Durbin: GOP's Obstruction Of Unemployment Benefits Extension "Fundamentally Unfair"
By Heather Thursday Oct 29, 2009 5:30pm
From Progress Illinois-Durbin: GOP's Obstruction Of Unemployment Benefits Extension "Fundamentally Unfair":
Now that the Senate has overcome a procedural hump and voted by a wide margin in favor of cloture on H.R. 3548, an extension of federal unemployment insurance, Democratic Senators are laying into their Republican counterparts for the multiple delays they caused over the past few weeks. On the Senate floor today, Sen. Dick Durbin listed off the unemployment rate in the states represented by the 13 lawmakers who voted against the measure last night. "This Republican obstruction," he said, "when it comes to something this basic, is fundamentally unfair."
And from an update of their original post:
5:45 p.m.: After a quick debate this evening, the Senate voted by a widemargin (87-13) in favor of cloture on H.R. 3548. While one more cloture vote will be required to bring the final bill to an up-or-down vote, the Senate is now expected to take up the bill in its current form, including the amendments added by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), in the coming days. Open Congress has listed the 13 lawmakers who voted against the procedural motion, which you can see below:
Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY)
Sen. Christopher Bond (R-MO)
Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK)
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Sen. Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)
Sen. Jefferson Sessions (R-AL)
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS)
Login or Register to post comments.
are letting it happen.
The dems are worried about a tough mid-term election next year.
By letting the republican's showcase what sociopathic assholes they are, the dems may be letting the nutjob's alienate anybody who is not part of their psychotic base.
My brother is disabled - lost his job (dealership shut down), has no health insurance, doesn't qualify for public aid yet, and can't get SS disability yet either.
His unemployment is about to run out. He has to have this.
*
I agree, which is why playing politics is unacceptable.
These politicians have no idea what real people endure every day. They get elected and forget about who put them there. If the roles were reversed, they'd be yelling at how unfair this is.
Dump them out.
All but two of the 13 obstructionists are Southerners. If only we had let the South secede! Dear South, please secede, put up 'bob wire' fences between yourself and reality, and shove your heads even more deeply where the sun don't shine!
I was durbin's biggest fan, but he seems like a politician. he seems objective, but he is my almost hero. the system just gets to people.
And get Durbin instead. Durbin may seem objective, but he's not.
How did we get this incompetent asshole to begin with? Durbin would do a great job, but I've never heard his name mentioned for this before.
I almost don't care who we get as long as we get rid of Reid asap. With a little luck his state will vote him out.
Alright - I have mixed feelings about that . . . .
*
just as tax cuts create jobs, not extending unemployment benefits will inspire people to create their own jobs.
Washington
Nothing left for me to do
"This Republican obstruction," he said, "when it comes to something this basic, is fundamentally unfair."
"Unfair"? I'd say any person and/or family who is losing their unemployment benefits might have stronger words than "unfair" to describe their feelings about what the GOP is doing. How about cruel, vindictive, vicious, child-kicking, rotten, and abusive to name a few. Call them out for their behaviour in language that leaves no doubt about it's moral bankruptcy.
I like Durbin, but the Democrats are just so damned wimpy. If me and mine were going to suffer due to this GOP obstructionism I would be a long way past feeling I was being treated unfairly and I'd want my supposedly sypathetic elected officials to understand that and act accordingly.
Are the Democrats even capable of connecting with and expressing the outrage of the people who have been screwed over by this recession which was brought about by the greed of the banking and Wall Street executives? They sure doesn't seem so, especially Obama, and they certainly seem way to deferential to the financial industry and their GOP prostitutes.
What happened to REALLY fighting for the people who voted for you?
may be a compliment to these weasels.
Wow, Mr. Durbin, you might want to "temper" your remarks some. I am sure the Republicans ran screaming from the Senate after that "thrashing" you gave them".
tomorrow, so that the GOP can rest easier.
What a bunch of spineless f*cks...
Every single one that voted against helping people to keep from ending up homeless and starving...is a Republican. Just imagine my shock.
Grayson was right. These fuckers just want everyone who isn't rich to die already and stop bothering them.
... but vote for us first.
http://www.myvideo.de/watch/4156440/Kill_the_...
Double post.
Whatever happened to "We the people" with Republicans both in power and then out with their strong influences against the unemployed? What I don't quite understand is why the American people themselves can't vote on whether to extend unemployment benefits, or any kind of gov't spending that results in productivity for that matter? Why do the Republicans, by and large (even as a current minority), decide America's fate??
"Why do the Republicans, by and large (even as a current minority), decide America's fate??"
This article lists here, Senators.
A principle reason why a minority can decide America's fate is through an undemocratic institution, such as the Senate. California has 26 million people maybe, definitely, 2 Senators. What does Montana (state of Baucus) have, maybe 500,000, definitely 2 Senators.
Under circumstances like that, it really comes down to who is the majority in the rural areas, not America as a whole. Probably all the cows, dogs, sheep and cats, along with the people of Montana have more proportional representation in the Senate than California.
