Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... efits.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Republicans, newly empowered following their gains in the midterm elections, want spending cuts of $5 billion to $6 billion a month as a condition for extending the benefits. Democrats, however, argue that the extended benefits should be paid for with deficit spending because it injects money into the economy.

President Barack Obama and advocates for the jobless support keeping the current 99-week program in place. The extra weeks of jobless benefits have provided crucial support for families because it is taking longer to find work during the recession, they have argued. Cutting the payments also could further strain beleaguered food banks and social-services agencies.

Opponents contend the benefits are a disincentive for many people to find work. Many of the conservative candidates who ousted incumbents this week have pledged to cut federal spending.

Good. Start picking off these disensentive entitlement programs one at a time.

AZGrizFan wrote:http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... efits.html

Republicans, newly empowered following their gains in the midterm elections, want spending cuts of $5 billion to $6 billion a month as a condition for extending the benefits.

Good. Start picking off these disensentive entitlement programs one at a time.

That would be a new and interesting twist...
They are obviously NOT republicans then - they truly are a new party if that actually happens

Because the single biggest unifying principle of conservatism - limited government and low taxes - has actually become the Big Lie, the mother of tightly held political falsehoods is that the Republican Party is in favor of small government and low taxes.

FACT: The GOP has never come anywhere near reducing the size of government. '
FACT: It has gone so far out of its way in the other direction that it is embarrassing that anyone persists in repeating this myth in public
FACT: No Republican president has ever left office with a smaller government than he found on Inaugruration Day.

So I guess if these NEW politicians actually do what they say they're going to do... they indeed will be NEW

Chizzang wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... efits.html



Good. Start picking off these disensentive entitlement programs one at a time.

That would be a new and interesting twist...
They are obviously NOT republicans then - they truly are a new party if that actually happens

Because the single biggest unifying principle of conservatism - limited government and low taxes - has actually become the Big Lie, the mother of tightly held political falsehoods is that the Republican Party is in favor of small government and low taxes.

FACT: The GOP has never come anywhere near reducing the size of government. '
FACT: It has gone so far out of its way in the other direction that it is embarrassing that anyone persists in repeating this myth in public
FACT: No Republican president has ever left office with a smaller government than he found on Inaugruration Day.

So I guess if these NEW politicians actually do what they say they're going to do... they indeed will be NEW

This is where Z responds that he's been a solid Libertarian for the last 20+ years (never mind his rapid support for John McCain).

Grizalltheway wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

That would be a new and interesting twist...
They are obviously NOT republicans then - they truly are a new party if that actually happens

Because the single biggest unifying principle of conservatism - limited government and low taxes - has actually become the Big Lie, the mother of tightly held political falsehoods is that the Republican Party is in favor of small government and low taxes.

FACT: The GOP has never come anywhere near reducing the size of government. '
FACT: It has gone so far out of its way in the other direction that it is embarrassing that anyone persists in repeating this myth in public
FACT: No Republican president has ever left office with a smaller government than he found on Inaugruration Day.

So I guess if these NEW politicians actually do what they say they're going to do... they indeed will be NEW

This is where Z responds that he's been a solid Libertarian for the last 20+ years (never mind his rapid support for John McCain).

Being a supporter of John McCain was easy. I mean, look what my other choice was....

AZGrizFan wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
This is where Z responds that he's been a solid Libertarian for the last 20+ years (never mind his rapid support for John McCain).

Being a supporter of John McCain was easy. I mean, look what my other choice was....

AZGrizFan wrote: Being a supporter of John McCain was easy. I mean, look what my other choice was....

That is my exact feeling with Palin.

There #1 priority should be creating jobs.

kalm wrote:There #1 priority should be creating jobs.

I don't think either party has any clue as to how to do that. They should focus on things that they actually can control, like taxes and spending.

Cutting unemployment benefits sounds great, but that won't put much of a dent in the deficit. All it will do is punish people that used to work, lost their jobs through little or no fault of their own and now supposedly don't want to work anymore. I'd rather see them reduce the weekly payout, instead of the max being in the high $500 per week range, reduce it. That way you aren't cutting people off but you are putting a little more pressure on them and you are helping with the deficit a little bit.

The economy still sucks, I don't think they should eliminate the safety net completely but reducing it seems reasonable.

Seems to me the only real way to cut spending is to cut the defense budget since that is one of our biggest expenditures; but it doesn't seem like anyone in DC has the balls to put that on the table.

