The vote was 244-188
-
Al Beback wrote:
Yes, all instruments of oppression employed by the left.
I suspect that the 2.5 million people who are collecting unemployment insurance right now - which they may have paid for every month for the last 30 years - might argue that they feel singularly unoppressed by their relatively small checks.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
That's what I'm getting at. Giving people unemployment and food can't really be that bad can it?
-
wolfbinary wrote:
I'd like to know the reasoning behind the portions of it though
Looking at the contents, that's an easy question to answer. It's a giant liberal goody grab on the tax payer's nickle. The Wall Street Journal called it the "liberals 40 year wish list". It has very little to do with stimulus, but "stimulus" sounds much neater to Americans than "Obama's Socialist Plan" huh?
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
And it could be just to balance the corporate goodie grab that Bush handed to the banks. Regardless of whether you agree with the Employee Free Choice Act, Bank of America is using some of the 25 billion it was given to help squash it. Now that's ironic. Take our money to stop us from getting better pay whilst you pay out million dollar bonuses for being such a good banker. :rolleyes:
This statement is false
-
That's what I'm getting at. Giving people unemployment and food can't really be that bad can it?
wolfbinary wrote:
That's what I'm getting at. Giving people unemployment and food can't really be that bad can it?
No you don't get it at all. My point was that Unemployment Insurance is not a gift from the government. It is part of what your employer counts as your compensation (even though you don't ever see it or even have to pay taxes on it.) So it is either something you have paid into, or if you are a coporate spokesman, something your employer has paid for. I personally have no problem trying to make sure people don't go to bed hungry at night, but I have seen too many cases where food stamps are exchanged for cash which is turned into a bottle. There are programs run by churches in my area that do a much better job of getting food to the poor than the government. The Salvation Army is superb at doing that.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Reagan Conservative wrote:
John, are you "whining" about Obama? With this "stimulus" package, it's been hard to bite my tongue. I don't know if I can last for 6 months without "whining" against Obama.
Me? Whine? Prima Facie, impossible! ;) I am, however, expressing disappointment that Obama has allowed Pelosi to so dominate the crafting of this bill. My attitude towards her is, and always has been since she was Minority Leader, one of healthy paranoia. (And Reid is her twin. He doesn't even stand up when he pees.) If Obama cannot wrest leadership on this important issue away from the two of them and bend them to his will (or if he chooses not to, mox nix) then we are indeed watching the kind of change that, back in the day, turned Rome from a Republic into an Empire. It's always a good idea, when thinking of Pelosi, to remember that the Latin for "Speaker" is "Dictator." My loyalty has never been to Obama, nor did I vote for him. My loyalty is to the United States of America. Unlike Stan (and Adnan), I do not glory in anything that harms my country, nor rejoice at failures of government that endanger it. I have never believed, nor hoped that Obama had all the answers; I did think he had the ability to lead this country. I am beginning to worry about that. btw: it's Jon. It's been Jon in my family on and off since at least the 13th century.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Sorry on the spelling of your name. I guess it's a habit since my name is John. I concur with your analysis of this bill. My Congressman (Kenny Marchant, R-Tex) sent emails to his constituents about why he would not vote for this bill. He said there are provisions in the bill that will provide funding until 2019! I wasn't aware that we needed a stimulus for that many years, either.
AF Pilot
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
His position simply verified what I knew to be true, he's nothing more than a far left Chicago liberal and I didn't for a minute believe he'd do anything other than go back on his word. Rush (yes, I listen to him) played two taped Obama comments today.
So far his actual leadership is confirming the worst expectations.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Rush (yes, I listen to him) played two taped Obama comments today.
I had a chance to listen today. I thought his observation concerning Obama's efforts to get the republicans on board was brilliant. The democrats simply do not need republican support to do anything. If the adminstration was really optimistic about the chances of success, they would not care if the republicans support it. In fact, they would want them to oppose it in order to hold it over them in the next election. The only reason bipartisanship would be so important is so that the almost certain failure cannot be used by the republicans in the next election. Obama wants them to be shareholders in the inevitable failure so that it cannot be used against the democrats. House republicans seem to be doing everything perfectly so far - uniting around a conservative core to oppose this insanity. Senate republicans, who's seats are not as safe, not so much.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
republicans seem to be doing everything perfectly so far
Interesting. If they could have done that during the last campaign maybe there would be a Republican in the White House today? I guess that wasn't part of their brilliant plan, which I guess must have been to allow the Democrats to run the country into ruin for 4 years so they can use the political fall out to take control of Congress and the White House in 2012. Of course they formulated that plan at a time when they already controlled Congress and the White House. Yes indeed, a brilliant plan! Woot Woot! :jig:
-
And it could be just to balance the corporate goodie grab that Bush handed to the banks. Regardless of whether you agree with the Employee Free Choice Act, Bank of America is using some of the 25 billion it was given to help squash it. Now that's ironic. Take our money to stop us from getting better pay whilst you pay out million dollar bonuses for being such a good banker. :rolleyes:
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
goodie grab that Bush handed to the banks.
