The extension of UI benefits does not need to be held hostage to the tax cuts for the rich

[MadHound]

No, really, it doesn't. Obama could pay for that extension out of surplus stimulus money. In fact this is exactly what Mitch McConnell wanted him to do last summer. So Obama could take that hostage away, and as a bonus, claim that he is working bipartisanly, since that seems to be a hang up of his.

What would that leave? The plain, pure, unadorned question of whether the rich get a tax cut or not. Yes, it would be a fight, in fact it would be another in a long line of political chicken. But it is a fight we could win. You put Obama and other leading Democrats out in the field, in the home states of vulnerable Republicans who will be coming up for election. Then you hammer them on this issue day after day, just hammer them. Since the public is overwhelmingly against tax cuts for the rich, it should be a relatively easy victory. And God knows, this president and the Dems need a victory.

But we don't have to have UI benefits held hostage, that is a myth. What we need to do is fight.

Sadly, I doubt that happens.

[Enrique]

1. they have never been extended conditionally before

now there's a precedent that every extension has to cost ten times as much because we have to pay off the rich folks to get it.

[ladjf]

2. I was all part of the "shell game". nt

[Donnachaidh]

3. Makes you wonder what exactly they are holding that leftover stimulus money for?

It makes SENSE to use that for ui -- in fact, they should be using that for the 99ers.

So what IS that money earmarked for? This is a serious question someone should ask this WH.

[phleshdef]

7. No. It doesn't make anyone wonder about it. Its money that hasn't been spent yet.

Its being held for stimulus projects that have yet to begin or are on hold, like the high speed rail that Republican governors are trying to kill. There is no "wondering" to be done.

[Donnachaidh]

14. So high speed rail is more important than the unemployed?

I'll bet the 99ers appreciate the *care and concern* THEY received. :sarcasm:

Yet more smoke and mirrors.

Does this admin know how to prioritize? Or does it wait till the crisis is at hand -- to push through massive gifts to campaign contributors?

[phleshdef]

25. Considering all the jobs the high speed rail projects would generate, its pretty damn important.

I'm not even saying I would oppose redirecting some of that money if it came down to it. But there is a lot more to it than that. Its all ready allocated for its purpose by the Recovery Act law. And there are plenty of Republicans governors who will put up a fight if someone tries to take stimulus money allocated for their state to pay for unemployment. Many of them are all ready fighting to try and use the money for something else. Its insane to think going that route is going to benefit the unemployed anytime soon.

I'm pretty appalled at your snarky reaction to high speed rail though. How much more fucking progressive does it get than reforming the nation's transportation system into the 21st century while generating a shit load of jobs?

The 99ers meme is starting to get way overplayed. I would completely support changing that cap to say, 150 (roughly 3 years instead of roughly 2), but there has to be a limit to unemployment compensation at some point, otherwise, its not substainable. And there ARE other programs out there that at least some of the 99ers can and have turned to, like, dare I say it, welfare! A lot of that depends on the state and its programs. Thats in no way a denial that some people are still getting left out in the cold with nothing. We do what we can do though and we will never be perfect as long as we have a lot of people with a lot of needs and a finite amount of resources.

[dennis4868]

4. never knew there was a "surplus" of stimulus money...

everything I read the money is running out or just about all gone (except for the funds that the governor of NJ is not returning)....also, people are talking that there should be another stimulus.....it's a myth that you can use a surplus that does not exist....

By the way, your posts is basically a republican talking point...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. It's Been A Bedrock Democratic Principle That Unemployment Benefits Not Be Immediately Paid For

It reduces the stimulative effect.

[MadHound]

10. My post is a republican talking point? Getting rid of tax cuts for the rich

Is now a Republican talking point? Fighting for what the overwhelming majority of the people in this country want is now a Republican talking point.

It is obvious that having a rational discussion with you is impossible, you've gone so far around the bend that basic Democratic principles are now "republican talking points". It is useless to discuss anything with you when you're this politically irrational.

Oh, and yes, there is money for this left over from the stimulus, you can check out the CBO numbers for yourself.

Sad, how traditional Democratic positions are now considered by some to be a Republican talking point.

[dennis4868]

18. no....

paying for UI with stimulus money....if you did not say that then please forgive me....

