Republicans kill 9/11 first responder aid bill

[BoberFett]

This is same kind of garbage political stunt that the Republican congress would do, make the Democrats vote on a tough issue so that their vote can be used against them in an election.

So you're admitting that Democrats are no different than Republicans, and they're both more interesting in winning than they are moving ahead.

Glad to see you agree.

 

[BoberFett]

What do you mean "fix the system?"

The concern seems to be that those evil Republicans were going to fill the bill with riders and unrelated crap to attempt to sink it.

Fixing the system would mean not allowing unrelated language in a bill. Maybe limiting the length or breadth of a bill so that it can properly scrutinized prior to a vote, so we don't get situations where "We don't know what's in it, but it has to pass."

That's what I mean, and you know it's broken just as I do.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

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

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

So in your typical fashion, you'll blanket blame one group but not hold accountable the group you subscribe to. Nice job dingleberry.

 

[Throckmorton]

So in your typical fashion, you'll blanket blame one group but not hold accountable the group you subscribe to. Nice job dingleberry.

All but 12 Republicans voted against the bill... All but 4 Democrats voted for it.

 

[sandorski]

So in your typical fashion, you'll blanket blame one group but not hold accountable the group you subscribe to. Nice job dingleberry.

Hate the Competition?

 

[Craig234]

So in your typical fashion, you'll blanket blame one group but not hold accountable the group you subscribe to. Nice job dingleberry.

No, but since your reader helper appears to be off today, I said I hold each one accountable for their vote - so apparently, 4 Democrats and all but 12 Republicans.

That assigns the blame about 3% Democrat, 97% Republican, for those keeping score at home, if you want to measure it by party. Perfectly fairly proportionally.

Glad to see you equate 3% and 97% as the same and equal.

 

[woolfe9999]

The concern seems to be that those evil Republicans were going to fill the bill with riders and unrelated crap to attempt to sink it.

Fixing the system would mean not allowing unrelated language in a bill. Maybe limiting the length or breadth of a bill so that it can properly scrutinized prior to a vote, so we don't get situations where "We don't know what's in it, but it has to pass."

That's what I mean, and you know it's broken just as I do.

Er fine, then they (they being all the pols) should "fix the system." I still don't understand why 97% of the republicans voted against a bill to provide medical care to 911 first responders, and no one has yet explained it. Xjohnx said maybe the filled was "loaded with crap" or some such thing. I linked the bill and I don't see any "pork" in it. So why did the GOP vote against it?

- wolf

 

[Patranus]

So why did the GOP vote against it?

Why did the Democrats (first) suspend the rules?

 

[woolfe9999]

Why did the Democrats (first) suspend the rules?

The question of why the dems put the bill in suspension was asked already, and answered (by me) earlier in this thread.

Now again - what was wrong with this bill that caused 97% of the GOP to vote against it?

- wolf

 

[JSt0rm]

The question of why the dems put the bill in suspension was asked already, and answered (by me) earlier in this thread.

Now again - what was wrong with this bill that caused 97% of the GOP to vote against it?

- wolf

it went against personal choice and fiscal conservative policy.

 

[Throckmorton]

Personal choice??

 

[Patranus]

The question of why the dems put the bill in suspension was asked already, and answered (by me) earlier in this thread.

Huh?

I hate to break it to you but the democrats have a majority in the house and can pass whatever they want.

I find it laughable that the Democrats want to suspend the rules on legislation to squelch the amendment process and debate and then call out the GOP.

This is a transparent attempt by the Democrats to try and paint the GOP in poor light. It will not work.

 

[JSt0rm]

Personal choice??

They chose to be first responders so they chose to have all of the medical problems that went along with that. Its the republican mantra, personal choice fiscal conservatism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFmMGYv3mag

 

[Throckmorton]

Huh?

I hate to break it to you but the democrats have a majority in the house and can pass whatever they want.

I find it laughable that the Democrats want to suspend the rules on legislation to squelch the amendment process and debate and then call out the GOP.

This is a transparent attempt by the Democrats to try and paint the GOP in poor light. It will not work.

Do you get your talking points from Pokerface??

That's totally ridiculous. The bill was suspended to prevent pork and poison pill ammendments, which is what Republicans always complain about (this bill is too many pages wahhh). Then when this bill, which seems to have no big problems, was put to vote, Republicans almost unanimously voted against it because it opposes their ideology. You can't pin the blame on the few conservative Democrats who voted against it, while excusing the Republicans.

 

[KK]

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



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.