...also bad.
MrPlankton
Mexican boy: Viene la tormenta! Sarah Connor: What did he just say? Gas Station Attendant: He said there's a storm coming Sarah Connor: [sighs] I know.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
I'd like to know the reasoning behind the portions of it though
Looking at the contents, that's an easy question to answer. It's a giant liberal goody grab on the tax payer's nickle. The Wall Street Journal called it the "liberals 40 year wish list". It has very little to do with stimulus, but "stimulus" sounds much neater to Americans than "Obama's Socialist Plan" huh?
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
That's what I'm getting at. Giving people unemployment and food can't really be that bad can it?
No you don't get it at all. My point was that Unemployment Insurance is not a gift from the government. It is part of what your employer counts as your compensation (even though you don't ever see it or even have to pay taxes on it.) So it is either something you have paid into, or if you are a coporate spokesman, something your employer has paid for. I personally have no problem trying to make sure people don't go to bed hungry at night, but I have seen too many cases where food stamps are exchanged for cash which is turned into a bottle. There are programs run by churches in my area that do a much better job of getting food to the poor than the government. The Salvation Army is superb at doing that.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Actually I was basing it on "Wisconsin originated the idea of unemployment insurance (UI) in the U.S. in 1932.[7] In the United States, there are 50 state unemployment insurance programs plus one each in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Through the Social Security Act of 1935, the Federal Government of the United States effectively coerced the individual states into adopting unemployment insurance plans. Unemployment insurance is a federal-state program jointly financed through federal and state employer payroll taxes (federal and state UI taxes)[8]. Generally, employers must pay both state and federal unemployment taxes if: (1) they pay wages to employees totaling $1500 or more in any quarter of a calendar year; or,[8] (2) they had at least one employee during any day of a week during 20 weeks in a calendar year, regardless of whether the weeks were consecutive. However, some state laws differ from the federal law.[8] To facilitate this program, the U.S. Congress passed the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), which authorizes the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to collect an annual federal employer tax used to fund state workforce agencies. FUTA covers the costs of administering the Unemployment Insurance and Job Service programs in all states. In addition, FUTA pays one-half of the cost of extended unemployment benefits (during periods of high unemployment) and provides for a fund from which states may borrow, if necessary, to pay benefits. As originally established, the states paid the federal government.[8] The FUTA tax rate was originally three percent of taxable wages collected from employers who employed at least four employees,[9] and employers could deduct up to 90 percent of the amount due if they paid taxes to a state to support a system of unemployment insurance which met Federal standards,[7] but the rules have changed as follows. The FUTA tax rate is now 6.2 percent of taxable wages of employees who meet both the above and following criteria,[8] and the taxable wage base is the first $7,000 paid in wages to each employee during a calendar year[8]. Employers who pay the state unemployment tax on a timely basis receive an offset credit of up to 5.4 percent regardless of the rate of tax they pay their state. Therefore, the net FUTA tax rate is generally 0.8 percent (6.2 percent - 5.4 percent), for a maximum FUTA tax of $56.00 per employee, per year (.008 X $7,000 = $56.00). State law determines individual state unemployment insurance tax rates.[8] Within the ab
-
Actually I was basing it on "Wisconsin originated the idea of unemployment insurance (UI) in the U.S. in 1932.[7] In the United States, there are 50 state unemployment insurance programs plus one each in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Through the Social Security Act of 1935, the Federal Government of the United States effectively coerced the individual states into adopting unemployment insurance plans. Unemployment insurance is a federal-state program jointly financed through federal and state employer payroll taxes (federal and state UI taxes)[8]. Generally, employers must pay both state and federal unemployment taxes if: (1) they pay wages to employees totaling $1500 or more in any quarter of a calendar year; or,[8] (2) they had at least one employee during any day of a week during 20 weeks in a calendar year, regardless of whether the weeks were consecutive. However, some state laws differ from the federal law.[8] To facilitate this program, the U.S. Congress passed the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), which authorizes the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to collect an annual federal employer tax used to fund state workforce agencies. FUTA covers the costs of administering the Unemployment Insurance and Job Service programs in all states. In addition, FUTA pays one-half of the cost of extended unemployment benefits (during periods of high unemployment) and provides for a fund from which states may borrow, if necessary, to pay benefits. As originally established, the states paid the federal government.