Guest |
12-23-2011 06:40 PM |
Quote:
Posted by Guest
(Post 432190)
The republican house made the one year extension so reprehensible by demanding 200,000 federal employees lose their jobs, pay-freezes on the rest, and, my favorite, drug-testing unemployment benefit recipients. That worked out so well in FL when Gov Scott required all welfare recipients to be drug tested only to find that less than 2% tested positive, far fewer than the general population that uses drugs. This debacle cost the good state of Florida $160 million until the courts overturned it.
If the two month band-aid is such a bad deal, why did the tea-party controlled house vote to accept it? Could it have something to do with their 11% approval rating?
|
janmcn - you have so many answers...can you answer these questions, beacuse i can't:
1) why did the president flip flop from his demand for a 1 yr extension?
2) why didn't the president make harry reid pass the 1 yr extension that he was insisting on?
3) why didn't the president take part in negotiating with all parties rather than just making tv appearances/press conferences?
4) why does this president prefer to having others make policy for him rather than getting involved in the process himself? didn't he learn anything from the super committee?
4) do you think pay raises for federal employees is the wrong thing to do when the same thing is happening in the private sector?
thanx for your wisdom and insight.
|