?



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by dfens
 


Income taxes.

Perhaps I wasnt clear enough for you to understand.

Loan money? What money? There isnt any more to loan.

Surely you know what inflation is and the devastating effects that come with it.

[edit on 1-7-2010 by brainwrek]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by condition9
 


Actually I am not switting anywhere. Secure is subjective to each individual.

Doesnt change the fact that what I said is correct.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   
don't worry about brainwrek, just add him to your ignore list.

he's nothing more than a paid political tool



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by djzombie
don't worry about brainwrek, just add him to your ignore list.

he's nothing more than a paid political tool





You couldnt be more wrong child, but I will let you continue to make a fool of yourself.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by brainwrek
 


Yes, I could surmise what you intended by your post. Pay income tax because I pay way more income tax than you ever have. Maybe you have, maybe you haven't. I'm not trying to debate that. You don't have to clarify anything.

If the constitution is supposed to work for anybody, who do you think it should work for? Were you there to vote on SSI? To take a percentage out of everyones paycheck each week to take care of people who never put a dime in. We could go on and on, but you should be able to get the point when you are "smarter than you".

I'm not trying to attack you brainwrek, I am just asking for something more than a minimal post about constitutional rights, which were done away with long before we were even born.

Talk about rights, did you or anyone you know vote for bailouts? Patriot acts? Immigration? Womens lib? Gay rights? Desegregation? War on drugs? Wars? Secret wars? So many more things that there is not enough bandwidth to even finish. Sorry for getting off topic.

What I tried to point out before was that = take away 300-500 million $ out of local economies immediately. Some areas will be hurt worse than others. It all trickles down.

We have money in this country. Its probably true that the FED wants it more, yet we are not broke as a country. How do we fund everything when we are broke? If it were by military dominance, then you may have a point, but judging by how we are dealing with our two wars going on, we don't want to display our dominance.

Wealth/cash flow/ money, increases exponentially as more people enter the world. It just seems to "trickle up", hence the brilliant pun that Reagan tricked you with. We redistribute wealth upwards and never down the line. How is that constitutional?

We can bicker all day and we can always be right, yet it doesn't change the fact that this will have repercussions that haven't been thought of yet, or maybe they have been figured and they don't care. How's that for rights?

Voting is technically illegal via the 14th amendment, anyways, everyone I've ever voted for was never elected. Are my rights being represented when that happens?

People asked for democracy, and we got it, it means mob rule in latin.

Again, back to the OP, this had better get funded, because it will create much dissent. Congress/senate doesn't have to worry too much, when they retire, they are taken care of. Lifetime pension and medical care, and most likely a cushy job for whatever bills they helped pass. Its the reality of it. Talk about rights again, please.

Maybe there are benevolent circumstances at play, maybe we are trying to gear the public at large to get into the healthcare industry... If thats the case, they are doing it all wrong. Its just feeding another beast. It would be sane if true, but how can we trust anyone of those guys? I helped elect approximately 0 out of 700 positions. How can I ever be right?



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by dfens
 


Great post Dfens! I have been through the political gambit the past few years. I started off a democrat in the 90's believing they stood for protecting individual constitutional protections. Then I became an independent realizing the democrats didn't care so much for individual protections they cared more for groups of people. After becoming an independent I realized the there was no hope. I became repulsed at Republicans after 8 years of Bush. Then one day I heard Ron Paul speak and it gave me a glimmer of hope. I became a republican soon followed by a constitutional libertarian and Tea-Party supporter. Then I realized the error of my ways in that no party or group matched my personal beliefs.

I now identify myself as a social libertarian. I believe in the common man. I believe that groups of well intentioned people can create too many benefits for themselves under the law, this goes many ways (corporations, industry, and individual groups). I believe the constitution was designed to prevent groups of people from effecting the prosperity and lives of a single person. I believe that the government was designed for the benefit of all of us, not some of us, or a group of us, an opinion of some of us, etc. (read my signature). I believe that if a person in my community is struggling, that this effects me, and I have a responsibility to help. The government as an extension of myself has this same duty to help individuals in the community struggling.

I do not agree with how the unemployment system is set up. But that is an issue which needs to be addressed after the recession and not during. I could ponder at least 10 other ways to set up unemployment insurance that would be beneficial to all people and not ever place us into a position to argue over whether to give people money to eat and keep a roof over their head. If people haven't figured it out by now...unemployment insurance was designed to soften an economic down-turn to business not the people. People only require a roof over their head with electricity/water and food on the table. This is a small price. The intention of unemployment insurance is to keep money flowing to business so that more layoffs do not occur, which would cycle quickly until only the super rich remain in business. If the intention of unemployment were to really help the individual they would receive more and the system would be designed more like Germany's unemployment system. I think it is Germany that when you lose your job they put you through college, retrain you, and keep you fed while you train in a job that would be beneficial to the countries growth. Nobody is arguing there. Nobody is allowed to sit on their butt and do nothing. They are mandated to participate in the program for the benefit of the entire people of the country.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join