[8] The FUTA tax rate was originally three percent of taxable wages collected from employers who employed at least four employees,[9] and employers could deduct up to 90 percent of the amount due if they paid taxes to a state to support a system of unemployment insurance which met Federal standards,[7] but the rules have changed as follows. The FUTA tax rate is now 6.2 percent of taxable wages of employees who meet both the above and following criteria,[8] and the taxable wage base is the first $7,000 paid in wages to each employee during a calendar year[8]. Employers who pay the state unemployment tax on a timely basis receive an offset credit of up to 5.4 percent regardless of the rate of tax they pay their state. Therefore, the net FUTA tax rate is generally 0.8 percent (6.2 percent - 5.4 percent), for a maximum FUTA tax of $56.00 per employee, per year (.008 X $7,000 = $56.00). State law determines individual state unemployment insurance tax rates.[8] Within the ab
wolfbinary wrote:
Actually I was basing it on
Basing what? Your claim that unemployment insurance (that's what its called, regardless of how it is financed) is a gift from the federal Government? The extended quote you included simply reiterates what I said. It is paid for by you, or if you wish, by your employer who, I guarantee you, assumes that part of your compensation is the taxes he pays on your salary. By the way, at one time in my life I ran a company that employed as many as 125 people. I am familiar with the laws regarding things like employment taxes and long quotes about them are not necessary.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
Actually I was basing it on
Basing what? Your claim that unemployment insurance (that's what its called, regardless of how it is financed) is a gift from the federal Government? The extended quote you included simply reiterates what I said. It is paid for by you, or if you wish, by your employer who, I guarantee you, assumes that part of your compensation is the taxes he pays on your salary. By the way, at one time in my life I ran a company that employed as many as 125 people. I am familiar with the laws regarding things like employment taxes and long quotes about them are not necessary.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
regardless of how it is financed
You don't think that how it's financed is important?
Oakman wrote:
It is paid for by you, or if you wish, by your employer who, I guarantee you, assumes that part of your compensation is the taxes he pays on your salary.
It's a tax paid to the government as an expense of doing business like FICA taxes only the business half right?
Oakman wrote:
By the way, at one time in my life I ran a company that employed as many as 125 people. I am familiar with the laws regarding things like employment taxes and long quotes about them are not necessary.
I think your assuming a tone in my posts that isn't there. Did you put unemployment tax as a benefit and part of an employees compensation in offers or statements of benefits?
-
And it could be just to balance the corporate goodie grab that Bush handed to the banks. Regardless of whether you agree with the Employee Free Choice Act, Bank of America is using some of the 25 billion it was given to help squash it. Now that's ironic. Take our money to stop us from getting better pay whilst you pay out million dollar bonuses for being such a good banker. :rolleyes:
This statement is false
Two wrongs to make a right... That's brilliant! :rolleyes: But yeah, I'm sorely disappointed in the Banks and... well everybody involved in the bailouts.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
It has very little to do with stimulus
I think you are wrong. In my opinion, Pelosi got very stimulated when she read this bill.
I bet you're right. Might have even gotten a thrill up her leg. But I was thinking... Instead of spending a billion on rubbers & STD prevention, wouldn't it have been much cheaper and even more effective to just hand out pictures of Peloci?
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Oakman wrote:
regardless of how it is financed
You don't think that how it's financed is important?
Oakman wrote:
It is paid for by you, or if you wish, by your employer who, I guarantee you, assumes that part of your compensation is the taxes he pays on your salary.
It's a tax paid to the government as an expense of doing business like FICA taxes only the business half right?
Oakman wrote:
By the way, at one time in my life I ran a company that employed as many as 125 people. I am familiar with the laws regarding things like employment taxes and long quotes about them are not necessary.
I think your assuming a tone in my posts that isn't there. Did you put unemployment tax as a benefit and part of an employees compensation in offers or statements of benefits?
wolfbinary wrote:
You don't think that how it's financed is important?
not in this context.
wolfbinary wrote:
It's a tax paid to the government as an expense of doing business like FICA taxes only the business half right?