I like how every moron here brushed right past your post. What a bunch of tards we got here.

 

[JSt0rm]

I like how every moron here brushed right past your post. What a bunch of tards we got here.

uh... we did talk about that and if the dems did do it like that and for that reason then gg. The pugs fell into their eval twap.

 

[glenn1]

They chose to be first responders so they chose to have all of the medical problems that went along with that. Its the republican mantra, personal choice fiscal conservatism.

If they're first responders, then they are likely policemen, firemen, etc. - all municipal employees. Why are the city and state not taking care of them and forcing the federal government to do so? It's the democratic mantra, happily give benefits to those less fortunate, so long as it's someone else's money being used.

 

[JSt0rm]

If they're first responders, then they are likely policemen, firemen, etc. - all municipal employees. Why are the city and state not taking care of them and forcing the federal government to do so? It's the democratic mantra, happily give benefits to those less fortunate, so long as it's someone else's money being used.

I think a lot of the people are just people off the street that felt like it was their civic duty to help and now have lungs full of asbestos and other shit. But those people have private insurance and if they don't have private insurance its either by choice or because they don't have a good enough job - Also a choice.

Those people that you mentioned are taken care of as far as I know.

I forgot to add America is great because we are free to make mistakes like hleping others in a time of crisis.

 

[glenn1]

I think a lot of the people are just people off the street that felt like it was their civic duty to help and now have lungs full of asbestos and other shit. But those people have private insurance and if they don't have private insurance its either by choice or because they don't have a good enough job - Also a choice.

Those people that you mentioned are taken care of as far as I know.

I've never heard the term "first responders" used for anyone but police, fire trucks, ambulances, etc, and don't think I've ever heard it applied to so-called civilians who rushed in to help. Even if this bill does cover the later group, I doubt that's the target audience.

 

[Hyraxxx]

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

My understanding is that Democrats have a majority, so they can get it passed without Republicans.

Personally, as long as this is a straight money given to sick people, I am ok with it. If there are lines in the bill that raise taxes, empowers government, I would be against it.

 

[JSt0rm]

I've never heard the term "first responders" used for anyone but police, fire trucks, ambulances, etc, and don't think I've ever heard it applied to so-called civilians who rushed in to help. Even if this bill does cover the later group, I doubt that's the target audience.

yes when you say "so-called civilians" I agree. We dont want ANY amount of money going to a human being (are they even) that lives here illegally no matter what they did back then.

This is good fiscal conservative policy. Let these people know they aren't welcome here.

 

[JSt0rm]

2/4/2009--Introduced.James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2009 - Amends the Public Health Service Act to establish within the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health the World Trade Center Health Program (WTC program) to provide:
(1) medical monitoring and treatment benefits to eligible emergency responders and recovery and cleanup workers who responded to the World Trade Center terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001; and
(2) initial health evaluation, monitoring, and treatment benefits to residents and other building occupants and area workers who were directly impacted and adversely affected by such attacks. Requires the WTC program administrator to:
(1) implement a quality assurance program;
(2) establish the WTC Health Program Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee;
(3) establish the WTC Responders Steering Committee and the WTC Community Program Steering Committee;
(4) provide for education and outreach on services under the WTC program;
(5) provide for the uniform collection of data related to WTC-related health conditions;
(6) conduct research on physical and mental health conditions that may be related to the September 11 terrorist attacks; and
(7) extend and expand arrangements with the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to provide for the World Trade Center Health Registry. Authorizes the administrator to make grants to the Department to address mental health needs relating to the terrorist attacks.Amends the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act to:
(1) make individuals eligible for compensation under the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 for harm as a result of debris removal; and
(2) extend the deadline for making a claim for compensation.

 

[JSt0rm]

can you believe the democrats wanted to spend money on such trivial crap? Now? When we are in a massive recession brought on by taxing people?

 

[cubby1223]

Why don't we just set aside $1 trillion to give to first responders!

Don't think that's a wise use of money? Then sucks to be you, haters! Why do you hate America so much?

The pricetag seems to be the general disagreement, and all I can say, knowing how the Dems have been handing out money hand over fist, I don't think they have a clue what their doing. None of us are qualified to determine what amount is the correct amount. But I will say, the government does need to start taking financial responsibility seriously or else we will be in a much worse situation.

 

[JSt0rm]

Why don't we just set aside $1 trillion to give to first responders!

Don't think that's a wise use of money?

I dont AND your right. As long as we have to fight 2 10 year long wars with no end we shouldn't spend money on anything else (except torture devices).