Enter your photo in the Ultimate Fan contest by midnight to win a suite night at a Salem Red Sox game and a chance at a trip to Fenway Park.
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
This is part of the February Budget continuing resolution.
That was initiated by the House Republicans. It sounds as if you’re suggesting that they have cut employment benefits in order the lower the published unemployment rate, something that is going to benefit Obama.
You might want to think that one through again.
To answer your question on the beer blog,
Congress allowed the extension of benefits
to expire. To my knowledge both Dems. and Reps.
occupy that branch of the Fed. Gov.
“Congress allowed the extension of benefits to expire. To my knowledge both Dems. and Reps. occupy that branch of the Fed. Gov.”
Rob, you’re correct about that. But guess what? the Republicans control the House, which (under the U.S. Constitution) that bill originated. And though the Democrats putatively have control in the Senate, the GOP has enough senators to sustain a veto, which means they can block anything in that chamber.
The bottom line is, the extension was cut by the GOP. And you’re suggesting that was done to make the unemployment rate fall, which would make Obama look good. Seriously, you ought to rethink that.
Democrats refused to agree to budget cuts equal to the amount
necessary to fund the additional weeks of benefits.
Democrats: the party of the people, not unemployed people
but the people who work and pay taxes.
Your thoughts that srinking the unemployment figures favors
President Obama, I totaly agree. If the figure can get down
in the low 7 range or less Obama is a shoe-in.
Dems. know this and it was a calculated move to refuse to
do what was on the table to extend benefits, thereby reducing
the unemployment figure.
Dems. and Reps have ALWAYS put party and re-election ahead
of the masses they proport to represent.
You’re delusional. The Republicans wanted to fund the extension of employment benefits by cutting children’s health care and food stamps. That was simply taking the money out of one pocket and transferring it to the other. Democrats were fine with matching the extension funds by cutting oil company subsidies. Guess who torpedoed that idea?
‘cutting oil company subsidies. Guess who torpedoed that idea?
More correctly, raising taxes. Oil companies do not get subsidies
The American Chemical Society cites a report by Double Bottom Line Venture Capital that explains how the oil industry has reaped benefits from subsidies. From 1918 to 2009, the average annual subsidy was $4.86 billion. By comparison, the nuclear energy industry gets around $3.5 billion per year.
When the study adjusted for inflation to 2009 dollars, the oil and gas industry received subsidies amounting to $1.8 billion per year in the first 15 years of the fledgling industry. The American Coalition for Ethanol estimates that when combined with state and local government aid to large oil companies, subsidies amount to anywhere from $133.8 billion to $280.8 billion annually from all sources of taxpayer aid that goes to the oil and gas industry.
But the oil industry gets no subsidies, right Rob Timmons??
I’m getting the impression that if you criticize Rob with facts, he’ll just respond with a shout that “you’re a LIBERAL!” (even if you aren’t one) and nothing after that will make any difference. Just like Suzie.
I’ve been called worse Dan.
“he’ll just respond with a shout that “you’re a LIBERAL!” (even if you aren’t one) and nothing after that will make any difference. Just like Suzie.”
Ah yes, Dan, I proudly remember the day Suzie wrote me off as a “liberal” too, never to this day knowing the difference between a liberal and libertarian. She wrote off Dave Hicks for exactly the same reason prior to that. It’s a good club to be in that all free thinkers should aspire to!
Name is required
A valid email is required (email@example.com)
Comment is required
Your email address will not be published.All fields are required to comment.
Fri, 24 May 2013 04:12:55 +0000
Metro Columnist Dan Casey knows a little bit about a lot of things but not a heck of a lot about most things. That doesn't keep him from writing about them, however. So keep him honest!
He welcomes your rants, raves and considered opinions, so long as the language is civil (i.e. no four-letter words). He'll read all your posts and may or may not respond.