Would the Repubs have refused to help the unemployed?

[kentuck]

If the Democrats had refused to tie it to the taxcuts extension?

I doubt it.

However, I do believe they would demand that it be paid for, unlike the taxcuts.

It was a bluff on the Democrats and the Democrats folded. They did not want to hurt the unemployed. They were successfully extorted by the Republicans.

But sometimes, the other Party has to accept some responsibility. Democrats are no longer in the majority in the House. It is up to the Republicans to determine who gets unemployment and who doesn't. That is the political reality. Democrats can now stop assuming they are in the majority and let the Republicans be responsible for once.

[griffi94]

1. the unemployed need the extension of ui

but i'm not really expecting anything more than the new extensions to run out and then the unemployed will be thrown to the wolves anyway.

i don't pretend to be an economist, but how in the hell can you replace living wage professional& manufacturing jobs with minimum wage mcjobs and not have the working class still lose everything they've worked for up till now.

what really surprises me is how the mask has come off. the top 5% and a majority of our elected leaders aren't even pretending to give a fuck. i mean they're still mouthing the slogans, but that's about as far as i see it going.

[BzaDem]

2. They already did for a month earlier this year, and continued until we were able to swear in a new

Senator from WV.

[MilesColtrane]

3. You bet they would.

It is part and parcel of what they are.

[spanone]

4. you bet they would have and blamed it on the democrats for not being bipartisan

with the media enablers, democrats would take the hit.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. You say you doubt it...just admit it's a big gamble with horrendous consequences

You may be comfortable gambling with the lives of 2 million Americans and their families, but you should at least admit that you are, indeed, gambling with that.

What makes you "doubt it?" Scott Brown, a GOP moderate from a blue state, bragged openly that he killed an unemployment insurance extension just a week ago. They tried to kill it last time as well. You say "it's a bluff!" That's your calculation, your gambling calculation. If it's NOT a bluff, then we throw 2 million people and their families into penury - no income whatsoever as early as a week from Friday.

No income for groceries. No income for rent. No income for heat.

That's a severe downside for your gamble should you lose. It's deeply irresponsible not to take that into account. You want to gamble with that, OK. That's OK with me. It IS a viable strategy. It should be on the table. But please don't pretend here that it is not a risky gamble with people's lives. You "doubt" it. Good for you.

[kentuck]

10. Blah...blah...blah....

The Repubs are in control of the House. They are responsible for passing laws. If they do not, the people can hold them accountable. When we shrink to a half a dozen Democrats, perhaps we will see that we are no longer in control?

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. I find your position deeply irresponsible

This isn't a matter of point scoring. It is a matter of people's lives. It's not a matter of "who will get the blame." It's a matter of "what will we eat for dinner?" and "how will we pay the rent?"

That you can be so blase about that is shocking beyond measure.

[kentuck]

12. And I find you position deeply cowardly.

Unwilling to fight for unemployment benefits as a separate issue. Scared to death of losing.

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. I already said it was a viable strategy, but your position seems unable to process what "losing"

means in this case.

Losing means throwing 2 million people into absolute poverty.

What is your suggestion for "dealing with unemployment as a separate issue." You have no suggestion. The Republicans can and will kill unemployment extensions. It is de facto a linked issue for that reason. Throw in the variety of additional legislation that only has a chance in this session, and you have quite the package of needs. For your argument, this is all immaterial. You scream "Separate Issue" as if it is a magical talisman that will force the GOP to separate the issues. And you refuse to face the consequences of that not happening.

Am I scared to "lose?" You damn skippy. If losing means that 2 million people and their families won't have grocery, heat, and rent money in three weeks, I'm damn scared to lose. That you're not only indicates the purely intellectual and idealist nature of your position. Your position is akin to somebody playing poker with play money - of course you'll go all in, because losing isn't really losing, apparently.

I'm just glad that we have people in charge who understand the actual policy effects on real people's lives of such decisions. It's OK to gamble here, but at least recognize that that's what you're doing. Pretending otherwise through little magical ideas like "doubting they'll do it" is not a serious response to this crisis.

[kentuck]

21. What happens 6 months or a year from now..

When unemployment is just as bad or worse and there is nothing to negotiate. What do the Democrats do then?? The Repubs will be in charge.

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. This is a good question

Those negotiations will be those negotiations.

These negotiations are these negotiations.

I'm not giving up on getting aid for the unemployed this time by speculating about what might happen next time. However, what will happen next time should be a factor in the negotiations. As I've said throughout, simply walking away from the table - which means letting the tax cuts expire (a good thing) but also letting UI benefits end, losing DADT repeal and the DREAM Act, losing child care credits and Making Work Pay, and a host of other initiative that assist the working class (losing those are all bad) - should be an option. And how the question of unemployment insurance plays out next time should be a consideration in the negotiations.

The question, here as always, is what does it cost you to walk away, and what does it benefit you to walk away, and what does it cost you to deal, and what does it benefit you to deal?