SDHornet wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote: Being a supporter of John McCain was easy. I mean, look what my other choice was....

That is my exact feeling with Palin.

Agreed, but McCain/Palin was still better than Obama/Biden. And if Palin is the Republican choice for president (as I've said before) she will NOT get my vote.

AZGrizFan wrote:

SDHornet wrote: That is my exact feeling with Palin.

Agreed, but McCain/Palin was still better than Obama/Biden. And if Palin is the Republican choice for president (as I've said before) she will NOT get my vote.

Same here.

AZGrizFan wrote:

SDHornet wrote: That is my exact feeling with Palin.

Agreed, but McCain/Palin was still better than Obama/Biden. And if Palin is the Republican choice for president (as I've said before) she will NOT get my vote.

Again I agree with you. As I've said before, I voted for McCain in spite of Palin being his running mate. I hope the GOP can give me a better choice than Palin, I don't want 2012 to be a lose/lose election.

BlueHen86 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Agreed, but McCain/Palin was still better than Obama/Biden. And if Palin is the Republican choice for president (as I've said before) she will NOT get my vote.

Again I agree with you. As I've said before, I voted for McCain in spite of Palin being his running mate. I hope the GOP can give me a better choice than Palin, I don't want 2012 to be a lose/lose election.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

AZGrizFan wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Again I agree with you. As I've said before, I voted for McCain in spite of Palin being his running mate. I hope the GOP can give me a better choice than Palin, I don't want 2012 to be a lose/lose election.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Not at all.

I said it that way because I responded with a to an earlier post by you on this thread.

AZGrizFan wrote:
Being a supporter of John McCain was easy. I mean, look what my other choice was....

What about in the primaries, doofus? There were at least 2 or 3 more fiscally conservative candidates. But, you chose one of the LEAST fiscally conservative.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Being a supporter of John McCain was easy. I mean, look what my other choice was....

What about in the primaries, doofus? There were at least 2 or 3 more fiscally conservative candidates. But, you chose one of the LEAST fiscally conservative.

Tell me who, and I'll tell you why I didn't support them.

Unlike you, I'm not a one issue voter.

AZGrizFan wrote:
Tell me who, and I'll tell you why I didn't support them.

Unlike you, I'm not a one issue voter.

Could have fooled me. You don't seem to post about anything other than fiscal conservatism these days. Since the 2008 election. No matter that the guy you supported in the 2009 PRIMARIES as well as general election

-voted against Bush's tax cuts in 2001 (one of only 2 Republicans to vote against it)... and because it favored the wealthy
-voted for $700 billion TARP bailout
-voted for $25 billion auto bailout
-voted for $300 billion mortgage entitlement bailout
-voted for $85 billion AIG takeover

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Tell me who, and I'll tell you why I didn't support them.

Unlike you, I'm not a one issue voter.

Could have fooled me. You don't seem to post about anything other than fiscal conservatism these days. Since the 2008 election. No matter that the guy you supported in the 2009 PRIMARIES as well as general election

-voted against Bush's tax cuts in 2001 (one of only 2 Republicans to vote against it)... and because it favored the wealthy
-voted for $700 billion TARP bailout
-voted for $25 billion auto bailout
-voted for $300 billion mortgage entitlement bailout
-voted for $85 billion AIG takeover

Voted against $800 billion stimulus bill
voted against $875 billion healthcare bill

And RIGHT NOW is there any other issue that's even remotely more important? Or are you still concerned about global warming?

I disagree....

Number 1 priority is 5% across the board cut in federal spending including Defense

Number 2 priority should be to freeze all federal hiring.

Number 3 should be to furlough federal employees for one week.

Number 4 should be to implement a plan to get federal employee salaries ($120k average) more inline with average private sector salaries ($60k).

Number 5 should be raise retirement age for SS payouts for all persons under the age of 55 to 69 yrs, with early retirement benefits kicking in at 65 instead of 62.

Appaholic wrote:I disagree....

Number 1 priority is 5% across the board cut in federal spending including Defense

Number 2 priority should be to freeze all federal hiring.

Number 3 should be to furlough federal employees for one week.

Number 4 should be to implement a plan to get federal employee salaries ($120k average) more inline with average private sector salaries ($60k).

Number 5 should be raise retirement age for SS payouts for all persons under the age of 55 to 69 yrs, with early retirement benefits kicking in at 65 instead of 62.

I don't disagree with your priorities, Appa. It was listed this way in the article....