I already said this. Don't you get it?
wolfbinary wrote:
Did you put unemployment tax as a benefit and part of an employees compensation in offers or statements of benefits?
Every month - right there in the books - which had been set up by a CPA and were audted every year by a CPA who signed off on us following generally accepted accounting practices. Our balance sheet and P & L statement were available to every employee as a matter of course. As for breaking down as part of the offer, no, of course not. But I didn't spell out their lunch breaks, either. Look this is a dumb conversation, your attempt to prove something end up proving only that you don't know what I am talking about. There's no shame in admitting that you didn't know something, you know. At any rate, from here on out you'll have to flounder on on your own.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
His position simply verified what I knew to be true, he's nothing more than a far left Chicago liberal and I didn't for a minute believe he'd do anything other than go back on his word. Rush (yes, I listen to him) played two taped Obama comments today.
So far his actual leadership is confirming the worst expectations.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Rush (yes, I listen to him) played two taped Obama comments today.
I had a chance to listen today. I thought his observation concerning Obama's efforts to get the republicans on board was brilliant. The democrats simply do not need republican support to do anything. If the adminstration was really optimistic about the chances of success, they would not care if the republicans support it. In fact, they would want them to oppose it in order to hold it over them in the next election. The only reason bipartisanship would be so important is so that the almost certain failure cannot be used by the republicans in the next election. Obama wants them to be shareholders in the inevitable failure so that it cannot be used against the democrats. House republicans seem to be doing everything perfectly so far - uniting around a conservative core to oppose this insanity. Senate republicans, who's seats are not as safe, not so much.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Hey Stan, how's it going. I'd be interested in hearing what you think of this article. http://www.slate.com/id/2209781/[^]
I think those make work programs were the primary reason why the Great Depression was great. The theory that putting people to work doing any ol' thing is no different than those same people actually being employeed by companies producing some kind of product is completely flawed.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
republicans seem to be doing everything perfectly so far
Interesting. If they could have done that during the last campaign maybe there would be a Republican in the White House today? I guess that wasn't part of their brilliant plan, which I guess must have been to allow the Democrats to run the country into ruin for 4 years so they can use the political fall out to take control of Congress and the White House in 2012. Of course they formulated that plan at a time when they already controlled Congress and the White House. Yes indeed, a brilliant plan! Woot Woot! :jig:
led mike wrote:
Interesting. If they could have done that during the last campaign maybe there would be a Republican in the White House today? I guess that wasn't part of their brilliant plan, which I guess must have been to allow the Democrats to run the country into ruin for 4 years so they can use the political fall out to take control of Congress and the White House in 2012. Of course they formulated that plan at a time when they already controlled Congress and the White House. Yes indeed, a brilliant plan! Woot Woot!
Among conservatives, it is the general consensus that the last election was lost because Republicans abandoned their conservative base and decided to try to out compete the democrats for 'moderates'. So, yes, if there was any chance at all of winning it was uniting around a conservative coalition that was just waiting there to be asked. Even without doing that, McCain still got some 45% of the vote, and it is highly unlikely that many of them were moderates. The moderate voters went for Obama big time. With a little more effort, the election would have been much closer, although defeating a candidate as charismatic as Obama given Bush's, or congress's, lack of public support, would have been iffy at best.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
I think those make work programs were the primary reason why the Great Depression was great. The theory that putting people to work doing any ol' thing is no different than those same people actually being employeed by companies producing some kind of product is completely flawed.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
I think those make work programs were the primary reason why the Great Depression was great. The theory that putting people to work doing any ol' thing is no different than those same people actually being employeed by companies producing some kind of product is completely flawed.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The theory that putting people to work doing any ol' thing
"The CWA laid 12 million feet of sewer pipe and built or made substantial improvements to 255,000 miles of roads, 40,000 schools, 3,700 playgrounds, and nearly 1,000 airports."
Stan Shannon wrote:
those same people actually being employeed by companies producing some kind of product is completely flawed.
That wasn't the choice. The choice was between not working or working for the CWA. Private industry wasn't hiring. Look it up. So did you lose your job? How come you suddenly disappeared mid-morning when I asked you that?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Two wrongs to make a right... That's brilliant! :rolleyes: But yeah, I'm sorely disappointed in the Banks and... well everybody involved in the bailouts.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Synaptrik wrote:
goodie grab that Bush handed to the banks.
...also bad.
MrPlankton
Mexican boy: Viene la tormenta! Sarah Connor: What did he just say? Gas Station Attendant: He said there's a storm coming Sarah Connor: [sighs] I know.