9/11 responders bill defeated by GOP filibuster

[Apple Of Sodom]

Now I'm going to insult you: if you honestly believe that argument you are retarded.

Apply your logic to all legislation our government passes. Anyone who supports it should send in a check, now watch American society collapse due to collective action problems. It should take you approximately 3 seconds to see why your idea is dumb. We have a legislature with taxation authority for a reason.

Please do try and explain to us why you want a situation where rational firefighters and life saving personnel should make the rational decision not to fight fires or save lives. How is that in anyone's best interest?

This legislation affects a VERY small percentage of people. We are talking about providing benefits to a handful of people who were paid to do a job and got unlucky. You are taking money from people during a down economy to help those who were PAID to do a job.

You didn't answer my question: if you are so concerned about it, why haven't you donated? Why not have a fundraiser instead of trying to prise me of my money? I agree the government spends money on stupid shit, but that doesn't justify having me pay for someone's breathing treatment.

Answer the question: how much have you donated to the cause? Be the change you wish to see.

As for your last paragraph, I have made it clear. Your logic is that this was an extraordinary circumstance and the people who responded don't expect things like this. Fair enough. Using that logic, this was an extraordinary circumstance and the people involved shouldn't expect to get saved.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Or you can step into reality.

We don't train and equip our emergency personnel to respond to any and all possible emergencies, because it's too expensive to do that everywhere and at all times, therefore we keep emergency personnel that are trained and equipped to handle ALMOST all emergencies, and then enact special programs/legislation for those that go above and beyond.

The cost to keep all fire departments/EMTs/etc equipped to handle such a thing would cost FAR more than 7 billion or so over time, and would be a foolish waste of money.

Fair enough. So in extreme circumstances we tell people they are on their own.

Think about how many more lives we could save with $7.4 Billion. Why not take that money and save tens of thousands of starving children? Or we could perform a life saving, $500,000 operation on 15,000 infants (dmcowen).

Our country is flat broke. What is so goddamn special about first responders? They signed up to do a job. If something comes along that is clearly not their job I won't give them shit for not doing it. You're a firefighter and aliens blow up an office building? Yeah, go ahead and stay home because this is above your pay grade.

 

[ProfJohn]

This was a political move and nothing else.

If it is so important then why did they wait till the last week of the year to bring to bill to a vote??

BTW the Republicans did the same thing a few years ago in bringing a bill to vote just to force the Democrats to vote against something they would have normally supported. It is Washington politics at its worse.

 

[fskimospy]

Fair enough. So in extreme circumstances we tell people they are on their own.

Think about how many more lives we could save with $7.4 Billion. Why not take that money and save tens of thousands of starving children? Or we could perform a life saving, $500,000 operation on 15,000 infants (dmcowen).

Our country is flat broke. What is so goddamn special about first responders? They signed up to do a job. If something comes along that is clearly not their job I won't give them shit for not doing it. You're a firefighter and aliens blow up an office building? Yeah, go ahead and stay home because this is above your pay grade.

Because then we create a situation where we have firefighters and EMTs that will decide not to fight fires or save lives when the shit hits the fan, and NOBODY wants that. Our country benefits enormously from the (perhaps mistaken?) belief by our emergency personnel that they will be taken care of if something bad happens to them in the line of duty.

Spending money to have people fight fires and save lives is the definition of good governance. If you want to feed starving kids and save the lives of infants I'm right here beside you, but I can think of way better places to get that $7 billion than from sick firefighters.

 

[Cogman]

And I'm sure soldiers who enlist during peace time don't expect a war. And those who do go to war probably don't expect to be blown up with IEDs. Should we give them compensation for going to war? For facing circumstances that are out of the norm?

There has been so many wars and military actions that is almost unreasonable to expect to never get deployed. Not only that, but there is a difference in pay from being deployed/non-deployed. In other words, the situation of deployment is already rewarded because it is a common one. The situation of an unpredictable disaster is not already figured into the pay of first responders.

My brother enlisted right before 9/11 and didn't expect to ever have to leave for war...boy was he mistaken. He didn't bitch about how it was unfair though. He realized he took a gamble and was now going to the desert. Such is life.

He should have realized that there was a VERY real possibility that he would be deployed when he signed up. That would have been made abundantly clear throughout the recruitment process. Were the firefighters informed that airplanes might crash into the world trade center?

I recognize this is an extreme situation. But then again, isn't that relative? This type of shit happens daily in Israel. Do you think every time there is a rocket attack they levy taxes to pay first responders? So maybe what we need, according to your logic, is more plane attacks on buildings to make this the status quo.