We're only a sort of democracy, thanks to the Senate.
I like facts. I'm short on facts, so tried Google, came up empty-handed, hm'mm
Tried Yahoo and hit pay dirt.
I like this one the best.
(1.) Campaign donations to small state Senators
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/real-p...
(2.) “Mindful that a filibuster can only be stopped by a vote of three-fifths of the Senate, Geoghegan calculates that 41 senators representing about 10 percent of the population can block a bill favored by 60 senators representing about 90 percent of the population.”
http://www.slate.com/id/1006400/
(3.) More numbers..
http://www.1984produkts.com/donkeyhottie/2009...
Thanks, NB!
When Ben Franklin said that he bequeathed a republic - if you can keep it, I wonder if he was worried if a senate would likely break (or strain) our fragile democracy.
I can't read minds in the present, let alone, the past, so can't say what ole Ben would have said.
Anyway checked the "gang of 6" against the list that details the 20 current senators who have received the highest percentage of their campaign contributions and came up with:
Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa - #6
Max Baucus, D-Mont. - #13
Kent Conrad, D-N.D. - #11
Mike Enzi, R-Wyo. - #1
Olympia Snowe, R-Maine - #20
Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. - #14
They're all up near the top, in a government teaming with systemic corporate lobbyist influenced corruption. I'm not sure that explains the unemployment extension issue exactly, but it sure explains the health "reform".
Anyhow, I think we would be better off without the Senate.
since senators were not elected by the people.
Note, that even as of today, we don't elect our president directly.
The senate as implemented in the US, is a total throwback to the House of Lords, which was the tool the aristocracy used in the British system to squash any sort of "deviations" the actual democratic part of their system, the house of commons, may have the audacity of coming up with.
The senate was sold as a method to represent the upper echelons of the society, to be a complement of the congress which was supposed to be the "people's house." The problem is that both houses are not parallel but sequential, and guess who gets to decide what does or doesn't pass... Even in a democracy, the powerful figured out how to keep the power. There have been some exceptions, where populist politicians managed to get elected to the senate. But frankly at the end of the day, we really can only say that less than 5% of the members of the senate are even remotely representative of the common people and their will.
Oh, well...
I guess differentiating "we the people..." vs. political power is much like comparing apples to oranges.
"Note, that even as of today, we don't elect our president directly."
It could be done without a constitutional amendment.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
Schwarzenegger vetoed it in California.
"Even in a democracy, the powerful figured out how to keep the power."
Then, it becomes less of a democracy. Maybe, not much of a democracy at all.
I've heard that our American democracy may be more of a plutocracy (an apparent element of capitalism), given all the special interests, lobbying, and $$$ fetishes.
You're using big words. Pluto is a demoted planet.
Wait a second, I see...
"Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth. "
Yep, no s#it. And with the Supreme Court poised to allow unlimited corporate spending in elections, it's destined to remain that way.
But, to seal the deal, they need to shut off dissenting opinion. As has been said by the courts, "an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will prevail" - a marketplace where there is a "wide diversity of viewpoints from a multiplicity of sources" permits people to make the correct choices.
In the broadcast media era, government restraint of competition drove up the price of mass communications, which meant that only corporations could get their viewpoint across.
The internet age has greatly lowered the cost of mass communications. While there may not be only 2 sides, but instead 20 sides to the issue of "net neutrality", this issue needs to be decided so that, in our political discourse, that there is a "wide diversity of viewpoints from a multiplicity of sources".
Meanwhile, the corporations need to have the net neutrality issue decided that internet companies can decide the web sites you can visit, namely only Fox-news.
Meanwhile, if you have a TV-out on your video card, there is a lot of internet TV here.
http://wwitv.com/portal.htm
... isn't the more modern term corporatism (nee Fascism). Not as market friendly perhaps?
In an interview on truthout.org, Ralph Nader mentioned that FDR was worried about capitalism and corporatism being an element of fascism - or neo-fascism.
http://www.truthout.org/1014091
Capitalism can work. It's working in all places, communist China. That's because the central government permits capitalism to operate to the extent it benefits the country.
What happens in the U.S. is that lobbyists buy off our politicians to become economic traitors. That would never be permitted in China. And that is why they're going to hand us our lunch.
... if you are going to complain about Capitalism and Corruption. Putting China as an example of what works, probably is not the best of ideas.
... and meet a firing squad.
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/asiapa...
They have an aggressive anti-corruption unit going on over there.
Meanwhile, over here? The entire mortgage debacle wouldn't have happened if the mortgages weren't bundled into securities, and rated at a higher grade (AAA) then they were worth and then sold to unsuspecting investors for more than they were worth. The reason this whole thing happened, and mortgage originators couldn't lend fast enough was because these resulting securities could be sold for more than they were worth.
