Define Insane: Senate Republicans

Just when you thought the United States Senate passed unemployment extension, the Republicans start playing more political games with the lives of American People desperately in need of help. These sociopaths who, laughingly, call themselves conservatives, are filing motions Senate will need to vote on before the final vote is taken. This will delay the final vote to extend unemployment benefits up to 30 hours; precious time to those who have lost (or in the process of losing) their homes and cars, and don’t know where the money for children’s next meal is coming from. This soulless maneuvering after nearly three months of stalemate.

After the Senate passes the final bill, it goes back to the House where it’s expected to pass quickly, and sent to President Obama for signature...more than a day after it should have. A day or more may not seem like much, unless you and your family are in dire straits like so many millions of our fellow citizens.
Why have the Republicans stalled all this time? Because extending unemployment benefits would not be funded and would increase an already bloated budget deficit by $34 billion dollars.

"There's no debate in the Senate about whether we should pass a bill -- everyone agrees that we should," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "What we do not support -- and we make no apologies for -- is borrowing tens of billions of dollars to pass this bill at a time when the national debt is spinning completely out of control."
America’s Corporate Owned Media are feeding people the Republican line.

Under the headline “Obama’s Risky Debt,” Washington Post op-ed columnist Robert J. Samuelson wrote (5/18/09):
Just how much government debt does a president have to endorse before he’s labeled “irresponsible”? Well, apparently much more than the massive amounts envisioned by President Obama. The final version of his 2010 budget, released last week, is a case study in political expediency and economic gambling.... Consider the extra debt as a proxy for political evasion. The president doesn’t want to confront Americans with choices between lower spending and higher taxes—or, given the existing deficits, perhaps both less spending and more taxes.

However, some economists (of all philosophical view points) believe that during time of economic crisis, a government deficit will increase consumer spending to offset the loss of demand for goods, and stimulate the economy.
Nobel Prize–winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said in a speech at the Economic Policy Institute (4/12/07) that achieving important goals in areas such as healthcare and education “will require spending money.…If spent well, it’s worth doing, even if it increases the deficit.” And economist Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research pointed out in a USA Today op-ed (7/14/09) that in 1946, at the start of a multi-decade economic boom, the national debt was 120 percent of GDP (versus a projected 57 percent of GDP by the end of this fiscal year—Congressional Budget Office, 3/09).

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com and an adviser to both the McCain campaign and the Obama administration, wrote in an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer (2/15/09): “There are concerns that the stimulus plan’s $789 billion price tag is too large. To pay for it we will have to borrow the money, adding significantly to the government’s debt load. But without a stimulus, the depression would undermine tax revenue and fuel more government spending, producing even larger deficits and debt burdens.…Indeed, my most significant criticism of the current stimulus plan is that it is too small.”

Senator McConnell’s argument holds water in the Republican Bizzaro Fantasy World. However, in 2003, the good senator voted to authorize $87B spending in Iraq, only after a reduction of Bush’s tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans to pay for the invasion was removed from the bill. The $87 was not paid for; but it was charged to future generations of America’s middle class children.

If these mutants are so damn concerned about deficits, why do keep removing revenue streams from government coffers? Why keep lowering taxes on those who CAN most afford to withstand an increase? Why did Exxon/Mobile pay ZERO federal income tax in 2009? No federal income tax on a $45.2B profit.
There is, in my opinion, something horribly amiss when a budget deficit is a concern when the money is intended to help America’s neediest people, but not a problem when it’s used to kill people.