Republican Ice Age?

Hey Wayne, why don't you do some accurate reporting about the bill that was voted on yesterday. It was a bail out bill for state government and unions. It was a bill to "save" bloated state government and "save" education jobs. It was also a bill to extend the benefits of individuals who have been on unemployment for over 90 some weeks.

When do we break the cycle of unemployment? Do we keep charging our Chinese American Express card or force the government to make policy and regulation changes so employers are comfortable enough to hire more people?

Science Chic wrote: Will the elections this fall really be a watershed for conservatives, or will the focus be on newcomers over incumbents, regardless of party affiliation?

<snip>

If you could have a hand in changing your party's platform in order to make it better align with the goals of the general public and/or not the self-serving interests of politicians, what would you focus on? I would love to see more fiscal responsibility primarily (I was originally a Republican, then a Dem, but am now registered as an Independent), but also a greater emphasis on environmental issues, education reform, and tech innovation support.

The movement is towards more individual freedom and less central government. Consistently the majority of the public has opposed the bailouts, the Swindle Us Bill, the monstrosity of what was passed of as Health Care Reform, Cap and Tax, the drilling moratorium and nearly every other policy, objective and effort of the current administration and the cabal of Democrats in the Congress.

If I had a hand in my party platform, it would include removing the Dept. of Education from the federal government entirely, repeal of the 12th and 17th Amendments, revamping all federal pensions to defined contribution rather than defined benefit plans, reorganizing Social Security from the ground up, offering a constitutional amendment for time limits in Congress to 8 years out of every 16 for the House and 12 out of every 24 years for the Senate. That would be at least be a good starting point.

Wayne Harrison wrote: I think after yesterday's Republican veto of extended jobless benefits, the Republicans can kiss the votes by the unemployed goodbye.

Extended unemployment benefits lapsed at the beginning of June. By Friday, more than 1.2 million people out of work for longer than six months will have found themselves ineligible for the next tier of extended benefits, which were originally provided by the stimulus bill to fight the recession.

Those 1.2 million potential voters won't forget which party is responsible.

The Republicans didn't veto anything Wayne, they just refused to vote for something that violated the PayGo rules. Had the plan included a means to pay for it, as the rules require, I'm certain that a number of Republicans would have considered voting for it.

PrintSmith wrote: The Republicans didn't veto anything Wayne, they just refused to vote for something that violated the PayGo rules. Had the plan included a means to pay for it, as the rules require, I'm certain that a number of Republicans would have considered voting for it.

I'm curious as to why the Republicans pull the pay-go card when it involves money to keep American citizens from facing devastation, but seem to think that preventing devastation in Iraq or Afghanistan is worth funding no matter what. Do Republicans ever question funds for war?

I am enjoying the write ups of how the Republicans didn't vote to spend $ 30 billion on the "unemployment" bill that prop up state government budgets, maintain state government employment levels, and fund 1.2 million who have taken unemployment benefits for over 60weeks.

Last I knew, the Republicans don't have a majority. There must have been some democrat defectors.

Liberal media elitist wanna be can't even get the story right. Just because a bill has a title doesn't mean that it's actually going to address the issues within the title (i.e. Stimulus Bill didn't stimulate the economy)

archer wrote: I'm curious as to why the Republicans pull the pay-go card when it involves money to keep American citizens from facing devastation, but seem to think that preventing devastation in Iraq or Afghanistan is worth funding no matter what. Do Republicans ever question funds for war?

At what point, archer, would you recommend stopping the welfare handouts? The people unemployed are unable to find work in 15 months? Really? Not work at their former wage, or in the same field, but any work at all? Just how long do you think someone should be able to send resumes via the internet from home looking for another job in the same field at their former salary? I see stickers on the backs of the Access-A-Ride vans advertising a need for drivers, I see signs in windows seeking applicants for jobs all over town. Sure, you might only be taking home a little less than you are recovering from your unemployment benefits, which could be made up with another part time job, but why should the taxpayers of the future be saddled with the deficit spending to pay you not to work when you could be working?

Tell me archer, why didn't the Congress have the census work done by the unemployed who were already collecting extended benefits instead of allocating $12 billion (5x+ the amount that it cost in 2000) in deficit spending to perform the task? Since most of the census work is part time, it would still be possible for the unemployed to seek a new job while performing a task in exchange for the extended unemployment benefits, right?

I'm glad the benfit extension was not enacted. There comes a point where it is your responsibility to provide for yourself instead of living on the dole, regardless of the effort on your part that it will require. There was a time in this nation where accepting government charity offended the pride of the people who lived here and I, for one, think a little less belief in entitlement and a little more belief in personal responsibility will help build a better nation.

why didn't the Congress have the census work done by the unemployed who were already collecting extended benefits instead of allocating $12 billion (5x+ the amount that it cost in 2000) in deficit spending to perform the task? Since most of the census work is part time, it would still be possible for the unemployed to seek a new job while performing a task in exchange for the extended unemployment benefits, right?

Oh, now that's an excellent question.

The answer to that question, both why the unemployed weren't doing the work and why it cost so much compared to 10 years ago, is that there were certain community organizations that expected to reap some benefits for their support in the 2008 elections. Of course it violates the "return to fiscal responsibility" and "pay as you go" mantras from the last election cycle, but votes are expensive these days........

Actually a lot of the census workers were from the ranks of the unemployed. My brother was the coordinator for the Ohio region, most of the workers he hired had been on un-employment. They were more than grateful to get a job, even if it was part-time and wouldn't last but half a year. He had many, many more applications for the jobs than he had jobs to fill. A sign of the times, especially in the northeast.

A lot is not the same archer. Why weren't the unemployed used exclusively to do the grunt work. I realize that the unemployed roll didn't include excellent office managers, or data specialists or any of the other "skilled" positions that the government needed to fulfill the task (heavy dose of sarcasm here), but really now, why was it necessary to go outside of the ranks of the unemployed for even one position to process the forms, visit the homes and check each residential location off of the list?