If it happens daily it isn't extreme, it is expect. Not only that, but things that are expected are generally already compensated for. This was unexpected and would have gone uncompensated. There is a big difference between events prepared for and events unprepared for.

Anyone who becomes a first responder should be prepared for the worst. Or we could do this...we only pay those people based on disasters. You go your entire career washing the fire engine and not putting out fires then you get paid nothing.

They are already payed partially on the number of runs they go out on. They are not payed for extreme situations because unexpected situations are unexpected.

What is so hard to understand about this? YOU WORK IN A DANGEROUS INDUSTRY! ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN!

Because being a first responder generally is NOT a dangerous industry. Hell, even being a firefighter is generally not a dangerous industry. There is a reason they have the equipment and training to handle fires, to take as much danger out of the situation as possible. This was a situation they could NOT have prepared for, trained for, etc, because it has never happened before. Just because anything can happen doesn't automatically make an extreme situation better prepared for. It is better to respond to the rare extreme situations after they happen then to have 100000000000 contingency plans for what might happen.

This was a different situation from the norm, the government and those people involved should treat it differently from the norm. It is NOT something that readily fit into the job description of first responders.

 

[fskimospy]

This was a political move and nothing else.

If it is so important then why did they wait till the last week of the year to bring to bill to a vote??

BTW the Republicans did the same thing a few years ago in bringing a bill to vote just to force the Democrats to vote against something they would have normally supported. It is Washington politics at its worse.

They didn't. It was brought up in July as well. Republicans tried to add poison pill amendments to it, and then when Democrats tried to pass it in a pure form (as you always request bills be passed), Republicans in the House almost unanimously voted against it. Since bills that are created without amendments have a higher hurdle to pass, it failed.

Politics at its worst indeed.

 

[fskimospy]

This legislation affects a VERY small percentage of people. We are talking about providing benefits to a handful of people who were paid to do a job and got unlucky. You are taking money from people during a down economy to help those who were PAID to do a job.

You didn't answer my question: if you are so concerned about it, why haven't you donated? Why not have a fundraiser instead of trying to prise me of my money? I agree the government spends money on stupid shit, but that doesn't justify having me pay for someone's breathing treatment.

Answer the question: how much have you donated to the cause? Be the change you wish to see.

As for your last paragraph, I have made it clear. Your logic is that this was an extraordinary circumstance and the people who responded don't expect things like this. Fair enough. Using that logic, this was an extraordinary circumstance and the people involved shouldn't expect to get saved.

I am not required to personally fundraise for every legislative action that I support. Similarly I support the police and fire department's existence generally, but I do not feel obliged to hold a bake sale for them every year. That is the point of legislation and taxation.

 

[Genx87]

I explicitly stated I wasn't trying to insult you, and I meant it. Your viewpoint here is simply baffling, and I'm trying to understand how you came by it.

So you believe he came to his opinion because he has autism? Have you ever been around anybody with the disorder?

Regardless if you truely believe you werent trying to insult. You were insulting. Anytime people preface what they are saying with "I dont mean x", they do.

 

[fskimospy]

So you believe he came to his opinion because he has autism? Have you ever been around anybody with the disorder?

Regardless if you truely believe you werent trying to insult. You were insulting. Anytime people preface what they are saying with "I dont mean x", they do.

I know several people with autism actually (well, aspergers), and there have been many situations where they take positions similar to this. It absolutely reminds me of it.

Do you know anyone with autism or aspergers? Talk to them about politics or public policy, you stand a good chance of having a discussion like this.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

How is an IED (which is basically a land mine) a situation out of the norm for a soldier? Oh, and we probably would give them compensation out of the norm if their service connected disabilities weren't already covered for life... which is in effect already maxed out benefits.

The idea that rocket attacks into Israel are the equivalent of September 11th is laughable. Go look up the total number if Israelis killed by rocket attacks in the entire history of rocket attacks.

If an IED is basically a land mine then 9/11 was basically a fire.

We "probably give them compensation..." I love your argument. I like arguing with you because you throw out some vague idea and you really have no idea if they are compensated for it. I have a friend who was permanently disabled by one. I can assure you that he covers whatever his disabilities don't.

There is no bill out there for soldiers who get fucked up by insurgents dressed as civilians. There is no bill out there for families of soldiers who are beheaded. There are no bills out there for soldiers exposed to nerve agents.

My argument still stands. I believe people in these positions should expect anything and everything. They are on the front line and are compensated for it. If it was an easy job with guarantees then they wouldn't receive such great pay and benefits.

"Be a firefighter! We can guarantee you won't ever get hurt!"

 

[Genx87]

I know several people with autism actually (well, aspergers), and there have been many situations where they take positions similar to this. It absolutely reminds me of it.

