namelesstavern.net

/clap for calling out and shooting down spending that came with no payment in sight. I don't care if it is to help the unemployed. At least someone in Washington seems to both acknowledge spending is the problem AND, well, stop some spending.

Are you serious?

ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS?

He single-handedly stop progress on this bill (which is pretty fuckign small, mind you), which had EXTREMELY broad BI-PARTISAN support. Even the rest of the REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP said that they'd vote to pass the bill once the senate resumes later this week.

Due to his action, hundreds of thousands of working people between jobs because of the economy just lost their income. Not only did they lose their income, they lost the subsidies for their health insurance too. You want to explain to that out of work father who now can't afford to take his child to the doctor when she's really sick how brave Bunning is? Or do you simply not care?

Oh, and did you know that several thousand department of transportation workers just got furloughed? Oh, and 40+ infrastructure and transit projects just got halted too, since Bunning just single-handedly stopped their funding, putting who knows how many people at least temporarily out of work. All thanks to Bunning.

So that's right, Bunning has, all by himself, harmed the lives of 400,000+ Americans, on a decision that he didn't even have the backing of the rest of his party for. Where was Bunning's VAST concern for deficits when he voted to pass Bush's deficit exploding tax cuts in 2001 and 2003? Why did he vote Yes on every single one of Bush's deficit exploding budgets if he is so incredibly concerned about the deficit?

The guy's a jackass. Period. End of story.

-Arlos

gotta say that i mostly agree... if he was such a hard on he should have stood in the way of MANY other gigantic deficit growing bills... weak sauce.

Not trying to defend the guy but the "stand" he is making is coming from, what I think was recent legislation, to say that no new programs and such would be created / used until there was a method to pay for it. Now I'm not saying this didn't exist years ago although I thought it was somewhat recent.

I think that's right Clakar, because Democrats labeled this bill as an emergency act, they weren't required to put funding behind it, and of course, didn't. It was a way around that recent legislation you speak of. But also, because it was labeled emergency, it required unaminous support. If they wanted the bill to pass so badly then they should have figured out a way to fucking pay for it. Maybe cut back on military spending a bit? How about we build a few less missiles and bombs and use that to fund it? WE NEED TO BE FORCED TO GIVE THINGS LIKE THAT UP FOR THINGS LIKE THIS. If we don't, we just continue doing both, and the debt will continue to grow out of control.

this knee-slapper of a politics thread brought to you by flink

trust fund baby going on about the real world... tee hee

Get a fucking job Flink.

we can leave Iraq a month early . there the bill is paid for.

bunning has a history for voting up unfunded spending bills when it was bush in office so why now? why is it since 1/20/2009 republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility? they didnt have any when they controlled house senate and oval office. of course there is a difference when it is money to kill people in another country but God forbid we spend money to help people survive in this country

What I don't get is the willingness to fork barrels of cash over to Haiti, Chile, Darfur or what have you when we have all the homeless and unemployed here as well. Where is all the outrage over that?

Reynaldo wrote:What I don't get is the willingness to fork barrels of cash over to Haiti, Chile, Darfur or what have you when we have all the homeless and unemployed here as well. Where is all the outrage over that?

Blame Ronald Reagan for that shit. He's the pioneer of scapegoating the poor. It's their fault they are in the predicament they are in. Fuck them, we've got bombs to build.