Sen Jim Bunning

n david · #1 03-02-2010, 10:59 AM

I've been somewhat busy and preoccupied with other things not relating to politics ... so I'm a little behind as to what's going on with Sen Bunning and this bill he's been accused of blocking.

What little of it I know thus far is Sen Reid has [asked?] for unanimous consent for this bill. Is this correct? Or has Sen Bunning requested this?

First question is why? I understand it's great politics for the dems to be able to cast Bunning and Republicans in general as obstructionists ... but if Reid and the dems were serious about the plight of poor Americans, can't they simply pass with a majority vote? What is this unanimous consent requirement they've attached to it?

If the unanimous consent was Bunning's idea, why?

Either way, I'm more than a little upset that this retiring Senator has decided to make a statement now with this bill.

Where has he been the rest of his terms in office? Why not take a stand back when Republicans were spending like crazy? Why not demand the Republicans, during the W years, not add to the deficit and pay only what can be afforded?

It's easy for Senator Bunning to postulate a political statement or demand .... the guy is retiring! He doesn't have to worry about answering to voters come election time.

The problem is this .... regardless of if it's Reid or Bunning being stupid ... Bunning's single, sole, go it alone, all by himself objection is not just making him the enemy of the voters.

He's a Republican. Now these people who may go without money, who can't find a job - and believe me it's tough out there right now to find one - these people will remember, come election day, only one thing - Republican.

The Republicans will pay if someone doesn't grab Bunning and slap some common sense into him.

Where is the Republican leadership on this?

This is why I'm independent and not affiliated with the Republican party anymore. The Republican Senate/House leaders are idiots. Dolts. Boobs. Nincompoops. Brainless morons who should be lined up and shown the door.

I don't care if Bunning is right on the issue. There's a bigger picture than the statement he's trying to make. There's more at stake here, than what he's trying to point out.

Congrats, Bunning, you blithering jerk, you've made your stupid political statement. How brave and noble of you to finally do so now that you're retiring.

I hope the Republican leaders can pull their head of out the sand and contain the damage caused, otherwise, what was looking like sunny blue skies and a conservative takeover of Congress will turn to a gray, dismal and rainy day.

Now I'll shut up....

n david · #2 03-02-2010, 11:38 AM

From FoxNews.com

Quote:

The Kentucky Republican has said he was blocking the $10 billion measure out of concern that it would increase deficit spending.

Again, it's so nice of the Senator to stand now that he's retiring. And thank you Senator McConnell, you lame excuse for Republican leadership, for ignoring the situation and changing the subject to healthcare.

I love how FoxNews.com headlines the article....

Quote:

A Retiring Bunning Stands Alone in Fight Against Jobless Bill

It should rather read: "Gutless, nothing to lose idiot Senator risks Republican gains in fall election for pointless political statement."

Source

Ferd · #3 03-02-2010, 02:18 PM

As I understand it, Bunning is blocking the bill because it does not pay for itself.

Democrats past "Pay-Go" some time back which requires that they come up with either new revinue or cut spending to pay for any spending measure that comes up.

For the last year, dems have simply ignored their own law and passed spending bills with no means to "pay for it".

Bunning is holding this bill up to bring light to the fact that the dems are just spending with no intent to pay for the spending.

Pressing-On · #4 03-02-2010, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferd

As I understand it, Bunning is blocking the bill because it does not pay for itself.

Democrats past "Pay-Go" some time back which requires that they come up with either new revinue or cut spending to pay for any spending measure that comes up.

For the last year, dems have simply ignored their own law and passed spending bills with no means to "pay for it".

Bunning is holding this bill up to bring light to the fact that the dems are just spending with no intent to pay for the spending.

Right, Ferd.

n david · #5 03-02-2010, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferd

As I understand it, Bunning is blocking the bill because it does not pay for itself.

Democrats past "Pay-Go" some time back which requires that they come up with either new revinue or cut spending to pay for any spending measure that comes up.

For the last year, dems have simply ignored their own law and passed spending bills with no means to "pay for it".

Bunning is holding this bill up to bring light to the fact that the dems are just spending with no intent to pay for the spending.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Right, Ferd.

Yes, yes the pay-go bill was passed last year. But I remember the Republicans mocking and being against the bill because it doesn't take effect for at least another year or so.

And why now? Why this bill? Why not stand up earlier?

I don't agree with it.

You do not mess with people's income. Especially families dealing with loss of jobs and income during this bad economy.

I don't like gov't assistance and handouts, but right now we really don't have a choice in the matter. If Bunning is really serious about spending and the deficit he should find another way to protest it.

Republicans may end up losing his seat because of this. They may lose more than just his seat if other Republicans don't demand he stop this.

Pressing-On · #6 03-02-2010, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n david

Yes, yes the pay-go bill was passed last year. But I remember the Republicans mocking and being against the bill because it doesn't take effect for at least another year or so.

And why now? Why this bill? Why not stand up earlier?

I don't agree with it.

You do not mess with people's income. Especially families dealing with loss of jobs and income during this bad economy.

I don't like gov't assistance and handouts, but right now we really don't have a choice in the matter. If Bunning is really serious about spending and the deficit he should find another way to protest it.

Republicans may end up losing his seat because of this. They may lose more than just his seat if other Republicans don't demand he stop this.

It's funny how everyone was up in arms over Scott Brown just voting, with the Democrats, for a stimulus package that gave more jobs to people in Massachusetts. They are calling him a turncoat. lol

Did you agree with Scott as well, David?

Ferd · #7 03-02-2010, 03:55 PM

In Mr. Bunning's speech on the senate floor, he stated that he was FOR extending the funds to these people.

His only issue is the senate not paying for the spending.

Praxeas · #8 03-02-2010, 05:45 PM

This reminds me of our inaction with Iran...we knew they were getting nukes, we knew they were getting nukes, we knew we knew we knew and we shook our fists angrily and we thought "what will we do once they get nukes"...you idiots! You should have prevented them from getting nukes a LONG TIME AGO but by now it's pretty much too late.

I saw a policy article title on the CFR report that basically said "what should our policy be after Iran has the nuke"...in other words they decided a long time ago to allow Iran to get the nuke THEN do something.

Our domestic problems are no different. I understand the stuff about "how are we going to pay for it" but by now it's too little too late. You idiots! You should have been proactive a long time ago before we got into this mess

Ferd · #9 03-02-2010, 06:33 PM

ok n David, Ive looked into it a bit more.

here is what happened.

Harry Reid wanted "unanamous concent" to pass a bill without debate.

That means all 100 senators agree to a bill and the bill is passed without the bill coming to the floor of the senate to even review what the bill is.

in this case it was a bill that has over whelming support by everybody (including Bunning).

however, Bunning wanted to point out that while the vote was to spend money, there was nothing in the bill about where that money would come from.

Bunning did not want to stop the bill from passing and will likely vote for it. His request was reasonable. provide a path to pay for it. bring it to the floor and vote on it.

Rev · #10 03-02-2010, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferd

ok n David, Ive looked into it a bit more.

here is what happened.

Harry Reid wanted "unanamous concent" to pass a bill without debate.

That means all 100 senators agree to a bill and the bill is passed without the bill coming to the floor of the senate to even review what the bill is.

in this case it was a bill that has over whelming support by everybody (including Bunning).

however, Bunning wanted to point out that while the vote was to spend money, there was nothing in the bill about where that money would come from.

Bunning did not want to stop the bill from passing and will likely vote for it. His request was reasonable. provide a path to pay for it. bring it to the floor and vote on it.

All they have to do is to go to the FED and let them create the money out of thin air, then loan it to the gov't at interest.

Simple!