Do you know anyone with autism or aspergers? Talk to them about politics or public policy, you stand a good chance of having a discussion like this.

Why yes, yes I do know somebody with Autism. He is my nephew and I fail to see how autism is cause for forming an opinion. And what are you talking about? Two people disagreeing on a topic? Holy shit batman. The entire country must suffer from this disorder according to you.

 

[ProfJohn]

They didn't. It was brought up in July as well. Republicans tried to add poison pill amendments to it, and then when Democrats tried to pass it in a pure form (as you always request bills be passed), Republicans in the House almost unanimously voted against it. Since bills that are created without amendments have a higher hurdle to pass, it failed.

Politics at its worst indeed.

So why did they bring it up for a vote again at this point??

Why not bring up for a vote in July when it passed the house?

The simple truth is that the Democrats knew that the bill would not pass at any point this year which is why they never bothered to vote on the bill in the first place. And now they only brought it up as a cheap political move and nothing else.

 

[umbrella39]

Grand Old Party of fail.

Yes this indeed. Always SOOO concerned where the money is going to come from when the hard working Americans they claim to serve stand to benefit. When it's making sure that people making over a $1Mil get tax breaks, not so much. The party of glass continues to be woefully transparent and the sheep that keep putting these assclowns back in office continue to bend over and ask for fatter, longer dicks. It becomes more clear every day that the GOP saw 9-11 as a built in excuse to push their BS agenda and fuck anyone who died or continues to get sick and die in the wake of the event. Fuck you, we got ours.

 

[fskimospy]

If an IED is basically a land mine then 9/11 was basically a fire.

We "probably give them compensation..." I love your argument. I like arguing with you because you throw out some vague idea and you really have no idea if they are compensated for it. I have a friend who was permanently disabled by one. I can assure you that he covers whatever his disabilities don't.

There is no bill out there for soldiers who get fucked up by insurgents dressed as civilians. There is no bill out there for families of soldiers who are beheaded. There are no bills out there for soldiers exposed to nerve agents.

My argument still stands. I believe people in these positions should expect anything and everything. They are on the front line and are compensated for it. If it was an easy job with guarantees then they wouldn't receive such great pay and benefits.

"Be a firefighter! We can guarantee you won't ever get hurt!"

I guarantee you I know more people in the military than you do, I spend 7 years in the Navy, and I have a large number of friends in the Marines. I also personally have had a large amount of contact with the VA medical system and have a VERY good idea what it covers and what it does not.

There actually ARE bills out there for soldiers wounded/killed by insurgents dressed as civilians. Not only is their medical care 100% covered while in the military, continuing care from a service connected disability (like a bullet wound) is also covered afterwards.

Every soldier and marine is also covered by a half million dollar life insurance policy that pays out no matter what the circumstances of his death. So there's a bill for beheaded people too.

Vets exposed to nerve agents (I assume you are talking about Gulf War Syndrome) are also eligible for free comprehensive checkups from the VA and treatment for a wide range of related symptoms for the disease.

Do you have any clue as to what you are talking about?

Also, an IED is actually in most cases substantially LESS powerful and deadly than many anti-tank/anti-vehicle mines, while September 11th was obviously substantially more powerful. Your comparison is horrible.

 

[fskimospy]

So why did they bring it up for a vote again at this point??

Why not bring up for a vote in July when it passed the house?

The simple truth is that the Democrats knew that the bill would not pass at any point this year which is why they never bothered to vote on the bill in the first place. And now they only brought it up as a cheap political move and nothing else.

It didn't pass the House in July, as I already explained. The Republicans tried to attach unrelated, poison pill amendments to it. When it was brought up in a form that could not be amended... you know... voting on it as a single issue as you are so fond of requesting, it failed with nearly all Republicans voting against it. (such votes have a higher required vote threshold.)

If it had been voted on in the Senate then and had failed you would have just called it election year posturing by the Democrats. In fact, there's probably no time they could have brought this bill up where you WOULDN'T have described it as politics instead of policy. (assuming the Republicans opposed it)

You know this is true too.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

I know several people with autism actually (well, aspergers), and there have been many situations where they take positions similar to this. It absolutely reminds me of it.

Do you know anyone with autism or aspergers? Talk to them about politics or public policy, you stand a good chance of having a discussion like this.

No. I spend a lot of time reading social psychology and economics books, as well as books about our own biases and thought processes. I have trained myself to use logic based reasoning instead of emotional gut reactions. Part of me feels terrible for the firefighters and police men, and they are all much more of a man than I am... but I don't let that take control. I know they train for disasters...and while this disaster was on a scale much larger than they ever expected, I also have the expectation that they have good enough training to respond to all situations.