Oh...and FYI, i don't think 5% is near enough. I'd be fine with 20%. Across the board.

BlueHen86 wrote:

kalm wrote:There #1 priority should be creating jobs.

I don't think either party has any clue as to how to do that. They should focus on things that they actually can control, like taxes and spending.

Cutting unemployment benefits sounds great, but that won't put much of a dent in the deficit. All it will do is punish people that used to work, lost their jobs through little or no fault of their own and now supposedly don't want to work anymore. I'd rather see them reduce the weekly payout, instead of the max being in the high $500 per week range, reduce it. That way you aren't cutting people off but you are putting a little more pressure on them and you are helping with the deficit a little bit.

The economy still sucks, I don't think they should eliminate the safety net completely but reducing it seems reasonable.

Seems to me the only real way to cut spending is to cut the defense budget since that is one of our biggest expenditures; but it doesn't seem like anyone in DC has the balls to put that on the table.

A dirty little secret is that government investment in education and infrastructure has a proven track record of stimulating the private sector and creating private sector jobs. This is even more important during a recession when the government becomes the lender and employer of last resort. That's why Obama deserves somewhat of a pass in regards to the deficit.

And while I can see the logic that cutting unemployment benefits will motivate the jobless to go out and at least find something, I think unemployment often times gets confused with welfare.

kalm wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
I don't think either party has any clue as to how to do that. They should focus on things that they actually can control, like taxes and spending.

Cutting unemployment benefits sounds great, but that won't put much of a dent in the deficit. All it will do is punish people that used to work, lost their jobs through little or no fault of their own and now supposedly don't want to work anymore. I'd rather see them reduce the weekly payout, instead of the max being in the high $500 per week range, reduce it. That way you aren't cutting people off but you are putting a little more pressure on them and you are helping with the deficit a little bit.

The economy still sucks, I don't think they should eliminate the safety net completely but reducing it seems reasonable.

Seems to me the only real way to cut spending is to cut the defense budget since that is one of our biggest expenditures; but it doesn't seem like anyone in DC has the balls to put that on the table.

A dirty little secret is that government investment in education and infrastructure has a proven track record of stimulating the private sector and creating private sector jobs. This is even more important during a recession when the government becomes the lender and employer of last resort. That's why Obama deserves somewhat of a pass in regards to the deficit.

And while I can see the logic that cutting unemployment benefits will motivate the jobless to go out and at least find something, I think unemployment often times gets confused with welfare.

THIS.

Should NEVER be acceptable.

And when unemployment continues for 99 weeks, it IS welfare.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
A dirty little secret is that government investment in education and infrastructure has a proven track record of stimulating the private sector and creating private sector jobs. This is even more important during a recession when the government becomes the lender and employer of last resort. That's why Obama deserves somewhat of a pass in regards to the deficit.

And while I can see the logic that cutting unemployment benefits will motivate the jobless to go out and at least find something, I think unemployment often times gets confused with welfare.

THIS.

Should NEVER be acceptable.

And when unemployment continues for 99 weeks, it IS welfare.

I agree on both counts. When the layed off, highly trained, and educated professional uses up what he has put in, it's time to drop a resume off at the local 7-11. But of course the same can be said for bank management and share holders.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
THIS.

Should NEVER be acceptable.

And when unemployment continues for 99 weeks, it IS welfare.

I agree on both counts. When the layed off, highly trained, and educated professional uses up what he has put in, it's time to drop a resume off at the local 7-11. But of course the same can be said for bank management and share holders.

Yep.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Appaholic wrote:I disagree....

Number 1 priority is 5% across the board cut in federal spending including Defense

Number 2 priority should be to freeze all federal hiring.

Number 3 should be to furlough federal employees for one week.

Number 4 should be to implement a plan to get federal employee salaries ($120k average) more inline with average private sector salaries ($60k).

Number 5 should be raise retirement age for SS payouts for all persons under the age of 55 to 69 yrs, with early retirement benefits kicking in at 65 instead of 62.

I don't disagree with your priorities, Appa. It was listed this way in the article....

Oh...and FYI, i don't think 5% is near enough. I'd be fine with 20%. Across the board.

As would I, but didn't want to sound bloodthirsty....%5 would still be a fok ton & 20%....WOW...that'd be about right....

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
I agree on both counts. When the layed off, highly trained, and educated professional uses up what he has put in, it's time to drop a resume off at the local 7-11. But of course the same can be said for bank management and share holders.

Yep.

double yep