[MadHound]

20. Yes, and that is the beauty of it, it was Mitch McConnell's idea

Why not go ahead and use it against the 'Pugs. We can even call it bipartisanship. What is wrong with that, other than it came from the mind of a Republican. Wait, tax extensions for the rich came from the mind of Republicans as well, why don't you complain and fight about them?

[Subdivisions]

13. There is stimulus money left....

"...a republican talking point"? I want you to explain that one to us. I'll wager you can't.

[dennis4868]

17. Sure...

a couple of weeks back the republicans said that UI MUST BE PAID FOR (even though tax cuts for the rich does not). Anyway, the repubs said let's take money from the stimulus to pay for UI. The problem is that money for the stimulus is either mostly used up or has already been directed for projects that will be starting in the near future. The WH said there was not nearly enough surplus for UI as the time. Plus, even if there is a "surplus" it should be set aside for its intended use - to create jobs and not used to pay for UI.

[MadHound]

Actually it was a few months back,

And if you go check the CBO website, you'll find that yes, we have enough stimulus money to pay for the UI extension.

And this money is to be used for economic stimulus, right? What is the most effective economic stimuli you can use? Do you know? Increase food stamp allocations and expand UI benefits.

WOOHOO:woohoo: We'll be stimulating the economy.

[dennis4868]

24. CBO....

does not include projects that have not started yet....most of the left over money has been directed but not yet disbursed for projects....so, yes, there is not enough stimulus for UI....but it was a good repub/DU talking point.

[MadHound]

26. Umm, those "directions" are tenative, and can be changed by this administration

Or did you deliberately neglect that fact. Obama could repurpose those funds for the UI extension.

But it is obvious that you don't want to fight, just keep capitulating to the 'Pugs. Let me guess, you'll soon be stating that saving SS is a republican talking point.

[dennis4868]

31. UMMMMM....

how do you know that....how do you know that funds that have already been directed can be redirected somewhere else? When the whole repub talking point came up saying use stimulus to pay for UI I remember many dems on TV saying that according to the law it could not be done at this point in time, even with regard to the stimulus that has been directed but distributed to the various projects.

But go ahead with your repub talking point - use stimulus for UI even though it cannot be done....sounds good.

[MadHound]

34. Because I read the legislation,

Geez, you can too, why don't you go do so instead of accusing people of spewing 'Pug talking points. Geez, you're the second person on this thread that doesn't bother to educate themselves.

[dennis4868]

35. Well I trust Barney Frank.....

and he said that it could not be used. I think he knows a thing or 2 about legislation....he said that when funds get directed there is a legal obligation to disburse the funds on the condition certain requirements are met and that during this time they cannot be sent elsewhere...

[MadHound]

37. I suppose you trusted Dick Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes and Clinton as well

Go educate yourself, geez. That's half the problem with this country, people don't want to educate themselves, they want everything to be spoon fed to them, which allows them to be easily led around by the nose.

[Lorien]

6. That's one truth that you rarely see mentioned here. nt

[jaxx]

8. As the President said:

Now, if that’s the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let’s face it, we will never get anything done. People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the American people. And we will be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are and how tough we are, and in the meantime, the American people are still seeing themselves not able to get health insurance because of preexisting conditions or not being able to pay their bills because their unemployment insurance ran out.

[MadHound]

11. Ah, so now it is being "purist" to want the president and Democratic leadership to fight?

Go tell that to such Democrats as Brown, Welch and others who are leading the good fight, in absence of the President who abandoned the field to the 'Pugs.

[jaxx]

15. When ideals get in the way of common sense, the ideals are too idealistic.

Reality seems to have been lost on this board, it's full of what if scenarios. I heard Jesus was a purist, since him nobody else. Just people who have starry eyes.

[MadHound]

19. Ah, so now it is idealistic to fight for what the public wants

Or is it simply idealistic to fight back at all? Is that it?

You are overly defeatist and cynical. Other presidents have fought back the tide on major issues, and succeeded. We've got over two weeks left while we're still in the majority. Why not at least try, see if we can at least get a better deal, or *gasp* a full fledged victory. What would it hurt?

[jaxx]

22. I wonder why a good deal isn't good enough.

What it would hurt is the unemployed. But hey, there are only 2 million losing out the first month, so what the hell.