We are a broke country. It is better for the country to pass on this bill. It isn't better for the firefighters and policemen...but better for the other 350 million people that also live here.

Your argument about people not wanting to become firefighters and policemen is in conflict with your argument about this being a completely one-off disaster. If this truly is a once in a lifetime special case and should receive special treatment, why would anyone who wants to be a first responder let it deter them from what they want to do? I am a business owner and I've seen people lose their entire livelihood doing what I do from making silly mistakes... it doesn't deter me though. I realize it can happen but the risk isn't great.

Is this how you think their thought process goes:

"Man, I really want to be a fireman...but I remember this one time 9 years ago we had a disaster and the few hundred people who rushed in got sick. So, no, I don't wanna do it!"

Do fisherman think the same way? "Geee, I really want to make some money fishing for crab...but I remember there was a huge storm out on the Bering and a ship capsized and the coast guard couldn't make it there because of the storm. Nope. I won't fish anymore."

So which is it? It is either a once in a lifetime disaster or something that future first responders should fear. It really cannot be both.

 

[fskimospy]

Why yes, yes I do know somebody with Autism. He is my nephew and I fail to see how autism is cause for forming an opinion. And what are you talking about? Two people disagreeing on a topic? Holy shit batman. The entire country must suffer from this disorder according to you.

How you could possibly reach that conclusion from what I wrote is also baffling.

How you could not know that autism affects how people form their opinions is also extremely confusing. Autism and particularly Aspergers is denoted by a lack of empathy for others along with a misunderstanding of social norms, which frequently leads to holding positions such as those that Apple has shown in this thread. Those differences in ASD people DIRECTLY influence the opinions they hold.

 

[fskimospy]

No. I spend a lot of time reading social psychology and economics books, as well as books about our own biases and thought processes. I have trained myself to use logic based reasoning instead of emotional gut reactions. Part of me feels terrible for the firefighters and police men, and they are all much more of a man than I am... but I don't let that take control. I know they train for disasters...and while this disaster was on a scale much larger than they ever expected, I also have the expectation that they have good enough training to respond to all situations.

We are a broke country. It is better for the country to pass on this bill. It isn't better for the firefighters and policemen...but better for the other 350 million people that also live here.

Your argument about people not wanting to become firefighters and policemen is in conflict with your argument about this being a completely one-off disaster. If this truly is a once in a lifetime special case and should receive special treatment, why would anyone who wants to be a first responder let it deter them from what they want to do? I am a business owner and I've seen people lose their entire livelihood doing what I do from making silly mistakes... it doesn't deter me though. I realize it can happen but the risk isn't great.

Is this how you think their thought process goes:

"Man, I really want to be a fireman...but I remember this one time 9 years ago we had a disaster and the few hundred people who rushed in got sick. So, no, I don't wanna do it!"

Do fisherman think the same way? "Geee, I really want to make some money fishing for crab...but I remember there was a huge storm out on the Bering and a ship capsized and the coast guard couldn't make it there because of the storm. Nope. I won't fish anymore."

So which is it? It is either a once in a lifetime disaster or something that future first responders should fear. It really cannot be both.

You just wrote a long piece that had zero to do with my argument or what I wrote. Nowhere did I say that people wouldn't want to become firefighters, what I said was that we would then be confronted with situations where, by your logic, people were ALREADY firefighters should make the rational choice not to do their job and save lives.

Now revisit your argument.

EDIT: And that's the whole thing, you aren't thinking logically because you don't seem to be comprehending the consequences of your actions.

 

[JSt0rm]

Then the first responders should have said "Look, I was trained to give CPR, direct traffic, or pull people from a house fire. A jet flying into a building is above my pay scale and I am not going to risk running in there. It isn't worth it." See how they are responsible?

^^^^ this will probably be the response to a future attack of this kind.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

I guarantee you I know more people in the military than you do, I spend 7 years in the Navy, and I have a large number of friends in the Marines. I also personally have had a large amount of contact with the VA medical system and have a VERY good idea what it covers and what it does not.

You know nothing about me. How can you make that guarantee. Here, I can do it too. I know way more about the VA medical system than you do because I work in the medical field. See how it just doesn't matter?

There actually ARE bills out there for soldiers wounded/killed by insurgents dressed as civilians. Not only is their medical care 100% covered while in the military, continuing care from a service connected disability (like a bullet wound) is also covered afterwards.

Point me towards one and enlighten me. I do not take you for your word since you make stupid guarantees and personally attack people you disagree with. And to follow this up, the first responders do have medical care.

