Republicans kill 9/11 first responder aid bill

[Throckmorton]

This is almost mind boggling. The party that exploited 9/11 to the fullest and bashed us over the head with it for 7 years has now, except for 12 Republicans, refused to vote for a bill to provide first responders to 9/11 with medical care. Isn't this taking "party of no" too far??

Of course their usual justification is that it's "not paid for". Except it would have been, by closing tax loopholes on foreign businesses. So of course the spin is then that it's a "tax increase". Maybe these foreign businesses should be happy to have their loopholes closed to pay for medical care for 9/11 victims.

The other rightwing spin will be that Democrats made it too hard to pass by bringing it up as a suspension bill that required 2/3 majority to prevent poison pill amendments... IE: "Well don't blame us, they could have passed this without us if they didn't make it impossible to pass without us!!"

http://www.nydailyne1ws.com/news/po...compensation_act_as_gop_members_balk_at_.html

 

[her209]

Should probably go in this thread
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2093965

 

[Phokus]

republicans are bad people? well i never!

 

[Throckmorton]

I just noticed that one. I searched for "responder" and "9/11" but nothing contained in "Rep Anthony Weiner Gives Life to the House"

 

[JSt0rm]

These people made a choice to be there. Free choice is what governs us all. The country cant be held liable for their free choices.

erhm....

"When eagles soar..."

 

[RedCOMET]

These people made a choice to be there. Free choice is what governs us all. The country cant be held liable for their free choices.

erhm.... "When eagles soar..."

LoL.. then why did the families of folks that died their get money? but not first responders? just saying seems strange to give to one group and not another.

 

[PokerGuy]

The idiot democrats brought it up as a suspension bill, they caused their own problem. Once again the idiots try to blame the party that has a small minority in the house for not passing legislation. The dems don't need the republicans at all. If they want to pass it, they can, no matter what the republicans do. Fail on the dumbocrats.

 

[JSt0rm]

LoL.. then why did the families of folks that died their get money? but not first responders? just saying seems strange to give to one group and not another.

its really simple actually... Those people didn't choose to have planes flown into them but the responders chose to respond. :hmm:

 

[Patranus]

The idiot democrats brought it up as a suspension bill, they caused their own problem. Once again the idiots try to blame the party that has a small minority in the house for not passing legislation. The dems don't need the republicans at all. If they want to pass it, they can, no matter what the republicans do. Fail on the dumbocrats.

I think they are seeing that blaming BOOOOSH doesn't work so they are moving on.

 

[jman19]

republicans are bad people? well i never!

Nice generalization.

 

[RedCOMET]

its really simple actually... Those people didn't choose to have planes flown into them but the responders chose to respond.

I'm pretty sure the responder responded to ensure the safety all those that could have been saved. And to dig through the rubble for those that couldn't. We don't leave people behind like that to die and rot in rubble.

On a lighter note... i'm having Filets this weekend.

 

[Craig234]

The idiot democrats brought it up as a suspension bill, they caused their own problem. Once again the idiots try to blame the party that has a small minority in the house for not passing legislation. The dems don't need the republicans at all. If they want to pass it, they can, no matter what the republicans do. Fail on the dumbocrats.

Of course. In principle, if the Democrats needed 218 votes to pass something, and had 218 members, and voted 217-1 while Republicans voted 0-217 against, it's the Dems fault.

 

[EagleKeeper]

If the Dems think that it is so critical and they have the votes without the Republicans; then they should be able to push it through.

That is what all the Dem party line peopel were crowing about since Nov 08. They now had the numbers to ramrod over the Republicans - they were not needed.

So when the Dems all of a sudden can not get things done on their own; the Republicans are to blame.

Maybe if the Dems did not try to be so sneaky (party of openess!) they might be able to get more accomplished.

 

[Throckmorton]

The idiot democrats brought it up as a suspension bill, they caused their own problem. Once again the idiots try to blame the party that has a small minority in the house for not passing legislation. The dems don't need the republicans at all. If they want to pass it, they can, no matter what the republicans do. Fail on the dumbocrats.

Like I said...
"Well don't blame us, they could have passed this without us if they didn't make it impossible to pass without us!!"

 

[Miramonti]

With all the bs they pass, this is very disheartening to say the least.

 

[PokerGuy]

Like I said...
"Well don't blame us, they could have passed this without us if they didn't make it impossible to pass without us!!"

Who has the majority? Democrats, that's a fact.
Who decided to bring the bill up requiring an even bigger majority? Democrats, that's a fact.
Who failed to get the needed votes to pass the bill? Democrats, that's a fact.
Who's to blame? I think we all know the answer. Democrats, that's a fact. Yet you (and the liberal media of course) try to blame republicans. Logic Fail.

 

[JSt0rm]

Logic Fail.

lol

 

[BoberFett]

Why was it brought up as a suspension vote? Is there something hidden in deep that they don't want anybody to notice until it has been passed?