In China, a lot of the personal at the rating agencies would be facing a firing squad.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0110-42.htm
"For years, we've assumed that capitalism and democracy fit hand in glove. We took it as an article of faith that you can't have one without the other."
"But China shows that the reverse may not be true -- capitalism doesn't need democracy. Capitalism's wide diffusion of economic power offers enough incentive for investors to take risks with their money. But, as China shows, capitalism doesn't necessarily provide enough protection for individuals to take risks with their opinions. "
Can't we let them go? The people in those states that want freedom and reality will move and the land will go back to plantations so they can bring back slavery and indentured servitude, share cropping and other popular pastimes.
Let them go. If the people vote these scum in, why do we want to protect them? The country can have a moving fund to get the humans out.
Surprise surprise. These guys are on the same list as the Republicans for Rape.
Who in the hell votes for these asshole? Man I am glad I don't live in one of those f**ked-up red states.
for murdering, rapist, inhumane bastard.
That's not news.
But not for the rich. The poor don't need money, food, or health care. The rich need ever cent they can steal. Remember that profit is also a redistribution of wealth. And the Republican are only against the redistribution of wealth if the poor get a penny. But they are for the redistribution of wealth if the rich receive all the money. The federal government should mine their own business as the poor get rape.
Yep, wealth is neither created or destroyed - it just changes hands. And it don't trickle down.
THE.POOR. In the U.S. it is as Simple as that.
The Sun beams down on a Brand New Day
No more Welfare Tax to Pay
Unsightly slums gone up in a flash of light
The Jobless millions wisked away
Atlast we have more room to play
All systems go to kill the poor tonight...
Hey Richard , they do not care about fairness my friend , they do not care .
Since almost all of the Republicans doesn't care, how long will this GOP implosion go on before a more progressive or independent party can form? And, what makes them think they deserve another chance in the 2010 election?
... yet I only see GOP-approved policies being passed for the most part. Funny that, eh?
Go figure! Sure seems the GOP sure finds ways to still hold power, even as a minority.
Blue-dog=GOP light
control the vote in the senate and some of the house. Greed controls the corporations and the lobbyists.
People keep talking about how the decline in popularity means the Republicans will lose power. That's horseshit.
It doesn't matter what the voters think of the Republicans. They don't count. The Rethugs only court their votes because getting them is a formality they need to get through. The ones who count are the ones with the MONEY. That 1% with the 95% of the wealth. THEY are the ones who decide policy, not you and me.
That's why these asshats who represent so few people can run everything. Because the ones with the money want them to run the country, because then they get to keep their money. That's called "the free market."
Capitalism at its peak. Very simple, really.
We did get a non-GOP Supreme court justice (fingers crossed). That one is big in my book.
... there is that problem of court decisions being made by simple minority. But I am looking forward to Sotomayor making some GOP people at least slightly uncomfortable.
Since Sotomayor replaces Souter, I see little difference, even though Souter was nominated by Bush I.
Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito would be the four extreme right justices. Kennedy was a Reagan appointee, but is middle of the road. Ginsburg and Breyer were Clinton appointees.
Replacing Kennedy with a Dem would be a slight shift, but replacing one of the four extreme right justices would represent a substantial shift.
Forgot Stevens, a Ford appointee. Appointed back in the days when the GOP was semi-sane.
have gotten ourselves into, when we long for the days of the Nixon's GOP as the "semi-sane" ones.
In the past few years, I got to understand why one of my grandpa's obsessions was to be able to live long enough to be able to urinate on Nixon's and Reagan's graves. I wasn't politically active then (just a kid) so I thought it was just another of my grandpa's attempts to get himself in trouble with the law one more time before going to meet his maker (we called him stormin' Norm)
Nixon's the one !!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAcpUc3skAg
(Only the richest people in the) Country First!
not covering this? It should be on TV 24/7 to let the American people know who does NOT care about them or give a shit about how they make it with no JOB!
I would not vote for a friggin Republican if they were the last people on this earth. They only care about themselves and rich people, to he.ll with the rest of us!
I'm not surprised to see my state's senators -- Enzi and Barrasso -- vote against this in the name of "fiscal responsibility."
benefits in the states represented by those ReThuglicans who voted against it.......we'll see how they fare next time they come up for re-election.
With the craftiness of a Fox, the Republicans has always manage to get away with hiding the dirt they do to the American people. One regular practice is the claim they are watching out for the people's freedom, They do this while cutting American's benefits, entitlements, and rights.
Today, even the current health care argument is being made with the Republican charge people need to have the right to choose their own health care, medical decisions and insurance provider. When you look behind the scenes, you find a Republican saying no to every health care idea, trying to make decisions for women and taking millions from insurance companies.
With this thread, it is being called just what it is: a deception. The media has a lot to do with how things get reported. The media is owned by the Republican Party. Don't believe the hype about the left owning the airwaves. I watch every night while the media frame issues and legislation in terms to hurt the left. Sad state of affairs.
Joseph
Login or Register to post comments.