[MadHound]

23. But that's the point of this post

Pay for the UI extension out of stimulus funds. You don't have to have those folks go without and you can make it a straight fight on the issue of tax cuts for the rich.

Why is it you don't want to have such a fight? There's plenty of time left before the clock runs out, and gee, you could very well win this one.

[Life Long Dem]

9. He didn't say that.

He said, the middle class tax cuts are held hostage to the tax cuts for the rich.

[MadHound]

12. True, but part of the reasoning is that UI is being held hostage as well

You just have to look around this board to see that. I'm offering an option so that we simply make it a straight fight between tax cuts for the rich, or tax cuts just for the middle class, and take UI extension out of the equation altogether.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

16. Sherrod Brown --

pointed out that very thing last night on Rachel. There was zero reason to tie UI to the Bush tx cuts -- XERO.

[phleshdef]

27. Right, because Obama can just go to home states and SHAME the Repugs into voting for what he wants..

...because the recent history of this Republican party suggests that works, its happened so many times ya know. Republicans just give into shame when Democratic Presidents attack them. We have so many wonderful examples of that having happened.

Give me a break. Man, I love Sherrod Brown, he is my Senator. But he can't actually believe such a huge heap of garbage.

[MadHound]

28. Well, considering that many presidents before him have done that very thing

Threaten their reelection in states such as Maine, yes, you can get the needed votes. Clinton did this, Carter did this, Johnson did this, so why not Obama?

[phleshdef]

29. Really? Which Republican did Clinton shame into doing anything?

I think you pulled Carter out of your ass too but that doesn't matter. Anyone before Clinton doesn't really matter. Republicans 30+ years ago mean fuck all when talking about Republicans today.

[MadHound]

30. Yeah, that's right, trite things like fighting don't matter anymore.

As far as Clinton goes, go educate yourself. The information is easy to find, go educate yourself, I'm not going to spoonfeed you.

[phleshdef]

32. LOL. Thats what I thought. You don't have a name do you?

And no, before Clinton really doesn't matter. Because Republicans were relatively sane prior to the Reagan years or at least they cared about faking it once in awhile.

But you don't have a name. And you also can't sidestep the fact that Clinton compromised with Republicans on a great many of things.

This whole notion that Obama is going to go to Maine and shame Collins and Snowe into a damn thing is a fairy tale, one that would not have a happy ending. If anything, Obama will be painted as a bully that feels like he has to pick on female GOP Senators. And then he will never be able to count on either of those 2 swinging their vote his way for anything. They have enough worries about being primaried from the right as it is. Its pretty obvious you haven't thought this out at all.

[MadHound]

33. No, you just don't know your history,

Or how to learn from it. You would rather everybody simply allowed themselves to be steamrolled without a fight.

Or perhaps you're one of those well off individuals who would benefit from this deal with the devil. Is that the case?

[phleshdef]

36. If you know history so well, why can't you produce this Republican's name?

Can you even tell me what bill this was that Clinton shamed Republicans into voting for?

Here is the problem. You've trapped yourself. You know you just pulled that out from nowhere. I mean, the fact that you also mentioned Carter as having done so was enough of a red flag that you were making stuff up. My point stands. No one can shame this breed of Republicans into doing anything because they have no shame. They voted against unemployment extensions a bunch of times last year, during the middle of a jobs recession, and they still managed to capture the house. The voters obviously aren't interested in punishing them for their obstructive policies. They have no reason to fear shame.

[MadHound]

38. Gawd, you are a little political child

OK, open up, here comes the airplane for you, you ready?

Family Medical Leave Act
The Brady Bill

There are a number of others, but you're going to have to go hunt them out for yourself, I'm tired of dealing with a political child

[phleshdef]

39. LOL. Neither of those are examples of what we are talking about here.

The FMLA passed the Senate with 71 votes. The Brady Bill passed with 63. Bill Clinton did not shame anyone into voting for either of those things. they had easy passage through both the House and the Senate. And BOTH were passed in 1993, before the 1994 takeover and during Clinton's first year.

You can't just make shit up. And you can't just throw out the names of random bills and claim its an example of Bill Clinton beating Republicans into submission. You actually ARE being fact checked here. Keep that in mind before throwing out some random BS and hoping that I just forget about this thread.

[Subdivisions]

21. How much money is left in that fund? I went to Recovery.gov but I can't find it. n/t