Wouldn’t it be prudent to pay for them? It’s probably Christian to seek to extend help to those in need, but foolish to do so with somebody else’s money.
Then again, that’s two thoughts in a row again. I keep forgetting Democrats are constitutionally incapable of that.
sorry.
Christians have always taken care of people. It feels good to give and help. Now the government wants the credit for helping people so they take your money from you before you have a chance to give. They then take credit for the good they do with your money. You get no credit and instead of feeling good you are angry.
Which will lead to endless sound clips about "Republicans demand that benefits for the unemployed be paid for but not tax cuts for the wealthy, blah, blah, blah." Why do you think the Democrats have timed the vote on tax cuts so close behind the defeat of unemployment extensions? They don't care either, except for the political points that they can score off it.
They are Constitutionally incapable as well....
This is the wrong argument....the republicans already said they wuld extend them if the dems find the money to pay for them the problem is that the dems don’t want to use their slush fund(unspent stimulas) to extend them.It is a false arguement that the tax cuts aren’t apid for because the largest amount the treasurary ever took in whas 2003 and 2004 after the tax cuts were passed in the first place.Perhaps someone should aks the dems why they are not willing to use stimulas funds to extend unemplyment?