Obama wanted unemployment benefits paid for last year...

Not anymore. Just buy me some votes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

In signing the bill restoring unemployment benefits to 2 ? million Americans jobless for more than 26 weeks, President Obama is also adding $34 billion to the deficit and the National Debt.
That's the reason nearly all Republicans voted against the measure. They wanted the cost of the benefits paid for with unspent government funds or by other budget cuts.
...

"Now, it's important to note that the bill I signed will not add to our deficit. It is fully paid for, and so it is fiscally responsible," he said. (That would be Obama)

So eight months ago, he said paying for the benefits was the right thing to do, but now he sees no need to do so.

So another 34 billion my kid will be paying off.

conifermtman wrote: Not anymore. Just buy me some votes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

In signing the bill restoring unemployment benefits to 2 ? million Americans jobless for more than 26 weeks, President Obama is also adding $34 billion to the deficit and the National Debt.
That's the reason nearly all Republicans voted against the measure. They wanted the cost of the benefits paid for with unspent government funds or by other budget cuts.
...

"Now, it's important to note that the bill I signed will not add to our deficit. It is fully paid for, and so it is fiscally responsible," he said. (That would be Obama)

So eight months ago, he said paying for the benefits was the right thing to do, but now he sees no need to do so.

So another 34 billion my kid will be paying off.

.....and another several hundred thousand kids that won't be hungry, or thrown out of their homes, or lack the means to get medical treatment.....or don't those kids count in your world?

archer wrote:

conifermtman wrote: Not anymore. Just buy me some votes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

In signing the bill restoring unemployment benefits to 2 ? million Americans jobless for more than 26 weeks, President Obama is also adding $34 billion to the deficit and the National Debt.
That's the reason nearly all Republicans voted against the measure. They wanted the cost of the benefits paid for with unspent government funds or by other budget cuts.
...

"Now, it's important to note that the bill I signed will not add to our deficit. It is fully paid for, and so it is fiscally responsible," he said. (That would be Obama)

So eight months ago, he said paying for the benefits was the right thing to do, but now he sees no need to do so.

So another 34 billion my kid will be paying off.

.....and another several hundred thousand kids that won't be hungry, or thrown out of their homes, or lack the means to get medical treatment.....or don't those kids count in your world?

Stop exaggerating, that is not what the Republicans wanted. They simply wanted 34 billion cut from something else in the federal budget. Unfortunately Democrats are incapable in acting in a fiscal responsible manner, which is why they could not do the right thing.

conifermtman wrote: Stop exaggerating, that is not what the Republicans wanted. They simply wanted 34 billion cut from something else in the federal budget. Unfortunately Democrats are incapable in acting in a fiscal responsible manner, which is why they could not do the right thing.

no exageration at all....so where would that 34 billion come from right now? Any ideas? How come they never cared about paying for this when Obama WASN'T president?.....it's like the Republicans suddenly got fiscal religion......I think not. This is all about taking down Obama, not about any interest in balancing the budget. Put them back in power, and you will see business as usual, with their earmarks, reckless spending, and wars we cannot afford.

Republican's as fiscal conservatives? not likely.

archer wrote:

conifermtman wrote: Stop exaggerating, that is not what the Republicans wanted. They simply wanted 34 billion cut from something else in the federal budget. Unfortunately Democrats are incapable in acting in a fiscal responsible manner, which is why they could not do the right thing.

no exageration at all....so where would that 34 billion come from right now? Any ideas? How come they never cared about paying for this when Obama WASN'T president?.....it's like the Republicans suddenly got fiscal religion......I think not. This is all about taking down Obama, not about any interest in balancing the budget. Put them back in power, and you will see business as usual, with their earmarks, reckless spending, and wars we cannot afford.

Republican's as fiscal conservatives? not likely.

How about unspent stimulus funds?

conifermtman wrote: How about unspent stimulus funds?

You sound like the kid who has been given a dollar by grandma, and by the time he gets to the store he has spent that dollar in his mind on 10 different one dollar items. You can only spend the stimulus money once, not keep using it as collateral for different items in your mind....I would suspect that money has a purpose(even if it is only to be there for an emergency, isn't that what you all keep screaming about.....we need to save to cover future crises?), and kudos to the president for not taking the easy way out and saying sure, we'll take it out of the stimulus......we both know that even if he had, the Republicans would find another reason to say no. Remember....these are the same Republicans who never put the wars into the budget, I guess they thought the tooth fairy would cover the bill.

archer wrote:

conifermtman wrote: How about unspent stimulus funds?

You sound like the kid who has been given a dollar by grandma, and by the time he gets to the store he has spent that dollar in his mind on 10 different one dollar items. You can only spend the stimulus money once, not keep using it as collateral for different items in your mind....I would suspect that money has a purpose(even if it is only to be there for an emergency, isn't that what you all keep screaming about.....we need to save to cover future crises?), and kudos to the president for not taking the easy way out and saying sure, we'll take it out of the stimulus......we both know that even if he had, the Republicans would find another reason to say no. Remember....these are the same Republicans who never put the wars into the budget, I guess they thought the tooth fairy would cover the bill.

Once you reallocate funds, they are gone and cannot be spent on the original items they were budgeted on because they are reallocated. It is a very simple concept and the adult thing to do. Unfortunately, we have a child for President and two morons leading the house and the senate who would rather add to the national debt.

conifermtman wrote: Once you reallocate funds, they are gone and cannot be spent on the original items they were budgeted on because they are reallocated. It is a very simple concept and the adult thing to do. Unfortunately, we have a child for President and two morons leading the house and the senate who would rather add to the national debt.

Once you reallocate funds of course they cannot be spent on the original allocation.....duh. However, the original need does not necessarily disappear just because you have chosen not to fund it, no, it is still there, and will need to be funded, but you don't have the funds, so eventually you raise the debt anyway. What part of "you can't allocate those funds more than once" don't you understand? They are stimulus funds....duly voted on and allocated as such by the congress whether you, or the Republicans, like it or not.

robbing Peter to pay Paul is never a good economic strategy, though the Republicans have been doing exactly that for decades.

archer wrote: ....so where would that 34 billion come from right now? Any ideas?

The Department of Education budget could use a $34 Billion trimming, or perhaps take some from there, the Dept of Energy budget, Housing and Urban Development, NEA.........there are a host of federal departments that could, and should, be either eliminated entirely or drastically downsized.

archer wrote:
.....and another several hundred thousand kids that won't be hungry, or thrown out of their homes, or lack the means to get medical treatment.....or don't those kids count in your world?

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl rofllol rofllol rofllol rofllol rofllol

"Let's do it for the kids" is the mantra for the libtards. When I use my special liberal babble translator, the phrase really means in liberal speak, "Do it to the kids."

That's hilarious