Federal jobless payments, which last up to 73 weeks, kick in after the state-funded 26 weeks of coverage expire. These federal benefits are divided into tiers, and the jobless must apply each time they move into a new tier.
Congress has extended the deadline to file those applications four times in the past year. The last jobless benefits extension -- which lasted six months and cost $34 billion -- faced a lot of opposition on deficit conscious Capitol Hill before it finally passed in mid-July.
The $12.5 billion bill that was on the floor Thursday needed two-thirds approval, or 275 votes, a tough hurdle. The vote was 258 to 154.
Still, the bill was the opening salvo in what's likely to be a highly charged debate on extending the safety net for the nation's millions of unemployed. While the next step is unclear, it's possible the extension will resurface in a larger bill, such as one that would extend the Bush tax cuts.
But it's also likely lawmakers won't meet the Nov. 30 deadline, meaning hundreds of thousands of people will start losing benefits. In the past, Congress has made the extension retroactive, so the jobless ultimately received all their checks.
Both House and Senate Democrats have said they would have liked to extend the deadline by a year, but the House settled on three months in hopes that it would pass more easily.
It didn't pass because Republicans blocked it. They blocked it because they have no problem seeing millions of Americans lose their unemployment benefits right before Christmas, because they believe we will blame Obama. And hey...it's worked so far!
The article doesn't say that, of course. It says "The house failed to pass the extension". The vote's roll call makes perfectly clear what actually happened, however. 21 Republicans did vote yes, but 11 Blue Dogs voted no. The vote would have failed even with the Blue Dogs, however.
They are Reps. Berry, Boyd, Bright, Cooper, Lincoln Davis, Hill, Minnick, Nye, Peterson, Shuler, and Taylor.
And eight of these 11 lost re-election. And of the other three, one is Heath Shuler, who wants to be minority leader after voting against unemployment extensions. He can go straight to hell.
So when 2 million people lose their checks going into December and January, you know exactly who to blame. Again, the vote was lost regardless of what the Dems did.
Whether or not the Republicans will actually get the blame is anyone's guess.
Posts
13 comments:
You're right Zandar, he can go to hell. That centrist BS he spouts is more right side than center. And of course the people will not understand who is the true culprit. It is spiraling, it seems. It makes me very sad and very angry at the same time.
Items Zandar doesn't mention.
1) In the CNN article linked to in the post is this tidbit [emphasis mine]:
A growing chorus of Republicans say they will only support an extension if it is paid for -- which it is not at this point. They point to unspent stimulus funds as a potential pot of money.
As with all of these extensions, Democrats refused, since the stimulus money is being used to pay off those who made bribes, I mean campaign contributions, to Democrats.
2) In 2009, the OMB admitted that the federal government made $110 billion (with a "B") in improper payments. In 2010, the amount increased to $125 billion (again, with a "B").
FTA [emphasis mine]:
The unemployed have collected $319 billion in jobless benefits over the past three years. Some $109 billion of that tab has been footed by the federal government, with the rest paid for by taxes levied on businesses.
Let's see: Democrats run Congress, Democrats run the White House. Hmmm... (he says) It seems to me that if Democrats in Congress did their job to watch the Democrat in the White House, there would be plenty of money left to send out additional unemployment benefits without having to add to the national debt.
So the pertinent question is, why don't the liberals, those so concerned with fiscal responsibility (/sarcasm), mention any of this? Of course, that question has been answered in this post:
"It didn't pass because Republicans blocked it."
For liberals, when the truth gets in the way of the narrative, restate the narrative.
And what Steve here is forgetting is that the same Republicans screaming that we must find a way to offset the cost of these extensions are the same ones that have no problem increasing the national debt for extending tax cuts for the top 2% of earners, to the tune of $700 billion over 10 years.
Sorry Steve, you can't play the fiscal responsibility card here.
And what I said remains true: Enough Republicans voted against this to block the measure, regardless of what the Democrats did.
When Steve here sees the truth, he ignores it and tries to make up his own arguments to try to "win".
I love how you ignore facts in order to keep to the narrative.
What Zandar is not mentioning is that keeping the tax rates in place for everyone else would increase the debt by more than $3 trillion over that same 10 years. So if someone were talking about being fiscally responsible, the government would increase everyone's tax rates to 2000 levels. But of course, we aren't really talking about fiscal responsibility, are we?
And besides, we aren't talking about tax rates either, but Democrat incompetence. $235 billion, in 2 years (not 10), in improper payments that the Democrats and their liberal puppets refuse to account for. That is the truth.
Which gets in the way of the liberal narrative.
Oh, so now, now Steve is finally admitting that the Bush tax cuts were a huge mistake and caused massive debt problems, not to mention contributed to the financial crisis.
You know, let's end the Bush tax cuts for everyone then, since we've just proven that tax cuts don't cause growth. Last decade was the worst decade for American economic growth since the Depression. They were irresponsible then.
I'm glad you agree they are irresponsible now.
Still peddling that lie about the Bush tax cuts? Let's look at the facts:
Year Receipts
2004 1,880,126
2005 2,153,625
2006 2,406,876
2007 2,568,001
See? Those are called increases. So the current tax rates did nothing to increase the deficit. The reduction in receipts following those years had to do with people no longer paying income and payroll taxes because they lost their jobs, not the tax rate. What you linked to is immaterial and another in a neverending list of liberal lies.
So the tax rate has nothing to do with this. You are doing everything but talk about the truth about Democrat incompetence and how Democrats have misspent $235 billion in the last two years in order to falsely slam Republicans regarding unemployment.
You don't even understand basic economics.
Current tax rates had nothing to do with the deficit because receipts went up? Are you seriously saying that these are the only taxes taken in by the government?
You don't even have an argument at this point other than "anything I don't agree with is a liberal lie."
It's just sad.
Let me restate. I meant to say the current tax rates had nothing to do with increasing the debt. That is fact. The numbers prove it. No, these taxes aren't the only forms of federal revenue. But it is the largest part.
I don't need another point to disprove the "liberal lie". That piece is nothing but a smokescreen that has nothing to do with federal revenue and spending, which is all that this discussion is about. Plus, what is in there is completely wrong. I benefited greatly since those tax rates have been in place, and yet, I'm not "rich" as defined by the Obama administration (I don't make anywhere near $250,000/year).
And I have not benefited "greatly". And tens of millions of Americans have seen their real wages adjusted for inflation decrease over the last decade. And this was before the financial crisis, the supposed "Bush Boom".
Those are the real facts.
But as usual, you only listen to the ones you think bolster your trolling.
Sad.
And I have not benefited "greatly".
And this is George Bush's fault because...
And because you can't win the macroeconomic argument, you're trying to change the subject.
Still sad.
I'm changing the subject? Your post was about how Republicans blocked the latest attempt to extend unfunded unemployment benefits. When I showed you facts showing it was really due to Democrat lies and incompetence, you changed the subject; you kept up the narrative: Democrats good, Republicans bad. That is all you've done.
Which party voted no to block the legislation?
143 nay votes from the Republicans.
The legislation failed.
They killed it. As a result, 800,000 Americans lose unemployment benefits on Dec 1 unless something happens. 1.2 million more lose them on Jan 1.
Your supposition about why doesn't change the facts I laid out in the article.
You will continue to troll this thread until I lock it, because you are clearly here to not advance a debate, or to have a debate, but to troll the blog.
Thread ends.
Post a Comment