I'm no expert on congressional procedure, so I had to look up exactly what it meant to be a suspension bill and according to Wikipedia

Most often, bills "on suspension" are non-controversial legislation -- such as naming Post Offices of the United States Postal Service or federal buildings -- and nearly all bills that are considered under suspension rules have bipartisan support. Both major political parties in the United States -- the Democratic Party and Republican Party -- have internal rules that prohibit proposing or supporting a bill under suspension unless it costs less than $100 million.

Would the Republicans have voted No had it come up as a regular bill? Probably, because they're assholes. But in that case their votes wouldn't have been necessary anyway. So what were the Democrats thinking?

If I had to guess, it was a planned measure so they could rage about the Republicans and how they hate America.

 

[Throckmorton]

Who has the majority? Democrats, that's a fact.
Who decided to bring the bill up requiring an even bigger majority? Democrats, that's a fact.
Who failed to get the needed votes to pass the bill? Democrats, that's a fact.
Who's to blame? I think we all know the answer. Democrats, that's a fact. Yet you (and the liberal media of course) try to blame republicans. Logic Fail.

The people who didn't vote for it are to blame.

 

[Craig234]

The people who didn't vote for it are to blame.

Ding ding ding. Our righties here are apologists for Republicans.

Hey, a Democrat voted no - now all your votes are immune to any accountability!

 

[Throckmorton]

Can this thread be merged with the other one?

 

[woolfe9999]

Who has the majority? Democrats, that's a fact.
Who decided to bring the bill up requiring an even bigger majority? Democrats, that's a fact.
Who failed to get the needed votes to pass the bill? Democrats, that's a fact.
Who's to blame? I think we all know the answer. Democrats, that's a fact. Yet you (and the liberal media of course) try to blame republicans. Logic Fail.

You're behaving like a total idiot. Your logic is basically this: the democrats have a majority and therefore they can, in theory, pass a bill with no republican votes. Therefore, it is irrelevant how republicans vote. They can vote against good legislation and they shouldn't be held accountable for how they vote simply because they're in the minority.

Here is what actual logic dictates. Whether the democrats succeed or fail in getting enough votes within their own party is one issue. The behavior of the republicans is another. No one escapes accountability for how they vote because they are in minority political party. If you vote against good legislation on a routine basis, you are a bad congressman, no matter whether you are in the majority or the minority. If your entire party routinely votes against good legislation, then your entire party sucks at legislating, once again, regardless of how many seats your party has. This "minority party gets a fee pass for how they vote" is sheer partisan idiocy.

Your hair brained logic can be turned around the next time the dems are in the minority of course. It could be argued in that case that they are not responsible for how they vote and are totally beyond all criticism because they are in the minority. It won't be me who makes that argument though because I'm not a partisan hack.

NO ONE is beyond accountability for how they vote in the United States Congress. End of story.

- wolf

 

[PokerGuy]

Your logic is basically this: the democrats have a majority and therefore they can, in theory, pass a bill with no republican votes. Therefore, it is irrelevant how republicans vote.

Completely and factually correct.

They can vote against good legislation and they shouldn't be held accountable for how they vote simply because they're in the minority.

That's not what I said. They can be held accountable by their constituents for how they vote on a bill, but the idiot democrats can't lay the blame on the republicans as a block (as they have done), because the republican vote is irrelevant.

It could be argued in that case that they are not responsible for how they vote and are totally beyond all criticism because they are in the minority.

Nobody said they are not responsible for their own vote, nor that they are beyond criticism. The democrats are laying the blame with the republicans as a whole, when in fact the blame lays squarely at their feet.

In other words, get your own house in order before blaming your neighbor.

 

[woolfe9999]

Completely and factually correct.



That's not what I said. They can be held accountable by their constituents for how they vote on a bill, but the idiot democrats can't lay the blame on the republicans as a block (as they have done), because the republican vote is irrelevant.




Nobody said they are not responsible for their own vote, nor that they are beyond criticism. The democrats are laying the blame with the republicans as a whole, when in fact the blame lays squarely at their feet.

It isn't about "laying blame on the republicans as a bloc." It isn't about who is to blame if a piece of good legislation goes down. That's easy to determine anyway - when good legilsation goes down, everyone who voted "no" is to blame. In a given case, that pool of blameworthy people may or may not consist largely of republicans.

Dems are, rather, charging the republicans with uniformally voting against legislation for purely political reasons. In other words, they GOP sees an opporunity - that enough democrats might vote no on a piece of legislation, that if they vote "no" as a bloc the legislation goes down, and this in turn is a political advantage to the GOP for elections because the dems are perceived as ineffectual. They are charged with doing this regardless of the merits of the legislation. That is a very serious charge and one which, if true, is a totally legit charge to make.

Which is why I bring up accountability - any individual who votes according to politics rather than the merits of legislation is a poor legislator. What you're doing is making excuses for them, acting as if their votes don't matter when in fact they do.

- wolf

 

[JSt0rm]

Can this thread be merged with the other one?

I think the mods have given up on us We are a lost cause. hahahaha