The problem is that quite a few of the "Walk Away!" arguments seem to see it merely as a question of "what does it benefit you to walk away, and what does it cost you to deal?" Those are NOT the only questions. In your case, you say "It costs too much to deal, because they'll keep coming back with the same extortion!" That's a legitimate answer. The question is whether that cost - which can be handled differently next time or not - is offset by the benefits of dealing now, or by the costs of walking away now.

You can make reasonable calculations on this point, but understand that they are calculations with rather grave consequences.

[treestar]

19. You'd be saying they were reckless if they did the very thing you want

One's "bravery" is another's reckless stupidity.

[treestar]

18. Exactly, watch the Democrats have the "spine" to say no

and see the same posters, the very same ones, crap on the Democrats for letting the unemployed hang in the wind.

[kentuck]

22. Nobody is saying let the unemployed "hang in the wind".

That is your interpretation. I say there is another way to fight for them.

[treestar]

30. Like what?

Again you fail to accept that Congress has power and that a President "fighting" can get 100% of what a President wants.

No the deal here would be let the tax cuts and unemployment expire, in order to not "cave" and make a "principled stand" that the rich not get theirs extended - something most Americans could hardly care less about.

[onenote]

6. absolutely

[OHdem10]

7. Just a thought. Repubulblicans do not believe in Unemployment

This is just a big government program. Take from
one group to give to another.

What everyone chooses to permit the Republicans to get
away with is more sinister.

Republicans see tax cuts as the one of the biggest deficit
reducers of all. The Billions(Tax cut for the Rich) will
not go to the government coffers. If the Government is
not collecting these taxes, it has to cut other programs
to make up the difference. Starting in the Reagan years
this is how Tax cuts for the rich have been passed. Less
and Less money has come in to Federal Government. This
meant when trying to balance the budget the Congress would
be forced to cut other things.(Smaller government). After
thirty years there is a serious imbalance between money
coming in and money going out. The Gop gets to keep their
wealthy constituents happy and cut the size of government
at the same time. Tax Cuts reduce the deficit because
the Government does not get as much money and therefore
is forced to cut programs. This is a serious strategy
called--Starving the Beast.

This is never discussed on TV. Is that because Conservadems
subscribe to same philosophy??? Just asking. I do not
know.

[Tippy]

8. Would the Repubs have refused to help the unemployed....YES

I think we are very close to (their finish line)..A complet take over by the right. It has been a long time in comming and we will feel the effects for years, think aobut it. When they began laughing about sticking it to Democrats I had a feeling the jig was up. What comes next, probably Palen as President she will be nothing but a figure head... What I wonder is what will they do to the poor?

[OHdem10]

16. They will throw a few crumbs to the POOREST of the POOR.

It is the working poor and middle class that will be
harmed.

In order not to appear absolutely heartless, in the
past they have given a little help to the poorest of
the poor.

We must understand they salve their conscience by believing
if people are poor it is their own d...fault.

They have entirely different world view. We often
make the mistake of thinking they see the world in
the same light as Democrats.

[Tippy]

27. Their view is completly self seving, not at all what Dems believe.

That is why they call us socialist. I just can not believe if they are as they claim to be religious, why do they not follow Jesus teaching.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. They Have Already Voted Against Extending Benefits Twice

The last time they did it in July my friend found herself and two year old daughter temporarily homeless... A UCC minister I know took her in...

[EC]

13. They've done it before...

just before the 2008 elections they refused to extend benefits...that resulted in the fall being noticed and couldn't be covered up...too many people were beginning to notice the empty stores ...

[kentuck]

15. The thing is..

Once you agree with the extortionist, he owns you. He will not stop. Things will not get better. They will get worse. You have to stand up to these criminals. Or you will pay a much higher price in the future. We should have separated the unemployment benefits from the taxcuts and fought like hell every day until we got help for these people. It would have been a PR nightmare for the Republicans.

[treestar]

17. Of course! Republicans believe their own crap.

Helping the unemployed means they will not be motivated to go out and get work. That is what Republicans believe.

They have this saying they say that you should teach a man to fish rather than give him a fish. This bullshit is part of Republican religion.

[kentuck]

20. delete

dupe post

[old mark]

24. Look, the GOP does not care about anyone or anything but money and power - THEIR

money and their power. They could not care less about the plight of the unemployed, or anyone else but the rich who support them and pay them very well for their care and concern.
Why would anyone still believe the GOP gives a shit about the working people?

Look at Chris Christie of New Jersey - "I love teachers, but I hate their Union."

Look at our new GOP governor in PA, who said that there is NO shortage of jobs, just a lot or people who don't want to work and are getting fat and lazy on UC.

mark

[Bragi]

25. Ending the tax cuts would have paid for the jobless benefits /nt

[MilesColtrane]

28. You are assuming the Republican House would vote to extend benefits at some time in the future.

That's a very bad bet to take.

[Bragi]

29. Not as bad as what's about to happen /nt

[truebrit71]

26. No doubt about it. They already have done.

.