Every soldier and marine is also covered by a half million dollar life insurance policy that pays out no matter what the circumstances of his death. So there's a bill for beheaded people too.

That isn't a bill for beheaded people. Beheading is something that is out of the norm. That is an insurance policy. That is like saying we have a bill for drivers who get into car accidents. Or that there is a bill for me because I have life insurance. And why wouldn't first responders get life insurance? I have an office job and have half a million dollars. It costs a few bucks a month.

Vets exposed to nerve agents (I assume you are talking about Gulf War Syndrome) are also eligible for free comprehensive checkups from the VA and treatment for a wide range of related symptoms for the disease.

I wasn't talking about anything in particular, actually. First responders are getting treatment though.

Do you have any clue as to what you are talking about?

I do. And I also realize I am arguing with an emotional child that prefaces things with "I don't mean to offend..." and then personally attacks people he doesn't agree with.

Also, an IED is actually in most cases substantially LESS powerful and deadly than many anti-tank/anti-vehicle mines, while September 11th was obviously substantially more powerful. Your comparison is horrible.

That is a non sequitur. What the fuck does that have to do with anything? My point was IEDs were never as big of a threat to soldiers as they are in this war and, at one point, made headlines every time one went off because they were out of the norm. Power doesn't matter.

By your logic we should be targeting the more "powerful" killer? So why not use the $7.4 Billion to combat smoking?

I don't believe in your convictions. You've donated nothing - nothing! - to these poor suffering people. You want me to pay for it. Well, I would rather save lives of people who aren't PAID to do a dangerous job.

 

[werepossum]

Absolutely those situations matter. They are rare. A person that becomes a doctor never expects that tomorrow, everyone is going to come down with a horrible illness. A firefighter in new york doesn't expect that tomorrow, two of the largest buildings in the world would collapse. A police officer in a large city does not expect that tomorrow a massive riot will break out. These are extreme situations that happen extremely infrequently. These people where doing more than just their jobs.


Extreme situations are not the norm. I realize this is beyond your comprehension ability, but people that become firemen and police officers don't expect a natural/unnatural disasters to happen in their jurisdiction.

Why shouldn't we treat different situations different from the norm?

Very good post. Personally I would have no problem with their respective employers picking up their bills and the rest of us picking up what runs over their caps (where present) - but - since the federal government insisted on paying indemnities to everyone who died in the buildings, it seems pretty reasonable to me that we pick up the health care for those ill from the rescue and/or cleanup. At least to the degree that the illnesses can logically flow from that environment. If it's logical to treat this as an act of war - and I think it is - then these people are victims as much as those who died. Certainly we've spent more money on worse causes.

And the Pubbies need to realize that if they insist on shooting down every bill that comes up until the taxes rates are settled, then the Dems are naturally going to bring up every bill that will embarrass the Pubbies for stopping. In a similar situation they'd do the same thing to the Dems.

 

[ayabe]

Hate to bring this up, again, but who cares about the threat of a filibuster? Filibusters never actually happen, ever, on anything. Let them fucking stand for days and days and filibuster it. That is the intent of that rule, not "oh we need 60 votes on everything or else they MIGHT" filibuster.

You also have to consider if they did actually do it, there could be some swing votes to pick up just to shut the fuckers up and move on to the next thing.

Previously they blocked it because they didn't want any money going to possible illegals, even though they were there rescuing people and suffering the consequences and now it's because the bill is too high.

$7 billion is less than what we spend every month in Afghanistan FFS. Let's remember it's been 10 years already, if we wait 5 more a lot of these people will be dead. I guess that's what the GOP is counting on...well if we just delay it another couple years, we'll save billions!!!

Just like with the black farmers payout, they stalled the shit forever until many of the plaintiffs were dead or had lost their farms and then tried to call them for false claims - "Well you don't even own a farm!!".

This is some truly sick and twisted stuff my friends.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

^^^^ this will probably be the response to a future attack of this kind.

And maybe it should be...

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Still waiting for my link from Dave.....

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

How you could possibly reach that conclusion from what I wrote is also baffling.

How you could not know that autism affects how people form their opinions is also extremely confusing. Autism and particularly Aspergers is denoted by a lack of empathy for others along with a misunderstanding of social norms, which frequently leads to holding positions such as those that Apple has shown in this thread. Those differences in ASD people DIRECTLY influence the opinions they hold.

There is no winning with you. I say we take that $7.4 billion and save tens of thousands of starving children from certain death. You say to take it and provide treatment for a handful of people. Who has more empathy here?

Go pick up a book called "The Hidden Brain." It explains why humans will send thousands of dollars in to save the life of one child, but one send a hundred bucks to save the lives of ten children.